[Archived] Nickos (newer) Thread

[nicko]

See below.

"Any new owner would have to be able to support the club in the transfer market, because we want to try to move to the next level, which for us means regularly finishing in the top six.

"In the current climate, that could be a very expensive business."

JW has stated all along we would need someone with a significant amount of money. Mark Hughes also suggested some people were wasting their time talking to us....

I would like to believe Dan Williams and Nabeel Chowdery could help us out, but quite clearly they cannot!

Fair play, they were kind and generous enough to talk to you and reveal their 'dream vision', but I certainly was not opening any champagne.

Are you sure you haven't?

Your club has been looking for a buyer - your owners want to walk away with a big profit - so there are NO buyers.

Work it out yourself.

[nicko]

If it turns out to be true, can't believe we were daft enough to let Arsenal have a 50% sell on clause wiith Bentley. We really are the softest touch when it comes to transfer negotiations.

As one poster mentioned above, we now have to hope that RSC isn't too set on a move to Arsenal otherwise theoretically we could lose Bentley and RSC for a combined total of 13m if they value Rocky at 10m.

A testing few weeks ahead.

The Bentley deal was brilliant business. You have had the use of a player who has become an England international for a small fee. The fact he could be worth £17 million and you make potentially £7 million or so clear profit just confirms it was brilliant business.

If Arsenal offered you the same deal for one of their kids today would you say 'no'?

[mick]

nicko, there are strong manu ties at brfc now with ince and knox. is there any indication that rovers might be looking to old trafford to solve any of their needs through loans or otherwise?

i also do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility that manu would come in for bentley. after all, ronaldo plays very much a roving attacker and united were very successful when beckham's crosses were flying in from the right.

[rebelmswar]

and Kentucky.

I just found out to my horror that they are going to be here on Thursday in my home town. The Railhawks are being tied with them as a feeder team or some such guff, ohhh the horror.

The game on Thursday has one plus point however, if you wear an English football shirt you get two tickets free.

Every one of my employees will be going to that game with a Blackburn shirt on, as my collection now stands at 23.

I do not know who to boo more, the Railhawks for tying to such a team or the Dingles for being here.

I am sure the crime rate will spike.

[Blue n White Rover]

Nicko, any truth in the Hleb story today in The Sun. Hleb was criticising Wenger for not letting him move on and also claiming Fabregas is a greedy T**t

[nicko]

nicko, there are strong manu ties at brfc now with ince and knox. is there any indication that rovers might be looking to old trafford to solve any of their needs through loans or otherwise?

i also do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility that manu would come in for bentley. after all, ronaldo plays very much a roving attacker and united were very successful when beckham's crosses were flying in from the right.

It's possible, but Man U are trying to move out some of their fringe men just now and they would be no good to you.

The only ones who might get in your side will be in their squad. I can't think of one of their reserves who would make a difference for you.

I thought Danny Simpson might at right back, but he has disappointed.

Scholes and Giggs are always interesting thoughts, especially as they played with Paul Ince. But there is no sign that they can go yet. Fergie has a few problems to sort out first before he gets round to them.

To be fair, I don't think Bentley has ever been mentioned at Man U as a Ronaldo replacement.

[langhoblue]

Are you sure you haven't?

Your club has been looking for a buyer - your owners want to walk away with a big profit - so there are NO buyers.

Work it out yourself.

From my understanding of the club's accounts (and am happy to be shown I am wrong), the statement that the Tust want a profit is impossible. The Club owes the Trust in excess of £110 million. This debt is in the form of Loan Stock and is shown on the club's annual accounts.

Any amount taken by the Trust from a prospective sale is a drop in a very large ocean.

[nicko]

Nicko, any truth in the Hleb story today in The Sun. Hleb was criticising Wenger for not letting him move on and also claiming Fabregas is a greedy T**t

Hleb - and his agent - are trying to get out. If he goes they will try for Arshavin.

It seems Barcelona are being linked with both, so I guess Hleb's man wants to make sure his player gets the move rather than Arshavin.

Don't feel sorry for Arsenal, they squeezed Stuttgart to make them sell him in the first place. What goes around etc.

[Blackburn Ender]

John is correct.

The revealing quote is this: "Any new owner would have to be able to support the club in the transfer market, because we want to try to move to the next level, which for us means regularly finishing in the top six.

“In the current climate, that could be a very expensive business.”

Regardless of the valuation of the club - and we all accept the seller & buyer are entitled to their different opinions - they have convince the Trust they will invest sufficiently to make Rovers a regular top six club.

In today's climate, that pretty much means a new owner has to be on a par with Villa, Spurs, Everton, Portsmouth, etc, and without these club's greater commercial revenues.

No wonder we aren't being sold!

And remember Nicko, the Trust cannot walk away from their obligation to Rovers. So that leaves us reasonably well protected, doesn't it?

[nicko]

From my understanding of the club's accounts (and am happy to be shown I am wrong), the statement that the Tust want a profit is impossible. The Club owes the Trust in excess of £110 million. This debt is in the form of Loan Stock and is shown on the club's annual accounts.

Any amount taken by the Trust from a prospective sale is a drop in a very large ocean.

As I understand it the equation is 'what the club is worth' less 'what we have put in.'

The 'what we have put in' is based on more recent figures. I don't know exactly what time-frame. I don't think it includes the £110 million figure you mention. But I don't know what they are basing their figures on.

If they say that £50 million is 'reasonable' they are probably working on that equation rather than the £110 million you mention.

[roversmum]

The American relatives are ready to meet Burnley..............

[nicko]

John is correct.

The revealing quote is this: "Any new owner would have to be able to support the club in the transfer market, because we want to try to move to the next level, which for us means regularly finishing in the top six.

"In the current climate, that could be a very expensive business."

Regardless of the valuation of the club - and we all accept the seller & buyer are entitled to their different opinions - they have convince the Trust they will invest sufficiently to make Rovers a regular top six club.

In today's climate, that pretty much means a new owner has to be on a par with Villa, Spurs, Everton, Portsmouth, etc, and without these club's greater commercial revenues.

No wonder we aren't being sold!

And remember Nicko, the Trust cannot walk away from their obligation to Rovers. So that leaves us reasonably well protected, doesn't it?

The Trustees - through their key employee at the club and the local paper - have just said Rovers ARE for sale and named a 'reasonable' figure.

It is more than anyone else is prepared to offer right now.

As I said, no-one knows what Ronnie or Chowdery had/have up their sleeve for future signings.

It has not got to that stage yet.

But you would think any bidder would take that into consideration when buying.

Why buy if you cannot improve what you are buying? It does not make sense.

[philipl]

The money from the Trust and Jack walker before them is now in ordinary shares- all £140m of them.

So the club would have to be sold with a one in front of the numbers Nicko is talking about for the current owners to make a profit.

I believe the business people who have talked to Rothschilds have queered the pitch so to speak. they were so busy looking at the value of the Rovers' land that the Trustees decided to protect their interests by deciding to ask commercial value for Rovers' fixed assets which are in the £40 to £50m range.

I will worry about any prospective new owner who does not see the Rovers as a prospective £100m+ play.

[thenodrog]

The values of the player/players in the swap would still be included in the sale price - and Arsenal would get their slice.

There is no way round it.

Yes there is .... inform his agent and David Bentley that you expect him to stay until his current contract runs out in 3 years time.

17m is nearer my valuation from a month or so ago when half this board wanted to take the immature cm based attitude for 10m I'd snatch their hands off and that'll teach him! But if nicko is correct then which current English international (widely proclaimed as the new Beckham rem) could we get for £7m?

Following the above route would see us keep a damned good player that we could not replace at the money and Spurs and the Arse would be over a barrell. Spurs may pay even more if they can off load their cast offs and Arsenal may just decide to take less now rather than nothing in a few seasons.... or even do a deal with a player. The only downside is that it might sour our relations with the Arse for years to come. BUT business is business and it's time to play hardball.

[gumboots]

The Bentley deal was brilliant business. You have had the use of a player who has become an England international for a small fee. The fact he could be worth £17 million and you make potentially £7 million or so clear profit just confirms it was brilliant business.

If Arsenal offered you the same deal for one of their kids today would you say 'no'?

Of course not. However, the problem with what you post on here and our different reactions to it is that you are relatively impersonal. It's not your club so, whilst you might quite like it and most of us as you know us on here, you don't have the emotional investment in it. We, however, are fans and anything that looks like our club is not getting the best of any deal really upsets us. That's why we are often underwhelmed by what you think might be good news. It's why when you say it's interesting we say HELP! It's why you don't always get the response you might expect even from relatively mild posters. We want good news like people leaving our best players alone or them desperately wanting to stay at Rovers. We want players in we can't currently afford. We want some philanthropist with oodles of cash to invest in our club and do great things for us without changing the ethos we perceive ourselves as having now. We know it's never going to happen but your realism stops us dreaming, and so we react badly or negatively.

[nicko]

The revealing quote is this: "Any new owner would have to be able to support the club in the transfer market, because we want to try to move to the next level, which for us means regularly finishing in the top six."

their obligation to Rovers. So that leaves us reasonably well protected, doesn't it?

To take another look at the current situation...take the word 'new' out of the quote above.

And then ask are the current owners supporting enough? £3 million is a fine gesture.

But if someone came in to buy the club right now and said they were putting in £3 million for signings you would mock them.

Funny that.

[mick]

i did not mean to imply that he was a replacement rather in addition to ronaldo. bentley does track back quite well and has much more pace than beckham ever had. the only draw back is the lack of a serios aerial threat to meet the ball.in open play...perhaps ronaldo in a more central role. if united paid over the top for carrick then the bentley price tag would not deter the reds.

[langhoblue]

As I understand it the equation is 'what the club is worth' less 'what we have put in.'

The 'what we have put in' is based on more recent figures. I don't know exactly what time-frame. I don't think it includes the £110 million figure you mention. But I don't know what they are basing their figures on.

If they say that £50 million is 'reasonable' they are probably working on that equation rather than the £110 million you mention.

Yes but criticising the Trustees for wanting to take money out of any sale totally misses the point that they are NEVER going to see a return on the monies put into the club since Jack passed away. The fact is that the Walker Trust have supported our club financially for many years to a huge extent - something that is never likely to be repeated unfortunately.

Am not trying to cause an arguement but just think that to also critice them for not revealing who the potential interest is from is also wrong - it's not good business practice for multi-million pound transactions to be played out in the tabloids is it?

[nicko]

Of course not. However, the problem with what you post on here and our different reactions to it is that you are relatively impersonal. It's not your club so, whilst you might quite like it and most of us as you know us on here, you don't have the emotional investment in it. We, however, are fans and anything that looks like our club is not getting the best of any deal really upsets us. That's why we are often underwhelmed by what you think might be good news. It's why when you say it's interesting we say HELP! It's why you don't always get the response you might expect even from relatively mild posters. We want good news like people leaving our best players alone or them desperately wanting to stay at Rovers. We want players in we can't currently afford. We want some philanthropist with oodles of cash to invest in our club and do great things for us without changing the ethos we perceive ourselves as having now. We know it's never going to happen but your realism stops us dreaming, and so we react badly or negatively.

I meant that when Rovers signed Bentley and accepted a 50 per cent sell-on...THAT was brilliant business. Someone suggestes it was a 'soft' thing to do. It wasn't. Arsenal demanded it, it's worked out for both.

I'll say again - if Arsenal offered you a similar deal today you would snatch their hands off.

In fact the Bentley buy with a sell-on was as good a piece of business as any Premier club has done in recent memory.

Life goes on. If an unhappy player wants to go and you can make a profit for those who DO want to play for you then that TOO is brilliant business.

[thenodrog]

The Bentley deal was brilliant business. You have had the use of a player who has become an England international for a small fee. The fact he could be worth £17 million and you make potentially £7 million or so clear profit just confirms it was brilliant business.

If Arsenal offered you the same deal for one of their kids today would you say 'no'?

Exactly. And if we had known of this when he came we'd be quite comfortable about it now. It's only cos this has just been made known to us after months expecting 15-20m that it grates somewhat. Anyway keep him now as Hughes and Ince certainly wanted to do from their perspective of being 'in the know' and knowing that selling him would only net about 5-7 mill.

[hawkiiz]

nobody knows WHO the trustees are, but how many are they?? any clue?

i think they are obligated to find a buyer that can bring jacks visions further. they are not "allowed" to sell to anyone. thats part of why it takes time, right?

who is the most valued player after rocky and bentley?

[nicko]

Yes but criticising the Trustees for wanting to take money out of any sale totally misses the point that they are NEVER going to see a return on the monies put into the club since Jack passed away. The fact is that the Walker Trust have supported our club financially for many years to a huge extent - something that is never likely to be repeated unfortunately.

Am not trying to cause an arguement but just think that to also critice them for not revealing who the potential interest is from is also wrong - it's not good business practice for multi-million pound transactions to be played out in the tabloids is it?

I'm not criticising them for asking for more money...I am saying THAT is the stumbling block to any deal and NOT what bidders have left in their wallets.

That reality seems to be dawning on people. It is probably why there have been moans and maybe why the Trustees have chosen this time to get their money out.

Football's business is played out in public. People obviously want to know what is going on - which is good. People react to those feelings - like the anti-Allardyce thing - and that is also good.

You SHOULD know what is happening at your club.

[John]

Are you sure you haven't?

Your club has been looking for a buyer - your owners want to walk away with a big profit - so there are NO buyers.

Work it out yourself.

Club is looking for a buyer who has a significant amount of money to move us forward. JW also says they want equity, not debt.

It appears to me that you get far too excited when a wannabe owner like Williams or Chodrey speaks to you about their plans. Does not mean they are right to take over our club, just because they register an interest.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you letting us know....

[gumboots]

I meant that when Rovers signed Bentley and accepted a 50 per cent sell-on...THAT was brilliant business. Someone suggestes it was a 'soft' thing to do. It wasn't. Arsenal demanded it, it's worked out for both.

I'll say again - if Arsenal offered you a similar deal today you would snatch their hands off.

In fact the Bentley buy with a sell-on was as good a piece of business as any Premier club has done in recent memory.

Life goes on. If an unhappy player wants to go and you can make a profit for those who DO want to play for you then that TOO is brilliant business.

I know what you meant. that's why i said of course not in answer to your question would we turn down a similar deal again. I know it was good business but as a fan it hurts to see them get so much for a player they didn't want and could do nothing much with at the time.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Not sure what formation Ince will make us play come the start of the season, i did read on the 606 MK Dons page he did play with 5 midfield and one up front.

I'm expecting Benni Mac to find some form again, i think Hughes did play him slightly too deep he is a finisher and he really needs to be making runs towards goal.

If we can get a decent attacking midfielder who can make those creative passes and make forward runs into the box i think we can play a 4-4-2. This season teams knew most of our creativity to the forwards came from the wings so they were able to shut us down, but if we have someone in the middle who can create at the same time it would give the opposition something to think about and could make us a pretty deadly proposition to face. It would be hard for them to shut down both the middle and the wings.

Vogel showed last season he has the quality, if we can offload Mokoena or bring a proper defensive midfielder a 4-4-2 can be solid.

I also think Roque does play better in a 4-4-2 though he can play the lone striker role as well.

The key for me is that attacking midfielder option, if we get some real quaility there we could have some serious firepower and creativity from more than one source.