[Archived] Rovers Accounts 2015

[K-Hod]

Where did say anyone was hailing venkys ? It was a statement not an accusation . Don't get your knickers in a twist .

So you would be happy to rack up say 10000m and then leave ? Every day the debt increases

Right, well I must have misread.

I'm not happy with them no, and best case scenario is Venky's selling us to a Billionaire who doesn't mind losing money. But then, one of those that wants to buy BRFC is as rare as rocking horse dung as if Venky's leave tomorrow we need someone with deep pockets to plug the gaps. I feel like I've said all this before anyway.

[TBTF]

Ah, cheers.

Okay so they may disclose transfer fees received after that 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 window, but the headline numbers would only include wages + transfers within that window? Looking back, Cairney's sale was 26 June, so I guess the initial fee would be included, but I guess it depends on how the transfer fees are structured (which is pertinent for the rumour that we don't get the Rhodes money until next year's accounts!). Gestede's sale was 31 July, so I don't think it would be included.

I'd guess we wanted most of those transfers and subtracted wages to be credited to the 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 accounts given that projection is likely what got us out of the embargo? I'm no accountant, and how they depreciate player valuations and transfer fees can make this all quite obscure!

edit: taking a look at LT's article, they do seem to confirm Cairney's transfer is included given our £3.5M profit on player sales, while from June to November, we've netted £7.8M, largely from Gestede and King.

Turnover down from £30.4M to £22.4M largely due to £8.8M drop in media income due to reduction of parachute payments. Nothing to do about that. Wages still quite high at £26.9M (that would put us roughly 7th in the league compared to league-wide numbers for 2013-14), but that's down from £34.5M. 'Other' operating expenses being cut too - £11.6M down from £19.8M, so whatever those £8.2M of savings entail, they're cutting where they can...

Perhaps the most 'encouraging' number I see is expenses on 'player disposals', which I assume means contract termination payoffs, was only £300k, down from £6.6M.

Good stuff JH .Thanks for pulling all that together in language even I can grasp.

Basically as I see it, the cost cutting isn't doing much more than match the fall in income so the grind towards a sensible ratio is still some way off. Therefore, how the hell do they cope with giving Lambert a war chest this Summer and the pressure that would have to put on wages? Would that not send us back in the opposite direction and hurtling towards FFP embargo again?

As for selling this Club, I recall one of the Ian's (Battersby I think it was) saying the Club was unbuyable or unsaleable (same thing I think?) and with debts at that level and reading your account JH, I see what he means. Who the hell would pay £100mill to buy something that turns over £22.4mill and loses money for fun?

Venkys have proper screwed us to point unless they GIVE it to the Trust then it goes bust there and then. Even then the Trust would never be able to provide enough money to run it for more than about 3 days at that rate.

I was hanging my hat on a summer spend to get us back up there and by sound of it so is PL .Now I don't see how that happens and am getting more depressed by the minute .

[VinjayV4]

I think Davies was looking to sell up and retire as he approaches his 70th birthday and his family were putting pressure on him to scale down his commitments and rather than see their inheritance eaten up on Wanderers they wanted him to put it elsewhere.

I suppose to our possible benefit Venkys seem to have a lot more money and a more successful, growing business empire which should see them continue to make significant amounts from the core business. Not sure this was the case with Davies but I thought he had stopped with his other business interests.

Also important is that we are owned by a company which is in turn owned by 4 family members. This should provide more of a safety net than if we were owned outright by one individual. Obviously this means that even if one or two get cold feet and want to stop subsidising the club, presumably it will take agreement from all four for them to pull the plug or put the club up for sale, whereas at Bolton and most other clubs their future is wholly dependent on the wishes and condition of one man.

Don't think I really need to say what I'm thinking about the first bold quote. Though talking "after" rather than "before".

As for 2nd don't know really an accident (and sale to someone like Seneca) might have been more likely if it was just 1 family member!

Right, well I must have misread.

I'm not happy with them no, and best case scenario is Venky's selling us to a Billionaire who doesn't mind losing money. But then, one of those that wants to buy BRFC is as rare as rocking horse dung as if Venky's leave tomorrow we need someone with deep pockets to plug the gaps. I feel like I've said all this before anyway.

In the Championship it would be extremely rare yes. That's another major reason I was worried about eventual relegation under previous owners. I knew then in the event of relegation it would be far more difficult. The PL would be different though FUP wouldn't make it easier.

[yoda]

So £104.2 million debt of which £87 million is owned by the Venkies.

i.e. £17.2 million external debt.

Just making a play off place would clear that.

[tomphil]

Bank will probably be happy to run an overdraft like that whilst there is still one or two players who might be saleable and the overall value of the club/land/assets.

It'll be getting stretched though like it did under the trust when we had to have a big sale every few years. Am I right in thinking the bank debt has gone up quite a bit since the last accs ? How do they keep a cap on that now without the cushion of regular parachute instalments I wonder.

Player sales again probably.

Good stuff JH .Thanks for pulling all that together in language even I can grasp.

Basically as I see it, the cost cutting isn't doing much more than match the fall in income so the grind towards a sensible ratio is still some way off. Therefore, how the hell do they cope with giving Lambert a war chest this Summer and the pressure that would have to put on wages? Would that not send us back in the opposite direction and hurtling towards FFP embargo again?

As for selling this Club, I recall one of the Ian's (Battersby I think it was) saying the Club was unbuyable or unsaleable (same thing I think?) and with debts at that level and reading your account JH, I see what he means. Who the hell would pay £100mill to buy something that turns over £22.4mill and loses money for fun?

Venkys have proper screwed us to point unless they GIVE it to the Trust then it goes bust there and then. Even then the Trust would never be able to provide enough money to run it for more than about 3 days at that rate.

I was hanging my hat on a summer spend to get us back up there and by sound of it so is PL .Now I don't see how that happens and am getting more depressed by the minute .

Continue a sell to buy/pay the bills policy and continue treading water whilst hoping Lambo can reinvest in wages/loans/frees wisely enough to give us a chance.

[JC4LAB]

Aye. So these accounts would still include Rhodes, Cairney, Gestede, Dunn, Robinson, King, etc. (while plus our loan wages, Akpan, Guthre, Ward, Bennett, Jackson this year...) and won't include the £20M+ in transfer fees we've received since. Plus hopefully our payoffs to the likes of Givet, Vukcevic, etc. will have run out by now... (while the likes of Best and Kean may still be draining the accounts now, hurray)

Would be interesting if someone with too much time on their hands could put together a times series of the key numbers from the Rovers accounts over the past 4-5 years... Would give an idea of how Rovers are projecting...

Lots of do this on the web.

Company check.com for looking at Rovers and money control .com for Venkys..are interesting .but as said already..be aware of the limitations of accounts information before ringing the samaritans...The debt is nearly all to Venkys.Aint seen their accounts but On paper Man City and Chelsea maybe similar..with the owners prepared and more than able to fund operating losses..Venkys were sold to us as three times richer than Jack walker..but their business requires lots of capital investment and shareholders want more and more.so these will come first

[tomphil]

Whilst the V's must have the means or credit to fund all this the cautionary warning signs of the 'it's ok most of the debt is to the owners' scenario flashes clearly over Horwich way.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

I just wonder who these people are who can work their way through a £100 million+ 'investment' and still not see the need for a strong, independent board of directors at the club.

Nearly six years on and the question of all questions still remains unanswered.

So much money spent to achieve abject failure...it beggars belief.

The debt would have to be written off,as others have stated that amount owed is simply unpayable.

The crazy world of the Venkys rolls on.

[Mercer]

Not sure if anyone has picked this up but on 15 Feb. 2016, Venkys London Limited (Rovers' holding company) issued further shares to the value of £1,085,000 taking number of shares issued to £123,957,575.

It would be a reasonable assumption to make that these funds are to help Rovers with cash flow as this is the way Venkys have financially supported Rovers over the years. If this is the case, and given the fact that M'boro are supposed to have made a substantial up front payment for Rhodes, then the timing (so soon after the Rhodes' receipts) and the relatively small amount (less than 1% of issued share capital) could be a cause for concern - is Rovers' cash position that tight ?

I think things are far from stable and tranquil in Ewood's corridors.

[TBTF]

Not sure if anyone has picked this up but on 15 Feb. 2016, Venkys London Limited (Rovers' holding company) issued further shares to the value of £1,085,000 taking number of shares issued to £123,957,575.

It would be a reasonable assumption to make that these funds are to help Rovers with cash flow as this is the way Venkys have financially supported Rovers over the years. If this is the case, and given the fact that M'boro are supposed to have made a substantial up front payment for Rhodes, then the timing (so soon after the Rhodes' receipts) and the relatively small amount (less than 1% of issued share capital) could be a cause for concern - is Rovers' cash position that tight ?

I think things are far from stable and tranquil in Ewood's corridors.

Mercer, would the tactic of keep changing their debt to equity not be an ongoing process every so often to keep us inside the FFp rules and to keep us out of embargo? Just a thought, I might be miles off and bow to your superior knowledge.

[Mercer]

Mercer, would the tactic of keep changing their debt to equity not be an ongoing process every so often to keep us inside the FFp rules and to keep us out of embargo? Just a thought, I might be miles off and bow to your superior knowledge.

This would not impact on FFP rules at this time of year nor is it relevant to debt / equity.

The Rovers' accounts will just show an increase in the amounts owed to the parent undertaking (Venkys London Limited) by the amount(s) loaned by VLL to Rovers.

[chaddyrovers]

Not sure if anyone has picked this up but on 15 Feb. 2016, Venkys London Limited (Rovers' holding company) issued further shares to the value of £1,085,000 taking number of shares issued to £123,957,575.

It would be a reasonable assumption to make that these funds are to help Rovers with cash flow as this is the way Venkys have financially supported Rovers over the years. If this is the case, and given the fact that M'boro are supposed to have made a substantial up front payment for Rhodes, then the timing (so soon after the Rhodes' receipts) and the relatively small amount (less than 1% of issued share capital) could be a cause for concern - is Rovers' cash position that tight ?

I think things are far from stable and tranquil in Ewood's corridors.

Mercerman, they were rumours of Boro not making the first payment until the summer to help us spend this summer?

[Mercer]

Mercerman, they were rumours of Boro not making the first payment until the summer to help us spend this summer?

The Rhodes' sale will be recorded in the accounts for 2015/16 (year end is 30 June) irrespective of when the cash is received. Any entity owing money to Rovers for a transaction in 2015/16 will be recorded as a debtor in the year end balance sheet.

[chaddyrovers]

The Rhodes' sale will be recorded in the accounts for 2015/16 (year end is 30 June) irrespective of when the cash is received. Any entity owing money to Rovers for a transaction in 2015/16 will be recorded as a debtor in the year end balance sheet.

Ok thanks Mercerman.

[tomphil]

Maybe the quick cash injection was just to cover loan fees and wages of the borrowed players in the absence of any instant incoming transfer cash. The Olsson money and any Rhodes deposit probably just went towards the general running costs, just like the rest of it will unless they keep injecting.

[VinjayV4]

Here's some breathtaking analysis from Kevin Gallacher...earth shattering insight. Just when the LT produce something half decent as well!

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/14394730.Blackburn_Rovers____latest_multi_million_pound_loss_underlines_need_for_club_to_return_to_Premier_League__says_ex_striker/?ref=rss

Clearly Seneca are still monitoring matters...

"What became absolutely clear was they see the manager of their subsidiaries as the person who runs that subsidiary and reports directly into Venky’s."

Right now presumably that means Suhail Pasha.

[J*B]

Meanwhile, over in the land of sleeping with sisters - the Dingledome has posted a profit of 30.1m.

[Athlete]

Hope to God I'm proved wrong but this is only heading one way unless were promoted as in yesterday or next season very very latest

[tomphil]

Meanwhile, over in the land of sleeping with sisters - the Dingledome has posted a profit of 30.1m.

Still no plastic seats or an away concourse fit for human habitation in sight though.

[ABBEY]

Hope to God I'm proved wrong but this is only heading one way unless were promoted as in yesterday or next season very very latest

said it all along pal..although vinjay says im obsessed .

[VinjayV4]

said it all along pal..although vinjay says im obsessed .

Well you are obsessed with Venkys and rightly so. I don't disagree with your opinions on them. As I said on other thread when it comes to obsessions with "pet subjects" we are similar.

[JHRover]

Option 1 - Venkys continue as they have since the day they arrived at the club - keep on meeting their financial obligations, paying the wages, paying the bills, keeping the club going, seeing 'debt' to the parent company steadily increase every year whilst continuing attempts to sort the club finances out.

Option 2 - Venkys decide they can't or won't fund the club anymore - the end of shareholder funding means the club then very quickly heads towards administration due to losses of more than £1 million a month - Venkys lose control of their 'baby' and suffer the side effects of not meeting their financial obligations, which I anticipate for a proud established Indian family business that isn't going to be popular.

Option 3 - Venkys decide that they are going to try and sell the club - highly unlikely to happen quickly or with the club in the Championship losing money at £1 million a month unless they stumble across a billionaire who has no problem losing a lot of money. They would likely need to give the club away whilst writing off the £87 million owed to the parent company, because they won't be getting that back from anyone. Even if the club was debt free and given away they would still need to find owners with a lot of money to spend on running costs and improving the squad. In the meantime they could sell off everything possible to raise as much money as possible. Marshall, Hanley and Duffy might fetch £10 million, maybe another £10 million at most for land that could be sold for development.

Not sure how many other options there really are other than those 3. Does anyone know of any realistic options other than a) continuation of the last few years administration or c) sale of club/handover of club?

[yoda]

said it all along pal..although vinjay says im obsessed .

Well you are obsessed with Venkys and rightly so. I don't disagree with your opinions on them. As I said on other thread when it comes to obsessions with "pet subjects" we are similar.

I would contact your lawyer ABBEY

[JAL]

Hope to God I'm proved wrong but this is only heading one way unless were promoted as in yesterday or next season very very latest

If theyre reporting last years bad news with this year isnt any better it looks like it's time to stand back, watch it fall and try and pick up the pieces as quickly as possible thereafter.

[Biddy]

Still no plastic seats or an away concourse fit for human habitation in sight though.

Aye, But they have paid off ALL of their debt with the profit and have put back in a further £10m to improve the ground and other facilities, still leaving them with £10m profit.