[Archived] 9.30Pm Tonight - New Social Media Hashtag

[Dreams of 1995]

Nope that article is being done by Venkat Ananth (@venkatananth) he actually finished it weeks ago and was ready for publication. However suddenly his editor got cold feet (the day after he reached out to Venky's for a comment). I wonder why........

Anyhow I believe that Venkat is about to leave that particular publication and as it his article he is going to publish it elsewhere once he has left.

Every time I think my opinion of Venky's couldn't get any lower somebody else throws a story out that just bamboozles me. What must have been said for an editor to suddenly turn his back on a story that he has clearly sanctioned?

This is great news though. I have no doubt they read the Times of India, or at least some of their business friends will, and this will be a great source of embarrassment for the dipshit trio.

https://twitter.com/hijamTOIThis is the twitter of the reporting journo btw.

[PeteJD13]

lets just hope this little ripple builds into a wave, its the only way I can see them selling is pressure back home

[Glosrover]

http://m.timesofindia.com/sports/football/epl/top-stories/VENKYSOUT-Fans-want-Indian-owners-to-leave-Blackburn-Rovers/articleshow/53867212.cms

at least something start to happen india news too, up the rovers!

tried to comment on this but wants a personal email...........just in case anyone else fancies commenting.

I tried originally to get the comment through under the email venkysout@thedouble.com would have been nice if it would have let me

[alexanders]

tried to comment on this but wants a personal email...........just in case anyone else fancies commenting.

I tried originally to get the comment through under the email venkysout@thedouble.com would have been nice if it would have let me

the email is just for verification

[Stuart]

Every time I think my opinion of Venky's couldn't get any lower somebody else throws a story out that just bamboozles me. What must have been said for an editor to suddenly turn his back on a story that he has clearly sanctioned?

Hmmm. Let me think...

[lsp82]

Every time I think my opinion of Venky's couldn't get any lower somebody else throws a story out that just bamboozles me. What must have been said for an editor to suddenly turn his back on a story that he has clearly sanctioned?

This is great news though. I have no doubt they read the Times of India, or at least some of their business friends will, and this will be a great source of embarrassment for the dipshit trio.

https://twitter.com/hijamTOIThis is the twitter of the reporting journo btw.

Just sent a few tweets to the guy about the article and how more is needed also that if he wants the leaked docs

[broadsword]

Put the fight in their backyard and make the bustards squirm!

[1arC]

Just sent a few tweets to the guy about the article and how more is needed also that if he wants the leaked docs

I have a feeling he is about to inherit a load of English followers.

[PeteJD13]

we still have fans defending venkys on FB groups saying the sale was needed to help us with FFP! they would blindly follow what they do without question

[K-Hod]

we still have fans defending venkys on FB groups saying the sale was needed to help us with FFP! they would blindly follow what they do without question

There are some thick swines about, there really are. They can't even process what the common demoninator has been in the last six years.

[broadsword]

Jesus wept.

I think if venkys asked some of them top jump into chicken mincing machine they'd do it

[JBiz]

There are some thick swines about, there really are. They can't even process what the common demoninator has been in the last six years.

Could say the same about the "trousering" or asset stripping notion - those views are ignorant of the ridiculous contracts we've signed, tens of millions wasted on managers, loss of prem revenue and final parachute payment, decrease in match day revenue etc etc!

[1arC]

Could say the same about the "trousering" or asset stripping notion - those views are ignorant of the ridiculous contracts we've signed, tens of millions wasted on managers, loss of prem revenue and final parachute payment, decrease in match day revenue etc etc!

I guess people who think that trousering and asset stripping has been going on, may think, it isn't just the players who have benefited, from the ridiculous contracts. Think of the Rochina Agents fee and also the wages for players who hardly ever featured. Myles, Etuhu, Best, Orr, Murphy, Goodwillie,and many more. Venky's may not have been complicit in this, but who can be certain?

[K-Hod]

Could say the same about the "trousering" or asset stripping notion - those views are ignorant of the ridiculous contracts we've signed, tens of millions wasted on managers, loss of prem revenue and final parachute payment, decrease in match day revenue etc etc!

You reckon, mate? They're selling anything of value and not replacing it adequately. I'd say that describes the actions of the last year or so to a tee, wouldn't you??

As JH Rover said before, our levels of debt shouldn't be anywhere near what they were. Our squad is paper-thin and we've recouped £25 Million in sales over that time.

[JBiz]

You reckon, mate? They're selling anything of value and not replacing it adequately. I'd say that describes the actions of the last year or so to a tee, wouldn't you??

As JH Rover said before, our levels of debt shouldn't be anywhere near what they were. Our squad is paper-thin and we've recouped £25 Million in sales over that time.

When a business is running at 150% wage to turnover after leaving the top division, and then signs a load of ridiculous contracts to push it even higher while losing half its revenue, what happens?

Debt.

I'm in agreement and in no doubt that people benefitted from this, but not those footing the cost, not the squad value and most certainly not the fans!

1arc, I'm just as certain as many are that we've suffered hugely after becoming infested by hangers on, but I don't think that selling players now is for anything other than the reality of the debts. If the owners don't want to put more cash in, that's a result of the debt IMO.

Asset stripping is normally (within my small grasp of business) done by companies buying other companies in peril, selling off assets to cover the debt of spending on the business. I think it makes us sound a bit foolish using the term for Venkys.

We've all been ripped off, and theyve stopped the tap. There is some evidence that they had an agreement that was against FA rules with an agent, and also a huge conflict of interests - but none of them buying us to "raid" assets and pocket cash. Infact the evidence on finance points to the club as being a huge burden to them and their companies financially!

[1arC]

Just a thought but if the owners (Directors) were paid wages bonuses, similar to, or greater than some of the players and the agents, all the directors may have had a few million already. I have no evidence of this at all, but imagine £50K per week for Director A for example. That's £2.5 Million each year and over 6 years that would be £15 Million. If we had say 5 directors all doing that, then we have £75 Million on their wages. The directors post losses for their business of £100 million over that period and then suggest that they MUST get that reduced or paid off ASAP so sell the assets to do so. Obviously they want to show their customers, that diluting the product is a must, as this debt cannot continue indefinitely. It isn't that far fetched I don't think that is it?

[K-Hod]

JBiz- I think you're over-thinking it mate. They're stripping us of our assets, ergo- asset stripping......

[JBiz]

JBiz- I think you're over-thinking it mate. They're stripping us of our assets, ergo- asset stripping......

Asset stripping has a meaning mate, using it as a definition is "under-thinking" haha, that's the point.

They've screwed us over totally, I know that. Any protest should use well thought out and lines with evidence! Obsessing over them bleeding us without evidence diminishes our cause IMO.

[JHRover]

It really is a simple theory.

We've brought in £30 million+ in the last 12 months and spent diddly squat in return. We've got the big earners out of the club and are now down to a rump of 18 players.

IF that money is going towards BRFC, then it can only go on three things:

1) Re-investment into the club for new players and improvements

2) To cover current and future running costs to spare Venkys the need to do it

3) To pay off debts built up in previous years and reduce the debt levels down to a better level

We can safely say that option 1 hasn't happened, clearly this is what Paul Lambert was led to believe what would be happening.

So its either 2 or 3 or a bit of both.

If its option 2 then when the next set of accounts come out we should be posting a profit. Why? In our last accounts we lost £17 million, which included big wages and pay-offs which will now be gone. Even with the additional £8 million reduction from parachute money ending, it is impossible that losses will reach the amount of £30 million+ that we have received. So there is a profit. I know the club is making operating losses, as every club will in this league, but whatever the figure is it cannot be more than the money we've received from player sales.

If its option 3, and there's a good reason to think it might be if the Bank of India are applying pressure, and the £30 million+ has been funnelled into paying off debts, then it is only logical to expect the debt level to drop. Our last accounts posted debt at £104.2 million, with £87 million of that owed to Venkys in an interest free loan, so presumably the remaining £17 million is the BOI debt.

If the Bank want their money back then they must have long since had it. So in theory that element of the debt will be gone in the next accounts, or if Venkys are taking it to cover their debts then that 87 million should be dropping down to 57 million.

If the next accounts come out and our debt levels have risen and we've still posted a loss then something is very wrong.

[broadsword]

Option 4) Transfer proceeds find their way into offshore bank accounts and are ring-fenced as VLL is lumbered with all the debt ready for jettisoning.

[1arC]

It really is a simple theory.

We've brought in £30 million+ in the last 12 months and spent diddly squat in return. We've got the big earners out of the club and are now down to a rump of 18 players.

IF that money is going towards BRFC, then it can only go on three things:

1) Re-investment into the club for new players and improvements

2) To cover current and future running costs to spare Venkys the need to do it

3) To pay off debts built up in previous years and reduce the debt levels down to a better level

We can safely say that option 1 hasn't happened, clearly this is what Paul Lambert was led to believe what would be happening.

So its either 2 or 3 or a bit of both.

If its option 2 then when the next set of accounts come out we should be posting a profit. Why? In our last accounts we lost £17 million, which included big wages and pay-offs which will now be gone. Even with the additional £8 million reduction from parachute money ending, it is impossible that losses will reach the amount of £30 million+ that we have received. So there is a profit. I know the club is making operating losses, as every club will in this league, but whatever the figure is it cannot be more than the money we've received from player sales.

If its option 3, and there's a good reason to think it might be if the Bank of India are applying pressure, and the £30 million+ has been funnelled into paying off debts, then it is only logical to expect the debt level to drop. Our last accounts posted debt at £104.2 million, with £87 million of that owed to Venkys in an interest free loan, so presumably the remaining £17 million is the BOI debt.

If the Bank want their money back then they must have long since had it. So in theory that element of the debt will be gone in the next accounts, or if Venkys are taking it to cover their debts then that 87 million should be dropping down to 57 million.

If the next accounts come out and our debt levels have risen and we've still posted a loss then something is very wrong.

A very good post that. I will throw just one spanner in the works though. What if we are still paying some of the former players and managers wages, form their time here? Rumours are that is the case and in addition to that, we may still be paying agents a bit and maybe even his son. Makes the eyes water more than if you were live on sky sports that, but it is a very real possibility.

[philipl]

I've read the contract but I can't see how you come to that conclusion. The bonus was millions more if we finished in the top 12 of the prem. I agree that there should never have been any reference to the third tier of football when we were in the top flight but let's not try to rewrite what's in the contract. The manager would not have been better off with us on league 1.

Of course it is totally normal for a Manager to achieve two successive relegations and have a wage and bonus structure in place for that eventuality.....

Seriously??????????????????????????

[Ricky]

I'm stating that his contract was rewarded more for staying in the top flight. The bonus was higher for staying in the top flight was it not???????????????????????????

(My question mark key works too Phil)

I wouldn't know what is normal in a football managers contract. Please advise as you must have seen more than me.

[yoda]

I'm stating that his contract was rewarded more for staying in the top flight. The bonus was higher for staying in the top flight was it not???????????????????????????

(My question mark key works too Phil)

I wouldn't know what is normal in a football managers contract. Please advise as you must have seen more than me.

Normally they get sacked when relegated

[glen9mullan]

Forget the bonus for performance / promotion, relegation.

Its all about the £1.6 million additional salary per year which is non result related,

Also I hope the bean paid back the club loan he had