[Archived] Company Accounts Til 31St March 2015

[Iceman]

Depends when the accounts are finalised to be released, and when the player was sold. The funds received for any players sold, will reflect on the next one released, along with all other expenses ie payoffs etc .

The accounts normally run from a start to an end date, so anything that happens after the end date, is accounted for in the next financial statement.

[Athlete]

Bob's right it just doesn't add up. We could do with an impartial professional to disect it and put it in laymans terms for the confused, like me

It doesn't add up with them standing losing cash week in week out.

Unless there's other reasons we can only surmise at

[47er]

Mercer, seeing how your struggling to answer some of the points in post 58, in fact you've just ignored it. I'll ask again, if they are desperate to claw money back *dramatic punctuation alert in a Mercer styley* "!!!" How do you explain the fact they have just signed off two players? Relaid the pitch? Paid for the team to go to Portugal? Stuck in 16 odd million or whatever it is in share issue?

Also with the 80m you claim Rovers owe VLL where do you think they think that's coming from? Cause they'll do well to get 25% of that in player sales.

The only way they'll get their cash back is via promotion. Let's be honest. Why they didn't go all out to recruit a top draw manager is one of life's mysteries, that I can only explain away by believing they are absolutely loaded and that these losses really aren't hurting them. Otherwise Rhodes (and Gestede) would have gone a long time ago - as you've predicted practically every transfer window since we signed him.

But if they are loaded how come they only cough up when its debt? Why let the pitch deteriorate so much in the first place? Why did they never go all out for promotion like QPR, when they could have?

None of it makes sense.

[47er]

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?

And the bit about there being no spectators left in 4 more years of this? Obviously Chaddy and Parson will turn up but won't most be asking "what's the point?".

Not having a go at either of them by the way, I truly wish I could feel the same. But you have to have hope in football and we have none imo while Venkys continue to drip feed the club they have destroyed.

[Claytons Left Boot]

Previous comments are correct in so far as Venky's can virtually write off the amount that is owed to them.

Key to this in my opinion is the freehold to both Ewood Park and Brockhall as I mentioned earlier.

If the freeholds are owned by the Walker Trust as was discussed at the time of Venky's takeover then, should the club be wound up or go into administration, these would remain outside of whatever fire sale would take place and we would then still be a relatively attractive proposition for a takeover. In fact, this would enhance our position considerably and the aforementioned scenario might just be the only thing going for us.

PhilipL - are you out there?

[Rover_Shaun]

Dave Whelan was right.

November 2010

"The Blackburn deal doesn't sound right, and it doesn't look right," said Whelan, who discussed the takeover with the Rovers directors on Saturday, when the clubs met at Ewood Park. "It is an absolute shame. The trustees want the club to be safe but it doesn't seem to be safe."

[Mercer]

Mercer, seeing how your struggling to answer some of the points in post 58, in fact you've just ignored it. I'll ask again, if they are desperate to claw money back *dramatic punctuation alert in a Mercer styley* "!!!" How do you explain the fact they have just signed off two players? Relaid the pitch? Paid for the team to go to Portugal? Stuck in 16 odd million or whatever it is in share issue?

Also with the 80m you claim Rovers owe VLL where do you think they think that's coming from? Cause they'll do well to get 25% of that in player sales.

The only way they'll get their cash back is via promotion. Let's be honest. Why they didn't go all out to recruit a top draw manager is one of life's mysteries, that I can only explain away by believing they are absolutely loaded and that these losses really aren't hurting them. Otherwise Rhodes (and Gestede) would have gone a long time ago - as you've predicted practically every transfer window since we signed him.

Struggling ! I just don't agree with post 58, see my post 62. I have been saying for some time that should BOI take a debenture over assets of Rovers then fasten your seat belts - and I think they will. As for 3rd party guarantees, we don't know who has provided what and for what that relates to. For example, Raos might have borrowed a big part of the £100m in issued shared capital for which they've provided secured personal and/or company guarantees.

Two new players signed and the combined deal is most likely equal to either 1 Furman or 1 Coke. Let's face it, this is transfer dealing on the cheap and cheerful.

Pitch had to be done - you can't play football on a cabbage patch.

Trip to Portugal a drop in the ocean - less than Rhodes' weekly labour bill.

Share issue simply to keep the club afloat. Without it insolvency.

Where's the £80m come from - borrowed from holding company VLL - VLL obtained through issued share capital from Raos personal and / or Raos' borrowed monies.

At some point, V's were going to reach a tipping point. I think they have recognised promotion has now gone now they are looking to cut their losses. As I have already said, IMV, their 'assurances' under 'Going Concern' are not worth the paper they are written on.

[J*B]

Can someone confirm that getting £12m for Rhodes (lets just imagine its 'upfront' for now) won't get us out of the transfer embargo?

[T J Hooker]

.

[K-Hod]

Struggling ! I just don't agree with post 58, see my post 62. I have been saying for some time that should BOI take a debenture over assets of Rovers then fasten your seat belts - and I think they will. As for 3rd party guarantees, we don't know who has provided what and for what that relates to. For example, Raos might have borrowed a big part of the £100m in issued shared capital for which they've provided secured personal and/or company guarantees.

Two new players signed and the combined deal is most likely equal to either 1 Furman or 1 Coke. Let's face it, this is transfer dealing on the cheap and cheerful.

Pitch had to be done - you can't play football on a cabbage patch.

Trip to Portugal a drop in the ocean - less than Rhodes' weekly labour bill.

Share issue simply to keep the club afloat. Without it insolvency.

Where's the £80m come from - borrowed from holding company VLL - VLL obtained through issued share capital from Raos personal and / or Raos' borrowed monies.

At some point, V's were going to reach a tipping point. I think they have recognised promotion has now gone now they are looking to cut their losses. As I have already said, IMV, their 'assurances' under 'Going Concern' are not worth the paper they are written on.

The annual accounts probably carry a bit more weight than just any piece of paper I'd suggest.....

[JHRover]

Can someone confirm that getting £12m for Rhodes (lets just imagine its 'upfront' for now) won't get us out of the transfer embargo?

The earliest we can get out of the embargo is January when we submit interim accounts in November.

Having slashed our wage bill and having a squad of 19 players we should not be letting any more go. If we can't put a compelling case forward that we are working very hard to achieve compliance with the sale of Cairney, probably Gestede and paying off Best then we might as well give up. Even if selling Rhodes got us out of the embargo in January, the damage done before then and the near impossibility of finding an adequate replacement means we should keep him.

There's not much point getting out of the embargo in January if we're in the relegation zone and on a one way ride to League One.

[ABBEY]

Way it's going the the venkys are not taking us on a one way ticket to l1

.

L2 is another on the horizon

[RibbleValleyRover]

Repeat what has been said for the past few years, promotion is the only way to fix the financial problems and Venky's whilst keeping the club afloat haven't put anything in place to achieve that. It does make me laugh that they are willing to pump in millions but are not willing to bring in an experienced and proven manager who might boost the chances to get that much needed promotion.

We will be back here next season talking about more losses, more money having to be pumped in by the owners and another season in the Championship. Nothing is going to change at all.

[OJRovers]

Cash loss of £18m

Will only get better by c£2m from Robbo/best leaving

Shows we are nowhere near breaking even and are running on a budget level with the top clubs in the league. Hence should be challenging.

£28m put in from the owners - and Bowyer has the cheek to say that Brentford/Bournemouth are benefiting from their owners putting money in!

[JHRover]

Cash loss of £18m

Will only get better by c£2m from Robbo/best leaving

Shows we are nowhere near breaking even and are running on a budget level with the top clubs in the league. Hence should be challenging.

£28m put in from the owners - and Bowyer has the cheek to say that Brentford/Bournemouth are benefiting from their owners putting money in!

We are nowhere near breaking even but we need to forget that aspiration.

Breaking even is pie in the sky stuff in these days of money dominated football. I think the only club that actually broke even/made a profit last year was Blackpool, and look what they did to achieve that.

Nearly every club in this division is reliant on the support of a wealthy owner to put in significant money every year to support a loss making business.

It is clear that this football club will not be able to rely upon a significant support base to boost income whilst in the Championship, and as a result it is even more important for a club like ours to have owners making up the difference.

If we can get below £15 million or provide evidence we are on track to get there soon then that SHOULD be sufficient to have the embargo lifted, given the rules allow £13 million losses per year from 2016 onwards.

[DE.]

We will be back here next season talking about more losses, more money having to be pumped in by the owners and another season in the Championship. Nothing is going to change at all.

Another season in the Championship? I admire your optimism.

[Plastics]

Dave Whelan was right.

November 2010

"The Blackburn deal doesn't sound right, and it doesn't look right," said Whelan, who discussed the takeover with the Rovers directors on Saturday, when the clubs met at Ewood Park. "It is an absolute shame. The trustees want the club to be safe but it doesn't seem to be safe."

He could have meant many things here, mind, knowing his 'views'.

[The_Expert]

He could have meant many things here, mind, knowing his 'views'

What an unnecessarily low shot.

[Mike E]

He could have meant many things here, mind, knowing his 'views'.

His 'views'? I don't believe he holds any particular views re: race. He used terms that my dad uses all the time. Yes I cringe and wouldn't say them myself, but that generation used terms like that daily.

[Dreams of 1995]

He could have meant many things here, mind, knowing his 'views'.

An out of order completely unneccessary low shot at a club legend.

[yoda]

He could have meant many things here, mind, knowing his 'views'.

Disgrace of a post

[mhead]

Back to the subject:

1/ we need to sell all players on more than 10k per week

2/ we need to get costs down again to less than 15mn per annum(24 players x 6.5k per week)

3/Income from Tickets, Sponsorship,Developments etc needs to go up by at least 20%

4/ Next owner/ Group has to put in a minimum of 3mn to 4 mn per year JUST to stand still.

To follow the Greece case the Club is Toxic and Venkys have to cut their losses. They have to say by Accountancy Law that they are continuing to support the Business as a viable entity.The Kean era decisions have well and truly pooped us.

So the Trust and the potential benefactors have to look at Nos 4/ and 3/ -patently what our current non-Venkys Directors are failing to do...

Discuss....is this correct or is it even more painful?

[den]

Food for thought.

Losses of £36m on a turnover of £24m, meaning outgoings must be c£60m. Parachute payments gone next year. As the telegraph says, we could be under embargo for quite a while yet.

Really, these results are disastrous.

[Hanks]

I would have thought that Dave Whelan was referring to the involvement of he shall not be named when he made the statement about things not looking right.

[K-Hod]

Is Plastics now Braddock under a different guise?