[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[RevidgeBlue]

I am led to believe that the biggest sticking point is future investment, the trust are willing to sell but will not sell to anyone who cannot guarantee investment over a number of years, this was one of the safeguards that Jack put in place before he died. The trustees can of course try and remove these safeguards but that would need every single beneficiary of Jack's will agreeing to the changes and that is not likely to happen.

Can no-one else see the glaring anomaly here?

We're asked to believe that the Trustees won't sell to anyone not prepared to put in a certain level of investment over a prolonged period, whilst in the meantime not being prepared to put in a penny themselves!

It would be quite funny if it weren't so serious.

Btw if Jack did actually put in safeguards re: investment etc. then surely the Trustees must be in breach of those obligations themselves by completely withdrawing support.

[den]

Btw if Jack did actually put in safeguards re: investment etc. then surely the Trustees must be in breach of those obligations themselves by completely withdrawing support.

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say all day Rev. I was told that nothing is in writing regarding Jack's wishes. As Paul said above, we don't know that for certain, but the man who told me, would be as sure to know, as anyone outside the trustees.

If nothing happens regarding a buy out in the next 6 months, the future is really bleak. It might be bleak anyway.

[Guest Kamy100]

Can no-one else see the glaring anomaly here?

We're asked to believe that the Trustees won't sell to anyone not prepared to put in a certain level of investment over a prolonged period, whilst in the meantime not being prepared to put in a penny themselves!

It would be quite funny if it weren't so serious.

Btw if Jack did actually put in safeguards re: investment etc. then surely the Trustees must be in breach of those obligations themselves by completely withdrawing support.

I can see where you are coming from Rev. However the reason that the Trustees are selling the club is because they want someone who has the ability to do a better job than what they are able to do, there is no point in the Trustees selling the club to someone who cannot provide the additional finance, if they had simply wanted to "dump" the club then they would have done so to the likes of Dan Williams when the club first went onto the market.

[chaddyrovers]

I would believe Sam more than Andy Cryer!!

I am quite sure Big Sam will know more than a reporter. Maybe they be no annoucement to keep it in house and stop things leaking out. Who say it's the Indian Group that is close to buying rovers?

If you look at the Man City takeover, everything will plenty much a sercet till it was completed. Both of they takeovers that happen, only took about month to 2 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_Manchester_City_F.C.

[broadsword]

Does that mean that the Trust are putting in every single penny they can afford to then?

[RevidgeBlue]

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say all day Rev. I was told that nothing is in writing regarding Jack's wishes. As Paul said above, we don't know that for certain, but the man who told me, would be as sure to know, as anyone outside the trustees.

If nothing happens regarding a buy out in the next 6 months, the future is really bleak. It might be bleak anyway.

We've had this debate several times before Den. Whether Jack put anything in writing or not, I can only presume there is nothing specific regarding a certain level of investment that may or may not be required.

[Hi Mack]

Andy Cryer gets half his info off this site. His stories are Either guesswrok or common knowledge.

Infact he's probably read this! Its not like Peter White who was a friend of the club. When did you

last read an Exclusive Rovers story broke by the LT?

[RevidgeBlue]

I can see where you are coming from Rev. However the reason that the Trustees are selling the club is because they want someone who has the ability to do a better job than what they are able to do, there is no point in the Trustees selling the club to someone who cannot provide the additional finance, if they had simply wanted to "dump" the club then they would have done so to the likes of Dan Williams when the club first went onto the market.

I suspect the failure to sell to Dan Williams was purely down to the yanks failing to come up with the purchase price.

As for "doing a better job" I hear the spiel but the reality is the Trustees have withdrawn financial support completely. We have been struggling the last two seasons by January yet there has been no investment forthcoming in the January window to help the manager.

If (or rather when at this rate) we go down I'm quite sure there'll be no help from the Trust and we'll have to take our chances accordingly.

Not much to beat is there?

Just the blasted asking price to meet.

[unclejack28]

I agree with rev.. "ability to do a better job than what they are able to do" Kamy what do you mean by this? what job are the trust doing at the moment? i mean we are pretty much a trading club with no investment at all. when there is a sale 50-70% of that money goes into "balancing the books". I mean we are a premier league club.. a budget of 2.5 million is quite laughable if you ask me especially for a club that finished 10th. This season we are supposed to move on not back.. moving on would require investment i understand but if the trust are not willing to enable the club to push on then how can any other party do a "worse" job? I'm not Talking about running the club to the ground to make money that's a different matter.

[doctorryan]

Maybe not but there are a number of Walker family owned businesses advertised all around the ground.

OJRovers was talking about a primary shirt sponsor Gordon, not stadium signage, half of which never sees the light of day from a standpoint of TV cameras. (And yes I am including the boards designed specifically for TV that go around the edges of the pitch in that equation.) A bit of a difference between the 2, don't you think?

At this point however, complaining about the Trust's lack of support is like trying to hit someone in the head with a baseball bat after they've been buried in a grave.

[Steve Moss]

ok...what?

Today I did not gun down 10 people on the street. Where is my medal of virtue?

Has society really gone so utterly **** that we have to be thankful simply for not being run into the ground?

I think your logic is flawed. The club belongs to the Walker Trust. It does not belong to you or me or any of the other residents of Blackburn, England or any of the other thousands of fans aroound the world. The Walker Trust forebearing from maximizing profits which it could generate with its property is not the equivalent of you forebearing from murdering 10 people. One is a heinous crime, the other could be considered a modest public service to the people of Blackburn and Rovers' fans. The fact the two scenarios are confusing is an indicator that society is ****, in that the simple logical differences between the two appears to be beyond some.

The Walker Trust could demand that the wage bill be slashed and that a few million pounds be turned over to it every year. The Walker Trust could sell players and pocket the money. It could sell grounds and other real property. It could 'encumber' those properties and, if the business model supports the logic, allow them to go back to the bank. It could decide that playing at the Championship (or League One or Two) is more appropriate for the club's support base and decide that the club should be relegated and pocket the parachute payments. In most of those scenarios (other than administration) the Rovers would still exist, albeit in reduced circumstances. And the Walker Trust would still own the Rovers, with the difference that the Trust would be tens of millions richer.

None of the foregoing is near the equivalent of murder.

In fact assuming the Walker Trust's profit maximizing options described above are available to it, based upon the normal duties owed by a trustee administering a trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries, a strong argument could be made that the Walker Trust is violating its fiduciary (i.e. legal and ethical) obligations owed to the the Walker Trust's beneficiaries by NOT maximizing the profits obtainable from the Rovers. The money possessed by the Walker Trust is to be used for the benefit of the Trust's beneficiaries, not the Rovers' fan base. The fact that the Walker Trust has not acted to maximize the possible financial returns from the Rovers indicates to me that one or more beneficiaries (or Trustees) still feel great fondness for the Rovers and are not willing to "murder" it, or are acting under some other legal constraint.

Specifically, in Arizona (and I suppose most of the USA, though I don't know about England), a trustee is governed by the "reasonably prudent investor" standard. The Trustees, as business people, cannot continue to throw money into the black hole known as the PL, without specific authority under the Trust document or the consent of all beneficiaries. As there is currently no legitimate expectancy of a profit, I would hazard a guess that one or more beneficiaries would have cause for complaint if money were invested into the club with no real hope of return. The converse may also hold true, in that one or more Trust beneficiaries may have cause for complaint if the Rovers are relegated with the necessary implication that the club is rendered less valuable.

Applying standards applicable to a typical trustee of a typical trust (not the Walker Trustees as I have no idea what the Trust says), "investment" into the Rovers could get them sued. Both relegation and/or a sale could make the Trust an equivalent amount of money. By contrast, intentionally running the club down may conflict with Jack's well known wishes or offend one or more beneficiaries. However, Jack also wished for the club to be self-sufficient. Therefore, the "safe" thing for a trustee to do in administering the Trust is as little as possible and see what happens.

My opinion would change if the BRFC were a named Trust beneficiary, and assuming the Trust as a whole were generating income (as opposed to one component of the Trust, Flybe). If John Williams is accurate, however, that is not the case. Long story short, the Trustees aren't there to make us happy, couldn't if they wanted to, and we should be literally grateful that they are not drawing money out of the the Rovers' bank accounts. Don't bother us and we won't bother you is a perfectly acceptable relationship, all things considered.

[thenodrog]

OJRovers was talking about a primary shirt sponsor Gordon, not stadium signage, half of which never sees the light of day from a standpoint of TV cameras. (And yes I am including the boards designed specifically for TV that go around the edges of the pitch in that equation.) A bit of a difference between the 2, don't you think?

At this point however, complaining about the Trust's lack of support is like trying to hit someone in the head with a baseball bat after they've been buried in a grave.

Ok so you sponsor the shirts then.

Advertising budgets for any company must stack up and prove rewarding whatever the business. I've no doubt that if the Marketing execs at Flybe thought it would pay to advertise on BRFC's shirts then they would do.

[dave birch]

Smoss, I thought that BRFC was supposed to be a beneficiary of the Trust.

Can someone with greater knowledge confirm or deny this?

[Steve Moss]

Smoss, I thought that BRFC was supposed to be a beneficiary of the Trust.

Can someone with greater knowledge confirm or deny this?

My "knowledge" of the Trust is specifically limited to what is posted on this board. Which means that I know nothing, just a lot of speculation.

BRFC receiving an annual gift (in years past) would indicate that: 1) some provision was made for the club under the Trust; or, 2) the Trust percieved some financial advantage (reinforcement to reduce the prospect of relegation?) sufficient to make the gift and still honor its financial responsibilities to named beneficiaries.

However, even if BRFC were a beneficiary of the Trust, unless specifically authorized otherwise, payments would be: 1) available only if the income from the Trust assets as a whole were available (unless invasion of principal is authorized), so the club's fortunes would be tied directly to the Walker Trust's business dealings; and/or, 2) limited to the amount necessary to safeguard for the Trust the asset known as the Rovers. So far, the Trust has been remarkably astute (or more likely the experts it has hired, JW and, currently, Sam) and managed to preserve the asset (or beneficiary) known as the Rovers with minimal investment.

All of the above is me applying general trust standards as they exist in Arizona. The trust document is free to deviate from those standards (i.e. specific written instructions from Jack), the trustees and the heirs acting unanimously can deviate from those standards (a 'family agreement'), and English (or Jersey) law may have some (and likely do) permutations not found in Arizona. For example, Arizona law requires public disclosure of the trust beneficiaries, at least in real estate transactions. So there would be no question in Arizona (as opposed to England) as to whom owned the benefical interest in the Rovers (or at least its land). That we don't is an indication that I could be completely off base even on the basic standards applied.

[iamarover]

I think your logic is flawed. The club belongs to the Walker Trust. It does not belong to you or me or any of the other residents of Blackburn, England or any of the other thousands of fans aroound the world. The Walker Trust forebearing from maximizing profits which it could generate with its property is not the equivalent of you forebearing from murdering 10 people. One is a heinous crime, the other could be considered a modest public service to the people of Blackburn and Rovers' fans. The fact the two scenarios are confusing is an indicator that society is ****, in that the simple logical differences between the two appears to be beyond some.

The Walker Trust could demand that the wage bill be slashed and that a few million pounds be turned over to it every year. The Walker Trust could sell players and pocket the money. It could sell grounds and other real property. It could 'encumber' those properties and, if the business model supports the logic, allow them to go back to the bank. It could decide that playing at the Championship (or League One or Two) is more appropriate for the club's support base and decide that the club should be relegated and pocket the parachute payments. In most of those scenarios (other than administration) the Rovers would still exist, albeit in reduced circumstances. And the Walker Trust would still own the Rovers, with the difference that the Trust would be tens of millions richer.

None of the foregoing is near the equivalent of murder.

In fact assuming the Walker Trust's profit maximizing options described above are available to it, based upon the normal duties owed by a trustee administering a trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries, a strong argument could be made that the Walker Trust is violating its fiduciary (i.e. legal and ethical) obligations owed to the the Walker Trust's beneficiaries by NOT maximizing the profits obtainable from the Rovers. The money possessed by the Walker Trust is to be used for the benefit of the Trust's beneficiaries, not the Rovers' fan base. The fact that the Walker Trust has not acted to maximize the possible financial returns from the Rovers indicates to me that one or more beneficiaries (or Trustees) still feel great fondness for the Rovers and are not willing to "murder" it, or are acting under some other legal constraint.

Specifically, in Arizona (and I suppose most of the USA, though I don't know about England), a trustee is governed by the "reasonably prudent investor" standard. The Trustees, as business people, cannot continue to throw money into the black hole known as the PL, without specific authority under the Trust document or the consent of all beneficiaries. As there is currently no legitimate expectancy of a profit, I would hazard a guess that one or more beneficiaries would have cause for complaint if money were invested into the club with no real hope of return. The converse may also hold true, in that one or more Trust beneficiaries may have cause for complaint if the Rovers are relegated with the necessary implication that the club is rendered less valuable.

Applying standards applicable to a typical trustee of a typical trust (not the Walker Trustees as I have no idea what the Trust says), "investment" into the Rovers could get them sued. Both relegation and/or a sale could make the Trust an equivalent amount of money. By contrast, intentionally running the club down may conflict with Jack's well known wishes or offend one or more beneficiaries. However, Jack also wished for the club to be self-sufficient. Therefore, the "safe" thing for a trustee to do in administering the Trust is as little as possible and see what happens.

My opinion would change if the BRFC were a named Trust beneficiary, and assuming the Trust as a whole were generating income (as opposed to one component of the Trust, Flybe). If John Williams is accurate, however, that is not the case. Long story short, the Trustees aren't there to make us happy, couldn't if they wanted to, and we should be literally grateful that they are not drawing money out of the the Rovers' bank accounts. Don't bother us and we won't bother you is a perfectly acceptable relationship, all things considered.

And so say all of us.

[TimmyJimmy]

My take on this is that the process is akin to exploratory root canal work. Sometimes it's just best to look away and let the professionals do their work. If the bidders (whoever they turn out to be) are the wrong sorts or the cash is just not there or they don't have the long term interests of the club at heart then the process will find them out.

Think about it, we have zero knowledge on which to form any view, we can only have an 'opinion' based on hunch and guesswork so every opinion will equally valid even if they're all contradictory. It's pointless agonising over it. On the plus side we have top pro's working on the sale, we have the Trust who will not sell us or Jack's memory down the river (IMO) and we have the Premier League with it's fit and proper tests to pass.

All in all it's just best to look away and think about something else for the time being and let them all do their jobs. Worrying about this stuff won't make it better.

If the deal happens then it deserved to happen, if it doesn't happen then we are better off because the bidders will have been sussed out and bad things will have been avoided.

I have been a long term advocate of the Trust selling as their heart clearly isn't in it, what I underestimated was the lack of interest out there in the big wide world, and that really changes things. I am convinced though that there are new markets to be tapped and with the right business plan, brand (yes I said it) and TV coverage a sensible business could be constructed. However in the absence of interest from new investors I think that on balance we have to be content with the Trust's running of the club going forward (with all the lack of investment that this entails) as it would turn out to be the least worst option.

I do sense though that the world has changed somehow and looking back from some distant future date we will see this as the clubs defining moment. Assuming the parties to the sale feel the same way then they are all under a heavy weight of responsibility and obligation so again my counsel would be to let them to do their job and accept the outcome as being the best we could have hoped for. If it takes time then there's a good reason for it.

The season tickets in our household have all been purchased and we'll be at down Ewood come Hell or high water. Some things will never change

[philipl]

Two great posts from smoss and timmyjimmy.

The Trust is a Jersey-based Trust so the rules for beneficiaries are somewhat different to those smoss mentioned.

My belief is that the continuing Trust ownership means we have dodged the sort of bullets that hit Hull, Pompey, West Ham, Newcastle (a benign fool not spotting he had taken on £150m of debt he did not know about) and so on.

Even the lauded Randy Lerner has told Villa they are a trading club now- they have to sell to buy.

For Rovers, over 80% of the owners who have come into the game in the last decade years would have meant administration and the risk of liquidation by now. Remember that because of Jack and the Trust, the club is asset rich and as a consequence in the event of an administration, we would be far more likely to be liquidated than normal clubs in trouble that don't have such assets tied in.

Quite why people are so keen to press for new owners for Rovers and post gloating messages about Pompey and West Ham at the same time is beyond me when it is as plain as the nose on people's faces that there is NO investment model that could produce a reasonably certain profit stream from Blackburn Rovers within the structure of English football as it exists today.

Even trying to expand global appeal requires serious marketing investment from which 90%+ of the benefit leaks away to counterfeiters.

[PAFELL]

Two great posts from smoss and timmyjimmy.

The Trust is a Jersey-based Trust so the rules for beneficiaries are somewhat different to those smoss mentioned.

My belief is that the continuing Trust ownership means we have dodged the sort of bullets that hit Hull, Pompey, West Ham, Newcastle (a benign fool not spotting he had taken on £150m of debt he did not know about) and so on.

Even the lauded Randy Lerner has told Villa they are a trading club now- they have to sell to buy.

For Rovers, over 80% of the owners who have come into the game in the last decade years would have meant administration and the risk of liquidation by now. Remember that because of Jack and the Trust, the club is asset rich and as a consequence in the event of an administration, we would be far more likely to be liquidated than normal clubs in trouble that don't have such assets tied in.

Quite why people are so keen to press for new owners for Rovers and post gloating messages about Pompey and West Ham at the same time is beyond me when it is as plain as the nose on people's faces that there is NO investment model that could produce a reasonably certain profit stream from Blackburn Rovers within the structure of English football as it exists today.

Even trying to expand global appeal requires serious marketing investment from which 90%+ of the benefit leaks away to counterfeiters.

You still have not explained what the trust are doing today. They clearly want to sell, they are not investing in the club. Yes they HAVE looked after the club. But you clearly forget that there IS CURRENTLY NO INVESTMENT / MONEY GOING INTO THE CLUB FROM THE TRUSTEES - therefore there is only one choice and that is change of ownership. If not the club will eventually fold.

I do not believe that people are keen for new owners. But people want owners who are going to do something for the club apart from monitor things from the sidelines. I would be happy for the current owners to remain, but only if they back the manager in the transfer market. Even if it was just the 3mill they used to give to the club. Ease the burden a bit. But they are not doing that. Therefore the current attitude from the trust is of no use to the club. It only takes the club backward and not forwards.

s

[Iceman]

Philip do you think, that a new owner could invest say 10mill, and then try and recoup the money a few years later? Meaning, that if eg Shah gave Sam say 10mill to spend on a young promising player, and then if he does well sell him on for a profit. It gives Sam money to spend, we do well in the league, and get a few good years out of the player. Its about the only way somebody could make money off Rovers. If it doesnt work out, then the following season Sam would be given less money for new players.

[philipl]

Yes, but...

That is the economics of the casino.

Hughes had a great record but still bought Rigters.

With the best will in the world, Sam's record (particularly at the expensive end) is much less good.

To Pafell, the Trust are not making any big deal about it but their loan to the club increased from £3m to £5m in the last published accounts. For which they charge zero interest and make no calls on the club whatsoever so it does not adversely impact the club's banking relationship.

Plus they make no charges for running the club- be it David Brown's time, the time spent in Jersey reviewing information sent by the club, coming over to matches (which they do), or fees paid to Rothschilds- add that little lot up and it comes to £1m a year easily and if you look at Pompey's accounts something like £4m a year was going out on those sorts of costs before interest payments.

I have given this answer several times before- because they are not making a song and dance act about the club doesn't mean the Rovers are not continuing to receive very tangible support from the Trust.

[Craigman]

Saurin Shah ▶ One of the greatest problems that money creates is that you never know whether you are loved or your money is loved

Latest tweet from Shah.

[philipl]

We love you Saurin.

[Brfcrule1]

Nicko, Nicko, where for art thou Nicko?. Please give us some info this seems to have gone on far to long. Any idea who the 2nd mystery bidder for the club is?. Also from all the information said do you think a takeover will go through?. Do you have any info who the backers of the Indian consortium are?. Please give us some good news. Also any news on who the mystery striker we have bid for is?. Thanks.

[Paul]

Nicko, Nicko, where for art thou Nicko?. Please give us some info this seems to have gone on far to long. Any idea who the 2nd mystery bidder for the club is?. Also from all the information said do you think a takeover will go through?. Do you have any info who the backers of the Indian consortium are?. Please give us some good news. Also any news on who the mystery striker we have bid for is?. Thanks.

Oh for goodness sake...................... It's pretty clear from what Nicko has posted already what his opinions are. From what I can recall:

The Indian bid - still at a tricky stage, needs to progress sooner rather than later

Mystery bidder - could be American

Will takeover go through - needs to but time is running out

Indian backers - either "No" or is not saying

Apologies to Nicko if I have summarised this incorrectly. IF Nicko had something explosively new he would either keep it for the newspaper or if he thought it possibly too early / potentially damaging to Rovers would keep it to himself.

Get to grips with the fact very few people truely understand the position and 99.9% of the discussion here is speculation based on tweets, twitters and rumour.

[cesus]

If we take our blue and white tinted glasses off for a second who hand on heart actually thinks investing in BRFC would actually be profitable? I really cannot see how it would be, people talk about if we put 10 million extra into the coffers we could expect great things. So Mr Shah (or whoever) puts 10 million in, does that improve our squad to be at the level of people we would be challenging in the league for European place by that I mean the Villas and the Tottenhams? I will tell you, hell no! The shahs etc have no undivided love for this club like Jack did so money will not be thrown about I just feel we are so far away from teams in 5th, 6th and 7th in squad sizes and qualities the investment would have to be huge to be profitable. I reality the clubs that make cash now from purely footballing terms are the yo-yo teams like West Brom and our local friends who take the money and invest little into wages on the Championship return. Nobody at BRFC wants to be a yo-yo club, I just can't see how an ouside investor can make the profits they obviously will be here to make.