[Archived] Nicko's Thread

[LWX]

So you either sit in the current position, which the chairman and manager thinks needs investment...or you long for the good old days.

woe are we...........ooooh, for that '92 feeling.

[Tris]

I think it's about time you put the 'Jack from beyond the grave' stuff to one side.

The here and now sees his trustees looking for a buyer for their shares and the club.

Harping on about Jack Walker doesn't really move your club forward.

It's pretty obvious that it is a stretch for anyone with money to [a] buy the shares and [ b] find the funds for players.

You need [ b] more than you need [a]...unless you are a trustee of course.

There should certainly be checks on any new ownership and obligations.

But if you think there is another Jack Walker out there with millions to spend then you are kidding yourself. He would have made himself known by now. He does not exist.

So you either sit in the current position, which the chairman and manager thinks needs investment...or you long for the good old days.

I disagree with this. "Jack from beyond the grave" is the only reason we're doing so well just now - and is the best chance of a stable, safe, and relatively successful Blackburn Rovers in the longer term, thanks to his foresight.

It's easy to say we need more cash to propel a theoretical challenge for a Champions League place this season, but you don't sell your soul for a one season gamble. Jack Walker's legacy IS our soul.

The fact that we are challenging is great. So many - who have taken the splash-the-cash option - are being left in our wake. In fact if you look at all 20 PL clubs, 17 of them have blown big money and/or have the potential to blow lots more than we do (exceptions being Derby and Bolton).

The Hughes spell in charge is proving to be fantastic. He's going to move on at some stage whether we give him £40 million to spend or not. When he's gone, I want the Jack Walker legacy still in place to protect us - not some short term wrecker after a quick win and some TV wedge.

When the folly ends and the bubble bursts - as it surely will - the likes of West Ham, Aston Villa, Man City, Spurs, Sunderland, Birmingham, Fulham, Portsmouth - even Chelsea, Liverpool and United will be dreadfully exposed. The likes of Reading, Boro and Wigan might be happy to be owned by well meaning, honest football people - ie fans.

Arsenal will be laughing if they hold off the predatory moves from abroad - their business model suddenly looks to be the most solid in European football. And if little Rovers keep doing things the right way, Jack's legacy will mean we're in a much better place than all the quick-win gamblers. However if we join them, when things go wrong, little Rovers would be the first to sink without trace when the gamblers take their ill gotten gains somewhere else.

[Eddie]

What if the rest aren't quick-win gamblers? The problem I have with that sort of point of view is that there has yet to be anything to show that these foreign investors are only in it for the short haul. I'm not saying that they don't have anywhere near the same affection for their clubs that Jack Walker had for us, but that doesn't mean that they aren't willing to be in charge for the next 20 years. If even half of these investors stick around for a decade or more then we are in serious trouble. In the short term we can compete with clubs by finding the odd rough diamond and through good management, but one bad manager, one bad season or a couple of years where our bigger players are tempted away for more money and the gambles we take on players like Samba, Santa Cruz, Warnock and Nelsen don't quite come off and we will be in a sad state.

We can't gamble ourselves by saying that the bubble will burst, personally I don't think it will for the majority of them. Now that doesn't mean we should sell at the first available option, but it does mean that we have to seriously consider any approach, which is exactly what we are doing.

I'm also not really sure I agree with you in thinking that the clubs long-term future has been secured by the Walker money. I'm not sure that with the trustees in charge we can really say that in 10 years time there will still be enough money coming in, especially not if the bar is being raised by other clubs. I think we are in a very safe position for the next few years, but long-term we are in need of new investment.

[Tris]

one bad manager, one bad season or a couple of years where our bigger players are tempted away for more money and the gambles we take on players like Samba, Santa Cruz, Warnock and Nelsen don't quite come off and we will be in a sad state.

With the protection we currently have - how sad is a "sad state" ??

With that protection gone, a biscuit magnate, or a former Thai pm at the helm - or a body of investors who have borrowed xxx million at xx% with a short term TV deal as colleteral - how sad is a "sad state" then ???

[Exiled in Toronto]

With the protection we currently have - how sad is a "sad state" ??

With that protection gone, a biscuit magnate, or a former Thai pm at the helm - or a body of investors who have borrowed xxx million at xx% with a short term TV deal as colleteral - how sad is a "sad state" then ???

What's wrong with a biscuit magnate? We've always been run by some magnate or other - steel, fruit and veg, bobbins.

If you are right on the best way forwards for the club, then the trustees are not acting in the club's best interests by looking to sell, and why would they do that?

[American]

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....

Being a Revs fan and a former season ticket holder (don't own a car anymore, so getting to matches is difficult), I would say that he has been successful on the field, making the MLS Cup final three of the past 5 years without spending a lot of money. I like the fact that we would have a very good replacement for Hughes in the wings with Nicol. He took over mid-season with them being in a shambles and got them to the cup final.

I would say that off the field he hasn't been successful. The reason he owns the club is because he owns the stadium and it gives him more revenue (and having a club gives a better chance for national team and exhibition matches). While most of the other clubs are trying to get soccer-specific stadia built, he never will. Marketing has been a joke. The only reason they are going to have decent attendances this year is because fans had to buy 4 matches to see Beckham.

Overall, though, I'd say he would keep, build a new staff and allow them to run the club. But he would look at it as an investment and just try to break even at best.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him buy Fulham, though.

[Tris]

What's wrong with a biscuit magnate? We've always been run by some magnate or other - steel, fruit and veg, bobbins.

If you are right on the best way forwards for the club, then the trustees are not acting in the club's best interests by looking to sell, and why would they do that?

My best guess is that as "hard nosed businesspeople" - who are growing the rest of JWs empire at a rate of knots - they appreciate that they may never have a better chance to offload the "monkey on their back" which Jack Walker left them with.

My second best guess is that despite the current false glut of media generated income, and despite the "interest" of people like Dan Williams, no potential investor (read profit seeker) can meet the terms required by the legacy of a real fan.

The trustees are not fans, but they are bound by the instructions of that fan who put us (Rovers) where we are and them (as trustees of the whole empire) where they are. I'm quite sure they'd love to sell Rovers for £45 million and buy 10 new jets for Flybe (if they haven't already sold that in order to grow cash somewhere else).

But it seems they can't. Thank Jack for that.

[broadsword]

I can't see how someone taking over Rovers can help us more than it helps them, unless they are swimming in cash and are dioing it for PR, or they just love the club and are willing to make a loss on it.

Anyone else will treat it as an investment, and will want to get their moiney back plus more. Which means we will be worse off than bnefore they came along.

Or is there a hole in my logic?

[philipl]

Tris and Bryan's last two posts are absolutely spot on as far as I can read between the lines of everything said and written publicly.

However, the horns of the dilemma are simple:

Rovers happen to have the very best manager and team at the same time as the explosion in media payments has brought some particularly hot money into the rest of football falling into four categories:

- non-commercial: Chelsea, Pompey and City where the owner is buying personal safety not to put too fine a point on it.

- lunatic leverage: Man U for sure but there are others who are effectively spending other people's monies on a crazy ride which depends on easy credit being available for plans that depend on more easy credit being available when the current lot expires.

- sensible business plans built on sand: Liverpool looks like going that way; did Hicks budget for the new Anfield costing double the original estimates before a sod was cut and finding himself in a British planning system driving the process like a chimp on a unicycle? Add Rafa Can anyone see how the Icelandic biscuit barrons make money at West Ham from their cynical origination of a Premiership wages war? They probably did once upon a time. Sunderland are probably in this category as well whilst any and all of the clubs relegated in the past few years which have changed hands certainly are.

- sensible business plans with some foundation: Arsenal are getting the sums right so spectacularly that the coming decade is their's for the taking so long as an Uzbek with a need for personal safety doesn't think that two billion is a small price to pay. Mike Ashley bought sensibly at Newcastle and might find someone in one of the first three categories to make him a rapid and large return on his investment but paid sufficiently little to be OK even if nobody shows up. Randy Lerner also paid a low amount to exit the incumbent at Villa, has no need to make capital investment and has a club large enough to be its own money engine.

For Rovers, the prognosis is the following:

- find someone with a need for personal safety. They seem to be the most successful in footballing terms as well. If the Pakistani consortium does exist, they are probably our best hope as they are most likely to be in this category and stuff the dumbnuts who wrote emotional twaddle about Pakistanis buying Rovers.

- forget it if the purchase relies on a business plan. Intentionally or otherwise, the opposition/competition is too irrational for any business plan to work. The problem is the existance of far more money than business sense sloshing around EPL ownership at the moment making any competitive business plan too dependent on unknown variables driven by non-commercial considerations.

- the intriguing one is this. The one group who could conceivably be able to make a realistic business plan for some investment in Mark Hughes' achievements at the Rovers are the Walker Trustees. They have to regard the obligation Jack placed on them to support the club as sunk capital they will never see again so they could try to kill two birds with one stone by investing themselves this January if Rovers are still within striking distance of a Champions League place. Cash going in now might reduce cash needed later and a Champions League-qualified Rovers could be a saleable proposition. Remember, Abramovich probably would not have bought Chelsea had they not secured CL football with the last game of the 02/3 season.

Nicko said that up to ten Prem clubs were likely to change hands soon and this was after the City and Newcastle take-overs. Thus far, not only have Rovers not found a buyer, none of the others have either.

ENIC's desire to flog Spuds for £400m+ based on CL qualification shows that even business plans to exit from EPL ownership are built on sand. If Carsen Yeung walks away from Brum, it could signal that there are hardly any real buyers out there for any EPL clubs.

If anyone doubts the consequences for a club when a take-over doesn't quite work out, this has just appeared on the BBC web site: Liverpool face being plunged £500m into debt by the club's American owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks. (News of the World)

[Paul]

ENIC's desire to flog Spuds for £400m+ based on CL qualification shows that even business plans to exit from EPL ownership are built on sand. If Carsen Yeung walks away from Brum, it could signal that there are hardly any real buyers out there for any EPL clubs.

Which means it will probably all end in tears sooner than I and others have predicted. If just one club becomes unsaleable the value of the rest will plummet. One day there will be a fire sale and players values will drop like a stone. Good posts from Tris, Bryan and Philip on this subject. The mad rush to invest in the PL may be coming to a halt as those with money realise what we all know, there is no profit to be made. Rovers do not need a buyer, Jack Walker has made us secure and certainly ensured that when the house of cards comes crashing down, and it will, Rovers will be amongst the strongest. We have to ride out the current wave of investment going on around us to emerge nearer the top of the pile than clubs who are receiving these relatively small sums of money.

Arenal seem to have got it right, the rest are chucking money down an ever deepening hole and it will end at some point. No one is able to put forward sensible arguements as to why these "investments" will work. There is no new market ready to be exploited to repay the millions being spent on transfers and salaries. Look at Spurs this week, £40m spent in the transfer market this summer, perhaps £20m in salaries?, 10 matches in give Jol £4m to go away and spend £24m on Ramos. No doubt Ramos will require £mmms to reshape the squad into his "style." Spurs have probably spent or committerd to £100m of new money in the last three months, and will have to spend more in January. It doesn't work, no amount of TV deals, shirts deals, developing Asian markets etc can repay this investment. Every time it goes wrong the only solution is to spend more, and more, and more! Spend as much money as you want but there will still only be four CL places and truth be known gaining one of those is no real reward for the scale of investment required.

Clearly in the short-term some cash would be nice to reinforce Sparky's good work but lets not sacrifice the longer-term for instant glory. £10m or £100m for Hughes to spend now would make no difference to our position in five years time because we don't have, and never will have, the funds to sustain the spending. If Blackburn Rovers threaten the top four one, or more, of three things will happen:

Steal our manager

Steal our players

Raise the transfer ante - again

The Trust have proved themselves over the years............the challenge is to find an investor who matches their committment. It won't happen.

[Paul]

If anyone doubts the consequences for a club when a take-over doesn't quite work out, this has just appeared on the BBC web site: Liverpool face being plunged £500m into debt by the club's American owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks. (News of the World)

Ramos is planning a clear out at Spurs and wants to bring £23m rated Alves with him plus Kanoute. Great stuff from Spurs, spend £24m on a new coach and inside 48 hours he's spent another £50m on playesr and wages. Just how much would WHL be worth with planning permission?

[USABlue]

nicko, you little tinker, by omitting those paragraphs from the original article, it puts a completely different slant on what Hughes is saying!.

Too bloody right it does Rev, little tinker is not the term I was thinking.

[philipl]

I let it go by without comment- typical press manipulation. Sometimes it is cynical perversion of the facts to follow a particular line, more often plain lazy and unskilled sub-editing losing the gist of the piece to fit the alloted hole.

[thenodrog]

non-commercial: Chelsea, Pompey and City where the owner is buying personal safety not to put too fine a point on it..........

- find someone with a need for personal safety. They seem to be the most successful in footballing terms as well. If the Pakistani consortium does exist, they are probably our best hope as they are most likely to be in this category and stuff the dumbnuts who wrote emotional twaddle about Pakistanis buying Rovers.

I know he's not exactly a Pakistani but he is living there ............... Bin Laden for t'Rovers?

[Wiggy]

- lunatic leverage: Man U for sure but there are others who are effectively spending other people's monies on a crazy ride which depends on easy credit being available for plans that depend on more easy credit being available when the current lot expires.

I think this is the key point Philip. Any of these so called investors may well see their interest rates almost double when they come to renew because of the credit crunch. So, if, say the Glazers, or maybe Hicks and Gillet, decide the numbers no longer add up and want to off load, the whole pack of cards comes timbling down.

If we were owned by a Dan Williams consortium at this time, funded by American pensioners, there would be only one way for them to return some money. Asset strip. Sell off the saleable players, take the seasons TV money, parachute payments, sell off Brockhall and if we survived we would rejoin the lower divisions from whence we came.

I would suggest that anyone who believes the Americans haven't considered this scenario in their business plan is naive. What emotional attachment has a New York business man have to a small northern English soccer club whilst sat in his office overlooking the Manhattan skyline?

[Flopsy]

He's an Arsenal fan

[thenodrog]

http://www.people.co.uk/sport/football/tm_...-name_page.html

Who the bloody hell wrote this? ..........A few matches for England and suddenly Gareth Barry is worth £15m! Crikey not long ago we nearly got him for £4m! He's a good solid player who if he had played for a media luvved up club should have been closer to the England team years ago ..... but he is still only a water carrier at the end of the day. If Maureen had had owt about him he could no doubt have bought Barry for a third of that at the end of last season. Crazy world.

[nicko]

http://www.people.co.uk/sport/football/tm_...-name_page.html

Who the bloody hell wrote this? ..........A few matches for England and suddenly Gareth Barry is worth £15m! Crikey not long ago we nearly got him for £4m!

The story is right. And it would take in the region of £15 million or a player-swap package to get him. What are these England players valued at - Carrick, Hargreaves, Lampard and Gerrard? Think it's a sensible fee.

Very happy with the source. Seem to recall getting Drogba, Essien, Wright-Phillips, Sidwell and a few of their younger ones first too.

For the record when Souey tried for Barry they [Villa] turned down the best part of £6 million. Maybe the man was a judge after all...

[thenodrog]

The story is right. And it would take in the region of £15 million or a player-swap package to get him. What are these England players valued at - Carrick, Hargreaves, Lampard and Gerrard? Think it's a sensible fee.

The point being that Barry is no better nor no worse than he was 6 months or 4 years ago but that his value has now doubled or trebled despite clubs employing so many expert managers.

btw As long as Joe Cole's not in your list the other 4 are worth no more than 10m each either. Lampard always scores against us I grant you but (apart from Gerrard with two memorable matches) I've yet to see any of the others 'do owt' special other than sign for a media darling club.

btw 2 what nationalities Sunderland's Jones? I've seen him twice and he looks one hell of a centre forward.

[Eddie]

Did you see Lampard yesterday theno? That was the performance of a world class midfielder.

[nicko]

The point being that Barry is no better nor no worse than he was 6 months or 4 years ago but that his value has now doubled or trebled despite clubs employing so many expert managers.

btw As long as Joe Cole's not in your list the other 4 are worth no more than 10m each either. Lampard always scores against us I grant you but (apart from Gerrard with two memorable matches) I've yet to see any of the others 'do owt' special other than sign for a media darling club.

btw 2 what nationalities Sunderland's Jones? I've seen him twice and he looks one hell of a centre forward.

The changes in Barry's status are two-fold. He is now an England player and also signed a new contract recently worth a lot of money and for a long time. So Villa can ask for fortunes - and quite rightly so.

Carrick and Hargreaves cost £20 million-plus, Gerrard would be more and Lampard's value is hard to assess because his contract is running out. But, again, Villa would be justified in pointing to those players and pitching Barry's price high.

Kenwyne Jones is from Trinidad and Tobago. Came over as a centre half and now look at him. It's a funny old game. Everyone thought Sunderland - and Derby - were mugs when they went in for him at £6 million. Not so stupid now.

Incidentally Nathan Dyer at Southampton should be on anyone's list. Sheer pace and trickery. I would buy him tomorrow.

[nicko]

Did anyone go to the academy game with Man U? I hear young Bob Francis from the Congo looks the part, pleased to hear it.

What was the final score?

[philipl]

Didn't go but Rovers lost a 2-0 lead to go down 3-2.

There are a few words about it by Arthur Spuner (a name to conjure with) in the Academy section of the general Rovers part of the Official site's message board. Sounds like the ref was something else!

[LWX]

The point being that Barry is no better nor no worse than he was 6 months or 4 years ago

I lived in Birmingham and watched him alot with Villa fans......and he has come on quite a bit in the last few years.....matured, so to speak.

[thecomebackid]

I think this is the key point Philip. Any of these so called investors may well see their interest rates almost double when they come to renew because of the credit crunch. So, if, say the Glazers, or maybe Hicks and Gillet, decide the numbers no longer add up and want to off load, the whole pack of cards comes timbling down.

If we were owned by a Dan Williams consortium at this time, funded by American pensioners, there would be only one way for them to return some money. Asset strip. Sell off the saleable players, take the seasons TV money, parachute payments, sell off Brockhall and if we survived we would rejoin the lower divisions from whence we came.

I would suggest that anyone who believes the Americans haven't considered this scenario in their business plan is naive. What emotional attachment has a New York business man have to a small northern English soccer club whilst sat in his office overlooking the Manhattan skyline?

Couldn't agree more.

If memory serves me right, a similar consortium took over what was Crown/Borden's in Darwen, with the now familiar reassurance to the workers & local community that the status quo would be preserved. Of course, such consortia owe their obligations to shareholders & investors, not the local community. Within a brief period of time the whole site was vacated, loyal workers made redundant & the business model moved to another more economically viable location (bear in mind the AFC Wimbledon scenario).

This isn't to say that DW has malevolent intentions, but if you play with Arab/Russian/Asian/Wall Street billionaires, don't be surprised when there is no redress once the rug has been pulled from under your/our feet.