[Archived] Rovers Under Venky's

[Kamy100]

Excellent read from the Swiss Ramble:

http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2015/08/blackburn-rovers-burning-down-house.html?m=1

Due to copyright we are not allowed to cut and paste the article into here, but nonetheless it is a very informative piece which merits discussion on here.

[Blackburn Ender]

Yes, a very lucid read. But, sadly also very scary.

Why Championship clubs continue to run their businesses at a loss and consistently overpay the playing staff is a complete mystery.

Obviously, I know why they do it, but it makes no long-term business sense at all and makes financial life hard for every club in the division.

Very depressing. And shows just how much reliance we have to place in Venky's, which is a horrible thought.

[OJRovers]

Shows how much everyone is relying on their owners.

Big spending Middlesboro have a lower turnover than Rovers, even after you remove the parachute payments.

The attendence stats are interesting. Flat-lining after 2012...looks like the figures were manipulated from that point onwards.

[JHRover]

Shows how much everyone is relying on their owners.

Big spending Middlesboro have a lower turnover than Rovers, even after you remove the parachute payments.

The attendence stats are interesting. Flat-lining after 2012...looks like the figures were manipulated from that point onwards.

Another myth then that Middlesbrough are a 'big' club whilst we are a League One club in all but name.

[philipl]

Extremely well informed and accurate analysis.

Also shows without saying it that FFP is applied unevenly and that with more clued up management, we could have avoided the penalties.

[Proudtobeblue&white]

Venkys = mismanagement of the highest order.

Excellent read, and means promotion is a must for us to survive in any shape like we are at the moment.

So, what are they going to do about it?

[Athlete]

Venkys = mismanagement of the highest order.

Excellent read, and means promotion is a must for us to survive in any shape like we are at the moment.

So, what are they going to do about it?

Highly likely they'll bother so I reckon they'll do zero

[tomphil]

Just highlights the road to the lower leagues we are inevitably on unless they perform a miracle with promotion in the next season or two. Even their funding won't stop the slide unless they get in the correct personnel and players.

[RoverCanada]

I'd been hoping Swiss Ramble would do a post on Blackburn soon. The posts get a bit repetitive, but a great view of football finances.

Couple thoughts:

- The revenue charts really show how badly we bungled our parachute payments advantage. 6th in the league in 2013/14 revenue...

- Didn't know our parachute payments had increased due to the new TV deal. Also worth noting that we get £2.3M from the Championship solidarity payment when our parachute payments are done (very small comfort...)

- The excluding parachute payments revenue chart suggests we're not naturally a League One/Two club (as some seem to suggest at times). 13th in 2013/14 - we're a mid-table Championship side revenue-wise... We manage fairly well commercially, 6th at £5.1M, albeit £2M below 5th place. Possibly a fair bit better now with the new sponsorship deals.

- Nicely illustrates the breakdown of our "core" turnover and expenses excluding player sales, bringing expenses forward, etc.

- But, the elephant in the room and what's quite clear from many Swiss Ramble posts, is the major gulf between the PL and Championship due to broadcast revenue and the general shaky finances of all Championship clubs. Increasing matchday or commercial revenue by a £1M here or there is a drop in the bucket. Rovers were somehow only 8th in Wage/Turnover ratio. And surprise, surprise, Blackpool's the only one below 70%...

I think there's one for Fulham recently that again shows a PL club having to make a major adjustment to Championship life, but unlike our shambolic first couple years, they planned ahead with player amortisations and don't have the same ridiculous leftover PL contracts (setting aside our transfer follies...)

[Stuart]

Excellent read from the Swiss Ramble:

http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2015/08/blackburn-rovers-burning-down-house.html?m=1

Due to copyright we are not allowed to cut and paste the article into here, but nonetheless it is a very informative piece which merits discussion on here.

He needs to work on his maths though. 55 + 45 + 20 does not equal 100. At least not when I went to school.

[Craigman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3210797/Badly-run-clubs-like-QPR-Blackburn-ruin-don-t-need-punished-more.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Another great article.

[Stuart]

A painful read though.

'Blackburn are a bad club'

In other news, is Dr Jen taking over from Bowyer?

[iamarover]

Excellent read from the Swiss Ramble:

http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2015/08/blackburn-rovers-burning-down-house.html?m=1

Due to copyright we are not allowed to cut and paste the article into here, but nonetheless it is a very informative piece which merits discussion on here.

I know I am getting boring on this, but this P&L has be wrongly constructed. I do not believe Rovers are losing money. Or at least they wouldn't be if Venkys were not, in my opinion, loading the club with cost from India to keep their share price high. This would be a daft idea if Venkys were billionaires. They are not. The figures below are revealing. I Crore is about £100k. The profit for the most recent quarter are therefore about £2.25m. Or £10m annually. Rovers are a chess pit for dirty money.

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/results/venkys-standalone-jun-15-sales-at-rs-55828-crore_2588021.html

Sales are vast but margins are tiny. We have more people on the books than 10 years ago and, Rhodes excepted, no major earners.

It is only a theory but it is the only credible one that explains their incredible behaviour.

[Baz]

I know I am getting boring on this, but this P&L has be wrongly constructed. I do not believe Rovers are losing money. Or at least they wouldn't be if Venkys were not, in my opinion, loading the club with cost from India to keep their share price high. This would be a daft idea if Venkys were billionaires. They are not. The figures below are revealing. I Crore is about £100k. The profit for the most recent quarter are therefore about £2.25m. Or £10m annually. Rovers are a chess pit for dirty money. http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/results/venkys-standalone-jun-15-sales-at-rs-55828-crore_2588021.html

Sales are vast but margins are tiny. We have more people on the books than 10 years ago and, Rhodes excepted, no major earners.

It is only a theory but it is the only credible one that explains their incredible behaviour.

I think its pretty far fetched to say we arent losing money. Venkys appear to have little trading in their shares, so there's little importance in keeping the value artificially high.

[tomphil]

I know I am getting boring on this, but this P&L has be wrongly constructed. I do not believe Rovers are losing money. Or at least they wouldn't be if Venkys were not, in my opinion, loading the club with cost from India to keep their share price high. This would be a daft idea if Venkys were billionaires. They are not. The figures below are revealing. I Crore is about £100k. The profit for the most recent quarter are therefore about £2.25m. Or £10m annually. Rovers are a chess pit for dirty money.

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/results/venkys-standalone-jun-15-sales-at-rs-55828-crore_2588021.html

Sales are vast but margins are tiny. We have more people on the books than 10 years ago and, Rhodes excepted, no major earners.

It is only a theory but it is the only credible one that explains their incredible behaviour.

Before they even took over someone in the press did describe them seeing it as a money pit when people were scratching their heads as to why they would even be interested. Whatever it is there has always been far far more to it than meets the eye. Football was right at the back of the que for all those involved though.

[JAL]

I think its pretty far fetched to say we arent losing money. Venkys appear to have little trading in their shares, so there's little importance in keeping the value artificially high.

Wasn't it said about the dividend they get paid from, ( per share) by having a higher than what should be share price means they stand to collect more cash from an inflated share price.

[West Yorks Rover]

I know I am getting boring on this, but this P&L has be wrongly constructed. I do not believe Rovers are losing money. Or at least they wouldn't be if Venkys were not, in my opinion, loading the club with cost from India to keep their share price high. This would be a daft idea if Venkys were billionaires. They are not. The figures below are revealing. I Crore is about £100k. The profit for the most recent quarter are therefore about £2.25m. Or £10m annually. Rovers are a chess pit for dirty money.

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/results/venkys-standalone-jun-15-sales-at-rs-55828-crore_2588021.html

Sales are vast but margins are tiny. We have more people on the books than 10 years ago and, Rhodes excepted, no major earners.

It is only a theory but it is the only credible one that explains their incredible behaviour.

Profit of £2.25m on sales of £55.82m for the quarter seems very low doesn't it ?

[tomphil]

Fingers in lots of pies though and said to have a vast personal income besides the chicken stuff. Just where that comes from is anybody's guess

[Reedy You're A Star]

Maybe?

Allegedly, in my opinion, etc...

[Baz]

Wasn't it said about the dividend they get paid from, ( per share) by having a higher than what should be share price means they stand to collect more cash from an inflated share price.

Not really, they can set the dividend amount to what they want anyway.

Its far more viable in my opinion the scenario of betting syndicates, but theres no proof. For example the sun running GB first manager sacked articles, then 2 hours later the club denying it, is a possible sting, but you're unlikely to find proof.

[West Yorks Rover]

I know I am getting boring on this, but this P&L has be wrongly constructed. I do not believe Rovers are losing money. Or at least they wouldn't be if Venkys were not, in my opinion, loading the club with cost from India to keep their share price high. This would be a daft idea if Venkys were billionaires. They are not. The figures below are revealing. I Crore is about £100k. The profit for the most recent quarter are therefore about £2.25m. Or £10m annually. Rovers are a chess pit for dirty money.

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/results/venkys-standalone-jun-15-sales-at-rs-55828-crore_2588021.html

Sales are vast but margins are tiny. We have more people on the books than 10 years ago and, Rhodes excepted, no major earners.

It is only a theory but it is the only credible one that explains their incredible behaviour.

Those are the accounts from only one of their companies( Venky's (India) Ltd) which is the only company, they are obliged by Indian law to publish

accounts for, as the other 27 companies are all privately owned , according to Nick Harris of Sporting Intelligence on his website.

They probably are worth a couple of billion, not that it will do us any good as we all know, they don't seem to care one iota about BRFC.

It was always a toy for Balaji, who probably managed to persuade his sister that we would be a useful marketing tool.

[iamarover]

Those are the accounts from only one of their companies( Venky's (India) Ltd) which is the only company, they are obliged by Indian law to publish

accounts for, as the other 27 companies are all privately owned , according to Nick Harris of Sporting Intelligence on his website.

They probably are worth a couple of billion, not that it will do us any good as we all know, they don't seem to care one iota about BRFC.

It was always a toy for Balaji, who probably managed to persuade his sister that we would be a useful marketing tool.

fair enough.

I am certain though that something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

[philipl]

This is my understanding of the sate of play in Venkyland:

- Venky's makes a minimal level of profit but does so year in year out on a massive turnover. The business is maintained by a phenomenal distribution infrastructure into rural India which nobody else can match- the creation of old man Venky who died 20 years ago and amazingly continues to thrive and function.

- the 41 (or whatever it is now) non-quoted companies have as many dogs as stars amongst them. They are unlikely to be contributing dramatically to the family's net wealth.

- the old man ploughed surplus cash into land around Pune in the early'90s before the current massive boom in the city. The population is growing at double India's national average and it is a car manufacturing and IT sector hub. The land was divided equally between the three children making them independently wealthy. In fact, I understand that since Madam told Balaji he had to fund Rovers himself, the money that has gone into Rovers represents a portion of the capital gain in the value of Balaji's land holdings.

- why all this money is being ploughed into Rovers with no apparent interest in bailing out defies all legal commercial logic.

[West Yorks Rover]

This is my understanding of the sate of play in Venkyland:

- Venky's makes a minimal level of profit but does so year in year out on a massive turnover. The business is maintained by a phenomenal distribution infrastructure into rural India which nobody else can match- the creation of old man Venky who died 20 years ago and amazingly continues to thrive and function.

- the 41 (or whatever it is now) non-quoted companies have as many dogs as stars amongst them. They are unlikely to be contributing dramatically to the family's net wealth.

- the old man ploughed surplus cash into land around Pune in the early'90s before the current massive boom in the city. The population is growing at double India's national average and it is a car manufacturing and IT sector hub. The land was divided equally between the three children making them independently wealthy. In fact, I understand that since Madam told Balaji he had to fund Rovers himself, the money that has gone into Rovers represents a portion of the capital gain in the value of Balaji's land holdings.

- why all this money is being ploughed into Rovers with no apparent interest in bailing out defies all legal commercial logic.

Thanks for that Philip, so can we now assume that Balaji is in charge of BRFC and is making the decisions, not his sister ?

[philipl]

As I understand it, major decisions need the three siblings together with Mrs D's Mr D to agree unanimously.

Following a farce over his film studios, Balji is not allowed too much independent decision making despite him being the one who is putting up the collateral for the Indian bank loans and the cash into Rovers.

This might now be out of date but was certainly the case when things were running a lot hotter at Ewood than they are now.