Boycott Or Not?

[Mashed Potatoes]

16 minutes ago, Hasta said:

But are unable to see that almost everybody they ever put in to run the club has been incompetent. After the Shebby Singh era they should have employed the best person to run the club, give them a set budget and let them get on with it without interference. The problem is they knew nothing of the football landscape, wouldn’t have any clue how to interview for that role and their only ‘trusted’ people had already put Kean in charge and lost them millions.

In Pasha, they feel they have a safe pair of hands who won’t screw them over as they had done to them in the past. And as he cuts costs they are happy. And again, they have no understanding of football so are unaware how the club is currently heading backwards in terms of infrastructure, player quality and reputation.

Thats my view on it anyway.

I agree with you.

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

1 - hard to say. Venkys last wrote off around £20m a few seasons ago. That could have been for a variety of reasons but the consequence improved Rovers. It is like that debt will go up but last year Venkys gifted 4.5m in share capital but we then took out less friendly debt in the form of 13m in bank overdrafts. Without seeing how Venkys plan to subside losses this year it’s difficult to answer this. Signs point to them being unwilling or unable to loan anymore though. This will become even worse on relegation, where directors loans are forbidden from offsetting P&S, which means we rely on direct goodwill or we cut more

2 - We would start seeing periodic conversions of loans (debt) to equity. This will reduce the clubs debt but show back in VLL / VHG as a loss. This is when their loss ‘becomes real’.

3 - They technically can keep it going forever. But they won’t. The parent group will have financial rules for ‘debt wipe off’ in order to show a more true picture. I don’t know what that period is for Venkys but at some point “group” has to accept a loss has happened. 
I also think the EFL requires them to write off after a period to show the model is unsustainable. I don’t know those rules though but I bet they exist 

Just thinking aloud here, but who are the major shareholders in the VH Corporation - are they Financial Institutions/Banks etc?

Could publicity be legitimately be put out to the effect that Venky's are spaffing the family silver away on a middling English Football Club 4600 miles away to try and persuade them in turn to put pressure on the Rao's to sell?

[Rogerb]

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Just thinking aloud here, but who are the major shareholders in the VH Corporation - are they Financial Institutions/Banks etc?

Could publicity be legitimately be put out to the effect that Venky's are spaffing the family silver away on a middling English Football Club 4600 miles away to try and persuade them in turn to put pressure on the Rao's to sell?

The VH group has hardly any investment from financial institutions.

[Mashed Potatoes]

11 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I disagree with this Masher

I think the Vs are cold, hard business people who will not do a thing which doesn’t benefit them.

There are several ‘add backs’ in P&S rules. They are basically things which sit outside the P&S calc. They are - charity contributions, women’s football, academy’s and investment infrastructure (although depreciation can be used on this)

I believe the Venkys only fund the academy because it is the only “add back” which can substantially reduce their yearly contributions, through player sales, which sit in the “book” as 100% profit. They show no willing to spend on women’s football (it’s not too expensive) and community outreach / infrastructure is non existent. The only add back they actually care about is the one which benefits them

Personally I don't have a problem with the club being owned by cold, hard business people. It is competence and good decision making that are primarily important, to me anyway ; I agreed with the decision to effectively withdraw from women's football because the increase in costs arising from the new rules were estimated to be in the region of £600k to £700k pa and I would rather see that money spent on improving the first team results.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Rogerb said:

The VH group has hardly any investment from financial institutions.

Who are the shareholders then?

Thanks in advance.

[levi]

24 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

That's what I want to know as well.

For me there should have been plans for different types of protest  for each of the next 2 home games lined up weeks ago.

Can't just have one stab at a boycott and leave it for a month or two. It has to be constant.

Correct...i remember last season a bit of momentum was gathering until the 'express yourself' business...

 

Then it just fizzled out

 

Something should be happening again...the tennis ball thing didn't work last time but if everyone who stayed away saturday takes one it would

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Personally I don't have a problem with the club being owned by cold, hard business people. It is competence and good decision making that are primarily important, to me anyway ; I agreed with the decision to effectively withdraw from women's football because the increase in costs arising from the new rules were estimated to be in the region of £600k to £700k pa and I would rather see that money spent on improving the first team results.

That 600 or 700k isn't subject to FFP though is it? They could make the women's team very successful if they wanted to. Just like they could titivate the ground and infrastructure free of budgetary constraints but choose not to.

They just dont want to put in anything like the same amount of money they used to which indicates to me things are slowly coming to a conclusion.

[Rogerb]

13 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Who are the shareholders then?

Thanks in advance.

Private limited companies and the general public. Institutions between 1 and 2 per cent.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, Rogerb said:

Private limited companies and the general public. Institutions between 1 and 2 per cent.

Do they have any particularly large individual shareholders who could exert any influence over them then? Doesn't have to be a Bank, could be anyone.

Or is it all tiny shareholdings?

[Dreams of 1995]

39 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Personally I don't have a problem with the club being owned by cold, hard business people. It is competence and good decision making that are primarily important, to me anyway ; I agreed with the decision to effectively withdraw from women's football because the increase in costs arising from the new rules were estimated to be in the region of £600k to £700k pa and I would rather see that money spent on improving the first team results.

It isn’t the case that the 600-700k went to the first team though. That cash always sat outside of the P&S rules

[Rogerb]

16 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Do they have any particularly large individual shareholders who could exert any influence over them then? Doesn't have to be a Bank, could be anyone.

Or is it all tiny shareholdings?

Apart from the family seems very fragmented . Tasha enterprises LLP has just over 3 per cent. Basically no large shareholder to exert any influence 

[aletheia]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

2 - We would start seeing periodic conversions of loans (debt) to equity. This will reduce the clubs debt but show back in VLL / VHG as a loss. This is when their loss ‘becomes real’

Thanks again for very useful posts.

How exactly do they do 2? 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

It isn’t the case that the 600-700k went to the first team though. That cash always sat outside of the P&S rules

As I understand It, it  never went anywhere because originally it didnt need to be spent. The rules changed and all of a sudden that level of investment was required.

Irrelevant as far as FFP calculations for the men's team go though. Similar to what Gestede said about the transfer budget, they must have a fixed amount they're prepared to spend on the Club per year and that's it.

[Herbie6590]

6 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Residents of India pay tax on overseas income which seems to be why the law allows them to offset overseas losses too.

There is a double taxation treaty between the UK and India which means they can deduct UK tax paid from the Indian tax they owe.

I can’t see anything in this treaty which alters the Indian law in regard to offsetting losses. 

I once proclaimed that tax offsetting was possible on here & I was quickly corrected by Harry Berry…supported by a specific document

[Mashed Potatoes]

12 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

It isn’t the case that the 600-700k went to the first team though. That cash always sat outside of the P&S rules

I didn't mean the PSR rules. I simply meant the cash available to the management at Ewood Park to spend on improving first team results.

[aletheia]

1 minute ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I didn't mean the PSR rules. I simply meant the cash available to the management at Ewood Park to spend on improving first team results.

Not going too well though.

[aletheia]

Sadly, I am now better informed on finances and so on but still not sanguine about outcomes.

[aletheia]

1 hour ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

1. I don't know; if I had to guess I would say they do not like to accept defeat. I don't think there is any evidence that there is anything untoward at the club to hide.

2. The most likely circumstances for a sale are likely to be some kind of pressure from within India. My guess is that the price they would be looking for if they are not forced sellers is way in excess of what  purchasers would be looking to pay.

3. After 15 years of ownership the only area of the club that is not markedly worse than before is The Academy. Therefore you would have to conclude that their continued ownership is a hindrance. I believe they are in full control of the club and  don't believe that they are puppets of any outside agencies. I believe they do want the club to succeed but lack the skills to achieve that ; I don't think there is any evidence that they have deliberately engineered relegations.

Thank you for the answers.

1 So, all the journalism circa 2010-11 about the shady dealings with Kentaro are hot air?

2 So cost to buy us is too much for anybody and protests here not as important as pressure in India?

 

 

[Herbie6590]

6 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Residents of India pay tax on overseas income which seems to be why the law allows them to offset overseas losses too.

There is a double taxation treaty between the UK and India which means they can deduct UK tax paid from the Indian tax they owe.

I can’t see anything in this treaty which alters the Indian law in regard to offsetting losses. 

This is referencing Indian residents (not corporations) & overseas income…not losses.

DTA are about making sure that individuals aren’t taxed on the same dividend income twice.

That doesn’t apply to Rovers - there are no profits therefore no dividends.

Corporation Tax is totally different. Whether the loss emanating from an overseas subsidiary can be deducted from Indian consolidated profits is a matter for Indian Corporation tax law. 

I’m pretty sure this has been debated at length historically on here with the conclusion being that losses CANNOT be offset…thus adding to the mystery of why they own us…

[Upside Down]

Ok, I've been away from this for a few days. 

So I gather we are boycotting taxes now, is this correct?

Edited 51 minutes ago by Upside Down

[Gav]

30 minutes ago, aletheia said:

Thank you for the answers.

1 So, all the journalism circa 2010-11 about the shady dealings with Kentaro are hot air?

2 So cost to buy us is too much for anybody and protests here not as important as pressure in India?

 

 

I think we all have to accept that no real smoking gun was found aletheia. Yes journalists found snippet here and there but nothing concrete to act upon or get the authorities Interested in.

On current trajectory - 1 boycott was successful, we need to build on that now.