Summer Transfer Window

[davulsukur]

36 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Logic says (yes, I know!) that it’s because it is in their interest to do so.

Kudos? None. Not at this stage - there could have been but that ship sailed long ago.

Financial? This means either they make money elsewhere by showing losses against Rovers. This would be my guess.

Cultural? Possibly, at first. Saving face and all that. ‘We are so rich we can stomach the losses’ might impress elsewhere.

Not the worst option? In other words there could be something bad which the accounts might show if dug into in any detail. Are the any statutes of limitations on how long a business has to keep records before they can be destroyed?

Financial is the only one that I'd go for but I don't know enough about how it all works.

Skeletons in the closet also likely.

[Mattyblue]

1 hour ago, Ossydave said:

I imagine that's erm somewhat difficult at present

Considering it’s been in the works for over two years, presumably we had irons in the fire pre lockdown?

[47er]

Just now, Paul Mani said:

I often wonder how imaginative you have to be to begin every post with “We spent £12m on...” ??

The inconvenient truth.

[Paul Mani]

4 minutes ago, 47er said:

The inconvenient truth.

Absolutely 100% the truth, agreed.

I just can’t imagine ever wanting to begin every single post with “Mowbray this, Venkys that, We spent £12m...”. The negativity would just drain me. 

 

[Mattyblue]

Just now, Paul Mani said:

Absolutely 100% the truth, agreed.

I just can’t imagine ever wanting to begin every single post with “Mowbray this, Venkys that, We spent £12m...”. The negativity would just drain me. 

 

Which posters start every post with that?

[Paul Mani]

Take your pick ??

[tomphil]

8 hours ago, Mercer said:

Their Rovers' 'project' is now most likely pushing £200million factoring in acquisition costs and loans.

There will come a 'tipping point' - it's almost inevitable as I very much doubt they will continue to throw in some £20million every year (throwing good money after bad).  In the past, we've seen the likes of Hayward, Davies and Whelan all call time on their clubs - it happens.

IMO, and I've said this for a number of weeks now, the noose is tightening. 

If it is still written off as investing in another loss making arm of the company to keep it going so it can so called be built up again in the Prem then i'd agree. You can pacify your bank and shareholders by showing the pot of gold at the end as a season or two in the Prem or even 1 and the parachutes equates to that outlay.

Once you get way north of 200 million it's going to take a lot more justifying although i don't think that's why it happens. I think it's just a money pit to them able to be propped up by their huge monthly turnover. In turn it serves some process as an accounting tool over within the group of companies that serves some kind of benefit.

They may own allsorts and have allsorts of financial avenues but not many where you can hide or move around the amounts you can connected to a football club.

Quite simply it's a family plaything stroke accounting vehicle probably still largely influenced by a 3rd party or 2.

[Mattyblue]

Just now, Paul Mani said:

Take your pick ??

I’ve no idea, that’s why I asked...

[Prelude]

17 hours ago, A Northern Horde... said:

Kamy on the latest podcast is convinced the noises coming out of Pune financial wise is......we must first sell to buy.

What podcast is this?

[Herbie6590]

8 hours ago, Mercer said:

You are not quite right.

VLL's share issues are to create funds that are loaned to The Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Limited. 

Accounts year ended 30 June 2019 (for football club) showed 'Amounts owing to parent undertaking' of £126.8 million (see Creditors - amounts falling due within one year).

In the twelve months following 30 June 2019, VLL issued a further £19million in shares.  The amount owed by the football club to the holding company at 30 June 2020 is now likely to be approx. £150million and these monies are repayable, technically within 12 months (hence part of net current liabilities) although notes to the accounts show there is no fixed date for repayment.

VLL can pull the plug anytime it wishes.

In practice, it’s the other way round but essentially we are saying the same thing. Funds are loaned initially from the parent company to meet day to day working capital needs & at the end of each accounting period a proportion of that inter-company loan is converted into shares. As you say Venky’s can of course pull the plug any time as the principal debt is theirs which is why the auditors have to ask the directors to sign off the going concern statement in the accounts.

[Herbie6590]

12 hours ago, JHRover said:

Yes I know that but then if these people are billionaires they will have assets and funds at their fingertips that they could use to fund transfers at the club. 

The suggestion seems to be that because of Covid 19 and the apparent downturn in their core business this instantly means there is less money or even no money available for business here. 

I'm not sure why. If they really wanted to fund transfers surely they could use their personal funds rather than company profits. 

Abramovich has apparently lost a fortune recently with the downturn in the value of gold. Yet he has continued to fund substantial business at Chelsea this summer.

There's an argument to be had that those owners with the clout to withstand the Covid dip have an opportunity here to gain an advantage when other clubs not blessed with rich owners might be struggling.

It is also potentially very short-sighted and poor business indeed to insist on a sell to buy policy in our position. There isn't the time nor the market to attract good bids and then put funds to good use on new players.

I'm sure Marinakis at Forest has struggled for business recently with the lockdown yet they've signed a few players.

They certainly COULD fund the club personally but they don’t as no individual loans/gifts/donations are shown in the accounts. If a director wants to gift money to the club, that money would have to flow through the company accounts somewhere & I see no evidence of it.

@northernrover ‘s point on the podcast was that Venky’s core business isn’t immune from Covid impacts and so that might result in an across the board tightening of belts,,.which would include Rovers.

[Paul Mani]

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

I’ve no idea, that’s why I asked...

Haha - as good a sport as I am, I’m not keen on a ban today.

But as a little social experiment, feel free to review 10 pages of any of the Rovers threads on here and count how many times those ‘issues’ somehow manage to become centre stage in anything being discussed.

@Mashed Potatoes is free to come on here and defend whoever he likes as are those who come in here to constantly moan. ??

[Herbie6590]

6 minutes ago, Prelude said:

What podcast is this?

The BRFCS podcast...we’ve been doing them for 3 years now...? *quietly sobs in a dark corner* 

 

https://www.brfcs.com/mb/index.php?/podcasts/

[Mattyblue]

Just now, Paul Mani said:

Haha - as good a sport as I am, I’m not keen on a ban today.

But as a little social experiment, feel free to review 10 pages of any of the Rovers threads on here and count how many times those ‘issues’ somehow manage to become centre stage in anything being discussed.

@Mashed Potatoes is free to come on here and defend whoever he likes as are those who come in here to constantly moan. ??

Ok, so you don’t have any names. Just a way to wind folk up, good to know...

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

Logic says (yes, I know!) that it’s because it is in their interest to do so.

Kudos? None. Not at this stage - there could have been but that ship sailed long ago.

Financial? This means either they make money elsewhere by showing losses against Rovers. This would be my guess.

Cultural? Possibly, at first. Saving face and all that. ‘We are so rich we can stomach the losses’ might impress elsewhere.

Not the worst option? In other words there could be something bad which the accounts might show if dug into in any detail. Are the any statutes of limitations on how long a business has to keep records before they can be destroyed?

Entirely guesswork on my part but I think it was seen as a vehicle for brand marketing but once we dropped from the PL that rationale rather lost it’s I pact.

[tomphil]

27 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

They certainly COULD fund the club personally but they don’t as no individual loans/gifts/donations are shown in the accounts. If a director wants to gift money to the club, that money would have to flow through the company accounts somewhere & I see no evidence of it.

@northernrover ‘s point on the podcast was that Venky’s core business isn’t immune from Covid impacts and so that might result in an across the board tightening of belts,,.which would include Rovers.

Sales on the Venkys ltd spreadsheet are currently almost 50% down on a similar time last year so obviously not immune.  Although that's just Venkys Ltd so just another arm of the corporation although probably the core one.

Didn't the Trust Fund 'donate' 3 million per season to Rovers post Jacks passing ?  That being written down as an allowable one off gift ?

Of course i suppose members of the Rao family might inject their own capital into the VH group if needed and that in turn could pass down to the club. Doubt they do that though i just think they have stunning lines of credit back in India, also there seems from time to time some moves in their shares which have flagged up strategic maneuvers by the top end. 

[Prelude]

27 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

The BRFCS podcast...we’ve been doing them for 3 years now...? *quietly sobs in a dark corner* 

 

https://www.brfcs.com/mb/index.php?/podcasts/

Oh right, I have listened to them all but must have missed that I am terrible for multi-tasking! Plus last episode was a couple of weeks so may have forgot. 

Podcast is good, keep up the good work! 

[Stuart]

22 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Entirely guesswork on my part but I think it was seen as a vehicle for brand marketing but once we dropped from the PL that rationale rather lost it’s I pact.

The question was “why are they here?” with an implied still.

I agree that they had some original plans which included marketing. Presumably the bright lights of the PL was also a draw.

All they had to do was listen to John Williams (who had successfully steered the club for over a decade) instead of SEM (who had worked their way into the Raos affections after 10 minutes: like a family member) and they would have had their wish.

In a parallel universe, home and away fans alike are raving about the Venkys Express outlets at the “Venkys Ewood Park” concourse during half time at a Europa League match. “Best chicken in Europe”.

As it is I wouldn’t put their logo on my wheely bin.

[47er]

57 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

just can’t imagine ever wanting to begin every single post with “Mowbray this, Venkys that, We spent £12m...”. The negativity would just drain me. 

 

Literally, nobody does.

[J*B]

9 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

The massive difference between our owners and Chelsea's is a clear enjoyment of the game and a good understanding of who to administrate the club.  You can see Abramovich actually gets enthralled in the games, he loves the club. Our owners are so distant and seemingly disinterested irrespective of theit wealth 

Not quite, Abramovich had never watched a game of football at the time he bought Chelsea and hasn’t attended a live game in years now. Abramovich bought Chelsea to give him a UK platform and persona to ensure that Putin couldn’t make him simply disappear for his alleged crimes against Russia. 

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

1 hour ago, Paul Mani said:

Absolutely 100% the truth, agreed.

I just can’t imagine ever wanting to begin every single post with “Mowbray this, Venkys that, We spent £12m...”. The negativity would just drain me. 

 

I would have thought the 2 most prevalent openers on this site over the course of a year are:

1: FFS...

2. Bennett...

 

They're usually not mutually exclusive.

[47er]

5 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

???..oh the irony 

Sorry, don't get this. Are you implying that I do that with"every single post"? (your words).

I've certainly mentioned all 3 often as they seem to be among the most relevant issues as to why we are in the shit.

Should I be optimistic? What about?---Venkys, Mowbray, £12M wasted on 2 strikers and all that!

Still let's talk about something else eh--- Fans Forum-style.

Edited August 16, 2020 by 47er

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

56 minutes ago, Amo said:

There's plants from the club on here. They're not hard to spot.

[47er]

56 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

@Mashed Potatoes is free to come on here and defend whoever he likes as are those who come in here to constantly moan. ??

Course he is and so am I.

[K-Hod]

1 hour ago, Paul Mani said:

Absolutely 100% the truth, agreed.

I just can’t imagine ever wanting to begin every single post with “Mowbray this, Venkys that, We spent £12m...”. The negativity would just drain me. 

 

In fairness, the same people that complain about FFP, usually conveniently overlook how much we spent on our strikers that don’t score £12 Million worth of goals.