The authoritative Swiss Ramble applies his forensic financial skills to the case of Blackburn Rovers. Few football fans have suffered as much as those in Blackburn from owners who have no clear strategy. Coventry City suffered in the same way until a local businessman took control, but Blackburn have a huge debt pile.
Venky's are the largest poultry integrator in Asia. They handle everything from breeding, hatcheries, and feed to processed chicken and animal health products. This is a smart market to be in as chicken is often the first meat consumed in middle income countries as they become more prosperous.
Presumably when they bought Blackburn they saw it as adding to their profile and prestige, hope for a return to the Premier League. However, this would require much more investment than they have been willing to provide.
It will take a lot for the bad vibes around the club to go
away, given the many issues faced by Rovers. Indeed, last season featured a
“strategic boycott” of some home games in protest at Venky’s, who continued to
limit the spending on the squad.
Furthermore, the lack of investment extended to the club’s
infrastructure, exemplified by problems with the pitch at Ewood Park, leading
to two games being abandoned after some bad weather.
Since relegation, they have never finished above seventh in
the Championship, despite benefiting from four years of parachute payments.
Indeed, they have battled relegation to League One twice in the last three
seasons
When they have found themselves with a decent chance of
reaching the play-offs, the owners were unwilling (or unable) to support the
manager in the January window, leaving them just short.
Losses
In the last ten years they have lost £108m, though losses
have reduced since the substantial deficits in the first two seasons in the
Championship: £37m in 2012/13 and £42m in 2013/14.
They did not perform too well off the pitch in 2024/25, as
they swung from a £3.3m pre-tax profit to a £10.4m loss, largely due to profit
from player sales falling from £23.6m to £13.0m. Rovers also did worse at an operating level,
losing £21.4m, which was £1.9m more than the previous year. Revenue rose £2.3m
(11%) from £21.4m to £23.7m, but this was outpaced by growth in operating
expenses of £4.2m (10%), which increased from £40.9m to £45.1m.
In fairness, Rovers’ £10.4m loss was actually one of the
better results in the Championship in 2024/25, as it is absolutely normal for
clubs to lose money in this ultra-competitive division.
Rovers’ £23.7m revenue was one of the smallest in the
Championship, only above three clubs (Swansea City, Preston North End and
Oxford United). Furthermore, it was
miles below those most recently relegated from the Premier League, who received
parachute payments, namely Leeds United £137m, Sheffield United £79m, Burnley
£72m and Luton Town £67m.
The importance of Rovers’ survival in the Championship is
shown by the significant disparity in TV money, as clubs in League One only
receive £2.2m (EFL distribution £1.4m and Premier League solidarity payment
£0.8m), which would mean a reduction in revenue of around £10m if relegated.
Fans stay away
Rovers’ average attendance increased 4% from 15,584 to
16,153, which means that this has grown by around 3,500 since the low in
2016/17. On the other hand, they have lost over 9,000 since the 25,000 that
they attracted in the Premier League. Despite
the increase, Rovers’ 16,153 average attendance was firmly in the bottom half
of the Championship in 2024/25, miles below Sunderland 41,158, Leeds United
36,134, Derby County 29,018 and Sheffield United 28,087. Many fans don’t want to attend games,
because of their dislike of the ownership, so Rovers’ stadium utilisation
(attendance as a proportion of capacity) was only 51%, which was comfortably
the worst in the Championship.
Rovers’ commercial income increased by £0.7m (11%) from
£7.0m to £7.7m, which is the highest since relegation to the Championship. In fact, this has risen five years in a row,
almost doubling from £4.0m in 2019/20, though it is still lower than the £9.5m
peak they generated in the Premier League in 2010/11.
Rovers’ wage bill increased by £2.8m (11%) from £25.4m to
£28.2m, thus breaking out of the level they have been paying for the previous
five years. In the same period, wages have significantly grown at rival clubs,
making life more difficult for Rovers. Despite
the rise in 2024/25, wages are still around half as much as the £50m they paid
in the last season in the Premier League in 2011/12.
Rovers spent £5.1m on player purchases in 2024/25, which was
one of the lowest in the Championship, only above Portsmouth, Watford and
Sheffield Wednesday. In fact, their
gross outlay in the last decade was only £31m, while they had £53m net sales
over this period, including £31m in the last two seasons alone
Rovers’ gross financial debt rose £4.2m from £147.8m to
£152.0m, mainly from a £138.8m loan from Venky’s plus a £12.8m overdraft and
£0.4m hire purchase contracts. Rovers’
£152m debt was actually the second highest in the Championship, only below
Stoke City £191m. The amount owed would
have been even higher if the owners had not converted £51m into equity in the
last five seasons.
The club said that “improvements continue to be made across
the three main sites with extensive work carried out”, which many would argue
is not before time, as Rovers have only had £3.2m of capital expenditure in the
last ten years.
The £193m that Venky’s have put into the club means that
they have basically signed a cheque for £13m a year ever since their arrival at
Ewood Park. The Delhi High Court has
recently lifted the restrictions on Venky’s funding the club, which means that
they can now provide money without having to match the sum via a personal
guarantee.
Venky’s have frequently reiterated their commitment to the
club, saying that they will be around for the long haul, even though many
Rovers’ fans must be asking exactly what Venky’s get out of their ownership.
The Swiss Ramble concludes: ‘The one constant has been the
ownership, though their lack of commitment has effectively left the club in
limbo, lacking the funds to make a consistent challenge at the right end of the
table. Most agree that the best thing
for all concerned would be a change of ownership, but it has felt that way for
many years and there has been little sign of any new investors taking their
place.’
Comments
Post a Comment