Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] Rovers' accounts for 30 June 2016


Mercer

Recommended Posts

Just now, Suhail Slayer said:

These lawyers were the ones who were involved in the sale of Rovers to Venkys (under their previous name) also Sheff, Wed, etc

Namely the lawyer  David Julian Hull

 

However this new entry at companies house looks like something significant is happening.

Nothing significant at all, just the normal form. Venkys London Ltd own over 75% of Blackburn Rovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, chaddyrovers said:

So they still owned 99% of the club? 

Has the ownership of VLL change?

On the forms for Companies House, it has to show anyone who owns more than 75% of the shares. If they owned 100% of shares this would show, but as they own 99.9% this can not be shown, so they fall into the category over 75%. No new changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GanG2245 said:

A good read. Isn't it amazing what a quality local newspaper can produce? (are you reading Lancashire Telegraph?).

So according to those figures our revenue with parachute cash was about £22 million. If we take off the parachute cash that still leaves revenue of about £14 million. That's the same as Bristol City and slightly less than Birmingham, Ipswich and Forest. More than Huddersfield/Preston/Charlton. Without parachute money last season we'd have been around 17th out of 24 teams in revenue terms.

So not exactly good, but certainly not the 'we can't compete on our revenues/gates' situation that many want to encourage. Even without the parachute money and despite commercial/corporate neglect over 7 years our income is at a competitive Championship level. Middlesbrough, Wednesday and Derby, all of whom have recently had substantially larger crowds turning up, had revenues of less than £10 million more than ours, which in 2016 terms is a couple of decent players on decent contracts. Not a game changing difference.

Hull, Burnley, Fulham, QPR and Cardiff all massively above where they would naturally be. If they didn't have parachute cash their natural revenues would be similar or less than those at Rovers/Birmingham/Forest.

So all in all it isn't the bleak picture of doom that many want to spread. Even ignoring parachute cash and with no commercial department we've recently had revenues on a competitive Championship level. Of course that will fall as more and more walk away from financially supporting this regime, but there is no doubt something to work with if someone else managed to take over. It makes our performance against the likes of Preston and Huddersfield all the more inexcusable.

That's before we get round to the player sales....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JHRover said:

A good read. Isn't it amazing what a quality local newspaper can produce? (are you reading Lancashire Telegraph?).

So according to those figures our revenue with parachute cash was about £22 million. If we take off the parachute cash that still leaves revenue of about £14 million. That's the same as Bristol City and slightly less than Birmingham, Ipswich and Forest. More than Huddersfield/Preston/Charlton. Without parachute money last season we'd have been around 17th out of 24 teams in revenue terms.

So not exactly good, but certainly not the 'we can't compete on our revenues/gates' situation that many want to encourage. Even without the parachute money and despite commercial/corporate neglect over 7 years our income is at a competitive Championship level. Middlesbrough, Wednesday and Derby, all of whom have recently had substantially larger crowds turning up, had revenues of less than £10 million more than ours, which in 2016 terms is a couple of decent players on decent contracts. Not a game changing difference.

Hull, Burnley, Fulham, QPR and Cardiff all massively above where they would naturally be. If they didn't have parachute cash their natural revenues would be similar or less than those at Rovers/Birmingham/Forest.

So all in all it isn't the bleak picture of doom that many want to spread. Even ignoring parachute cash and with no commercial department we've recently had revenues on a competitive Championship level. Of course that will fall as more and more walk away from financially supporting this regime, but there is no doubt something to work with if someone else managed to take over. It makes our performance against the likes of Preston and Huddersfield all the more inexcusable.

That's before we get round to the player sales....

3 words JH...

CRASS FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, JHRover said:

A good read. Isn't it amazing what a quality local newspaper can produce? (are you reading Lancashire Telegraph?).

So according to those figures our revenue with parachute cash was about £22 million. If we take off the parachute cash that still leaves revenue of about £14 million. That's the same as Bristol City and slightly less than Birmingham, Ipswich and Forest. More than Huddersfield/Preston/Charlton. Without parachute money last season we'd have been around 17th out of 24 teams in revenue terms.

So not exactly good, but certainly not the 'we can't compete on our revenues/gates' situation that many want to encourage. Even without the parachute money and despite commercial/corporate neglect over 7 years our income is at a competitive Championship level. Middlesbrough, Wednesday and Derby, all of whom have recently had substantially larger crowds turning up, had revenues of less than £10 million more than ours, which in 2016 terms is a couple of decent players on decent contracts. Not a game changing difference.

Hull, Burnley, Fulham, QPR and Cardiff all massively above where they would naturally be. If they didn't have parachute cash their natural revenues would be similar or less than those at Rovers/Birmingham/Forest.

So all in all it isn't the bleak picture of doom that many want to spread. Even ignoring parachute cash and with no commercial department we've recently had revenues on a competitive Championship level. Of course that will fall as more and more walk away from financially supporting this regime, but there is no doubt something to work with if someone else managed to take over. It makes our performance against the likes of Preston and Huddersfield all the more inexcusable.

That's before we get round to the player sales....

More credit should go to Swiss Ramble, which is a great source for comparing teams' finances (and is the source of the charts within) :)

It's always been parachute payment receiving clubs vs non-parachute payment receiving clubs. The difference is massive. And we squandered that advantage years ago.

Odd you highlight Middlesbrough, Derby, and Wednesday as they had losses of £32M, £15M, and £10M respectively in 2015/16. So not only are their revenues ~£10M higher, but they're also spending well beyond their means, while we're heading in the opposite direction. That's game changing... (as long as the money is spent relatively well, which we failed to do when we were the ones overspending!)

Agreed that there's nothing necessarily stopping us from surviving in the Championship club at revenues around £15M, but it does put us in the precarious bottom half. That includes relatively 'successful' (stable-ish) Ipswich and Birmingham (who still lost £7M and £5m respectively, and it seems Venky's is no longer even willing/able to cover that anymore), but that's also within the range of Rotherham, MK Dons, or Bristol City...

Considering our revenues, the wage bill needs to fall to £12-£16M-ish (and even then we'd be losing £5M or so a year), and that would put us in the bottom 5-7. Hence why I've said before that if our wages are currently 9th in the league and ~£20M, questions need to be raised of what that is being spent on exactly. Are the likes of Graham, Evans, Lowe, Stokes, etc. really that overpaid? Why did Coyle have a relatively high wage bill (maybe even after Hanley and Duffy were shipped out), yet also was only allowed to spend £250k on transfers? Maybe there's still some payoffs in there that weren't accounted for by the one-time onerous expenses in past accounts. With such a high wage bill all the selling we've done has essentially gone toward those wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RoverCanada said:

More credit should go to Swiss Ramble, which is a great source for comparing teams' finances (and is the source of the charts within) :)

It's always been parachute payment receiving clubs vs non-parachute payment receiving clubs. The difference is massive. And we squandered that advantage years ago.

Odd you highlight Middlesbrough, Derby, and Wednesday as they had losses of £32M, £15M, and £10M respectively in 2015/16. So not only are their revenues ~£10M higher, but they're also spending well beyond their means, while we're heading in the opposite direction. That's game changing... (as long as the money is spent relatively well, which we failed to do when we were the ones overspending!)

Agreed that there's nothing necessarily stopping us from surviving in the Championship club at revenues around £15M, but it does put us in the precarious bottom half. That includes relatively 'successful' (stable-ish) Ipswich and Birmingham (who still lost £7M and £5m respectively, and it seems Venky's is no longer even willing/able to cover that anymore), but that's also within the range of Rotherham, MK Dons, or Bristol City...

Considering our revenues, the wage bill needs to fall to £12-£16M-ish (and even then we'd be losing £5M or so a year), and that would put us in the bottom 5-7. Hence why I've said before that if our wages are currently 9th in the league and ~£20M, questions need to be raised of what that is being spent on exactly. Are the likes of Graham, Evans, Lowe, Stokes, etc. really that overpaid? Why did Coyle have a relatively high wage bill (maybe even after Hanley and Duffy were shipped out), yet also was only allowed to spend £250k on transfers? Maybe there's still some payoffs in there that weren't accounted for by the one-time onerous expenses in past accounts. With such a high wage bill all the selling we've done has essentially gone toward those wages.

Despite their low incomes and low wage structures both Ipswich and Birmingham have shown in recent times that with a proper structure and proper manager it is possible to get into the play-offs. The myth that our revenues are dwarfed by these clubs and we can't hope to compete without parachute money has fallen with these statistics.

I referred to Boro, Wednesday and Derby because I keep hearing how them getting 20,000+ crowds and charging more for tickets was putting them in a different league to us, when really it doesn't. All it might do is make them more attractive to potential buyers, but that is difficult to be specific about. All those additional fans and higher ticket prices has resulted in a maximum of £10 million per year additional revenue. That isn't a game changing figure at this level any more. When you look at the money Wednesday and Derby have recently spent on people like Rhodes and Fletcher that £10 million doesn't get you so far. Infact that £10 million additional revenue would just about cover Rhodes' transfer fee and nothing else. When we look at Huddersfield sitting in 3rd with their revenues and Preston pushing for the play-offs with a lower income than we had last season, then the source of our problems becomes clear.

We aren't where we are due to income, revenues or crowds. There's no reason from a revenue perspective why we can't do what Huddersfield, Preston and Ipswich have all done recently.

It is the mismanagement. It continues as it has for the last 7 years.

I accept what you say about their losses on top of that, but they are because they are supported by rich backers who are in this to either improve their clubs or be successful and accept losing money is part of the job, at least initially. Is that really any different anywhere else? Every club needs a rich owner prepared to lose money. This fanciful notion that some have that Rovers need a break-even model or should aim to reach a stage where it is self-sustaining isn't really compatible with this league. It will probably work where we are going, but in the Championship you need an owner prepared to lose money every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the 60% Wage cap if we get relegated to League 1 it should be an eventful summer of shipping out pretty much the entire squad to get down to a £7m -£8m wage budget.

If less people get season tickets and boycott our wage bill may well be down to around £5m next season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Financial Fair Play regulations in League One and League Two are far more restrictive than in the Championship.  A 60% wage cap relating to turnover will have frightening consequences for the Rovers no matter who owns us.  Agree with phili, relegation will result in a massive restructuring of the playing staff for next season.  No chance that the club will be able to get anywhere near a break even point in League One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, phili said:

With the 60% Wage cap if we get relegated to League 1 it should be an eventful summer of shipping out pretty much the entire squad to get down to a £7m -£8m wage budget.

If less people get season tickets and boycott our wage bill may well be down to around £5m next season 

Venkys and Cheston will be absolutely loving that.

 

Restrictions like that will absolutely cripple us. Should we get relegated (and its looking very likely) we are going to be in the lower reaches of the leagues for a long time to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, davulsukur said:

Venkys and Cheston will be absolutely loving that.

 

Restrictions like that will absolutely cripple us. Should we get relegated (and its looking very likely) we are going to be in the lower reaches of the leagues for a long time to come.

Academy 2.5 million

intrest on debt 1.8 millions that's before any repayment

and that's before any wages or operating costs are added on a proposed turnover of around 10 million in league one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dunnfc said:

Academy 2.5 million

intrest on debt 1.8 millions that's before any repayment

and that's before any wages or operating costs are added on a proposed turnover of around 10 million in league one.

 

Venkys will probably sell The Academy to the Dingles to cover that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

The Financial Fair Play regulations in League One and League Two are far more restrictive than in the Championship.  A 60% wage cap relating to turnover will have frightening consequences for the Rovers no matter who owns us.  Agree with phili, relegation will result in a massive restructuring of the playing staff for next season.  No chance that the club will be able to get anywhere near a break even point in League One.

Don't forget that whilst the % turnover rule applies, there is the subtle difference that owner donations can be included in turnover figure.  If venkys therefore decided to put £10m extra in we would still be FFP compliant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grez said:

Don't forget that whilst the % turnover rule applies, there is the subtle difference that owner donations can be included in turnover figure.  If venkys therefore decided to put £10m extra in we would still be FFP compliant

Whoa...wait a minute. So owners can put in what they like in league 1 without repercussions? Jesus we will really see how committed to the club they are in that case. 

That is very interesting. They got us in this mess. Lets see them pressured into getting us out of it, or just F off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Grez said:

Don't forget that whilst the % turnover rule applies, there is the subtle difference that owner donations can be included in turnover figure.  If venkys therefore decided to put £10m extra in we would still be FFP compliant

Is this the same Venkys that are in effect forcing the club to use non-high street funding streams as working capital?

On paper they could, however in seven years have shown that they won't and I genuinely don't think there is a single supporter out there who thinks that their investment in the team/club is suddenly going to be ramped up after falling two divisions in the space of five years (subject to relegation in a few weeks) :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their 'investment' will fall in line with turnover.  We bring in 5 mill but it costs 6 to run they'll shove in a million and say be quiet and be thankful, it's all they can afford really.

But wait what about the debt payments, interest and all those still on the payroll past and present ???

It's going to be fun !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Grez said:

Don't forget that whilst the % turnover rule applies, there is the subtle difference that owner donations can be included in turnover figure.  If venkys therefore decided to put £10m extra in we would still be FFP compliant

Exactly this if you recall I mentioned it in January and how they'd have to then potentially deal with the share structure and namely 87.5 million owed to parent co

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

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.