[Archived] Company Accounts Til 31St March 2015

[Mattyblue]

Putting £30mil in ay?

Just imagine if they'd have handed that to John Williams in 2009/2010.

[RevidgeBlue]

Bowyer's remit is not to get promotion but to sign young players who can be sold on for a profit. That's why we are signing obscure young French lads. If they don't work out, not much lost. If they do work out, then they'll be sold on.

How long Venkys will keep this farce going I have no idea but will there be any spectators left after say 4 more years of this?

In my view it's purely because we can't temporarily pay more than 10kp.w. therefore it is felt we can get better value for money abroad than in this Country.

I thought you almost conceded you liked the look of the striker yesterday. I thought it was most unlike you!

Putting £30mil in ay?

Just imagine if they'd have handed that to John Williams in 2009/2010.

Or even better Mark Hughes before that.

[whatdial]

£31m wage bill, unbelievable!

How many on here are actually qualified to officially understand the report ?

I am a qualified accountant and it doesn't look good

[yoda]

How many on here are actually qualified to officially understand the report ?

MM, PhilipL to start, then any house wife who looks after the money (no offence to Gumboots etc) any businessman who reads this MB

ps + above poster

[tomphil]

Whatdial

That figure includes a lot of payoffs to the crap that Kean and co brought in on eyewatering Prem contracts. Actual wage bill is probably around 25 mill now.

[Rover_Shaun]

Rev, Koita could prove to be a real bargain in the Gestede mould. At least he comes with some pedigree

[Athlete]

I've said this before but that theory surely has to be rubbish.

What's the point in losing 25m a year and gaining 6 or 7m at best in player sales?

unless theres something else underlying it doesn't add up

Alternatively you might say that if we come off the drug immediately we die. Whereas if we stay on it for the time being, there is at least a glimmer of hope that a cure might eventually be found, either in the form of promotion or new owners.

That can't happen if we've "died" i.e. ceased to exist.

theres no cure with these owners they're killing the club

The top and bottom of it is that Blackburn Rovers Fc desperately needs money, tens of millions of it but the owners themselves do not need money. Therefore we'll just continue in this paralised state as long as they underwrite the losses being swallowed up by the money making parent company. Even next year the losses will still likely be way over the FFP so the embargo will probably stay another season.

Meanwhile those at Ewood plod along in a lovely little comfort zone, Derek says look Madame we've saved a million or two again. Gaz says lookn Madame I've got a French trialist on a free , given him 15 games and we've sold him to a French second div club for 150k, I'm making us money. Meanwhile the Comunicommercial man phones and says I might be in tomorrow...or next week..or the week after.

clubs a joke

[yoda]

Posted by yoda on 22 May 2015 - 18:18 PM in Football Messageboard


rhodie, on 22 May 2015 - 5:59 PM, said:
From reading this article am I right in saying that the FFP sanction is only until the season just ended providing that we show we are attempting to keep within our spending restrictions and do not lose more than 9 Million for the whole of last season. .
http://www.football-...ns-2144136.aspx
That's out of the window then, £24 million losses coming up

Got it slightly wrong, but not far off!

[den]

Alternatively you might say that if we come off the drug immediately we die. Whereas if we stay on it for the time being, there is at least a glimmer of hope that a cure might eventually be found, either in the form of promotion or new owners.

That can't happen if we've "died" i.e. ceased to exist.

You sound very happy that they're staying Rev. Let's all jump for joy, the futures bright.

Seriously, the best thing they can do is clear off, take the debt with them because they're not going to get that money back, and hand the club over to someone who has a better game plan than them.

[ABBEY]

You sound very happy that they're staying Rev. Let's all jump for joy, the futures bright.

Seriously, the best thing they can do is clear off, take the debt with them because they're not going to get that money back, and hand the club over to someone who has a better game plan than them.

Revs always been a venkyite and all that sail in her

[RevidgeBlue]

You sound very happy that they're staying Rev. Let's all jump for joy, the futures bright.

Seriously, the best thing they can do is clear off, take the debt with them because they're not going to get that money back, and hand the club over to someone who has a better game plan than them.

The future doesn't appear bright at the moment den, but at least we have one as opposed to potentially being out of existence.

As to your second point , if they were prepared to take the debt with them that would put a slightly different slant on things as the external bank overdraft appears to be 12m which is less than what it was when when the Trust were in charge but it would still require new owners with deep enough pockets to stand a potential 10-20m p.a. loss until such time as we get promoted imo.

[Al]

How many on here are actually qualified to officially understand the report ?

Very few Abs but when it comes to Rovers they all feel qualified to comment on the accounts. It's been tedious for me for a long time.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

from my limited accounts knowledge its grim reading, what I still do not understand even with Venkys considerable wealth why they allow such losses to continue without changing the or in this case creating a proper management structure at the club. I do wonder if the losses are just absorbed as part of Venkys ltd and as such they don't feel the impact if that makes sense

It defies all logic.They are literally pissing away tens of Millions of their own cash but will not put the correct structure in place to see a return on their BRFC investments.

Mind boggling!!

[Athlete]

It defies all logic.They are literally pissing away tens of Millions of their own cash but will not put the correct structure in place to see a return on their BRFC investments.

Mind boggling!!

hence conspiracy theories...

IMV the truth is out there somewhere as no one is that stupid !

[RevidgeBlue]

Very few Abs but when it comes to Rovers they all feel qualified to comment on the accounts. It's been tedious for me for a long time.

This equally tedious jibe is probably partly aimed at me. I've only highlighted some of the notes attached to the accounts. I can read plain English.

No doubt you wouldn't object at all to someone "commenting" on the accounts who had a negative slant on it. And there's plenty to be negative about, we lost 29m it's not good. They've covered it thus far which I think is something but will they continue to do so indefinitely?

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

I wonder if they can @#/? away a few Million in my direction?..if Steve Kean can do it so can I!

The financial madhouse continues.

[Al]

This equally tedious jibe is probably partly aimed at me. I've only highlighted some of the notes attached to the accounts. I can read plain English.

No doubt you wouldn't object at all to someone "commenting" on the accounts who had a negative slant on it. And there's plenty to be negative about, we lost 29m it's not good. They've covered it thus far which I think is something but will they continue to do so indefinitely?

Not particularly aimed at anyone. It's just frustrating to see fans commenting on things they don't understand.

As far as the "negative" comment is concerned although things are bad I do think that the average comment tends to be more negative than it needs to be particularly as far as FFP is concerned. A lot of the expense has been either reserved in the prior year accounts or has been already expended albeit a bit late, the playing staff has been cut drastically and if that is not a strong indication that the club is attempting to conform I don't know what more they can do.

[Mercer]

A quick summary and some key points:

Accounts include a consolidated p & l and balance sheet for VLL (holding co) and Blackburn Rovers Football & Athletic (subsidiary). In essence this means individual p & l's and balance sheets are 'added together' with exception of inter co stuff eg what the subsidiary owes the holding company.

Also bear in mind that these accounts reflect the position at 31 March 2015. As, effectively, the football club is well nigh the whole of the group's activity, you would not expect the reported accounts for the football club to 30 June 2015 to be significantly different. Therefore in my view, it is almost certain that the embargo will not be lifted in the foreseeable future given the scale of losses.

Turnover £24m (-16%, reduced parachute payments), Wages & Salaries £31m (-10%), Loss Before Tax £36m (virtually unchanged year on year but after £8m of exceptional costs <eg one off non recurring>).

Group creditors £32m including £12m BOI overdraft who reserve the right to take a debenture over the group's assets which obviously includes the football club.

Football club creditors £112m including £81m owing to VLL (up by £29m with VLL financing through additional issued share cap £16m & capital contribution £13m) ; monies owing to VLL could be partly repaid through player sales prior to closure of the window on 31 August - that is my concern !!!

There is no binding commitment from the V's to continue to support the club financially. See comments on P13 under going concern. The key wording is "The directors have a reasonable expectation that the group will have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future". This whole section is very heavily caveated as one would expect.

Bottom line is there is nothing unexpected here and we are at the mercy of the V's.

[broadsword]

They've covered it thus far which I think is something but will they continue to do so indefinitely?

so we have to stick with venkys because they're throwing good money after bad ... For now. It doesn't make sense. "We have to tolerate venkys harming the club because if they left we'd die. But they may be killing us anyway" appears an accurate summation of this point of view

it's like being tortured by a lunatic and if you beg for mercy they'll kill you. And if you don't beg for mercy the shock of it all could kill you.

It's an awful situation to be in

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

A quick summary and some key points:

Accounts include a consolidated p & l and balance sheet for VLL (holding co) and Blackburn Rovers Football & Athletic (subsidiary). In essence this means joint p & l's and balance sheets are 'added together' with exception of inter co stuff eg what the subsidiary owes the holding company.

Also bear in mind that these accounts reflect the position at 31 March 2015. As, effectively, the football club is well nigh the whole of the group's activity, you would not expect the reported accounts for the football club to 30 June 2015 to be significantly different. Therefore in my view, it is almost certain that the embargo will not be lifted in the foreseeable future given the scale of losses.

Turnover £24m (-16%, reduced parachute payments), Wages & Salaries £31m (-10%), Loss Before Tax £36m (virtually unchanged year on year but after £8m of exceptional costs <eg one off non recurring>).

Group creditors £32m including £12m BOI overdraft who reserve the right to take a debenture over the group's assets which obviously includes the football club.

Football club creditors £112m including £81m owing to VLL (up by £29m with VLL financing through additional issued share cap £16m & capital contribution £13m) ; monies owing to VLL could be partly repaid through player sales prior to closure of the window on 31 August - that is my concern !!!

The V's have not committed to supporting the club financially. See comments on P13 under going concern. The key wording is "The directors have a reasonable expectation that the group will have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future". This whole section is very heavily caveated as one would expect.

Bottom line is there is nothing unexpected here and we are at the mercy of the V's.

MM - turnover £24m - wages £31m - making a deficit of £7m. £8m one off costs then makes it a total of £15m. What additional costs contribute to the total loss of £36m ?

Not an accountant - but the way players salaries used to be depreciated against the length of their contracts I always found strange - and for my simple mind skewed the P&L

[bluebruce]

MM - turnover £24m - wages £31m - making a deficit of £7m. £8m one off costs then makes it a total of £15m. What additional costs contribute to the total loss of £36m ?

Not an accountant - but the way players salaries used to be depreciated against the length of their contracts I always found strange - and for my simple mind skewed the P&L

This was pretty much exactly what I was about to ask but you beat me to it. Please enlighten us Mercer.

Also, what are the one off costs of 8 million? Surely we didn't pay 8 million in contract cancellations...was this just the condensing of future costs? I thought that was meant to be a far larger amount? I vaguely recall some stuff about us putting 20 million ish into our present accounts in order to cut back on future losses for FFP.

It seems nigh unthinkable that we could have 21 million of costs AFTER wages (which is surely by far any club's biggest expenditure when they can't spend transfer fees) and the one off costs, without some sneaky accounting to steer us out of FFP in the future. I mean, what the hell would we be spending that much money on in this league?

[Dunnfc]

A quick summary and some key points:

Accounts include a consolidated p & l and balance sheet for VLL (holding co) and Blackburn Rovers Football & Athletic (subsidiary). In essence this means joint p & l's and balance sheets are 'added together' with exception of inter co stuff eg what the subsidiary owes the holding company.

Also bear in mind that these accounts reflect the position at 31 March 2015. As, effectively, the football club is well nigh the whole of the group's activity, you would not expect the reported accounts for the football club to 30 June 2015 to be significantly different. Therefore in my view, it is almost certain that the embargo will not be lifted in the foreseeable future given the scale of losses.

Turnover £24m (-16%, reduced parachute payments), Wages & Salaries £31m (-10%), Loss Before Tax £36m (virtually unchanged year on year but after £8m of exceptional costs <eg one off non recurring>).

Group creditors £32m including £12m BOI overdraft who reserve the right to take a debenture over the group's assets which obviously includes the football club.

Football club creditors £112m including £81m owing to VLL (up by £29m with VLL financing through additional issued share cap £16m & capital contribution £13m) ; monies owing to VLL could be partly repaid through player sales prior to closure of the window on 31 August - that is my concern !!!

The V's have not committed to supporting the club financially. See comments on P13 under going concern. The key wording is "The directors have a reasonable expectation that the group will have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future". This whole section is very heavily caveated as one would expect.

Bottom line is there is nothing unexpected here and we are at the mercy of the V's.

Not strictly true there Mercer.

Note the very last paragraph detailing the parent holding company (VHPVT Ltd) in the eyes of a court prior to any attempt over a debenture charge the parent company of Venkys (The subsidiary) i.e VHPVT Ltd would ultimately be held to a "Parent Bond Guarantee" before such a charge could be obtained, if only they failed on that would such a charge be given.

So a 112 million pound debt of the football club, 81 million is literally owed to the Rao's in which no interest is being charged, i suspect that the tax being paid on other ventures profits are being off-set against the losses of this enterprise "BRFC" In addition to the diluting of shares via the recent share capital issues are meaning that this debt is manageable "In House" in very much a similar situation to Eddie Davies at Bolton. The problem comes when Venkys decide enough is enough and bail out.

I draw your attention to the going concern where the cash flow of the club has been predicted but not disclosed, VHPVT LTD by admission from themselves (Jitendra Rao) have now signed the accounts to provide working capital and financial assistance to ensure the club operates until March 16 although this can be partly due to a potential clust of player sales the club will still need to meet its liabilities over the next 12 months thought to be around 25 million.

[bluebruce]

I would expect that as far as FUP is concerned, we can write some of these losses off. Academy costs and ground improvements (don't remember if ground maintenance was in any way included but don't think so) don't count towards FUP from what I recall. But it still seems like we have almost no chance of coming out of the rules any time soon without the Football League's benevolence if it thinks we are working towards compliance satisfactorily. Sure, we will have in the region of six million written off on the next year's accounts by not paying Best and Robinson I expect (though Best's payoff was after the FUP accounts deadline?), but this will quickly be negated by us losing the parachute payments completely.

[thenodrog]

Mass Stockholm syndrome abounds me thinks

Stockholm syndrome? Really? More like just basic survival instinct. Odd how many don't appear to have any.

Alternatively you might say that if we come off the drug immediately we die. Whereas if we stay on it for the time being, there is at least a glimmer of hope that a cure might eventually be found, either in the form of promotion or new owners.

That can't happen if we've "died" i.e. ceased to exist.

Amen to that.

[adsfortheblues]

I thought it was 'operating losses' that is under scrutiny when it comes to FFP? Of which stands at £29 million up from £26 million the year before, meaning we are now £13 million above the £16 million allowed? Is that right?