[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[den]

That isn't the point though Tris. It's simply a matter of whether the trustees are carrying out JW's wishes. I'm not convinced that they are, but I wouldn't know would I, any more than anyone else.

[Paul]

There are plenty of examples of owners in various sports who are essentially just "giving" money to the club, that is really what we need to be looking for as it is unrealistic to expect that this club will be able to generate a profit for anyone putting a serious amount into it. I'm not advocating that we look for a short term fix, I simply think that we might be able to find a short term and a long term fix in the same place, as far as I'm concerned we don't have a huge amount of long term safety as things stand, so thing have to be done. We have to take our time in finding the right buyer, but we have to find one.

Quite right. It's called the Jack Walker Trust or something similar.

Like Tris said everyone is prepared to spend someone else's money. Rovers are a small town club, we don't have the same ability to earn as other clubs do. Live with it. I'm still waiting for someone to justify how Rovers can compete with the likes of City, Villa, Spurs etc who are talking of spending £50, 50, 80M this summer. It is just total madness.

There is the possibility of an American backed 20/20 cricket league in 2009 or 2010 in the UK. The backer says he has 0.5 £billion available. Now just imagine Sky discover this is more sexy than football by the time of the next TV deal?

[den]

Quite right. It's called the Jack Walker Trust or something similar.

Like Tris said everyone is prepared to spend someone else's money. Rovers are a small town club, we don't have the same ability to earn as other clubs do. Live with it. I'm still waiting for someone to justify how Rovers can compete with the likes of City, Villa, Spurs etc who are talking of spending £50, 50, 80M this summer. It is just total madness.

Again, the only thing that matters is that the Jersey trust carries out Jack Walkers wishes. It's nothing to do with what Villa, City or anyone else are doing. The trustees shouldn't even consider it "their" money.

[joey_big_nose]

If CIty or Villa or Sunderland spend that sort of money then the world has gone bonkers. I will be suprised if it is that much.

We can't compete with that. If they want to go and spend it that is their business. We just need to get on and find players who are good who are available. Luckily since it is only the Prem that has gone bannanas we will be able to get decent players from abroad without going nutty. In a way it doesn't matter if Villa or Man City spend 30m or 80m we still wouldn't be able to compete with them if they want the same players as us. We have to be creative with who we bring in.

[Hughesy]

Im glad we have Mark Hughes thats all I can say. £10m is nothing to most managers but with that Hughes could do some very good business.

Dont forget we paid £200k for samba, Nelsen free, £750k Bentley, £2.5m McCarthy and £3.5m for Santa Cruz. With that alot again we would still have change out of £10m although are wage budget would be much higher as a result of those signings.

[Eddie]

Quite right. It's called the Jack Walker Trust or something similar.

Like Tris said everyone is prepared to spend someone else's money. Rovers are a small town club, we don't have the same ability to earn as other clubs do. Live with it. I'm still waiting for someone to justify how Rovers can compete with the likes of City, Villa, Spurs etc who are talking of spending £50, 50, 80M this summer. It is just total madness.

There is the possibility of an American backed 20/20 cricket league in 2009 or 2010 in the UK. The backer says he has 0.5 £billion available. Now just imagine Sky discover this is more sexy than football by the time of the next TV deal?

Realistically TV revenue is only going to continue to rise. I can't see their being a serious drop in interest in the UK and markets abroad are only going to continue to develop.

All I can say is that as of yet we haven't seen an owner cut and run from within this new wave. We've also seen them all have positive influences on their clubs, the possible exception being Liverpool, but even then it was their money that brought in Torres and that could fund the new Anfield, it could easily go sour, but so far, despite being unpopular and chaotic, it has been ok. I'm sure that at some point it will go wrong for a club, but I'm also fairly sure that the effect will remain positive for the vast majority of them and this is our big problem.

Slowly but surely all of the clubs around us are being bought and soon we won't be able to compete. Now as far as I'm concerned we have have three options:

1) We continue on as we are now, but I don't think anyone could seriously argue that we will be able to remain in the premiership long-term if this is the plan. If you look at the Championship there are several clubs with big owners behind them who would be able to outspend us if that happened, on top of that our relatively small fan-base would take a hit, I'm not sure that we would come straight back up and I am not sure that we would see the Premiership again. If this were to happen, our finances would be a wreck and we would have to be bailed out either by a new owner or by the Walker trust pumping in a lot of money.

2) The Walker Trust starts to give us more money. Really this is a perfect scenario as it would mean that we don't have to worry about a change of ownership, but at the same time it would provide us with the extra financial muscle that I feel a lot of us realise will be needed simply to remain in the Premiership, let alone try and get into Europe.

3) We do what we are doing now and look for new ownership.

The problem with 1 is that it is really just delaying to 2 or 3.

The problem with 2 is that it seems to totally go against the way the club has been run for the past 5 or so years, meaning that it seems unlikely that the Trust actually believes that this is an option (it may be possible that it isn't under the terms of the trust).

The problem with 3 is that we sell to the wrong man and end up watching the club be ruined by someone who doesn't really care and jumps ship at the first sign of trouble.

Now, I'm a gambling man and I see more potential and upside in solution 3 than I do in 1 or 2. It's a risk, but the only one that isn't is 2 and that is the least realistic.

In a dream world one of two things would happen for me:

1) We find an investor who buys out 49% of the club, leaving the trust involved to provide long-term financial security, but also allowing the new "owner" to be the public face and pump the necessary cash in to support us. We could sweaten the deal by selling the 49% at a cut-price rate, which might actually make the package look somewhat financially viable to an investor.

2) We sell the club, but the trust agrees a buy-back price with the new owner. Meaning that should things turn south they would have the ability to easily buy-back the club, this would not only ensure long-term security for the club, but it would provide an easy out for the new owner and make the investment slightly safer.

The chances of either of these happening are pretty slim, I don't know if the trust even allows either of them to happen. What I do know is that we don't have many options and everything I really run through leads me back to option 3 in the first part. It's a risk, don't get me wrong and proper precautions need to be taken to make sure that we know as much about the new owner as possible and so that we are as sure as we possibly can be that he'll have the best interest of the club at heart throughout his period of ownership, but I feel it is a risk we have to take.

You might disagree, you might want to take a punchers chance (as I see it) and see if we can keep our heads above water. As I far as I'm concerned though, we're already in a ship taking on water and sooner or later we'll go under. We are quite possibly in the best state we can be for a prospective buyer, so now seems like the time.

[PAFELL]

Realistically TV revenue is only going to continue to rise. I can't see their being a serious drop in interest in the UK and markets abroad are only going to continue to develop.

All I can say is that as of yet we haven't seen an owner cut and run from within this new wave. We've also seen them all have positive influences on their clubs, the possible exception being Liverpool, but even then it was their money that brought in Torres and that could fund the new Anfield, it could easily go sour, but so far, despite being unpopular and chaotic, it has been ok. I'm sure that at some point it will go wrong for a club, but I'm also fairly sure that the effect will remain positive for the vast majority of them and this is our big problem.

Slowly but surely all of the clubs around us are being bought and soon we won't be able to compete. Now as far as I'm concerned we have have three options:

1) We continue on as we are now, but I don't think anyone could seriously argue that we will be able to remain in the premiership long-term if this is the plan. If you look at the Championship there are several clubs with big owners behind them who would be able to outspend us if that happened, on top of that our relatively small fan-base would take a hit, I'm not sure that we would come straight back up and I am not sure that we would see the Premiership again. If this were to happen, our finances would be a wreck and we would have to be bailed out either by a new owner or by the Walker trust pumping in a lot of money.

2) The Walker Trust starts to give us more money. Really this is a perfect scenario as it would mean that we don't have to worry about a change of ownership, but at the same time it would provide us with the extra financial muscle that I feel a lot of us realise will be needed simply to remain in the Premiership, let alone try and get into Europe.

3) We do what we are doing now and look for new ownership.

The problem with 1 is that it is really just delaying to 2 or 3.

The problem with 2 is that it seems to totally go against the way the club has been run for the past 5 or so years, meaning that it seems unlikely that the Trust actually believes that this is an option (it may be possible that it isn't under the terms of the trust).

The problem with 3 is that we sell to the wrong man and end up watching the club be ruined by someone who doesn't really care and jumps ship at the first sign of trouble.

Now, I'm a gambling man and I see more potential and upside in solution 3 than I do in 1 or 2. It's a risk, but the only one that isn't is 2 and that is the least realistic.

In a dream world one of two things would happen for me:

1) We find an investor who buys out 49% of the club, leaving the trust involved to provide long-term financial security, but also allowing the new "owner" to be the public face and pump the necessary cash in to support us. We could sweaten the deal by selling the 49% at a cut-price rate, which might actually make the package look somewhat financially viable to an investor.

2) We sell the club, but the trust agrees a buy-back price with the new owner. Meaning that should things turn south they would have the ability to easily buy-back the club, this would not only ensure long-term security for the club, but it would provide an easy out for the new owner and make the investment slightly safer.

The chances of either of these happening are pretty slim, I don't know if the trust even allows either of them to happen. What I do know is that we don't have many options and everything I really run through leads me back to option 3 in the first part. It's a risk, don't get me wrong and proper precautions need to be taken to make sure that we know as much about the new owner as possible and so that we are as sure as we possibly can be that he'll have the best interest of the club at heart throughout his period of ownership, but I feel it is a risk we have to take.

You might disagree, you might want to take a punchers chance (as I see it) and see if we can keep our heads above water. As I far as I'm concerned though, we're already in a ship taking on water and sooner or later we'll go under. We are quite possibly in the best state we can be for a prospective buyer, so now seems like the time.

All this talk of Rovers needing a rich investor is a bit sad really - because when you understand that an investor can put in as well as withdraw at anytime - it is their choice. If the owners of the top 4 decided enough is enough and pulled out - or said they were not going to put anymore money in, say until all the clubs debts were paid - or for any other reason - these clubs would panic and possible implode. The current money situation for these so called big clubs cannot go on forever - at that time it will be the smaller clubs who - not having the same amount of debt - which are being run prudently that will benefit.

What if the owners of Liverpool said there is no more money for the club - we'll own it, but not give any money- (Rovers trustees type situation) what would happen to Liverpool then or man U etc? Maybe Rovers have to be happy that they have 'trustees and not owners)

[Eddie]

There are just so many things wrong with the way you are looking at that...

[laughatthedingles]

All this talk of Rovers needing a rich investor is a bit sad really - because when you understand that an investor can put in as well as withdraw at anytime - it is their choice. If the owners of the top 4 decided enough is enough and pulled out - or said they were not going to put anymore money in, say until all the clubs debts were paid - or for any other reason - these clubs would panic and possible implode. The current money situation for these so called big clubs cannot go on forever - at that time it will be the smaller clubs who - not having the same amount of debt - which are being run prudently that will benefit.

What if the owners of Liverpool said there is no more money for the club - we'll own it, but not give any money- (Rovers trustees type situation) what would happen to Liverpool then or man U etc? Maybe Rovers have to be happy that they have 'trustees and not owners)

I think this is all mainly due to though the clubs being taken over (most of anyway) are big clubs and without much change required, however, I seriously doubt Rovers are going to attract a big player, therefore we could either attract a low level cash input OR someone who wants us to live beyond our means and for the latter there needs to be only two words

LEEDS UNITED

[doctorryan]

Again, the only thing that matters is that the Jersey trust carries out Jack Walkers wishes. It's nothing to do with what Villa, City or anyone else are doing. The trustees shouldn't even consider it "their" money.

Absolutely 100% spot-on Den.

[Fife Rover]

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.

So if what you say is true Brian (and I am not suggesting that it isn't; I just dont know) it means that although it may be in the interests of the Trust to to sell Rovers, it is not in the interests of the club itself or it's supporters. Except in the extremely unlikely event of a complete philanthropist who is also a diehard Rovers fan buying the club. This buyer would also have to be as rich as Croesus as well. Anything less would be an automatic non-starter.

[bluebruce]

Brian said that two Ronaldos are probably worth more than the Trust...I think it ought to be noted that the Trust are reputed to be worth over 500 million. I can't vouch for that being a certainty before somebody leaps on me, just what I've read.

[den]

The trust doesn't have a value. Unless you take a value of all his businesses.

[philipl]

No Bluebruce, I read what he said as Rovers buying two Ronaldos would fundamentally unbalance the Trust given the amount of cash all the rest of the businesses would have to contribute to fund such an acquisition and the continuing costs of such players.

Another point worth clarifying is that the Trust's decision to seek a buyer was motivated by the fact the Trustees saw an environment with the leap in media income which did three things:

- enabled Rovers to move onto a proper business footing for the time being and more importantly

- brought potential new owners into play whom the Trust could reasonably expect would be able to support the club far better than the Trustees can, because

- whilst their previous contributions to Rovers had been critical in achieving and maintaining Premier League status, the financial numbers in the Premiership had grown far beyond anything that could have been envisaged in Jack's lifetime making the Trust feel their contribution was becoming almost irrelevant in the big picture, whilst knowing just how much would be needed if Rovers had to be bailed out if on-the-pitch performance went wrong.

[1864roverite]

Apparently Martin O'Neill wants £80m this summer to spend, Benitez has already handed in his shopping list and Roy Keane is also looking for £60m+. Chelsea also look set to be doing alot of changing! Looks like it may be a very busy transfer window with alot of cash moving around.

Sunderland HAVE to spend that amount as their squad is mediocre at best and in the currentl climate will seriously struggle again next season if they dont. Their current crop of players are nowhere near as good as the likes of Rovers, Villa, Everton, Wham or Spuds, who I feel are the 5 teams capable of challenging the top 4 or at least giving them decent games and going for a cup challenge. £50m would just about ensure Sunderland dont have a shocking second season.

Villa have the backing of what appears to be a forward thinking board, similar to Rovers. I dont think for one minute they need to be looking at £80m outlay but remember they lose Mellberg from the central defence and if they lose Barry then thats a massive hole to fill as their current midfield would need revamping. I am not so sure Carew can last another full season with his knees and may be used sparingly so they may have some outlay in a centre forward, plus a foray into Europe may stretch what is a small squad.

The thing with Rovers is that they DONT have to splash out loadsamoney. What we desperately need is a midfielder who can run, pass, defend and score. A top central midfielder is a must to complement our team as it doesnt really need that much tinkering with. Obviously whoever leaves has to be replaced and that includes fringe players but I dont forsee major surgery with the squad.

My view is that Rovers are in a healthy position to maintain their top 6 ambitions and with the right signing in the middle and a little tinkering we will achieve that easily next season and maybe more.

A break for Europe might just be a blessing in disguise with what appears to be happening behind the scenes. Once it is all finished and any speculation has died down, matters off the pitch sorted, the playing side might just slip into gear and see Rovers moving from a position of strength to even stronger.

The fixtures in June cannot come quick enough

[Brfcrule1]

hi all,

I had to get involved in this somewhat heated debate first off am sure Rothschild are doing their jobs and will make sure they find out everything about the people behind the takeover and as such before due dilligence is given both parties have to be happy hence why it takes long and from what Nicko says there are positives from the latest round of talks then again I can't understand why some people have doubts about a takeover at the end ofthe day 10m will not even scratch the surface at the end of the day we have one of the smallest squads in the prem and as the walkers trustees are not backing even with the 3m it suggests they want rid but only to a right and proper person and at the end of the day 3m is also nowhere near enoughand as the current trend is that clubs in and around us are being taken over eventually we will not be able to compete as Sparky say's he can pull rabbits out of the hat long term but I do think patience is the key and things will work themselves out I also feel if we had been taken over before the season we would now be challenging for champs. Lge. footy shame with players like Sidwell,Huddlestone & a few others we would be higher up but anyway providing we get a takeover soon next season am sure we will be challenging for champs lge footy

laters all.

[Fife Rover]

hi all,

I had to get involved in this somewhat heated debate.

First off I am sure Rothschild are doing their jobs and will make sure they find out everything about the people behind the takeover, and before due dilligence is given. Obviously both parties have to be happy, hence why it takes so long, and from what Nicko says there are some positives from the latest round of talks. Then again I can't understand why some people have doubts about a takeover. At the end ofthe day, £10m will not even scratch the surface. Also we have one of the smallest squads in the prem, and as the Walkers trustees are not backing us, even with the £3m, it suggests they want rid, but only to a right and proper person. £3m is also nowhere near enough, and as the current trend is that clubs in and around us are being taken over, eventually we will not be able to compete. As Sparky say's he can't pull rabbits out of the hat long term. However I do think patience is the key and things will work themselves out.

I also feel that if we had been taken over before the beginning of this season we would now be challenging for Champs. Lge. footy. Which is a shame, as with players like Sidwell,Huddlestone & a few others, we would be higher up. Anyway providing we get a takeover soon into next season I am sure we will be challenging for Champs Lge footy.

laters all.

Edited by Fife Rover to make it readable.

[DanLad]

hi all,

I had to get involved in this somewhat heated debate first off am sure Rothschild are doing their jobs and will make sure they find out everything about the people behind the takeover and as such before due dilligence is given both parties have to be happy hence why it takes long and from what Nicko says there are positives from the latest round of talks then again I can't understand why some people have doubts about a takeover at the end ofthe day 10m will not even scratch the surface at the end of the day we have one of the smallest squads in the prem and as the walkers trustees are not backing even with the 3m it suggests they want rid but only to a right and proper person and at the end of the day 3m is also nowhere near enoughand as the current trend is that clubs in and around us are being taken over eventually we will not be able to compete as Sparky say's he can pull rabbits out of the hat long term but I do think patience is the key and things will work themselves out I also feel if we had been taken over before the season we would now be challenging for champs. Lge. footy shame with players like Sidwell,Huddlestone & a few others we would be higher up but anyway providing we get a takeover soon next season am sure we will be challenging for champs lge footy

laters all.

I can see your point of view, brfcrule, but I think people are worried because at the moment because we are a stable, well run club punching above our weight, but it wouldn't take much to upset the applecart. It'd only take a season of sillyness and we'd be in trouble.

I think every Rovers fan would welcome a rich benefactor, or consortium, that had Rovers best interests at heart, but it appears that the names being proposed don't fit this profile. Some of them sound quite the opposite!

I think your optimism is great, though. Very refreshing!

[blue phil]

That isn't the point though Tris. It's simply a matter of whether the trustees are carrying out JW's wishes. I'm not convinced that they are, but I wouldn't know would I, any more than anyone else.

We must presume that they are if they are bound by the terms of the trust as JW dictated it . I wouldn't have thought he would have left them too much room for manoevre .

What I've often wondered is that if they are so willing to be rid of the trust as it stands why don't they , as individuals , simply resign and make way for more willing trustees ?

The thing is ; if hardly anyone knows the terms of the trust how do we know if Walker's wishes are being respected or not ?

Having said that I'm very sceptical of anyone who would want to buy the Rovers for all number of reasons that have been mentioned and would settle for the status quo . For a club like Rovers every penny has to be wisely spent ........or saved for the days when £10 m or so might keep us afloat .

[Exiled in Toronto]

Another point worth clarifying is that the Trust's decision to seek a buyer was motivated by the fact the Trustees saw an environment with the leap in media income which did three things:

- enabled Rovers to move onto a proper business footing for the time being and more importantly

- brought potential new owners into play whom the Trust could reasonably expect would be able to support the club far better than the Trustees can, because

- whilst their previous contributions to Rovers had been critical in achieving and maintaining Premier League status, the financial numbers in the Premiership had grown far beyond anything that could have been envisaged in Jack's lifetime making the Trust feel their contribution was becoming almost irrelevant in the big picture, whilst knowing just how much would be needed if Rovers had to be bailed out if on-the-pitch performance went wrong.

Due to the lack of quotes from the Jersey-based tax specialist solicitor, Mr Egerton-Vernon, none of us know the true motivation for them wanting to sell.

Presumably, even from the view from their St Helier office window, the Trustees can see that recent purchasers of Premier League clubs have tended to fit certain profiles: Dodgy foreigners, Rich americans, Fat businessmen. Of those three groups, one seems to be laundering ill-gotten gains and two want to make money. That's the environment in which they have decided to put the club up for sale.

If we are sold, it will either be as a rich man's toy (no change there then) or an investor's punt. Neither to my kind would result in the much feared asset stripping. Rich men don't usually rip the gold taps out of their luxury yachts - not even Maxwell did that - and any investor must surely be punting on capital appreciation rather than cash flow from profits. Rovers will only appreciate by remaining in the Premier League and benefiting from its even greater global reach, so again, nor reason to worry unduly.

If the Trustees don't fancy either type of buyer, then why on earth did they put the club up for sale? Who else do they think wants to buy an EPL club? Personally, I think all this 'fit and proper' stuff is a load of cobblers.

[den]

The thing is ; if hardly anyone knows the terms of the trust how do we know if Walker's wishes are being respected or not ?

A question I have asked BP. I doubt we'll ever know the answer.

[den]

hi all,

I had to get involved in this somewhat heated debate

I hadn't noticed it getting heated brfcrule 1. It's an interesting topic where a lot of people have views, that's all.

Oh and a suggestion: Could you please use a full stop, comma or other means of breaking up your sentence? Either that or submit your posts initially to Fife for editting.

Laters.

[Fife Rover]

I hadn't noticed it getting heated brfcrule 1. It's an interesting topic where a lot of people have views, that's all.

Oh and a suggestion: Could you please use a full stop, comma or other means of breaking up your sentence? Either that or submit your posts initially to Fife for editting.

Laters.

Errrrr! Thanks, but no thanks for that Den. It only took me about half an hour to unravel what he actually meant, and to interpret with a little guesswork thrown in for good measure.

[Hasta]

My view is that Rovers are in a healthy position to maintain their top 6 ambitions and with the right signing in the middle and a little tinkering we will achieve that easily next season and maybe more.

If you think that a midfielder and a little tinkering is all we need to easily achieve top 6 then your vastly mistaken in my opinion. Performances these season have been a step backwards from last year. Although there are a few games left yet, it's fair to say that Villa and Everton have looked better than us this season. I would imagine Villa would strengthen quite a bit in the summer. Tottenham, Newcastle and City will all once again have a go at throwing silly money around.

The Man U game shouldn't mask the fact that we have looked a mid-table side in the majority of games this year. I'd suggest we need a few more players to bolster the team and squad and a rethink with regard to tactics. Even then the top 6 may be a step further away.

[nicko]

If you think that a midfielder and a little tinkering is all we need to easily achieve top 6 then your vastly mistaken in my opinion. Performances these season have been a step backwards from last year. Although there are a few games left yet, it's fair to say that Villa and Everton have looked better than us this season. I would imagine Villa would strengthen quite a bit in the summer. Tottenham, Newcastle and City will all once again have a go at throwing silly money around.

The Man U game shouldn't mask the fact that we have looked a mid-table side in the majority of games this year. I'd suggest we need a few more players to bolster the team and squad and a rethink with regard to tactics. Even then the top 6 may be a step further away.

I think it will take more than just one or two players, but that does not necessarily mean major money.

In the even longer term it does need someone with fresh ideas and a steady cash stream to keep it all propped up.

The fact is that the size of crowds will eventually cause you a problem when it comes to balancing the books.

However, properly run, there is no reason why you cannot maintain a top half position.

Maybe even win a trophy...like poor old much-maligned Souey somehow managed.