Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 13/1/2025 - Re-Arranged Challenge Match

[JHRover]

In an administration scenario the club would still need to function. It would still need to 'maintain' Ewood Park and Brockhall, it would still have an academy, football team, club shop, matches to host and everything else.

When Derby, Portsmouth, Bolton, etc. etc. etc. went into admin they continued to play their matches, and presumably weren't run by volunteers during that time.

Liquidation is another matter entirely as the whole lot goes but given that fate hasn't yet fallen on any club comparable to Rovers I'd be reasonably confident that wouldn't happen here (unless something very dodgy goes on).

So I'm struggling to understand which people Venkys and Mr Cutback Waggott are currently employing at this scaled back, downgraded operation would suddenly be made redundant in the event of administration.

Is the suggestion that there are legions of non-essential staff currently on the payroll? If so I would ask why.

Or is the suggestion that administrators would get rid of essential staff? If so who and how would we continue to operate as a football club in those circumstances?

I think it is unlikely given Waggott and Venkys have orchestrated cutbacks, downgrading and downsizing at just about every opportunity they can find over the last 6-7 years at least. It seems logical that they are by and large only employing people now that they have to employ to ensure that the operation keeps on functioning.

Of course a change of ownership MIGHT see job losses. It also MIGHT see job growth. Nobody knows until it happens. 

Had Eustace not pulled a couple of surprise wins out the bag at the end of last season we'd be in League One now and I'm pretty sure with that there would have been quite a few job losses. 

That's the danger in being employed at a football club, especially one run by cowboys. Sooner or later there's a pretty good chance of relegation and financial difficulties and with that a risk of job losses. Not nice but nothing new in the world of football or indeed many other forms of entertainment.

[wilsdenrover]

10 hours ago, tomphil said:

What percentage ?

24% of any amount over the price they bought for (minus the costs of buying and selling*)

* they could also deduct the costs of any improvements they’ve made but I think we all know this bit wouldn’t be relevant! 

Edited 8 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Paul Mellelieu]

8 hours ago, Upside Down said:

And you keep telling half truths as numerous people have pointed out numerous times that there have already been job losses and unpaid bills with the current ownership, yet you continue to ignore these stone cold facts.

As I said, it's like playing chess with a pigeon.

[Paul Mellelieu]

8 hours ago, JHRover said:

In an administration scenario the club would still need to function. It would still need to 'maintain' Ewood Park and Brockhall, it would still have an academy, football team, club shop, matches to host and everything else.

When Derby, Portsmouth, Bolton, etc. etc. etc. went into admin they continued to play their matches, and presumably weren't run by volunteers during that time.

Liquidation is another matter entirely as the whole lot goes but given that fate hasn't yet fallen on any club comparable to Rovers I'd be reasonably confident that wouldn't happen here (unless something very dodgy goes on).

So I'm struggling to understand which people Venkys and Mr Cutback Waggott are currently employing at this scaled back, downgraded operation would suddenly be made redundant in the event of administration.

Is the suggestion that there are legions of non-essential staff currently on the payroll? If so I would ask why.

Or is the suggestion that administrators would get rid of essential staff? If so who and how would we continue to operate as a football club in those circumstances?

I think it is unlikely given Waggott and Venkys have orchestrated cutbacks, downgrading and downsizing at just about every opportunity they can find over the last 6-7 years at least. It seems logical that they are by and large only employing people now that they have to employ to ensure that the operation keeps on functioning.

Of course a change of ownership MIGHT see job losses. It also MIGHT see job growth. Nobody knows until it happens. 

Had Eustace not pulled a couple of surprise wins out the bag at the end of last season we'd be in League One now and I'm pretty sure with that there would have been quite a few job losses. 

That's the danger in being employed at a football club, especially one run by cowboys. Sooner or later there's a pretty good chance of relegation and financial difficulties and with that a risk of job losses. Not nice but nothing new in the world of football or indeed many other forms of entertainment.

It's a strange argument to say we've had cuts (which have been bad), but then be indifferent to the impact of admin, which could include closing or scaling back the academy, selling the training ground and so on.  My preference is for the owners to sell the club, not to go into administration.

 

[wilsdenrover]

23 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

It's a strange argument to say we've had cuts (which have been bad), but then be indifferent to the impact of admin, which could include closing or scaling back the academy, selling the training ground and so on.  My preference is for the owners to sell the club, not to go into administration.

 

I think those ‘hoping’ for administration are only doing so because they see no other way the Venkys are ever going to leave.

I don’t think a single one of them would choose administration over Venkys deciding to sell.

Of course the Venkys (or anyone they ever sold to) could also decide to cut back on staff/scale back the academy etc.

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Upside Down]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think those ‘hoping’ for administration are only doing so because they see no other way the Venkys are ever going to leave.

I don’t think a single one of them would choose administration over them deciding to sell.

Of course the Venkys (or anyone they ever sold to) could also decide to cut back on staff/scale back the academy etc.

 

 

 

Exactly, just like they already have been doing for years.

It's like talking to a vegetable, and not a very fresh one.

[Forever Blue]

34 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

Exactly, just like they already have been doing for years.

It's like talking to a vegetable, and not a very fresh one.

When did they scale back the Academy?

[Upside Down]

8 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

When did they scale back the Academy?

Years ago, it's been cut back a lot from what it was before they took over.

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 minute ago, Upside Down said:

Years ago, it's been cut back a lot from what it was before they took over.

Please could you provide the facts in support of that statement.

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Please could you provide the facts in support of that statement.

I don’t know whether there has been any scaling back but they did have that plan a few years ago to merge the STC and academy training grounds (to sell land for housing).

I suspect that would have involved scaling back but of course we’ll never know.

[Upside Down]

9 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Please could you provide the facts in support of that statement.

Nothing other than hearing through the grapevine from people who worked there that they'd had to do more with less etc. basically the same as everything else at the club.

I don't have access to the club accounts so not like anything can be posted.

Can you prove that what I'm saying is incorrect?

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

24% of any amount over the price they bought for (minus the costs of buying and selling*)

* they could also deduct the costs of any improvements they’ve made but I think we all know this bit wouldn’t be relevant! 

So the one and only thing that would make sense is put it up for sale at the price they paid.

Crazy looking at it when it hasn't increased in value one jot in 14 years despite over £150 million in 'investment' on their balance sheet.  And is actually one fixed asset lighter in terms of the training ground which would mean they'd have to knock that off the price unless they gifted it back.

So a 200 million 'asset' is now worth about 15-20 million in potential sale price with the added caveat it'd come with an instant annual loss of 10-20 million once present transfer income is concluded.

No wonder their authorities are having a closer look at it, whether by design or not it absolutely reeks of creative accounting or Persil.

[Mashed Potatoes]

11 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

Nothing other than hearing through the grapevine from people who worked there that they'd had to do more with less etc. basically the same as everything else at the club.

I don't have access to the club accounts so not like anything can be posted.

Can you prove that what I'm saying is incorrect?

I think if you are going to make claims of the kind you made you need to have rather more evidence than vague claims about what you heard on the grapevine - which apparently these days stretches as far as New Zealand.

You have access to the club accounts on the internet although they will not provide the level of detail needed about the Academy. I'd judge the Academy on the standard of the players it produces which does not appear to have declined since Venkys took over/

[tomphil]

10 hours ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

It's difficult arguing with someone who is happy to tell half-truths.  I have given a number of examples where admin led to numerous job losses and unpaid bills.  Google will help you here.  No-one knows what will happen next, but I think grooing into admin is about as likely as the owners selling the club.

Look in the mirror lad you only acknowledge the half truths that suit your own narrative.

 

[Mashed Potatoes]

3 minutes ago, tomphil said:

So the one and only thing that would make sense is put it up for sale at the price they paid.

Crazy looking at it when it hasn't increased in value one jot in 14 years despite over £150 million in 'investment' on their balance sheet.  And is actually one fixed asset lighter in terms of the training ground which would mean they'd have to knock that off the price unless they gifted it back.

So a 200 million 'asset' is now worth about 15-20 million in potential sale price with the added caveat it'd come with an instant annual loss of 10-20 million once present transfer income is concluded.

No wonder their authorities are having a closer look at it, whether by design or not it absolutely reeks of creative accounting or Persil.

The low balance sheet value of the club is a reflection of the realities of operating for years and years in the Championship. Looking at the Bristol City accounts - a club owned by people who are certainly not engaged in creative accounting - there were accumulated losses at June 2023 of just under £195m.

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I think if you are going to make claims of the kind you made you need to have rather more evidence than vague claims about what you heard on the grapevine - which apparently these days stretches as far as New Zealand.

You have access to the club accounts on the internet although they will not provide the level of detail needed about the Academy. I'd judge the Academy on the standard of the players it produces which does not appear to have declined since Venkys took over/

It's the one and only constant positive they've managed in their time here apart from actually keeping the lights on at the club despite numerous close calls.

They deserve a bit of credit for standing firm on the academy as it's on record one or two managers and execs would prefer a lesser of different model, one of them is still drawing a fat salary and benefits so we can never rule it out whilst he's around.

Lets not forget though that grants make up a large slice of the running costs for it and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Academy has had to make cutbacks as well.  Only in the future would we begin to see if that has a negative affect or not as by the nature of that model it would take time to show unlike instant hits at first team level through players sales etc.

 

[tomphil]

4 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

The low balance sheet value of the club is a reflection of the realities of operating for years and years in the Championship. Looking at the Bristol City accounts - a club owned by people who are certainly not engaged in creative accounting - there were accumulated losses at June 2023 of just under £195m.

Yep and there have to be reasons so many get involved and are happy to run with these kind of loses. I'd imagine the loopholes are plenty and advantageous in ways only specialist accountants and highly trained lawyers can exploit.

[Leonard Venkhater]

15 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

Don’t take it too literally, I’m just surprised at the recent turn of events. I must have missed the memo about good old Pash’s unimpeachable character. 

Shadow Man-unimpeachable?

Name me anyone, who thinks that lol

[Forever Blue]

43 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Shadow Man-unimpeachable?

Name me anyone, who thinks that lol

He is beyond reproach. Our man in Pune. 

[JHRover]

3 hours ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

It's a strange argument to say we've had cuts (which have been bad), but then be indifferent to the impact of admin, which could include closing or scaling back the academy, selling the training ground and so on.  My preference is for the owners to sell the club, not to go into administration.

 

And that's my firm preference too, always has been, always will be. Responsible owners would ensure that happened and would do their utmost to avoid putting it into administration by handing it over to new people and giving up their debts.

But I also firmly believe that under these owners the club is on a terminal trajectory that will eventually lead to at best a long spell in the bottom 2 divisions. The status quo is not sustainable or acceptable. Too many people are influenced by the fact we are surviving in the Championship and have a facade of normality but look beyond that and it is a crisis situation.

With that in mind we need rid of them. That, in my view, is clear. The only debate surrounds how that comes about.

Let's also remember that if Waggott's scheme had come to fruition we'd have already sold the training ground and there would be a great big housing estate being built there right now. We know about that because he couldn't keep it hidden from the public. Lord only knows what other plans he's had in secret to cut and reduce the club further that he would have followed had he been able.

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, tomphil said:

So the one and only thing that would make sense is put it up for sale at the price they paid.

Crazy looking at it when it hasn't increased in value one jot in 14 years despite over £150 million in 'investment' on their balance sheet.  And is actually one fixed asset lighter in terms of the training ground which would mean they'd have to knock that off the price unless they gifted it back.

So a 200 million 'asset' is now worth about 15-20 million in potential sale price with the added caveat it'd come with an instant annual loss of 10-20 million once present transfer income is concluded.

No wonder their authorities are having a closer look at it, whether by design or not it absolutely reeks of creative accounting or Persil.

They’d still keep 72% of anything over the purchase price so it still makes sense for them to get as much as they can.

Of course, other than inflation, it’s unlikely the club is worth more now when they purchased it.

Unfortunately (to say the least) the bastards don’t appear to be going anywhere.

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

The low balance sheet value of the club is a reflection of the realities of operating for years and years in the Championship. Looking at the Bristol City accounts - a club owned by people who are certainly not engaged in creative accounting - there were accumulated losses at June 2023 of just under £195m.

The authorities also don’t care about accumulated losses -if they did it would be a factor in the profit and sustainability (ha!) rules.