[Archived] Rovers Sold ??

[deryck guyler's spoon]

I am, and while I'm at it I'll ask whose idea "Lancashire United" was, yours or his.

Zing!

[American]

Thank you for proving my point.

There are posts in this thread from people who very clearly have the knowledge you do not have.

Absolutely false. They think they have the knowledge, but it is all just speculation.

Edit: Some speculation might be better written and better thought out, but it still lacks any inside knowledge.

[yoda]

Absolutely false. They think they have the knowledge, but it is all just speculation.

Edit: Some speculation might be better written and better thought out, but it still lacks any inside knowledge.

you are right, another point I don't remember seeing brought up is the that the trust could be in perpetuity,

this could mean that that a new owner would have to ensure that the terms of the existing trust have to be met if they decided to bale out in the future, all speculation of course but I could imagine that it would be something that JW would have arranged, that kind of requirment would keep the existing trustees honest!

With the time it has taken for the existing trustess to find a buyer, some tough conditions have to be met to ensure the well being of Blackburn Rovers, I belive this is what JW wanted and we should all be greatful to him for having the vision to ensure the future of our wonderful club.

[philipl]

Absolutely false. They think they have the knowledge, but it is all just speculation.

Edit: Some speculation might be better written and better thought out, but it still lacks any inside knowledge.

And on what basis are you so certain?

[S15]

Philip I bow to your superior knowledge on the technicality that I would rather die than have to endure one more of your speculative boring page long posts.

Please stop writing.

[Flopsy]

act like adults or we'll close this thread until the next round of over excited speculation comes around

[colin]

Philip I bow to your superior knowledge on the technicality that I would rather die than have to endure one more of your speculative boring page long posts.

Please stop writing.

Ah..........., translation being "I've just been proven to be wrong."

[S15]

Ah..........., translation being "I've just been proven to be wrong."

Proven wrong?

How can an opinion on a non factual matter be proved wrong..

I think Derby would be a potentially more attractive buyout due to there larger fan base which I believe could see them with investment be taken further than Rovers could.

Other people dont.

Hardly suprising on a Blackburn Fans site is it?

Proved wrong?? Clearly.

[Flopsy]

act like adults or we'll close this thread until the next round of over excited speculation comes around

Okay?

[Flopsy]

No theno, Im not, its just decended into petty bickering.

And this thread will be closed until something new comes along if people cant stear clear of a slanging match.

[Flopsy]

Theno - moved to ask admin.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Thank you for proving my point.

There are posts in this thread from people who very clearly have the knowledge you do not have.

Aren’t you a pompous, obtuse person:

I choose to ignore most of your posts, because I find that they are full of self-important laborious information. One only has to look at your many spats on this thread, where you bickered, baited and insulted posters because they do not bow to your so-called “superior knowledge”.

Your opinion is that an opinion, it is not fact, you clearly have no “inside information” .Your information is collated from internet sources, the media and the clubs accounts the same as pretty much everyone else, yes you have a nice turn of phrase and you obviously have good business acumen, but your opinion no matter how well or how much you right is no more valid than any other opinion on the subject matter. So what gives you the right to tell other posters that your opinion is superior, because you include more information than most in your extremely long and often unnecessary posts?

It is clear to me that 99% of this thread is opinion not fact, until you can illustrate that you are entrenched in the take-over or have acquired some first-hand information regarding any proposed bid, you opinion should be treaded the same as any other poster. Not held up above everyone else because you have good grammar and knowledge of economics

The old adage goes Bullshit baffles brains.

I fully expect someone to delete or move this post, as certain posters seem to be exempt from site rules, yet they break them daily with their bickering, slander and childish remarks regarding people’s ability to read

[philipl]

Jason, you are missinbg the point.

I don't care in the least what you think about me or my posts.

I simply pointed out that by reading this thread selectively, you have missed posts by at least four other posters who clearly do have knowledge and facts which invalidated the points you were trying to make.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Jason, you are missinbg the point.

I don't care in the least what you think about me or my posts.

I simply pointed out that by reading this thread selectively, you have missed posts by at least four other posters who clearly do have knowledge and facts which invalidated the points you were trying to make.

I tend to read them , i just ignore your posts. I dont like your self-imortant attitude especially on this given subject matter, and your inability to see that not everyone has to bow to your “superior opinion”.

You also try to spin what has been said earlier in the thread .When you criticised my own opinion, when I stated that personally I thought that the proposed asking price was at the very top-end of what the trustees could expect. You did this by insinuating that I have trouble reading. These other posters you keep spoting are clearly a metaphor for yourself, as I have said and said time and time again, were in your posts is corroborative evidence to suggest you have primary access to any information regarding the proposed sale of club, apart from what you read on the internet. I haven’t mentioned the validity of other posters claims regarding the takeover so why do you feel the need to do so?

[Scotty]

Good grief.

[den]

Good grief.

Yep.

Come on chaps, stick to the points.

[Cheshireblue]

It's quite clear that they aren't desperate to find an investor, they simply realise that one will be needed at some point so they may as well start looking now. I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that the club isn't undervalued when sold, with conditions written in concerning future investment, I sort of expected that the trust would have wanted to take care of Rovers in that sort of way.

I know you are a little hard of learning so I'm typing this slowly so you can follow it.

The trust is not in this to make money. It has no duty to sell the club, either to the highest bidder or otherwise. It has to do what is in the best interests of the club. End of story.

How can any potential purchaser (who does not have the same financial freedom as the trust) with less than say £500m possibly be a better option for the club than its current owners? The club is not just a football team, it is a limited company that is required to be solvent and (if owned by another company or any kind of sensible investor) make money. At the moment it does not have to make money or provide a reasonable return on anyones investment. There is absolutely no reason at all why another investor will ever be needed either now or in the foreseeable future.

Unless you are an Abramovich type with millions down the back of the sofa, then you cannot be a better long term prospect for the club than the trust. I would even argue that an Abramovich type is not good for the club because if he goes tomorrow, Chelsea are insolvent inside of three months.

You have seen Phillipl's DCF valuation of the business and can see that £100m is the entry level. I use DCF when I'm looking to undervalue a business as it is nearly always the cheapest valuation method available. No football club has ever been bought on that basis, and probably never will as the whole business is based around intangible assets. The only real asset is the ground, and that is usually a millstone as it only gets used 25 days a year. It's value normally rests in the fact that it is prime real estate in an urban area that is potentially worth £20m - £25m if you can sell it to Tesco's, but that means you have no ground and your whole business folds.

No "normal" investor will look at Rovers because of the trusts structure. You simply cannot just buy it as that is not enough. Normally you just stuff the club full of debt and allow the club to pay off the interest over 10 years. The seller does not normally give two hoots how you raise the cash as they just want their price. You can't with Rovers as the trust do care where you get your money from as they are looking at the clubs best interests not their own. You need to pay cash and also then have transfer funds available in an amount to match the trust. Now if you think you can do all of that with under say £500m floating around then I suggest you try.

I'm glad that you think I am wrong, as that almost certainly means that I am right. This is how I make a very healthy living Eddie, I'm not used to being wrong. It tends to get very expensive very quickly when it goes pear shaped and all of a sudden you have no money or companies that will talk to you. That's OK for you as you are mates with Kofi Annan, but the rest of us just have to trade on our merits.

[yoda]

I know you are a little hard of learning so I'm typing this slowly so you can follow it.

The trust is not in this to make money. It has no duty to sell the club, either to the highest bidder or otherwise. It has to do what is in the best interests of the club. End of story.

How can any potential purchaser (who does not have the same financial freedom as the trust) with less than say £500m possibly be a better option for the club than its current owners? The club is not just a football team, it is a limited company that is required to be solvent and (if owned by another company or any kind of sensible investor) make money. At the moment it does not have to make money or provide a reasonable return on anyones investment. There is absolutely no reason at all why another investor will ever be needed either now or in the foreseeable future.

Unless you are an Abramovich type with millions down the back of the sofa, then you cannot be a better long term prospect for the club than the trust. I would even argue that an Abramovich type is not good for the club because if he goes tomorrow, Chelsea are insolvent inside of three months.

You have seen Phillipl's DCF valuation of the business and can see that £100m is the entry level. I use DCF when I'm looking to undervalue a business as it is nearly always the cheapest valuation method available. No football club has ever been bought on that basis, and probably never will as the whole business is based around intangible assets. The only real asset is the ground, and that is usually a millstone as it only gets used 25 days a year. It's value normally rests in the fact that it is prime real estate in an urban area that is potentially worth £20m - £25m if you can sell it to Tesco's, but that means you have no ground and your whole business folds.

No "normal" investor will look at Rovers because of the trusts structure. You simply cannot just buy it as that is not enough. Normally you just stuff the club full of debt and allow the club to pay off the interest over 10 years. The seller does not normally give two hoots how you raise the cash as they just want their price. You can't with Rovers as the trust do care where you get your money from as they are looking at the clubs best interests not their own. You need to pay cash and also then have transfer funds available in an amount to match the trust. Now if you think you can do all of that with under say £500m floating around then I suggest you try.

I'm glad that you think I am wrong, as that almost certainly means that I am right. This is how I make a very healthy living Eddie, I'm not used to being wrong. It tends to get very expensive very quickly when it goes pear shaped and all of a sudden you have no money or companies that will talk to you. That's OK for you as you are mates with Kofi Annan, but the rest of us just have to trade on our merits.

Do you know if the terms of the trust (or some of them) are in perpetuity?

[Paul]

Given none of us know how the trust is set up the contents of this thread are bound to be speculative. However there are some posters who clearly have experience in this area, either with trusts or in the broader financial community, perhaps both. It seems to me these are people who are able to speculate from greater experience than the majority and their opinions are therefore very valid. Even though they are speculating they do so on the basis of experience most of us of do not poessess. The points made by philip and Cheshire Blue certainly help me understand why the sale of Rovers, if it happens, is likely to be a long and drawn out process.

Until someone comes up with a better arguement I'd say these two have hit the nail on the head. They may be proved wrong but there doesn't seem to be a better arguement out there at the moment.

[Ste B]

Do you know if the terms of the trust (or some of them) are in perpetuity?

Does anybody on here ? At the end of the day we are all guessing. It may turn out Chesh and Philip are wrong, but they do seem to know the technicalities of these things. Doesnt mean that there havent been other good counter arguments either, but we will find out for sure in time.

The only facts we know is we are willing sellers and its been said we need investment to be able to push on.

[yoda]

-->

QUOTE(Ste B @ Nov 19 2007, 20:07 ) 561803[/snapback]

Does anybody on here ? At the end of the day we are all guessing. It may turn out Chesh and Philip are wrong, but they do seem to know the technicalities of these things. Doesnt mean that there havent been other good counter arguments either, but we will find out for sure in time.

The only facts we know is we are willing sellers and its been said we need investment to be able to push on.

Ah! so we have had 122 pages of pure speculation

[Ste B]

In the main yes, with a fair bit of discussion on what each bit of speculation will actually mean to us.

[den]

However there are some posters who clearly have experience in this area, either with trusts or in the broader financial community, perhaps both. It seems to me these are people who are able to speculate from greater experience than the majority and their opinions are therefore very valid. Even though they are speculating they do so on the basis of experience most of us of do not poessess. The points made by philip and Cheshire Blue certainly help me understand why the sale of Rovers, if it happens, is likely to be a long and drawn out process.

Until someone comes up with a better arguement I'd say these two have hit the nail on the head. They may be proved wrong but there doesn't seem to be a better arguement out there at the moment.

Not even sure it's all speculation Paul. I'd accept what Chesh and Phil are saying in good grace, unless someone can demonstrate what they are saying is wrong.

[Exiled in Toronto]

It has to do what is in the best interests of the club. End of story.

It seems to me, even as a relative financial ignoramous being a marketing man by trade, that all of your subsequent argument is based on this one assertion. Simple question - do you know this for a fact, or may it not be the case that the Trust has to do whatever Jack Walker specified it has to do? Might the trust deeds not contain, as a hypothetical example, something such as...."and if my family all agree after 10 years that they hate footy, then the club may be sold to a fit and proper buyer"

If your argument is as accurate as you claim, why on earth would the club be issuing statements about the club looking for a buyer, then speaking to potential buyers (plural), none of whom in all likelihood will have $500 million in cash?

[USRoverME]

Personally, I'd wager Chesh is probably close. I think his 500 mil number is high, in that he's making an assumption about the trust wording, specifically that the new owner must have more value than the trust. THAT's the biggest speculating point, what financials is the new owner going to be required to meet. Chesh is working off an understanding that its a fairly vague "more beneficial to the club" from my reading of his posts. But if there's a set criteria (a % of trust cash injections over the past x years, for example), then Chesh's values could be waaaaaay off.