I agree totally, it’s of their own making, they are effectively paying a tax on their own naivety but my comment was relating to what we would need from a new owner. A new owner would either have to decide whether to reduce costs to breakeven, fund the difference or somehow persuade fans to contribute £300k per week. Realistically, the only viable source for £300k per week is Premier League TV money....

They are not taking money out...they are moving it around their group companies. It’s the corporate equivalent of moving money between a cheque account and a savings account. It’s a transfer.

The only external debt is the overdraft which costs us £400k p.a. - Venky’s don’t charge interest on their debt. The losses that they fund are the running costs of the club (in other words wages). Any new owner would still have to decide between funding that £17m gap themselves, reducing costs by that amount or increasing turnover (& profit) sufficient to bring in roughly £17m pa.

What about the bit where the new owners put in £17m per annum ?

It’s not inconceivable; it’s often used when a parent company buys a service on behalf of the group & cross charges the subsidiary. It’s not material in the great scheme of things.

Why ? Group companies move around cash all the time & charge inter company fees for services provided. It’s really not at all unusual. Ultimately Venky’s own both companies, they’re just moving money around their own business ?‍♂️

Looks like some kind of “management fee” or similar...nothing sinister IMHO

Forget it....found ‘em ?

Jim - where are those Op Ex numbers from....struggling to find them if you can help....??

I’m not recognising the numbers that are quoted....if someone can point me to the section in the accounts I’ll have a go...

The overdraft is just £11m & that will largely be to ensure payments go through the bank a/c smoothly. The rest of the debt is intra-Group so there’s nothing to pay off. They borrow it from themselves. The club runs at a loss. Unless someone covers those losses we go bust. Venky’s are subsidising Blackburn Rovers to the tune of £336k net per week. A new owner would have to cut costs by that amount, stump up the same subsidy or increase turnover by that amount to keep us in business.

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...

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

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

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 ?

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.

The short answer is it depends....which countries, what tax legislation & cooperation agreements are in place & to a lesser extent how good their accountants are. Simplistically, subsidiaries making losses offset those losses to reduce the parent company tax bill. This is normal practice for multi national companies and is why accountancy firms have teams dedicated to optimising this for their clients...at a price.

Who in ?

Interest paid has reduced by two thirds in the last two years from £1.5m to £400k reflecting reduced dependency on external borrowing

They will be able to offset Rovers losses against tax.

If having a break recharges the batteries then I’m all in favour. We will only know the effects when they all return. I’m not sure that Theory X management works with the modern day footballer TBH. Look at Mourinho v Solskjaer. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t I think. We have a squad that is serially under performing, breaking the routine might just be what’s needed. it reminds me of clubs who cancel Christmas parties after a bad result, I always think that symbolises a “token gesture to appease the fans’ approach...if I was on the receiving end of that kind of management I’d think the guy had lost the plot...?‍♂️

They have improved under Bruce....the locals are getting chippy again...current form table is er....”interesting”...

In Ep 108 of our podcasts (which I’m sure everyone listens to...you do listen...don’t you...?) Rich Sharpe pronounced it Ma-glore & then went on to predict a promising future for the lad....amongst others...

Train travellers should check out the Sheffield Tap on platform 1 & the Rawson Spring (despite being a Spoons) near the ground is usually full of home & away football fans. Endorse the Kelham Island love as well for the real ale enthusiasts...

The podcast is worth a listen ?