[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Tribal syaing five clubs being looked at by Arabs but no mention of Rovers again

[1864roverite]

I would think that this thread can be closed down indefinatley as noone will invest in the club in its current slump

[allanncd]

The Trustees missed the boat by asking far too much - £50m when £20m is more realistic. Now there are far more attractive propositions on the m,arket - Toon and Wham for starters - they would probably have to pay to get the club off their hands.

[bubblerrovers]

The Trustees missed the boat by asking far too much - £50m when £20m is more realistic. Now there are far more attractive propositions on the m,arket - Toon and Wham for starters - they would probably have to pay to get the club off their hands.

20 million?? that seems so cheap, maybe we could all chip in eh??

i guess the old saying one player isn't bigger than the club would go out the window in this case

[modes98]

they would probably have to pay to get the club off their hands.

Rubbish. The value of the clubs assets is a big pull in itself. As a premiership club, as long as it lasts, we have the ability to attract investors, given enough money you could take any team to the big time.

[gumboots]

Rubbish. The value of the clubs assets is a big pull in itself. As a premiership club, as long as it lasts, we have the ability to attract investors, given enough money you could take any team to the big time.

did you read thae article about the Arab takeovers though. they want to rename the clubs with the name of their country included. So it could be Blackburn saudi Rovers or whatever. Would you really want that even if it meant pots of money?

[ABBEY]

id never set foot in ewood again if they changed the name at all.

[gillibrand]

You are so funny, who will be interested if we dop a division?

[AggyBlue]

id never set foot in ewood again if they changed the name at all.

I'm with you on that one

[gazsimm]

what about 'LANCS UTD' like what a numptie said on here a while ago!!!

[DingleBaiter]

The Trustees missed the boat by asking far too much - £50m when £20m is more realistic. Now there are far more attractive propositions on the m,arket - Toon and Wham for starters - they would probably have to pay to get the club off their hands.

Clearly, your business mind precedes you

How do are judging 'attractive' BTW? About the only thing WH have going for them is having two grounds/land, but even then land/property is tanking too. Combine that with their ever-deepening debt too.

Give me a shout if you're ever going to play poker will you? Saying that, if your taste in the ladies is as obverse as it is for football clubs, give me a shout when you're going out on the pull and looking for a 'wingman'

[DingleBaiter]

did you read thae article about the Arab takeovers though. they want to rename the clubs with the name of their country included. So it could be Blackburn saudi Rovers or whatever. Would you really want that even if it meant pots of money?

Guess what? I'd wager NONE of the Prem clubs that's had any external change in ownership in the last 3 years would have categorically refuse naming rights, but to the stadiums. It's another ballgame altogether with the club's names, but it's probably the next element of corporate invasion we'd be facing after the spate of clubs changing their badges to 'rebrand' such as Fulham, United, Chelsea, City etc.

Then again, given your belief about the Arab putting countries in the naming of the clubs I've a fair idea you're not getting that from BusinesssWeek, Forbes or the Financial Times. Sounds more like a Daily Mail or Sun special?

Quite simply, it's no time to be traditional anymore; think most people wouldn't mind it if it didn't compromise the clubs ideals. Look at revenue its brought clubs worldwide, it's simply too good to ignore and it's often only the old farts that object.

The Yanks in the MLS etc. may have gone overboard with some of them, but it's worked out well for the beancounters. Time simply marches on, things change - move with the times, or they'll move on without you.

[gumboots]

Guess what? I'd wager NONE of the Prem clubs that's had any external change in ownership in the last 3 years would have categorically refuse naming rights, but to the stadiums. It's another ballgame altogether with the club's names, but it's probably the next element of corporate invasion we'd be facing after the spate of clubs changing their badges to 'rebrand' such as Fulham, United, Chelsea, City etc.

Then again, given your belief about the Arab putting countries in the naming of the clubs I've a fair idea you're not getting that from BusinesssWeek, Forbes or the Financial Times. Sounds more like a Daily Mail or Sun special?

Quite simply, it's no time to be traditional anymore; think most people wouldn't mind it if it didn't compromise the clubs ideals. Look at revenue its brought clubs worldwide, it's simply too good to ignore and it's often only the old farts that object.

The Yanks in the MLS etc. may have gone overboard with some of them, but it's worked out well for the beancounters. Time simply marches on, things change - move with the times, or they'll move on without you.

The article was in the Daily Mail, yes, but the words are a direct quote from Keith Harris, former football league chairman who is I think handling the sale of Everton

'Some clubs have a real brand element to their attractiveness and some Middle Eastern entities are keen to use them for promotions, with the idea of clubs playing matches in their country and carrying the name of the state.

Unless I read that wrongly it means more or less what I suggested it meant. It's part of a longer article on Amanda Staveley who did a lot of the Man City deal. I am an old fogie and the thought of my club even selling the rights to name our stadium, let alone allowing its club name to be changed appalls me. Not that it's about to happen but it's why I do worry about this sell at all costs mentality that some fans are getting into. We're never going to find another Jack Walker but someone who understands the traditions of football at clubs like Rovers should somewhere be possible

[DingleBaiter]

The article was in the Daily Mail, yes, but the words are a direct quote from Keith Harris, former football league chairman who is I think handling the sale of Everton

'Some clubs have a real brand element to their attractiveness and some Middle Eastern entities are keen to use them for promotions, with the idea of clubs playing matches in their country and carrying the name of the state.

Unless I read that wrongly it means more or less what I suggested it meant. It's part of a longer article on Amanda Staveley who did a lot of the Man City deal. I am an old fogie and the thought of my club even selling the rights to name our stadium, let alone allowing its club name to be changed appalls me. Not that it's about to happen but it's why I do worry about this sell at all costs mentality that some fans are getting into. We're never going to find another Jack Walker but someone who understands the traditions of football at clubs like Rovers should somewhere be possible

So, what's your feeling on the stands at Ewood being renamed due to sponsorship - appall you enough to not go anymore?

I appreciate there are certain things that seem anathema to football fans; few things remain sacred in this day of filthy lucre I agree.

We live in the global society, it's a changing world - not always for the better - but I think that articles a bit misconstrued. I would suggest they're not about a full re-brand of a club, more of a match in a state similar to what United do in pre-season.

However, there are also sound arguments to move with the times or one ends up becoming the history they seek to protect. The key is to balance consultation about what will profitable/workable against the objectives you'd be looking to achieve, but that's business isn't it?

The key is to step outside the comfort zone just enough to keep ahead of the curve - Jack after all brought a big business/corporate mindset to revolutionise Rovers remember - but not end up the football equivalent of Doctor Evil like Cook at City. We can learn a lot from our American cousins about the benefits of monetizing sport, but we need to balance out our traditions without compromising them.

Agree with your sentiments about hoping to find someone that respects our traditions, and surely that's why the sale hasn't happened yet. The longer it goes without selling, especially in the current economic climate and with the race to whore a club's principles out, the more comfortable I feel. It's all cyclical, everything finds its own level ultimately. Don't forget we're one of the few clubs around with liquidity, and theoretically the other clubs will become more desperate to sell in time.

[gumboots]

Difference between letting someone name one of the stands at your ground and renaming the ground I feel. I accept that we do need money but ideally someone who perhaps hasn't got the bottomless pockets of the City owners but who is respectful of what owning a club with its heritage like Lerner at Villa seems to be is the way I'd like the money. We'll find it almost impossible to find someone like that I know but we can always dream.

[DingleBaiter]

Difference between letting someone name one of the stands at your ground and renaming the ground I feel. I accept that we do need money but ideally someone who perhaps hasn't got the bottomless pockets of the City owners but who is respectful of what owning a club with its heritage like Lerner at Villa seems to be is the way I'd like the money. We'll find it almost impossible to find someone like that I know but we can always dream.

Surely, the only difference is progression, offset against income? As with most things like this, it's often changing people's perceptions. I'm sure once fans would have been reluctant, even dismissive, about naming stands but now it's simply not that big a deal.

Biggest example is the Sky contract. I recall all the palaver over changing kickoffs from 3pm Saturdays, but now it's not really that a big a deal to most - especially when they're benefitting financially by being there.

Interesting to note you mention Lerner and his respectful of 'heritage'; he openly admitted at takeover time he would actively look to chase a naming rights deal for the ground. Don't let the Acorns sponsorship put you off - judge them next season when someone wants that shirt and the Champions League money is dripping in, to a far greater degree than the loss of this season's sponsor cost them (which has probably been balanced out by great positive PR as you've just proved!)

I've said previously I want the Emir of Qatar - ideal balance of rich, Westernised Arab that's wealthy enough without getting into the pee-ing contest the UAE mobs will do if DIG get in on the gig with a club. He's just lumped a wedge to Barclays so I'm sure 25 million for us would be worth it, and would certainly be a positive step to filling the ground more than a multi-faith room would ever do.

The fundamental problem with foreign ownership of our football clubs in this country is we're generally too insular and suspicious of their intentions, usually it's only the whack jobs like the Hearts guy and Shinawatra that we need to worry about. People slated the Glazers, but they've held their promise though it's naive to think they wouldn't sell for a profit. Liverpool made the mistake of thinking their history counted; more fool them IMO.

Ultimately, it comes down to motive I guess. Clearly - no matter what the PR says - us as fans are virtually as unimportant as the 'heritage' of a club. Corporate customers, marketing & retail opportunities, arguably even the business itself, are the real target - especially if there are assets, or the club is successful enough to be considered an ego trip.

I think it will be a case of steady as we go for 12 months, stay in the Prem, let the badly-run clubs implode (Pompey and West Ham) & then get someone in we can work with under the radar/ slowly-slowly catchy monkey for a few seasons. Not exactly ambitious maybe, but safer in the long term.

We mustn't forget the harsh lessons several clubs learnt trying to keep up with us at the time Jack was around. It's all well and good at the time, but two things matter - there can only be one winner, and everyone has to pay for it in the end.

[gumboots]

You may be right about Lerner and the naming rights but he's had a couple of seasons in charge now and it hasn't happened yet. I think that's the important thing - that he hasn't gone for wholesale change for the sake of it. He's presumably made changes but they are not hugely noticeable yet so fans get used to him and begin to apprecialte the benefits of his ownership before seeing the big changes that may have to be made.

As for the thing with the stands being named - who uses the name for them anyway. what's the Riverside called nowadays? Folks still refer to them by their older names. If you rename the ground the media have to use the name so it becomes common currency and the old name would disappear. Yes it's a question of scale but it's also a question of whether we'd actually have to use the words.

I know that in the world of corporate things we the fans don't really matter until tv money dries up because there's nobody attending matches any more and thus there is no product to market. It wouldn't affect bigger clubs but clubs like ours need to keep fans on board. We can change and know we may have to but change needs to be brought in gradually rather than all at once and it's this that new owners need to be aware of. Really clever new owners make fans feel like the ideas for change are coming from them, even though there are already plans in place. That's what good PR etc is about. Convincing us that we always wanted what they are going to give us even when no such thing is true. We're talking new build at school and they are trying desperately to convince us, with varying degrees of success that what we really want is big classrooms that can be divided up if necessary but where a group of teachers can teach a hundred and more kids in one sitting. Most of us know that what we want is no such thing but some are being swayed into thinking this is a great idea so the PR is working. How you teach French to more than a hundred kids at once and ensure they all get at least some time to practise is beyond me.

[DingleBaiter]

.....

As for the thing with the stands being named - who uses the name for them anyway. .....

Am enjoying this thread, it's an interesting topic

Please don't take this wrong way, but I think you're off-beam with your interpretation of PR and marketing, without considering the aspect of consultation too.

So, it's not the blatant commercialisation you're against per se then?

For instance, you're right to indicate how clever owners can constitute change, but what I'm challenging with you isn't how you speak of the club/rebranding/stands etc, it's your mindset about them. From previous posts, you seemed to adopt the traditionalist approach of 'if it happens I'm off', and I questioned if your mindset was so principled that you would have the same approach to the stands you sit in. Seems to me your coping strategy for this is that people don't use their names anyway, correct? Bottom line - you're still sat there, and the club's made money off both - great success! I'm not suggesting you're hypocritical to be averse to blatant monetization and the corporate dollar, but it shows the power of marketing & changing people's perceptions, no?

Like with your school & classrooms (which seems a crackers idea to me), there's an element of resistance. To conquer this, there needs to be consideration.

• Is it the right idea?
• Is is the teacher's perceptions that's wrong?
• Could it be it's the planners that are wrong?
• Is there a way to convert either party's thinking?
• Is there a way to make it win-win?
• Are people more scared of change than change that we know will improve them?
• etc etc

Back to the Rovers - and the multi-faith room is a great example of this. As an idea, a concept - there was nothing wrong with it. However, they got 3 things wrong - they catered for an infinitesimal minority at the (perceived) expense of the majority, they marketed it wrong, and they mis-managed it. In the scheme of things, no big drama really although it was a folly overall on several levels.

I'm totally confident Rovers could have implemented the MFR in a way that would have reaped benefits all round; it saddens me to think they dropped the ball so clumsily on it. Imagine if they tried to rename the stadium, going about it exactly the same way? They'd alienate the fans - certainly with a commercial cost (clearly offset by the revenue from the renaming) - but wouldn't it be better to have both? Keep the fans, and rename the ground?

How could they do this? Well, this is where first of all marketing comes in. Then comes the consultation. Then comes the PR & management, and re-marketing to suit. Done professionally, everyone's a winner; maybe can't please everyone all the time, but you can make them think you can

Ultimately, and this is the crux of the commercialisation of football. We don't have fans these days, we have consumers/customers.

So what if Old Bill who's been to watch Bolton for 83 years, on trams etc. doesn't like them calling their ground 'Uncle Sams Chicken Shack Stadium'? Yes, the beancounters will be sad if he votes with his feet and cancels his season ticket, but they'd lose £200. Uncle Sam pays them 5 million a year - they're not going to lose 25,000 Bills are they, so they're still in profit? It's all about the business model.....

Rovers though have to find a way to balance their tradition against the new global market, and it's far from easy. However, we need to hope if/when they do sell they can have someone that breaches the divide, such as JW has done so well since he came on board. Think about it - I recall people being up in arms we wanted a Chief Executive, and would be paying him a million per year, and it was someone from outside football.

But ask yourself where would we be now - certainly not in the top flight of English football, that's for sure. No matter how good a club is on the pitch, it's a business - credit again to Jack for realising this.

[gumboots]

Don't think i actually said i was off if they renamed the stadium. that was others. I wouldn't be happy but that's a different matter. there's a lot happens that I'm not happy about but I can live with. Seems we're in agreement basically that change needs to be managed and not just dropped on fans. I'm not in the kind of job that looks at how that is done and I bow to your obviously greater knowledge of that. (Not being sarcastic btw) Things change all the time and what we think of as normal now e.g. sponsors on shirts was unthinkable when I first started watching football. I'm not trying to bury my head in the sand about things like naming stands either but who says I sit in the Fraser Eagle or whatever it's called now unless they are explaining to people who have never been to Ewood before? It's like my kids used to say I'm going up t'Cav when the place was never called that in all the time they lived in this area. People can adapt to most things if they can see the benefit of the change and preferably feel involved in it. What they don't like is sudden change imposed by others without the chance to weigh up pros and cons and have the benefits outlined for them. I'd still hate to change the name of Ewood Park though.

[DingleBaiter]

Don't think i actually said i was off if they renamed the stadium.

.......

I'd still hate to change the name of Ewood Park though.

Hey, apologies - it was two previous posters that said they were off; didn't mean to cast you into their bag

sorry

Ref the name change - not even if we got the infamous Burnley flypast branding concept on the stadium? I think that's quite a ring to it

As we both agree, it's all about the marketing. Anyone that thrusted change upon a party - for whatever reason - deserves for it to fail.

I knew someone that worked in the mobile phone industry doing PR at appeals in places where the local planners had problems convincing the locals - arguably one of the most difficult jobs around. He'd had his car paintstripped, windows smashed, got beaten up regularly, some gangster turned up at his office and held a shotgun to his knees, he'd been run out of several towns, this guy was like Roger Cook.

Throw a mast up overnight without telling them using nefarious tactics like other operators did always ended up in tears - or fire, or pulled down.

Most of them were Not In My Backyard (NIMBYS), but tell them there phones wouldn't work without the new mast and they'd often be falling over to find a compromise.

However, he always managed to succeed - eventually. It's about finding the right message, the right way. I know you would hate the name change; but I also know there's ways and means to change your thinking so that you wouldn't even think whatever the desired change was is a negative at all

[JAL]

If Rovers were ever to be renamed I definitely think the Blackburn bit could be dropped as its always been seen as a negative name outside of the town. If theres anything more annoying than continually being refered to as Blackburn when we are the Rovers.

The town has changed over the past twenty years that generations of Blackburners must be close to being in the minority.

Could take a new name with Rovers on it but never should the club leave Ewood Park - never.

[Tris]

If Rovers were ever to be renamed I definitely think the Blackburn bit could be dropped as its always been seen as a negative name

I'm just quoting this so the idiot can't change it in the morning ... before I use the ignore function for only the second time ever.

[jim mk2]

If Rovers were ever to be renamed I definitely think the Blackburn bit could be dropped as its always been seen as a negative name outside of the town. If theres anything more annoying than continually being refered to as Blackburn when we are the Rovers.

Could take a new name with Rovers on it but never should the club leave Ewood Park - never.

Brilliant !

Funniest post since Gordon admitted to having 4 toilets.

[Paul]

On the subject of club names I was amuzed to read this article, last paragraph Chelsea to Move to Battersea

"To move, Chelsea would need the nod from Chelsea Pitch Owners, a non-profit organisation formed in 1997 to prevent Stamford Bridge being sold again to property developers. They own the naming rights to the club - so could force Chelsea to change their name if the club left the ground without their backing"

So I looked up this Chelsea Pitch Owners - Wikipedia

[67splitscreen]

Twaites Rovers, some how I can't see a Nike Rovers, nice as it would be £££££££