[Archived] Scunthorpe United v ROVERS

[Brian-Potter]

I think that after what we've witnessed over the past few years is the reason that people are genuinely excited by us winning four games on the bounce. Let's face it we've had nothing to be positive about, so this all be it small improvement is a glimmer of hope in what's been a terrible few years. Four wins isn't going to change what's happened and to be honest nor is promotion back to the champ but it's a swing back in the right direction. For me, the proof will be what happens if we are to get promoted, what strategy we employ for the championship.

With regards to Venkys, I've posted on this many times. None of what they have done makes any sense at all, hence why there are an abundance of conspiracies doing the rounds on such a regular basis. The one thing they aren't guilty of is asset stripping. For this to be the case then money would have to be channelled out of the club and back up the ownership chain, which in our case would be to VLL (which owns BRFC) and then onto VH Group which is the ultimate controlling party by virtue of its ownership of VLL. By studdying the accounts since Venkys came along this is one thing that hasn't happened, no money as left BRFC in the direction of VLL or VH Group. The club doesn't pay a dividend to VLL which would be the usual way to extract funds from a subsidiary to a holding company (although technically the club should be to making a profit before paying a dividend which clearly isn't the case). The other thing to consider is that the club has made no repayment to VLL in relation to loans provided and nor do these loans bear any interest. So that really raises the question we keep coming back to, what exactly are Venkys getting out of this. The only logical explanation is that they are using losses incurred by the club and the loans they provide to the club to offset against profits made by VH Group for tax reasons. It's some length to go to though if that's purely the reason.

[Athlete]

13 minutes ago, Brian-Potter said:

I think that after what we've witnessed over the past few years is the reason that people are genuinely excited by us winning four games on the bounce. Let's face it we've had nothing to be positive about, so this all be it small improvement is a glimmer of hope in what's been a terrible few years. Four wins isn't going to change what's happened and to be honest nor is promotion back to the champ but it's a swing back in the right direction. For me, the proof will be what happens if we are to get promoted, what strategy we employ for the championship.

With regards to Venkys, I've posted on this many times. None of what they have done makes any sense at all, hence why there are an abundance of conspiracies doing the rounds on such a regular basis. The one thing they aren't guilty of is asset stripping. For this to be the case then money would have to be channelled out of the club and back up the ownership chain, which in our case would be to VLL (which owns BRFC) and then onto VH Group which is the ultimate controlling party by virtue of its ownership of VLL. By studdying the accounts since Venkys came along this is one thing that hasn't happened, no money as left BRFC in the direction of VLL or VH Group. The club doesn't pay a dividend to VLL which would be the usual way to extract funds from a subsidiary to a holding company (although technically the club should be to making a profit before paying a dividend which clearly isn't the case). The other thing to consider is that the club has made no repayment to VLL in relation to loans provided and nor do these loans bear any interest. So that really raises the question we keep coming back to, what exactly are Venkys getting out of this. The only logical explanation is that they are using losses incurred by the club and the loans they provide to the club to offset against profits made by VH Group for tax reasons. It's some length to go to though if that's purely the reason.

It is a length to go through but unfortunately large corporations do it.. 

As they're really is no other explanation without going down the conspiracy route 

[Bigdoggsteel]

They thought they could buy the club, run it on the advice of agents and maintain or even improve on where the club was. Instead they were hoodwinked and it had been one mess after another. They knew nothing about football and didn't know where to get trustworthy advice. 

It looks like things are swinging back in the right direction, but whether they will ever be good owners, I'm not optimistic. 

Mowbray looks to have been the wise head at the time we needed it. If we get back to the Championship and I was him, I would be laying public ultimatums on the need for funding to enable us to be competitive, otherwise he will walk. His stock will be high and he could leave here with his head held high if they started pricking around. 

 

[tomphil]

If I could hire a forensic accountant i'd start by asking him to examine the constant large flow out via wages for every employee, who they are, what they do, basically the annual wage bill. Second would be the regular recurring agents payments, fees then that of managers directors, coaches and players payoffs given the eye watering turnover of staff. 

All this from the very beginning as i'd like to know where a possible percentage of all that money found it's way to when it passes through the club from the top (India ? ) to the bottom.

If that passed all checks I might look at them in a slightly different light but i'd wager it wouldn't but we'll never know. Such a truly astonishing flow of cash is bound draw questions in some quarters.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

'From Salzburg to Scunny'

Would make a cracking protest t-shirt! 

[Brian-Potter]

50 minutes ago, tomphil said:

If I could hire a forensic accountant i'd start by asking him to examine the constant large flow out via wages for every employee, who they are, what they do, basically the annual wage bill. Second would be the regular recurring agents payments, fees then that of managers directors, coaches and players payoffs given the eye watering turnover of staff. 

All this from the very beginning as i'd like to know where a possible percentage of all that money found it's way to when it passes through the club from the top (India ? ) to the bottom.

If that passed all checks I might look at them in a slightly different light but i'd wager it wouldn't but we'll never know. Such a truly astonishing flow of cash is bound draw questions in some quarters.

The payments to players and agents certainly is worth questioning, although exactly what befenfit to Venkys themselves for that isn't clear, for me that would point to them being badly advised.

With regards to something irregular  going on with people on the payroll I think that's a non starter, the implications and potential involvement of HMRC in that side of things makes me think there's little going on there. That's the last thing they would want and for me way too obvious.

In my opinion there appears to be no logical answer.

[arbitro]

2 hours ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

'From Salzburg to Scunny'

Would make a cracking protest t-shirt! 

And Feyenoord to Fleetwood.

[JBiz]

8 minutes ago, arbitro said:

And Feyenoord to Fleetwood.

Rotterdam to Rotherham 

[ChrisPriceBaldSpot]

3 hours ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

'From Salzburg to Scunny'

Would make a cracking protest t-shirt! 

Or James Bond film. 

[Leonard Venkhater]

3 hours ago, Brian-Potter said:

The payments to players and agents certainly is worth questioning, although exactly what befenfit to Venkys themselves for that isn't clear, for me that would point to them being badly advised.

With regards to something irregular  going on with people on the payroll I think that's a non starter, the implications and potential involvement of HMRC in that side of things makes me think there's little going on there. That's the last thing they would want and for me way too obvious.

In my opinion there appears to be no logical answer.

I wonder what proportion of the so called loss is actually payments to agents?

What if agents are hidden partners, so their wedge(s) (signing on percentage, wage percentage and of course pay off percentage) is secretly divvied up with the not so hidden front men?

(Yes, I know ..what if my auntie etc?)

[tomphil]

20 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

I wonder what proportion of the so called loss is actually payments to agents?

What if agents are hidden partners, so their wedge(s) (signing on percentage, wage percentage and of course pay off percentage) is secretly divvied up with the not so hidden front men?

(Yes, I know ..what if my auntie etc?)

Wanna borrow some foil ?  

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

I wonder what proportion of the so called loss is actually payments to agents?

What if agents are hidden partners, so their wedge(s) (signing on percentage, wage percentage and of course pay off percentage) is secretly divvied up with the not so hidden front men?

(Yes, I know ..what if my auntie etc?)

Thing is, using that chain of thought gives me this scenario;

The "hidden" partners and/or owners put in 100% of all money above turnover through borrowing and creditors, to take say 10% (average agent fee) on their expenditure back...

The money skimmed wouldn't cover the borrowing rates on that basis. Ofcourse we probably had a higher than average agency pay but still isn't covering the investment, if it meets the interest. I feel the tax loss suggestion could have more legs than this, but the most obvious scenario to me was always "billionaire naivety meets silver tongued con men"

[Leonard Venkhater]

23 minutes ago, Biz said:

Thing is, using that chain of thought gives me this scenario;

The "hidden" partners and/or owners put in 100% of all money above turnover through borrowing and creditors, to take say 10% (average agent fee) on their expenditure back...

The money skimmed wouldn't cover the borrowing rates on that basis. Ofcourse we probably had a higher than average agency pay but still isn't covering the investment, if it meets the interest. I feel the tax loss suggestion could have more legs than this, but the most obvious scenario to me was always "billionaire naivety meets silver tongued con men"

Mine is not a firm diagnosis, but a kind of working hypothesis.I don't understand why they are still here.

Naivety/silver tongued conmen = "badly advised" and I just don't buy it.

How many times can you make the same "mistake", even if you are an Indian version of Benny from Crossroads?

In particular, the Cheston holiday/Warnock/Coyle thing sent a chill wind to blow away any hopeful complacency on my part. Then. that Stokes deal was all too reminiscent of previous, troubling transfer activity. The ghosts are still here...or were then....

[Speedie's Gonna Get Ya]

37 minutes ago, Biz said:

Thing is, using that chain of thought gives me this scenario;

The "hidden" partners and/or owners put in 100% of all money above turnover through borrowing and creditors, to take say 10% (average agent fee) on their expenditure back...

The money skimmed wouldn't cover the borrowing rates on that basis. Ofcourse we probably had a higher than average agency pay but still isn't covering the investment, if it meets the interest. I feel the tax loss suggestion could have more legs than this, but the most obvious scenario to me was always "billionaire naivety meets silver tongued con men"

Agree with latter. As daft is it still seems.

[47er]

What resonates with me (negatively) is that there are fans just aching to believe that Venkys have "learned their lesson" or "played a blinder" on the back of 4 wins ON the pitch.

What happens on the pitch is down to TM and the players, but its what happens off the pitch that really counts.

Loan players who do  well for us this season will either go back to their owner club or be sold to the benefit of their owner club. Our players who do well will be sold if they can command a fee to fund next season's running expenses. This is why they continue to fund the Academy.

There will be nothing to sustain a further promotion bid should we manage promotion this season.We will continue to yo-yo between lower leagues forever under Venkys.

Venkys have not changed, will never change and we will suffer as long as they stay. There is no more substance to them than any Ponzi scheme.

There, got it off my chest!

[Speedie's Gonna Get Ya]

15 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

That's not Evan's improving, that's the quality of the opposition decreasing, a lot.

I think if Evan's or Smallwood are out with Injury Whittingham is the first choice to fill in, just to justify the signing if nothing else.

If you are drawing a comparison between the Championship & L1, there is some truth in that. His fitness level and pace off the mark to close down have increased and I see continual improvement.

If you were referring to Scunthorpe as lesser opposition, would have to disagree.

Our steady and continual improvement is based on being hard to beat first. Not sure  Whittingham brings that. To play him solely to justify him joining if it's the wrong thing for the overall would be crazy...surely?

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

13 hours ago, 47er said:

What resonates with me (negatively) is that there are fans just aching to believe that Venkys have "learned their lesson" or "played a blinder" on the back of 4 wins ON the pitch.

What happens on the pitch is down to TM and the players, but its what happens off the pitch that really counts.

Loan players who do  well for us this season will either go back to their owner club or be sold to the benefit of their owner club. Our players who do well will be sold if they can command a fee to fund next season's running expenses. This is why they continue to fund the Academy.

There will be nothing to sustain a further promotion bid should we manage promotion this season.We will continue to yo-yo between lower leagues forever under Venkys.

Venkys have not changed, will never change and we will suffer as long as they stay. There is no more substance to them than any Ponzi scheme.

There, got it off my chest!

Which fans? Not to spoil your point but  I've not heard any fans say that. 

[JacknOry]

45 minutes ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

Which fans? Not to spoil your point but  I've not heard any fans say that. 

Oh there are plenty of them about - not on here though.

[Gav]

1 hour ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

Which fans? Not to spoil your point but  I've not heard any fans say that. 

Rev said it to me on here only last week.

He alluded to the fact that with the owners retaining TM, keeping quite, and providing funds, could mean they've learnt their lesson.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, 47er said:

What resonates with me (negatively) is that there are fans just aching to believe that Venkys have "learned their lesson" or "played a blinder" on the back of 4 wins ON the pitch.

There's a difference between aching to believe, and believing. It does seem like they've done things this summer to indicate the normal running of a club. Whether they hold that up is, of course, a different matter, but I've got to be happier with this summer than any previous under them. It feels cleaner. I really hope that's the case.

[Athlete]

2 hours ago, Phil T said:

There's a difference between aching to believe, and believing. It does seem like they've done things this summer to indicate the normal running of a club. Whether they hold that up is, of course, a different matter, but I've got to be happier with this summer than any previous under them. It feels cleaner. I really hope that's the case.

The only thing cleaner is the cash after it comes out the washing machine.. 

Lets just enjoy the winning run whilst it lasts even if it's over the mighty Bradford the franchise MK Dons the legendary Rochdale and those footballing giants Scunthorpe 

[47er]

8 hours ago, Phil T said:

There's a difference between aching to believe, and believing. It does seem like they've done things this summer to indicate the normal running of a club. Whether they hold that up is, of course, a different matter, but I've got to be happier with this summer than any previous under them. It feels cleaner. I really hope that's the case.

So its a normally run club eh, with a Board of Directors,and executives versed in football directly responsible to them? And Parson thinks so too!

You've just validated my original post!

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, 47er said:

You've just validated my original post!

Absolutely I have. I ache to believe they've changed. Is there something wrong with that?

[47er]

No---nothing at all with that bit! 

[Parsonblue]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

So its a normally run club eh, with a Board of Directors,and executives versed in football directly responsible to them? And Parson thinks so too!

You've just validated my original post!

I agree with Phil that this summer things have been done differently.  Losing Steele and Lowe has been no loss whilst retaining Mulgrew and Lenihan - against what many expected - has been a real position.  To think, there were some on here who said we wouldn't make a signing until those two were sold.  No one is pretending that all is right with the world, but at least we have made a move - be it ever so slight - in the right direction.  Life is far too short to be miserable all the time.