Thursday deadline.

[Bigdoggsteel]

God, what I would give to be a fly on the wall for Tonys visit to India. 

[blueboy3333]

19 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Well that’s not borne out by the 2017 a/cs -  the 2018 may well be worse but I doubt by that much.

Some people may have equated accumulated losses of £225m with debt perhaps ? 

V’s total “investment” in BRFC equates to £147m of share capital plus the £95m loans - maybe that’s what has confused some ? I dunno, but debt (as at June 2017) is nowhere near £250m.

The £250m was mentioned by Phil L in the podcast. I didnt make it up! He phrased it as 'quarter of a billion'. Without listening to it again he may have said the venky's have so far put £250m into the club. He also said (I think) if they are putting money into the club as shares then they won't be able to get it back out. I have no idea what that means? Any idea?

[tomphil]

I'm not having it they've spewed 250 million on their Rovers venture without having a large whack back somewhere along the line, no way.

No wonder some people think it's a launderette.

[lraC]

15 minutes ago, tomphil said:

I'm not having it they've spewed 250 million on their Rovers venture without having a large whack back somewhere along the line, no way.

No wonder some people think it's a launderette.

It certainly doesn't make any sense, that's for sure.

[Bigdoggsteel]

The price of refusing to admit that you don't have a scobby doo what you are doing 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[Leonard Venkhater]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

God, what I would give to be a fly on the wall for Tonys visit to India. 

One thing  for certain, if you were a fly on the wall, you would not be on your own!

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

It certainly doesn't make any sense, that's for sure.

I could come up with a few things that would make as much sense as the old 'oh they are stupid, misguided or plain stubborn' theories that's for sure although there's an element of all those in the equation no doubt.

I don't want to put Biz off his dinner though so I won't bother

I will say though 250 million isn't stupid no one in this universe is capable of that, everything for a reason, as they say.

[Herbie6590]

3 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

The £250m was mentioned by Phil L in the podcast. I didnt make it up! He phrased it as 'quarter of a billion'. Without listening to it again he may have said the venky's have so far put £250m into the club. He also said (I think) if they are putting money into the club as shares then they won't be able to get it back out. I have no idea what that means? Any idea?

Ah right...Philip was referencing total investment - so Shares plus Loans - that’s the £250m, so that clears that up ??

Share capital is (kind of) permanent, loans are temporary. Under UK company law, it VERY difficult for a business owner to take money out of a business that’s been invested as share capital. It’s not impossible but the law prescribes specific circumstances so as to protect all shareholders in a business & creditors. 

Essentially we can be reassured by increasing share capital. We are of course almost wholly reliant on them to keep funding the business - whether through loans or shares. 

Shares is best, but interest free loans is pretty good 2nd best. 

 Either way, believe it or not, the bald facts are that their dalliance into English football has cost them £250m - that’s why I said on the pod that it was an expensive hobby.

Does that clarify  ?

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

I'm not having it they've spewed 250 million on their Rovers venture without having a large whack back somewhere along the line, no way.

No wonder some people think it's a launderette.

They really have spent £250m - that’s a public (& audited) fact. As for the second part - I don’t want to have to spend any money on libel lawyers ?

[tomphil]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

They really have spent £250m - that’s a public (& audited) fact. As for the second part - I don’t want to have to spend any money on libel lawyers ?

And all i'm saying is what has it been spent on, where has it all gone and where and what sources does it actually come from ?

All perfectly understandable questions for something that's a public (& audited) fact.

And they do wash kits at Ewood don't they ?

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

Ah right...Philip was referencing total investment - so Shares plus Loans - that’s the £250m, so that clears that up ??

Share capital is (kind of) permanent, loans are temporary. Under UK company law, it VERY difficult for a business owner to take money out of a business that’s been invested as share capital. It’s not impossible but the law prescribes specific circumstances so as to protect all shareholders in a business & creditors. 

Essentially we can be reassured by increasing share capital. We are of course almost wholly reliant on them to keep funding the business - whether through loans or shares. 

Shares is best, but interest free loans is pretty good 2nd best. 

Neither way, believe it or not, the bold facts are that their dalliance into English football has cost them £250m - that’s why I said on the pod that it was an expensive hobby.

Does that clarify  ?

It does. Thanks.

That just leaves the issue of how much they have made out of transfers and what has happened to that money.  It's probably not more than £40m but if that money has been used to finance the debt then that can be deducted from their 'investment', or to give it's correct term,  debt repayments.

Still, it's a very expensive hobby, and as has been said before the only way they will get any of that back is to finance a push for the Prem and get all the filthy SKY lucre. If they sell up they are essentially throwing all that money away because they wouldn't get ten bob for a club with that level of debt I wouldn't have thought.

[Herbie6590]

26 minutes ago, tomphil said:

And all i'm saying is what has it been spent on, where has it all gone and where and what sources does it actually come from ?

All perfectly understandable questions for something that's a public (& audited) fact.

And they do wash kits at Ewood don't they ?

Don’t forget that BRFC is just one of the Venky group companies. It’s relatively easy (albeit at a high level) to see where the money has come & gone for BRFC. But the V Group is a multi-national operation subject to lots of different legal frameworks, tax regimes, reporting regimes & so on....so short answer, it’s not easy to answer unless you are the Venky group auditors.

[Herbie6590]

18 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

It does. Thanks.

That just leaves the issue of how much they have made out of transfers and what has happened to that money.  It's probably not more than £40m but if that money has been used to finance the debt then that can be deducted from their 'investment', or to give it's correct term,  debt repayments.

Still, it's a very expensive hobby, and as has been said before the only way they will get any of that back is to finance a push for the Prem and get all the filthy SKY lucre. If they sell up they are essentially throwing all that money away because they wouldn't get ten bob for a club with that level of debt I wouldn't have thought.

Money from player sales is seen in the P&L as “Profit on disposal” e.g. £10m in the 2017 a/cs. That money is recycled in the business. So the £10m accounting profit meant the value of the business rose by £10m more than it would have. (This is a very simplistic argument and any accountants reading will be going “but...but...whatabout...” etc, but I’m trying to keep it high level for illustration.)

It’s important to acknowledge that this is accounting profit...so in other words, buy Player A for £1m sell him for £5m does not necessarily lead to an accounting profit of £4m - I could go on here...but I won’t ? I can easily get carried away with explanations of depreciation and net asset value....I think Philip made this point on the pod just in case people did the calculations for Gestede, Rhodes etc based on newspaper headlines of their sale fees.

 

[lraC]

40 minutes ago, tomphil said:

And all i'm saying is what has it been spent on, where has it all gone and where and what sources does it actually come from ?

All perfectly understandable questions for something that's a public (& audited) fact.

And they do wash kits at Ewood don't they ?

I know one "player" who trousered a chunk and he was better at washing kits than playing football. That signing could have been a simple mistake, but I don't think I''m Myles away thinking otherwise.

[Herbie6590]

Just now, lraC said:

I know one "player" who trousered a chunk and he was better at washing kits than playing football. That signing could have been a simple mistake, but I don't think I''m Myles away thinking otherwise.

...&  that will have contributed to a loss in the P&L which V’s will have to have funded either by increased share capital or loans.

Any agent fee had a similar impact on the P&L of BRFC. So not Myles away...?

[lraC]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

...&  that will have contributed to a loss in the P&L which V’s will have to have funded either by increased share capital or loans.

Any agent fee had a similar impact on the P&L of BRFC. So not Myles away...?

So Venkys simply funded lots of OTT signings in the first few years and increased the share capital, or loans. I wonder why they did that? Our first eleven weren't always a global eleven really, were they?

[Herbie6590]

Just now, lraC said:

So Venkys simply funded lots of OTT signings in the first few years and increased the share capital, or loans. I wonder why they did that? Our first eleven weren't always a global eleven really, were they?

They had no choice but to put money in else we would have been insolvent & players might not be keen to play if they’re not getting wages.  The interesting thing for me is how they fund it. Share capital implies permanence, bank lending less so, parent loans more so (but not as good as shares).

[tomphil]

Just now, lraC said:

So Venkys simply funded lots of OTT signings in the first few years and increased the share capital, or loans. I wonder why they did that? Our first eleven weren't always a global eleven really, were they?

I wonder if there was ever any connection between the Global Adviser and the eleven, always thought it was an odd name for Madame to suddenly just conjure out of thin air

[lraC]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

They had no choice but to put money in else we would have been insolvent & players might not be keen to play if they’re not getting wages.  The interesting thing for me is how they fund it. Share capital implies permanence, bank lending less so, parent loans more so (but not as good as shares).

As has already been mentioned, £250m is a lot of money to throw away. It is all well and good underwriting it to ensure the club remained solvent, but why carry it on to that level. It is almost as though, someone else was pulling the strings. It reminds me a bit of That president in that far away country paying someone a chuck of money to keep certain stories out of the headlines. This could have got all Stormy, I am glad I had a Jack Daniels to help me forget.

[lraC]

Just now, tomphil said:

I wonder if there was ever any connection between the Global Adviser and the eleven, always thought it was an odd name for Madame to suddenly just conjure out of thin air

Thank goodness we didn't have eleven global advisers. Don't forget though Madame knew enough about football to sack a manager for playing the dull none entertaining type.

[Herbie6590]

Just now, lraC said:

As has already been mentioned, £250m is a lot of money to throw away. It is all well and good underwriting it to ensure the club remained solvent, but why carry it on to that level. It is almost as though, someone else was pulling the strings. It reminds me a bit of That president in that far away country paying someone a chuck of money to keep certain stories out of the headlines. This could have got all Stormy, I am glad I had a Jack Daniels to help me forget.

As I said “an expensive hobby”?‍♂️

[perthblue02]

7 minutes ago, lraC said:

Thank goodness we didn't have eleven global advisers. Don't forget though Madame knew enough about football to sack a manager for playing the dull none entertaining type.

Yes she was quite an expert wasn't she , strange that she has been quiet since the tiff with project partner and just like a family member the Bard of Barnet, it is as if somebody was writing her scripts

Edited May 9, 2018 by perthblue02

[lraC]

Just now, perthblue02 said:

Yes she was quite an expert wasn't she , strange that she has been quiet since the tiff with her script writer and just like family member the Bard of Barnet

Yes she obviously new her stuff She did put a statement out last week though remember, along with, some other people, described as the owners. Some people have wondered if this statement was all their own work, as it was pretty good!!!

[JHRover]

I've always found it odd how in the immediate aftermath of the takeover and during the Kean days all of the Venky clan were easily accessible, particularly to our friends at Sky Sports. Not just the chuckle brothers from the moment they were paraded on the pitch at Ewood before the Villa game but also Madame who provided numerous interviews and was on hand to provide her opinion on all things Rovers even though she had previously admitted not understanding the game.

Then the shutters came down and it is rare for even the manager or staff of the club to get chance to speak to her, only happening face to face once a year at her behest in India. Probably more difficult to speak to her without an invite than the Queen.

Curious how for such supposedly private people someone managed to persuade Madame to find space in her diary to provide interviews and how when things went horrifically wrong that she suddenly becomes an intensely private and busy person who can no longer speak.

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by JHRover

[perthblue02]

Was just thinking about when one of them last appeared either video / audio talking about Rovers, was it the at gunpoint interview in Switzerland ?