[Archived] Nicko's Thread

[Eddie]

Who would they buy? Liverpool, United and Chelsea are out of the question, so it would appear are Arsenal as well. Aston Villa are potentially much larger, but they have also been recently bought. Spurs, Everton and Newcastle are the only established premiership sides who can claim to seriously be larger than us, but Newcastle have had their recent change and I don't think Spurs or Everton are up for sale (obviously for the right offer they would be, but not quite as we are). Of the clubs who could be bought we are probably just about the best option based on our current squad, staff and set-up. If you also think that we could be 20-30 million cheaper than some of the clubs I've just mentioned (if not more), then you could invest that money straight into the squad and stand more of a chance.

Again, not the area to come into to make a profit, but if you have tons of money and seriously want to buy a premiership club then you would have to say that we are one of the best options out there.

[Hughesy]

I would imagine Everton would be available, aswell as maybe a big takeover at Sunderland.

[b12_simon]

Who would they buy? Liverpool, United and Chelsea are out of the question, so it would appear are Arsenal as well. Aston Villa are potentially much larger, but they have also been recently bought. Spurs, Everton and Newcastle are the only established premiership sides who can claim to seriously be larger than us, but Newcastle have had their recent change and I don't think Spurs or Everton are up for sale (obviously for the right offer they would be, but not quite as we are). Of the clubs who could be bought we are probably just about the best option based on our current squad, staff and set-up. If you also think that we could be 20-30 million cheaper than some of the clubs I've just mentioned (if not more), then you could invest that money straight into the squad and stand more of a chance.

Again, not the area to come into to make a profit, but if you have tons of money and seriously want to buy a premiership club then you would have to say that we are one of the best options out there.

Having tons of money and being desperate to buy a Premiership club are not the same as being canny, which is what I said.

When I think of someone buying Rovers as "a serious sports investement" (rather than for love as Jack did) I can't help thinking of Homer when Scorpio bought him the Denver Broncos

[Lee]

Thats who we need Hank Scorpio! And more hammocks! (from the hammock district)

[b12_simon]

Thats who we need Hank Scorpio! And more hammocks! (from the hammock district)

"Hughesy, on your way out, if you wanna kill somebody, it would help a lot."

[USRoverME]

Re: Kraft, having lived ~ 20 years of my life in the Boston-Area sports market. KRaft 'could' be a decent owner, but there's comflicting track records.

He's definitely done well with the Pats, but remember the NFL is an owner's dream. There's a salary cap, which means expenses are relatively contained, he physically CAN'T shell out huge $$ on players. But he got a great staff in place eventually and the Belichick-Pioli combineation works very well in getting good players at the right price to fit the team.

However, Kraft also owns the N.E. Revolution in the MLS. That's an interesting mess right now. They are a very good side, wont eh domestic cup this season, and into the playoffs on a bit of a downturn (1 point out of nine I think). However, and I'll try not to get into the minutiae of the MLS, but Kraft spends VERY LITTLE on the Revolution. In fact N.E. has never used their DP slot (that allows them to sign a big wage player, and have teh league chip in some of the cost). Now you can look at it two ways.

Good - He has set up a team which a good coach (Steve Nicol) and staff that can win without the big name-big money player. In fact they are a typically young side.

Bad - He isn't shelling out the money to bring in a big name guy who could put the Revs over the top (the domestic cup this year was their first cup ever, so in 12 years, and considering there's onjly 12-16 teams and 2 cups a year over that time frame....). Would he spend in the Prem? how much?

Would I welcome Kraft if he put in a bid for Rovers? Likely yes, since I see him as a "responsible" owner who loves sport. (ie he's not going to strip the club) His MLS record would worry me a bit especially relative to how committed he'd be to spending to keep the clubs talent level up, and true he's not a "life long Rover", but I can see him as a fair bit better than others who might bid.

That being said... I really can't see him bidding for any "small town club" at this point, he understands the economics and politics surrounding sport, and I can't see a Town club being his cup of tea, but I could be wrong.

He'd also be a delight for the English Press, he's had a few "interesting" sound bites come to light after/during celebrations, and it gives the illusion that he likes the drink a bit too much at times. But I can neither confirm nor deny it... However, the local talk sports station up ibn Portland Maine had a regular caller that used to do a "drunken Bob Kraft" voice that was hilarious....

[Cheshireblue]

Newcastle have only been bought by Mike Ashley because he knows that they were undervalued and that they are the obvious target for the next billionaire American who wants to have a soccer club in his portfolio of things to play with. Ashley will sell as soon as he receives a decent offer. Make no bones about that.

I can't really be bothered to trawl back through 200+ pages of this thread but I am pretty sure that our tabloid journo friend Nicko assured us about 3 months ago that the takeover by Dan what ever his name is was in the bag and that it was just about to be announced?

Imagine my surprise when it did not in fact happen.

[bluebruce]

What you're saying is right but look at what the Glazers have done at Man U. Everyone thought they'd sell assets and start an abyss but I doubt any other owner has poured more money into their club than they have (or will). Chances are we won't get a Rovers fan multi-millionnaire in (unless you count Dan Williams and Dave Whelan in) but as long as we get an investor who's got a load of dosh and is willing to do things in the interests of the club (perhaps with John Williams staying on as Chairman?) then that'd be more than acceptable!

Umm, I read that the Glazers took out something like a £650 million pound loan for the club. The interest on it being something like 60 or 70 million a year, which I shouldn't think even United can pay off and still buy players. And then there's the paying off of the loan itself. So, you sure they're not asset-stripping?

[bluebruce]

But you ARE being PC, YOU imagined what was going on in peoples minds at the time of writing that post, NO evidence of racism and yet you accuse and I quote,"Most people" of having just those thoughts....Madness!

I love hypocrisy, so amusing. You're accusing me of accusing people, when what I actually said was 'I can't help but think' and asked for clarification.

[bluebruce]

why???

dont you think it would affect the crowd??

dont you think its right for people to discuss their fears ??

you only need to look round blackburn or any other town to see what has happened to churches,pubs ,restraunts.Need i say more than audley tyres...???

what would would happen if they just sold off the club and turned the land into houses,schools etc and funded god knows what.

we should have a poll for local fans and a poll for non local fans to see who would still attend...

I do think it would affect the crowd, yes. I never disputed that it would. I've met enough Rovers fans who would almost certainly be racist enough to avoid turning up if a Pakistani/s took over the club. I'm also sure there is a valid point that some (probably a lesser amount mind) would stay away for fear of the family nature of the club being taken away in the event of any takeover from a non-Rover. And I'm sure it would add some of Blackburn's Asian population to the gate. The amount to which it would do any of these things is utterly impossible to predict. Maybe it would boost the gates, maybe it would reduce them. I know my mother-in-law urges my dad not to go to the cinema in Blackburn because...well I won't post exactly why actually, purely since it would probably be deleted, but suffice to say because of the amount of Asians there.

Discuss their fears? Sure. Be opposed to it simply because the group proposing a takeover are Pakistanis? Hell no. This isn't political correctness, it's being against blatant racism. Churches have been turned into mosques because Christianity is on a decline in Britain. Further, Islam isn't all that far removed from Christianity, they both branched off from Judaism after all. So they don't have a problem building mosques on top of churches. I don't see why you're so repulsed by this. I'm not, but then again I'm an atheist. Pubs? Bugger all has happened to pubs, except there are some nice takeaways nearby to tuck into when you're hammered. I'm from Darwen, and we've got more pubs and takeaways than can possibly be necessary. Improves the nightlife mind (Hate to think what it would be without em). Restaurants? Vastly, vastly improved. I love Indian cuisine, I feel sadness for you that you don't. A lot of English people do. Let's face it, our food sucks. I'd hate to get accused of guessing what people might be thinking whilst people guess what I'm thinking, but it seems to me you just have a problem with Indian culture in general, even their food (which kinda boggles my mind personally). Not everyone does. And (again, asking for clarification here rather than 'accusing'...hell, the anti-PC brigade are as bad as the PC brigade, and I don't belong to or like either, for the record) do you happen to be implying that anything Islamic involving profit must be funding terrorism? This is a pretty weak claim compared to how our entire society underpins global inequality. I'd love to elaborate by private message if you want to get into it, you'll find I know plenty on the subject. I'm doing a dissertation on terrorism after all. And besides, any buyer could turn the land into houses etc and fund whatever they please. But your fear seems much more specific than 'any' buyer, right? Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (preferably without the condescension I seem to be getting from anyone agitated that I don't share their opinion on this).

[USRoverME]

Umm, I read that the Glazers took out something like a £650 million pound loan for the club. The interest on it being something like 60 or 70 million a year, which I shouldn't think even United can pay off and still buy players. And then there's the paying off of the loan itself. So, you sure they're not asset-stripping?

Some of that is true re: the debt cycle, but at the same time, who forked out the money for Anderson, Hargreaves, Nani and Tevez (though he was a cut-price deal)

[Eddie]

Having tons of money and being desperate to buy a Premiership club are not the same as being canny, which is what I said.

When I think of someone buying Rovers as "a serious sports investement" (rather than for love as Jack did) I can't help thinking of Homer when Scorpio bought him the Denver Broncos

Well a canny millionaire might look at a well-run club with a good playing and coaching staff and that is currently in the top 6 who are also one of the cheapest in the league and think that it is a great deal. That is what I was getting at.

[bluebruce]

Some of that is true re: the debt cycle, but at the same time, who forked out the money for Anderson, Hargreaves, Nani and Tevez (though he was a cut-price deal)

The loan money did. The Glazers haven't put a penny of their personal fortune into either the buyout or subsequent funding. The entire thing was on the back of a loan taken out on the club's behalf I seem to recall. In fact, that kind of spending would appear to only put United in a more dangerous position re: the debt cycle.

[92er]

Some of that is true re: the debt cycle, but at the same time, who forked out the money for Anderson, Hargreaves, Nani and Tevez (though he was a cut-price deal)

We're going over old ground, which might have appeared on the Glazers' link, but it is argued that the supporters in fact are providing the means for this to happen and the Glazers are not using their own money.

[Eddie]

Which is simply good business really.

[ABBEY]

I do think it would affect the crowd, yes. I never disputed that it would. I've met enough Rovers fans who would almost certainly be racist enough to avoid turning up if a Pakistani/s took over the club. I'm also sure there is a valid point that some (probably a lesser amount mind) would stay away for fear of the family nature of the club being taken away in the event of any takeover from a non-Rover. And I'm sure it would add some of Blackburn's Asian population to the gate. The amount to which it would do any of these things is utterly impossible to predict. Maybe it would boost the gates, maybe it would reduce them. I know my mother-in-law urges my dad not to go to the cinema in Blackburn because...well I won't post exactly why actually, purely since it would probably be deleted, but suffice to say because of the amount of Asians there.

Discuss their fears? Sure. Be opposed to it simply because the group proposing a takeover are Pakistanis? Hell no. This isn't political correctness, it's being against blatant racism. Churches have been turned into mosques because Christianity is on a decline in Britain. Further, Islam isn't all that far removed from Christianity, they both branched off from Judaism after all. So they don't have a problem building mosques on top of churches. I don't see why you're so repulsed by this. I'm not, but then again I'm an atheist. Pubs? Bugger all has happened to pubs, except there are some nice takeaways nearby to tuck into when you're hammered. I'm from Darwen, and we've got more pubs and takeaways than can possibly be necessary. Improves the nightlife mind (Hate to think what it would be without em). Restaurants? Vastly, vastly improved. I love Indian cuisine, I feel sadness for you that you don't. A lot of English people do. Let's face it, our food sucks. I'd hate to get accused of guessing what people might be thinking whilst people guess what I'm thinking, but it seems to me you just have a problem with Indian culture in general, even their food (which kinda boggles my mind personally). Not everyone does. And (again, asking for clarification here rather than 'accusing'...hell, the anti-PC brigade are as bad as the PC brigade, and I don't belong to or like either, for the record) do you happen to be implying that anything Islamic involving profit must be funding terrorism? This is a pretty weak claim compared to how our entire society underpins global inequality. I'd love to elaborate by private message if you want to get into it, you'll find I know plenty on the subject. I'm doing a dissertation on terrorism after all. And besides, any buyer could turn the land into houses etc and fund whatever they please. But your fear seems much more specific than 'any' buyer, right? Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding you (preferably without the condescension I seem to be getting from anyone agitated that I don't share their opinion on this).

never mentioned indians or their food...i love it so where you get that from baffles me ,i went to goa last year and it was the best holiday ive ever had.Fair do's i cant rememeber whether the bally is indian ,turk,or whatever but you know what i mean when the y get taken over they change.

WHY IS IT RACIST TO SAY PEOPLE WONT GO IF PAKISTANIS BUY THE CLUB? NOONE ACCUSED MAN U FANS OF IT WHEN THEY GOT TOOK OVER BY A FOREIGN OWNER.HECK THEY EVEN FORMED A NEW MAN U....But if you are naiive enough to think people wouldnt attend if this happened because of who was the owners then you have your head in the sand my friend....not racist just fact

[tony gale's mic]

never mentioned indians or their food...i love it so where you get that from baffles me ,i went to goa last year and it was the best holiday ive ever had.Fair do's i cant rememeber whether the bally is indian ,turk,or whatever but you know what i mean when the y get taken over they change.

WHY IS IT RACIST TO SAY PEOPLE WONT GO IF PAKISTANIS BUY THE CLUB? NOONE ACCUSED MAN U FANS OF IT WHEN THEY GOT TOOK OVER BY A FOREIGN OWNER.HECK THEY EVEN FORMED A NEW MAN U....But if you are naiive enough to think people wouldnt attend if this happened because of who was the owners then you have your head in the sand my friend....not racist just fact

goa....just the place to go if you want to sample the indian culture.

[bluebruce]

never mentioned indians or their food...i love it so where you get that from baffles me ,i went to goa last year and it was the best holiday ive ever had.Fair do's i cant rememeber whether the bally is indian ,turk,or whatever but you know what i mean when the y get taken over they change.

WHY IS IT RACIST TO SAY PEOPLE WONT GO IF PAKISTANIS BUY THE CLUB? NOONE ACCUSED MAN U FANS OF IT WHEN THEY GOT TOOK OVER BY A FOREIGN OWNER.HECK THEY EVEN FORMED A NEW MAN U....But if you are naiive enough to think people wouldnt attend if this happened because of who was the owners then you have your head in the sand my friend....not racist just fact

Well you're going to have to tell me what you meant by you only have to look around town to see what they've done to the restaurants. Because if it isn't linked to your dislike of Indian restaurants, I haven't got the slightest clue of what I apparently only have to look around town to see.

It isn't racist to say people won't go if Pakistanis buy the club. If you look back over my comments you'll see I never said that at all, and in fact agree that some people certainly won't go if Pakistanis buy the club. It IS, however, racist to not go specifically because Pakistanis bought the club. This is different to not going because an investor bought the club, as the key difference is 'Pakistani' investor rather than just investor. I hope I'm being clear enough this time!!!

[philipl]

For what its worth, I don't think the Glazer model is sustainable- even for Man U.

The "big money" acquisitions this summer in fact much cost less than £10m cash out; in fact Man U probablyt laid out only slightly more £$ than Rovers did. Every one of the deals is a massive never, never set-up which is why I think we have found out that Anderson and Nani look rather over-prived at £30m the pair. They are as in effect the interest and risk premium is all rolled up in the "headline" price.

The Glazers failed to roll their last tranche of debt and now they are left with a huge wadge of the club in hock to Hedge Funds just as American Hedge Funds can feel shark's fins brushing their goolies and market sentiment towards them is cooling like a bath of liquid nitrogen.

Without being melodramatic, it is possible to see Man U servicing £100m a year in debt maintenance costs (which it is now approaching if you add in the consequencies of this summer's headline signing) but nobody has a clue how the principle will be paid this side of 2020 which is as far as anyone has done the sums.

I think there is a 50% chance of Man U hitting some very tough times. The day that the Glazers pay-up or start progressively handing the keys to OT to the Hedge Funds is getting closer and closer. Don't be that surprised to wake up one transfer window morning to the news that Christina and/or Shrek are at Barca or Real Madrid for some seemingly not particularly high transfer fee paid cash on the nose.

[bluebruce]

For what its worth, I don't think the Glazer model is sustainable- even for Man U.

The "big money" acquisitions this summer in fact much cost less than £10m cash out; in fact Man U probablyt laid out only slightly more £$ than Rovers did. Every one of the deals is a massive never, never set-up which is why I think we have found out that Anderson and Nani look rather over-prived at £30m the pair. They are as in effect the interest and risk premium is all rolled up in the "headline" price.

Are you entirely sure about that? Seem to recall that Tevez is 5 million up front. I can't see Anderson and Nani being sold for only 5 million up front between them, with the rest not guaranteed. Nani doesn't look that overpriced at 15 million from what I've seen (including before United)...Ronaldo didn't look worth more than 5 million to me that first season in the Prem, and Nani looks like a player with all the attributes to be almost as good.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

For what its worth, I don't think the Glazer model is sustainable- even for Man U.

The "big money" acquisitions this summer in fact much cost less than £10m cash out; in fact Man U probablyt laid out only slightly more £$ than Rovers did. Every one of the deals is a massive never, never set-up which is why I think we have found out that Anderson and Nani look rather over-prived at £30m the pair. They are as in effect the interest and risk premium is all rolled up in the "headline" price.

You’re first statement borders on the absolutely ridiculous, United spent over 50 million on transfer fees; albeit not all initial outlay, with clauses/add ons & payments over a fixed period (usually 36 months). Even if this is the case the wages and signing on fees that United will have paid to Tevez , Hargegreves , Nani and Anderson will be huge. They have spent big on proven quality & young talent 30 million in today’s market is a snip for two of the best youngsters in the world. Look at the prices blown on players such as Bent, Bianchi, Snejder, & Pato to see that it is an over-inflated market, both players will turn out to be high-class editions

I hate United as much, if not more than anyone but to suggest that their summer spending was similar to ours is plain ridiculous.

[thenodrog]

Well a canny millionaire might look at a well-run club with a good playing and coaching staff and that is currently in the top 6 who are also one of the cheapest in the league and think that it is a great deal. That is what I was getting at.

Wrong Eddie. Proper 'Canny millionaires' look at investments that make returns on investment which is something that we are simply not commercially big enough to do. As I have said before we are really only financially attractive to an asset stripper and that is obviously only in the very short term. I don't pretend to know the exact nature of JW's trust sell on terms, but without them I could not see us lasting 5 minutes.

[Eddie]

I wasn't saying they would see us as a good financial investment, I said quite the opposite actually. My point was that if you had money to spare and you were seriously interested in buying a premiership club then we may well be the best option available given our price, squad and staff.

[philipl]

You’re first statement borders on the absolutely ridiculous, United spent over 50 million on transfer fees; albeit not all initial outlay, with clauses/add ons & payments over a fixed period (usually 36 months). Even if this is the case the wages and signing on fees that United will have paid to Tevez , Hargegreves , Nani and Anderson will be huge. They have spent big on proven quality & young talent 30 million in today’s market is a snip for two of the best youngsters in the world. Look at the prices blown on players such as Bent, Bianchi, Snejder, & Pato to see that it is an over-inflated market, both players will turn out to be high-class editions

I hate United as much, if not more than anyone but to suggest that their summer spending was similar to ours is plain ridiculous.

Jason, learn to read the words written before you get too excited.

I talked about cash out this summer. Tevez is costing a £4m paid on a month by month loan deal for the first year so the Mancs spent under £1m cash out on him this summer. Nani and Anderson are on off-balance sheet financing deals which probably meant that the Mancs laid down about £2m cash for the two of them this summer. Hargreaves cost a cheque of £4.5m with the Mancs negotiating on spreading payment over the life of his contract with them rather than pushing down the headline price to Bayern. Then remember Rossi was sold on a conventional transfer for £5m+ and is my statement that wide of the mark?

My point was and is that this summer's transfers were all done on the never never massively pushing up the overall cost of ownership for the four players involved and ramping up the cash Man U are paying in what is in effect all debt financing.

Tevez by some estimates is going to cost them between £40m and £50m by the time Joorabchian's interest is expunged. The big numbers for the actual transfer of ownership start next summer.

The bottom line is that net cash on transfers this summer spent by the Mancs was under £5m but they took on new obligations which will cost them another £80m cash over the coming four years. And then they have to pay the wages.

The Man U Supporters' Trust (who surely would have been sued if these numbers were wrong) estimate that:

The first loan of £75m was borrowed over seven years at a current interest rate of 8.81 per cent — producing annual interest bill of £6.61m.

The second of £150m, borrowed over eight years at a current interest rate of 9.31 per cent, produces interest of £13.97m. The third, also of £150m, over nine years at 9.69 per cent, is running up an annual interest bill of £14.53m.

Another 10-year £150m loan at 12.19 per cent is producing £18.28m annual interest, while the final £135m "Payment in Kind" loan is costing £23.3m in interest, although it is not payable this year.

On top of that, City experts estimate United will pay at least another £24m in capital repayments, bringing the total to more than £100m.

A City expert told us: "The problem is the Glazers have entered a deal which meant they put very little money in but have taken on a lot of debt. They are clearly looking at all kinds of securitization, like future season ticket sales to raise cash immediately and cut the debt.

"In today's climate, it is clear with these levels of borrowing at such high interest rates, the Glazers need to do something dramatic and quickly. There are really only two options — to somehow get the cost of the borrowing down or sell the club."

And the Trust statement continued: "Taking the figures from the July 2006 refinancing documents, copies of which we have seen, we have calculated United's current interest and debt service bill.

"Due to recent turmoil in the markets and cumulative interest rate rises since July 2006, the total annualised debt cost to Manchester United has hit £100m for the first time since the takeover in 2005."

It was only a year ago the Glazers refinanced and they recently held talks with three banks — JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland — about a new debt structure.

Those talks failed to produce a deal, leaving United with a £62m annual interest bill.

Countering this is the £90m surplus cash the club throws off in TV, AIG and fleeced Mancs but those numbers above don't include the additional £20m a year financing costs for this summer's four signings. Man U is in the dangerous territory of calculating to service debt in the hope that debt service costs will eventually fall and business revenues rise to painlessly pay off £650m of headline debt.

If we are heading for a credit crunch, this is exactly the business model that will get crushed as refinancing the existing deals will get more expensive, not cheaper. They will be regarded as becoming higher and higher risk and precisely the sort of deals that a chastened banking/funding system might no longer have any appetite for.

[blue phil]

Proper 'Canny millionaires' look at investments that make returns on investment which is something that we are simply not commercially big enough to do. As I have said before we are really only financially attractive to an asset stripper and that is obviously only in the very short term.

They should put the Rovers on The Dragons Den as a long term investment proposition .

Not sure how long the show would last though ....