[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[BlueMonday]

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

Good question. That's not really been reproted before. In fact I thought one thing we had in our favour was that we are relatively debt free thanks to the structure of the trust!?

[RevidgeBlue]

Good question. That's not really been reproted before. In fact I thought one thing we had in our favour was that we are relatively debt free thanks to the structure of the trust!?

We are relatively debt free compared with most Premiership clubs.

I think the club regards that sort of level of debt as acceptable and manageable given our size and turnover.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Quick question for all the trustee/JW lovers.

How is that Bolton have just spent 15 million on new players (the old Anelka sale excuse wont wash, as they spent that money in January), when they will have a considerably lower turnover/profit margins than rovers?

[den]

Quick question for all the trustee/JW lovers.

How is that Bolton have just spent 15 million on new players (the old Anelka sale excuse wont wash, as they spent that money in January), when they will have a considerably lower turnover/profit margins than rovers?

OK, we don't know Bazza, - how is it?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

OK, we don't know Bazza, - how is it?

Never put you in trustee lovin group Den

The answer to your question - is the extra 20 million per season in additional TV money.

Before the usual gang start on the wages Dichotomy , we have just saved over 3 million on the release of players, the sale of Savage and the huge savings with MH & his backroom staff moving on.

[Jan]

Never put you in trustee lovin group Den

The answer to your question - is the extra 20 million per season in additional TV money.

Before the usual gang start on the wages Dichotomy , we have just saved over 3 million on the release of players, the sale of Savage and the huge savings with MH & his backroom staff moving on.

OK

Simplicity here. Last financial year, we raised salaries in anticipation of the improved TV monies this financial year, and as such ran at a loss. This year, even given the dribbles saved by the salaries on Hughes, Savage etc (Hughes salary being at least partially eaten up by Ince and the 4th division posse) we said that we would try to run at break even (and give the manager a small war chest). I also wouldn't be surprised if we weren't trying to pay off debt, rather than getting into more of it.

If that was your company, you would be congratulating them on their financial prudence. As it's a football club, where the extra money, according to some, either grows on trees or comes from the tooth fairy, you want them to go out and get into debt. Why? If we keep the players we have and spend the £10m earmarked for transfers wisely, we will not be in relegation trouble (or at least we wouldn't under Hughes). So what makes it a good business plan to go out and borrow loads of money to spend on the likes of Elmander?? And how do you know that even if we bought Ronaldo, Rooney et all, Ince has the talent to make them into a team?

Too many questions to go out and spend unwisely. We'll see what Ince can do with the current team, then the club may be permitted to loosen the purse strings. At the moment- no chance.

[chocky]

Quick question for all the trustee/JW lovers.

How is that Bolton have just spent 15 million on new players (the old Anelka sale excuse wont wash, as they spent that money in January), when they will have a considerably lower turnover/profit margins than rovers?

It's called debt..

[AggyBlue]

It's called debt..

No, it's paying in installments.

[stuwilky]

No, it's paying in installments.

Or possibly both

[Bazzanotsogreat]

OK

Simplicity here. Last financial year, we raised salaries in anticipation of the improved TV monies this financial year, and as such ran at a loss. This year, even given the dribbles saved by the salaries on Hughes, Savage etc (Hughes salary being at least partially eaten up by Ince and the 4th division posse) we said that we would try to run at break even (and give the manager a small war chest). I also wouldn't be surprised if we weren't trying to pay off debt, rather than getting into more of it.

If that was your company, you would be congratulating them on their financial prudence. As it's a football club, where the extra money, according to some, either grows on trees or comes from the tooth fairy, you want them to go out and get into debt. Why? If we keep the players we have and spend the £10m earmarked for transfers wisely, we will not be in relegation trouble (or at least we wouldn't under Hughes). So what makes it a good business plan to go out and borrow loads of money to spend on the likes of Elmander?? And how do you know that even if we bought Ronaldo, Rooney et all, Ince has the talent to make them into a team?

Too many questions to go out and spend unwisely. We'll see what Ince can do with the current team, then the club may be permitted to loosen the purse strings. At the moment- no chance.

Simple equation

Rovers will have saved in the region of 4 million with the release of players, MH and Savage sold, hardly peanuts even in todays over-infalted market.

Which will pretty much offset the extra they will be paying the likes of Warnock, Derbshire etc. At a rough guess wages will be in the region of 38 million for this year; they would perhaps have been closer to 40 million, if Hughes & his backroom staff hadn’t left for city.

Turnover will increase from just over 40 million to well-over 55 million, with the new TV deal.

Their is no-way rovers are stupid enough to give the squad a 15 million pay-rise.

[nicko]

It's called debt..

He's called Eddie Davies.

Owns the club, lives on the Isle of Man and has put money in for signings.

He did that to protect it from being relegated.

The benefit of having an owner who still goes to games...

[Hughesy]

Well one thing is for sure - The trust isnt carrying out Uncle Jacks best wishes. The legend will be turning in his grave

[1864roverite]

My take on it is that it appears the Trust and its members are over valuing Rovers. This appears to be a repeating theme amongst potential buyers.

If the Trustees are seeking a "profit" for the club I think they must be over inflating the value of the club, which is having a knock on effect for buyers. If they want rid lower the price and let someone else get on with running the club.

[incy wincy little spider]

I dont have much knowledge on buisness, but Im guessing that everything goes like this!??? Seller says its worth x, buyers say its worth less. Better to wait a bit longer as the seller wont lose as much as they could gain if/when they get a higher price.

[incy wincy little spider]

I dont have much knowledge on buisness, but Im guessing that everything goes like this!??? Seller says its worth x, buyers say its worth less. Better to wait a bit longer as the seller wont lose as much as they could gain if/when they get a higher price.

haha shows im no business man as i cant spell it.....

[Exiled in Toronto]

One thought that has just struck me concerning our level of debt. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong, but until recently wasn't all our debt owed to the Trust and was then converted to shares? So the debt is a recent phenomenon which presumably has come about by the Trust not covering all the running costs for the last 2 or 3 years, to the tune of GBP 17 million i.e., the Trust has effectively been progressively baling out for quite a while now??

[blue phil]

My take on it is that it appears the Trust and its members are over valuing Rovers. This appears to be a repeating theme amongst potential buyers.

If the Trustees are seeking a "profit" for the club I think they must be over inflating the value of the club, which is having a knock on effect for buyers. If they want rid lower the price and let someone else get on with running the club.

The more you lower the price the more you are likely to attract the less "scrupulous" buyer/investor . Personally I prefer the devil we know .

Not one person has ever come up with a realistic scenario whereby an investor can make money out of Rovers whilst providing long term stability .

If Mr Choudery can do this then he must have a hell of a lot more money stashed away in Dubai than he has in the UK . I'm sure I'm not the only supporter of the club - one who spends real money at the ticket office - who has a few reservations at handing over the club to a property speculator .

[den]

The more you lower the price the more you are likely to attract the less "scrupulous" buyer/investor . Personally I prefer the devil we know .

I've been wondering if the trustees see an investor not being able to seal a deal for a matter of £10m here or there, that might suggest to them, that the investor has NO chance of having the readies required for a genuine takeover, that would need far more investment than the trust currently supplies. [last year excepted].

TBH, it's not THIS takeover that bothers me too much either, - it's the next one.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Good call Den.Again you have to ask why anyone other than a die hard multi-millionaire out and out fan like Jack was would be interested in Rovers...we simply dont make enough profit for us to be a viable 'cash cow' to any businessman.

My main concern is that the trustees or whoever will eventually panic,lower the price for the club and sell to anyone,I suppose the club can only be up for sale for so long before it becomes an embarressment to everyone concerned,and that really saddens me to say.

Like the chant from the Blackburn End goes 'THERES ONLY ONE JACK WALKER' and I think reality is hitting home with it.

[BRFC1995]

I really did'nt start supporting a team so i could get depressed about financial ######, when this downward negative spiral of doom that is forseen comes to pass and we become MK Dons markII, who is everyone else going to support......think there needs to be a poll as everyone seems morbid as to rovers future.

[Fife Rover]

Aaron Mokoena.

He's the negative equity is he? Must be around -£30m for him then.

[Fife Rover]

No, it's paying in installments.

Which is just another word for debt. If you owe money to anybody for any reason; that is debt.

[Fife Rover]

I know I am being naive/thick/ stupid on this subject, but all I do know is that IF I had been in Jack's happy position of having huge amounts of dosh to buy my beloved Rovers, I would gladly have done it, and I too would have made provision for a trust to run Rovers after my death. But with a big difference to what seems to be the case now with Jack's provisions.

I have already as things stand right now agreed with my two remaining children and their spouse's that they will not be benefitting in any way (except for the contents of my present house) as I have taken an equity release deal on my house and it is fairly likely that if I or my wife live for a few years there will be little or nothing left in the value of the house to leave to them. They are absolutely in agreement with this as they are both in a decent positon financially and have made their provision for their retirement. They also believe as I do that nobody should expect to inherit anything from parent's or anyone else. It is up to each and every one of us to provide for our own future needs and that is what I have always taught them to believe as well. So the point I am getting to is that my will does not provide for anything for the children or grandchildren, and therefore what I have is mine and my wife's to do as we please with.

So, in these circumstances, IF I had enough (as Jack obviously had) I would buy Rovers, and in setting up my trust to run things when I was gone, I would have the following rules that could not be changed under any circumstances:

1)Rovers would be 100% owned by the trust, and it would be for perpetuity, and could NEVER be sold to anyone under any circumstances.

2) This would include the club and all land and property owned by the club, but would allow normal football club type business such as changes in staff and players wages and allow the normal running expenses and tranfer deals for players.

3) All other normal commercial activities allowed as at present.

4) Additional continuing income to make up for losses due to unavoidable circumstances e.g. gates dipping below the agreed amount necessary to maintain the correct level of input to the overall budget would be made up from funds provided by the trust from businesses set up to provide this money and owned wholly by the trust.

5) These businesses would be run and traded in the normal PLC way, but the shareholders would be the trust only and no dealing on the Stock Exchange. The shareholders would only be allowed normal expenses and no salaries.

6) In order to keep an agreed number of trustees to run the trust, and to allow people to leave there would have to be a provision for replacing any that left. This would be done by the trust governers acting as a body and being allowed to recruit replacement trustees as necessary by advertising the position and Rovers fans would be eligible to apply. Obviously they would have to meet ALL the criteria drawn up by the Trust Governers.

There you are then: that should work fine and remove all Rovers fans fears for the future. Just need to find someone with a similar mindset to myself and a hell of a lot of money. How about it Theno?

[Mc Love]

Not sold under any circumstances, what if the club went into debt and needed a sale to keep it going?

[Fife Rover]

Not sold under any circumstances, what if the club went into debt and needed a sale to keep it going?

That would not happen as far as the outside world was concerned, because the trustee directors of the club would ensure as far as possible that no debt creating circumstances that could not be handled within the normal/usual limits of a well run football club would ever arise. In the exceptional and unforseeable cases the trust would "repair" the debt situation by cash injection from the funds created by the supporting businesses.