[Archived] Rovers £54.5m in debt.

[den]

Hodgson & Kidd spent vast sums of money, Drog. It's not comparable to what I'm advocating here. We've spent £1.8m this summer on new players, for a squad desperately in need of strengthening for literally a make-or-break season.

13 players Amo, plus the ability to wheel and deal with other players in the squad - you keep ignoring that fact. I guess he wanted all of those 13 players or he wouldn't have signed them. How much money, how many players, does a manager need in this league?

For me Bowyer has done OK, not great and certainly not more than any manager should be able to do with the backing he's had. The argument shouldn't be around whether he had enough money to spend for goodness sake, more about could someone else have done better by using the funds available to bring in quality, rather than quantity, with a better transfer policy. In other words, because the financial situation demanded that we put everything in to promotion this season, the owners needed to bring in the best possible man. What they did was bring in someone based on a few decent results against the poorer sides last season. We're seeing the consequences of that now. We'd better all hope and pray that he get's us back to the PL in the next few months.

He's a very lucky man to be allowed to strengthen the squad, given the club's financial situation. His decision to use those resources on all the players he did, was IMO, a mistake that could cost us dearly.

[jim mk2]

You don't believe that chestnut do you? I did give you more credit than that.

And Lewandowski trudging a lonely and ball starved furrow at the head of a direct approach would not have produced the Lewandowski we see today. More than likely he would now be in the wilderness like Kalanic.

Lewandowski plays up front on his own most of the time for Dortmund - the difference is he is a good footballer as well as goalscorer whereas Kalanic (and Rhodes) are not.

Keep trying.

[Veevs]

Derek Shaw mentioned in the q&a that there would be a lot of other clubs that will struggle with FFP rules.

It would be interesting to compare the accounts of one of these clubs (I think he mentioned Leicester and Bolton) to Rovers accounts just to see how they compare.

On the face of it our accounts are shocking but how do they compare to other clubs that will also struggle with FFP ?

Is it possible to get a copy of another clubs accounts so we can compare the 2 ?

See the previously posted deloite reports.. 85% of clubs will make the ffp regulations.. as for how we compare.. lol.. we don't when it comes to most clubs, Leicester and Bolton are exceptions, QPR and the other relegation crew also not contenders (they get a reprieve for a year)..

Interestingly I always thought that City clubs would do better in terms of income etc.. but last year they didn't do as well as many town clubs.. especially on the attendance front... pretty much all of the money these days comes from the TV money which is controlled by the governing bodies (FA, League etc).

Here is an attendance table for the league this season.. taken from the football league site.

Club High High Opponent Low Low Opponent Average Brighton 27755 Nottm Forest(05/10/13) 25725 Sheffield Wed(01/10/13) 26643 Leeds United 33432 Brighton(03/08/13) 21301 Birmingham(20/10/13) 25057 Nottm Forest 28276 Derby County(28/09/13) 19509 Middlesbrough(17/09/13) 23779 Derby County 27141 Birmingham(26/10/13) 21037 Ipswich Town(01/10/13) 23426 Leicester City 23357 Bournemouth(26/10/13) 19153 Blackburn(17/09/13) 21737 Sheffield Wed 22328 Yeovil Town(14/09/13) 19599 Ipswich Town(05/10/13) 21076 Reading 21167 Leeds United(18/09/13) 17697 Doncaster(19/10/13) 19285 QPR 18171 Derby County(02/11/13) 16202 Barnsley(05/10/13) 17193 Charlton 23600 Wigan Athletic(27/10/13) 14882 Middlesbrough(10/08/13) 16892 Ipswich Town 18361 Barnsley(01/11/13) 15276 Middlesbrough(14/09/13) 16716 Bolton 19622 Leeds United(14/09/13) 14260 Derby County(17/09/13) 15935 Watford 16431 Charlton(14/09/13) 13998 Doncaster(17/09/13) 15736 Middlesbrough 21882 Doncaster(25/10/13) 12793 Huddersfield(01/10/13) 15521 Wigan Athletic 16996 Blackburn(06/10/13) 13747 Ipswich Town(22/09/13) 15293 Birmingham 18830 Watford(03/08/13) 13133 Millwall(01/10/13) 14750 Blackburn 16645 Middlesbrough(02/11/13) 12981 Watford(01/10/13) 14508 Blackpool 15901 Blackburn(26/10/13) 12928 Reading(24/08/13) 14471 Huddersfield 18309 Leeds United(26/10/13) 12025 Bournemouth(24/08/13) 13746 Burnley 16074 QPR(26/10/13) 9641 Birmingham(17/09/13) 12331 Barnsley 13593 Huddersfield(31/08/13) 9084 Reading(01/10/13) 11411 Millwall 13727 QPR(19/10/13) 8415 Blackpool(17/09/13) 10971 Bournemouth 10108 Charlton(03/08/13) 7574 Barnsley(17/09/13) 9329 Doncaster 12253 Nottm Forest(21/09/13) 6769 Bournemouth(31/08/13) 8852 Yeovil Town 9108 QPR(21/09/13) 6476 Leicester City(01/10/13) 759

This topic is giving me a headache. Apparently the owners are absolutely nuts for giving the greenlight on last seasons suicidal spending but are also absolutely nuts for not doing it again this year?

I guess they are as confused as most people, thing is loss per season does not match with end of year accounts.. still confuses me, does the 8m loss go from Jan to Jan or from Aug to Aug.. ??

When given money Allardyce chose to spunk it all on some useless Croat

How much did we lose on Kalinic when we sold him?

Bought for 6m, sold for 5m if stats online are right.. bound to of been a sell on fee.. but who cares how much did we loose elsewhere (hell 1m plus went on the Portugal youth team of old, a few mil on sackin managers, few more on board members.. and how much btw of agency fees on Rochina, Formica etc etc..).

[Roverthechimp]

Veevs - financial result is july - june (hence the payoffs to get everything on "last years" accounts and reduce the impact on this years.

Not Veevs: Bowyer has signed 13 players - how many have we lost from last season and does Kane count in both categories?

[Blue blood]

13 players Amo, plus the ability to wheel and deal with other players in the squad - you keep ignoring that fact. I guess he wanted all of those 13 players or he wouldn't have signed them. How much money, how many players, does a manager need in this league?

For me Bowyer has done OK, not great and certainly not more than any manager should be able to do with the backing he's had. The argument shouldn't be around whether he had enough money to spend for goodness sake, more about could someone else have done better by using the funds available to bring in quality, rather than quantity, with a better transfer policy. In other words, because the financial situation demanded that we put everything in to promotion this season, the owners needed to bring in the best possible man. What they did was bring in someone based on a few decent results against the poorer sides last season. We're seeing the consequences of that now. We'd better all hope and pray that he get's us back to the PL in the next few months.

He's a very lucky man to be allowed to strengthen the squad, given the club's financial situation. His decision to use those resources on all the players he did, was IMO, a mistake that could cost us dearly.

Actually I think that there are two different arguments. Firstly I don't think the budget set - say 2 mill for transfers and the wages of some of the players involved (remember we'll have got rid of some wages too) - is going to be as much a budget as QPR, Forrest, Leicester, or Watford - all of whom would be challenging for promotion. Equally sure it's not much better than many other clubs, like Bolton either.

Now given that we're in a promotion or bust scenario then not expecting a rookie manager, albeit one with promise, to compete with the likes of QPR and Watford with less resources is a big, big ask. Heck it's hard enough to compete with the same resources. Some - and I'd include myself in this - would say it's downright negligent of the board not to give Bowyer the resources needed that support what they want him to achieve.

However, whilst the resources weren't at the level necessary I do wonder whether Bowyer could have spent the money better and more wisely. This is a seperate question regardless of whether he has had enough money. The first is a question - or debate - of adequate resources, this is a question of whether he has spend the money well. I think he's done a decent job with the money, but as you say, I do wonder if others could have done better. Judge, Marshall, Marrow and Songoo aren't likely to have a massive impact on our season. I do wonder if a more experienced man could've spent that money more wisely and got us a couple more players who'd have made a real impact.

[Veevs]

Veevs - financial result is july - june (hence the payoffs to get everything on "last years" accounts and reduce the impact on this years.

Not Veevs: Bowyer has signed 13 players - how many have we lost from last season and does Kane count in both categories?

That's is what I thought (comments regarding Murphy etc), but so much chat about last seasons accounts (companies house report is standard financial year) as in the financial ones threw me... Same as ever makes things over complex.. so clubs now have to do a financial and a season set of financial.. so this thread is actually off by a small fortune, we dumped players prior to them being classed as this football league year (but in the financial year as per the books)... e.g. Kean, Berg, Apple where in the last financial year but not the football year.. or Nuno, Murphy et al last and not one of em this..

[Veevs]

13 players Amo, plus the ability to wheel and deal with other players in the squad - you keep ignoring that fact. I guess he wanted all of those 13 players or he wouldn't have signed them. How much money, how many players, does a manager need in this league?

For me Bowyer has done OK, not great and certainly not more than any manager should be able to do with the backing he's had. The argument shouldn't be around whether he had enough money to spend for goodness sake, more about could someone else have done better by using the funds available to bring in quality, rather than quantity, with a better transfer policy. In other words, because the financial situation demanded that we put everything in to promotion this season, the owners needed to bring in the best possible man. What they did was bring in someone based on a few decent results against the poorer sides last season. We're seeing the consequences of that now. We'd better all hope and pray that he get's us back to the PL in the next few months.

He's a very lucky man to be allowed to strengthen the squad, given the club's financial situation. His decision to use those resources on all the players he did, was IMO, a mistake that could cost us dearly.

Den do you not think Bowyer has done brilliantly given his expenditure v income?.. transfer wise we made almost 1.4m profit (marshal 1m, evans 0.8m v 2.6m olsson and formica .6m) , he dumped deadwood prior to the ffp counted season (and got judge, DJ, Spurr, Taylor, Killgannon for free, plus Cairney, kane and others on loan or free.. and got rid of almost 20 players inc Murphy)....

[Amo]

13 players Amo, plus the ability to wheel and deal with other players in the squad - you keep ignoring that fact. I guess he wanted all of those 13 players or he wouldn't have signed them. How much money, how many players, does a manager need in this league?

I'm talking quality, Den, not quantity. Surely you're not going to deny it's a lot harder to bring in proven players when you're limited to freebies and bargain basement signings? Do you think Bowyer's transfer activity this summer would look the same had he been given a budget similar to that of QPR or Nottingham Forest?

[John]

Blog article- http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/espnfcunited/id/10490?cc=5739

What all this boils down to is that unless Blackburn find 15 million pounds, either from player sales or the owners' or parent company's pockets, it is possible that they will struggle to see out the season. The 12 million pound parachute payment due to be paid by the Premier League in May will not be enough on its own.

[tomphil]

Why do articles keep going back to th VH group and it's 100 million profits, the same line that was trotted out 3 years ago when they bought the club ? Has there ever been ANY evidence of this ? I thought it had been established that the figure was in Indian money not £ or $. Personally i think if they had that kind of cash then they would have paid debt off when they bought the club and actually invested in it from the start which would have given them all the good publicity they needed.

[Guest Norbert]

See out this season??!!!

Good lord, if true then it is worse than I assumed.

[Rover_Shaun]

The "lifelong commitment" spoken about by Rao is about to be thoroughly tested by the cold, hard truths on Blackburn Rovers' chaotic balance sheet.

We're screwed

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Disagree. Hodgson and Kidd spewed money big time but Souness, Hughes and Allardyce to varying degrees disprove your comments completely. You might put that down to the history books but a good current example of good management in a tight financial situation are Burnley.

Souness bought some brilliant cheaper players but when he spent large his signings were debatable. The same could be labelled at Big Sam but to be fair the market and the finances had changed significently then.

[OJRovers]

See out this season??!!!

Good lord, if true then it is worse than I assumed.

The overdraft is at maximum, and we need c£2m cash A MONTH from the owners to survive, so it is in their hands.

[DE.]

I'd expect us to make it to the end of the season, but I don't see how we continue without beginning to sell off assets. The Bank of India aren't going to fund us forever.

[John]

Have we got a new overdraft in place?

The £36.1m owed to Venkys is interest free, with no fixed date for repayment. The £13.7m owed to the State Bank of India must be paid in one year.

The overdraft which the accounts state is not secured over any of the clubs assets expired on September 30.

[OJRovers]

Have we got a new overdraft in place?

The £36.1m owed to Venkys is interest free, with no fixed date for repayment. The £13.7m owed to the State Bank of India must be paid in one year.

The overdraft which the accounts state is not secured over any of the clubs assets expired on September 30.

Yes the £36m is interest free but the problem is that it keeps getting bigger and bigger. All ot would take is for the owners to not fund for a month or two, and it would be game over.

[DE.]

Have we got a new overdraft in place?

The £36.1m owed to Venkys is interest free, with no fixed date for repayment. The £13.7m owed to the State Bank of India must be paid in one year.

The overdraft which the accounts state is not secured over any of the clubs assets expired on September 30.

I would assume the owners aren't putting their own cash in, I don't think they're that rich. I have to assume they're also pumping money in that is originally provided by the Bank of India (possibly against Venky's others assets, or our assets?).

[tomphil]

Have we got a new overdraft in place?

The £36.1m owed to Venkys is interest free, with no fixed date for repayment. The £13.7m owed to the State Bank of India must be paid in one year.

The overdraft which the accounts state is not secured over any of the clubs assets expired on September 30.

So the 36 mill is owed to the parent VLL but it would be interesting to know how VLL is actually funded. Also the bit about 30 odd mill in loans being up for repayment in the next 12 mnths ? is that VLL's borrowings ?

[Al]

So the 36 mill is owed to the parent VLL but it would be interesting to know how VLL is actually funded. Also the bit about 30 odd mill in loans being up for repayment in the next 12 mnths ? is that VLL's borrowings ?

It's just the way that debt is shown in the accounts. If there is no specific longer term repayment date it is classified as repayable within the next 12 months whether or not it is intended to do so.

[tomphil]

It's just the way that debt is shown in the accounts. If there is no specific longer term repayment date it is classified as repayable within the next 12 months whether or not it is intended to do so.

Ok thanks.

[rovers11]

Can anyone clarify what the FFP state. Is it that clubs can make no more than 8m loss per year? Or is it that a club's overall debt cannot be more than £8m?

In other words, do rovers have to cut their yearly losses from 36m to 8m? Or 50 odd million down to 8?

[DE.]

Can anyone clarify what the FFP state. Is it that clubs can make no more than 8m loss per year? Or is it that a club's overall debt cannot be more than £8m?

In other words, do rovers have to cut their yearly losses from 36m to 8m? Or 50 odd million down to 8?

I think it relates to losses as FFP is supposed to be vehicle to reduce debt as opposed to quickly wiping it all out. I don't see how it could possibly work otherwise.

[thenodrog]

The oft repeated assurance that was given to the Venkymob during negotiations with the Walker Trust was "dont worry, whatever happens you can not lose financially". Solid enough advice given the low cost of the club but it looks like they've managed to make the almost impossible look easy. Achieving the opposite to the old alchemist dream of turning base metal to gold so quickly cannot have been easy. They have reduced the club down to scrap value in just 3 years.

[Guest Norbert]

Sounds like it will be time for incontinence pants all round at the end of the season. The Raos just prove that Indians and sport administration just do not go. This is death in stages for the club.