Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 13/11/2024 - Re-Arranged Challenge Match

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

If the club has ended up in a period of being self sustaining because of this then there is absolutely no better time to put it up for sale.

Needing 10 mill a year funding suddenly makes it more attractive than needing 20.

I’m not sure logic will work with the Venkys. 

[Crimpshrine]

3 hours ago, tomphil said:

If the club has ended up in a period of being self sustaining because of this then there is absolutely no better time to put it up for sale.

Needing 10 mill a year funding suddenly makes it more attractive than needing 20.

And being in an excellent position with respect to FFP must make the club more attractive to potential buyers with money to invest.

[Mike E]

16 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

And being in an excellent position with respect to FFP must make the club more attractive to potential buyers with money to invest.

…is that just a statement or is it laced with hopeful suggestion?

[Mashed Potatoes]

33 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

And being in an excellent position with respect to FFP must make the club more attractive to potential buyers with money to invest.

Debts north of £150m probably don't, though.

[Crimpshrine]

39 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Debts north of £150m probably don't, though.

Not real debts though are they?

They are the cost of running the club for the last 14 years which Venky's know they will never get back. Whether they sell the club or not they will have already written that money off - unless of course we get promoted which is an option they don't seem interested in.

[JHRover]

I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure debt levels are totally irrelevant when it comes to FFP calculations, especially when there is no immediate demand or plan for repayment of those debts and they are almost all to the owners anyway.

What is important is incomings and outgoings. Thankfully we've brought in excess of £40 million through sales since summer 2023 which comfortably outstrips whatever advantage better run clubs get on us via bigger ticket sales.

So about time we stop falling for the Venky/Waggott trap of blaming FFP and pointing at the fact other clubs get parachute cash and bigger crowds. We've outstripped that and then some in the last 12 months and yet have just cut back more and more.

[tomphil]

45 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Debts north of £150m probably don't, though.

Show us where it says anywhere that these are loans that need repaying ?

[Mashed Potatoes]

24 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Show us where it says anywhere that these are loans that need repaying ?

The fact the debt is still on our balance sheet suggests the owners still harbour hopes of repayment. 

[Mashed Potatoes]

27 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure debt levels are totally irrelevant when it comes to FFP calculations, especially when there is no immediate demand or plan for repayment of those debts and they are almost all to the owners anyway.

What is important is incomings and outgoings. Thankfully we've brought in excess of £40 million through sales since summer 2023 which comfortably outstrips whatever advantage better run clubs get on us via bigger ticket sales.

So about time we stop falling for the Venky/Waggott trap of blaming FFP and pointing at the fact other clubs get parachute cash and bigger crowds. We've outstripped that and then some in the last 12 months and yet have just cut back more and more.

You are concentrating on FFP but isn't it the case that a new test is being introduced restricting wages to a percentage of turnover ? I thought I'd read there was an EFL meeting in February to hammer out the details.

[Crimpshrine]

24 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

The fact the debt is still on our balance sheet suggests the owners still harbour hopes of repayment. 

Maybe it helps for tax purposes to show they are making losses? Perhaps it's just a measure of their stupidity

 

[tomphil]

45 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

The fact the debt is still on our balance sheet suggests the owners still harbour hopes of repayment. 

That is extremely unlikely even in their stupid minds.

The debt will be on there because it suits some accounting process or balance sheet or other probably counting Rovers as an overseas asset that has had 200 million of company money 'invested' in it.

Same thing at various other clubs that then gets written off when the club comes up for sale or lumps of it get written off to improve a clubs balance sheet.

Davies for example wrote off c100 million at Bolton when he couldn't fund it to its required levels anymore and prepped it for sale.

 

 

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

…is that just a statement or is it laced with hopeful suggestion?

It’s laced with something 😁😁

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, Crimpshrine said:

Maybe it helps for tax purposes to show they are making losses? Perhaps it's just a measure of their stupidity

 

Point A almost certainly, although it goes hand in hand with point B and why they've now got their Govt crawling all over them.

[47er]

8 hours ago, roverblue said:

My money is on yet another delay, the Indian court system seems a complete joke based on how it was explained to work last time. Giving a judge 100+ cases to deal with in a day then putting those he/she doesn't get to at the back of the queue months down the line seems a bonkers way to run a court system.

bit like our's?