[Archived] Administration

[AndyNeil]

Our current situation of having outgoings massively in excess of football-related income isn't much different to how we spent the 1990s, it's just that we had more faith in the man stumping up to cover the endemic losses.

At least those huge losses resulted in the club being at the top end of the top division in the country - unlike now... and the man "stumping up to cover the endemic losses" only had the best of intentions for the club, ran it in a professional fashion and was a hero to the fans - unlike now

therein lies the difference I'm afraid...

[John]

You just know its going to end in disaster. Always go back to the key point, the Rao family do not understand what they are doing.

[Exiled in Toronto]

At least those huge losses resulted in the club being at the top end of the top division in the country - unlike now... and the man "stumping up to cover the endemic losses" only had the best of intentions for the club, ran it in a professional fashion and was a hero to the fans - unlike now

therein lies the difference I'm afraid...

Exactly, a qualitative rather than quantitative difference. Back then our fans waved wads of notes at other fans chanting "Loadsamoney" whereas now they predict administration around the corner. We were losing 25 million a year in both instances.

Seriously, EiT? Your appraisal of the current financial situation at Rovers is entirely dependent upon what Philip thinks about the Glazers?

Only tangentially. Let's just say I've got doomsday fatigue from reading this board the last two years. We were supposed to have sold the entire first team and Brockhall after we got relegated whereas we seem to have bought a 22-goal striker and put in some new wonder pitch.

But, for a quiet life I'll go along and agree we'll be in administration by a week on Tuesday based on no new evidence whatsoever.

[Stuart]

Exactly, a qualitative rather than quantitative difference. Back then our fans waved wads of notes at other fans chanting "Loadsamoney" whereas now they predict administration around the corner. We were losing 25 million a year in both instances.

Did they?

Bet they were the first to bail out of Ewood following relegation - probably first time around.

[rovermagic]

Philip L's arguments look sound. But just about every other club that's been in our position has gone into one or two administrations - Leeds, Coventry, Portsmouth. Liquidation obviously even worse. But Philip a bit too sanguine methinks.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Did they?

Bet they were the first to bail out of Ewood following relegation - probably first time around.

Saw them with my own eyes at many away games in the early 90s once we'd started splashing the cash. Cringeworthy.

[Mercer]

I think anyone with a modicum of financial / commercial nous can see we are heading for the rocks.

I doubt there will be much of anything left for any salvage crew.

This is not being unduly pessimistic, just plain realism.

[blueboy3333]

I think anyone with a modicum of financial / commercial nous can see we are heading for the rocks.

I doubt there will be much of anything left for any salvage crew.

This is not being unduly pessimistic, just plain realism.

so you don't actually know, you just like to let people think you know? What are 'the rocks'? What can be 'salvaged'? Be more specific or else it just looks like a few meaningless cliches thrown together.

[blueboy3333]

Genuine questions as i'm getting confused!!

I thought people on here stated that any debt accrued by Rovers was being absorbed by venkys(Bank of India overdraft?) Also that VLL shares issued for £24m (or was it a land sale?) were to cover this years losses. Does this not show Venkys are covering losses and not Rovers?

[philipl]

The £25m no doubt covered old losses but apparently Shagnew are telling anybody who listens it was not intended for that purpose.

New losses are being run up at the rate of £2m per month plus £2m per management team sacking or thereabouts which are almost monthly as well.

The Indian banks have no claims over Rovers as far as filings at Companies House show.

So as per my post which started this thread, Rovers are losing a fortune but are not in immediate mortal risk and I strongly suspect there is something lurking in the undergrowth which the Venky's wouldn't like an Inspector appointed by the Department of Industry to be able to find so a lingering death by asset stripping is the likeliest fate for our club.

[Mercer]

so you don't actually know, you just like to let people think you know? What are 'the rocks'? What can be 'salvaged'? Be more specific or else it just looks like a few meaningless cliches thrown together.

As you claim to be married to a solicitor, I thought you would recognise the importance of positioning statements appropriately.

It would appear that you have less intelligence than I first thought.

[blueboy3333]

The £25m no doubt covered old losses but apparently Shagnew are telling anybody who listens it was not intended for that purpose.

New losses are being run up at the rate of £2m per month plus £2m per management team sacking or thereabouts which are almost monthly as well.

The Indian banks have no claims over Rovers as far as filings at Companies House show.

So as per my post which started this thread, Rovers are losing a fortune but are not in immediate mortal risk and I strongly suspect there is something lurking in the undergrowth which the Venky's wouldn't like an Inspector appointed by the Department of Industry to be able to find so a lingering death by asset stripping is the likeliest fate for our club.

Ok thanks. I thought the £24/25m was meant to cover the losses of £2m a month for THIS season? player sales and tv money would surely have covered losses in 18 months of Prem since Venkys tokk over. Can you expand on where Shagnew thought the £25m was going? If they are gobbing off then they can't sue you for anything!

If we stay up do you see a fire sale of our good players (rhodes, Henley) or do you think Venkys will give the new manager cash to make a push for promotion next year?

As you claim to be married to a solicitor, I thought you would recognise the importance of positioning statements appropriately.

It would appear that you have less intelligence than I first thought.

WTF are you on about? The other week you said i was on twitter (nope, never) now you claim i said i was married to a solicitor!!!? What? When? I've never said that in my life, anywhere, ever. Do you see dead people?

[Stuart]

WTF are you on about? The other week you said i was on twitter (nope, never) now you claim i said i was married to a solicitor!!!? What? When? I've never said that in my life, anywhere, ever. Do you see dead people?

Don't worry, he's getting you mixed up with blueboy3334.

[RevidgeBlue]

The £25m no doubt covered old losses but apparently Shagnew are telling anybody who listens it was not intended for that purpose.

New losses are being run up at the rate of £2m per month plus £2m per management team sacking or thereabouts which are almost monthly as well.

The Indian banks have no claims over Rovers as far as filings at Companies House show.

So as per my post which started this thread, Rovers are losing a fortune but are not in immediate mortal risk and I strongly suspect there is something lurking in the undergrowth which the Venky's wouldn't like an Inspector appointed by the Department of Industry to be able to find so a lingering death by asset stripping is the likeliest fate for our club.

Ah, so the facts are that unlike under the Walker Trust there are no Bank borrowings currently secured against Club assets.

Yet you still suspect (or hope) there is something "lurking in the undergrowth". Ho hum.

Surely the situation boils down to this. No doubt we are currently making extremely heavy losses however If the owners are prepared to stand those losses for the foreseeable future that's their prerogative entirely.

If at some point in the future they're not prepared to do so and alternative wealthy backers can not be found then we're screwed.

[TBTF]

The £25m no doubt covered old losses but apparently Shagnew are telling anybody who listens it was not intended for that purpose.

New losses are being run up at the rate of £2m per month plus £2m per management team sacking or thereabouts which are almost monthly as well.

The Indian banks have no claims over Rovers as far as filings at Companies House show.

So as per my post which started this thread, Rovers are losing a fortune but are not in immediate mortal risk and I strongly suspect there is something lurking in the undergrowth which the Venky's wouldn't like an Inspector appointed by the Department of Industry to be able to find so a lingering death by asset stripping is the likeliest fate for our club.

Makes you wonder if the reason they wont entertain the Trust or the Ians whether its the fear of what might be uncovered that stops them making contact.

Maybe we need to be running campaigns along the lines of ''have you something to hide, venkys?'' !!

[Mercer]

Ok thanks. I thought the £24/25m was meant to cover the losses of £2m a month for THIS season? player sales and tv money would surely have covered losses in 18 months of Prem since Venkys tokk over. Can you expand on where Shagnew thought the £25m was going? If they are gobbing off then they can't sue you for anything!

If we stay up do you see a fire sale of our good players (rhodes, Henley) or do you think Venkys will give the new manager cash to make a push for promotion next year?

WTF are you on about? The other week you said i was on twitter (nope, never) now you claim i said i was married to a solicitor!!!? What? When? I've never said that in my life, anywhere, ever. Do you see dead people?

So what is the connection between you and @jimwilkz !?!?

[Eddie]

I do find some of this to be a bit puzzling, many on here seem to think that we are destined to go into administration unless we get rid of Venkys, but to me it almost seems to be the other way around. For the time being they aren't securing the losses against the clubs assets, so we are relatively safe, even if we are incredibly unprofitable. Any other owner is likely to borrow against assets or future income, so a more sensible and personably owner is likely to put us in a riskier financial position.

[Mercer]

I do find some of this to be a bit puzzling, many on here seem to think that we are destined to go into administration unless we get rid of Venkys, but to me it almost seems to be the other way around. For the time being they aren't securing the losses against the clubs assets, so we are relatively safe, even if we are incredibly unprofitable. Any other owner is likely to borrow against assets or future income, so a more sensible and personably owner is likely to put us in a riskier financial position.

Key question is who are the bank loans to rather than what assets are they secured against !!!

When banks call in their monies, they first pursue against the assets of the borrower (secured or otherwise) before resorting to any guarantor(s) !

[philipl]

For clarification, there was significant debt in the last sets of accounts and that will have been rising significantly with the late summer transfers associated agents' fees, Rhodes' signing, regular managerial sackings and losses of £2m per month.

The £25m injection, assuming it was to avoid KPMG qualifying on going concern, probably covered losses incurred before it went in. So at a guess, losses since 1 January which are probably already well north of £10m are not accounted for.

As far as I know, Shagnew were saying the VLL injection was for a new Venky's venture. Perhaps the one they refused to tell the auditors about last year and got themselves a qualified accounts for their pains.

Anyway, Venky's London Limited year end tonight...

[Guest Norbert]

Does that last sentence mean VLL's accounts are due to be announced for all to see tomorrow, and we will know more about how much poo the club is in, and where the money is going?

[Stuart]

I think they have months before they need to file their accounts, and even then they can submit late.

I've a feeling they'll keep us waiting...

[TBTF]

For clarification, there was significant debt in the last sets of accounts and that will have been rising significantly with the late summer transfers associated agents' fees, Rhodes' signing, regular managerial sackings and losses of £2m per month.

The £25m injection, assuming it was to avoid KPMG qualifying on going concern, probably covered losses incurred before it went in. So at a guess, losses since 1 January which are probably already well north of £10m are not accounted for.

As far as I know, Shagnew were saying the VLL injection was for a new Venky's venture. Perhaps the one they refused to tell the auditors about last year and got themselves a qualified accounts for their pains.

Anyway, Venky's London Limited year end tonight...

But was the £25million injection borrowing in advance of the parachute payments as someone wrote on here earlier? If thats the case it puts a whole new light on matters and puts a different slant completely on whats going on.If they chuck the keys in at the end of the season any new owners won't have any parachute money to play with because its already been used but will still have a massive overhead to run with.And Venkys do one without really costing them anything. That scares me witless.

Philip please , tell me i am barking up the wrong tree, please!!

[Ozz]

Jim Wilkinson does post on here Mercerman but not under that screen name.

[47er]

I do find some of this to be a bit puzzling, many on here seem to think that we are destined to go into administration unless we get rid of Venkys, but to me it almost seems to be the other way around. For the time being they aren't securing the losses against the clubs assets, so we are relatively safe, even if we are incredibly unprofitable. Any other owner is likely to borrow against assets or future income, so a more sensible and personably owner is likely to put us in a riskier financial position.

I can't believe our luck!

[Exiled in Toronto]

Surely the situation boils down to this. No doubt we are currently making extremely heavy losses however If the owners are prepared to stand those losses for the foreseeable future that's their prerogative entirely.

If at some point in the future they're not prepared to do so and alternative wealthy backers can not be found then we're screwed.

Exactly, so in that regard no change to most of the last 20 years then.