Venky’s (& Suhail) Out Protest Ideas

[Exiled_Rover]

2 hours ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

Football is all about hope & this season they have none, I'm sure next years season tickets sales will be sky high if the takeover is successful

We've had no hope for 15 years.

[Exiled_Rover]

22 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

The biggest issue Rovers fans face in "selling the protest" is Venky's haven't yet failed to pay a bill. There's nothing anyone in authority can do to address owners with no ambition, no empathy, no drive... just so long as they keep paying the bills.

Once staff/players aren't paid, HMRC issues winding up orders, local businesses' bills aren't paid, THEN you get real traction from other clubs & most importantly the media. 

As things stand we are caught in a cleft stick - we recognise the direction of travel but unless & until it results in breaches of regulations/legislation we risk coming across as entitled & consequently will struggle to win hearts & minds of the neutral IMO. 

Agreed.

I think two (and probably more now we hit the winter) abandoned games have really brought the spotlight down on our owners / administrators though. There's no running from this chronic lack of investment - an army of super soakers isn't going to rescue you at half time.

[Exiled_Rover]

18 hours ago, glen9mullan said:

My understanding is their cash imput is limited to £20m, not a penny more and if it can be less, those charged with running it have fullfilled the remit given to them.

The owners if they could shift it (i.e a buyer rolls in to ewood with proof of funds to both buy and sustain the club) they'd sell without hesitation. Will they actively state "its for sale" absolutely not, but the reality is, every club is for sale.

 

I hope they're not expecting their £200m back. 

Nobody is buying the club for that kind of money.

[Exiled_Rover]

On 18/12/2025 at 11:00, davulsukur said:

I always assumed, though could be wrong, that clubs like Brighton, Brentford etc. started off buying players for lower fee's, selling those for good money, using that money to buy more expensive players than the first lot cost, sell those, reinvest, rinse, repeat.

So like, you'd buy a player for £2m, sell for £10m, then buy a player for say £5m out of the profit, sell for £20m etc. etc.

(they are example figures that i've just made up)

Rovers just wanna buy for £500k, sell for a profit and then buy more players for £500k.

That's the current plan (with the profit being used to fund the club).

It wasn't the plan before this summer, however. 

[Leonard Venkhater]

17 hours ago, aletheia said:

Yes agreed here.

Long thought some sort of simple leaflet/social media page spelling out ‘facts’ and dispelling myths –directly countering the apologist narrative.  Keep it simple, cheap. I’m sure plenty here have the expertise for this –where to distribute ect.

 

Eg. Top 10 myths

Myth: Nobody would buy us.

 

Fact: simple debunk

Myth: Not our fault regarding weather

 

Fact: Waggot presented plans but board rejected etc etc

Or

Did you know?

 

Maybe 10 of these

 

 

 OR

Top 10 facts about the Raos

 

Top 10 facts about transfers

 

Top 10 facts about Ismael’s record

 

 

Heard the Arte et Labore podcast.

I know there are too many things to protest about and the malaise has lasted 15 years.

However, there’s a desperate need for a succinct crib sheet with clear bullet points on our issues and aims. 

[RevidgeBlue]

18 hours ago, glen9mullan said:

What ive been told

Pasha has also insinuated as much in the car crash interviews and to the Fans Forum.

[Tomphil2]

But someone needs to be coming in with 100 million which will never happen in 3 eternities never mind the next few years.

Edited 21 hours ago by Tomphil2

[Aqualung]

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DEwjP6dyL/

I think this bloke is stooping a bit low regarding those who want to protest/boycott. 

[jph92]

1 hour ago, Aqualung said:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DEwjP6dyL/

I think this bloke is stooping a bit low regarding those who want to protest/boycott. 

A fake profile setup on 16th December and published the 'actual fans' letter on the same date. Using very familiar terminology as someone else who is very vocal in that group and tried to setup a club of their own 12 years ago.

 

It's either him, or a club plant. Wouldn't pay it any attention.

[47er]

8 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

I hope they're not expecting their £200m back. 

Nobody is buying the club for that kind of money.

That's never coming back. The only thing that cheers me up about Rovers these days.

[bob fleming]

6 hours ago, Tomphil2 said:

But someone needs to be coming in with 100 million which will never happen in 3 eternities never mind the next few years.

We don’t know what they want for it. 

Only one way to find out what they want for it. Put it up for sale.

i know, I know, a crazy idea.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Imagine being stuck with this lot because nobody will meet their inflated asking price,I really fear that could be the case.....

Edited 13 hours ago by SIMON GARNERS 194

[47er]

Some really good comments from Rovers fans in this article:

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/blackburn-rovers-boycott-debate-emotional-120000596.html

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

This comment:

'immune to the nonsense off the pitch' 

No and a thousand times NO! Ryan Hildred,if matters carry on as they are your Boys might not have a Club to support.

Supporters at Ewood simply cannot any longer afford to turn a blind eye to the catastrophie unfolding off the field of play,its gone on for far too long.

[Tomphil2]

1 hour ago, bob fleming said:

We don’t know what they want for it. 

Only one way to find out what they want for it. Put it up for sale.

i know, I know, a crazy idea.

I think it's already been said offers would have to be around that.

For all we know there's a 100 million overdraft facility in India that would need settling should they sell the club.

No way are the writing that off and paying it off themselves, if it exists of course.

[Dreams of 1995]

37 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

I think it's already been said offers would have to be around that.

For all we know there's a 100 million overdraft facility in India that would need settling should they sell the club.

No way are the writing that off and paying it off themselves, if it exists of course.

They have already wrote off 54m. 

[Tomphil2]

2 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

They have already wrote off 54m. 

When was the last time they wrote some off ?

Besides that is money spent and gone not an outstanding debt that may be ongoing.

[bob fleming]

6 hours ago, Tomphil2 said:

I think it's already been said offers would have to be around that.

For all we know there's a 100 million overdraft facility in India that would need settling should they sell the club.

No way are the writing that off and paying it off themselves, if it exists of course.

I think there’s a lot of assumptions in there. I also think they’d have to be utterly clueless to think they’d get anywhere near £100m for the club. What assets? It’s not the playing squad or the infrastructure - both of which have been decimated since they bought Rovers for £23m.

What on earth are they basing that apparent valuation on? Also, sorry to be a pain, where has that been said?

Relegation fodder, a ground that needs big investment and crowds that will continue to fall. All yours for £100m and £20m loss a season?!?!

They’ve tried to make a success of it we are told. They’re absolutely miles off and it’s getting worse. Save face and get gone. Those shareholders surely can’t be happy nor understand the need for these continued losses. Maybe try selling it for a quid.

 

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, bob fleming said:

I think there’s a lot of assumptions in there. I also think they’d have to be utterly clueless to think they’d get anywhere near £100m for the club. What assets? It’s not the playing squad or the infrastructure - both of which have been decimated since they bought Rovers for £23m.

What on earth are they basing that apparent valuation on? Also, sorry to be a pain, where has that been said?

Relegation fodder, a ground that needs big investment and crowds that will continue to fall. All yours for £100m and £20m loss a season?!?!

They’ve tried to make a success of it we are told. They’re absolutely miles off and it’s getting worse. Save face and get gone. Those shareholders surely can’t be happy nor understand the need for these continued losses. Maybe try selling it for a quid.

 

They paid just over £21 million for the club which was about x 1.3 net assets at the time.

IF they wrote of the debt owed to them (£134 million) the club’s net assets as of 31/3/24 would be £17.65 million.

£17.65 million x 1.3= £22.95 million as the ‘right’ sales price.

How they could justify £100 million is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

[Tomphil2]

2 hours ago, bob fleming said:

I think there’s a lot of assumptions in there. I also think they’d have to be utterly clueless to think they’d get anywhere near £100m for the club. What assets? It’s not the playing squad or the infrastructure - both of which have been decimated since they bought Rovers for £23m.

What on earth are they basing that apparent valuation on? Also, sorry to be a pain, where has that been said?

Relegation fodder, a ground that needs big investment and crowds that will continue to fall. All yours for £100m and £20m loss a season?!?!

They’ve tried to make a success of it we are told. They’re absolutely miles off and it’s getting worse. Save face and get gone. Those shareholders surely can’t be happy nor understand the need for these continued losses. Maybe try selling it for a quid.

 

They won't ever get that figure and i don't think there's ever been an asking price quoted.

Better ask Glen Mullen or someone whose had dialogue with some of them but i believe that figure has been banded about.

Problem is Venkys London Limited is a 150 million subsiduary on the VH group balance sheet. Sell the club for what it's worth, 20 million or so and what happens to the balance sheet ?

[DeeCee]

Plus the STC would be a separate sale.

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

They paid just over £21 million for the club which was about x 1.3 net assets at the time.

IF they wrote of the debt owed to them (£134 million) the club’s net assets as of 31/3/24 would be £17.65 million.

£17.65 million x 1.3= £22.95 million as the ‘right’ sales price.

How they could justify £100 million is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

Apologies for quoting myself:

Using the same formula, you’d need to near enough double the £22.95 million to get the training ground included…

Of course any buyer could argue the value of the STC should be without the assumption of planning permission. 🤔🧐

Edited 2 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

7 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

Plus the STC would be a separate sale.

As you were posting I was amending my figures to include this 👆

 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Still no respose to the Coalition letter...did we send it by Pigeon Post?

They really do not give a fcuk.

Edited 2 hours ago by SIMON GARNERS 194

[rigger]

49 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Still no respose to the Coalition letter...did we send it by Pigeon Post?

They really do not give a fcuk.

Did you actually expect a response ?