[Archived] Our Debt

[rovers11]

Yes, those figures are correct.

Not had full change to analyse the figures, but looks like the debt has increased a fair bit, transfer costs (agents, fees etc) sound massive. Does not include the Scott Dann / Yak expenditure either.

Full analysis to follow....

That's shocking! GET THESE CROOKS OUT NOW!

[Stuart]

Picked this up from the comments column of the LT:

As a Shareholder, I have just received the annual report and financial statements. Here are some extracts.

"Rovers enjoyed a decent start to the campaign until October when inconsistency and uncertainty lead to Sam Allardyce leaving the club"

"The club must preserve its Premier League status. The town and the borough are reliant on the club as a focal part of the community and this is never lost on the owners or the board"

"The club is establishing strong links with the local community including the local council, community leaders and Blackburn College."

"The biggest risk to the business would flow from relegation from the Premier League. The board has looked to mitigate this risk by incorporating clauses in players contracts thatwould lead to significant reductions in player salaries in the event of relegation."

Year ending 30/6/2011

Loss £18.6m (2010 £1.9m)

Bank loan and overdraft £21.1m (2010 £14.3m)

Auditor remuneration £54k (2010 £34k)

Anyone confirm this is legit?

The current stance re Kean and the recent statement from Straw and Hollern make an absolute mockery of virtually every word in that statement. If the statement was true 6 months ago and things have only got worse then why no action?

[Sparky Marky]

Wow! They Really are screwing us over....losses have increased by 100's of %.

No wonder they're getting shyte off the bank. They wouldn't get credit for a washing machine at brighthouse.

[Miker]

Picked this up from the comments column of the LT:

As a Shareholder, I have just received the annual report and financial statements. Here are some extracts.

"Rovers enjoyed a decent start to the campaign until October when inconsistency and uncertainty lead to Sam Allardyce leaving the club"

"The club must preserve its Premier League status. The town and the borough are reliant on the club as a focal part of the community and this is never lost on the owners or the board"

"The club is establishing strong links with the local community including the local council, community leaders and Blackburn College."

"The biggest risk to the business would flow from relegation from the Premier League. The board has looked to mitigate this risk by incorporating clauses in players contracts thatwould lead to significant reductions in player salaries in the event of relegation."

Year ending 30/6/2011

Loss £18.6m (2010 £1.9m)

Bank loan and overdraft £21.1m (2010 £14.3m)

Auditor remuneration £54k (2010 £34k)

Anyone confirm this is legit?

Not sure if it's legit, but it is 100% spot on as to my analysis and prediction which I had previously made public and also spoke to people like philipl in private to.

I predicted around a 20 million dollar loss for last season, which I thought was one of the biggest reasons for the financial problems this time around.

I have been working on a really long write up of my full analysis of what has happened, what's going on and my suggestions on what we, as fans, should do from here. I've been waiting for the accounts to come out though, so I would have something to show to back up my analysis though. If these are out then I might get it finished in the next few days.

[Miker]

This is an extract from a message to philipl on 07/11/2011 of my estimations of the finances for last season:

"I would estimate that our wage bill might be at around 50 million dollars + 12 million in operational expenses (based on 09/10 figures).

I would estimate that our income outside of the Sky money is currently a total of 10 million ... this is due to the lack of shirt sponsor and fall in matchday income. However, I'll assume that 2010/2011 it was roughly the same as 2009/2010.

As for Sky money... I think if I said we got 40 million last season I'd be very generous.

This to me reads as:

Outgoings:

50 + 12 = 62

Incomings:

15 + 40 = 55

This means a loss of 7 million.

Bring player purchases into this, fees to sack Sam/McDonald, agent fees, loan fees etc.

I'd estimate that at being around 10-15 million? Possibly more? I'd say that's roughly a 20 million loss for the 2010/2011 season."

Given we now know that agent fees were roughly 4.5 million, transfers/loans were about the same, plus the 1-2 million for the sackings. This obviously stacks up in the end to that 18-20 million figure. I should point out that this is before any player sales, as no players were sold for that season. Phil Jones/Kalinic money would probably have been used to plug that gap. This would be consistent with us acting as a trading club, although just barely in all honesty.

[Paul]

Picked this up from the comments column of the LT:

As a Shareholder, I have just received the annual report and financial statements. Here are some extracts.

"Rovers enjoyed a decent start to the campaign until October when inconsistency and uncertainty lead to Sam Allardyce leaving the club"

"The club must preserve its Premier League status. The town and the borough are reliant on the club as a focal part of the community and this is never lost on the owners or the board"

"The club is establishing strong links with the local community including the local council, community leaders and Blackburn College."

"The biggest risk to the business would flow from relegation from the Premier League. The board has looked to mitigate this risk by incorporating clauses in players contracts thatwould lead to significant reductions in player salaries in the event of relegation."

Year ending 30/6/2011

Loss £18.6m (2010 £1.9m)

Bank loan and overdraft £21.1m (2010 £14.3m)

Auditor remuneration £54k (2010 http://www.rovers.co.uk/staticFiles/13/64/0,,10303~156691,00.pdf34k)

Anyone confirm this is legit?

I think I am correct that the board of directors have to agree the statements made in the Annual Report? As the Raos control everything from Pune one can assume the statements were approved by the family prior to the accounts being signed off.

I would suggest in relation to the Allardyce comment and "establishing links" with the local community there is little or any evidence to support the statements.

In regard to the club being a community focal point, the Raos - and i wish people would STOP saying Venkys because it is the RAO FAMILY who have destroyed the club - may recognise this but have done absolutely nothing to prevent its destruction and the consequent substantial impact on the town.

It''s all well and good feeding 30000 a day in Pune, what about the jobs being destroyed in Blackburn? What next Rao family chicken soup kitchens on the Boulevard?

[John]

Presume the Rao family never plan to step foot in the UK ever again?

[Amo]

Presume the Rao family never plan to step foot in the UK ever again?

They're not so stupid after all.

[Steve Moss]

Do the acccounts reflect the Phil Jones money?

[Miker]

Do the acccounts reflect the Phil Jones money?

No. It'll be up to 30/06/2011.

[Mercer]

Scale of losses doesn't surprise me.

Comments about Sam's departure do !!!

IMO, we aren't stirring into the abyss but hurtling towards it at breakneck speed with no braking mechanism.

[RTM08]

No. It'll be up to 30/06/2011.

Would that affect it much? Kean spent a lot anyway, it wouldn't swing the finances that much surely?

[Miker]

Would that affect it much? Kean spent a lot anyway, it wouldn't swing the finances that much surely?

Jones and Kalinic money would be about 25 million dollars in total, which would cover the loss and put the club in the green by about 5-10 million. I suspect that's why we spent relatively little in the Summer. Those purchases were what, 10 million or so in total? As current figures stand, I'd suspect we're back to about 10 million in the red though.

In all likelihood our wage bill has either stayed the same or increased, our commercial money has decreased due to lack of sponsor and our matchday income has also probably fallen.

However, I imagine that our accounts for the 2011/2012 season would show a profit by sheer virtue of the Jones/Kalinic money - that's only if you're not taking into account these figures from the 2010/2011 accounts. JA's dealings and influence on decision making last season very much screwed Venky's over financially, which is why they parted ways with him. The numbers for this season (which we won't see til next December) would look a lot more positive.

Sorry I'm doing this a bit ad hoc as it's quite late here and I'm just up doing a bit of work, so let me know if I need to clarify things a bit better.

[Paul]

Would that affect it much? Kean spent a lot anyway, it wouldn't swing the finances that much surely?

Depends in it's accounted for - if the full value could be taken it would have reduced the loss to around £2m. However it's in next years figures and will be needed to stem those losses - remember in 2010 with JW in charge we lost £1.9m. JW was in charge for 8 months of 2011 and it is reasonable to assume the club was heading towards a similar £2m loss. Therefore the Raos managed to increase the loss by just under £16m in FOUR months.

If they managed to create that loss in four months what will they do in a full twelve plus what is clearly a falling income. We are stuffed in every sense by these people.

[OJRovers]

Post balance sheet events are net spend of £8.7m, which will be Jones/Kalinic less Dann,Goodie/Petro etc

[OJRovers]

Operating loss is only down on 2010 due to less prize money. Fairly similar otherwise at 12m loss in 2010 and 2011. Difference was we made 10m profit on player sales in 2010 (Warnock??)

What is not clear is the level of agents fees etc which are capitalised as intangible assets and amortised over the period of the contract. We have added £5.9m in new players, which I guess is Rochine 2.5, Formo 3.5?

[Glenn]

Bugger. I've just got off the phone Kamy to discuss how to play that fact we'd got the accounts early and what we were going to do with our nice little exclusive. I never expected to be scooped by the comments sections of the LT!

BTW Guys *** DON'T *** ask for a copy of them. They are currently under a legally binding embargo, so we'll not put any risk the site's way by releasing any details until the embargo is over (even by PM, email etc).

[Moppy]

Bugger. I've just got off the phone Kamy to discuss how to play that fact we'd got the accounts early and what we were going to do with our nice little exclusive. I never expected to be scooped by the comments sections of the LT!

BTW Guys *** DON'T *** ask for a copy of them. They are currently under a legally binding embargo, so we'll not put any risk the site's way by releasing any details until the embargo is over (even by PM, email etc).

Whens the embargo till? Can you tell us that part?

[92er]

BTW Guys *** DON'T *** ask for a copy of them. They are currently under a legally binding embargo, so we'll not put any risk the site's way by releasing any details until the embargo is over (even by PM, email etc).

Can you clarify "legally binding embargo"?

[Glenn]

Whens the embargo till? Can you tell us that part?

Kam said 29th. But we're still unsure about the legalities of publishing them after that. I looking into that now. I guess the real answer is "once they are on the companies house website".

Can you clarify "legally binding embargo"?

My understanding is those that received them are legally embargoed from discussing them until a certain date (which may or may not be the AGM, I'm looking into that too).

... another interesting twist is that they may have been unintentionally sent to a bunch of people they shouldn't have.

[Miker]

Glenn, can you guys please sum up some of the main points from the accounts and also compare them to some of the rumours on our finances that have been circulated for the last few months?

[Glenn]

Glenn, can you guys please sum up some of the main points from the accounts and also compare them to some of the rumours on our finances that have been circulated for the last few months?

Based on the conversation with Kamy. "We're Screwed" sums it up. We are of course working on a slightly more detailed analysis (though we should point out at this stage, were not able to prove the validity of the leaked accounts).

[OJRovers]

There's nothing particularly sinister in them. Confirms that the owners put in £10m and have taken on the interest free £4m debt previously owed to the Trust.

Looking forward the bank were probably worried that the club would go mad in January, and they wanted to make sure the owners were putting another £10m in to balance the books again.(Or sell players first)

No mention of size of Barclays facility. Although the bank is monitoring it closely to stop the club stretching too far - a good thing for us.

[Mercer]

Based on the conversation with Kamy. "We're Screwed" sums it up. We are of course working on a slightly more detailed analysis (though we should point out at this stage, were not able to prove the validity of the leaked accounts).

Think you are right.

Would have been some 'exceptional costs' (JW & Sam's departures etc), however, the rot will have set-in this season on 'normal' revenues with loss of prize money, no shirt sponsor, significantly less season tickets and, I would imagine, a big dip in corporate income.

I think you will find transfer nets are in balance despite two big sales given we now run with substantial agents' fees.

What would be interesting is what other, besides the bank, creditors we have ?!?!

Given, pre Venky's, we struggled to breakeven, I would expect another thumping loss in 2011/12 unless we see the sale of some player assets (Robbo, Samba, Hoilett, Nelsen etc).

I think the press will have a real field day with these financials at some point over the next few days.

[Stuart]

I'm very interested to know the breakdown of the apparent £4.5 agents fees. I assume these will have to be published somewhere?