Jump to content
Pete1981

Venkys London Ltd accounts

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, OJRovers said:

We’ll need £20million just to stand still. Despite appearing to shed a lot of high earners, there’s still been a cash deficit of £1.5m a month this last 12 months. That’s with only limited spend on Dack etc transfer fees.

I think a lot of people thought the cash drain would be massively reduced in League One, but appears not.

Quite where all that money is going it is difficult to say.

I have my own thoughts on some of that but looking at it non conspiracy how many managers and coaching teams have been hired and fired in the last couple of years never mind a few directors as well.

That's why I struggle to give any gratitude to them underwriting the bills because a huge lump of it was continually created by them, firing GB & co, hiring all that Lambert backroom team as well as him then not backing them, letting them go then hiring that teapot Coyle and his crew. Not to mention some of the crap they foisted on us that had to be paid big wages then paid off in a few cases.

Jesus Barry should have had to sell his car collection and pay for all that lot straight out of his own pocket.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't disagree that we need to be a well-run, efficient club to be somewhat financially stable (although most Championship clubs lose a ton of money, turning back to the parachute payments havers vs have nots...) and successful in the Championship, but thought I'd add some numbers and context to the discussion. The Championship's financial landscape has/will change a lot with the increase in parachute payments.

The focus should be on wage expenditure, not just transfer fees. While we're probably paying absurd wages by League 1 standards this year (the accounts up to March 2017 had our wage bill at £22.6m, so maybe we're down to £15m-ish in League 1? Hard to say...), that's still a pittance in the Championship.

For reference, the always great SwissRamble is going through PL and Championship 16-17 accounts as they come in. This chart shows the wage bills for 16-17 that have been reported so far: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/977106429168545792 After some inflation this year,  the typical 'competitive' wage bill (with exceptions that have already been pointed out!) is probably ~£35m (about the same as our wage bill the first couple years after relegation), but then the likes of Aston Villa, Norwich, and Newcastle can handle wage bills of £50-60m+.

(You can also see Cardiff isn't necessarily the best example of a 'low-spending' club when in 16-17 they had a wage bill of £29m to go along with £29m in revenue and incurred a loss of £21m. I suspect their finances aren't much better for 17-18 as they've had a net transfer spend of ~£10m, plus/minus loan fees)

On a related note, the difference in revenues is getting staggering too: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/977106343139119104 We may hit ~£25m revenue back in the Championship, but parachute payment clubs now have revenues of £75m+.

It's obviously not impossible for a lower-spending team to have some success in the Championship, and posters have already highlighted the right role models for us (Preston, Bristol City, maybe Millwall this year), and revenues of course don't decide everything with notable examples, but I suspect the Championship may slowly drift to have vs have nots with the increasing dominance of parachute payment revenues (think of it like Champions League revenue...) It won't be as '"easy" as when we were last in it. I think our parachute payments were something like £10-12m/year when we went down, versus £41m/year today.

I think Venky's have 'proven' they're willing to keep up a £15m+ wage bill in League 1, and probably incur £10m+ losses doing so, but are they willing to pay a £30m+ wage bill in the Championship and possibly incur £20m+ losses again (plus FFP considerations...)? Hard to say. (Hence I agree with the posters in this thread that we need to see the successful low-spending clubs like Preston or Bristol City as role models)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing money is a fact of life in the Championship. To begin with we need to get rid of the notion that its only Rovers or the less well supported clubs that lose money hand over fist. Every club does it, even the supposedly 'well run' ones, its part of life at that level and whilst it might make some people uncomfortable it isn't likely to change any time soon.

Some clubs have it at a 'manageable' level of a few million a year, whereas others are up in the tens of millions a year. Ultimately it depends on the resources of the owner as to whether that is sustainable.

There's a multitude of reasons for it all but the primary driving force is unsustainable wage levels which non-Premier League clubs cannot afford without major external funding.

Owners of clubs know what the game is all about and know if they own a club at Championship level then it is going to cost them a lot of money.

Some owners deserve to lose money more than others. For example Venkys are responsible for not having a Premier League income having cost us that through their decision making, have then brought the majority of their losses upon themselves through incompetence and negligence. Some want to credit them with still paying the bills every month but as I've suggested previously they don't have much choice. The alternative to carrying it on is to cut and run but then their 'asset' is either liquidated or picked up by someone else at a knockdown price and their £100 million of debt needs to be stacked against another part of their portfolio.

Other owners have sustained heavy losses chasing the dream of promotion with good intentions and doing everything by the book but falling short. All part of the gamble.

The Walker Trust somehow managed to saddle us with £20 million+ of bank debt despite years of access to the Premier League riches, so who knows how far into the red we'd be by now if they were still here and we'd been relegated (highly likely with no investment).

If Venkys start to run the club properly and continue to pay the bills then I would applaud any serious efforts to rebuild the club. However I'm not convinced we're at that stage yet and I still remain of the view that a lot of their losses are brought about or enhanced by continued poor management. One example - we still don't have a commercial director at the club - so its no use pleading poverty if you don't even make the effort to employ someone to run the commercial arm of the club.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's truly success though? Venkys have claimed they want to get back to the EPL and will do what it takes. Preston and Bristol City aren't role models to follow at this point.

The club had those bank debts under the Walker family influenced trust because they wouldn't contribute a damn thing. The bank + Tv money was the only option. I don't know what guarantees were offered (if they borrowed with potential future Tv revenue as collateral) as I doubt they would have paid any of it off. Any remaining debts Jack hadn't already written off (the money spent initially after promotion was probably via the last of his share capital) were not removed out of generosity. The family had given up trying to get those repaid and just wanted to grab what they could (from whoever they could) before inevitably being relegated. They couldn't stand the risk of losing the club for next to nothing in the Championship. They probably wouldn't have wasted money as Venkys did in 2012 but only because costs would have been cut to the minimum or just enough to be mediocre in the Championship. In that case the club might even have ended up in L1 after 3 or 4 seasons of this. Wigan have been relegated to L1 twice and that's with Whelan still subsidising them. 

Edited by Vinjay17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Canada Rover that the Champ could end up rather two or three tiered with the massive parachutes and the likes of SKY etc seemingly willing to pump endless  TV money god knows how many times per season into the likes of Leeds. That's why the FUP is a fook up as owners should be able to pump in what they want if it's their money not debt to allow clubs to compete with these advantages some clubs have.

You look at the Championship and how smaller clubs struggle to stay in there more than a season or two, your Rotherhams, Donny's, Posh etc there is a fair old list and Shrewsbury will probably end up on it if they go up.  It shouldn't be that way really but it is.

Edited by tomphil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Ya, I think 10-12 million spent well would give us a squad capable of challenging for the play-offs 

Not going up doesn't bear thinking about. We wont see Dack in a Rovers shirt again anyway, thats for sure 

Problem is you spend £12million on lets say 4 decent recruits. Up a level they want 3 or 4 year deals and we are back to £20 grand a week if the players are any good.  So you then end up with 4 players costing you £4million a year for 4 years = £16mill of wages plus £12mill transfer costs. that's where it gets silly again with our gates and income.

I get the feeling the accountants who came in last Summer wouldn't let them do that  so it is a concern I have had personally for a while .I think its more likely to be  a go up and see what you can do with a couple of quid rather than an assault on the PL.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RoverCanada said:

I certainly don't disagree that we need to be a well-run, efficient club to be somewhat financially stable (although most Championship clubs lose a ton of money, turning back to the parachute payments havers vs have nots...) and successful in the Championship, but thought I'd add some numbers and context to the discussion. The Championship's financial landscape has/will change a lot with the increase in parachute payments.

The focus should be on wage expenditure, not just transfer fees. While we're probably paying absurd wages by League 1 standards this year (the accounts up to March 2017 had our wage bill at £22.6m, so maybe we're down to £15m-ish in League 1? Hard to say...), that's still a pittance in the Championship.

For reference, the always great SwissRamble is going through PL and Championship 16-17 accounts as they come in. This chart shows the wage bills for 16-17 that have been reported so far: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/977106429168545792 After some inflation this year,  the typical 'competitive' wage bill (with exceptions that have already been pointed out!) is probably ~£35m (about the same as our wage bill the first couple years after relegation), but then the likes of Aston Villa, Norwich, and Newcastle can handle wage bills of £50-60m+.

(You can also see Cardiff isn't necessarily the best example of a 'low-spending' club when in 16-17 they had a wage bill of £29m to go along with £29m in revenue and incurred a loss of £21m. I suspect their finances aren't much better for 17-18 as they've had a net transfer spend of ~£10m, plus/minus loan fees)

On a related note, the difference in revenues is getting staggering too: https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/977106343139119104 We may hit ~£25m revenue back in the Championship, but parachute payment clubs now have revenues of £75m+.

It's obviously not impossible for a lower-spending team to have some success in the Championship, and posters have already highlighted the right role models for us (Preston, Bristol City, maybe Millwall this year), and revenues of course don't decide everything with notable examples, but I suspect the Championship may slowly drift to have vs have nots with the increasing dominance of parachute payment revenues (think of it like Champions League revenue...) It won't be as '"easy" as when we were last in it. I think our parachute payments were something like £10-12m/year when we went down, versus £41m/year today.

I think Venky's have 'proven' they're willing to keep up a £15m+ wage bill in League 1, and probably incur £10m+ losses doing so, but are they willing to pay a £30m+ wage bill in the Championship and possibly incur £20m+ losses again (plus FFP considerations...)? Hard to say. (Hence I agree with the posters in this thread that we need to see the successful low-spending clubs like Preston or Bristol City as role models)

Yes ...the  close but no cigar brigade sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TBTF said:

Problem is you spend £12million on lets say 4 decent recruits. Up a level they want 3 or 4 year deals and we are back to £20 grand a week if the players are any good.  So you then end up with 4 players costing you £4million a year for 4 years = £16mill of wages plus £12mill transfer costs. that's where it gets silly again with our gates and income.

I get the feeling the accountants who came in last Summer wouldn't let them do that  so it is a concern I have had personally for a while .I think its more likely to be  a go up and see what you can do with a couple of quid rather than an assault on the PL.

I too suspect the days of those financial outlays are gone. One of the few good things about where we are now is the forward salary bill excluding legacy payments to paid off deadbeats must be dramatically smaller than a couple of years ago. 

Under the latter days of the Trust the sales of our best players were funding the salaries of those nobody wanted to buy. Where did the Duff money go? In part to pay Brett Emerton £30k/week. So we never were operating sustainably. At least now we are operating less unsustainably than when Danny Murphy was trousering the GDP of Darwen every week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

I too suspect the days of those financial outlays are gone. One of the few good things about where we are now is the forward salary bill excluding legacy payments to paid off deadbeats must be dramatically smaller than a couple of years ago. 

Under the latter days of the Trust the sales of our best players were funding the salaries of those nobody wanted to buy. Where did the Duff money go? In part to pay Brett Emerton £30k/week. So we never were operating sustainably. At least now we are operating less unsustainably than when Danny Murphy was trousering the GDP of Darwen every week.

Yeah should have mentioned that when referring to bank overdrafts, etc. Anything but funds from the so called trust FUND. Except when they put in 3 million when they felt like it. Probably during brief interludes where the Walker family didn't threaten them with legalities for a couple of days. Or once in a while slightly standing up to them. 

Edited by Vinjay17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Jack have the 3 million per year written into his wishes for the club as an ongoing annual donation from the Trust Fund to make up the shortfall between our crowds and full houses ?

Smart move so quite why or how they got that stopped who knows and I refuse to believe they couldn't afford to keep doing that with something like a 700 million worth. It certainly hurt the club when it was stopped.

Still I suppose it irked some of the already wealthy offspring with their own expanding families and business empires :huh:

Edited by tomphil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Didn't Jack have the 3 million per year written into his wishes for the club as an ongoing annual donation from the Trust Fund to make up the shortfall between our crowds and full houses ?

Smart move so quite why or how they got that stopped who knows and I refuse to believe they couldn't afford to keep doing that with something like a 700 million worth. It certainly hurt the club when it was stopped.

Still I suppose it irked some of the already wealthy offspring with their own expanding families and business empires :huh:

Just like they decided they were not going to rebuild the Riverside even though Jack wanted it. Of course he had planned it for 1999 so it was delayed but after promotion it should have happened. Granted its not as important as transfer funds, etc and people might say it wouldn't have been filled (with the club doing a poor job of targeting catchment areas, etc and constantly making small town claims) but Jack wanted it and that's that. Williams said they went against Jack's wishes on this at a fans forum meeting which Revidge attended. Its no wonder I question why Williams, Finn, etc took no issue with this. Guess its easy though when the fans are easily manipulated. I think some on here would hate it if Blackburn becomes a city because they enjoy labelling it a "small town" for some reason. This isn't just some wild theory I saw a poll of the Bolton public and more said they wanted to remain with town status. Bizarre mentality and I believe that's how the Blackburn public would feel. Obviously I'm talking about city status in the modern day not places like Wells and Ripon.

As for the 3 million that would have just been the minimum. It might have been dependent on how other companies under the trust fund were performing (those which were supposed to generate funds for beneficiaries, etc) but unless they were really struggling Rovers should have been a beneficiary. Should note once again that they only sold Flybe AFTER offloading the club. Its not a stretch to imagine the Walker family insisted on that so the club wouldn't ask for a handout. Maybe if they had sold Flybe first and the club got nothing who knows? Maybe Rovers fans would have actually complained about it!

Edited by Vinjay17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without fanning the flames, the club itself can't afford to plug that gap but the Raos can afford to stump up that amount of cash.  It often amazes me how fans all over the country mock their actual business. It is a fantastic sector to be involved in. Chicken is eaten by the majority of the world. The demand for it will never go away in any country, nor will the need for the pharmaceutical arm of their business.  

Why they got involved in this club is anyone's guess and they are clearly out of their depth and caused us no end of pain. Right now though, I'm happy for them to throw money down a pit that they dug themselves and sadly, we need them to keep doing it until we can drag ourselves up the leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Pedro said:

Without fanning the flames, the club itself can't afford to plug that gap but the Raos can afford to stump up that amount of cash.  It often amazes me how fans all over the country mock their actual business. It is a fantastic sector to be involved in. Chicken is eaten by the majority of the world. The demand for it will never go away in any country, nor will the need for the pharmaceutical arm of their business.  

Why they got involved in this club is anyone's guess and they are clearly out of their depth and caused us no end of pain. Right now though, I'm happy for them to throw money down a pit that they dug themselves and sadly, we need them to keep doing it until we can drag ourselves up the leagues.

Yeah that is true. I was just talking to someone earlier today about public houses being a poor investment. Some pretentious ones or those in prime city locations might be exceptions (though even those have probably declined) but otherwise they continue to close all over the place. I also brought up Blockbuster (and the irony considering how many rental stores closed after Blockbuster opened in their neighbourhood) and how their business model had faults. Maybe if they had invested in internet streaming faster they could have stemmed the tide and become what Netflix are but they didn't. Poor business management. 

Owners can sell what they like as long as its legal. I'm not gonna sneer at West Ham's owners because of their background but you won't see adult XXX sponsorships at football stadiums will you? OK its because the FA won't allow it but hardly prizes for guessing why! Its reminded me of this story actually and there's probably been similar somewhere.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/football-team-sponsored-pornhub-banned-4535745

Back on the chicken subject should point out animal welfare but I can't deny it isn't at the top of my priority list. Its pretty telling that animal welfare hasn't been one of the primary digs for Rovers fans to aim at Venkys. Survival of the fittest and all that at least when it comes to humans v animals. There's no such thing as "humane slaughter" either! 

Edited by Vinjay17
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier this evening Duncan Miller informed me that Venkysout.com has received legal threats from an "unknown" source. Of course the guesswork should be obvious. My feeling is its probably Venkys given the title and all. Stuff was written about others on there too so shouldn't rule them out regardless of what their relationship is with Venkys these days.

The site has been going through a transitional period and Madon has been in the process of handing it over. Given his fingerprints are all over it the threats seem to be specifically aimed at him) but he may be able to elaborate further on whether the hosting provider was also threatened. As far as I know Madon was the one who took it down. The major point however is someone made a legal complaint. So it wouldn't really matter if it was the hosting provider or those offering to pay for the hosting costs who took it down.

Its certainly convenient timing with fans not exactly being in the mood for mutiny at the moment. At least until they do something else idiotic. If its not just the title that drew the complaint then obviously other sites should be alert.

Edited by Vinjay17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vinjay17 said:

Earlier this evening Duncan Miller informed me that Venkysout.com has received legal threats from an "unknown" source. Of course the guesswork should be obvious. My feeling is its probably Venkys given the title and all. Stuff was written about others on there too so shouldn't rule them out regardless of what their relationship is with Venkys these days.

The site has been going through a transitional period and Madon has been in the process of handing it over. Given his fingerprints are all over it the threats seem to be specifically aimed at him) but he may be able to elaborate further on whether the hosting provider was also threatened. As far as I know Madon was the one who took it down. The major point however is someone made a legal complaint. So it wouldn't really matter if it was the hosting provider or those offering to pay for the hosting costs who took it down.

Its certainly convenient timing with fans not exactly being in the mood for mutiny at the moment. At least until they do something else idiotic. If its not just the title that drew the complaint then obviously other sites should be alert.

Perhaps I’m being naive but how can a legal threat come from an unknown source?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know. Just saying what I was told. I'm sure Madon would have told Duncan. etc if he knows 100% who it is

Edited by Vinjay17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we were organising 'Rock Against Venkys' I received a couple of weird emails stating that I should not use Venky's brand name to advertise the event and that I should remove all references immediately. This happened after the story was covered in the Daily Telegraph. I have no idea how the sender got my email address but I had been communicating with lots of newspapers and radio stations, bands, venues etc using that email.

I just dismissed the warnings as they came from a GMAIL.com address and didn't seem in any way official. I was really hoping it WAS Venky's as the publicity of them trying to stop the gig would have been fantastic. I replied pointing out that I had not put the apostrophe in VENKYS so was not actually using the brand name. No idea if this was a valid defence but I never heard anything else.

I would think the publicity of Venky's taking legal action against venkysout.com would not be worth their while. Again, the publicity that could be generated would do more harm to Venky's than the website itself I would think.

When I was handing out flyers for Rock Against Venkys at Ewood before the MK Dons match earlier this season I got a very mixed response.

I would say 50% of people I spoke to were broadly supportive, 40% were ambivalent about Venky's and 10% were totally against any protest and were happy for Venky's to stay.

All valid opinions, of course, but a couple of people reacted as if I was an escaped lunatic and gave me a right mouthful. I suspect someone with these views sent the emails to me. But I will never know.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't actually consider that. I can't speak for everyone but myself and Duncan M discussed Venkys and a few other figures like Anderson, Shaw, etc based on some things written about them. I ruled out Singh because someone was pretending to be him on twitter a while back until Glen M verified it wasn't. There was a screenshot of an exchange with Singh saying he wasn't on twitter (I think he might be now but its a protected account) and had no idea what was being said. Added that he didn't care so not really the words of someone who's likely to take legal action over such things. I certainly know there are some people who are anti-protest so don't think its far fetched at all. 

I've said before that Anderson, Shaw, etc wouldn't be doing this out of concern for Venkys. I don't ignore lawsuits filed between parties after all. I doubt they would pretend to be Venkys and obviously completely different to an anti-protest Rovers fan with no better way to take it down. Makes no real sense either its not andersonout or shawout.com. Nor would it make sense now either except for anyone who still Anderson is still pulling the strings. 

Since certain things still aren't clear I've asked if its specifically over the website title. What we know is Madon took it down with the biggest theories being Venkys or duped in the scenario Crimpshrine mentioned. Anyway hopefully the whole thing will become clear sooner rather than later so I don't need to keep editing posts like this over and over.

Edited by Vinjay17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Price of Football on Twitter has been looking through Rovers’ accounts. 

We owe Venky’s a bizillon quid.

Player wages down. Director pay up. How Animal Farm!

We spent net £7.6 million on transfers this season.

 

 

Edited by Mattyblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeepers!!

£187 in wages for every £100 of income.

Venkys have “spent” over a quarter of a billion quid. £108m in loans and £147m in shares ... madness!

Football is crazy!

Edited by cesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those figures are scary for the simple fact that we are totally and utterly reliant on them, if they decide to pull the plug in the near future then we will be in a similar position to what Bolton find themselves.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.