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

[Andy]

Would the NI adjustments in 2025 have made an impact on salary costs?

I know for the business I work for (a medium-sized local firm), it was somewhere in the region of an additional £500k-£750k over the course of this year.

[TugaysMarlboro]

McGuire has got that wrong.

It's not £211m since Venkys acquisition.

It's £211m because of Venkys acquisition.

[wilsdenrover]

36 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Bank overdraft increased by £8million to over £11 million. As a result interest charges on overdraft and loans increased by over £1million.

At an interest rate of BoE base + 2.17%. 

[wilsdenrover]

18 minutes ago, Andy said:

Would the NI adjustments in 2025 have made an impact on salary costs?

I know for the business I work for (a medium-sized local firm), it was somewhere in the region of an additional £500k-£750k over the course of this year.

Salary and wages + £1,303,040

Social Security costs + £203,048

Pension costs + £187,951

Total increase £1,694,039

The cost of the adjustments you referred to will appear in next years accounts.

Edited 19 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[RoverDom]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

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??

Just guesswork on my part but the audit director has changed this year so could just be something from them. My experience of audit directors is they like to put their stamp on things in their first year. 

[Tomphil2]

3 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

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??

That's them acknowledging in a roundabout way promotion is a pipe dream and less likely than it ever even was before due to the downgrade in players.

[wilsdenrover]

13 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

That's them acknowledging in a roundabout way promotion is a pipe dream and less likely than it ever even was before due to the downgrade in players.

Yep, but is them Venkys or the auditor…

’interesting’ development either way.

[davulsukur]

On 03/12/2025 at 09:53, 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. 

I'm surprised they are willing to write that statement, or even someone is willing to approve/accept it.

It would probably take north of circa £200m investment into the first team, to get promoted and then stay up.

Edited 4 hours ago by davulsukur

[Elrovers]

After all these losses, it still baffles me to why they’re still owning us. Just sell us for god sake. It’s simple. 

[joey_big_nose]

16 hours ago, Old Rover said:

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,

 

In a way thats quite encouraging that we can boot out Venkys and still be competitive.

Do you have Preston's cost side stats (wages, admin etc).

[J*B]

25 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

In a way thats quite encouraging that we can boot out Venkys and still be competitive.

Do you have Preston's cost side stats (wages, admin etc).

It's literally only a group of Rovers fans that insist this club disappears if Venkys disappear that can't grasp you can be competitive - and even successful - in this league if you have good operators and a well thought out plan. There's plenty of clubs in recent history getting promotion with smaller budgets, but they get ignored. 

[joey_big_nose]

32 minutes ago, J*B said:

It's literally only a group of Rovers fans that insist this club disappears if Venkys disappear that can't grasp you can be competitive - and even successful - in this league if you have good operators and a well thought out plan. There's plenty of clubs in recent history getting promotion with smaller budgets, but they get ignored. 

Agreed, but good to look at it in hard numbers. Preston are a very good alternative case to look at.

[JamieUK]

Do we know where/who the overdraft is with?

If what's being put into the club is the bare minimum I think I'd rather that keep increasing than Venkys putting more money in themselves. Brings administration a possibility when the lender calls it in. 

Good to know pretty much all the season ticket revenue is going on paying interest on it... 😶

[Tomphil2]

I'm wondering where after this latest set of accounts the drooling horde of usual venky lovers have disappeared to ?

The rafts of 'they pump money in regardless, we should be grateful' posts are rather absent.

[KentExile]

5 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

I'm wondering where after this latest set of accounts the drooling horde of usual venky lovers have disappeared to ?

The rafts of 'they pump money in regardless, we should be grateful' posts are rather absent.

 

 

The club was losing money before the Walker family sold the club, and was the main reason for selling. The Venkys should have a statue outside the ground. The supporters have now benefited by £212 million pounds. And the club is still losing money. This endless harping about Venkys ruining the club is ridiculous. Look at Sheffield Wednesday if you want to look at the ruinious ownership of a club.

Blackburn Rovers, with gates as they are, is unsaleable at any price. No one would be daft enough to take it on.

 

And there are more, that was just one of the more demented posts

Edited 1 hour ago by KentExile

[Tomphil2]

That one pops up after every set of accounts just slightly edited year on year i think.

Absolute fruitloop and anybody swallowing it needs a lobotomy.

[Old Rover]

3 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

In a way thats quite encouraging that we can boot out Venkys and still be competitive.

Do you have Preston's cost side stats (wages, admin etc).

 

Their wages were 22 million and it just says other expenses 6.4 million. They lost 14.3 million.

Bolton's for 23/24 were interesting.  They don't detail the revenue the same so i couldn't see their matchday ticket revenue  but their food and  beverage revenue alone was 2.84 million.  Their revenue in total was 21.9 million but they wouldn't have got nearly as much tv money. Think it is or was about 2 million. 

[SuperBrfc]

33 minutes ago, KentExile said:

 

 

The club was losing money before the Walker family sold the club, and was the main reason for selling. The Venkys should have a statue outside the ground. The supporters have now benefited by £212 million pounds. And the club is still losing money. This endless harping about Venkys ruining the club is ridiculous. Look at Sheffield Wednesday if you want to look at the ruinious ownership of a club.

Blackburn Rovers, with gates as they are, is unsaleable at any price. No one would be daft enough to take it on.

 

And there are more, that was just one of the more demented posts

From an account called 'Peter of Preston'. Go figure. Almost certainly a WUM account and a supporter of the most boring club in England. A club more famous for a spud van sponsorship than actual football.

As much as there are Venky sympathisers in our fanbase, I'm yet to see or hear any of them suggest they should have a statue outside Ewood. That's too far, even for them. The rest of that quote is along the lines of what the lost and the bots come out with quite often, though.

[StHelensRover]

1 hour ago, KentExile said:

 

 

The club was losing money before the Walker family sold the club, and was the main reason for selling. The Venkys should have a statue outside the ground. The supporters have now benefited by £212 million pounds. And the club is still losing money. This endless harping about Venkys ruining the club is ridiculous. Look at Sheffield Wednesday if you want to look at the ruinious ownership of a club.

Blackburn Rovers, with gates as they are, is unsaleable at any price. No one would be daft enough to take it on.

 

And there are more, that was just one of the more demented posts

Almost certainly a B*rnley fan