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

[Herbie6590]

On 03/12/2025 at 06:12, roverblue said:

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

Number of employees…

[Tomphil2]

How on earth do we end up with another 45 employees ?

[Rogerb]

I assumed this was down to change in coach and support staff and churn in players in and out the door.

Edited 13 hours ago by Rogerb

[wilsdenrover]

14 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

I’ve reserved the right to ask for a Porsche for Christmas 😉

I believe you’re on the naughty list. 

[Rogerb]

Think the Bank of India overdraft rates are considerably higher than UK rates.

[Herbie6590]

8 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

How on earth do we end up with another 45 employees ?

On average…at some points during the year presumably we were >+45 👀

[Tomphil2]

How many are we still paying that aren't here i wonder.

[...]

2 hours ago, Tomphil2 said:

How on earth do we end up with another 45 employees ?

More people and the marketing is worse than ever 

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

I couldn’t find a disclosure in the VLL accounts but the club banks with State Bank of India so I think we can assume it’s the same entity. 

An important point on administration - the VLL accounts specifically say that there is  NO DEBENTURE securing the overdraft. The bank therefore cannot call in an administrator, as it does not have the legal right so to do.

For Rovers to go into administration they would have be placed there voluntarily by the directors. (See Sheffield Weds). This means the club would have to be trading insolvently (which opens up the directors to personal legal action) & so the directors protect themselves by calling in an admin. 

I suspect we were getting pretty close to that point until Adam was sold. That relieved the pressure. That’s why Waggott kept trumpeting the fact that the bills being paid on time was a cause for celebration. 

The increase in O/D is interesting - because from my days in corporate lending, an unsecured loan of £12m would usually require at the very least some form of inter-company guarantee or personal guarantees from the directors to “focus the minds” of the owners.

If this O/D is truly, completely unsecured then SBI must really value the group relationship & be making plenty of money out of the arrangement fees. 

So, going off the Sheff Wed situation, am I right in thinking that if the V's were ever to put us into administration, due to the EFL "25p in the pound" rule, any potential purchaser would have to pay them a minimum of £55m?

That could be extremely problematic.

[Herbie6590]

11 hours ago, Rogerb said:

Think the Bank of India overdraft rates are considerably higher than UK rates.

2.17% over base on an unsecured overdraft is pretty competitive TBH. 

[Herbie6590]

8 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So, going off the Sheff Wed situation, am I right in thinking that if the V's were ever to put us into administration, due to the EFL "25p in the pound" rule, any potential purchaser would have to pay them a minimum of £55m?

That could be extremely problematic.

Possibly yes…I guess you could argue that if they put us in admin they’d truly be beyond caring about any collateral damage & at least one relegation would be assured. 

There’s no getting away from the fact that Rovers have League One income but a Championship cost base.

If I was tasked with running Rovers to break even then I’d be warning the fans to expect League Two football…

[wilsdenrover]

9 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So, going off the Sheff Wed situation, am I right in thinking that if the V's were ever to put us into administration, due to the EFL "25p in the pound" rule, any potential purchaser would have to pay them a minimum of £55m?

That could be extremely problematic.

And it could well be why they refuse to write off any of the debt (something it appears the auditor feel they should do…)

[RevidgeBlue]

22 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

And it could well be why they refuse to write off any of the debt (something it appears the auditor feel they should do…)

I had a look at the supposed rationale for this rule online and the thinking behind it appears to be the hope than non footballing creditors get a reasonable shake.

No good if it all goes to the person/persons who caused the problem in the first place though, it seems a ludicrous rule to me - a reward for bad ownership.

According to Simon Jordan the 25% requirement was why his consortium pulled out of the running to buy Wednesday. They didn't fancy handing over a large wedge of money to Chansiri.

[Tomphil2]

If they got given 25% of their debt back to clear off i'd be over the moon and lets be honest it's the most they'd ever get and the only way they'd ever get it.

However they go to great lengths to keep us just above the admin line so i can't see that ever changing. We'll just shrink to the level of funding they want to or can afford to put in.

Can see it coming a mile off.

Meanwhile similar clubs with similar cost base continue to get adequate funding, are ran by better football people, get better crowds due to this and remain open for new owners.

Not here though, that's not allowed.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Tomphil2 said:

If they got given 25% of their debt back to clear off i'd be over the moon and lets be honest it's the most they'd ever get and the only way they'd ever get it.

If they continued to refuse to write any debt off, I'd consider the requirement for any prospective purchaser to give us at least £55m (and rising) an absolute bar to finding new owners.

Who'd want to give us that much in our current state? (If we unearthed another couple of Adam Wharton's - maybe)

I wasn't even aware of the 25% rule until the Wednesday situation cropped up.

Ludicrous imo.