[Archived] Company Accounts Til 31St March 2015

[ABBEY]

It's either plastic or roverzee .. Can never remember

[OJRovers]

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?

I think it's worse than that.

£18m cash loss to March

add back Robbo/Best £2m, Rhodes £2m,

but then take off the parachute payments £5m,

and you're at £19m cash loss which would need funding each year.

To cut the wages even more you're looking at relegation under a manager like Bowyer.

It can be done, eg Burnley, Bournemouth but that requires excellent recruitment and a manager capable of getting more out of players.

[yoda]

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.

I think you may be over egging the situation MM, as an accountant you are making judgements based solely on published past figures and from an accountants point of view. As we all are making judgements.

Venky's will have their accountants advising on the current situation and advising on a course of action, with the Venky's formulating some kind of "plan".

They will be looking at it from a different perspective than all the accountants. If they were going to pull the plug, I think they would have done it by now.

Indian businesses in general always look long term at projects, not the new "pay back in 12 months" that seems prevalent in the west these days, which has lead to many fine companies being transplanted to foreign locations on the advice of accountants who may have had to much say in the business, especially in the UK manufacturing industry as an example.

The figures do not look good to any of us, they probably don't look good to the Venky's, but it is their money and their business.

I think there is a growing acceptance that the only way they will get their money back is if we get back to the PL.

Do we have the right team in place to achieve that, I don't think so, so the advice the Venky's are still taking seems suspect to me.

If that can be sorted, then we may see some light at the end of a long dark tunnel.

[den]

Well like I said, losses of £36m on a turnover of £24m is horrendous. The turnover about to reduce by £8m as well? So if we lose the PP and nothing else changes, we'll lose £44m next year. To be brutally frank, I can't see how we can survive this, - or if we do, where we'll be.

[imy9]

Well like I said, losses of £36m on a turnover of £24m is horrendous. The turnover about to reduce by £8m as well? So if we lose the PP and nothing else changes, we'll lose £44m next year. To be brutally frank, I can't see how we can survive this, - or if we do, where we'll be.

It is horrendous but with robbo and Best going that's about 4 million saved a season. Not sure where else we can make savings, bar Rhodes.

[tomphil]

I think it's worse than that.

£18m cash loss to March

add back Robbo/Best £2m, Rhodes £2m,

but then take off the parachute payments £5m,

and you're at £19m cash loss which would need funding each year.

To cut the wages even more you're looking at relegation under a manager like Bowyer.

It can be done, eg Burnley, Bournemouth but that requires excellent recruitment and a manager capable of getting more out of players.

The difference with Bumley/Bournemouth etc is that they spent years building up from nothing and then benefited from a few quid put in to kick start them upwards. Aided by good management on all levels of course as you say.

We are on an eternal downward spiral both on and off the field and in terms of debt. As bad as it sounds it really needs smashing to bits before we can start again and build up a lean mean fighting machine where every penny coming in can be used to build us up again. Despite Venkys underwriting the losses we are paralysed and will be for a few years yet, could take another 5 years to sort this mess out.

[Rover_Shaun]

It is horrendous but with robbo and Best going that's about 4 million saved a season. Not sure where else we can make savings, bar Rhodes.

Saved? We've paid Best off upfront.

[den]

Well Flanagan reckons saving 15 grand on waste management then selling a few players will go some way to sorting the problems out.

That's quite an astonishing article.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/13492946.Chris_Flanagan__Blackburn_Rovers_must_turn_corner_and_move_forward/?ref=mac

[tomphil]

All they really need to do is start drinking tap water out of re-useable glass bottles again. Cut out all that plastic bottle waste and it's sorted

[RevidgeBlue]

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.

3 points.

1) You keep correctly pointing out every other day that technically BOI have the right to take a debenture over our assets, which of course is possible, and each time you mention it you say you expect it to be exercised but to date it appears that right has not been exercised. That proviso presumably has to be inserted as a matter of standard Banking practice otherwise we wouldn't be granted an overdraft.

2) There's no actual evidence the 100m or so "borrowed" from VLL thus far is "borrowed" money at all is it? It might be it might not.

3) The assurances on the accounts again presumably have to be given as a matter of standard accountancy practice before the accounts can be signed off, so I agree it can't be read as being absolutely conclusive.. However if for example the money pumped in thus far was liquid capital and there was genuinely no intention it should be repaid, it wouldn't say any different would it?

[roverzee]

At 31 March 2015, about £125million which includes additional £10m share issue in Rovers which was a condition of purchase.

This is growing daily and I would think we are now up to c£135million.

Key question is how much of this money have they borrowed from BOI using their Indian land as security !?!?

The key question for me is why should anyone ever believe anything you post on here ever again?

All you've stated for the last 6 months is that the owners are about to sell anything that moves and plunge the club into oblivion before the summer is out.

Wrong diddly wrong wrong.

[RevidgeBlue]

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?

How can you say the owners are not looking at point 4) when they're actually pumping in 20+ million a year to keep us afloat?

Also the figure you mention in 4) is probably much more like 15m p.a. even after cost cuts until we are promoted. Way beyond the scope of any supporters Trust with a fanbase the size of ours.

[AndyNeil]

Well Flanagan reckons saving 15 grand on waste management then selling a few players will go some way to sorting the problems out.

That's quite an astonishing article.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/13492946.Chris_Flanagan__Blackburn_Rovers_must_turn_corner_and_move_forward/?ref=mac

did Alan Myers write this?!?!

[JHRover]

did Alan Myers write this?!?!

Actually it was written by Chris Flanagan, devout Bolton Wanderers supporter, so it is a tad ironic that he is writing about our demise with such gusto when his own beloved club have experienced an even bigger collapse in the last few years.

I can't help but think he is taking the mick with some of his comments, especially those about the waste management and feeling the need to bring up the statistic about us being the only club in the Championship to have less than 50% occupancy of our home ground. Perhaps if Bolton, or any other side in this league had built a ground fit for the Champions they would be struggling to get above 50% occupancy.

I do find it a bit sickening when he finishes his article with: "However long it takes, and whatever difficulties Rovers face to turn that corner once and for all, hopefully those days will come again."

[Baz]

Just proves to me that the current stated plan of buying cheap then developing players for profit is failing massively.

There needs to be some radical thinking about where we go from here. To start with, reducing the size of the first team squad is probably the only thing that is doing us a favour, having "squad" players is a luxury we can't afford - 2 senior players per position, and then u21's / emergency loans. Scaling back the academy to u16 onwards would help cut some costs too.

Cutting back too much is risky though.

Surely the best option is to bring in competent administrators to run the club day to day, with a budget and the ability to make decisions within that.

[West Yorks Rover]

Just proves to me that the current stated plan of buying cheap then developing players for profit is failing massively.

There needs to be some radical thinking about where we go from here. To start with, reducing the size of the first team squad is probably the only thing that is doing us a favour, having "squad" players is a luxury we can't afford - 2 senior players per position, and then u21's / emergency loans. Scaling back the academy to u16 onwards would help cut some costs too.

Cutting back too much is risky though.

Surely the best option is to bring in competent administrators to run the club day to day, with a budget and the ability to make decisions within that.

And of course this is the first thing any competent owners would have thought about, unfortunately this lot forced out 2 or 3

of the best around and have never looked like replacing them, even after the demise of the club, caused by their initial stupidity.

I wouldn't hold my breath that Lofty Shaw will be replaced anytime soon, after all, he probably does his job, as a puppet

director, quite well and he's sure to be cheap, just the ticket for the Venksters.

[Stuart]

Well Flanagan reckons saving 15 grand on waste management then selling a few players will go some way to sorting the problems out.

That's quite an astonishing article.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/13492946.Chris_Flanagan__Blackburn_Rovers_must_turn_corner_and_move_forward/?ref=mac

Only took him three years to work it out.

This is exactly why the fans were so against what was happening to the club under Kean and the Gang. Too late now Flanaghan. We all knew that PL income was sustaining Rovers but sustaining us it was. And it was thrown away while the likes of you stood by and watched.

All this "the town isn't big enough to support the costs of our club" grates when we sit back and think about what some of us fought for - and lost - while Venkys pee'd £100m up a wall in pursuit of Championship football because they chased some stupid dream (being kind) of Champions League football for three.

[Rover_Shaun]

Well Flanagan reckons saving 15 grand on waste management then selling a few players will go some way to sorting the problems out.

That's quite an astonishing article.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/13492946.Chris_Flanagan__Blackburn_Rovers_must_turn_corner_and_move_forward/?ref=mac

The comments are like the invasion of the bodysnatchers

[Paul]

Well like I said, losses of £36m on a turnover of £24m is horrendous. The turnover about to reduce by £8m as well? So if we lose the PP and nothing else changes, we'll lose £44m next year. To be brutally frank, I can't see how we can survive this, - or if we do, where we'll be.

Probably the best summing up of our position. The bare fact is if the Raos had spent this money on the squad instead of supporting losses the picture could be very different.

[yoda]

Probably the best summing up of our position. The bare fact is if the Raos had spent this money on the squad instead of supporting losses the picture could be very different.

If they hadn't trapped up it would be

[West Yorks Rover]

If they hadn't trapped up it would be

Or having trapped up not changed a thing, just put the promised £5m in every transfer window.

We'd still be in the PL top 10 most seasons and have all the extra tv money to boot.

It's still hard to believe how idiotic they really were to feck it all up in less than 2 seasons.

[awhom111]

Does anyone with inside sources have any insights into this?

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.

Yeah, I was hoping some post balance sheet event disclosures would make their way into this set of accounts. Unfortunately it looks like for once we published these too soon to get the important events noted.

[MCMC1875]

Forget all the detail, its very simple.

Its no secret that operation of the club has been reliant on Sky TV money since the mid 90's. Parachute payments are designed to soften the blow of relegation and buy a club time to trim the sails and cut costs.

John Williams admitted he took a gamble in 1999 in keeping a Premier league budget for two years after relegation. That gamble paid off with promotion in 2001.

After relegation last time around, the seasons covered by the parachute payments have again not been used to cut costs and balance the books. This is cavalier and irresponsible financial management, or if you like, pure gambling, whoever is in charge. Belated cost cutting to balance the books is overdue. As for the accumulated debts, they will have to be written off sooner or later.

[Mike Graham]

Have trust in the Venkys.

They are cute clever business people and Rovers is their baby.

Without the support of the V's we would be sunk.

Get down to Ewood and support your team.

GET REAL.......HAIL THE VENKYS

[Stuart]

Have trust in the Venkys.

They are cute clever business people and Rovers is their baby.

Without the support of the V's we would be sunk.

Get down to Ewood and support your team.

GET REAL.......HAIL THE VENKYS

That's some subtle humour bro.