[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[DE.]

Everton are a great example of a football club the way it should be. The fans are great, the chairman is great, the football is great, the manager is great, the players are great................enough said!

No big money involved there!

As aforementioned, they spent 15M alone on Fellaini this year.

In 07/08 they spent 4M on Jagielka, 6M on Baines, 11.25M on Yakubu, 1M on Gosling and 2.2M on Pienaar. Their outgoing transfers totalled around 9M, all of which apparently went back into transfers.

We could only dream of having that kind of cash to spend.

[mellison24]

Any investor asks himself one simple question: Can the club I am buying grow substantially over the next few years to enable me to have a club a lot more valuable than the one I am have now?. Notts County? The oldest club in the world, great history and one of two clubs in a massive catchment area. The answer here has to be yes. It wouldnt take much for County to be the largest wage bill in League 2 and not much more to be mixing it in League 1. The buyers are probably aiming for a Championship team in a few years with gates to sustain it. At this level the investors will be able to pull out money in the form of dividends and sit on an asset worth more than they paid.

Rovers? Well what do you think? Do you think that the Rovers could become significantly bigger than they are now, in terms of revenue earned from Champions League football or higher league placings? The answer I am afraid, is probably not. The CL is a remote possibility but only that. Cup runs and Europa adventures are glorious for fans but make hardly any money for owners.

So unless you disagree with that prognosis, you should be down on your knees praying that your prediction that Rovers 'wont be taken over in the next 10 years' is true. Barring a billionaire benefactor waking up tomorrow and deciding he supports the Rovers, the only reason someone would buy us would be to asset strip it. And that is exactly what the Trustees are there to prevent.

At last the voice of reason! I agree whole heartedly iamarover, we should wait for a few more clubs to crash and then reflect on why staying away from people who want "Play things", our club is precisely that, OUR's, not someone who wants to mortgage us up to the hilt or have a dabble, we have a sound board, a great CEO and a sound business, we should leave it that way unless someone can offer something remarkable, i.e. A true fan / supporter made good!

Too bleeding right!!! I was sceptical of Dan Williams as he was not BASED here, which is vital IMO. I think the owner needs to be in attendance at every game and basically do what the manager says (within reason). I like the idea of what Ebbsfleet Utd have done and all fans are shareholders. All fans decide via polls the signings, sales and sackings etc. I don't think this could happen with rovers, but something similar should be in place so that the fans get what they want. Having said that, it went badly when most rejected Big Sam last summer......(me included ashamedly)

[john-rover]

fellani £15m

yakubu £12

jagelka £4

simon davies was £4m

beattie 6m

saha and leighton baines undisclosed,

and i cant rally thing of them having any big sales, so they do spend alot of money,

[Bazzanotsogreat]

How much did both of them cost?

26.5 million rising to around 28million (apperence based)

[ni_rover]

Ok ok enough said!

[T4E]

and i cant rally thing of them having any big sales, so they do spend alot of money,

...........he goes by the name of Wayne Rooney

[ni_rover]

...........he goes by the name of Wayne Rooney

Respect!

[Bazzanotsogreat]

...........he goes by the name of Wayne Rooney

Twas 4 seasons ago though.

They spent the vast bulk of that on the likes of Beatie, Yobo, Davies, Neville etc

Since then they have spent of Min of 60 million in the past three seasons

[ni_rover]

Doesn't matter when it was.

[T4E]

Doesn't matter when it was.

It absolutely does matter. I was just pointing out that they have sold players for big money.

Twas 4 seasons ago though.

They spent the vast bulk of that on the likes of Beatie, Yobo, Davies, Neville etc

Since then they have spent of Min of 60 million in the past three seasons

Totally agree - their net spend IS high.

[ni_rover]

[gumboots]

Everton are a great example of a football club the way it should be. The fans are great, the chairman is great, the football is great, the manager is great, the players are great................enough said!

No big money involved there!

Can I take issue on the quality of their football too. It's sometimes quite good but they are still good at nicking a goal and keeping it tight or vice versa. Exciting they are, for the most part, not.

[ni_rover]

They have improved vastly and are a danger to any opponent!

[Iceman]

We should just take the For Sale sign off then. If we can continue to be a premiership club, without the backing of a millionaire or billionaire then we should just continue with what we are doing. My take on this is that the trustees want to sell to the right buyer, without the risk of that buyer crippling the club as Ashley did with Newcastle. I think for most of the fans, its more a case of feeling left out at not being owned by some rich guy. The sad reality is that, a takeover will not happen anytime soon and the club just has to continue to find ways to keep the club at the highest level. However saying all that, we have to be careful that we dont fall far behind the rest in terms of competing. If you look at the plight of Leeds and Southampton, then we have to recognise the achievement of the club in continuing to improve against all odds year in and year out. If any potential buyer cant see the way in which the club is being run on a daily basis, then they dont deserve to own Rovers.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

What is it that you are not grasping?

They sold Rooney for 20 million + add ons ( 10 million spread over about 4-5 years). They spent over the money they recouped from the sale of Rooney the next season (25-30 million). This was 4 years ago.

Since then they have spent over 20 million for the past 3-4 seasons. On players such as Yakubu, Johnson & Felliani.

They are a good club & have a really good manager. However, if Hughes or Allardyce had 20 million a season to spend on transfers and a wage budget 10 million higher than ours- then I would expect Rovers to be reaching the same heights as Everton.

[roversmad95]

and i cant rally thing of them having any big sales, so they do spend alot of money,

they sold andy johnson for about 10 million to fulham.....

[iamarover]

But we aren't living in the old world with old world metrics, we've discovered electricity and something called TV and Internet so the catchment area is now the Globe not the A666 and surrounds. We need a brand and then go out and get our share of the 6.7 billion folk. And by the way, we aren't selling because we are asking for too much, nothing to do with the state of the town.

You miss the point entirely. Rovers' £56m in the last accounts came from the following: Gates £6m, TV/Media £41m Commercial £9m. The club have (rightly) given up on growing the £6m gates. There just arent enough folk around to grow that. And at just above 10% of revenue it is worth sacrificing a couple of percentage points for a roaring crowd. Two places gained by said crowd gains us 25% of our gate revenue in Tv Media placings. So given Gates cant increase, and that TV is at a max (our placing is roughly as high as we dare think - maybe a couple more but not CL levels) then that leaves your suggestion of Commercial revenues by creating a Global brand.

No. Rovers will never be a global brand., And better marketing brains that you have already concluded that, Global status will be limited to half a dozen or so names and that will be it. Everton and Sheff Utd anongst others have tried. And failed. And if you go to the Far East you will see why. It's like launching Vimto into Coke's Atlanta heartland.

the idea of a Global football brands is starting to look a bit sick with the Scousers who came up with your idea around four ideas. And where Liverpool have spectacularly failed, you can by sure BRFC will not even get off the launch pad. Nor should they.

So. The Trustees are not asking too much. They are asking for sanity. They are duty bound, although as individuals they are probably regretting this, to disregard the price and look at the business plan. The business plan, as I have just outlined, involves losing large amounts of money because you are a Rover. There is simply no 'business' to grow. Alternatively the prospective buyer must propose to break even as the Trustees have done, and then prepared to being abused on this board by people like you because they don't want to throw good money into 4,000 large holes in Blackburn Lancashire.

Everton are a great example of a football club the way it should be. The fans are great, the chairman is great, the football is great, the manager is great, the players are great................enough said!

No big money involved there!

And the difference with the Rovers is....? what exactly?

Oh yes. Two major trophies in the last 15 years.

no further questions your honour

[Ronin]

What is it that you are not grasping?

They sold Rooney for 20 million + add ons ( 10 million spread over about 4-5 years). They spent over the money they recouped from the sale of Rooney the next season (25-30 million). This was 4 years ago.

Since then they have spent over 20 million for the past 3-4 seasons. On players such as Yakubu, Johnson & Felliani.

They are a good club & have a really good manager. However, if Hughes or Allardyce had 20 million a season to spend on transfers and a wage budget 10 million higher than ours- then I would expect Rovers to be reaching the same heights as Everton.

According to an Everton supporting mate, some of those addons (not sure if they were additional extras or included in the original package) included X amount of £££ whenever Man U won anything since they signed Rooney. I think season just gone was the last of that cash, so it'd be interesting to see how and what they do during the summer.

And there were rumours of Everton being remortgaged a few times to find the funds for player. If that's the case, they are a good model on the pitch, but off the pitch, I'm not too sure.

[chocky]

You miss the point entirely. Rovers' £56m in the last accounts came from the following: Gates £6m, TV/Media £41m Commercial £9m. The club have (rightly) given up on growing the £6m gates. There just arent enough folk around to grow that. And at just above 10% of revenue it is worth sacrificing a couple of percentage points for a roaring crowd. Two places gained by said crowd gains us 25% of our gate revenue in Tv Media placings. So given Gates cant increase, and that TV is at a max (our placing is roughly as high as we dare think - maybe a couple more but not CL levels) then that leaves your suggestion of Commercial revenues by creating a Global brand.

No. Rovers will never be a global brand., And better marketing brains that you have already concluded that, Global status will be limited to half a dozen or so names and that will be it. Everton and Sheff Utd anongst others have tried. And failed. And if you go to the Far East you will see why. It's like launching Vimto into Coke's Atlanta heartland.

the idea of a Global football brands is starting to look a bit sick with the Scousers who came up with your idea around four ideas. And where Liverpool have spectacularly failed, you can by sure BRFC will not even get off the launch pad. Nor should they.

So. The Trustees are not asking too much. They are asking for sanity. They are duty bound, although as individuals they are probably regretting this, to disregard the price and look at the business plan. The business plan, as I have just outlined, involves losing large amounts of money because you are a Rover. There is simply no 'business' to grow. Alternatively the prospective buyer must propose to break even as the Trustees have done, and then prepared to being abused on this board by people like you because they don't want to throw good money into 4,000 large holes in Blackburn Lancashire.

And the difference with the Rovers is....? what exactly?

Oh yes. Two major trophies in the last 15 years.

no further questions your honour

Very good post iamarover...at last somebody else realises that the Rovers trust are not just being tight and mean with the fund but are, in fact, looking after Rovers long term interests...Whch is also why they won't sell to the first person who comes along with a promise to try to buy the Rovers...

[TimmyJimmy]

... You miss the point entirely ...

... and better marketing brains that you have already concluded that ...

... Alternatively the prospective buyer must propose to break even as the Trustees have done, and then prepared to being abused on this board by people like you ...

OK that's quite interesting but I think your caustic tone is completely uncalled for.

1) this is a message board for people to give their opinions, I'm entitled to mine without being ridiculed

2) You have absolutely no idea who I am but rather than rise to the bait I can tell you in no uncertain terms that your second point is ridiculous but then I think it helps us that we don't know each other and clearly move in different circles

3) I don't like taking abuse so I don't give it, check out my posts and point out where you think that is not so. I am frequently upset by the attitudes of people and I criticise their attitudes but never them (knowingly).

Regarding the trustees I have said that if they don't want to invest then I respect that but get behind us or get out of our way. The price IS too high because we are not sold, QED. If I buy the club for say 70 million then I'm 70m out of pocket and the trustees are up 70m. If I buy the club for 10m and sign up to invest 60m in the transfer pot then I'm still down 70m but now the business plan looks great so why would the trustees not look at it? maybe because they only clear 10m. So the view that says we are not overpriced and it's all about business plans and Jacks Will looks a bit creaky. Maybe just maybe the trustees are actually looking for too much FOR THE TRUST - perhaps.

As an aside, if you play those numbers out then I'm a really happy bunny because I'm parting with cash but bolstering my own business so I should be fighting off others with a stick under that scenario. Also a club that had a year one player budget of 60m would cause a bit of a splash and if that couldn't be used to kick start a branding campaign then there's something wrong. At a minimum it buys you a great shot of getting into the Champion League then it's mostly self financing from that point forward.

I encourage you to tear the above apart but please don't descend in vitriolic assumptions about my intellectual capacity or business acumen.

[gumboots]

They have improved vastly and are a danger to any opponent!

Oh, they are effective yes. i just have issues with the idea that they play great football as the original post said. Without Arteta they have very little creativity and are no better than average in the excitement stakes. However, because they win that excites their fans and i don't blame them for getting excited about that. As I've said countless times winning creates its own excitement.

[JAL]

I cant accept the statement iamarover that there is no business to grow it all sounds very negative.

This line suggests that all avenues have been explored and exhausted and now they feel that there is nothing more to achieve.

Surely with the human resources that a club the size of Blackburn Rovers can attract, thats including fans worldwide with the many skills they have to offer, should or could with a lot of good hard work and leadership and coordination be able to provide the support to achieve and sustain the ambitions of a succesful premier league football club.

For me the board/trust cant do it all on their own especially for demanding fans like myself, surely they should be calling on all the support they can muster rather than just thinking of everybody as a paying customer in a financial numbers game.

For me looking at increasing revenues could the club not improve the lottery and delete the clubs name from it, thus allowing to take it out to a wider areas and awider audience than just Blackburn and its supporters.

A full bouyant Ewood Park with good football and goals will win the hearts and minds of many a neutral supporter globally and nationally.

Arte et Labore.

[iamarover]

OK that's quite interesting but I think your caustic tone is completely uncalled for.

1) this is a message board for people to give their opinions, I'm entitled to mine without being ridiculed

2) You have absolutely no idea who I am but rather than rise to the bait I can tell you in no uncertain terms that your second point is ridiculous but then I think it helps us that we don't know each other and clearly move in different circles

3) I don't like taking abuse so I don't give it, check out my posts and point out where you think that is not so. I am frequently upset by the attitudes of people and I criticise their attitudes but never them (knowingly).

I encourage you to tear the above apart but please don't descend in vitriolic assumptions about my intellectual capacity or business acumen.

OK fair enough. My tone on reflection is a tad aggressive. Hand held high. It's all that Burnley promotion stuff which sets the sap rising. But my point stands. We just can\t dream about a global brand and all that. There just is no money in it. In Singapore our fan club is a princely 12. It just riles me when people slag off the group of people who outside Jack Walker have done more than anyone to hold the club together in difficult times. So maybe you took the shot for everyone else's ridiculous rantings. Arte et Labore my friend

[Exiled in Toronto]

OK fair enough. My tone on reflection is a tad aggressive. Hand held high. It's all that Burnley promotion stuff which sets the sap rising. But my point stands. We just can\t dream about a global brand and all that. There just is no money in it. In Singapore our fan club is a princely 12. It just riles me when people slag off the group of people who outside Jack Walker have done more than anyone to hold the club together in difficult times. So maybe you took the shot for everyone else's ridiculous rantings. Arte et Labore my friend

Personally, I think all the vitriol thrown on here at the 'sellers' by the 'non-sellers' should be directed at the highy renumerated Chairman and also the Trustees, all of whom seem to think that a) it's a good idea to sell the club, and that it can be sold. Otherwise they would not have it up for sale.

I thought the point was that the global brand is the cartel aka the Premier League, of which we are (currently) a member. Most owners of such members see the benefit as being long term capital appreciation for their toy - which history has demonstrated through the rising selling prices of clubs over the last 10 years or so.

Edwards the butcher's lad made a fortune, the Irish stable lads made a fortune, the West Ham pre Egghead bloke made a fortune, Ken Bates made a fortune, I would imagine the pre-foreigners owners of Pompey did OK, Makin at City made a fortune etc etc. Capital values have shot up even though annual profits still remain miniscule.

It's only the stand-alone club brands such as Man Yoo down to Spurs who can realistically look to make good annual profits, so obviously that inflates their capital value over the rest of us who tend to break even if lucky.

But even little old, no-growth, crap location Rovers can realistically hope to be worth more in the future as India's and China's billions buy their first tellies and start to watch the EPL. The question then comes back to today's selling price where I tend to agree with Timmy.

The Tustees have been great for us in the past, but quite clearly have no intention of doing the same in the future. I agree with them that, since they ain't going to pee any more, it's time to get off the pot. Personally, I think they are setting their selling price based on getting back virtually all of the cash put in since Jack's demise rather than on what the market will bear.

[Tris]

But even little old, no-growth, crap location Rovers can realistically hope to be worth more in the future as India's and China's billions buy their first tellies and start to watch the EPL. The question then comes back to today's selling price where I tend to agree with Timmy.

Surely you contradict yourself immediately -

The Tustees have been great for us in the past, but quite clearly have no intention of doing the same in the future. I agree with them that, since they ain't going to pee any more, it's time to get off the pot. Personally, I think they are setting their selling price based on getting back virtually all of the cash put in since Jack's demise rather than on what the market will bear.

In a league where TV rights are collective ... and where Livepool and Man Utd's annual interest payments alone are not far short of the asking price to buy BRFC outright ... the argument about the billions in India and China watching on TV falls down immediately. The selling price has nothing to do with the lack of a successful buyer to date. Jack's instructions to safeguard the club have everything to do with it.