[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[modes98]

To clear it up the ignore feature will not stop you seeing peoples quoted posts.

However this is the takeover thread so please stay on topic guys. Discuss the massive billion pound takeover that's not about to happen.

[Guest Vinjay606]

Once again and I don't know how many times this has to be said the club would not be for sale with no chance of a takeover.

[mellison24]

Once again and I don't know how many times this has to be said the club would not be for sale with no chance of a takeover.

No **** sherlock!!

Personally, i think that if a takeover happens then thats only good if the person/consortium has only the good of our club in his/her/their thoughts. Otherwise, i would NOT welcome a takeover at all. We are well run at the moment and are (just) staying afloat.

And if Vinjay could be banned, maybe the whole site would be a pleasure to read again? I loved this site when i first began posting, but since Vinjay has come on (or 'returned' as is evident from other posters comments) it has become an AWFUL read. if Vinjay could stay on this thread and never post on any other thread ever, i'd be very greatful.

[67splitscreen]

Been away for the weekend.

It's all very quiet.

Has he gone.

[67splitscreen]

You can tell this thread has long gone stale! Can we rename it to "Where's Vinjay? (who gives a monkies)"

I was just wondering if he had been put on gardening leave, as I have not read a post over the weekends back log.

[DE.]

He was put on watch. Hasn't posted much since then.

[67splitscreen]

He was put on watch. Hasn't posted much since then.

Ahhhhhh!. I hear the birds singing again.

[modes98]

On topic please folks.

[Hughesy]

There is no takeover modes.....

[Exiled in Toronto]

We'll not be signing any of the players mentioned in the 127 page Sam's transfer targets thread either.

I don't know if it was only me that found the messageboard swarming of Vinjay distasteful.

[Guest Vinjay606]

It's been done before. Wasn't Wolverhampton Wanderers listed on ebay a few years ago?

Got them some publicity and takeover hasn't gone too badly for them since then.

[modes98]

There is no takeover modes.....

Add a post in another topic then 106 pages!

I would suspect there will be some stories this summer of takeovers and then nothing will happen. Then a multi-billionaire will buy us and spend all his fortune on making us the best team in the world....

[sweet]

I guess a take-over would be exciting but we'd just end up like Citeh for the foreseeable future if it did happen. Sign a star or two and not really get anywhere. If Citeh are the richest club in the world yet can only achieve a mid-table in the Premier League in their first season or two then it speaks volumes at the length of stable time needed to even compete with the top 4.

It's one thing having the money to attract players but if you don't have the Liverpool/Man Utd pull factor then there's not much hope.

I'm off to slit my wrists.

We have been achieving top 6 or battling for a top 6 place in the last few seasons, without a takeover. If Allardyce had been here from the start we would probably be aiming for a top 6 again this season, judging by current form and above city. If we did get a take over, with the right manager, I see no reason why we couldnt aim for atleast 4th or 5th in the league, considering our recent history.

[BrownieFC]

The problem is you have to be very lucky and get a red roman or a abu dabi

Most take overs are the ones like at Man U or Liverfool the people who have bought the club are there to make money yes the club being succesful will bring in more revnue for the owners but there not willing to shell out there own personal fortune on the club they just get more loans and get the club into more debt and that would be the worse thing in the world for rovers.

[Stuart]

The problem is you have to be very lucky and get a red roman or a abu dabi

Most take overs are the ones like at Man U or Liverfool the people who have bought the club are there to make money yes the club being succesful will bring in more revnue for the owners but there not willing to shell out there own personal fortune on the club they just get more loans and get the club into more debt and that would be the worse thing in the world for rovers.

Good post.

That, in my view, is the reason not to rush to get just anyone in for the club. I'm sure there'd be plenty of business types happy to mortgage the club and asset strip things like Brockhall. At least the trust were/are only looking to do this on the playing staff side.

The most annoying thing is the Glazers of this world put all the risk of failure on the club and would no doubt bail out, if things went pear-shaped, with their personal fortune intact.

[Guest Vinjay606]

Good post.

That, in my view, is the reason not to rush to get just anyone in for the club. I'm sure there'd be plenty of business types happy to mortgage the club and asset strip things like Brockhall. At least the trust were/are only looking to do this on the playing staff side.

Yes at least it's only chronic underfunding that could have led to disaster this season. Though I suppose we can credit them (and it's the only thing I'll credit them for) is ordering the sacking of Ince.

Due to the billion or so supposed terms and conditions in the circumstances of a sale so many have made reference to on here there should be no reason to worry about asset strippers.

It would make more sense to buy a lower league side located on prime London estate, asset strip them and sell the land.

[Stuart]

Yes at least it's only chronic underfunding that could have led to disaster this season. Though I suppose we can credit them (and it's the only thing I'll credit them for) is ordering the sacking of Ince.

Due to the billion or so supposed terms and conditions in the circumstances of a sale so many have made reference to on here there should be no reason to worry about asset strippers.

It would make more sense to buy a lower league side located on prime London estate, asset strip them and sell the land.

So you'd advocate selling the club right now to the highest bidder then? Well I make no apology for disagreeing with you.

For now it's better the devil you know than the potential Mike Ashley you don't. At least our devils let the football people make the footballing decisions.

[Guest Vinjay606]

So you'd advocate selling the club right now to the highest bidder then? Well I make no apology for disagreeing with you.

For now it's better the devil you know than the potential Mike Ashley you don't. At least our devils let the football people make the footballing decisions.

I would rather the owners keep it at a fixed price rather than auction it.

If the terms and conditions of a sale are in such depth (according to some self proclaimed financial experts on here) then apparently we have nothing to worry about in terms of who takes over.

One thing's for sure it would take dreadfully bad luck to get worse owners.

[BiggusLaddus]

One thing's for sure it would take dreadfully bad luck to get worse owners.

Pompy and West Ham both have 'new' owners who spent way beyond their means (not just in football), totally overextended themselves and may be in very serious trouble next season because of it. Newcastle have a new owner who pumped in a fortune to clear the debts, then allowed himself to be advised by idiots and then gave up on the club. Liverpool have owners who publicly shame the club, spend no money whatsoever and even draw salaries of over £1m each out of the club. Manchester City had a new owner who very nearly took them under after his money was seized. Even the much lauded Red Roman has made Chelsea massively insolvent and relient on his money, but now seems to be getting bored with them.

There must be some very unlucky people working at these clubs Vinjay.

[American]

Liverpool have owners who ... spend no money whatsoever

Bullshit.

Edit: I should elaborate. They spend money, it's just their manager chooses to overspend it on players that he then plays out of their natural position and tactics.

[Guest Vinjay606]

Pompy and West Ham both have 'new' owners who spent way beyond their means (not just in football), totally overextended themselves and may be in very serious trouble next season because of it. Newcastle have a new owner who pumped in a fortune to clear the debts, then allowed himself to be advised by idiots and then gave up on the club. Liverpool have owners who publicly shame the club, spend no money whatsoever and even draw salaries of over £1m each out of the club. Manchester City had a new owner who very nearly took them under after his money was seized. Even the much lauded Red Roman has made Chelsea massively insolvent and relient on his money, but now seems to be getting bored with them.

There must be some very unlucky people working at these clubs Vinjay.

Maybe people should make their minds up. One minute they are saying the fit and proper conditions of a sale (not the so called EPL ones those supposedly outlined in the trust) would guarantee a better owner next minute it's doomsday.

Portsmouth are apparently confident of a takeover in the summer and claim they aren't in trouble regardless. Also they turned down the Ramon Vega consortium as they didn't believe it was right for the club.

West Ham also have been in takeover discussions and the debt is the owners not theirs.

Newcastle's owner had the right motives but made the mistake of pandering to the fans in the first place then reversing that philosophy.

Manchester City already have different owners. Not a current situation. It's the EPL who should never have allowed that Shinawatra deal.

As for Chelsea prove Abramovich is bored. How can you say he's worse than the Walkers? That's laughable.

None of those owners are ideal (though unlike the Walkers they had ambition) and the club would be unfortunate to get such types (aside from someone like Abramovich that I would be very pleased with and briefly thought the club was getting with the Mamut link)

I can bring up the quotes from Egerton Vernon in 2000 again to prove what they claimed is very different to what has been the policy since then.

[Billy Castell]

[BiggusLaddus]

Bullshit.

Edit: I should elaborate. They spend money, it's just their manager chooses to overspend it on players that he then plays out of their natural position and tactics.

Their own money, or money generated by the club? If it is their own money I will take it back.

[BiggusLaddus]

Maybe people should make their minds up. One minute they are saying the fit and proper conditions of a sale (not the so called EPL ones those supposedly outlined in the trust) would guarantee a better owner next minute it's doomsday.

Sod off gobby. I am me, not 'people' and I have never said that. I was replying to your flippant remark that we would have to be extremely unlucky to get worse owners than the ones we currently have. Our current owners inject little or no money into the club. There are many other clubs whose owners cost them money or overspend to the point of financial disaster, if that is what you would prefer for this club then I suspect you will be a very small (minded) minority.

The point about Abramovich is that Chelsea are now totally reliant on his money to stay afloat. He has recently been spending far less money than he has in the past and Chelsea have now slipped from back to back titles to 3rd in the league. Either he can't afford to put more money into the club or he doesn't have the inclination to do so at the moment. Seems to me that he may be getting bored. If he starts spending untold millions again when Ancelotti comes in then I will revise that opinion.

[Guest Vinjay606]

Abramovich putting less money in obviously has more to do with his financial losses (as many billionnaires have suffered) than lack of commitment.