Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[chaddyrovers]

31 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Ownership of the Senior Training centre passed from Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Limited to a newly formed company - Venkateshwara London Limited on the 24th June 2021, for a fee of £16.6 million

Here is the new company Venkateshwara London Limited on companies House website 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13452736/filing-history

One of the director of Venkateshwara London Limited is Rohan Ajay Bhagwat. Who is also Venkys company secretary according to this 

https://in.linkedin.com/in/cs-rohan-bhagwat-234b2128

[cesus]

Does this change of ownership make the training ground easier to sell or is it a FFP accounting exercise? I can't say I like the thought of any club assets being owned by third parties, it tends to be money today and a headache soon after.

[K-Hod]

39 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

This means the club no longer own the training centre.

The conspiracy theorists on here might care to note that the listed directors of the company that now own the centre appear to be Indian nationals and do not include the likes of Tony Mowbray and Steve Waggott .

Not really a good thing, is it?

Did anyone ever suggest that?

It was suggested that Venus might have been the driving force in the sale, as they did something similar at Coventry.

I don’t recall there being any mention of ownership being transferred into the manager and assistant manager’s names.

[chaddyrovers]

18 minutes ago, cesus said:

Does this change of ownership make the training ground easier to sell or is it a FFP accounting exercise? I can't say I like the thought of any club assets being owned by third parties, it tends to be money today and a headache soon after.

Yes it could be another way of putting money into the club and get us around FFP. 

Agree of the third party ownership but cos the club doesn't own it means Waggott can't sell it

Edited October 27, 2021 by chaddyrovers

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Not really a good thing, is it?

Did anyone ever suggest that?

It was suggested that Venus might have been the driving force in the sale, as they did something similar at Coventry.

I don’t recall there being any mention of ownership being transferred into the manager and assistant manager’s names.

I'll be the first one to jump all over anything untoward  regarding Brockhall and would need to know more but my first thought is - is there anything to see here?

The site is still owned by one of Venky's Companies just as Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Club is one of Venky's Companies given they own the Club. 

Can't remember exactly the date when Waggott's plans to flog the other site for housing were shelved but could it not be a case of the owners stepping in to thwart Mowbray and Waggott's grubby little scheme, inject some money into the Club during a pandemic without breaching FFP rules and prevent the sites from falling into actual 3rd party ownership?

As long as the assets of this new Company would form part of a sale to any future owners should that arise I can't see any issue with it.

People are always complaining that the owners should be more creative with their attempts to inject capital into the Club to circumvent FFP.

My only reservation is that if this is what's happened you'd have thought that the Club would be shouting it from the rooftops. On the other hand maybe it's a bit of a grey area for FFP purposes and the Club want it to go slightly under the radar.

Definitely something the Fans Forum should be quizzing Waggott on and getting a definitive answer on.

If the cash injection means there is no longer a need to consider a sale to external parties of either site I would only view that as an incredibly positive thing.

[tomphil]

Interesting 

I wonder if they've bought it from the club with a view to selling it themselves ?

Hopefully just a number crunching exercise but wouldn't be surprised if this unfolds into something odd.

[Mashed Potatoes]

22 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Not really a good thing, is it?

Did anyone ever suggest that?

It was suggested that Venus might have been the driving force in the sale, as they did something similar at Coventry.

I don’t recall there being any mention of ownership being transferred into the manager and assistant manager’s names.

It certainly isn't a good thing. Previously when the club initiated a process of obtaining possible planning permission for a redevelopment of the centre there were suggestions on here that certain named employees of the club stood to benefit if that redevelopment took place - although there was not a shred of evidence to support that argument. Given that those running this new owner of the centre appear to have no connection with the club that nonsense can now be put to bed.

But going forward this is a very disturbing development. Effectively rather than funding the club via loans the owners have now acquired the club's most valuable asset. The first obvious question is will the club be charged rent on the centre. It makes a future sale of the club much more messy . Those who talk blithely of the club being put in to administration as a way out of the club's current mess need to understand that an obligation to pay rent to the owners of the centre will continue .

[JHRover]

I can think of an easier and quicker way to 'thwart' Maggott's scheme - sack him

I certainly wouldn't interpret a transfer such as this as some bizarre attempt to protect the site from Maggott's grubby hands.

At best this is an accounting trick for FFP purposes but I would be amazed if these people were so proactive as to do something like that.

Things like this don't happen for no reason. We should be on full alert.

Amazing that once again this emerges via supporters doing research rather than any announcement by the Club or Maggott. Let me guess...the Land Registry have acted inappropriately and taken us all by surprise?

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

It certainly isn't a good thing. Previously when the club initiated a process of obtaining possible planning permission for a redevelopment of the centre there were suggestions on here that certain named employees of the club stood to benefit if that redevelopment took place - although there was not a shred of evidence to support that argument. Given that those running this new owner of the centre appear to have no connection with the club that nonsense can now be put to bed.

But going forward this is a very disturbing development. Effectively rather than funding the club via loans the owners have now acquired the club's most valuable asset. The first obvious question is will the club be charged rent on the centre. It makes a future sale of the club much more messy . Those who talk blithely of the club being put in to administration as a way out of the club's current mess need to understand that an obligation to pay rent to the owners of the centre will continue .

"Owners of training ground STILL own training ground shocker!"

As I mentioned above this could merely be an attempt to inject funds into the Club without breaching FFP.

I do think we need detailed clarification and assurances on the matter though.

[lraC]

1 minute ago, JHRover said:

I can think of an easier and quicker way to 'thwart' Maggott's scheme - sack him

I certainly wouldn't interpret a transfer such as this as some bizarre attempt to protect the site from Maggott's grubby hands.

At best this is an accounting trick for FFP purposes but I would be amazed if these people were so proactive as to do something like that.

Things like this don't happen for no reason. We should be on full alert.

Amazing that once again this emerges via supporters doing research rather than any announcement by the Club or Maggott. Let me guess...the Land Registry have acted inappropriately and taken us all by surprise?

That’s the key thing here. The fans forum would surely have been told, if this was a positive. Imagine when the questions were put forward about January sales and FFP etc. if there was a solution in place, why not say so.

Without wanting to have a dig, was this mentioned to Roverite during the meeting, where positive changes were mentioned?

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I can think of an easier and quicker way to 'thwart' Maggott's scheme - sack him

Amen to that my friend.

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

"Owners of training ground STILL own training ground shocker!"

As I mentioned above this could merely be an attempt to inject funds into the Club without breaching FFP.

I do think we need detailed clarification and assurances on the matter though.

It’s very easy to clarify and perhaps, put a positive spin on it, after the event. The new company that have bought it was formed in June, so why the radio silence and why does it yet again, take a fine to find out, to get the message out to the supporters?

[lraC]

Just now, lraC said:

It’s very easy to clarify and perhaps, put a positive spin on it, after the event. The new company that have bought it was formed in June, so why the radio silence and why does it yet again, take a fan to find out, to get the message out to the supporters?

 

[tomphil]

10 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

It certainly isn't a good thing. Previously when the club initiated a process of obtaining possible planning permission for a redevelopment of the centre there were suggestions on here that certain named employees of the club stood to benefit if that redevelopment took place - although there was not a shred of evidence to support that argument. Given that those running this new owner of the centre appear to have no connection with the club that nonsense can now be put to bed.

But going forward this is a very disturbing development. Effectively rather than funding the club via loans the owners have now acquired the club's most valuable asset. The first obvious question is will the club be charged rent on the centre. It makes a future sale of the club much more messy . Those who talk blithely of the club being put in to administration as a way out of the club's current mess need to understand that an obligation to pay rent to the owners of the centre will continue .

That's the first thing i thought, sell and rent it back.

It might look nice on the balance sheet in the short term but long term this is very worrying. It's been sold after all just as many feared it would one way or another.

 

[lraC]

9 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

"Owners of training ground STILL own training ground shocker!"

As I mentioned above this could merely be an attempt to inject funds into the Club without breaching FFP.

I do think we need detailed clarification and assurances on the matter though.

A bit like when Venky’s stunned the football world, with a story about signing Ronaldiniho, but switched their attentions to Myles Anderson.

[JHRover]

If this had come out of the blue I might be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to them on this and work on the basis there is some creative work going on for FFP purposes or whatever.

BUT

Having witnessed what went on earlier this year with the housing development shenanigans and the secretive way they set about doing that before they were exposed by supporters the default position needs to be concern and alarm.

After the 'abandonment' of the last scheme I expected that they would just go away and move on to an alternative plot. I will work on the basis this is the starting point for that.

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, lraC said:

It’s very easy to clarify and perhaps, put a positive spin on it, after the event. The new company that have bought it was formed in June, so why the radio silence and why does it yet again, take a fine to find out, to get the message out to the supporters?

I agree on that part of it, on the face of it it could be an incredibly positive development so I'm not entirely sure why we wouldn't publicise it.

Didn't Derby get in some sort of trouble for trying to get round FFP by doing something with their training ground or am I imagining that?

One further point occurs to me, is am I right in thinking the site is the one that can't be developed for housing?

If it is, there'd be little point financially in the owners acquiring it with a view to a future sale.

 

[lraC]

10 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I agree on that part of it, on the face of it it could be an incredibly positive development so I'm not entirely sure why we wouldn't publicise it.

Didn't Derby get in some sort of trouble for trying to get round FFP by doing something with their training ground or am I imagining that?

One further point occurs to me, is am I right in thinking the site is the one that can't be developed for housing?

If it is, there'd be little point financially in the owners acquiring it with a view to a future sale.

 

I think Derby did try that, maybe even with the ground.

I don’t know what they have bought exactly, so no idea about what can and can’t be done. I guess this is the real point, why not tell the fans what’s happening, as otherwise we will jump to our own conclusions, whether or not there is something sinister happening.

[roversfan99]

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?

[Beanie01289]

It's not a good thing it's not in the clubs name anymore but if they had wanted to just sell it why would they not just have gone ahead and done that as they owned it?

[islander200]

18 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I agree on that part of it, on the face of it it could be an incredibly positive development so I'm not entirely sure why we wouldn't publicise it.

Didn't Derby get in some sort of trouble for trying to get round FFP by doing something with their training ground or am I imagining that?

One further point occurs to me, is am I right in thinking the site is the one that can't be developed for housing?

If it is, there'd be little point financially in the owners acquiring it with a view to a future sale.

 

Derby did and Sheffield Wednesday but i think the issue the efl had with it was that Derby/Wednesday overvalued it and it was sold for much more than its worth.Thats what my memory is telling me anyway, could ne wrong.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Beanie01289 said:

It's not a good thing it's not in the clubs name anymore but if they had wanted to just sell it why would they not just have gone ahead and done that as they owned it?

The "Club" isn't even in the Club's name is it?

Isn't the overwhelming.ing majority of the Club's shares owned by Venky's Hatcheries London Ltd or whatever it's called?

[Beanie01289]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The "Club" isn't even in the Club's name is it?

Isn't the overwhelming.ing majority of the Club's shares owned by Venky's Hatcheries London Ltd or whatever it's called?

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. 

[arbitro]

I don't know the ins and outs of this but what I do know is that I treat the owners, Waggott et al with suspicion. That is borne out of over a decade of misery and mistrust.

[tomphil]

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