[Archived] Rovers Sold ??

[roversmum]

The one thing to remember here is that we are a club (hopefully) looking for a top six finish, however in terms of revenue generated through gate receipts and sponsorship etc we are now where near the top six. We have operating costs (wages, bonuses expenses etc) of a top six club with the income of a much lower club,

Plus an unfinished stadium..............

[b12_simon]

While I can see the club will need funds to compte in the longterm I think it's arguable we have one of the best squads outside of the top four. We already have "top players" and didn't miss out on much this summer/.

The medium to long term is a concern. Our midfielders are either aging or injury-prone. We're competitive this season and will continue to be if Dunn and Reid are able to stay fit. I'm a huge fan of both players but both are big ifs IMO.

[rover2u]

I cannot believe williams has failed with his takeover. Not only because he is of lancashire origin,nor a fan of the club. It is because we are a club in need of new money and cannot rely on the trustees funds forever.

Indeed the team has made a great start to the season,and the skills of the management and coaching staff are not in doubt at all. However some parts of the squad are ageing and others are injury prone. The need for new investment in players is essential in the next twelve months not just to cover the depth that we have in the squad,but to help us push on and progress to the next level that is the top 6,maybe 4.

To do that we must buy top quality players which cost high amounts, we need to attract a higher gate which "big" players thrive on playing in front of,and we also have to develop the riverside to give our beloved ewood park the finished off look that it deserves.

To achieve these goals we need heavy investment and it would of been all the more sweeter if a rovers fan would of been able to help the club along the way.

P.S. Ryan Nelson and Andrew Strauss - Seperated at birth?!

[thenodrog]

If you have a good one it should be pretty high up the list of intentions!

Managers are short term and will always be viewed as such (what is the average tenure of a Prem manager btw?) whereas owning a club is a longer term commitment. Managers come and go, both success and failure guarantees that. Even Jack Walker with all his wealth and power saw 5 managers and a prerennial caretaker take charge of his team in a decade. Hughes is a fine manager without doubt but he is not part of the fixtures and fittings and cannot be viewed as such I'm afraid.

[philipl]

BrianPotter's post is absolutely spot on and explains why in my opinion Dan Williams was always a non-starter and it was only a question of when he would withdraw.

He chose to court public support (the LET interview) presumably in an attempt to show he had popular backing in the fan base but that invited the obvious financial questions from interested supporters that were never answered. In such a narrowly funded operation, where was the replacement of the £7m a year donation the Trust makes going to come from? This was matched only by the total silence when questions were raised about the sort of returns hedge funds and the like are looking for from their lending to fund his investment.

I think Dan Williams' exit has got some unnecessary noise out of the way and I doubt he got much further than a beer in the boardroom so far as the owners of the Rovers are concerned.

If anything is happening now, it will be serious and that means it will be happening quietly and well outside the public domain. Any suggestions being made at the moment of numbers and terms is wild guess work. Trusts as large as the Jack Walker Trust simply cannot conduct their business with anything other than total discretion and the strictest adherence to the terms of the settlement that established them.

[thenodrog]

When Jack died, an investment of £7m per season from the trust, rising in line with inflation was probably of significant benefit to the club. However, what was not considered (and there's no way it could have been) is the massive rise in money within football which has left the Trusts annual investment looking rather small. The Trust is not an position (for whatever reason) to provide the club with the amounts of investment needed to make serious impact in todays markets, which is what is ultimately needed to take the club to the next level - hence why they are looking for new investment.

Its as simple as that.

It's not. This is the bit that I cannot comprehend. Jack Walker was apparently prepared to 'lose' 6/7 million per year on his 'hobby'. Any serious investor will want to make at least that from an investment of 60million. Thats a £14m+ difference. Now how the hell can that be made in this era where any spare income simply goes to pad out the investments of some Carlos Kickaballs and their agents. I've said before that if there was money to be made out of BRFC the Walker Trust would not be heading for the exit door.

The only way to make serious returns out of BRFC imo is to come in and asset strip till there's nothing left worth keeping. Put the boot on the other foot and try to ponder what hard nosed US money men with no link to Blackburn and no feelings whatsoever for English football, tradition and values would do to make a viable return on their investment. Somehow imaginative marketing of English football to the Asian economies is the only way forward income wise and that is one almighty gamble.

[philipl]

Thankfully you are wrong 'drog.

[thenodrog]

Thankfully you are wrong 'drog.

It's not a gamble?

[nicko]

I think you will find the sale price is based on what they want for the shares - which will be about £45 million - plus the £25 million or so for players.

Talk of billions is fantasy.

Do you think someone is going to pay billions for Rovers?

And why would senior Rovers officials and Rothschilds be talking to prospective buyers at the realistic figures if it would take billions?

[John]

I think the billions part is referring to the wealth of the individual/group, not how much they would pay to buy BRFC.

[nicko]

I think the billions part is referring to the wealth of the individual/group, not how much they would pay to buy BRFC.

That question was never raised in six months of on-and-off discussions with Dan Williams.

If nothing else Dan Williams has at least established what figures would be accepted by the trustees.

The trustess will decide what they want to accept, not some idea about a fantasy figure set in stone in somebody's will.

Bear in mind they seem pretty interested in selling too. They know there is no mega-rich philanthropist out there.

There is NO billionaire about - you just have to hope you find someone with enthusiasm, ideas and a few million.

[Tris]

Ultimately Dan Williams's reason for pulling back is because of his own business situation. If you look at his projects in Africa they are likely to be time-consuming.

The Lancashire-born, New Jersey-based millionaire's company is about to seal a new building deal in Africa that may occupy too much of his time.

What - he's going to build more homes in Africa??! As well as those referred to below, which he'd supposedly already signed up for in June? Maybe he was talking boll**ks then and still is now!

However, the bulk of our money is in the housing business, in a company called Princeton Global Housing. We've just signed our second contract, worth nearly a billion dollars, out in West Africa. We've just signed a $750m deal in Gabon for 15,000 houses.

As some of us have pointed out from the start, this whole episode has been a sham. Nothing about Daniel Williams has ever made sense or added up, and those of us who dared to ask the pertinent questions 5 weeks ago were villified and silenced by the clamour of the masses - clearly getting transfer gossip 12 hours before it's in the papers is far more important to Rovers fans than discussing the future ownership of the football club.

The claim - today on September 9th - that Williams has suddenly discovered that his Africa projects are "too time consuming" is so weak it's laughable.

Why didn't he tell the LET that on June 19th when he bragged about signing these mega-money deals?

He's either incredibly stupid or way out of his depth. I am delighted that he appears to be nowhere near gaining control of Blackburn Rovers.

But Williams is expected to announce he is withdrawing and Rovers will have to continue their search for new money. Their superb start to the season cannot mask the long-term issues that they need to sort out to bring in top players and keep boss Mark Hughes happy.

The longest term issue is that Rovers will never, ever satisfy the needs of Mark Hughes, who is clearly a fantastic manager. He will by default rise to the very top, and that won't be managing Blackburn Rovers - even if someone comes in and throws £500 million at the team and the manager. Hughes will pick his next job from the elite clubs of Europe, and nothing Rovers can offer will ever match the attraction of managing Man Utd, Bayern Munich or Barcelona.

For now, we're on the crest of a wave and this is a key season. If we finish in the top 4 I think Hughes will stay for another season and cut his teeth in the Champions League with Rovers. It's not about how much cash Rovers give him to spend, it's about Hughes's career.

As for Rovers, it's all been said in earlier posts (esp well by BrianPotter). The current set up is long term, and incredibly good for the club. Yes the search for "new money" will continue - but it'll have to be something amazing to actually lead to a change in ownership.

[BlueMonday]

What - he's going to build more homes in Africa??! As well as those referred to below, which he'd supposedly already signed up for in June? Maybe he was talking boll**ks then and still is now!

As some of us have pointed out from the start, this whole episode has been a sham. Nothing about Daniel Williams has ever made sense or added up, and those of us who dared to ask the pertinent questions 5 weeks ago were villified and silenced by the clamour of the masses - clearly getting transfer gossip 12 hours before it's in the papers is far more important to Rovers fans than discussing the future ownership of the football club.

The claim - today on September 9th - that Williams has suddenly discovered that his Africa projects are "too time consuming" is so weak it's laughable.

Why didn't he tell the LET that on June 19th when he bragged about signing these mega-money deals?

He's either incredibly stupid or way out of his depth. I am delighted that he appears to be nowhere near gaining control of Blackburn Rovers.

The longest term issue is that Rovers will never, ever satisfy the needs of Mark Hughes, who is clearly a fantastic manager. He will by default rise to the very top, and that won't be managing Blackburn Rovers - even if someone comes in and throws £500 million at the team and the manager. Hughes will pick his next job from the elite clubs of Europe, and nothing Rovers can offer will ever match the attraction of managing Man Utd, Bayern Munich or Barcelona.

For now, we're on the crest of a wave and this is a key season. If we finish in the top 4 I think Hughes will stay for another season and cut his teeth in the Champions League with Rovers. It's not about how much cash Rovers give him to spend, it's about Hughes's career.

As for Rovers, it's all been said in earlier posts (esp well by BrianPotter). The current set up is long term, and incredibly good for the club. Yes the search for "new money" will continue - but it'll have to be something amazing to actually lead to a change in ownership.

Everything he said !

Just suprised its taken this long.

[Alan75]

Another Michael Knighton Saga !!!!!!!!!!!

[BrianPotter]

That question was never raised in six months of on-and-off discussions with Dan Williams.

If nothing else Dan Williams has at least established what figures would be accepted by the trustees.

The trustess will decide what they want to accept, not some idea about a fantasy figure set in stone in somebody's will.

Bear in mind they seem pretty interested in selling too. They know there is no mega-rich philanthropist out there.

There is NO billionaire about - you just have to hope you find someone with enthusiasm, ideas and a few million.

Nicko, I think you may have mis-interpreted what I was saying, you are quite right there certainly is no figure set for the purchase of the club, and no businessman with any thought for the future would consider doing such a thing. It is impossible to predict market trends in any sector, let alone football so to put a future price on any subsidary or asset of the Trust would be ludicrous.

I am not referring to the terms of a will, I am referring to the deeds of the Trust. When Jack died he didn't simply transfer control of his assets and businesses to his family and associates to do as they see fit. The method of a Trust was used to protect his assets and businesses in the future and to ensure that his wishes continued to be carried out after his death. The deeds of the Trust do not just refer to Blackurn Rovers, it covers all entities under the trust's control from the US based DataStrip to the airline Flybe. A sub-clause within the deeds stipulates that Blackurn Rovers Football Club can only be sold to a third party providing that the deal would put the club in a better position than it is currently. If you read my post again you'll see that this clause does not say that any acceptable bid must be from a party with a net worth anywhere near that of the Trust. That would be totally un-realistic and frankly would be very unlikely to happen. At the end of the day, no matter how much the Trustees want to sell or how much they will accept for their shares, and no matter how much DW or any other party want to buy the club unless the sale meets the terms of the Trust it legally cannot happen, and that is why this sale has hit a brick wall.

As for the Trustees willingness to sell, that is another matter entirely. Do they want out? Maybe some members do, but as I understand their primary reason for doing so is to increase investment to take the club to the next level, something the Trust cannot / are not prepared to do. In their eyes they've taken the club as far as they can.

As for Dan Williams, I have no doubt he was serious about buying the club and perhaps his deal would have been good for the club. One thing I'm not buying is the story regarding other business deals preventing him from going any further. The bottom fell out of the deal when DW's funding didn't meet the criteria of the Trust Fund, but then he's not going to come out and say that is he.

[nicko]

As for the Trustees willingness to sell, that is another matter entirely. Do they want out? Maybe some members do, but as I understand their primary reason for doing so is to increase investment to take the club to the next level, something the Trust cannot / are not prepared to do. In their eyes they've taken the club as far as they can.

As for Dan Williams, I have no doubt he was serious about buying the club and perhaps his deal would have been good for the club. One thing I'm not buying is the story regarding other business deals preventing him from going any further. The bottom fell out of the deal when DW's funding didn't meet the criteria of the Trust Fund, but then he's not going to come out and say that is he.

I take your points.

The guarantees about taking the club forward would be covered by proving the ability to spend more money in the future. I would think that is where the £25 million figure for 'extras' came in.

As for his reason for pulling out it would be good if someone from Rothschilds, the trustees or the club revealed whether they found a problem. I know there was a question mark over one of the backers, so that could do with being clarified.

After being in contact with him for a length of time and seeing the way the deal twisted and turned - and knowing how distraught he was at the end - I think his side of the story was genuine.

[BrianPotter]

I take your points.

The guarantees about taking the club forward would be covered by proving the ability to spend more money in the future. I would think that is where the £25 million figure for 'extras' came in.

As for his reason for pulling out it would be good if someone from Rothschilds, the trustees or the club revealed whether they found a problem. I know there was a question mark over one of the backers, so that could do with being clarified.

After being in contact with him for a length of time and seeing the way the deal twisted and turned - and knowing how distraught he was at the end - I think his side of the story was genuine.

It is a shame that this has come to nothing. As I said I think he was very serious about buying, in all honesty it wouldn't have got this far if he wasn't. He must be very disappointed as he had invested a lot of time and money in the bid and really thought he could move the club on.

I agree fully that the criteria of taking the club forward would be based on ability to invest in the future. I think that at this stage there should be some information from the Club or the Trust as to the reasons the deal didn't happen. I also think it would be good for the club if the Trust where to outline their intentions and commitments, but that isn't going to happen as getting any details from the Trustees is like blood from a stone.

I have feeling that the Club is a weight around the neck for the Trustees, but because of the sanctions set out in the deeds, one that they are struggling to free themselves of. At the end of the day the large portfolio of businesses owned by the Trust are there to make money for it in the form of dividends and asset growth etc. There is one exception to this portfolio - Blackburn Rovers, which doesn't make any money for the Trust, it does the opposite in the fact that the Trust has to invest £7m a year in this subsidary for no return. Lets be honest, Rovers was taken under the wing of Rosedale Investments as a hobby for Jack, never with the intention of making money. The people now running the Trust are businessmen, probably with little affection for Rovers, and in purely business terms they see the club as a drain on resources and and asset that is making no return. Unfortunately for them, and luckily for us Jack had the foresight to protect the club and offloading it isn't that simple.

[Blackburn Ender]

I know we are talking here without knowing the precise terms of the trust, but, if it exists to help Rovers, how can taking £45 million for the shares be helping Rovers?

What is the point of the Trust?

To make money from various business interests?

But for what or whom? Are there shareholders, employees and/or family getting a plump dividend each year?

[philipl]

Blackburnender, I suggest you click on brianpotter's name and read his posts as he has recently explained how the Trust works.

The short answers are that we have no way of knowing what price the Trust might want for its shareholding but it is unlikely to be the £120m which the Trust and, before them Jack when he was alive, have pumped into the club.

And no, nobody is getting dividends. In fact the reverse is the truth- money goes into Rovers, not out of it.

[Hughesy]

Im glad he has failed - Silence isnt a good thing when someone is looking into buying your club and I have never believed he is actually a fan of the club like he said.

Time to find someone who really wants to buy and progress the club.

[Exiled in Toronto]

It is a shame that this has come to nothing. As I said I think he was very serious about buying, in all honesty it wouldn't have got this far if he wasn't. He must be very disappointed as he had invested a lot of time and money in the bid and really thought he could move the club on.

I agree fully that the criteria of taking the club forward would be based on ability to invest in the future. I think that at this stage there should be some information from the Club or the Trust as to the reasons the deal didn't happen. I also think it would be good for the club if the Trust where to outline their intentions and commitments, but that isn't going to happen as getting any details from the Trustees is like blood from a stone.

I have feeling that the Club is a weight around the neck for the Trustees, but because of the sanctions set out in the deeds, one that they are struggling to free themselves of. At the end of the day the large portfolio of businesses owned by the Trust are there to make money for it in the form of dividends and asset growth etc. There is one exception to this portfolio - Blackburn Rovers, which doesn't make any money for the Trust, it does the opposite in the fact that the Trust has to invest £7m a year in this subsidary for no return. Lets be honest, Rovers was taken under the wing of Rosedale Investments as a hobby for Jack, never with the intention of making money. The people now running the Trust are businessmen, probably with little affection for Rovers, and in purely business terms they see the club as a drain on resources and and asset that is making no return. Unfortunately for them, and luckily for us Jack had the foresight to protect the club and offloading it isn't that simple.

Thank you Brian for a reasoned and plausible explaination of what has been going on - a nice change from some of the more hysterical fraud-spotters, Nicko's a PR stoolpigeon inputs.

While I know the Trustees are under no obligation to keep me updated, I for one do not like the 7-year veil of silence that has descended on the club I have followed for 40 years. I like to know what is going on and why, and I got used to a string of Chairmen and then Jack being more than open - a good Blackburnian trait. A small statement along the lines you suggest would make a big difference.

There is a compelling case for new ownership in the near future. The current owners want to sell, and I can understand why. If I was busting my nuts in one of their other businesses to hit profit targets, I would be somewhat demotivated to know that it was partly to fund Robbie Savage's latest Ferrari.

Anything near a top 4 finish this year and/or a cracking Euro run will boost our saleability, and, although Hughes will go sometime or other, a new injection of cash could well keep him here 2 or 3 more years to finish the post-Souness rebuilding. My fear is that otherwise, we will lose Hughes at the end of this season, lose some of our stars, begin to decline, thus reducing our saleability and get into an irreversible downward slide.

I believe we are at a crucial point in our history, and we will either go forwards or go backwards depending on what happens with our ownership and subsequent investment. Unfortunately, I think the status quo will equate to my doomsady scenario coming about.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Oopps

[Nafe_rovers]

http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/New...1044639,00.html

looks like ewood is going to change hands...

what does everyone think of this ??

[Billy Castell]

Unless that link is out of date, it looks like another party may close the deal sometime.

[Nafe_rovers]

who is going to buy ewood park??

would everyone prefer a big buisness man who is going to plough millions into the club

or a local lad who understands what football mean to every blackburn fan but then wont spend as much because he isnt as rich obviously.... ??

let me know !!