Jump to content
Pete1981

Venkys London Ltd accounts

Recommended Posts

Just now, tomphil said:

No doubt helped by income from player sales they don't appear to pump money in to reduce external debt the club seems to have to fund that itself.

This is not so, interest payable to the bank is clearly dependent upon borrowings. You reduce the borrowings, you reduce the amount of interest payable. Interest payable has reduced dramatically (roughly two thirds) so in a stable interest rate environment, average borrowings must have reduced similarly.

Venkys have reduced external debt & funded more themselves interest free, that’s why the bill has reduced.

Funds from player sales are part of income. They are shown in the accounts. 

Venkys fund our losses from their funds, I’m not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion that they “don’t appear to pump money in to reduce external debt” when the numbers point to exactly the opposite ?

BTW, I say this every time the accounts are updated...I am no Venkys apologist but if we are going to criticise them, let’s do it based on facts because it makes for a valid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blueboy3333 said:
Eo6xtzyh_bigger.jpg
As well as owing Venkys £108 million in loans the owners have invested £147 million in shares taking total past the £1/4 billion mark.
 
D2KdDeaWkAM3Zd7.jpg























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 

So we owe them £108 million then. You can't 'owe' your owners share capital. That money has been invested. They aren't getting it back and if they think they are they're in for a wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tomphil said:

They wanted the club for publicity but the first plans went awry but now annually they are publicised as wealthy generous benefactors propping the club up, i'm sure that does them no harm in certain quarters.

Every time we are on SKY it gets rammed down the throats several times per match, 'Venkys keep pumping in x million, badly advised etc etc'

Not exactly bad publicity is it.

If I was Venkys head of marketing I doubt that I would ever have suggested what they have done as being a positive way of improving their profile TBH.

What they haven’t done (yet...) at least is walk away. But common sense suggests that there must come a point where they say enough is enough. The acid test of their integrity is what form that might take....orderly or anarchic ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JHRover said:

I thought Waggott said we were mid-table or top 10 for wages in the Championship?

Ah, good recall. His quote was we're probably about "10th to 16th". Based on 17/18 wages, that would be a range of £19m-£31m. May be slightly higher this year with more parachute payments floating around. I'd be surprised if we're spending £30m, which we haven't seen since we were a parachute payment-receiving club. We were at £22m in 16/17, good for 14th in the Championship. So, comfortably 'bottom of mid-table', like the on-field product :)

Edited by RoverCanada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JHRover said:

So we owe them £108 million then. You can't 'owe' your owners share capital. That money has been invested. They aren't getting it back and if they think they are they're in for a wait.

if someone buys the club they'll have to buy those shares, no? Or will that be a gift from Venky's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blueboy3333 said:

if someone buys the club they'll have to buy those shares, no? Or will that be a gift from Venky's?

They aren't shares in the club, they are shares in Venkys London Limited. So surely VLL can sell the shares in Blackburn Rovers Ltd for whatever price they decide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blueboy3333 said:

if someone buys the club they'll have to buy those shares, no? Or will that be a gift from Venky's?

Correct. The shareholding  is what is sold...at an agreed price...which is based on the value perceived by the buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JHRover said:

They aren't shares in the club, they are shares in Venkys London Limited. So surely VLL can sell the shares in Blackburn Rovers Ltd for whatever price they decide?

To all intents & purposes, they are the same thing, VLL is essentially just a holding company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JHRover said:

They aren't shares in the club, they are shares in Venkys London Limited. So surely VLL can sell the shares in Blackburn Rovers Ltd for whatever price they decide?

They have converted debt into capital. That is money they have invested in the club. That amount stands at over £250m. Your whole argument is predicated on Venky's just giving the club away because Bolton's owner wrote off his loans. I think you're in fantasy land. 

 

Just now, JHRover said:

They aren't shares in the club, they are shares in Venkys London Limited. So surely VLL can sell the shares in Blackburn Rovers Ltd for whatever price they decide?

The same thing - Venky's London IS Rovers. 

Edited by blueboy3333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blueboy3333 said:

They have converted debt into capital. That is money they have invested in the club. That amount stands at over £250m. Your whole argument is predicated on Venky's just giving the club away because Bolton's owner wrote off his loans. I think you're in fantasy land. 

 

The same thing - Venky's London IS Rovers. 

I think it is fantasy land to think Venkys could reasonably expect or ever get anywhere near that figure for this club.

Two options - they do what Whelan did at Wigan or less successfully Davies at Bolton - write off their investment and sell the club for a reasonable price to someone else to pick up the tab from here on.

Or alternatively dump the club into admin/liquidation and walk away - again they won't be seeing close to that money.

It's gone. Spent. Not to be seen again.

It's like me spending a fortune renovating a house with borrowed money and then when I decide to sell the house expecting someone else to pay those loans off whilst buying the house too. Isnt going to happen and nobody would realistically expect it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, picking up on PriceOfFootball's tweet here: https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1108621602051289089?s=20, we've "entered transfer agreements amounting to net transfer fees payable of £7.6m" since these accounts.

Hard to say whether that includes performance-based add-ons (apparently we potentially owe another £2.1m on purchases based on performance add-ons, but that may be for 17-18, so for the likes of Dack, Samuel, Bell, etc. but not including this years' additions)

Let's say Armstrong was £1.75m, Rothwell and Davenport £400k. Maybe another £200k on Chapman, Lyons, Annesley, and Durrant (maybe the former three are too recent to be included), plus loan fees...? Doubt we've received much for outgoing loans. That suggests Brereton's initial cost was about £5.25m.

edit: PriceOfFootball also highlights director pay went up from £166k to £282k, but worth keeping in mind that's largely from adding a director... Per director compensation rose from £83k/year to £94k/year.

 

Edited by RoverCanada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RoverCanada said:

That suggests Brereton's initial cost was about £5.25m.

Indeed. So much for the flex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JHRover said:

I think it is fantasy land to think Venkys could reasonably expect or ever get anywhere near that figure for this club.

Two options - they do what Whelan did at Wigan or less successfully Davies at Bolton - write off their investment and sell the club for a reasonable price to someone else to pick up the tab from here on.

Or alternatively dump the club into admin/liquidation and walk away - again they won't be seeing close to that money.

It's gone. Spent. Not to be seen again.

It's like me spending a fortune renovating a house with borrowed money and then when I decide to sell the house expecting someone else to pay those loans off whilst buying the house too. Isnt going to happen and nobody would realistically expect it to.

Wrong. The 3rd option is they keep the club and keep turning debt into equity.

The rest of your post is exactly why they wont give the club away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blueboy3333 said:

Wrong. The 3rd option is they keep the club and keep turning debt into equity.

The rest of your post is exactly why they wont give the club away. 

I meant to say those are the only two options if they want out and want to stop funding the club. Of course they can cart on as they have been and juggle things around to suit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blueboy3333 said:

Indeed. So much for the flex. 

Take a nought off that fee and it would have been a decent gamble. Samuel cost about that and going off his pre injury form he made more of an impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blueboy3333 said:

They have converted debt into capital. That is money they have invested in the club. That amount stands at over £250m. Your whole argument is predicated on Venky's just giving the club away because Bolton's owner wrote off his loans. I think you're in fantasy land. 

 

The same thing - Venky's London IS Rovers. 

I get the impression that you don't really understand how company structure works.  

They bought us in the premier league for 23m.  They have invested into their own asset and lost money and we are in a much worse position because irrespective of the money spent.  It's their company and their debt.  In a way it's not a bad deal for us....at least they aren't that pillock at Bolton who's trying to make a fast buck off the back of Eddie Dsvies...very sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sparks Rover said:

I get the impression that you don't really understand how company structure works.  

They bought us in the premier league for 23m.  They have invested into their own asset and lost money and we are in a much worse position because irrespective of the money spent.  It's their company and their debt.  In a way it's not a bad deal for us....at least they aren't that pillock at Bolton who's trying to make a fast buck off the back of Eddie Dsvies...very sad.

You've said literally nothing there about company structure, whilst telling me I don't know how it works. Well done.

Any updates on these 'local' buyers waiting to snap us up?😂

Edited by blueboy3333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cesus said:

It’s complete and utter madness. I always say if I had £100m and Venkys gave me the club debt free, my cash would run out before the club could self sustain, how as fans can we ask people to spend that money. Some long hard questions need to asked of how much is being taken out of the game by players, managers and agents.

It's a complete madhouse.

Why would anyone literally piss away a quarter of a Billion pounds,what is the motive?

What do the Raos get back out of owning us...is it all basically down to vanity and merely the fact that they like to show the world they can blow that sort of coin?

10 years under their tenure and still so many unanswered questions.:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blueboy3333 said:

You're getting desperate now.

I'm no expert but I know more than you. 

If he's Ewood Sparks, you're right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

It's a complete madhouse.

Why would anyone literally piss away a quarter of a Billion pounds,what is the motive?

What do the Raos get back out of owning us...is it all basically down to vanity and merely the fact that they like to show the world they can blow that sort of coin?

10 years under their tenure and still so many unanswered questions.:huh:

I agree, I didn’t understand their motives on Day 1 & nothing that has happened subsequently has shed any light on this. One thing is certain, it’s been an expensive hobby...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I think it is fantasy land to think Venkys could reasonably expect or ever get anywhere near that figure for this club.

Two options - they do what Whelan did at Wigan or less successfully Davies at Bolton - write off their investment and sell the club for a reasonable price to someone else to pick up the tab from here on.

Or alternatively dump the club into admin/liquidation and walk away - again they won't be seeing close to that money.

It's gone. Spent. Not to be seen again.

It's like me spending a fortune renovating a house with borrowed money and then when I decide to sell the house expecting someone else to pay those loans off whilst buying the house too. Isnt going to happen and nobody would realistically expect it to.

...and that's a question of spite and how much?

Perhaps the "best case scenario" for them would be to get promoted then sell the club. Without pilfering Tv funds and remember there's no Belokon figure to prevent that. Of course in the meantime thanks to incompetence and FUP it's by no means a certainty. Clubs don't normally remain in the Championship as long as Ipswich have (pending their inevitable relegation) so there's that but the question is which way? Another stint in L1 might turn out the way last season did but it's still a wasted year towards what the end game should be.

Edited by Vinjay17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

If I was Venkys head of marketing I doubt that I would ever have suggested what they have done as being a positive way of improving their profile TBH.

What they haven’t done (yet...) at least is walk away. But common sense suggests that there must come a point where they say enough is enough. The acid test of their integrity is what form that might take....orderly or anarchic ?

That's not what i'm suggesting either it's just a by product now of their ownership like having a loss making money pit in their portfolio.  Not entirely what it was bought for in the first place but still comes in handy now they've found other uses for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up, cost of promotion black to Championship has been high.

 

Figures from Club’s Director’s Report filed at Companies House for the year ending June 2018 show :

Turnover has reduced by nearly 6 million pounds, from £14.9 Million in 2017, to £9.0 Million in 2018.

Match day income reduced by £0.5 Million (2017 was £3.3M, 2018 was £2.8M).

Media income reduced by £4.8 Million (2017 - £6.7M, 2018 - £1.9M).

Commercial and other income reduced by £0.6 Million (2017 - £4.9M, 2018 - £4.3 M).

Operating expenses increased to £8.9 million, up from £5.9 million in 2017. 

However, there was a reduction in wages and salaries of £5.2 million (2017 - £22M, 2018 - £16.8M).

This has resulted in a pre tax loss of £16.8 Million, compared to just £3.8 Million the previous year, with the wage turnover ratio now 186.7%.

The club’s net liabilities are now just under £125 million, up from just under £109 million the previous year, with the amount due to the parent company (Venky’s) at a massive £108.76 million. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

This is not so, interest payable to the bank is clearly dependent upon borrowings. You reduce the borrowings, you reduce the amount of interest payable. Interest payable has reduced dramatically (roughly two thirds) so in a stable interest rate environment, average borrowings must have reduced similarly.

Venkys have reduced external debt & funded more themselves interest free, that’s why the bill has reduced.

Funds from player sales are part of income. They are shown in the accounts. 

Venkys fund our losses from their funds, I’m not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion that they “don’t appear to pump money in to reduce external debt” when the numbers point to exactly the opposite ?

BTW, I say this every time the accounts are updated...I am no Venkys apologist but if we are going to criticise them, let’s do it based on facts because it makes for a valid argument.

Player sales form part of the overall income as you say and that reduces debt and there was a large cashing in of assets a few years ago that no doubt helped massively to reduce that.

Theoretically at any point in time say preseason for arguments sake they could pay off the overdraft or other external debts to give us a clean slate but they don't because that would cock up the accounting process.  Probably standard practise at many clubs but imo next time that overdraft is stretching to the limit and the bank are getting tetchy players will be sold to reduce it in the short term and Venkys won't plug in say 5 million as a one of to cover it.

People seem to portray it as if the club has no income of its own and they just pay for everything - I say that every season. We are reliant on them but that's mainly because of the model they run i.e run it cack handed run up continuing losses on one hand whilst trying to reduce them with the other, the club is stuck inbetween this scenario and has to pay a slice of it itself whilst yes the owners cover the rest but it doesn't make it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jim mk2 said:

 

Operating expenses increased to £8.9 million, up from £5.9 million in 2017. 

 

 

I noticed this when flicking through the shareholder accounts the other day. Can someone explain what this is? It seems to read to me in the accounts as though Cheston says this £3 million was largely down to payments to the parent company (or something of the sort). Certainly seems like a massive increase and reads as though that cash has gone to VLL or the owners in some form.

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.