Venkys London Ltd - (BRFC immediate parent company) accounts year ending 31/3/25

[wilsdenrover]

Pre player trading loss £21.6 million, post player trading loss £7.7 million.

It’s been asked a million times but why won’t they sell?

As an aside, staff costs up £1.7 million…

 

 

[Exiled_Rover]

 

The tax fiddle continues. 

[roverblue]

How on earth do wages keep going up with the culling that goes on at Ewood? Something stinks as usual 

[JHRover]

So wages up significantly and still hovering around the traditional annual loss figure despite everything they've done over the last 3-4 years to slash costs.

Either they're making a right mess of things and somehow still losing the same amounts now as they were before despite everything they've done.

Or there is something seriously dodgy going on.

[roversfan99]

Those accounts wont reflect anything post this summer where we jettisoned so many experienced players and replaced with cheap crap from inferior leagues.

[MarkBRFC]

Yeah I can believe wages went up a bit last summer as we bought in Cantwell, and a few experienced heads in Batth, Weimann & Baker.

There isn't a chance they could have gone up this summer when the next accounts are released.

[Waggy76]

10 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

Yeah I can believe wages went up a bit last summer as we bought in Cantwell, and a few experienced heads in Batth, Weimann & Baker.

There isn't a chance they could have gone up this summer when the next accounts are released.

Don't be too sure , nobody really knows , who is actually on the payroll !

[Tomphil2]

The good old never diminishing BRFC payroll lol

Wonder how many 'advisers' are on there.

I'll say one thing for V's they have some very clever accountants.

 

[KentExile]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Those accounts wont reflect anything post this summer where we jettisoned so many experienced players and replaced with cheap crap from inferior leagues.

Will cover our "significant expenditure" (otherwise known as paying a ridiculous sum to Emmanuel Dennis) last January

Also contracts handed out to Cantwell, Bath, Weimann, maybe Bakers loan, etc under Eustace, probably all on more than our current self imposed wage limit

Why though, do I suspect that the next set of financials will show a very similar picture despite this summers cuts to the playing staff?

Edited 10 hours ago by KentExile

[wilsdenrover]

One thing I did notice was they’ve changed how they think ‘they’d get their money back’:

From promotion to the Premier League to;

Sustained membership of the Premier League.

How the extreme unlikelihood of this hasn’t led to a write down of the value of their investment is beyond me. 

[wilsdenrover]

One more thing:

The fees we could receive based on team/player performance are currently just over £20 million, this has a caveat that they’re expecting to receive far less.

Which players do we think most of this is attributable to? 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[alcd]

1 hour ago, Waggy76 said:

Don't be too sure , nobody really knows , who is actually on the payroll !

Waggott still is according to reports. That's £400k down the toilet this season. 

[KentExile]

11 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

One more thing:

The fees we could receive based on team/player performance are currently just over £20 million, this has a caveat that they’re expecting to receive far less.

Which players do we think most of this is attributable to? 

 

Szmodics fee

the Raya sell on

the second instalment of the Wharton fee

 

There will also be bits from selling Gallagher, Wahlstedt, Ennis, & the Telalovic sell on

Edited 9 hours ago by KentExile

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

4 hours ago, roverblue said:

How on earth do wages keep going up with the culling that goes on at Ewood? Something stinks as usual 

Very odd to see that.

[StHelensRover]

The issue with these figures for most of us fans is that on paper they look 'good'.

The Venky-clapping "no one else would ever want to own us" fans can laud their financial prudence for keeping the lights on and the players being paid.

The figs look good to the footballing authorities - everything legal and above board, so nothing to see here. 

The figs look good to any journalists and fans of other clubs. "Why do Blackburn Rovers fans always complain about their owners, they still think it's 1995".

I feel like we're being subjected to a fifteen year long psychological experiment. We can see the dismantling, downgrading and deterioration of the football club down to the husk it is now, but the rest of the world will just see Kieran Maguire's tweet about how our revenue is up and our losses are down and move on.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by StHelensRover

[JHRover]

Yep, to the outsider these owners are probably the very definition of ideal - pour tons of money in, don't interfere and in it for the long haul.

We're in a decreasing minority in recognising the immense long term lasting damage this is doing.

Quite a few others know about it - the dozens of players and staff who have escaped it at the first opportunity - fortunately for them there's no local or emotional attachment to contend with and they can simply secure employment elsewhere

[Tomphil2]

4 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

One thing I did notice was they’ve changed how they think ‘they’d get their money back’:

From promotion to the Premier League to;

Sustained membership of the Premier League.

How the extreme unlikelihood of this hasn’t led to a write down of the value of their investment is beyond me. 

It must be the only way they get it past their finance people and VH group non family board members. promising jam tomorrow.

However to sustain us properly at this level you'll need to add another 100 million to that and then it won't look so clever unless we ended up in the Prem for 5 years.

That will NEVER happen so at some point there surely must be a tipping point to the financing if we aren't already there.

[aletheia]

7 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

One thing I did notice was they’ve changed how they think ‘they’d get their money back’:

From promotion to the Premier League to;

Sustained membership of the Premier League.

Curious given that RG stated that promotion wasn't really on the agenda.

[wilsdenrover]

7 hours ago, StHelensRover said:

The issue with these figures for most of us fans is that on paper they look 'good'.

The Venky-clapping "no one else would ever want to own us" fans can laud their financial prudence for keeping the lights on and the players being paid.

The figs look good to the footballing authorities - everything legal and above board, so nothing to see here. 

The figs look good to any journalists and fans of other clubs. "Why do Blackburn Rovers fans always complain about their owners, they still think it's 1995".

I feel like we're being subjected to a fifteen year long psychological experiment. We can see the dismantling, downgrading and deterioration of the football club down to the husk it is now, but the rest of the world will just see Kieran Maguire's tweet about how our revenue is up and our losses are down and move on.

 

Our revenue only went up because of the new TV deal, without this it would’ve fallen instead.

But as you say, most people won’t look for the details.

Edited 55 minutes ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

4 hours ago, Tomphil2 said:

It must be the only way they get it past their finance people and VH group non family board members. promising jam tomorrow.

However to sustain us properly at this level you'll need to add another 100 million to that and then it won't look so clever unless we ended up in the Prem for 5 years.

That will NEVER happen so at some point there surely must be a tipping point to the financing if we aren't already there.

I’ve just noticed another difference (from previous years) re this - they’ve added the below:

‘… However the directors acknowledge the timing and eventuality of promotion is subject to a number of uncertainties and therefore this assessment is judgmental’

I wonder who decided this should be included.

Edited to add, spotted another…

In previous years they’ve said promotion would facilitate them being able to get their money back but…

Now it says ‘…the timing and extent of the recovery of the loan depends on promotion…’

Is the penny finally starting to drop or is someone else insisting on these phrases being included??

Edited 32 minutes ago by wilsdenrover

[Old Rover]

Turnover revenue year up to 31/03/2025

Matchday income £4596,258

Media £11626,335

Commercial £7516,077

other £525,000

Total revenue £24263,670

So the TV money is media I would think.

Preston's (similar championship club but much smaller) to compare but not like for like as up to 30/06/24

Matchday income £4315

Media £9484

Commercial £1272

other £1735

Total Revenue £16906,000

I know it is scraping the barrel but at least we still have a bigger revenue than Preston, even in our darkest hour,

 

[wilsdenrover]

I promise this will be my last post on this (for now at least!) but I think some people will be interested in these two:

The Venkys paid less to Rovers for advertising compared to the previous year (£795,000 vs £1 million)

The amount the Venkys charged the Community Trust (for rent and other services) increased by almost 60% (£395,819 vs £248,294)