[Archived] Oh Boy, I'm Not Too Sure I'm Excited About This....

[bluebruce]

Hmm, well I dunno. That only says the pot won't start to diminish, it doesn't say it won't stop some day. They don't have infinite cash, for one thing.

[Tris]

Hmm, well I dunno. That only says the pot won't start to diminish, it doesn't say it won't stop some day. They don't have infinite cash, for one thing.

So you think there will be a better investor out there who can buy the trust out of the obligation Jack left them with?

With infinate cash?

I don't - I think any investor coming in now is coming in to take the TV windfall away from the football club - and I think the likes of West Ham and Aston Villa (if not Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea) will find the reality out in a very painful way. It may be a few years off, but it will happen.

[bluebruce]

So you think there will be a better investor out there who can buy the trust out of the obligation Jack left them with?

With infinate cash?

I don't - I think any investor coming in now is coming in to take the TV windfall away from the football club - and I think the likes of West Ham and Aston Villa (if not Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea) will find the reality out in a very painful way. It may be a few years off, but it will happen.

I'm not saying that, just saying, from what I believe I read some time ago, the Trust isn't the permanent financial security some people seem to be taking it for. I'm on the fence as to whether I want an investor- I'd say only the right one, and those are hard to find, and hard to judge.

[Kai]

Now let me see!.........Who was it that said "the end justifies the means?" Was it Theno?

Nicolo Machiavelli

[philipl]

Tris' post of the quotes from the Trustees is all that needs to be read on the subject.

For "floatation" when that was the rage seven years ago, read "rich foreign investor" today. How many football floats were successful? How many rich foreign investors will be successful? How many lawyers, accountants and bankers earned lots of fees?

There is no infinite pot of cash in the Trust Fund- there are a number of increasingly successful businesses generating surpluses and some beneficiaries and Blackburn Rovers. I would guess that if Paul Egerton-Vernon were interviewed today, he would say the same words including "for the foreseeable future".

There is no infinite security blanket in football as in life. However, Rovers have got the closest next best thing in the Trust's ownership.

[RoversFanUSA]

Well as long as they bring in money and dont mess with the ways things are being run then i dont really seem to have a problum with it. Also i wouldnt mind if an AMERICAN bought Rovers . Then i could feel even closer to them then i do now!!! hehehe

[Fife Rover]

Nicolo Machiavelli

And there was me thinking it was Karl Marx (sometimes known as Theno).

[BrianPotter]

Tris' post of the quotes from the Trustees is all that needs to be read on the subject.

For "floatation" when that was the rage seven years ago, read "rich foreign investor" today. How many football floats were successful? How many rich foreign investors will be successful? How many lawyers, accountants and bankers earned lots of fees?

There is no infinite pot of cash in the Trust Fund- there are a number of increasingly successful businesses generating surpluses and some beneficiaries and Blackburn Rovers. I would guess that if Paul Egerton-Vernon were interviewed today, he would say the same words including "for the foreseeable future".

There is no infinite security blanket in football as in life. However, Rovers have got the closest next best thing in the Trust's ownership.

Would fully agree with that Phil.

Also, correct me If I am wrong, but I would assume that there are some kind of sanctions in place to stop the trust off loading the club. Sureley, it would be Jacks worst nightmare to see the club no longer under his families control just a few years after his death, especially considering the amount of money he pumped in.

Is it not possible that the Trust would sell a proportion of the shares to generate cash, whilst still retaining the majority share holding and therfore control of the club?

[Exiled in Toronto]

The fact that the club are explicitly stating that meetings with potential investors have taken place is significant. It is also significant that the last substantive statement from our current owners came a whopping six years ago. While I appreciate the benevolent nature of our current ownership, I have long worried about its lack of involvement. Any business must be dynamic, and that comes from the top.

We must accept that any potential investor will want to see a profit, otherwise they are not investors, they are donors. But most sensible investors also see that profits can be increased, or secured for longer, with ongoing investment. As was pointed out earlier, we are not too far away from the even greater riches of the Champions League; we have no debt, and an infrastructure that is sounds for years if not decades to come; and the new Sky deal will make us a sound little business.

I think that scenario will attract interest, and if the Trust had no intention of ever selling, then why test the water? David Moores loves Liverpool just as much as Jack did Rovers. If he could sell then I see no reason why emotional reasons would stop us from doing the same. I predict that within 2 years we will have new owners, and will embark on the latest chapter in our history, for better or worse.

[USABlue]

Whever happens in the future .......This is a special club and first and foremost its the people of Blackburn's club

You mean those same people sat on their arse in the pub on match days?

[USABlue]

Things look extremely rosy under the current TV arrangements but they won't necessarily last for ever.

But don't you think that is what is now attracting these investors, I mean 30M in guaranteed income is very rosy indeed. Perhaps if or when the TV money goeas away so will the investors with a possible horrific collapse of smaller clubs like ours.

[philipl]

The fact that the club are explicitly stating that meetings with potential investors have taken place is significant. It is also significant that the last substantive statement from our current owners came a whopping six years ago. While I appreciate the benevolent nature of our current ownership, I have long worried about its lack of involvement. Any business must be dynamic, and that comes from the top.

We must accept that any potential investor will want to see a profit, otherwise they are not investors, they are donors. But most sensible investors also see that profits can be increased, or secured for longer, with ongoing investment. As was pointed out earlier, we are not too far away from the even greater riches of the Champions League; we have no debt, and an infrastructure that is sounds for years if not decades to come; and the new Sky deal will make us a sound little business.

I think that scenario will attract interest, and if the Trust had no intention of ever selling, then why test the water? David Moores loves Liverpool just as much as Jack did Rovers. If he could sell then I see no reason why emotional reasons would stop us from doing the same. I predict that within 2 years we will have new owners, and will embark on the latest chapter in our history, for better or worse.

I think you are missing the point.

The Trust said all there was to be said publicly six years ago. Nothing has changed with regards to the Trust, therefore there is nothing to say. Unlike a company, a Trust has a different audience to communicate with so it has no obligation or interest to say anything in public. So if the Trust remains silent, the supporters of BRFC can reasonably expect that Paul Egerton-Vernon's words are as true today as the day he said them.

With regards to testing the market, the Trust has a duty to do the best by the Trustees as well as by Blackburn Rovers FC. It is possible there is a Jack Walker mark 2 out there and the Trustees would not be doing their job if they did not look for him/her. That is a very different proposition to a whopping great for sale sign and being open to the first passing yank or sheikh.

[FourLaneBlue]

The fact that the club are explicitly stating that meetings with potential investors have taken place is significant. It is also significant that the last substantive statement from our current owners came a whopping six years ago. While I appreciate the benevolent nature of our current ownership, I have long worried about its lack of involvement. Any business must be dynamic, and that comes from the top.

It does come from the top. For all intents and purposes it is John Williams who is the head man at Rovers. If what you suggested happened in reality then it would Rupert Murdoch who beat the drum for Sky rather than their managers or for The Sun rather the editor. The Trust may own the club but John Williams runs it and the buck stops with him. It is not unusual in a business context for a company to be owned by a Group which controls many other companies with seemingly minimal input from the actual owners.

[Exiled in Toronto]

I think you are missing the point.

The Trust said all there was to be said publicly six years ago. Nothing has changed with regards to the Trust, therefore there is nothing to say. Unlike a company, a Trust has a different audience to communicate with so it has no obligation or interest to say anything in public. So if the Trust remains silent, the supporters of BRFC can reasonably expect that Paul Egerton-Vernon's words are as true today as the day he said them.

I do understand that a trust has no obligation to issue daily bulletins to the fans, but I still, as a 40-year stakeholder in BRFC, do not like the fact that our ownership structure means we have to rely on one carefully worded statement issued in what was virtually a different era football-wise.

With regards to testing the market, the Trust has a duty to do the best by the Trustees as well as by Blackburn Rovers FC. It is possible there is a Jack Walker mark 2 out there and the Trustees would not be doing their job if they did not look for him/her. That is a very different proposition to a whopping great for sale sign and being open to the first passing yank or sheikh.

Two ends of a very broad spectrum. There are many points inbetween that I feel would a) be more interested in BRFC as a proposition than in the past, and would satisfy whatever criteria Jack laid down.

We shall see.

[Exiled in Toronto]

It does come from the top. For all intents and purposes it is John Williams who is the head man at Rovers. If what you suggested happened in reality then it would Rupert Murdoch who beat the drum for Sky rather than their managers or for The Sun rather the editor. The Trust may own the club but John Williams runs it and the buck stops with him. It is not usual in a business context for a company to be owned by a Group which controls many other companies with seemingly minimal input from the actual owners.

Come on now, you think Murdoch doesn't set the direction for Sky and the Sun's political affiliations? He is reputed to be extremely hands on on the big issues. Williams is an employee, and as such his job is to execute the strategy laid down by the ownership. I'd be very surprised if his remit extends to even sacking ther manager, let alone sellling, or not, the club.

[FourLaneBlue]

Come on now, you think Murdoch doesn't set the direction for Sky and the Sun's political affiliations? He is reputed to be extremely hands on on the big issues. Williams is an employee, and as such his job is to execute the strategy laid down by the ownership. I'd be very surprised if his remit extends to even sacking ther manager, let alone sellling, or not, the club.

Murdoch was just an example as everyone knows who he is.

There are many examples of hands-off owners who leave all the running of a business and the publicity to their head employee...therefore John Williams.

Other than owning the company there is little to suggest the Trust has any knowledge of the actual day-to-day running a football club. Jack Walker picked John Williams and we can only presume that the Trust and the club has been run (and they do seem to have been consistent) in the way he chose.

[American]

I'd say there are hands off owners, but they still shape the direction of the company and know exactly what's going on. Study Warren Buffett some day.

[FourLaneBlue]

I'd say there are hands off owners, but they still shape the direction of the company and know exactly what's going on. Study Warren Buffett some day.

True but does he have press conferences to tell people his thoughts?

We know the Trust has some involvement yet maybe only on major decisions.

[American]

He does send out his thoughts in the annual report...

[Atomicrover]

I'd say there are hands off owners, but they still shape the direction of the company and know exactly what's going on. Study Warren Buffett some day.

Didn't he sing something about "Margheritaville......"?, (hicc)

[American]

Distant cousin Jimmy.... (They actually are distant cousins.)

[broadsword]

Tris' post of the quotes from the Trustees is all that needs to be read on the subject.

For "floatation" when that was the rage seven years ago, read "rich foreign investor" today. How many football floats were successful? How many rich foreign investors will be successful? How many lawyers, accountants and bankers earned lots of fees?

Millwall were on the AIM in no time at all, and I might be wrong but didn't they almost go under because of it, just before Paphitis came riding over the hill?

[Atomicrover]

Distant cousin Jimmy.... (They actually are distant cousins.)

So are we, I suppose?

[AggyBlue]

Didn't he sing something about "Margheritaville......"?, (hicc)

Wasn't that Staus Quo

[Ste B]

Wasn't that Staus Quo

Nah, theres a chain of theme restaurants in the States called Jimmy Buffetts Margaretaville... tho knowing the Yanks attitude to food would do far better if it was Jimmy Margaritavilles Buffet.