[Archived] Our Debt

[Mercer]

With respect Paul, that analysis is far too simplistic and ignores many variables and alternatives. It, in fact, borders upon becoming an incitement. Whilst I agree that there is concern to be had in many respects, and questions to be answered, matters cannot be so straightforward.

Very often, the simplistic approach is best.

Paul and several others reckoned on a loss of at least £20m for y.e. 2011 - pretty close.

I can see no reason why, unless we sell our more saleable assets and not fully reinvest, the loss for y.e. 2012 will not be even greater (no shirt sponsor, season tickets & corporate sales seemingly substantially down, less place prize money etc).

Make no mistake, the writing is well and truly on the wall and has been to a number of us for many, many months.

IMO, it's simply operational and financial management of the madhouse - utter lunacy and incompetence.

[Miker]

Paul, I will engage you in a response to that, but I want to see the actual numbers in the accounts first so I can backup whatever I say with evidence.

I think that there's something that most people either ignore or not take into consideration as far as Venky's are concerned.

I also want to know how people think that Venky's can just cut their losses and disappear. They simply can't get away with doing something as dodgy as the Portsmouth owner. If on the other hand they decided to sell the club to a new owner, if they are truly as uncaring about the club as is suggested by some, then who they sell it to would be an absolutely massive concern.

The financial situation doesn't change with new owners. We still have a massive wage bill, falling income and a small ageing squad.

Also, if Venky's truly just want to cut their losses, then why not sell to the Qataris?

[Paul]

With respect Paul, that analysis is far too simplistic and ignores many variables and alternatives. It, in fact, borders upon becoming an incitement. Whilst I agree that there is concern to be had in many respects, and questions to be answered, matters cannot be so straightforward.

I'm sure there are many ins and outs surronding the whole issue making it far more complex but I do believe the basic sums are correct. I don't know your profession but I guess we both know what the term "creative accountancy" means. I'm no accountant but I've been in businees long enough to know you can make the sums add up anyway you wish to suit a purpose but a loss can only be hidden for so long. The Raos are or the club is, whether these are one and the same remains to be seen, losing vast amounts of money. The accounts prove this and with a rapidly decling income there is nothing to suggest this will reverse.

As for the "incitment" bit I don't understand your thought process here. There are members on here who have used words threatening Steve Kean with violence, at least two who have suggested to others they might like to meet behind the BBE to resolve differences and one member actively encouraging us all to break the law and engage in civil disobedience by invading the pitch. If my words are incitment how do you rate theirs?

To accuse me of incitment by putting forward a point of view backed up by a reasonable arguement is, IMV, a bit rich.

[bestierover]

Very often, the simplistic approach is best.

Paul and several others reckoned on a loss of at least £20m for y.e. 2011 - pretty close.

I can see no reason why, unless we sell our more saleable assets and not fully reinvest, the loss for y.e. 2012 will not be even greater (no shirt sponsor, season tickets & corporate sales seemingly substantially down, less place prize money etc).

Make no mistake, the writing is well and truly on the wall and has been to a number of us for many, many months.

IMO, it's simply operational and financial management of the madhouse - utter lunacy and incompetence.

Simplistic often the best - in certain instances, yes.

Something potentially askew? As already stated, yes.

Too early to say definitively in my view. If I were to have a detailed look at some a/c's, my view may be otherwise. However, there are too many assumptions being made at present.

[bestierover]

I'm sure there are many ins and outs surronding the whole issue making it far more complex but I do believe the basic sums are correct. I don't know your profession but I guess we both know what the term "creative accountancy" means. I'm no accountant but I've been in businees long enough to know you can make the sums add up anyway you wish to suit a purpose but a loss can only be hidden for so long. The Raos are or the club is, whether these are one and the same remains to be seen, losing vast amounts of money. The accounts prove this and with a rapidly decling income there is nothing to suggest this will reverse.

As for the "incitment" bit I don't understand your thought process here. There are members on here who have used words threatening Steve Kean with violence, at least two who have suggested to others they might like to meet behind the BBE to resolve differences and one member actively encouraging us all to break the law and engage in civil disobedience by invading the pitch. If my words are incitment how do you rate theirs?

To accuse me of incitment by putting forward a point of view backed up by a reasonable arguement is, IMV, a bit rich.

I did not accuse you of incitement. I said it borders upon becoming such. Nonetheless, I apologise, the wording was too strong. I should have said it could make others worry too much at this stage. I agree that others should not make threats or abuse as referred to by you.

[Paul]

Thank you. I appreciate that and the point you make.

[bestierover]

Thank you. I appreciate that and the point you make.

Thankyou for the acknowledgment.

I believe many aspects surrounding our club will be open to debate for some time to come.

[Stuart]

Paul, it's academic in the overall scheme of the point you were making but can you just check you sums. Total £116m, no? Or have I misunderstood?

[Paul]

Jisty no I wasn't clear enough. Initially the Raos paid £23m + £20m debt = £43m. In my next addition £23 + 18.6 = 41.6 I knew I ignored the original debt but didn't say so. I ignored it because it may not have "cost" anything yet as it could be parked anywhere. I don't know.

[OJRovers]

The club didn't 'lose' £18m, this was the accounting deficit after player contract disposals and amortisation.

If the club were to make no signings it would run at a slight loss depending on wages/prize money.

The only way the club could go under is if they spent massively on players and the debt got out of control, then the bank could seize assets. But as we know Barclays are keeping a close eye on this.

[thenodrog]

It is safe to say that the Venky who said was deluded.

You are way to polite. Whoever it was is just another liar telling just another lie. Their isn't one of them that can even lie straight in bed.

[Stuart]

The club didn't 'lose' £18m, this was the accounting deficit after player contract disposals and amortisation.

If the club were to make no signings it would run at a slight loss depending on wages/prize money.

The only way the club could go under is if they spent massively on players and the debt got out of control, then the bank could seize assets. But as we know Barclays are keeping a close eye on this.

Which suggests we are worrying unnecessarily. Is that how you see it OJ?

[Grez]

How much of the 18.6m is on the P&L and how much is on balance sheet... Basically, how much was the restructuring cost?

[Pete1981]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/blackburn_rovers/news/9439364.Venky_s_committed_to_funding_Blackburn_Rovers/?ref=twt

[JAL]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/blackburn_rovers/news/9439364.Venky_s_committed_to_funding_Blackburn_Rovers/?ref=twt

Lets see if they put £10m in this january first.

[Wiggy]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/blackburn_rovers/news/9439364.Venky_s_committed_to_funding_Blackburn_Rovers/?ref=twt

Fool me once, shame on you......fool me twice, shame on me.

[True Blue & White]

A few, very few, said from the beginning this takeover was wrong. For me this was based on 20 odd years of oppostion to TV money and more recently the subsequent influx of foreign owners. Others had different reasons for concern.

I was one of those few, for me it was the simple fact that their biggest company, Venky's India, were only making £10m a year profit (and that was a record breaking year as well) and the fact Forbes had very little on them which suggested to me they weren't mega-rich (compared to us they are but not in terms of running a football club rich which is now a billionaire's game). But. as you say, I got plenty of abuse and was kept on being told how Venky's India was just one of their companies and they earned far more from the rest. Another [un]convincing argument against me was a Sky Sports report showing Baliji with a handful of classic cars (probably worth in the tens of thousands max) which supposedly was proof they were the real deal and rolling in it.

Ali Syed was more convincing than these guys.

[Miker]

From that article:

"Rovers made a loss of £4.8m before player trading, which incurred a further loss of £13.8m."

"Turnover dropped narrowly from £57.8m to £57.6m with wage and salaries increasing from £47.4m to £49.9m, leading to the wage to turnover ratio increasing from 82 per cent to 86.6 per cent - although that was still short of the figure of 90.6 per cent two years ago."

This sounds to me like our loss didn't change much from previous years at all. The main difference was the increase in wages by 2 million.

EDIT: The main loss is from player trading, whereas we made a profit of 10.8m in 2009/2010 on transfers, we made a loss of 5.9m last season.

It doesn't look like this included anything from Jones/Kalinic money, or the signings we made in August.

As I have maintained for ages, in order to sign players, we need to sell players. The loss figures show that our finances are stable compared to the previous season. The reason for the huge loss is player trading. My question to people on here is this, what do you expect? How do you expect the club to buy players and NOT incur a loss?

Can anyone point out to me how these accounts are actually shocking in any way?

[Stuart]

My question to people on here is this, what do you expect? How do you expect the club to buy players and NOT incur a loss?

By putting their own money in like they keep saying they will. Like they've told the bank, and like they've reiterated in their end of year accounts statement.

Can anyone point out to me how these accounts are actually shocking in any way?

Because once against it proves their actions and not consistent with their words. Mind you, you are spot on, that in itself isn't shocking in any way! I'm more shocked that some people are still trying to suggest everything is fine.

[imy9]

I was one of those few, for me it was the simple fact that their biggest company, Venky's India, were only making £10m a year profit (and that was a record breaking year as well) and the fact Forbes had very little on them which suggested to me they weren't mega-rich (compared to us they are but not in terms of running a football club rich which is now a billionaire's game). But. as you say, I got plenty of abuse and was kept on being told how Venky's India was just one of their companies and they earned far more from the rest. Another [un]convincing argument against me was a Sky Sports report showing Baliji with a handful of classic cars (probably worth in the tens of thousands max) which supposedly was proof they were the real deal and rolling in it.

Ali Syed was more convincing than these guys.

You are like a broken record.

I'm not going to repeat the evidence as its easy to find on google. The issue is are they willing to spend it on Rovers? QPR were owned by some of the richest people on the planet but spent little, it's not about their wealth but about how they spend it.

Ali Syed is a con man and fraud. Despite the rumours these guys are whiter than white.

[CarlRH]

Do the acccounts reflect the Phil Jones money?

I wonder why the owners insisted on cash only for the transfer of Jones ?

[John]

Nick Harris posing questions/comments via Twitter on our accounts - he seems baffled on the director payout and players trading figures.

[Stuart]

Whats his twitter John?

[John]

@sportingintel

He is being pretty damning!

[Stuart]

Cheers