Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[lraC]

1 minute ago, tomphil said:

Venkys London ltd owns the club and the VH group owns VLL as far as i can gather.

Looks like they also have control of the newly formed company, who now own the STC. There are three directors, all based in India, who I have never heard of, but Madame and Balaji are listed at companies house, as people with significant control.

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

This idea that Waggott and Mowbray are trying to sell the training ground for personal gain without the owners knowledge is beyond the point of conspiracy. The idea then that the owners have done this to protect themselves from it potentially happening again by these 2 evil con men, yet don't distrust them enough in spite of that to sack them, is laughable.

Would the sale of the training ground qualify as an FFP saving out of interest?

Obviously Waggott and Mowbray couldn't actually sell the training ground without the owners' consent.

However as they tried to do exactly the same at Coventry it's fairly inconceivable that the original idea to sell the training ground here didn't come from them. Waggott also admitted in the LT he was the driving force behind the idea.

God knows what they told the owners, however having tried and failed to pull off the same scheme twice at two different Clubs I think it's naive in the extreme to think they wouldn't be getting what they would consider to be some form of perfect legitimate benefit had the plans gone through in either case.

[den]

Why would Venkys just buy the Senior training centre and not Brockhall in its entirety? 
 

The STC was the part they wanted to sell.

[den]

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19676622.blackburn-rovers-training-ground-sold-16-6m-new-venkys-company/

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, den said:

Why would Venkys just buy the Senior training centre and not Brockhall in its entirety? 

They already own it!!!!!!

[den]

I guess in the event that the owners sell the club, the STC wouldn’t be included.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, den said:

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19676622.blackburn-rovers-training-ground-sold-16-6m-new-venkys-company/

All sounds fair enough in theory.

The thing I'd want clarification on there is that the Club are only being charged a peppercorn rent.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, den said:

I guess in the event that the owners sell the club, the STC wouldn’t be included.

Why not?

[tomphil]

Good old LT only 4 months out of touch with this one and no doubt alerted to it again by this site.

Now the bots and pr gurus can get to work in the comments section telling everyone how great this is.

[roversfan99]

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Obviously Waggott and Mowbray couldn't actually sell the training ground without the owners' consent.

However as they tried to do exactly the same at Coventry it's fairly inconceivable that the original idea to sell the training ground here didn't come from them. Waggott also admitted in the LT he was the driving force behind the idea.

God knows what they told the owners, however having tried and failed to pull off the same scheme twice at two different Clubs I think it's naive in the extreme to think they wouldn't be getting what they would consider to be some form of perfect legitimate benefit had the plans gone through in either case.

It is a number of assumptions culminating in a conspiracy whereby Venkys become the innocent party and Mowbray and Waggott are essentially con men. 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

It is a number of assumptions culminating in a conspiracy whereby Venkys become the innocent party and Mowbray and Waggott are essentially con men. 

So how do you explain then the fact they tried, and failed, to do exactly the same thing without any plans for a new training facility (or even a site)  at Coventry?

Pure coincidence?

[Mashed Potatoes]

23 minutes ago, Beanie01289 said:

Thats what I'm trying to understand if it's for the reason of just selling it off and pocketing the cash then why bother with the sale just sell it and be done. 

I don't think it is being done for the reason of selling - not yet anyway. Until now Venkys have funded the club via loans from the UK holding company which in turn is funded by share issues to India. Because the value of the club is well below the outstanding loans continuing down that route means that they get nothing back for their money . Doing it this way means that they, rather than the club, now have the asset of the training centre.

In the event of the club going in to administration, which I think is more likely now than it was before this had happened, they lose the club but still have the training centre on which they may or may not be charging rent which the club would still be liable to pay to them for the duration of the lease.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Mashed Potatoes

[RoversClitheroe]

8 minutes ago, MCMC1875 said:

No. The club could've sold all of Brockhall to the new company to put funds into the club. Look back, the earlier failed planning application shows it wasn't Waggott's decision. Thought they'd have another crack at it. Go back a bit further, they must've had designs on Brockhall to employ a top firm of London solicitors to fight the ACV application. Smells of a sell off. Why else split the assets of the club? 

Interesting take and one I tend to believe.

[RoverCanada]

Seems clearly to be FFP-related accounting trickery. Or at least that's what it is on the face of it. Conspire away 🙂

The statement given to the LT pretty much says as much:

"taking into account the imminent change in FFP rules precluding the inclusion of profit on sale of assets with effect from July 1 2021 onwards, in June 2021 the club implemented a restructure of certain club properties, whilst ensuring all affected assets remain under the ownership and held within the Venky’s group."

Payment went through on 24 June, so just before the EFL closed that loophole.

So, we've resorted to the same chicanery as Derby, Sheffield Wed, Reading, Aston Villa, etc. I'm pretty sure others have also done the selling the training ground route. I can't remember who.

I suppose it's at least a bit less drastic/symbolically sad than selling Ewood Park to a Venky's holding company.

One-time profit (which thus helps for the 3-year rolling FFP windows), but then higher operating costs year-to-year thereafter due to the lease back arrangement (which presumably needs to be done on commercial terms!). I suppose the question will be what the accounting value of the STC was and thus how much of a 'profit' the club has made off the £16.6m sale. Perhaps another £10m+ to the P&L account...?

The EFL has been trying to show its fangs of late, so don't be surprised if they sniff around this, but precedent suggests this is above board. They tried to get Derby for overvaluing Pride Park but failed, cleared Villa, and Sheffield Wed got caught cause they mucked up the timing.

Edited October 27, 2021 by RoverCanada

[roversfan99]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So how do you explain then the fact they tried, and failed, to do exactly the same thing without any plans for a new training facility (or even a site)  at Coventry?

Pure coincidence?

"could it not be a case of the owners stepping in to thwart Mowbray and Waggott's grubby little scheme."

You implied that Venkys are taking drastic steps to avoid being fleeced by potential con men who they still continue to employee regardless.

[islander200]

4 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I don't think it is being done for the reason of selling - not yet anyway. Until now Venkys have funded the club via loans from the UK holding company which in turn is funded by share issues to India. Because the value of the club is well below the outstanding loans continuing down that route means that they get nothing back for their money . Doing it this way means that they, rather than the club, now have the asset of the training centre.

In the event of the club going in to administration, which I think is a more likely now than it was before this had happened, they lose the club but still have the training centre on which they may or may not be charging rent which the club would still be liable to pay to them for the duration of the lease.

Can i ask and its a genuine question as im not that clued up on this.Isnt the majority of our debt owed to the owners?

How much debt do we have that isnt owed to them?

Recent examples of clubs going to admin, the majority of their debt was owed to figures outside the club, taxman,loans etc which resulted in their owners being unable/unwilling to pay the debt off and continue to pay the  the wages 

[Dreams of 1995]

13 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

It is a number of assumptions culminating in a conspiracy whereby Venkys become the innocent party and Mowbray and Waggott are essentially con men. 

Why would the idea of Waggott and Mowbray trying to convince the owners to sell the training ground for their own personal profit be “beyond conspiracy” 

If anything it is exactly what opportunists do. They find some naive company with they can influence and directly benefit themselves in the process 

Given Waggot has form (three training grounds now is it including ours?) I would say dismissing it as “beyond conspiracy” is in actual fact laughable 

[lraC]

8 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I don't think it is being done for the reason of selling - not yet anyway. Until now Venkys have funded the club via loans from the UK holding company which in turn is funded by share issues to India. Because the value of the club is well below the outstanding loans continuing down that route means that they get nothing back for their money . Doing it this way means that they, rather than the club, now have the asset of the training centre.

In the event of the club going in to administration, which I think is more likely now than it was before this had happened, they lose the club but still have the training centre on which they may or may not be charging rent which the club would still be liable to pay to them for the duration of the lease.

If it’s a peppercorn rent as suggested above, then they will have a problem on their hands. A long lease charges at one peppercorn per annum, will essentially bring them 10 peppercorns per decade.

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

"could it not be a case of the owners stepping in to thwart Mowbray and Waggott's grubby little scheme."

You implied that Venkys are taking drastic steps to avoid being fleeced by potential con men who they still continue to employee regardless.

I note you've completely avoided my question of how do you explain away why they've tried and failed to do it before.

[Craigman]

Someone was talking of good times and things going on behind the scenes a month or so ago, is this it? Lets hope this is not it.

[den]

It’s very entertaining watching all of us on here who don’t have a clue what we’re talking about, turning into a whole forum of superleuths.

Anyone out there actually “know” why this transfer of ownership might be happening? 😀

[J*B]

It’s going to take a hell of a lot to convince me that Rovers no longer owning their training ground is a good thing. 

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, RoverCanada said:

Seems clearly to be FFP-related accounting trickery. Or at least that's what it is on the face of it. Conspire away 🙂

The statement given to the LT pretty much says as much:

"taking into account the imminent change in FFP rules precluding the inclusion of profit on sale of assets with effect from July 1 2021 onwards, in June 2021 the club implemented a restructure of certain club properties, whilst ensuring all affected assets remain under the ownership and held within the Venky’s group."

Payment went through on 24 June, so just before the EFL closed that loophole.

So, we've resorted to the same chicanery as Derby, Sheffield Wed, Reading, Aston Villa, etc. I'm pretty sure others have also done the selling the training ground route. I can't remember who.

I suppose it's at least a bit less drastic/symbolically sad than selling Ewood Park to a Venky's holding company.

One-time profit (which thus helps for the 3-year rolling FFP windows), but then higher operating costs year-to-year thereafter due to the lease back arrangement (which presumably needs to be done on commercial terms!). I suppose the question will be what the accounting value of the STC was and thus how much of a 'profit' the club has made off the £16.6m sale. Perhaps another £10m+ to the P&L account...?

The EFL has been trying to show its fangs of late, so don't be surprised if they sniff around this, but precedent suggests this is above board. They tried to get Derby for overvaluing Pride Park but failed, cleared Villa, and Sheffield Wed got caught cause they mucked up the timing.

Great Post. 

Nice to see some balance  being injected into the debate.

It seems to me on first glance the owners are getting panned for trying to find creative ways of injecting funds into the Club without breaching FFP. ***

*** Needs further clarification and investigation and I stand to be corrected should anything untoward come to light.

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, Craigman said:

Someone was talking of good times and things going on behind the scenes a month or so ago, is this it? Lets hope this is not it.

1884 Roverite I think. He had a meeting with the club and is due to meet them again, before the end of the year.

[JHRover]

If its anything to do with FFP then why are they persisting with the claim we can't get Nyambe and Rothwell on new contracts?

All a bit pointless if we can't even extend players contracts isnt it?

For context this £16 million move is probably not far off what we could command for those out of contract were they on long term deals rather than leaving for nothing.

Edited October 27, 2021 by JHRover