[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[yoda]

Football tournament sponsored by Jack's son.

Was it actually sponsored by Howard Walker?

Can't see any reference to that!

[ABBEY]

ive just got back from jjb gym and lots of bigwigs around and one of the lads who works there reckons they are making sure its looking at its best for when they own rovers next week,no idea if hes billy bulling or not

[Ste B]

Assistant Academy director Simon Ireland

THE Simon Ireland ?? The one we got from Huddersfield ?

[philipl]

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.

Let's take Spurs. Their actual numbers are here. (There are also analyses of Everton and Newcastle there, the latter showing their board took £10m in fees 1997-2006)

Over the past ten years, their income has been £513m.

Net spending on players has been £100m.

Net losses not funded by Spurs' own trading has been £11m (funded by shareholders).

That is less than 20% of the amount Jack Walker and the Walker Trust (£33m of cash from the Trust according to the published accounts since Jack's death) put into Rovers over the same period.

[AggyBlue]

Football tournament sponsored by Jack's son.

It's a shame so much potential will end up plying their trade in the 1st and 2nd divisions

[BrianPotter]

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

I've posted on this topic before when it came up so I won't go into the ins and outs of things relating to the trust (anyone whos interested can read the previous posts).

Whether or not the Trust are doing what they should be for the club is pureley a matter of personal opinion as to what your expectations are. I you are asking if they are doing a good job of keeping the club stable, financially secure in the long term and maintaining Prem Satus? Without doubt the answer is yes, and one would assume that this would have been high on the agenda of the deeds of trust set out by Jack. Unfortunatley this doesn't mean throwing money around like confetti to bring in players that the clubs operating income simply cannot support.

For example, if the trustees provide £20m to buy a player, that said player will sign a contract worth somewhere in the region of £4 to £5m a year, which over a 5 year period is another £25m on top of the fee. In basic terms that one player could be putting around £6 -£7m (Inc insurance etc) a year onto the clubs operating costs. It doesn't take an accountant to see that if we are currently breaking even, the addition of this player means we are then losing £6 -£7m a year without even taking into account the transfer fee. The problem with Rovers is that bringing in players of this calibre and value will not put extra bums on seats or significantly increase our operating income - so its simply not worth the risk. It would be suicide to operate on this theory, particularly with the sums of money we are looking at these days in football. When Jack was around, the amounts of money he was providing in relation to his wealth were very very small. Now two Ronaldos are probably worth a tenth of the whole Trusts value. Going down this route could put the whole trust at risk (of which we are only a very small part).

As to the Trust not carrying Jacks wishes, that is simply not legally possible. They must act as indicated in the deeds of the trust, end of story.

[den]

As to the Trust not carrying Jacks wishes, that is simply not legally possible. They must act as indicated in the deeds of the trust, end of story.

Who monitors it Brian?

[RevidgeBlue]

As to the Trust not carrying Jacks wishes, that is simply not legally possible. They must act as indicated in the deeds of the trust, end of story.

Out of interest then, how does withdrawing a longstanding funding arrangement (the 3m p.a.) fall into that category?.

Presumably either they must previously have been acting in accordance with Jack's wishes by donating money on an annual basis, and now are not, or, were acting contrary to the provisions of the trust all those years, and now are not.

[Beta Ray Bill]

Out of interest then, how does withdrawing a longstanding funding arrangement (the 3m p.a.) fall into that category?.

Presumably either they must previously have been acting in accordance with Jack's wishes by donating money on an annual basis, and now are not, or, were acting contrary to the provisions of the trust all those years, and now are not.

Or the trust said they would fund £3m pa for X years.

Or the trust said they would fund £3m pa until turnover/profit/other financial measure reached a certain point.

[BiggusLaddus]

Or the terms of the trust made no mention of any specific annual funding at all, and the £3m+ was added as it was required to safeguard the future of the club.

[RevidgeBlue]

For example, if the trustees provide £20m to buy a player, that said player will sign a contract worth somewhere in the region of £4 to £5m a year, which over a 5 year period is another £25m on top of the fee. In basic terms that one player could be putting around £6 -£7m (Inc insurance etc) a year onto the clubs operating costs. It doesn't take an accountant to see that if we are currently breaking even, the addition of this player means we are then losing £6 -£7m a year without even taking into account the transfer fee. The problem with Rovers is that bringing in players of this calibre and value will not put extra bums on seats or significantly increase our operating income - so its simply not worth the risk. It would be suicide to operate on this theory, particularly with the sums of money we are looking at these days in football.

That's a very extreme example Bryan, no-one realistically expects us to sign 20m pound players but for 20m in transfer fees and 7m p.a. in wages we could probably sign three very good players who would make a big difference to us over the course of a season.

[laughatthedingles]

-->

QUOTE(Ste B @ Apr 24 2008, 15:13 ) 603256[/snapback]

THE Simon Ireland ?? The one we got from Huddersfield ?

The one and only ste!

[philipl]

Who monitors it Brian?

Trustee business relies on trust and reputation which is why trustees are notoriously careful and conservative. Any trustee who even comes under suspicion of not adhering to the deed of any Trust is at risk of losing their entire business as it all rests on reputation and confidence that the trustees will do the as the settlor sets out in the settlement.

Putting it simply would you entrust your belongings to someone who will not do what you have asked them to? Obviously Jack is not around to contest the issue but anybody now alive who has a direct interest in the Walker Trust with a serious case that Jack's settlement was not being honoured would cause untold damage to the Walker Trustees' ability to attract new Trusts or keep the ones they have got.

The Walker Trust must be one of the largest non-pure financial trusts resident in Jersey and as such, any suggestion of the deed being breeched would immediately attract attention which again will make the Trustees ultra-cautious in abiding by Jack's wishes.

At a regulatory level, Jersey prides itself on having the most advanced and most secure regulation of trust business in the world- it is the island's lifeblood and they pride themselves on their ability to legislate into practise rules which enhance the confidence in their Trusts ahead of anyone else adopting the same rules. For example, trust business is relatively new to Malta and until new legislation was passed last year every trust registered in Malta by law had also to be registered in Jersey so as to offer settlors and beneficiaries the security of knowing they could rely on Jersey regulation.

Finally, the Trust itself may well have its own provisions for self-policing and independent arbitration and monitoring. The Trustees themselves will have professional liability insurance which will have reporting or even review and audit conditions given the size of the Trust being administered.

These are general answers but I am sure the Walker Trust has specific terms.

Blackburn Rovers are in a strange position. They are an "investment" as a commercial plc 99.9% owned by the Walker Trust but also a beneficiary of the Trust. The club has a commercial obligation as part of the settlement but I believe there is also an obligation to the public of Blackburn which is the basis on which the non-commercial decision to cut prices by 25% (at a budgeted loss of £1m) was taken.

Incidentally, Brian Potter underlines just how rapidly the world of Premiership football has changed in the eight years since Jack's death. The Walker Trust is no small underaking but he is absolutely right that two players of the magnitude of Ronaldo joining Rovers would have a massive impact on the Trust as a whole. Even in 2000, it was inconceivable that a single player with his contract would be a £100 million undertaking.

I think this also underlines cheshireblue's point that anybody seriously entertaining funding a Premier League club for a season attacking the top four in the Premiership needs to have £500m free cash behind them as £100m of that is going to disappear at a minimum with no certainty of achieving the objective on the football pitch.

[RevidgeBlue]

Or the terms of the trust made no mention of any specific annual funding at all,

Probably the most likely scenario, the Trustees must have complete discretion.

It still seems odd that a long standing funding arrangement should be withdrawn though.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I've posted on this topic before when it came up so I won't go into the ins and outs of things relating to the trust (anyone whos interested can read the previous posts).

Whether or not the Trust are doing what they should be for the club is pureley a matter of personal opinion as to what your expectations are. I you are asking if they are doing a good job of keeping the club stable, financially secure in the long term and maintaining Prem Satus? Without doubt the answer is yes, and one would assume that this would have been high on the agenda of the deeds of trust set out by Jack.

No Brian, Mark Hughes is doing a good Job; he has been placed under arguably the tightest financial control of any manager in the Premiership. I shudder to think where we would be in the league if a Bruce, Jewell or Keane were in charge. Sparky is making the trust look good because they can almost balance the books.

You are not alone in believing the theory that the board’s reluctance to not give the manager a workable transfer budget, is what is helping secure the economic future of the club.

What is helping the economic future, is an outstanding manager that is working wonders on the tightest budget in the prem, what happens when he leaves and the next manager is no as adept in the transfer market or on the pitch? If rovers were to go down, all of the back slaps on “how well” the trust & JW are doing would be completely irrelevant. The trust either need to sell ASAP or invest, a middle ground position is not healthy for the club because of two risks:

Our mid-table competitors improving there squads even further (Newcastle, Spurs, Man City will be better next season) and pushing ahead of us.

Our manager ups and leaves, and we replace him with a manager that can’t work wonders on such a mislay budget.

As for Philp’s Enic argument, enic have owned spurs for 6 seasons not 10. In the last 3 years alone they have a net spend of nearly a 150 million. It is preposterous to claim that the trust have invested anywhere near that amount during the same p

[philipl]

Bazza, Spurs' own published numbers disprove your argument- that link breaks down the situation year by year.

Rev, it is probably worth looking back to what was happening during Jack's lifetime. He funded us to winning the Premiership but although he wished to see us become European giants, he promised his family there would be a cap on how much he would put in and we saw the results in 1995/6 and 1996/7.

He then stepped back in when things were going wrong and tragically we bought loads of rubbish in the Woy/Kidd era. Even then he talked about setting the club up to be financially independent of his support.

At the time he died we were in the second division or whatever it was called and so the focus must have been on doing whatever it took to get us back to the Prem and staying there. That must have been the pre-occupation of any document writing being done as the seriousness of Jack's illness became apparent, as opposed to envisaging another Premiership-winning or Champions League campaign. At the end of 1999/2000, even getting back in the Premiership was looking a long way off.

Finally, Jack was very conscious that he was the guardian of what was then a 125 year old institution and he wanted the Rovers to be set up to see out the 21st century in good shape as far as he could reasonably foresee it.

All the above is fact- the rest is hypothesis.

However, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that Jack's instructions to his Trustees would be to act as he did when he was alive including looking at a long term time horizon which is anathema to the fans who want entertainment and success this coming week-end.

It therefore follows that now the TV deal enables the club can stand on its own without Walker money, it should do so- that is entirely consistent with Jack's actions and words.

Equally, were Rovers in need of funding for Premiership survival, I would be very surprised if the Trustees would not be forthcoming. However, were football to continue in its current spiral, that couldn't be at a level if say in the not too distant future a 33 year old Robbie Savage equivalent costs £10m transfer fee and £3m a year in wages for three years.

I am sure that the Trust's limitations on the upside as well as its ability to be the safety net that I am sure Jack will have wanted them always to provide has prompted the Trustees decision now to say that if there is anyone out there who can do the job better than them, they will divest of the club within the terms of the Walker Trust Settlement.

It is also in that spirit that you have to look at every prospective buyer and ask yourself, would Jack sell his beloved Rovers to them. For sure, the Trustees and John Williams all knew Jack very well and they are able to ask that question and make that judgement call.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Bazza, Spurs' own published numbers disprove your argument- that link breaks down the situation year by year.

Rev, it is probably worth looking back to what was happening during Jack's lifetime. He funded us to winning the Premiership but although he wished to see us become European giants, he promised his family there would be a cap on how much he would put in and we saw the results in 1995/6 and 1996/7.

He then stepped back in when things were going wrong and tragically we bought loads of rubbish in the Woy/Kidd era. Even then he talked about setting the club up to be financially independent of his support.

At the time he died we were in the second division or whatever it was called and so the focus must have been on doing whatever it took to get us back to the Prem and staying there. That must have been the pre-occupation of any document writing being done as the seriousness of Jack's illness became apparent, as opposed to envisaging another Premiership-winning or Champions League campaign. At the end of 1999/2000, even getting back in the Premiership was looking a long way off.

Finally, Jack was very conscious that he was the guardian of what was then a 125 year old institution and he wanted the Rovers to be set up to see out the 21st century in good shape as far as he could reasonably foresee it.

All the above is fact- the rest is hypothesis.

However, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that Jack's instructions to his Trustees would be to act as he did when he was alive including looking at a long term time horizon which is anathema to the fans who want entertainment and success this coming week-end.

It therefore follows that now the TV deal enables the club can stand on its own without Walker money, it should do so- that is entirely consistent with Jack's actions and words.

Equally, were Rovers in need of funding for Premiership survival, I would be very surprised if the Trustees would not be forthcoming. However, were football to continue in its current spiral, that couldn't be at a level if say in the not too distant future a 33 year old Robbie Savage equivalent costs £10m transfer fee and £3m a year in wages for three years.

I am sure that the Trust's limitations on the upside as well as its ability to be the safety net that I am sure Jack will have wanted them always to provide has prompted the Trustees decision now to say that if there is anyone out there who can do the job better than them, they will divest of the club within the terms of the Walker Trust Settlement.

It is also in that spirit that you have to look at every prospective buyer and ask yourself, would Jack sell his beloved Rovers to them. For sure, the Trustees and John Williams all knew Jack very well and they are able to ask that question and make that judgement call.

Your ‘official figures’ are sourced from socerbase.com , which misses absolute loads of transfers and seriously underestimates figures. Since 2002 Spurs have spent 199.6 million on players net. Bent, Berbatov, Bale, Woodgate, Kaboul, Hutton, Zokora, Jenas, Defoe and Keane cost over a 100 million, so to suggest they have only spent 30 million extra in ten years is way off. They have spent close on 90 million in the last two and a half seasons

Lets face it over the past 7 years , there are at least a dozen or so owners that have put more money into there respective clubs that the trust have put into rovers.

[BrianPotter]

No Brian, Mark Hughes is doing a good Job; he has been placed under arguably the tightest financial control of any manager in the Premiership. I shudder to think where we would be in the league if a Bruce, Jewell or Keane were in charge. Sparky is making the trust look good because they can almost balance the books.

You are not alone in believing the theory that the board’s reluctance to not give the manager a workable transfer budget, is what is helping secure the economic future of the club.

What is helping the economic future, is an outstanding manager that is working wonders on the tightest budget in the prem, what happens when he leaves and the next manager is no as adept in the transfer market or on the pitch? If rovers were to go down, all of the back slaps on “how well” the trust & JW are doing would be completely irrelevant. The trust either need to sell ASAP or invest, a middle ground position is not healthy for the club because of two risks:

Our mid-table competitors improving there squads even further (Newcastle, Spurs, Man City will be better next season) and pushing ahead of us.

Our manager ups and leaves, and we replace him with a manager that can’t work wonders on such a mislay budget.

As for Philp’s Enic argument, enic have owned spurs for 6 seasons not 10. In the last 3 years alone they have a net spend of nearly a 150 million. It is preposterous to claim that the trust have invested anywhere near that amount during the same p

There is certainly no doubt that Mark Hughes is doing a great, no fantastic job on a limited budget, but he sureley knew these limitations when he took the job on.

I was trying to make the point (as further in my post) that whilst a little more investment from the Trust would be great (and I think we all know it needs to come, if not from the Trust somewhere else) over investing now on players will only lead to trouble further down the line as our revenue cannot support the ongoing commitment. What I'm trying to say is that we need to get the balance right and perhaps, yes, it would be beneficial for the Trustees to invest into our transfer budget, but doing so to the levels that some people on here are longing for would be financial suicide.

On a side note, I can't see a time (I hope!) where we would be managed by the likes of Bruce or Jewell - I think we have the power to attract a better calibre than that. And god forbid if we did get relegated I'd rather the club be owned by the Trustees than anybody else. We must remember as stated previously they bailed us out of a potenitally fatal financial situation when we were relegated the last time.

[den]

Equally, were Rovers in need of funding for Premiership survival, I would be very surprised if the Trustees would not be forthcoming.

Regular funding, season upon season, is vital for Premier league survival. Survival isn't something that can be foreseen. Withdrawal of funding is a guarantee, in rovers case, of an ensuing relegation fight IMO.

[philipl]

Bazzansg, I suggest you file an official complaint against the audited accounts filed at Companies House. The authors of those reports took their numbers directly from the published accounts, not soccerbase.

Name the dozen clubs that have received more from their owners than Rovers have- I am talking about cash handed over no strings attached for the betterment of the club, not monies paid to exiting shareholders or paying off loans to facitate getting ownership.

I have named three and acknowledged two others when they were pointed out although I believe the money went in as loans rather than straight contributions.

[BrianPotter]

That's a very extreme example Bryan, no-one realistically expects us to sign 20m pound players but for 20m in transfer fees and 7m p.a. in wages we could probably sign three very good players who would make a big difference to us over the course of a season.

Agreed, but I do feel that some people on here expect this.

Even so, if we spent the 20m on three players the cumalitive wages and employment costs would be similar to the figure above, if not slightly higher.

I was just trying to point out the dangers of over investing on players and that paying the transfer fee or fees is only half of the issue that needs to be considered when making a new signing.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Bazzansg, I suggest you file an official complaint against the audited accounts filed at Companies House. The authors of those reports took their numbers directly from the published accounts, not soccerbase.

Name the dozen clubs that have received more from their owners than Rovers have- I am talking about cash handed over no strings attached for the betterment of the club, not monies paid to exiting shareholders or paying off loans to facitate getting ownership.

I have named three and acknowledged two others when they were pointed out although I believe the money went in as loans rather than straight contributions.

PhilipL, your figures are from a fans website, you quote is http://www.football-finances.org.uk/spurs/index.htm , which is not an official site. Nor does include the past two seasons spending where they have spent close on 90 million.

As for your second statement, to re-iterate my point from last night. You don’t include debt clearance at other clubs as investment. Such as Ashley’s 100 million circa at Newcastle, so therefore you can’t include any debt clearance or debt to share options at rovers.

To repeat, how much money have the trust invested into rovers excluding anything to do with debt ?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Agreed, but I do feel that some people on here expect this.

Even so, if we spent the 20m on three players the cumalitive wages and employment costs would be similar to the figure above, if not slightly higher.

What 20m extra a season or spread over a 4 yr contract?

Which will be an extra 5m a season not 20

[philipl]

I know that reading is not your strong suit BNSG so I will repeat the number I have already given.

£33m of new cash injected into Rovers as a gift or ordinary share capital in the complete seasons 2001/2 to 2006/7.

Click on your link above and it says the following ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE-

For many people the only time they hear about Spurs' finances are one day in each March and October when the official financial results are announced.

Invariably the club seems to be doing well financially, or at least there is some air of optimism in the official report. Despite this the football team seems to struggle to compete at the very top, and seems to struggle in the transfer market.

This site hopefully presents to you the financial results in words that we can all understand. All the numbers quoted about the club have come from the club's own accounts. If a mistake has been made in this, and you spot it, then PLEASE let us know, the aim is to be as honest as can be. If you have more accurate information then please get in touch.

Also if you have any suggestions on what else should or could be looked at please get in touch. The intention of the site is not to try and influence your opinion on the way the club has been run, just to give you the facts, and let you draw your own conclusions.

Many apologies if you don't like the ads on here, they are there to try to pay for the hosting of this site

On subsequent pages it does acknowledge that there is a marked discrepancy between the headline transfer fees and the fees Spurs actually report in their accounts.

For what its worth, my guess is that the Spurs-loving media enjoy bigging up the Spuds fees and the club do not discourage them in this- some of the quoted purchase prices have been breath-takingly high/stupid. But as nico has repeatedly mentioned, the Spurs Chairman is a seriously nasty piece of work to negotiate with and perhaps he has been very effective screwing buying prices down and selling prices up.

If you look at Spurs' wage bill, it is astonishingly little more than Rovers' unlike the Newcastle wages which disappeared into the stratosphere when they got CL ambitions. That fact alone combined with a turnover 60% bigger than Rovers explains how ENIC have run the club without dipping too much into their own pockets- if I remember there was one rights issue which raised £30m of which ENIC contributed £12m (they own 40% but have things so structured that it gives them effective control).

[John]

The only issue I have got is the fact we have one of Britain's finest young managers. It would be a pity if we could not see what he could do with a bit more money (I don't mean ridiculous amounts because that is not realistic). To be fair though, it looks like we may provide him with some funds in the summer.

I still feel comfortable with the trustees owning the club, and so far, I think they have struck the right balance since Jack's death. However, with the league seemingly becoming more competitive, there could be some tough choices ahead.