[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[RevidgeBlue]

Over 5 years, what will that be? Thick end of £30m?

Well, up until this year the actual cash "investment" over that period up was 3m p.a. (15m)

Plus the writing off of various loans made by Jack.

Not exactly certain how relevant past subsidies are when the new position appears to be that there is no investment from the Trust in the Club and no obvious intention to invest in the forseeable future.

[RevidgeBlue]

It doesn't work like that.

Thank you for that enlightening response.

Care to add any actual reasoning of your own?

[RevidgeBlue]

A sensible low bid. Its not just a case of what the club is 'worth'. but how much the trustee's are willing to off load us for. The two aren't neccessarily the same and if the trustee's are desparate. Well ??

U.T.B.

There are obviously any number of imponderables in that. In addition to the headline 25m figure there could for example be an undertaking to pay off our debts (20m?) and invest a certain amount of money in the team immediately. Which would probably bring the total figure up nearer to the sort of sums the Dan Williams team were allegedly talking.

We don't know that for certain however and in the absence of anything specific to the contrary 25m still sounds excessively low.

Don't forget, according to JW in the LT we're apparently on target to report profits of 4m this year and that's after paying off 3m worth of debts from last year.

If someone could take over Rovers for a total of just 25m it would probably be a gesture by the Trustees not far off Jack Hayward selling Wolves for a tenner. As daft as that sounds. Can't see it happening but you never know.

[Mc Love]

Well arent a manure not by any stretch of the imagination, but a prem top ten club would command at least a 100 million pound price in my opinion

[philipl]

Well, up until this year the actual cash "investment" over that period up was 3m p.a. (15m)

Plus the writing off of various loans made by Jack.

Not exactly certain how relevant past subsidies are when the new position appears to be that there is no investment from the Trust in the Club and no obvious intention to invest in the forseeable future.

The loans were worth an additional £18m in cash injected into the club by the Trust since Jack died on top of the £3m p.a. and a total of more than £80m of loan instruments have been converted from debt to capital by the Trust meaning any incoming owner will not have to repay them.

[S15]

where am i patronising, mr bell ringer???

were have i said anything about progression??

young fans?? my son is 10 years old andf loves hearing thru vids,dvds,you tube ,his uncles etc telling him what it was like before we got spoilt.he spent ages on friday watching prem league win and also burnley in 2000 days before his grandad died.....so asfor young fans only caring about now shows what you are bout ...i love hearing about the rovers before i was born and how my grandad was on ewood against bolton for the largest gate in rovers history and how we won the cup three times on the run....

Removed

Even though I didn't have the pleasure of reading your insult, you've somewhat changed the tone.

You start suggesting whenever anyone (or certain people atleast) critisizes anything to do with the club, you start insulting them and calling them ''spoilt brats.''

The post above is totally irrelevant to that fact. And me only caring about now shows what I am about? What? I sometimes wonder what some people actually see when they read words. I have never said anything like that. However, I certainly care more about now than what has happened.

And you didn't say anything about progression. I never said you did. I mentioned progression. So please just consider points I raise and not throw accusations based on your own assumptions.

[tony gale's mic]

Thank you for that enlightening response.

Care to add any actual reasoning of your own?

It had been brought up so many times already in these discussions I didn't really feel it merited the energy.

But anyway...even if Bentley's market value may be £15 million, when it comes to valuing a club's assets the value of a player is related to how much Rovers bought him for together with how many years are left on his contract. And considering we didnt really sign him for very much, in those terms he really isnt worth very much at all. Same with most of our players.

I still get the feeling that 25 million is a little low though.

[only2garners]

It had been brought up so many times already in these discussions I didn't really feel it merited the energy.

But anyway...even if Bentley's market value may be £15 million, when it comes to valuing a club's assets the value of a player is related to how much Rovers bought him for together with how many years are left on his contract. And considering we didnt really sign him for very much, in those terms he really isnt worth very much at all. Same with most of our players.

I still get the feeling that 25 million is a little low though.

Surely the price of sale is pretty irrelevant in our case, except for some fans' vanity in seeing a big number. The Trust is different to many other owners in that it has obligations placed on it by Jack's will in terms of long term sustainability of the club. None of us knows what these obligations are but we are all fairly sure that there is some need for the Trust to ensure that any new owner has the resources to bring future financial security.

The Trust is on record as saying it is looking for the right buyer i.e. someone who can meet the Trust's conditions. Therefore what any new buyer can bring to meet these conditions is probably more important than the cash price to buy. Considering the Trust's other obligations it's clearly in their interest to offload the one business that they know will cost them money year on year i.e. they could take a loss on any book value of the club because in the long term they will be ridding themselves of a loss making business. Therefore it is quite likely that they would sell for a low price but with promises for future investment - it makes it easier for any buyer to meet Jack's conditions.

[tony gale's mic]

Surely the price of sale is pretty irrelevant in our case, except for some fans' vanity in seeing a big number. The Trust is different to many other owners in that it has obligations placed on it by Jack's will in terms of long term sustainability of the club. None of us knows what these obligations are but we are all fairly sure that there is some need for the Trust to ensure that any new owner has the resources to bring future financial security.

The Trust is on record as saying it is looking for the right buyer i.e. someone who can meet the Trust's conditions. Therefore what any new buyer can bring to meet these conditions is probably more important than the cash price to buy. Considering the Trust's other obligations it's clearly in their interest to offload the one business that they know will cost them money year on year i.e. they could take a loss on any book value of the club because in the long term they will be ridding themselves of a loss making business. Therefore it is quite likely that they would sell for a low price but with promises for future investment - it makes it easier for any buyer to meet Jack's conditions.

Oh i agree with you completely, I'm really not too bothered by how much we sell for. I was just correcting rev's assumption that the market value of a player contributes to a clubs valuation.

[RevidgeBlue]

I still get the feeling that 25 million is a little low though.

Which basically is what I said!

Don't agree with your point on Bentley, his current value is his current value - the length of term left on his contract and what other clubs would be prepared to pay for him are relevant, what we paid for him is not.

If you had bought a house for 30 k and prevailing market conditions pushed the price up to 90k, you're not going to sell it for 30k again simply on the basis that you wouldn't be losing any money.

In the latest accounts the players' book value was listed at 60m. I wouldn't expect the Trustees to stick to that when it came to a sale price but nevertheless, 25m for the entire club doesn't seem right unless there are other "extras" we don't know about.

[RevidgeBlue]

Surely the price of sale is pretty irrelevant in our case, except for some fans' vanity in seeing a big number.

True.

Unless of course the offering of what seems an unrealistically low price at face value indicates the potential purchasers haven't much financial clout.

[ABBEY]

Even though I didn't have the pleasure of reading your insult, you've somewhat changed the tone.

You start suggesting whenever anyone (or certain people atleast) critisizes anything to do with the club, you start insulting them and calling them ''spoilt brats.''

The post above is totally irrelevant to that fact. And me only caring about now shows what I am about? What? I sometimes wonder what some people actually see when they read words. I have never said anything like that. However, I certainly care more about now than what has happened.

And you didn't say anything about progression. I never said you did. I mentioned progression. So please just consider points I raise and not throw accusations based on your own assumptions.

i insulted you first??

oh calling me a PATRONISING ......... wasnt meant to insult.....neither then is saying your a muppet. Get ready to ring your bell on saturday your club needs you.

[blue phil]

Even though I didn't have the pleasure of reading your insult, you've somewhat changed the tone.

You didn't read it because it's been removed .

Your insult that provoked it , however , is still there on page 5 of this thread . It shouldn't be .

[Iceman]

so what does everybody think the value of the club is,25mill,40mill,100mill,500mill? obviously if the trustees agree on the 25mill then the 40mill Dan Williams offered was not the main issue.I still believe its who is going to run the club,without taking the club into a Leeds United type situation.Its going to have to be the right man,with a football and business brain and one that will take the club forward.

i think the fans Mindset on this whole thing is wrong,its not about what the club costs its about having the right people on board.Im happy with the current board,and the way the club is run,except obviously for the lack of funds we have available to spend.

I really hope we dont get in some rich billionaire,who splashes the cash and the players are not good enough,and we end up nowhere.I would still like to see the approach Hughes has by having close look at players,and taking it from there.

[Iceman]

i would rather we sell for 25mill and get 25mill to spend,than the club being bought for 50mill and only get 10mill to spend..

[bellamy11]

i would rather we sell for 25mill and get 25mill to spend,than the club being bought for 50mill and only get 10mill to spend..

Well, going off that math, I'd rather we sell for £25m and get £35m to spend!

[mattyboy6000]

Let's just say that had Jack Walker sold the club 10 years ago and the owners had behaved in exactly the same way as the trustees have then they wouldn't be very popular.

you've hit the nail on head there, Eddie

all the trustees have managed to do is fail to honour Jack's wishes and in doing so, fail to maintain his legacy. The £3million they haven't bothered to invest this season but have previously is sourced from interest accrued from the capital held by the trust. Don't worry though Eddie, there's a lot of people on here who are conceited about what they actually know about the situation. Ignore the abuse, the truth will out

[Eddie]

Well we don't know if they have failed to honour his wishes as they may actually have their hands tied by the trust, but they certainly aren't the greatest owners in the world. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't force them out as the security they provide is very welcome, but I'm not one of those who is totally against the club being sold and I am absolutely positive that it would be in the best interest of the club (obviously the right buyer has to be found).

[Iceman]

Don’t you think that the walker trustees would have been a bit more involved in the club,since the passing of Uncle Jack.I just find it hard to believe that they(The trustees) seem to be really quiet,maybe im wrong..im looking at it from outside the UK and don’t know much about them,but I would like to see a bit more enthusiasm in trying to get more support for the club financially.

[only2garners]

you've hit the nail on head there, Eddie

all the trustees have managed to do is fail to honour Jack's wishes and in doing so, fail to maintain his legacy. The £3million they haven't bothered to invest this season but have previously is sourced from interest accrued from the capital held by the trust. Don't worry though Eddie, there's a lot of people on here who are conceited about what they actually know about the situation. Ignore the abuse, the truth will out

How do you know the Trust has failed to honour Jack's wishes? I don't think anyone on this site has a clue what the Trust's instructions are, so how do you know they have failed? In any event it would be illegal for them not to follow their rules. By this logic you should be blaming Jack for not laying down the rules you would have liked.

[PAFELL]

so what does everybody think the value of the club is,25mill,40mill,100mill,500mill? obviously if the trustees agree on the 25mill then the 40mill Dan Williams offered was not the main issue.I still believe its who is going to run the club,without taking the club into a Leeds United type situation.Its going to have to be the right man,with a football and business brain and one that will take the club forward.

i think the fans Mindset on this whole thing is wrong,its not about what the club costs its about having the right people on board.Im happy with the current board,and the way the club is run,except obviously for the lack of funds we have available to spend.

I really hope we dont get in some rich billionaire,who splashes the cash and the players are not good enough,and we end up nowhere.I would still like to see the approach Hughes has by having close look at players,and taking it from there.

Iceman I fully agree with you - the way the club is being run - regardless at the moment of funds - is very good. No matter what means a business has, whether good or bad, it still depends on the people handling the buisness. As you mentioned in your last paragraph the last Rovers need is a billionaire who splashes cash for the sake of it and buys rubbish. Rovers financial history will stand Rovers in good stead. Simple because they have known what is like to have loads of money and what it is to operate on a shoe string. They know things can go good as well as bad very very quickly.

With regards to how much the club should be valued - well to Rovers supporters - then the club is priceless.

To those who are not Rovers supporters then the club is worth nothing - the same as what Rovers say about Burnley.

The reality is that Blackburn Rovers football club is worth what somebody is willing to buy it for and what the current owners are willing to sell for. Once the club is sold or any other buisness for that matter - it is then evident how much the club is worth to the one who bought it, by how much they are willing to put into what they have bought.

If you buy a car, don't take care of the engine, no matter what make it is, how much you paid for it, it is worthless without the engine.

I also would love to see Rovers with the current board, manager, with a lot more money available to them. I strongly believe if that takes place then the club will be in the situation that Jack Walker wanted Rovers to be in - self supportive.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

In the case of Ashley and Thaksin, the take-over deals priced in the clearance of debts so I regard that as part of the cost of acquisition. They would have paid the exiting owners 130m and 100m respectively had they not handed over the debts with the clubs (City were £50m in debt, Newcastle £70m in debt so some debt has been rolled by both new owners to provide headroom for transfers). Thaksin has used his own money whilst there is third party money behind Ashley at Newcastle as well as his own cash.

I am not convinced by your ENIC argument- they have also used Spuds as a vehicle for raising cash and have sold shares to raise funds.

OK Brum and Wigan have probably benefitted more from their owners' largesse so the Walker Trust stands at number 6 in terms of Premier League owners' largesse.

That is the hurdle for the new owners to beat isn't it?

The problem where that argument falls down in my opinion is that you are not including the reported 90 million that Ashley has cleared at Newcastle and the 50 million “Frank” has cleared at Man City. Yet you include debt when discussing the Walker trusts investment in Rovers.

Okay to re-phrase it, how much money have the Walkers put into Rovers since Jack died; excluding debt payments or clearing debt?

As for your enic argument, Spurs have a turnover of around 75 million, yet there wage bill is nearly 40%t higher than rovers. So a simple equation would tell you that they don’t have 35-50 million to chuck around on new players each season. The share option you discuss was implemented 4 years back and generated around 25 million to spend on new players. Since then they have spent well over 100 million on new players.

[Hughesy]

They spent £61m since May alone. Doubt they got all that from Profit!!

[modes98]

Your insult that provoked it , however , is still there on page 5 of this thread . It shouldn't be .

Yeah that was my fault, i looked on quickly half asleep, skimmed the posts and noticed Abbey's which i have spoken to him about.

Anyway that's an end to it Shillito and Abbey. Move on please if you want to discuss it more do it over PM.

[philipl]

Football tournament sponsored by Jack's son.