[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[Jan]

So:

There is NO "Blackburn Rovers" or "the club" that COULD own the land, - yes? NO- see below

and - the trustees own the land, - yes? Not directly

so, the trustees ARE Blackburn Rovers, - yes? NO

Blackburn Rovers PLC is a company which owns the Club (which owns the land). The trustees are the shareholders of the company. The company COULD sell the land separately, but the company- ie the club would have the money. However, the trustees could then declare a dividend (or payment relating to their shares) and take the majority, if not all, of tne money out.

[Flopsy]

so its their fault for the prayer room thats there instead of Gav's shelf then?

[BlueMonday]

This could get very complicated. Does that mean that the trustees could (in theory) sell players (assets) to raise money for the trust beneficiaries and (in theory) the club wouldn't have a right to claim that money?

[FourLaneBlue]

This could get very complicated. Does that mean that the trustees could (in theory) sell players (assets) to raise money for the trust beneficiaries and (in theory) the club wouldn't have a right to claim that money?

Presumably that depends on the conditions in the deeds of the Trust by which they have to abide. Maybe there are some clauses against the Trustees taking a dividend out. The Trust certainly cannot have made any money from Rovers when you consider just how many millions they have ploughed in since 2000.

The Trust I thought however was set up as a non-profit organisation? Profits get put back in or go to other businesses in their portfolio?

[nicko]

The Trustees want to get some of their money back from a sale...that's been the sticking point whenever someone tries to buy.

It WOULD be making a profit but only if they sold.

They are NOT putting any money in just now.

Draw your own conclusions...

[PAFELL]

The Trustees want to get some of their money back from a sale...that's been the sticking point whenever someone tries to buy.

It WOULD be making a profit but only if they sold.

They are NOT putting any money in just now.

Draw your own conclusions...

They do not careless about the club, only what comes back to them money wise.

The faster they can get out the better they would want - in the meantime NO money for Rovers and if the club goes down or even out of business - the trusties would not care less.

[Exiled in Toronto]

The Trustees want to get some of their money back from a sale...that's been the sticking point whenever someone tries to buy.

It WOULD be making a profit but only if they sold.

They are NOT putting any money in just now.

Draw your own conclusions...

I'm not sure about making a profit - of course it depends on how much they eventually (if ever) get. But having seen the number 40 million bandied around, that would represent a very large proportion of the cash injected by the trust since Jack's death. Obviously Jack's investments before then would not be recovered, but since BRFC was effectively Jack's hobby and pre-dated the trust taking over, then that's fair enough.

If they do manage to get a sale, then the Trust will not be much worse off in cash terms than it was at the beginning for its 8 years at the helm , so they haven't been that benevolent. Even if they carry on, BRFC is many times more valuable now than it was on Jack's death when we were marooned in mid-Championship.

[RevidgeBlue]

6) The trust within the Trust was a nominal GBP20m which Jack set to one side from within the Trust's assets (outside of the Rovers) to generate income for the Rovers to bridge the gap between what Rovers earn at Ewood from ticket sales and what other clubs earn being in larger and wealthier areas. The payment and distribution of that income is at the discretion of the Trustees.

The issue now is that GBP3m (which is what the Trustees were giving and very much on the generous side for making payments from a GBP20m capital base) makes next to no difference these days between Rovers' matchday income of GBP6m a year and Arsenal's matchday income of GBP70m a year. So the purpose and effect of the trust within the Trust is far less clear because it cannot do what it was intended to.

That part of your post is absolute nonsense, the Trustees stated all those years ago that there was no separate "pot" for Blackburn Rovers, the trust was supposed to be for the benefit of all Jack's businesses including Blackburn Rovers. There is no "trust within a trust" as you put it.

I don't know how many times I have to explain how the 3m p.a. funding came about, at the time it was first given, sometime during the Souness regime, it represented the then annual shortfall compared to what we would have had were the stadium full.

This amount was not however fixed in stone, despite you trying to claim in the past Jack's will provided for this 3m p.a. payment. Any injection was always a matter for negotiation each season between the Board and Trustees. You've plucked a figure of 20m for a mini trust out of thin air because paying 3m p.a. interest from that would make the Trustees look relatively generous.

Your point about Arsenal's matchday income is also completely irrelevant. If we still had that 3m p.a. then we'd be 3m p.a. (or roughly 6% of turnover) better off.

We'd snap anyone's hand off for an extra 3m p.a. from any other commercial source.

[Brfcrule1]

Hi all,

some valid points but am still in the dark on a few points:

PAFELL/The Guardian wrote:

The trust, registered in Jersey, is run by a board of trustees. They, too, have rarely spoken publicly, but when Walker died the trust chairman, the Jersey solicitor Paul Egerton-Vernon, did make a statement: "The club is provided for for the foreseeable future." The terms of the instructions Walker left the trustees have never been disclosed, but Egerton-Vernon explained that Rovers would be subsidised by other assets in the Walker portfolio, which included property and the Jersey-based airline, Flybe. "There seems to be a misunderstanding that there is an ever-shrinking pot of money available," he said. "That is not the case. There are other businesses apart from the club which generate profits which are available."

This was taken from the guardian article - the last part 'there are other buisnesses apart from the club which generate profits which are available.'

Available to whom? Rovers?

yeah I know the trustees have never spoken publicly why is that? something to hide? why have the terms left to the trustees never been disclosed?seems to me confusing. Rovers would be subsidised by other assets last I heard Flybe was doing well why have rovers not seen any money? seems to me the trustees will spend money in other ventures that will make a profit but cause rovers are not making a profit they choose not to invest just how it looks from the outside. I also read in the LET the Walker family is one of the third richest in the country they were worth 330M to me it seems as though withdrawing the 3M a year we were getting seems mean.

FourLaneBlue wrote: Presumably that depends on the conditions in the deeds of the Trust by which they have to abide. Maybe there are some clauses against the Trustees taking a dividend out. The Trust certainly cannot have made any money from Rovers when you consider just how many millions they have ploughed in since 2000.

The Trust I thought however was set up as a non-profit organisation? Profits get put back in or go to other businesses in their portfolio?

As have said before if it is not known what the deeds of the trust are could they not come in and sell our best players? by thus pulling the rug from under our feet?they have ploughed in 24M since 2000 hardly a lot of money. As said according to what was said before thought money from other ventures was supposed to be ploughed back into rovers the facts aren't really backed up.

nicko Posted Today, 19:05

The Trustees want to get some of their money back from a sale...that's been the sticking point whenever someone tries to buy.

how can they possibly expect to get anything back they have hardly put anything in and the club hardly seems attractive to buyers

PAFELL: They do not careless about the club, only what comes back to them money wise.

The faster they can get out the better they would want - in the meantime NO money for Rovers and if the club goes down or even out of business - the trustees would not care less.

another very valid point if Rovers tommorrow go bust or get relegated they would not care less

Exiled in Toronto wrote:

I'm not sure about making a profit - of course it depends on how much they eventually (if ever) get. But having seen the number 40 million bandied around, that would represent a very large proportion of the cash injected by the trust since Jack's death. Obviously Jack's investments before then would not be recovered, but since BRFC was effectively Jack's hobby and pre-dated the trust taking over, then that's fair enough.

that is right they have only ploughed if that in the club so they should be happy with the amount of 40M before that was jack's hobby so can't possibly expect more seems as though as many stated before the trustees are looking to make money from what was his passion

I don't know how many times I have to explain how the 3m p.a. funding came about, at the time it was first given, sometime during the Souness regime, it represented the then annual shortfall compared to what we would have had were the stadium full.

if as the above statement says it made up the shortfall for when the stadium was full surely now that attendances have plumeted surely they would now be able to see they should be ploughing more in to make up for the dwindling numbers or am I missing the point?

could someone explain the above points to me

laters all.

[Silencio]

That part of your post is absolute nonsense, the Trustees stated all those years ago that there was no separate "pot" for Blackburn Rovers, the trust was supposed to be for the benefit of all Jack's businesses including Blackburn Rovers. There is no "trust within a trust" as you put it.

I don't know how many times I have to explain how the 3m p.a. funding came about, at the time it was first given, sometime during the Souness regime, it represented the then annual shortfall compared to what we would have had were the stadium full.

This amount was not however fixed in stone, despite you trying to claim in the past Jack's will provided for this 3m p.a. payment. Any injection was always a matter for negotiation each season between the Board and Trustees. You've plucked a figure of 20m for a mini trust out of thin air because paying 3m p.a. interest from that would make the Trustees look relatively generous.

Your point about Arsenal's matchday income is also completely irrelevant. If we still had that 3m p.a. then we'd be 3m p.a. (or roughly 6% of turnover) better off.

We'd snap anyone's hand off for an extra 3m p.a. from any other commercial source.

True, the withdrawal of that 3 million is disgraceful and conflicts with the idea that the Trust cares about the club. I imagine Hughes was already tired of the lack of ambition before the Trust withrew that funding and that would have been the straw that broke his back. If the Trust really cared about us as a footballing club they had a chance to show it when we had one of Europe's best young managers.

The Trust did not need to invest much relative to what they have and with Hughes in charge we would have always make profit on transfers 2 or 3 years after the investment. That may or may not be the case now we have Ince.

John Williams and Mark Hughes have done a great job of hiding the fact that our owners have forgotten about Blackburn Rovers and made a fortune elsewhere. We will have to see if Williams and Ince can keep it up. It's going to be very difficult.

[PAFELL]

True, the withdrawal of that 3 million is disgraceful and conflicts with the idea that the Trust cares about the club. I imagine Hughes was already tired of the lack of ambition before the Trust withrew that funding and that would have been the straw that broke his back. If the Trust really cared about us as a footballing club they had a chance to show it when we had one of Europe's best young managers.

The Trust did not need to invest much relative to what they have and with Hughes in charge we would have always make profit on transfers 2 or 3 years after the investment. That may or may not be the case now we have Ince.

John Williams and Mark Hughes have done a great job of hiding the fact that our owners have forgotten about Blackburn Rovers and made a fortune elsewhere. We will have to see if Williams and Ince can keep it up. It's going to be very difficult.

Did not somebody on here say Rovers was a plc - public limited company. Can somebody explain what is a public limited company. Does this mean that such a company must report publicly what they are doing - money etc. If so why is not the part the trusties play within Rovers, hidden from public view. Rovers accounts a displayed publicly - but not what the trusties are doing.

[Brfcrule1]

Hi all,

yeah I meant to say at the end sorry if the above post causes offence it was not meant to. Also another thought surely the trust realises when you buy a car the minute you drive it out of the showroom it depreciates in value. Obviously the same about a footy club or am I missing the point? I also feel with football transfer fees rocketing and wages we will get to a point where we won't be able to compete I thought the idea someone on here had was great. Why don't the fans set-up a blackburn rovers emergency slush fund we all put in what we can afford across a period of time cos at the end of the day every penny helps. Also set-up a seperate fund might take a while to buy out the walker trustees that way everyone is happy! problem solved!

Laters all.

[philipl]

Revidge, calm down.

I cannot be bothered going back to research whether you are right or wrong.

I did use the term a "notional" pot of GBP20m so there is no physically identified sum but I do believe that there was guidance for GBP20m of assets within the Trust being available for earning income for the Rovers.

Jack Walker did talk about the GBP20m endowment for the Rovers at various times.

With regards to everyone getting het up about the Trust not putting money in at the moment, the Trust's position is to hold assets in Trust so they inevitably look first and foremost to the protection of value. Therefore when the Rovers are washing their face which they are doing now with the Sky/Setanta deal, there is no actual need to push more cash in.

We can all howl that we are missing a chance of moving up to the next level which is why the Trustees have put the club up for sale. But the litmus tests of whether the Trustees have found wording to set themselves completely free of obligations to the club will come if the Trustees dividend profits out of the club this year and whether the Trustees did not step in to protect their asset if Rovers faced the threat of relegation.

I have argued that a sensible hypothesis if the Trustees do not find a suitable buyer is that they are taking advantage of good times to take a pause from funding before the club's circumstances once more require financial intervention under the Trust terms.

I disagree fundamentally with Nicko's interpretation of the Trustee's attitude to the sale. The would-be purchasers (particularly the ones completely inadequately funded) would blame the sale price wouldn't they? As already established in this thread, Rovers are hardly in the last stages of penury with no assets and no income.

With regards to being a PLC, Rovers have been a PLC ever since the PLC concept was introduced- in the '85 Companies Act, I think. Basically, a PLC means a company with more than 60 individual shareholders which Rovers have had from long before the time of Jack Walker. Rovers' PLC status has nothing to do with the thoughts of a public flotation back in the '90s.

All publicly quoted companies are PLCs with attendant additional reporting requirements but Rovers simply fall into the category of being PLC by dint of having more than 60 shareholders so simply file their accounts each year and hold an AGM and that's all the disclosure yhat is required. A Trust is by definition an intensely private entity- assets held in trust.

Incidentally, I think Rothschilds worked on the project to float the club on the Stock Exchange as well but Rovers didn't go public.

[nicko]

I disagree fundamentally with Nicko's interpretation of the Trustee's attitude to the sale. The would-be purchasers (particularly the ones completely inadequately funded) would blame the sale price wouldn't they? As already established in this thread, Rovers are hardly in the last stages of penury with no assets and no income.

1 - How do you know what potential bidders are worth if you don't talk to them?

2 - If your starting point in negotiations is a price that is way above what the club is worth that is because you want to get some profit from the deal?

It's a recurring theme in the moves I know about - and possibly a lot more that I have never been able to snout out...

The sale price WILL include a big cut for the Trustees before they walk away.

Let's not kid ourselves otherwise.

[Paul]

I did use the term a "notional" pot of GBP20m so there is no physically identified sum but I do believe that there was guidance for GBP20m of assets within the Trust being available for earning income for the Rovers.

Jack Walker did talk about the GBP20m endowment for the Rovers at various times.

I'm 100% certain this was in the LET at the time of Jack's death but the figure was £30m

[blue phil]

Well that must be a first .........Philipl underestimating figures rather than inflating them

[RevidgeBlue]

I'm 100% certain this was in the LET at the time of Jack's death but the figure was £30m

I am 100 % certain there was no figure whatsoever mentioned in the LET as to the value of the trust at the time.

I think I'm right in saying that the national press valued it at 200m.

[Paul]

I wasn't thinking of the value of the trust but I'm sure a figure of £30m was stated as having been put to one side to provide Rovers with a fund to generate income. Can't ptove it one wy or the other but I think I read it in the LET.

[den]

The rumours at the time were that a trust fund valued at £30m had been put to one side, whereby rovers would be able to draw the interest from that. The rumours were way off the mark because after Jack's death, the trustees were obliged to quash those rumours and broadly outlined the reality of what Jack had put in place. That's why they had to clarify that there wasn't an ever decreasing pot.

Rev's 100% right in this instant.

[RevidgeBlue]

Rev's 100% right in this instant.

Whadd'ya mean "in this instant"

[den]

Whadd'ya mean "in this instant"

Altered it from "for a change".

[hawkiiz]

how can the entire club be worth 35-40 million if bentley alone is worth 10-15, and santa the same???

[Wiggy]

Very good point Hawkizz.

[bob fleming]

how can the entire club be worth 35-40 million if bentley alone is worth 10-15, and santa the same???

Aaron Mokoena.

[whittle blue]

how can the entire club be worth 35-40 million if bentley alone is worth 10-15, and santa the same???

Isn't there also a deficit of £15million to be accounted for?