Venkys London Ltd accounts

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, KentExile said:

By 'that loophole', I meant selling club infrastructure to subsidiary companies.

As I said, I'm not 100% on this (I'm sure someone will be along shortly to either confirm this or tell me I'm wrong though) , but if that loophole has been closed, we cannot sell further sites to other Venky owned corporations

Would it not come under the following part of the regulation?
 

1.1.8  Associated Party Transaction means any transaction, whether directly or indirectly, between a Club and an Associated Party. In considering whether a transaction is an Associated Party Transaction, The League will direct its attention to the substance of the transaction and not merely the legal form.

Which, as far as I understand it, means such transactions are allowed but they will be scrutinised more closely to ensure they are for the true market value.

[KentExile]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

Would it not come under the following part of the regulation?
 

1.1.8  Associated Party Transaction means any transaction, whether directly or indirectly, between a Club and an Associated Party. In considering whether a transaction is an Associated Party Transaction, The League will direct its attention to the substance of the transaction and not merely the legal form.

Which, as far as I understand it, means such transactions are allowed but they will be scrutinised more closely to ensure they are for the true market value.

I am more than happy to defer to your knowledge in these situations

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, KentExile said:

I am more than happy to defer to your knowledge in these situations

Sounds dangerous to me 😁

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Would it not come under the following part of the regulation?
 

1.1.8  Associated Party Transaction means any transaction, whether directly or indirectly, between a Club and an Associated Party. In considering whether a transaction is an Associated Party Transaction, The League will direct its attention to the substance of the transaction and not merely the legal form.

Which, as far as I understand it, means such transactions are allowed but they will be scrutinised more closely to ensure they are for the true market value.

Specific rule changes regarding property sales to connected parties were brought in which is why this was a one-off opportunity.

APT’s typically relate to non-property commercial deals e.g. inflated shirt sponsorship deals.

[wilsdenrover]

Thank you for the clarification.

I’m presuming its part (b) of the following?:

1.1.4  Adjusted Earnings Before Tax means Earnings Before Tax adjusted to exclude:

  (a)  costs (or estimated costs as the case may be) in respect of the following:

   (i)  depreciation and/or impairment of tangible fixed assets (net of any capital grants);

   (ii)  amortisation or impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets (but excluding amortisation and/or impairment of the costs of players’ registrations);

   (iii)  Women’s Football Expenditure;

   (iv)  Youth Development Expenditure;

   (v)  Community Development Expenditure; and

   (vi)  in respect of Seasons 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 only, COVID-19 Costs; and

  (b)  with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset.

 

See @KentExile I told you it was dangerous to defer to my knowledge 😁

Edited June 29, 2023 by wilsdenrover

[KentExile]

7 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Thank you for the clarification.

See @KentExile I told you it was dangerous to defer to my knowledge 😁

Oh? I was right on a finance question?

I feel all proud of myself

[wilsdenrover]

13 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Specific rule changes regarding property sales to connected parties were brought in which is why this was a one-off opportunity.

APT’s typically relate to non-property commercial deals e.g. inflated shirt sponsorship deals.

I’ve edited my previous post to include what I think must be the rule you’re referring to.

It looks like it covers the sale of tangible assets whether that’s to a connected party or not.

Edited June 29, 2023 by wilsdenrover

[tomphil]

If it was being done to steel a march on rivals and get money to spend then fair enough but to use a fixed asset in that way to keep debt down i can't see the issue.

Each case should be judged on its own terms.

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

If it was being done to steel a march on rivals and get money to spend then fair enough but to use a fixed asset in that way to keep debt down i can't see the issue.

Each case should be judged on its own terms.

It was done to circumvent FFP rules (which were due to change).

It was a one-off chance to generate a profit to give more headroom to spend. Lots of other clubs had done similar deals e.g. Derby.

It was starting to become trendy & that’s why the loophole was closed. 

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

It was done to circumvent FFP rules (which were due to change).

It was a one-off chance to generate a profit to give more headroom to spend. Lots of other clubs had done similar deals e.g. Derby.

It was starting to become trendy & that’s why the loophole was closed. 

Derby were being naughty though .

[Herbie6590]

19 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Derby were being naughty though .

Derby invented a whole new way of valuing players…and stadiums…and training grounds 😆

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Herbie6590 said:

Derby invented a whole new way of valuing players…and stadiums…and training grounds 😆

I believe it was the ‘pulled out of their arse’ method 😁

[KentExile]

2 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Derby invented a whole new way of valuing players…and stadiums…and training grounds 😆

And they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids

[Upside Down]

11 hours ago, Butty said:

At least we have honourable owners…. 😂

What an absolute fucking drongo.

[RoverCanada]

15 hours ago, tomphil said:

If it was being done to steel a march on rivals and get money to spend then fair enough but to use a fixed asset in that way to keep debt down i can't see the issue.

Each case should be judged on its own terms.

Pretty sure it's how we avoided a transfer embargo in 2020/21... (and had decent room under FFP to work with the past couple years)

The Venky's 'debt' is all interest free (well, the bank overdraft they utilise for some reason costs about £500k of interest a year. Further digressing, but we also made £761k of interest on the £17.3m from the training ground as it sat in our accounts, so there was a rare net interest gain in 21/22...)

I suppose the negative after effect is we now have to book the cost of renting the training facility from Venky's (at fair market value of £356k/year...) as an ongoing operating expense...

Edited June 30, 2023 by RoverCanada

[wilsdenrover]

8 hours ago, RoverCanada said:

Pretty sure it's how we avoided a transfer embargo in 2020/21... (and had decent room under FFP to work with the past couple years)

The Venky's 'debt' is all interest free (well, the bank overdraft the utilise for some reason costs about £500k of interest a year. Further digressing, but we also made £761k of interest on the £17.3m from the training ground as it sat in our accounts, so there was a rare net interest gain in 21/22...)

I suppose the negative after effect is we now have to book the cost of renting the training facility from Venky's (at fair market value of £356k/year...) as an ongoing operating expense…

Do we claw any of that expense back through no longer having the costs of maintaining the training ground or is this still the club’s responsibility?

[unsall]

[unsall]

Just now, unsall said:

Busy family

[RoverCanada]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Do we claw any of that expense back through no longer having the costs of maintaining the training ground or is this still the club’s responsibility?

Possibly! I suppose it depends how that £356k/y 'fair market value' rent charge is calculated. You'd suppose that a 'true' private operator would essentially seek to bundle maintenance costs into a rental agreement with its only tenant.

[broadsword]

Good read this

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/jul/01/football-clubs-communities-fans-owners

 

One part stood out

 

"nobody should believe private equity or a state will have any compunction about abandoning a club once it has served its usefulness."

 

Just trying to imagine how we're useful to venkys boggles the mind. How can we stop being useful to venkys so that they kindly fuck off