Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] Venkys Assets - London Limited.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 3 weeks later...

I liked this comment about the proposed financial fair play rules:

All clubs should note that under the new Financial Fair Play rules what
Venky's have done would be allowed but what Jack Walker did in investing
in his home town club would not.

Sobering thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just another method of manipulating the system; different rules, same beneficiaries.

If the FA and PL really wanted financial fair play, and more importantly develop young talent, for the long term health of the game, they would:

1. Cap agent fees to a maximum of 10% of a player wages, payable solely by the player.

2. Forbid any player transfer or loan if the player took the field for the first team that same season.

3. Forbid debt from being accumulated in excess of 10% of annual revenue.

4. Require each club spend a certain percentage of revenue on youth development, within or without the club.

5. Require each club spend a certain percentage of revenue on a lady's team.

6. Require each club's board have at least one director elected annually by season ticket holders.

The penalty for violating any of the above would be forfeiture of promotion to the next division or European football place regardless of table standing, with a three year look back window. So if a club is comfortable with being mid-table in whatever division, they don't have to comply. But if they want to push on, they comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just another method of manipulating the system; different rules, same beneficiaries.

If the FA and PL really wanted financial fair play, and more importantly develop young talent, for the long term health of the game, they would:

1. Cap agent fees to a maximum of 10% of a player wages, payable solely by the player.

2. Forbid any player transfer or loan if the player took the field for the first team that same season.

3. Forbid debt from being accumulated in excess of 10% of annual revenue.

4. Require each club spend a certain percentage of revenue on youth development, within or without the club.

5. Require each club spend a certain percentage of revenue on a lady's team.

6. Require each club's board have at least one director elected annually by season ticket holders.

The penalty for violating any of the above would be forfeiture of promotion to the next division or European football place regardless of table standing, with a three year look back window. So if a club is comfortable with being mid-table in whatever division, they don't have to comply. But if they want to push on, they comply.

I appreciate the reasons why you have come up with these points, but most are unenforceable. How do you stop a club accumulating debt say when circumstances change (i.e. relegation?). Forcing a player to directly pay an agent, well the wages will rise to take that into account. Non transfer of players if they have played a 1st team game, well what if its best for all parties, and they have no one to sell to stop them getting into further debt? Having a supporter on the board only works if they are listened to and wanted by the owners and other board members. City once had a fan on the board and he took a lot of stick from people who elected him, as things such as ticket pricing was decided outside the boardroom meetings he attended. I think he eventually resigned because of it. Can you imagine being the representative at Ewood?

The true way to sort it is to bring in a wage cap, or as someone else suggested a franchise system. This seems to have worked reasonably well in rugby league, in that the title seems to be shared around a bit more, but you have to be careful you dont end up with a closed shop as per American Football, where many, many citys have no teams to support. You would also need the buy in of all of Fifa, not just UEFA. The people who have the power though, are attached to the clubs who would be most at risk if these changes were sought. Can you see the top clubs in Europe being happy at losing their revenue streams?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just for interest, as I don't pretend to understand the implications, VLL issued 24,388, 000 £1 shares recently.

Is this part of the bookkeeper's gimmick/process of owner's converting debt to shares/equity?

Is no (or manageable) debt required to participate in the Europa League, which may occur if we win the FA Cup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VLL have a 31 March year end following the extended delay in finalising and filing their first set of accounts.

Last year's accounts were qualified over failure to provide the auditors with evidence to support the valuation of an undisclosed asset. The key point for Rovers though was the language which offered no comfort whatever for Rovers losses being funded going forwards.

The £24m injection of new share capital is obviously there to show that finds are being made available to support the club through VLL.

Coincidentally, the £24m is probably the size of Rovers loss from April 2012 to March this year which the auditors will have asked to be re-capitalised

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VLL have a 31 March year end following the extended delay in finalising and filing their first set of accounts.

Last year's accounts were qualified over failure to provide the auditors with evidence to support the valuation of an undisclosed asset. The key point for Rovers though was the language which offered no comfort whatever for Rovers losses being funded going forwards.

The £24m injection of new share capital is obviously there to show that finds are being made available to support the club through VLL.

Coincidentally, the £24m is probably the size of Rovers loss from April 2011 to Marcch and so will

You didn't finish Philip but my thoughts too.

What are the financial implications in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry typing on the mobile. Tidied up now.

If the capital injection into VLL translates into no strings attached money for Rovers then it is good news in that the losses, bloated as they are by Venky's own incompetence, are being made good.

No new mortgages have been filed by either VLL or Rovers so this would appear to be cash without strings.

It is a complete coincidence that I said £24m losses for Rovers this year. I was estimating the loss in Rovers' accounting year July 2012 to 30 June 2013

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me that shows signs that they may be true to their word.

Possibly duped by others like the rest of us but at least we don't have to bear the financial consequences of ineptitude. Just the collateral damage.

Credit to them if they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

Hopefully onwards and upwards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the longest period of time the owners (or their cronies) haven't done or said anything stupid since they joined?

Definitely a case of 'silence is golden'.

I have a nagging fear that they won't be able to keep it up and another monumental gaffe is brewing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The £24m injection of new share capital is obviously there to show that finds are being made available to support the club through VLL.

Coincidentally, the £24m is probably the size of Rovers loss from April 2012 to March this year which the auditors will have asked to be re-capitalised

My thoughts as well Phillip. It also seems to support the suggested £2-3m monthly operating loss being sustained. I really hope we get promoted! Thoughts as to why they didn't instead capitalise the debt on Rovers books instead - would have achieved the same effect and not cost them any cash? Only reason I can think of is a cash flow issue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bigger question is why they didn't offer this level of support when we were facing relegation?

Or, biggest of all, why didn't they sack Kean after we were relegated (at the latest?)

I can never rest easy with these owners when I recall the incredible mess they've made of it, whatever assurances we are getting now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bigger question is why they didn't offer this level of support when we were facing relegation?

Or, biggest of all, why didn't they sack Kean after we were relegated (at the latest?)

I can never rest easy with these owners when I recall the incredible mess they've made of it, whatever assurances we are getting now.

That is exactly what begs the question, isn't it, 47er? It doesn't sit right at all - why now, after so much was lost and destroyed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me that shows signs that they may be true to their word.

Possibly duped by others like the rest of us but at least we don't have to bear the financial consequences of ineptitude. Just the collateral damage.

Credit to them if they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

Hopefully onwards and upwards!

This top class article asks the very question you ask, and we all want to know. But he puts it all beautifully into context. First rate writing.

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/sport-comment/blackburn-rovers-fans-finally-have-reason-to-cheer-after-arsenal-victory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.