[Archived] Boardroom Restructure At Ewood

[jim mk2]

Did the losses in ST holders have a connection to the Dunn and Duff sales.

328054[/snapback]

Yes

[den]

Yes

328067[/snapback]

No. It was because of the crap home performances. I could see it coming.

[John]

Answers to a few of the questions which people have raised on here...... Edited June 29, 2005 by John

[bellamy11]

"What does that mean? Well, the fans hate the word `consolidation' and we're past that because we've been up for four years now. I prefer to say `competitive' and we were sixth under Graeme Souness three seasons ago, we've also had a 10th placed finish and a couple of 15ths, so I'm looking to be in the top half in the Premier League table come the end of next season"

Better noises coming from the club there. Get that in bold in the LET. I hope Rev is more pleased.

[thenodrog]

Is the appointment of Mr Brown a forerunner to the club being sold on ?

327816[/snapback]

Never mind the rhetoric coming out of the club. That was my first thought, and my second, third and every thought since!

[Dave S]

I think it is worth adding that David Brown has been on The Rovers board for several years even during his commitment to Flybe.

So not a totally fresh appointment, he is a man who knows how Rovers work. In that I mean the the club, the fans and the area.

Also, not only is he a Trustee of the Walker estate but he was a colleague and close personal friend of Jack Walker.

I was speaking to some friends of David Brown yesterday his role with Rovers always seems more important than other business interests.

[JAL]

I think it is worth adding that David Brown has been on The Rovers board for several years even during his commitment to Flybe.

So not a totally fresh appointment, he is a man who knows how Rovers work. In that I mean the the club, the fans and the area.

Also, not only is he a Trustee of the Walker estate but he was a colleague and close personal friend of Jack Walker.

I was speaking to some friends of David Brown yesterday his role with Rovers always seems more important than other business interests.

328289[/snapback]

From what ive heard the trustees WANT their money out of Rovers, and Robert Coar is on the FA board to protect their interests from Malcom Glazer devalueing their business furthermore.

New owners may not be far away if that is, anyone wants to pay the asking price. Interesting that the club also wants an independence supporters organisation, is this to buy bonds or whatever into the club????

[den]

From what ive heard the trustees WANT their money out of Rovers, and Robert Coar is on the FA board to protect their interests from Malcom Glazer devalueing their business furthermore.

New owners may not be far away if that is, anyone wants to pay the asking price. Interesting that the club also wants an independence supporters organisation, is this to buy bonds or whatever into the club????

328338[/snapback]

A couple of points.

The trustees don't have any money in the rovers. The trustees must execute Jack Walkers wishes. They might come to the conclusion that to sell the club to a "sugar daddy" is the best option for both, but as someone said earlier [Dave Birch I think], If it's against the trusts obligations, then presumably the beneficiaries would have some grounds for appeal. Anyway, I'm not certain about that and I don't think anyone else is.

The ISA is the idea of the fans, not the club. The club were asked if it would recognise the ISA and it agreed to do so. The club did not go out and instigate that idea.

[JAL]

A couple of points.

The trustees don't have any money in the rovers. The trustees must execute Jack Walkers wishes. They might come to the conclusion that to sell the club to a "sugar daddy" is the best option for both, but as someone said earlier [Dave Birch I think], If it's against the trusts obligations, then presumably the beneficiaries would have some grounds for appeal. Anyway, I'm not certain about that and I don't think anyone else is.

The ISA is the idea of the fans, not the club. The club were asked if it would recognise the ISA and it agreed to do so. The club did not go out and instigate that idea.

328342[/snapback]

Jack Walkers wishes were to get his money back once the club became self dependent.

John Williams was hired from Granada leisure, because Granada at that time wanted to fund or invest in a premiership club, what happened next was Rovers then ended up being relegated from the premier league and took to long to return, thus GRANADA went and invested in Liverpool FC somewhere to the tune of £20m - opportunity missed.

Mr. David Brown's introduction to proceedings at Ewood Park sets it up for the trustees to get the best deal for themselves. If the trustees want to get the best deal for themselves then to me they have no other alternative than to back the current manager with a couple of quality forwards to make their portfolio look stronger and more attractive to outside investors - we wait and see.

Thanks though for pointing out that the formation of an independence supporters club came from the fans not the club, apologies on my part.

[philipl]

JAL. Please tell me what date was David Brown appointed a director of Blackburn Rovers Football Club (introduction to proceedings in your words)- save me the bother and look it up on the Companies House web site.

Then make another story and post it on here.

Let me help you on another of your erroneous assumptions- Jack Walker's wishes as expressed very publicly in innumerable interviews by the great man himself and those who knew him and have seen his will was-

Blackburn Rovers to be self-sufficient AFTER receiving the interest income benefit from his endowment for the club.

Now show me any quote which says Jack or the Trustees want £100m+ back.

You must be very relieved at being very wrong.

However, I do believe that the club are more open to outside investment than for some time but, rest assured, it will be within the terms of Jack's will which is the greatest protection any club probably has anywhere in the world.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

A few questions that I'm interested in that might hopefully be answered in the future....

1) Has Mr Williams' salary gone up now that he's chairman. If so, by how much?

2) Does Mr Coar's salary remain the same now that he's effectively been demoted from chairman to director?

3) The explanation given for the changes was that the trustees were keen to see a slimmed down more executive board. Did Coar himself offer to step down as chairman or was the decision made for him by the trustees?

4) Does the timing of the changes coincide with Bob Coar now having been successful at cosying up to the FA and joining their committee panel. In the future, how much time will 'Burnley Bob' devote to Rovers during the week as director?

5) Will Mr Williams still be the Blackburn "rent-a-quote" man in the local and national media - giving statements to the press - or will these duties now be delegated to managing director Tom Finn?

As Blue Phil said a while back, there often seems to be quite a bit of fawning and sycophancy on this M/B towards John Williams.

"Isn't he doing a wonderful job" seems to be the message from many fans.

But if you examine his last eight years as chief executive, it's been a fairly mixed record.

As Chief Executive, Mr Williams oversaw (and presumably approved of) the disastrous appointment of Brian Kidd as manager, which culminated in relegation.

Also as Chief Exec, Williams (together with the rest of the board) gave Souness the go-ahead to lavish £7m on an Italian Serie B player that the manager had only seen on a video handed to him by a dodgy agent.

Williams (and the board) later gave Souness the go-ahead to blow the £17m Duff money on Rangers players like Barry Ferguson and Amoruso.

In recent years John Williams has presided over declining attendances at Ewood. Plus there was the embarrassing Tony Parkes fiasco last season. A man of Williams' experience should have thought more carefully about the way to handle Tony's departure. Having a board meeting on the Tuesday to decide to get rid of Tony, and then waiting for the Friday before anyone had the courtesy of telling him, was hardly the right way of going about things.

On the plus side, Williams and the board look to have appointed the right man for the job in Mark Hughes and in the last few years, Rovers fans have witnessed a Worthington Cup final victory - as well as another trip to Cardiff for last season's FA Cup semi-final. Four seasons in the Premiership after promotion in 2001, has given the club a bit of stability and we've also seen European football (albeit not progressing far in the UEFA Cup.)

Hopefully next season, Hughes can keep the strong defensive platform he built up, while at the same time playing with a bit more attacking verve and invention going forward.

And if our smooth-talking moustachioed new chairman can manage to attract some new investment into the club without sacrificing our tradition or heritage, then most Rovers fans, including myself, will be happy....

[colin]

Smithy,

I think your questions 1-5 may be answered in the Annual Report when it comes out. Until then they are really hypothetical.

As for Kidd, Grabbi, Ferguson, Amoruso: well the first one may be down to Williams, but I don't remember anyone complaining at the time, do you? The latter trio would all be down to Souness. He presumably wasn't appointed as manager to have his judgement on football matters over-ridden by the board.

Souness was a good manager for us then, eventually, he wasn't.

[philipl]

Very unimpressed AESF- you can do better than that.

[thenodrog]

Very unimpressed AESF- you can do better than that.

328603[/snapback]

Sounds like my old end of term school reports..........'could do better' was oft repeated.

[American]

Actually, I thought that was a pretty balanced (for AESF) and accurate critique of the current leadership.

Edited July 2, 2005 by American

[philipl]

Unimpressive because most answers are already available on this MB:

1) JW was relatively under paid in comparison to meast Premiership CEOs. If the move to Executive Chairman was in part a move to make sure he is kept at Ewood then a well-deserved rise would not be unwarranted IMO. Look at the 05/06 accounts for details- by law Rovers have to publish them if we are still a PLC at that time.

2) Again look at the accounts and you will see that the only paid directors are messrs Williams and Finn.

3) Why would that happen?- it is already been explained that for Coar to sit on the very influential bodies he is a member of, he has to be a director of a Premiership football club. Coar's position is invaluable to Rovers- the influence he has in the game is something money cannot buy.

4) Very clearly, his time and focus will be away from Rovers- see Duff's Minder's comments from his contacts inside the FA for instance. But we can be sure that his knowledge of what's going on will be available to fellow-Rovers board members (specific NDAs excepted). He will be operating on those committees with the interests of the club's board which is the raison d'etre of him being there very much in mind.

5) Probably

[BrianPotter]

Jack Walkers wishes were to get his money back once the club became self dependent.

I distinctly remember an interview that Jack did a few years back where he said "I'll never get my money back, nor do I want it back. I would like the club to become self supporting in the long term if possible"

[American]

Unimpressive because most answers are already available on this MB:

1) JW was relatively under paid in comparison to meast Premiership CEOs. If the move to Executive Chairman was in part a move to make sure he is kept at Ewood then a well-deserved rise would not be unwarranted IMO. Look at the 05/06 accounts for details- by law Rovers have to publish them if we are still a PLC at that time.

328619[/snapback]

How is the man in charge of one of the (if not the) lowest turnovers in the Prem underpaid? Is he the lowest paid of all (I actually don't know that)? If not, he should be. That's like saying the CEO of my software company is underpaid in comparison to most (or is it meast ) Software company CEOs. Forget the fact that our revenues are lower in comparison, he should still be paid as much as Ballmer and Gates!!

[stuwilky]

In 2002/2003 There were seven clubs with a lower turnover than Rovers.

Not to mention the 114% increase in turnover over 1998/99 - 2002/03

Compared to Spurs at 56%, Middlesboro at 44%, Everton 84%.

A little unfortunate thatBolton had 201% in the same period.

*Not based on most recent accounts, but taken from the Deloitte and Touche review from last summer. Im waiting for this years to arrive.

[FourLaneBlue]

In 2002/2003 There were seven clubs with a lower turnover than Rovers.

Not to mention the 114% increase in turnover over 1998/99 - 2002/03

328732[/snapback]

Since when we've dropped nine places (along with the equivalent prize money) and lost a few thousand season ticket holders along the way. We were also in the Uefa Cup that season (albeit not for long but a full house and TV against Celtic can't have hurt) as well as reaching the semi finals of the League Cup, with a couple of full houses against Man Utd.

Has our turnover, under the stewardship of Williams, actually decreased in the last few seasons?

philipl - why did you say that AESF's questions have already been answered when you could in fact only respond to them with speculation? AESF asked if Williams had seen his salary rise by talking about his relative pay to other Premiership CEOs. Maybe of interest but still tangential. AESF asked if Coar had received a payrise and you responded about only Williams and Finn being paid members of the board. Not what AESF asked, so what does Coar get from his service to Rovers? Does this means he works for free? Am I wrong to wonder if Coar actually made a fortune through the rebuilding of Ewood? Is this his philanthropic service to the people of Blackburn?

To his question five you answer "probably", which means three of his five questions are not answered, making a nonsense of your "most answers are already available on this MB" as I certainly haven't seen them answered elsewhere on here. If they are to receive pay rises at a time of falling league performances of the last two seasons and lower gates. While we may have finished fifteenth twice we did in fact attain less points this season.

I'm also unsure about your praise of Coar...you are essentially saying he did a good job by doing bugger all? As for receiving credit from the footballing authorities...that is generally related to longevity rather than necessary talent. As explained further in Simon Inglis' excellent book on the history of the Football League.

While I'm not anti-Wiliams at all I still believe they if they are to receive the praise when we improve then they should also have to shoulder the criticism when when we go backwards. Why two finishes of fifteenth should be rewarded with a "well-deserved rise" I'm not so sure. philipl - You have more of a business mind than I do so if you can explain why our new Chairman receives a rise when the club seems to be performing worse than in previous years then I will be grateful but I don't understand it just now.

Edited July 3, 2005 by FourLaneBlue

[American]

Another reason I was praising smithy's post was because he did mention the positives that have occurred. He could have easily just mentioned the negatives, but gave credit where it was due.

[blue phil]

As for Kidd, Grabbi, Ferguson, Amoruso: well the first one may be down to Williams, but I don't remember anyone complaining at the time, do you? The latter trio would all be down to Souness. He presumably wasn't appointed as manager to have his judgement on football matters over-ridden by the board.

328579[/snapback]

Are you seriously sugggesting that the £15 mill or so spent on Grabbi , Fergy and Amo should not or could not have been "over ridden" by the board ? Describing such decisions as merely "football" matters is daft.

For decades now managers have made recommendations to their bosses on the board to buy players - but it's the latter who release the funds and are ultimately responsible . The decision to buy Ferguson and Amo were regrettable ; the decision to buy Grabbi for £7 mill bordered on the criminal (literally imo) and resignation(s) should have followed .

[modes98]

The decision to buy Ferguson and Amo were regrettable ; the decision to buy Grabbi for £7 mill bordered on the criminal (literally imo) and resignation(s) should have followed .

328833[/snapback]

I assume GS would have gone to the board and said. I've watched this guy on video tape and he looks good, i also got some of the coaches to check him out on champ man and i want him. The board think, oh right he wants him, lets ask how much they want! They get a price GS says i want that one! The board agree to pay the price!

While the board have got the responsibility of getting the best value for money, they haven't got much choice but to do their best to get the players the boss wants, otherwise the boss may aswell leave. If a club says they want that much the board either backs the manager or has problems.

The choice of players is 100% down to the manager, i would then place the responsibility for fees firmly at his door aswell!

[stuwilky]

Its amusing that the same people who are condemning the board for backing the manager would no doubt be the same ones complaining if they didnt release the cash for the manager to buy the players he wanted.

[colin]

Are you seriously sugggesting that the £15 mill or so spent on Grabbi , Fergy and Amo should not or could not have been "over ridden" by the board ? Describing such decisions as merely "football" matters is daft.

Yes I am actually. (and I didn't use the word "merely") The board of any club appoints a manager and relies on him to make "football" decisions, just as Modes has described.

Just like boards over the years have give managers freedom to sign such donkeys as: Forlan; Veron; Grabbi; Kezman; Klievert;...need I go on?

Edited July 5, 2005 by colin