8 hours ago, PLJPB said:

Could I ask where this £250m figure is coming from? 

The BRFC accounts to 30/6/17 show £94.8m owing to the Parent Company (Venkys London Limited). They also show £146.9m share capital. But £134m of this share capital was already in place before Venkys bought the club. Therefore I calculate their total investment to be £94.8 + 146.9 -134 = around £ 108m.

The Venkys London Accounts show that at 30/6/17 the total share capital was £132m. I cannot find any evidence that the Raos have put any money directly into BRFC - it has all gone through VLL therefore their maximum investment must be the £132m VLL share capital. I'm not sure what the difference between the 108 and the 132 is but maybe its the £23m they actually paid for the club.

In summary, my understanding of the published accounts is that all the funding for BRFC has gone via Venkys London Limited and since at 30/6/17 it had £132m share capital, this £132m is the maximum they had put in at that date.

The point re VLL is spot on, but it’s still Venky’s money. The “£250m” was quoted as V’s approximate investment ie the shares plus the interest free debt that you reference above.

10 hours ago, tomphil said:

Just standing back and looking at it how much actually out of pocket could they be termed to be ?

When they bought the club it cost c23 million and had a 16 million bank debt and 3 million loan from the Walker Trust on the books, also I think in the terms of sale there was to be 10 million invested immediately for the 'betterment' of the club.

They themselves indicated investment of 5 mill per window would be forthcoming so 10 mill per season which is probably what the parent company was comfortably prepared to 'lose' in the books.

So in the 8 years nearly they've been here that's 80 million they were prepared for plus the original purchase price etc which all comes in at around 129 million.

Is that not near or roundabout the figure on the VLL share capital books ?

The share capital in BRFC a/cs is £147m. They are also have lent £95m interest free as at June 2017.

12 hours ago, DE. said:

No, the truth is that Venky's have built up a debt of £250m over the last 7 years and helped relegate us to a league we hadn't been in since 1980. We're now at a point where the manager has to go with a begging bowl to India every summer, hoping to get a budget to compete with bottom end Championship clubs. 

They took us over as a stable, mid-table PL club with only £20m debt. We had an experienced, respected manager and board room. The squad needed a little work but there wasn't that much to do. To suggest we should in any way be grateful to Venky's for paying for this mess they themselves have caused is frankly insulting, although coming from a Burnley fan it doesn't really mean that much. Unfortunately there are Rovers fans with your abhorrent viewpoint too, and that hurts more.

For absolute clarity - the debt in BRFC a/cs is c.£115m not £250m.

22 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

I know that you have studied the accounts and often quote the £250m figure but I just find it all very suspect. Is it £120m worth of shares (which they can sell ) and £130 debt (which they have borrowed).

In the last set of accounts turnover is £16m and wages £22.6m so the recent  issuing of shares probably covers the difference.

On top of that there is a declared loss of £17.9m for the year but this does not seem to be itemised anywhere - where is this explained in the accounts?

Cash in the bank is only £223,806 and the overdraft is nearly £14m! with £109m owed elsewhere that seems incredible to me.

How do these figures compare to other clubs ? creative accounting maybe.

I’ll try to clarify - all refs to the June 2017 BRFC a/cs 

Venky’s “investment” is £147m in shares plus £95m lent from the parent - this is the “£250m” figure often referenced.

T/O to June 17 was £14.9m, wages were £19.4m.

I presume your figures are from VLL ?

When you say that they can sell the shares, technically you are correct, but who is buying ?

Of the total debt of £115m - £95m is borrowed from Venky’s - IMO that’s better than borrowing from the bank because V’s lend interest free unlike the bank.

On 15/05/2018 at 23:46, sympatheticclaret said:

 The debt is going up because Venkys are issuing more shares in Venkys London Limited , and buying them through their associated Indian Registered Company, Venkateshwera Hatcheries Pvt Ltd . The money raised from share issues is going to support the everyday running of the Football Club, and shows in the accounts as " Called up Share Capital ". It's highly improbable that the Bank of India would invest in Venkys London Ltd on their own account...

I suspect Venkys have invested somewhere north of £130m in Blackburn Rovers, in the years since they took control .... 

It’s a lot more than that - as at June 17 a/cs nearer £250m.

On 15/05/2018 at 23:28, Raya4espania said:

Its also questionable as to whether Venkys put anything in. Why does the debt keep going up? Is it their money, or just borrowed cash from the bank of India? In all the years they've owned Rovers, very little put in has come from their own fortune.

Not so...the latest accounts as linked elsewhere in this & other threads show increased share capital and a move from borrowing from bank to borrowing from parent company.

18 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Please could you talk about finances in a different thread it's getting a bit tedious for s transfers thread. We all know the situation! Back to transfers please

Good point, well made...?

9 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

But have Venky's really spent £250 million on Rovers?

Maybe they squirrelled away all the parachute money, the TV money, the profits from players etc and then used the same money to issue shares and loan money back to the club?

If they really have ploughed all that income back into the club and it has cost £250 million on top of that and we are still massively in debt then how do other clubs manage to survive without having the same problems?

It just doesn't add up to me.

Yes they have. It’s in the a/cs. The parachute money is paid to BRFC. Transfer fees are paid to BRFC. The TV money is paid to BRFC. 

At its simplest, our outgoings have outstripped our income for the whole of their ownership. (Outgoings would include transfer fees, wages, agents fees, advisor fees...etc).

On that basis an owner either borrows money to keep trading or injects more of their own cash. If neither of those happens, the company is insolvent & soon ceases trading. Venkys have done both.

This isn’t opinion, it’s maths. I’m not a Venky apologist but I do understand company accounts.

Just now, lraC said:

As has already been mentioned, £250m is a lot of money to throw away. It is all well and good underwriting it to ensure the club remained solvent, but why carry it on to that level. It is almost as though, someone else was pulling the strings. It reminds me a bit of That president in that far away country paying someone a chuck of money to keep certain stories out of the headlines. This could have got all Stormy, I am glad I had a Jack Daniels to help me forget.

As I said “an expensive hobby”?‍♂️

Just now, lraC said:

So Venkys simply funded lots of OTT signings in the first few years and increased the share capital, or loans. I wonder why they did that? Our first eleven weren't always a global eleven really, were they?

They had no choice but to put money in else we would have been insolvent & players might not be keen to play if they’re not getting wages.  The interesting thing for me is how they fund it. Share capital implies permanence, bank lending less so, parent loans more so (but not as good as shares).

Just now, lraC said:

I know one "player" who trousered a chunk and he was better at washing kits than playing football. That signing could have been a simple mistake, but I don't think I''m Myles away thinking otherwise.

...&  that will have contributed to a loss in the P&L which V’s will have to have funded either by increased share capital or loans.

Any agent fee had a similar impact on the P&L of BRFC. So not Myles away...?

18 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

It does. Thanks.

That just leaves the issue of how much they have made out of transfers and what has happened to that money.  It's probably not more than £40m but if that money has been used to finance the debt then that can be deducted from their 'investment', or to give it's correct term,  debt repayments.

Still, it's a very expensive hobby, and as has been said before the only way they will get any of that back is to finance a push for the Prem and get all the filthy SKY lucre. If they sell up they are essentially throwing all that money away because they wouldn't get ten bob for a club with that level of debt I wouldn't have thought.

Money from player sales is seen in the P&L as “Profit on disposal” e.g. £10m in the 2017 a/cs. That money is recycled in the business. So the £10m accounting profit meant the value of the business rose by £10m more than it would have. (This is a very simplistic argument and any accountants reading will be going “but...but...whatabout...” etc, but I’m trying to keep it high level for illustration.)

It’s important to acknowledge that this is accounting profit...so in other words, buy Player A for £1m sell him for £5m does not necessarily lead to an accounting profit of £4m - I could go on here...but I won’t ? I can easily get carried away with explanations of depreciation and net asset value....I think Philip made this point on the pod just in case people did the calculations for Gestede, Rhodes etc based on newspaper headlines of their sale fees.

26 minutes ago, tomphil said:

And all i'm saying is what has it been spent on, where has it all gone and where and what sources does it actually come from ?

All perfectly understandable questions for something that's a public (& audited) fact.

And they do wash kits at Ewood don't they ?

Don’t forget that BRFC is just one of the Venky group companies. It’s relatively easy (albeit at a high level) to see where the money has come & gone for BRFC. But the V Group is a multi-national operation subject to lots of different legal frameworks, tax regimes, reporting regimes & so on....so short answer, it’s not easy to answer unless you are the Venky group auditors.

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

I'm not having it they've spewed 250 million on their Rovers venture without having a large whack back somewhere along the line, no way.

No wonder some people think it's a launderette.

They really have spent £250m - that’s a public (& audited) fact. As for the second part - I don’t want to have to spend any money on libel lawyers ?

3 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

The £250m was mentioned by Phil L in the podcast. I didnt make it up! He phrased it as 'quarter of a billion'. Without listening to it again he may have said the venky's have so far put £250m into the club. He also said (I think) if they are putting money into the club as shares then they won't be able to get it back out. I have no idea what that means? Any idea?

Ah right...Philip was referencing total investment - so Shares plus Loans - that’s the £250m, so that clears that up ??

Share capital is (kind of) permanent, loans are temporary. Under UK company law, it VERY difficult for a business owner to take money out of a business that’s been invested as share capital. It’s not impossible but the law prescribes specific circumstances so as to protect all shareholders in a business & creditors. 

Essentially we can be reassured by increasing share capital. We are of course almost wholly reliant on them to keep funding the business - whether through loans or shares. 

Shares is best, but interest free loans is pretty good 2nd best. 

 Either way, believe it or not, the bald facts are that their dalliance into English football has cost them £250m - that’s why I said on the pod that it was an expensive hobby.

Does that clarify  ?

1 hour ago, EgyptianPete said:

Thanks for that, but where is this story of 250m in debt coming from some 3/4 pages back, i thought it a bit odd.

Well that’s not borne out by the 2017 a/cs -  the 2018 may well be worse but I doubt by that much.

Some people may have equated accumulated losses of £225m with debt perhaps ? 

V’s total “investment” in BRFC equates to £147m of share capital plus the £95m loans - maybe that’s what has confused some ? I dunno, but debt (as at June 2017) is nowhere near £250m.

There was a reference earlier in this thread to our Pod (Episode 93) that covered this in some detail but I’ll try & summarise briefly & with no jargon...

All references to June 2017 a/cs of course...

In a nutshell:-

TRADING

Turnover is down by a third as parachute payments ended.

Costs have been significantly reduced but not quite in line with t/o.

Losses have been reduced by positive impact of player sales.

Interest costs have reduced by two-thirds as much of the debt has effectively moved from the bank (who charge interest of course) to the parent company (which does not).

All in all - loss of £3.7m recorded for 2017 - up from £1.5m in 2016.

ASSETS & LIABILITIES

Total creditors (money owed) stood at £114m up slightly from £112m

BUT less of it owed to the bank, extra £7m owed to Venky parent - on balance this is a good thing, better to be in hock to the parent than the bank I would say.

Of the £114m - £95m owed to V’s

So what ? 

V’s are undertaking good housekeeping to manage a difficult position (I know they got themselves into it...this isn’t an opinion piece BTW ?)

2017/18 will probably reveal decreased t/o given the relegation - less TV money, sponsorships, corporates, ticket sales etc.

Promotion opens up increased possibility for s/t income, TV, sponsorship, commercial etc 

FFP rules are frankly impenetrable...made even more complex if you move between Championship & League 1...which we’ve just done twice - as the rules are different in each.

V’s can still cover part of any losses with share capital (rather than loans) in the Championship, but it’s not as easy as in League 1. What is not up for debate is that Championship clubs FFP is based more around turnover and profitability....and so to that extent, increased spend by fans in Ewood in whatever form can only help the FFP calculation and give the club less of a headache.

Finally, whilst we will earn more TV money etc, I suspect large parts of that increased income will be swallowed up with improved player contracts etc. If we expect them to take a hit after a relegation,  chances are their agents will expect the reverse after a promotion...?

Hope that helps....but listen to the pod, read this & then pose whatever questions you might have & I’ll have a stab....but Not FFP...I cant make head nor tail of the EFL site ?

16 hours ago, JAL said:

Those early seventies when the cameras came to Ewood, as a kid you'd run to the corner when the corner was to be taken or run behind the goals for a penalty when the game was an honest innocent sport. happy days !

That hour or so on a Saturday evening followed by a hour or so on a Sunday afternoon where happy days to get your footy fix plus the pre match show on ITV (was it friday evening) when Granada ran a competition amongst goalkeepers for the ones that had gone the most minutes without conceding a goal and Roger Jones was just behind the legendary Italian Dino Zoff for most minutes played without conceding a goal. Dino Zoff then Roger Jones wow !

Great read red rose Rover.

I remember that “Minutes without conceding” piece...Kick Off would cover it on a Friday then On The Ball would do likewise on Saturday lunchtime...it’s all flooding back... ?

4 hours ago, renrag said:

Was that a quote from the brilliant Jack Holden?

No idea...the guy who used to sit next to me on the Riverside always trotted it out at least twice a year...and I laughed every time 

1 hour ago, DeeCee said:

"Keeley's gonna get you, Keeley's gonna get you" was a popular chant lol

Time to churn out the old gag (again):

Radio Blackburn commentator: “Glenn Keeley leaves the field with a badly bruised and cut leg...no idea who it belongs to...”

On 20/01/2018 at 10:08, Stuart said:

First prize goes to who ever created a song for Bell that ISN’T to the tune of That’s Amore!

Volare ?  ?Aaaaa-maaarrri....woah oh...?   ?

3 hours ago, Lancaster Rover said:

It's crazy he was on trial here loitering for a month or so waiting for a deal. Club's would be falling over themselves to sign him were he available now.

His injury record was appalling, that might have had something to do with it. At the time I thought 3 years for him with that record was ridiculous....I was wrong. Again ?...thankfully.

10 hours ago, J*B said:

Where does he fit in? How does it effect Dack? Does it effect Dack? How many will he score as we secure the title? 

5 points for anyone who can name 5 other Geordies that have been successful at Ewood. Bonus point if you can do it without Shearer. 

Graham Fenton

Danny Graham

Howard Kendall

Martin Taylor

Billy Wilson

1 hour ago, RV Blue said:

Has anyone ever seen him at Rovers? The guy is a complete pillock, as much of a Rovers supporter as Cameron was Villa. Anyone, Rovers fan or not, could have got those questions right with a few days of revising.

I saw him in the queue for ticket collections before the Rochdale game on Boxing Day

*just beaten to it by SparksRover ?

3 hours ago, Stuart said:

Just in case it wasn’t clear, I’m not Stuart Grimshaw. Not sure if he posts on here.

However, the parallels are amazing. (I also run a team at U15s age group). It just goes to show that it’s a similar theme for many. I only started at U10s (quite late really but my lad didn’t show much interest until then) and my philosophy has always been about creating a team ethic. If you aren’t already known to academies by 9 yo then your chances become very slim. By 15, it’s much more about helping to develop life skills. To be fair, despite struggling for a number of years, I do have a lot of players who keep coming back so I’m doing something right.

I’d highly recommend anyone getting involved - providing the have the commitment, patience and very thick skin!

Stuart G posts as STUBBSUK on here (to clarify any confusion... ?)