[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[Parsonblue]

As if Jack would have hired someone based on accomplishments at a club like Luton. The clubs Harford manged previously had nowhere near the expectations Jack required for a BRFC manager. It had everything to do with his success while filling in for Dalglish. That's the only reason he was offered the main role. TOTALLY WRONG. BUT THEN YOU DIDN'T SUPPORT THE CLUB AT THAT TIME DID YOU. HENCE YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WENT ON. WHY DID JACK EMPLOY RAY? BECAUSE HE WAS AN OUTSTANDING COACH, HAD AN EXCELLENT RECORD IN MANAGEMENT AND WAS RUNNING THE ENGLAND UNDER-21 TEAM.

Jack was simply repeating Harford's wishes when he said he felt the club had enough players. Jack wasn't going to go against the wishes of his new manager. The fans never came out and said what a big mistake the club (i.e harford) was making. Easy to criticise in hindsight isn't it? IT WAS JACK WHO SAID THE CLUB HAD ENOUGH PLAYERS. BUT THEN AGAIN YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW THE ROVERS AT THAT TIME SO YOU MAKE UP COMPLETE RUBBISH TO FIT YOUR DISTORTED VIEW OF THE CLUB'S HISTORY. RAY'S 'IF IT AIN'T BROKE' QUOTE MERELY BACKED UP HIS EMPLOYER.

Speaking of Jack appearing on Radio Rovers that Charles Lambert book said when Jack was a "guest" he chose "My Way" by F.Sinatra as his no 1 track. He owned the club so how on earth was he a guest? I THINK THIS STATEMENT REALLY DOES POINT TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF SERIOUS DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BLACKBURN ROVERS.

I said he would have considered Kidd a good opponent but annoying Ferguson must have been an extra bonus. Do you think Kidd would have been hired had he been assistant with Arsenal or Liverpool for instance? KIDD WAS AN OUTSTANDING COACH WHO HAD DEVELOPED THE OUTSTANDING YOUNG PLAYERS THAT UNITED HAD IN THEIR TEAM. HE HAD BEEN THE RIGHT HAND MAN TO THE GUY WHO HAD WON THE LEAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. IT WAS IRRELEVANT WHICH CLUB HE WAS AT. JACK WENT FOR WHOEVER HE CONSIDERED WOULD BE THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB.

[yoda]

As if Jack would have hired someone based on accomplishments at a club like Luton. The clubs Harford manged previously had nowhere near the expectations Jack required for a BRFC manager. It had everything to do with his success while filling in for Dalglish. That's the only reason he was offered the main role.

Jack was simply repeating Harford's wishes when he said he felt the club had enough players. Jack wasn't going to go against the wishes of his new manager. The fans never came out and said what a big mistake the club (i.e harford) was making. Easy to criticise in hindsight isn't it?

Speaking of Jack appearing on Radio Rovers that Charles Lambert book said when Jack was a "guest" he chose "My Way" by F.Sinatra as his no 1 track. He owned the club so how on earth was he a guest?

I said he would have considered Kidd a good opponent but annoying Ferguson must have been an extra bonus. Do you think Kidd would have been hired had he been assistant with Arsenal or Liverpool for instance?

I was going to post you have lost the plot, but you never had it in the 1st place

[thenodrog]

I was going to post you have lost the plot, but you never had it in the 1st place

A classic example of the old adage '2 ears one mouth so use em in that order'.

[Guest Vinjay606]

Good advice for you in regards to Lancashire Utd then.

[thenodrog]

Good advice for you in regards to Lancashire Utd then.

King Canute's now using the boardname Vinjay I see.

[dave birch]

But he does have a point in that regard, theno....

[JAL]

We lost Hughes because he was fed up of trying to maintain Premiership football on a shoestring budget. That is down to the Trust not John Williams or Tom Finn.

The style of football and the players we buy are down to the managers not John Williams or Tom Finn. Look at the shambles that is QPR to see what happens when the money men start picking the team.

The players we have are of a quality that we can afford. If the money isn't there we have to shop in the bargain basement. We have managed to exploit that market very well in recent years but there was always going to be a time when our luck would run out in that regard.

If the wage bill didn't go up we wouldn't have been able to sign the likes of Craig Bellamy Benni or Roque and they have been the top goalscorers for the past three seasons. Premier League players can virtually dictate terms now. We may not like it but it's a fact of life.

At the end of the day the Premier League is about money. We have less than virtually all of the other clubs in the Premier League and that is why we are struggling.

I don't have a problem with the Trust not wanting to put any more money into the club. In business terms it is probably the correct decision. But let's not kid ourselves that we can maintain Premier League status without outside investment. We practically have to give tickets away to get fans into the ground so we clearly can't be self sufficient in the Premier League in terms of money received at the gate. Indeed, I suspect we would struggle in the Championship when you consider the infra structure that we have to support.

Reading this again it comes across as men standing in somebody elses shoes just waiting to be replaced, fully understand the need for outside investment which begs the question, if Rovers cant attract outside investment with the current team in place then should there not be a fresh new team put in place as this one has failed to fulfill the role successfully.

[b12_simon]

Reading this again it comes across as men standing in somebody elses shoes just waiting to be replaced, fully understand the need for outside investment which begs the question, if Rovers cant attract outside investment with the current team in place then should there not be a fresh new team put in place as this one has failed to fulfill the role successfully.

I don't think it's anything to do with the current team it's just that potential investors are wiseing up to the fact that most football clubs (i.e. those outside the Champions League) are a very poor investment.

Just look at Newcastle - toilet of a club as they are they've a huge (and stupid) fanbase, loads more money coming in on matchday (and presumably from sponsors too) and Ashley can't shift them. In addition to crap support, a depressed area, etc. we also have the terms of the Trust which mean our standards in a potential buyer have to be so much higher than the other 91 clubs.

Failing to find a buyer is part of the malaise of being a "little 16" club, not a failure on the part of John Williams.

[Guest Vinjay606]

Standards in a potential buyer have to be higher than the other 91 clubs? It would be rather difficult to get a buyer with better funding than Manchester City have. As far as I know the only conditions of this sale is better transfer funding than the current owners will provide. Which wouldn't be hard.

[Billy Castell]

I have about £40 left over from my birthday money so if we go down, expect me to make my move.

[Guest Vinjay606]

I have about £40 left over from my birthday money so if we go down, expect me to make my move.

This isn't an issue to joke about.

[Billy Castell]

Well what else can we do though? Talk in circles whilst there is no new buyer lurking, and there will never be one?

[Guest Vinjay606]

Well what else can we do though? Talk in circles whilst there is no new buyer lurking, and there will never be one?

Well there's been potential buyers before hasn't there?

I would be surprised if there is interest at the moment (due to fighting for EPL status) but in the summer (should EPL status be maintained) this has to be top of the agenda. Unless like the fans forum you feel corner flags are more important.

[BrianPotter]

Standards in a potential buyer have to be higher than the other 91 clubs? It would be rather difficult to get a buyer with better funding than Manchester City have. As far as I know the only conditions of this sale is better transfer funding than the current owners will provide. Which wouldn't be hard.

Thats a fair point regading the transfer funding. However, there also numerous other conditions relating to any sale, in particular regarding the financing of any purchase, external debt being incurred by the club and a restriction on mortgages and charges being put against any of the clubs assets (including Brockhall).

The problem is that it appears the deeds of the trust put in place to protect the clubs long term future are acting as a stumbling block for securing external investment, essentially doing the opposite of what they are supposed to do. However, although things are painful at present I dont think that this will be a bad thing in the long term for Rovers, the debt mountain in football is out of control and sooner or later the bubble will pop. When it does there will be numerous casualty's as a result of this, thankfully Rovers will not be one of them. Even the likes of Liverpool and Manchester Utd whilst very profitable clubs are running with very dangerous levels of debt, it was only a couple of days ago the Government raised concerns about the levels of debt in football.

In the current climate and with some of the people who are interesting in buying football clubs I think that we are better off in the hands of our current owners, although things may not be pretty it is best for the clubs long term security.

[Billy Castell]

Corner flags are vital Vinjay, it is very easy to underestimate how important they are.

A takeover from a rich person is important, but I can't see anyone really being up for it right now. There is a recession on, a lot of rich people have lost a lot of money and fewer people are turning up to our matches. In short, who wants a club that has a half empty stadium that represents a town that has never had shedloads of disposable income and 'sex appeal' like London or Milan? The likely person to want to buy us is some spiv who either gets in a new manager every week, has dodgy connections and needs to launder some money or a fantasist. It is immensely annoying, but the Jack Walker type of owner isn't there, and I doubt a Randy Lerner type would not be interested.

[Guest Vinjay606]

I wouldn't be surprised if Jack secured sufficient protection in regards to assets but I haven't seen any proof of it. The truth is probably more simple in that nobody has yet met the owners asking price. This price should be fixed as well not quoting separate prices as was reportedly the case with Ronnie and Chowdery.

"I doubt a Randy Lerner type would not be interested."

Well that's quite good then.

[broadsword]

Well there's been potential buyers before hasn't there?

No-one credible.

I can't believe this is still going on.

Vinjay, what do you think our chances are of getting a buyer within the next 12 months? I'd say vanishingly small.

[BrianPotter]

I wouldn't be surprised if Jack secured sufficient protection in regards to assets but I haven't seen any proof of it. The truth is probably more simple in that nobody has yet met the owners asking price. This price should be fixed as well not quoting separate prices as was reportedly the case with Ronnie and Chowdery.

"I doubt a Randy Lerner type would not be interested."

Well that's quite good then.

The thing is nobody will ever know the full details. I have a little insight as I deal regularly with someone from Rathbones (who assist in the management of the trust). He won't really give anyting away but he did say that the sale of the club is far more complicated than people think - the term fit and proper has many sub categories.

[Guest Vinjay606]

If that's true nobody should be concerned about anyone who takes over if the "fit and proper" tests are in such great depth.

[Tris]

in the summer (should EPL status be maintained) this has to be top of the agenda. Unless like the fans forum you feel corner flags are more important.

It's only going to be top of the agenda in your head - like it always has been. The rest of the world can see it's not going to happen in the short term (or probably the medium or the long term). If I were you I'd see a shrink and ask if you can get that part of your brain thoroughly re-formatted.

As there has been nothing to report for so long, after leaving it on the agenda for over a year, the FF decided it would be better to remove it until there was some good reason to put it back there (ie a change in the status quo).

The band of that name once did a song called "Enough is Enough".

[modes98]

"I doubt a Randy Lerner type would not be interested."

Well that's quite good then.

he would be a great type of owner. One who takes a back seat but piles in the money.

[Guest Vinjay606]

A new owner can be a complete egomaniac for all I care if he puts in decent funding, achieves success and wants the best for the club.

[Neil Weaver]

If I were you I'd see a shrink and ask if you can get that part of your brain thoroughly re-formatted.

Harsh, Tris, I'd settle for him seeing some sort of specialist who would just stop him bloody typing.

[Eddie]

The band of that name once did a song called "Enough is Enough".

They also did "Down Down"...so maybe we should leave them out of this.

[Exiled in Toronto]

It's only going to be top of the agenda in your head - like it always has been. The rest of the world can see it's not going to happen in the short term (or probably the medium or the long term). If I were you I'd see a shrink and ask if you can get that part of your brain thoroughly re-formatted.

As there has been nothing to report for so long, after leaving it on the agenda for over a year, the FF decided it would be better to remove it until there was some good reason to put it back there (ie a change in the status quo).

The band of that name once did a song called "Enough is Enough".

Is that the same advice you would give to the Trust? Selling the club still seems to be higher on their agenda than preventing it from being relegated.

I know the lad rambles on a bit but there is an elephant in our kitchen which is that we are still up for sale despite there being apparently no chance of a sale to anyone, ever.