[Archived] Rovers Sold ??

[USABlue]

I would rather not sell. There is only one reason why Glazer, Lerner, Gillett and all the rest are sniffing around EPL clubs-the huge barrell of cash on it's way next season. As I understand it, if you finish bottom of next seasons Premiership, you get £30,000,000 from the TV deals. So if a team finishes even at mid table, then for a fairly small but well performing club the likely hood is some potential profit is available for the owners.

I would not think that would be good for Rovers.

I don't think so. Certainley not in Glazers case. He bought United long before the new TV deal was hashed out. Even if he did not is it really good business savvy to invest 500mil, carrying phenominal amounts of debt, to get ones hands on 30 mil of revenue. I don't think so. Some of these latest investors that may be the case but not the ones going after the big three.

[Ozz]

Ah, but United are not likely to finish bottom are they? But I agree about Glazers investment. The rest are IMO trying to jump on the gravy train.

[heapbag]

Actually, several networks have sprouted up in the US that show mostly football: Fox Soccer, Gol TV and Setanta Sports. Obviously there is a niche out there for them, as Setanta and Gol TV are relatively new.

Was just perusing this thread and just wanted to say that there may be a niche for soccer in America but that doesn't in any way suggest that it can grow from there. I mean there are small markets for competitive fishing and poker in the U.S. for chrissakes. Soccer will never fully take off in the U.S. because:

#1) they didn't invent it

#2) you can't stick commericals in between play.

The NHL can't even suceed in the U.S. market and hockey is a pretty exciting sport...better than fishing anywas. And the NHL has been broadcast on FOX, ABC, NBC and ESPN.

[LeChuck]

World's 19th richest man interested in Southampton.

It might not be long before clubs not being taken over by rich owners will get left behind.

As brilliantly as this club is run, we might not be realistically able to compete with these clubs in a few years. Of course money is no guarantee of success, but it would be extremely difficult to compete in a league that contains a lot of teams owned by multi-millionaires/billionaires.

I suppose that does beg the question; would we prefer to stay as a well-run family club, but possibly accept that the lower end of the Premiership or even just being a stable Championship club is the best we can hope for, or be taken over by a rich (and probably foreign) owner and be able to compete at the level we are now (i.e. European asiprations)?

[yellowsubmarine]

Best stadium I've been to was this one for England-Portugal. Best thing is - it's got terracing for German league games and you can drink beer while watching the game!

Wouldnt it be stuffy inside? The only ventilation seems to be that gap in the middle.

[USRoverME]

The NHL can't even suceed in the U.S. market and hockey is a pretty exciting sport...better than fishing anywas. And the NHL has been broadcast on FOX, ABC, NBC and ESPN.

You know what, I used to think this..... but now that POKER has become a popular TV "sport" over here... I can't imagine why soccer/football can't make it.... Just cut to 10 second commercials when players are rolling around faking injuries, trying to draw pens, pretending to be shot... the sponsers will be happy.

Imagine : "this faked injury is brought to you by Don's acting studio, if Drogba (or CRon etc) had graduated from here, that would have been a penalty."

[bubblerrovers]

Looks like Investors are looking are circling like hawks at the moment, even championship teams above us, just wondered where people think we would stand in potential fan base stakes?? as that seems to be the deciding factor. As a town club i understand we can't compete with at least 20 big city clubs, I'd like to think with good priced tickets, entertaining football we could one day attract 25-30k??

[unsall]

Paul, whilst I don't think the Premiership is anywhere near as bad a product as you do, you've absolutely no need to explain yourself to someone who seems to think they're a better fan than you.

If you choose not to go to any particular game, that's entirely your prerogative! You've already paid for the seat anyway! Whether you've missed a game since 1987 or not!

Hey what is this I never said I was a better fan, are you ganging up lads because you have thousands of posts on here and I have not many, Its the quality of the the posts not quantity,by the way your not karting on saturday as well are you............

[Paul Mellelieu]

I prefer the Olympic Stadium as a building (it's stunning), but Shalke's ground is better for watching football, although it feels like being in a huge concert hall, not unlike Cardiff.

I took in a match in Berlin at the weekend and spotted a lot of Hertha fans wearing blue and white halves, an old strip of their's I presume. So Samba might have turned out in the famous strip before.

Other noteworthy points: fellas selling large plastic glasses during the match and apart from the two "ends" complete mixing of supporters form the two clubs. And not one drink-fuelled bit of aggro. So if they can do it, what's wrong with our supporters?

[stuwilky]

Hey what is this I never said I was a better fan, are you ganging up lads because you have thousands of posts on here and I have not many, Its the quality of the the posts not quantity,by the way your not karting on saturday as well are you............

It may well be about the content of what is posted, rather than the number of them.

PS - I'll be at Ewood tomorrow, although I thought about going to watch FC United as they are receiving their NWCFL Division 1 trophy, and Ive done quite a lot this season for the league.

[tommobrfc]

hope it dosn`t go pear shaped if a new invester comes in, you only have to look at villa west ham

THERE`S ONLY ONE JACK WALKER.

[Mr. E]

yep, we ain't for sale. we're a football club, not a business club, lets keep it that way.

[stuwilky]

hope it dosn`t go pear shaped if a new invester comes in, you only have to look at villa

Whats happened at Villa thats dodgy? Lerner looks pretty solid....

[92er]

Ony two reasons to get involved in Rovers as far as I can see. One being a lifelong supporter, the other to get hold of some of the Sky cash.

Cant see us being so lucky twice so I find this rather worrying.

I guess that would be three times- the investor just before WW1 who helped fund our first two First Division championships was also a fan.

[RevidgeBlue]

Hey what is this I never said I was a better fan, are you ganging up lads because you have thousands of posts on here and I have not many, Its the quality of the the posts not quantity,by the way your not karting on saturday as well are you............

No, and if the standard of the above post is anything to go by you have neither quality nor quantity!

[FourLaneBlue]

I guess that would be three times- the investor just before WW1 who helped fund our first two First Division championships was also a fan.

Are you referring to Lawrence Cotton 92er?

"King Cotton" as he was known. The Jack Walker of the early twentieth century, although was far more interested in the town itself than Uncle Jack ever was, becoming mayor and so on.

[RevidgeBlue]

World's 19th richest man interested in Southampton.

It might not be long before clubs not being taken over by rich owners will get left behind.

Sadly, I think I agree with that.

The Walker Trustees could probably pump a lot more money into Rovers if they wanted but presumably have a duty of care to ensure that most support is given to Jack's profit making ventures.

Like John Williams said in the LT "The only constant is change". Jack Walker was unbelievable for us and also the Trustees to a lesser degree but even so as JW has said many times "We're not the same Blackburn Rovers as when Jack was alive" Times move on.

I'm really at a loss to understand why most people on here think the right quality of new ownership might be a bad idea when Man Ure Chelsea Liverpool (and seemingly David Dein at Arsenal) presumably think it's the only way to compete in the current climate.

Neither do I think we're as unattractive a proposition as many are making out. No debt to speak of and if we could keep the manager it wouldn't take unlimited amounts of cash to turn us into a perennially successful top 6 outfit that would generate a lot of extremely good publicity for the owners.

[USABlue]

I'm really at a loss to understand why most people on here think the right quality of new ownership might be a bad idea

Fear of change Rev. I think also when you take the actual logistics out of the equation what is going on with these big investors and why people don't fancy it is it further erodes the game as we all knew as young uns. It's another way of killing what football was all about. Inexpensive entertainment for the working masses. Many of us still, unbelievably I am sure, still relate to that. Saturday afternoon, few pints, the match for many of us it was our ONLY outlet. We loved the game for it's beautiful simplicity, sportsmanship and exciting action. We have for many years been losing the very sport we have kept alive through two World Wars and many many very hard economic times.

Our own club the famous, but irritatingly small for the media, Blackburn Rovers to many of us is still a throwback to when the game was a game, the last bastion if you will of a simpler time. For some the sale of the club to outside investors signals the very end of the "hometown club" feel. I for one totally love the fact that 'lil old BRFC from a town with a population not too much bigger than the "Real Wembleys" capacity can still do what we are doing and still claim to be somewhat pure, course we kid ourselves, but it is not too unrealistic to still feel that connect. Well I've prattled on enough but I hope you follow what I am getting at. In a snippet I think we want our cake and eat it too.

[philipl]

Two points,

As far as ensuring we get the right quality of investor is concerned, I would be very surprised if the Walker Will allowed the Trustees to dispose of the club to anyone but of the right quality

All this "we are going to be over taken" by clubs with more money ignores the fact that Rovers' current owners put £6m a year into the club and take nothing out. To date, that is a record that beats quite a lot of high profile rich investors elsewhere. Indeed, Abramovich and Gaydamuk are probably the only ones of the current generation pumping in more to their respective clubs than Rovers' owners. Villa's owners and West Ham's owners (hopefully enforced by relegation) might spend more this summer but will they stick to pumping an average £6m a year in over 16 years as the Walkers have done?

I think fans should rest easy on this one. The only thing to worry about is falling attendances at Ewood because of the signal that sends to the Walker Trustees and any other potential investor.

[FourLaneBlue]

I'm really at a loss to understand why most people on here think the right quality of new ownership might be a bad idea when Man Ure Chelsea Liverpool (and seemingly David Dein at Arsenal) presumably think it's the only way to compete in the current climate.

Nobody on here or in our support would be really against the "right quality" of ownership I don't think. It is the "right quality" part and the immense difficulty of finding one that is the crux of the argument here.

It is however sensible to be wary of those wishing to take over as enacting a shoddy takeover is far easier than finding a quality investor who would have the interests of the club as a priority. Rovers could easily be milked as a cash cow by an unscrupulous enough "investor" who could cut costs and allow TV money and, in case of relegation, parachute money to flow into their pockets while also selling off our most prized players.

Also your suggestion that "Man Ure Chelsea Liverpool presumably think it's the only way to compete in the current climate" doesn't really make sense by lumping them together.

Chelsea was sold because Ken Bates was over-his-head in debt and were in danger of doing a Leeds. They were saved by Ranieri leading them to fourth (and thus the Champions League) to make them an attractive investment to a passing Russian billionaire.

Man Utd were taken over whatever their previous owners might have wished. Chelsea and Man U were hardly thinking they needed new investment as it just happened in their cases! Added to that I don't see any way in which United are different than before the Glazer takeover except that their team is now gelling together and the ticket prices have shot up. Ronaldo, Rooney, Scholes etc were all already there. They spent at least as big before as after Glazer. Liverpool you have a point though.

I'm also not too sure why we will suddenly get left behind. We will have more money to spend due to the TV deal and don't have owners looking to take money out so if spent wisely we can still compete.

Change can be good but the club has to be very careful just who is allowed to have responsibility for the future of this 132 year old club.

[krislu]

Rovers could easily be milked as a cash cow by an unscrupulous enough "investor" who could cut costs and allow TV money and, in case of relegation, parachute money to flow into their pockets while also selling off our most prized players.

Sorry, but this is nonsense FourLaneBlue! Everyone keep talking about the TV money as it is something that a new investor could just put in his pocket and make a profit. If you think our current owners are going to sell the club at a price where the new TV-deal is not "baked" in, then you don't know what you are talking about. And what is this "parachute money" you talk about?

May I suggest a basic course in Corporate Finance...

[Eddie]

The parachute money is the money given to relegated sides to ease the financial effects of being relegated.

[philipl]

Both Krislu and FLB are right. The selling price of Prem clubs today includes the baked in TV revenues from continued Prem presence. That's why Eggert is looking like a baked alaska.

But having got hold of a Prem club, you could have a decent go at running one on £30m a year outgoings which equates to £10m a year profits plus dollops of transfer income from time to time.

Lets face it, El Fayed has run Fulham parsimoniously for a few years since he lost interest without getting them relegated. Reading and Sheff U are probably tanking along at £30m ish and Bolton I think spend sub £40m a year.

[stuwilky]

And what is this "parachute money" you talk about?

May I suggest a basic course in Corporate Finance...

Patachute money is the payment given to relegated clubs for 2 season immediately after relegation, from next season this is almost £10m per annum.

[FourLaneBlue]

If you think our current owners are going to sell the club at a price where the new TV-deal is not "baked" in, then you don't know what you are talking about.

Straw man argument

Obviously the TV money will reflect the price of the club but there would be little to stop the new owners cutting costs and being happy to skim off chunks of the money while aiming to just about keep Rovers in the Premiership.