[Archived] The Old Gate Debate

[mhead]

Offer Everton £2m for Beattie at Xmas and the team will be balanced and within our means.

Rovers for the Cup! ANY.

[philipl]

Come on EiT, get real. Hearts have a ground location which whilst not prime Edinburgh is worth quite a few bob- that's why there was the broohaha up there about flogging Tynecastle and moving to Murrayfield, remember?

Then, Romanov would have bought the SPL title this season for sure if he and the kid didn't think they were playing Champions Manager Jocks Edition and hadn't got shot of Burley.

How much has Romanov spent? Well he's managed a few debts, sunk about £3m investment into transfers and has a wage bill that is less than 50% of the Rovers' (perhaps much less).

He is probably not far short of washing his face with Hearts as crowds are averaging 16,000 or so, the Sultana TV deal whilst a pittance compared with the EPL is one the Coca Cola boys would willingly take and.... here's the rub, as expected, UEFA have changed the Champs League rules so that it is highly likely the SPL champs will walk straight into the Group Stage and £10m guarranteed.

That looks like smart business if Romanov can keep his hands off the playing side and homo-erotic fun or whatever turns those guys on if he cannot resist the urge to play with the players.

Quite honestly, all these calls for the Walker Trust to sell out of Rovers are sheer barking madness. The Rovers are highly professionally run under the wing of the Trust, are guarranteed £3m gift money a year plus have averaged another £3m a year written off each year since Jack died plus the Trust facilitates extraordinarilly generous borrowing enabling the club to go out and buy the likes of Cole and Bellamy (yes, that oik who turned up this summer).

One other factor. Taking the Trust at face value (and why would they lie?)- when interviewed after Jack's death, the Chairman of the Trustees (who is not a Rovers Director I believe- another Trust person, one of their top business guys sits on the board following the reorganisation which saw JW become executive chairman) said:

Blackburn Rovers are one of the beneficiaries of the Trust and that the annual surplusses of the other businesses are split between the beneficiaries.

Of course surplusses can be book profits or actual cash. Large book profits and capital gains do not equal cash available for handing out to the beneficiaries so as the Trustees primary aim is good husbandry of the Trust assets for the benefit of all the beneficiaries, they aren't going to go rushing out with a cheque book to keep a dwindling bunch of fans at Ewood happy.

However, (and I don't want to build up hopes unrealistically) the Trustees have indicated that Flybe is so successful that it has become a disproportionately large element of the Trust's portfolio and they are looking for a buyer accordingly.

IF they sell Flybe well and IF they sell for cash, there MIGHT be a windfall for Rovers as a beneficiary qualifying for a handout- if things work as simply as the Chairman of the Trustees indicated.

So I hardly think that now is the time to be wishing our way out of the Jack Walker Trust.

Now I don't know how long the Jack Walker Trust is envisaged to last but large trusts such as JWT which have a very varied set of beneficiaries (eg family and charities), some of which are themselves long lasting (such as BRFC) tend to have correspondingly long term existances. I know of one trust funding a group of churches which is well over 200 years old.

A final point, rich successful people tend to be pretty unpleasant SoBs. Vinjay might need a paternalistic figure to whom he can relate to as the owner of the Rovers but VERY few of these guys are angels- look at Rupert Bear at Soton, Mandaric at Pompey, Brown at West Ham, Deadly Doug, Porn boys at Brum, Publicity Pete at Leeds, Reading fans hate Madjeski, Fat Freddie, Ken Bates etc etc. OK Steve Gibson at Boro might be a shining knight amongst the dross but what has he achieved which the Walker Trust hasn't?

Whom is there who would buy Rovers and would have the club and supporters' best interests at heart? If you are thinking about somebody buying Rovers, just imagine if Chesh owned the club....

Edited December 5, 2005 by philipl

[Paul]

How much has Romanov spent? Well he's managed a few debts, sunk about £3m investment into transfers and has a wage bill that is less than 50% of the Rovers' (perhaps much less).

365184[/snapback]

I'm not 100% on this but I believe he has not even spent that £3m. Reports I have read and heard in the media suggest ALL the financing is simply supported by the bank Romanov owns. these debts can be called in at anytime should Romanov chose to walk away.

I suspect he has no exposure and everything to gain.

[stuwilky]

Just putting the club up for sale would be the right thing to do. I'm sure someone will come in eventually. I agree with what EIT said.

365160[/snapback]

Its not that easy, last time I checked Reeds Rains didnt sell football clubs.

However I certainly got the impression over the summer with the press statement with words to the effect of "we are looking for new investment" that if the right offer came along there may be some sale of part/all of the club.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Good, thoughtful response there Philip, but you must admit to 20-20 hindsight on Hearts. Was it that obvious beforehand that someone would come in and push them 20 points above Rangers?

Also, a reasonable set of suppositions on the Trust, but all based on if's, but's and maybe's. The fact is neither of us knows squat about the intentions of our owners. They might sell us tomorrow, or be lavishly funding us in the super-galactic league of 2145AD.

Rupert Bear at Soton, Mandaric at Pompey, Brown at West Ham, Deadly Doug, Porn boys at Brum, Publicity Pete at Leeds, Reading fans hate Madjeski, Fat Freddie, Ken Bates etc etc. OK Steve Gibson at Boro might be a shining knight amongst the dross but what has he achieved which the Walker Trust hasn't?

365184[/snapback]

Hmmm, some people I wouldn't want to be trapped in a lift with for sure, but let's see....

Rupert - agreed, ruined a sound club.

Mandaric - Pompey in the top flight for the first time in living memory

Hammers - despite an undeserved relegation and selling all their best players, nicely updated ground and doing better than us right now.

Deadly Doug - Agreed, sort of. Fantastic ground update with no Uncle Jack to fund it.

Porn Boys: Brum 2 divisions higher than when they arrived, crowds three times bigger.

Madjeski - Reading runaway leaders of Championship, spanking ground, highest position ever.

Fat Freddie - Bad choice in managers, but just bought England's centre forward

Ken Bates - took a club on its uppers, built a new ground, sold them to a brazillionaire who has made them the best club in the country.

Rovers under Jack - new everything, massive injection of transfer funds, won league, 25,000 regulars

Rovers under the Trust: Phase 1 - Continuing Jacks support level, promotion, Worthy Cup, $50m to Souness to p*ss away

Rovers under the Trust: Phase 2 - Sell 3 players for $30m, zero net transfer funds since (as you have pointed out before, Bellers came from funds received from selling players, plus you have to add in the $1.6m we now know we got for Sourness) 17,000 regulars.

I think the issue is that the Trust of today seem to have a very different strategy toward the club than in the immediate post-Jack era. While the motley crew you mention may be a despicable bunch, I'm not sure I agree that they are all disasters for their clubs whose fans would beg to be owned by the faceless Trust of today who would tip in $3m a year - period.

I don't expect to reach agreement with many on this issue, but at least we seem to have shut Vinjay up.

[Manchester Blue]

EiT I may not agree with you but at least you are making a sound and possibly valid argument. For that alone you should be applauded.

[Paul]

Its not that easy, last time I checked Reeds Rains didnt sell football clubs.

365237[/snapback]

True....but Oystons should be able to help

[MCMC1875]

Close to seafront. Needs some attention.

Edited December 5, 2005 by MCMC1875

[philipl]

It is a good response from EiT.

To a business person/banker, Hearts would have a similar look to Chelsea when Romanov was sniffing for a football club. Therefore with hindsight, I would say definitely what has been achieved was intended. He walked into a league with two bankrupt big clubs and eight bankrupt little clubs. He simply took a bankrupt little club with valuable real estate in a city of half a million which was struggling to put 10,000 people through the turnstiles of each of its two pro clubs. That looks like a dead easy task to turn around which he has proven despite the numerous mistakes he has made along the way. In contrast, Abramovich at Chelsea has scarcely put a toe wrong in his management of that asset.

If the Blackburn public were as enthusiastic about Rovers as the Edinburgh public were about Hibs and Hearts, we would be getting 5,000 gates in the Prem rising to 8,000 if we got to the top of the league.

My other response is that looking for the positive in the meglomaniacs, you have concertinaed the time lines. Madjeski has been at Reading for fifteen years- he had a period of six years when he didn't want to put a penny into them and I think they slipped back a division. The same goes for the rest of them.

Yet the Trustees are being criticised for a Phase 1 when they invested and a Phase 2 when they didn't- all within a five year period!

Come on, I've explained why the Trust is doing very well in terms of asset values on paper but why cash is not sloshing around just at the moment. You don't buy a fleet of 110 new passenger jets with fresh air!

If you are willing to look at the one man shows (and I picked the more successful ones, not the Oystons, the Kilbys, the Haywards etc etc) over extended periods, you have to look at the Trust on the same basis.

Then you will see that on five year track record to date, Rovers are doing a darn sight better under the Trust than practically all the one man shows except Chelsea/Abramovich.

Edited December 6, 2005 by philipl

[FourLaneBlue]

Why does Whelan want to throw money at Wigan? Why does someone want to buy the Villa for $40m. Why does the Reading owner throw his dosh at them, he'll never get it back.  Why does Kilby endure having to work at the Turd every day and pay for the priviledge?

365051[/snapback]

Both Wigan and Reading represented lower table sides that had the potential, given a cash booster, to shoot up the leagues. We can't go much further than we are and are unlkely to ever get more than 26k average attendance even if we were in the Champions League. A far better investment would surely be in a team like Aston Villa or Sunderland where the fans will most likely come given enough to hope for.

The position we find ourselves in is excellent. Premiership football has moved on financially since the days when we were 2nd in December (as Vinjay likes to remind us). I'd like us to be a little higher up the league but we do have that potential. There is no need for Vinjay to want change as, overall, we have it pretty damn good at the moment.

[FourLaneBlue]

The potential loss of $3 million a year would not sink the ship - just not replacing Amo and Flitty should save that - but the opportunity of having a purposeful, driven (and maybe more money than brains) owner is a prize worth seeking. Fans will start to come back when there is something to believe in. If it's just about the quality of the footy, it makes more sense to subscribe to Sky.

365051[/snapback]

Of course we'd all most likely agree with that but it is all pie in the sky at the moment. We have the Walker Trust at the moment and the club continues to perform solidly if unspectacularly. The input we receive each year is certainly welcome and should only be relenquished if (and it's a very big IF as it is to be only conjectured about obviously unless it ever materialises) a more dynamic leader emerges for our club.

We should beware of Greeks (or any other nationality!) bearing gifts however. Under the Trust it seems our future is assured. If we are to throw caution to the wind it may come back to bite us on the bum. Errr...or something, got lost with all those idioms there.

What I mean is that Blackburn Rovers are a bit like the UK economy. We are pretty calm at the moment, moving on without too much fuss. If we change we risk going back to the 'Boom and Bust' days. I'd rather have the Walker Trust overlooking things than some 'Malayasian plutocrat' or whichever chancer came along and liked the look of us.

Edited December 6, 2005 by FourLaneBlue

[FourLaneBlue]

Yes but Hearts were not bought not put up for sale that is the point.  If a rich businessman wanted to put his money into Blackburn I wouldn't have a problem but putting them up for sale wouldn't bring about this.  Also putting a few million into Hearts is the equivalent of what JW did for us in the early nineties.  You would need a hell of a lot more than that to make an impression in the Premiership.

365176[/snapback]

The money Romanov has put into Hearts is supposedly all through loans so he will get it back someday presumably. The money invested in Hearts (even when viewed as relative to the less costly SPL) cannot be compared to what Jack Walker put into Rovers. Jack paid for a ground, world class players etc etc. Romanov has done very little in comparison in what is still a very short reign thus far. Hearts fans (and they should have plenty of potential being from a large city) may be enjoying the ride but they must all be a bit apprehensive at where it will eventually leave them. Under Uncle Jack, we had no such worries for the future.

There really was only one Jack Walker. We won't get another like him and we have nothing that would attract an Ambramovich. Can't see the club being sold in the near future (as EiT suggested his thoughts were) at all really.

Lot of good posts on this subject, including from both philipl and EiT despite their sometimes opposing views.

Edited December 6, 2005 by FourLaneBlue

[Yorick]

If the Blackburn public were as enthusiastic about Rovers as the Edinburgh public were about Hibs and Hearts, we would be getting 5,000 gates in the Prem rising to 8,000 if we got to the top of the league.

365293[/snapback]

Perfectly illustrating the ultimate effect of what a league with all but two clubs devoid of any hope of success whatsoever and with all ambition stifled can do to the public interest in professional football.

btw apparently the purchase of Hearts was in the region of 4.5 million.

[stuwilky]

Romanov hasnt invested a penny.....

http://icscotland.icnetwork.co.uk/sport/tm...-name_page.html

[Exiled in Toronto]

Hearts fans are having the time of their lives, but Aberdeen are heading for death by boredom. Since football is bankrupt up there they are both doomed anyway. Which ride would you rather be on?

[Exiled in Toronto]

Then you will see that on five year track record to date, Rovers are doing a darn sight better under the Trust than practically all the one man shows except Chelsea/Abramovich.

365293[/snapback]

Interesting and coincidental comment by Henry Winter in todays Daily Telegraph. Sorry I can't do the link thingy, but in an article highly critical of the Rupert show, he lists four chairman - Gibson at 'boro, Moores at L'pool, Gartside at Horwich and Wardle at City - singing their praises as being real fans who love their clubs, appoint well, and stay out of the limelight.

Is our secrecy so tight that the game's best journalist can't see how well we are run, or maybe his criteria, which we patently don't fully meet, are actually important. Abramovich doesn't make the list either, for obvious reasons, and I'm surprised he makes Philip's; he's as likely to pull the plug as Romanov.

[1864roverite]

Rovers have the ideal opportunity to promote the club with the up and coming FA Cup game with QPR.

Lets see, QPR are likely to bring no more than 1000 supporters at best. With todays prices Rovers would no doubt attract a crowd less than 15k for this fixture.

The club need to speak to Qpr NOW and make the game family friendly for both sets of supporters.

between them they can lower prices for tickets, say £15 for an adult £8-£10 for concessions. Introduce a family ticket say 2 adult tickets 2 children free. Get the schools involved and offer 3000 tickets at £2 a head for kids.

Promote the half season ticket at the same time and you never know what the results may be.

If Rovers can make a headline grabbing initiative for the match the knock on could be fantastic and get another 2k fans through those gates for each and every game. It may even be more with the teams still to visit Ewood.

Everyone knows this game comes straight after xmas/new year when people are recovering from the financial constraints of the seasonal celebration. So to offer such an incentive then who knows.

The marketing people need to take action as soon as possible, its an ideal opportunity

[philipl]

I read thast Telegraph article- it was more about which rich football chairmen have been successful in hands on running a football club and which hands on guys fail disastrously.

On that basis neither Rovers nor the corporate structure Abramovich has put in place at Chelsea come within the scope of the article.

If you follow Lee's posts on here, that pricing idea is precisely the sort of in itiative Rovers take with visiting clubs.

BUT, if I were QPR, I would have none of it.

They get 25% of the gate money and a guarranteed small five figure sum for getting knocked out of the FA Cup.

All the recent Rovers pricing experiments in Cup competitions have shown a very low price elasticity of demand (in other words, terrible gates irrespective of fantastic pricing incentives). So QPR should demand category B status and have done with it- they cannot give a damn about Rovers' problems and the hoops fans who travel will come irrespective of Rovers' pricing unless we push it well north of £40.

However, there might be a fairy godmother at Loftus Road or JW might bring his negotiating skills to bear successfully.

As for the suggestion that Abramovich is as likely to pull out as Romanov- that is a joke.

1) As an oligarch he's far safer in London.

2) As the Chelsea boss he knows that Putin is unlikely to risk the public reaction which would be stirred if anything happens to him.

3) On paper, Abramovich is probably 50% up on his cash investment in Chelsea already. (Property value x3 the price he paid for the whole club and what price on Mourinho, Kenyon and all those players' contracts now?- AC, Inter, Barca, Real et al are still around to pay megabucks).

4) Roll forwards to 2013 and Abramovich will probably have paid another £250m out but if Kenyon has made Chelski the number one football brand as per his plan, Abramovich could probably cash sell out of Chelsea for £2bn+. A cool 300% return on investment.

[BRFC4EVA]

1864-You could have ground entry free for the Qpr game and we would still struggle to sell more than 20,000 tickets.

[1864roverite]

I dont think so really.

It could be used as a novelty, yes I would go as far as letting u13's in free 14-16 £2-£3, students a fiver etc etc

Just to guage reaction

we all know how much the seasonal period is gonna cost not jut for footie but for everything else

match tickets alone are costing me over £130, not to mention travel,beer and food

then theres the cup games

it all adds up

Rovers have the opportunity to set a precedent

[stuwilky]

BUT, if I were QPR, I would have none of it.

They get 25% of the gate money and a guarranteed small five figure sum for getting knocked out of the FA Cup.

365382[/snapback]

47.5%

[Yorick]

I dont think so really.

It could be used as a novelty, yes I would go as far as letting u13's in free 14-16 £2-£3, students a fiver etc etc

Just to guage reaction

we all know how much the seasonal period is gonna cost not jut for footie but for everything else

match tickets alone are costing me over £130, not to mention travel,beer and food

then theres the cup games

it all adds up

Rovers have the opportunity to set a precedent

365400[/snapback]

Have you not understood Philips post? QPR have a say in determining the admission prices for the game and they cannot be expected to play ball to their own financial detriment.

[Yorick]

2) As the Chelsea boss he knows that Putin is unlikely to risk the public reaction which would be stirred if anything happens to him.

365382[/snapback]

Are you sure about that one? Apart from a couple of hundred thousand Chelsea fans and the odd newspaper editor surely the rest of the country would just love to see him returned to Russia in chains.

[andy82]

Are you sure about that one?  Apart from a couple of hundred thousand Chelsea fans and the odd newspaper editor surely the rest of the country would just love to see him returned to Russia in chains.

365407[/snapback]

If the papers are on your side, you can get away with anything

Seriously, a lot of the investigations surrounding these 'dodgy' russians are so wrapped up in various forms of corruption that the Russian government realise if there is a great media interest, any wrongdoing on their part will be highlighted and other cases could be discredited or opened up to new evidence - or thats the way i look at it.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Sorry Roverite, but the interest is simply not there any more.Irrespective of WHATEVER our club does to get the fans back at the moment its falling on deaf ears....I doubt there will be little more than around 10,000 v QPR.

Theres another page full of letters in tonights LET about our gate problems,folk moaning about the price again seems to be the usual scapegoat excuse........ all becoming a little bit tiresome and well worn now folks!!!

It could be used as a novelty, yes I would go as far as letting u13's in free 14-16 £2-£3, students a fiver etc etc....at a massive financial loss to the club

This club CANNOT afford to let people in for nowt and then hope to remain in this league long term.

There is no immediate answer to our problems,our gates have now found their 'natural' level for a town our size especially now the JW bandwagon boys 'n' girls have fled to pastures new.

Edited December 6, 2005 by SIMON GARNERS 194