[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[JAL]

Think all those having a pop at the trustees are missing the point with Rovers its the board along with the manager that make all the footballing decisions at Rovers.

If the board have got it wrong in the past then why after several years of financial input with no return should you keep doing so just to cover up their mistakes.

[den]

Think all those having a pop at the trustees are missing the point with Rovers its the board along with the manager that make all the footballing decisions at Rovers.

If the board have got it wrong in the past then why after several years of financial input with no return should you keep doing so just to cover up their mistakes.

Jal - who's having a pop at the trustees?

[PAFELL]

Simon with an income in excess of 50m pa per club why does football need people to simply throw money in with a zero chance of any return ever? It's one sad sick industry that needs putting down.

To be honest football has been its own worse enemy. Owners / supporters have all wanted instant success. We only have to read ambitious thoughts on this message board to see that. Buy this player, pay this much etc. Supporters want instant success, this puts pressure on owners / managers etc to buy the best players and pay stupidly high wages.

This is what has to stop. Agents and players have to be told that none of them are worth more than the game itself or the clubs involved. We would all like a nice £5.000 a week wage (as an example) But I would rather give that amount to a nurse than a footballer. It is time everybody in football came back to the real world. Everybody has had to suffer during the past economic situation - but footballers and agents have escaped from all that.

It is a sad industry and it does need ripping up and starting again. But it is impossible to do so. Until players and agents reduce transfer fees and wages. Clubs have to start fefusing to meet the demands put on them by the same agents and players.

We actually need a very big club to fold - for banks to demand their money back from say Man U or liverpool, then and only then could things change. Rovers may well have to sit back and wait until that time.

[JAL]

Jal - who's having a pop at the trustees?

Revidge blue for one!

[47er]

Jack or the trustees it doesn't matter, show me how many other owners have done what they both have???

"have'--past tense. They are not doing it anymore and while I'm grateful for the past its the present and future I'm now worrying about.

[OscarRaven]

Revidge blue for one!

I for one can't draw a distinction between Jack Walker and the Walker Trust both have invested heavily without any real prospect of a return and I suspect both would let someone else take the reigns if they thought they could actually do a better job and move the club on.

I would desperatley like us to stay affiliated with the Walker trust but they have made the decision to call it a day and concentrate on thier core responsibilty.

The problem at Blackburn Rovers is not the owners, it is the fact that we need to be run sustainably in a Billionaires playground. We cant afford the Champagne in this establishment anymore but I'll take a beer (as overpriced as it is) today and be grateful that unlike so many I have actually had the chance to drink the Champagne in here before, thanks to one man.

Objectivley speaking the fact Blackburn Rovers are the poor relations in the PL (which is far from true, we are in a much better postion today than the day Jack died) has somewhat of a karmic feel to it. The future is uncertain and whatever it holds we will deal with it I'm sure, Jack or the owners haven't left us facing oblivion in my opinion, the lack of self regulation in football has.

One thing is for certain though whatever happens, I wont criticise Jack Walker and I wont criticise his trust.

[47er]

Simon with an income in excess of 50m pa per club why does football need people to simply throw money in with a zero chance of any return ever? It's one sad sick industry that needs putting down.

But lets not start with our club if we can help it eh?

[OscarRaven]

We would all like a nice £5.000 a week wage (as an example)

Speak for yourself.

[47er]

No news. Is very good news. A salutary reminder to 47er and all those praying for a takeover, that you must be very careful for what you wish for, is in this morning's Currant Bun. The lead sports story on Aston Villa shows what even the most benevolent of buyers will eventually do. They will take their money back.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/?CID=ILC-HP&ATTR=sportindx

The most recent accounts I could find for Villa don't make great reading once the foreign owner tires of his latest Christmas plaything. Currently Villa are paying £4m for the privilege of having Lerner's £45m transfer loans. Which achieved? Precisely nothing. That £45m is due in full in 6 years time. Lerner will have looked at the Premier League and realised there is no profit at all in football whilst voracious players and agents hoover up surplus cash, and fans' demands for the short term cash fix get ever shriller. The lexicon of transfers - injection, fix - are not dissimilar to that of drug users, not coincidentally.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/the-debt-league-how-much-do-clubs-owe-1912244.html

To pay that £45m off, Villa will now have to pay around £8m in interest/capital fees a year, and that money has to come from transfers or wage reductions. Commercial revenue will not rise, as Lerner hoped, unless Villa hit the Champions League - and that is looking increasingly unlikely. So they now need a trading manager, Allardyce-esque, to do that and give Lerner his cash back. Just about manageable for a big city club like Villa, but not easy, hence O'Neill's departure.

For the Rovers that sort of deal would be terminal. Look at the net outgoings demanded by the Trust.....it is a pleasureble nothing.

A takeover only makes sense if commercial revenues rise significantly as a result of it. £45m only buys the Rovers and its debt. Add in around £25m for the transfer funds postes here want and The Rovers Lerner would need a plan to get £70m out. Following the Villa model (the softest takeover yet in the Premier League so far) this would load Rovers with a debt payment of around £6m a year. Plus salaries, bonuses etc as they see fit. Philip thinks they would need still more to satisfy the Trust, which is all the more worrying.

Where will this £6m come from? Not, clearly, the Champions League. Not really either from improved League positions. Not at £750k a place anyway. Shah thinks this can be generated from a few thousand Asians in Lancashire and converting millions of cricket lovers 5,000 miles away to football, and then, unimaginably, to the Rovers. That is dreamland. Syed has no plans for us to see.

It's boring, but in the Black Jack world of the Premier League, Rovers are on 15. And like any pro player with that hand, the only option is not to Twist and hope for a Foreign Five or a Syed Six, but to hold on and watch the rest go bust.

The Trust has run its course and will not be putting money in. But, thankfully, they are not taking money out. That is why Liverpool will be bought this week and Rovers wont be. The Yanks dont care who they sell to, and the Trust does. And that is the best story you can read in a newspaper this morning. Thank the Lord this morning you are not a Villain.

As usual you totally ignore the fact that the Trust WANT to sell and WILL sell. As I keep asking Theno-"What's your solution?"

[BuckyRover]

He never has solutions, only problems.

[JAL]

"have'--past tense. They are not doing it anymore and while I'm grateful for the past its the present and future I'm now worrying about.

I wouldnt worry right now because if you can add just TWO quality players to the team, then the difference right now in providing more goals for the team would be MASSIVE and would most certainly put Rovers ahead of well over half the teams in the premier league.

Easy to say but as Nicko refers, extremely hard to acheive, though the good thing is Rovers are closer than ever to acheiving this rather than being so, so, far away .

[JAL]

edit

[Exiled in Toronto]

All other owners apart from Fayed and Abramovich are sucking out cash.... that's the point.

Really? I didn't know that. How much exactly has Whelan sucked out of Wigan? More than Eddie Davies has leeched out of Bolton? And how does that compare to how much Gold and Sullivan snaffled from Birmingham in over a decade there? What about those shysters at Sunderland, how much have they run off with? More than Mike Ashley shook out of the Newcastle piggybank.....???

Here's a thought for you: the Trust could just as easily have said, 'No more free cash, but we will remain your owners and protect you from the big bad boogiemen out there ad infinitum.' Wouldn't cost them a penny. But no, they instead said, 'Your up for sale', exposing us to the terrifying nightmares of another owner, the only benefit being to them of raking in some cash as a result of owning a football club.

[iamarover]

As usual you totally ignore the fact that the Trust WANT to sell and WILL sell. As I keep asking Theno-"What's your solution?"

The solution is as it is being played out. The Trust should continue to manage the club until someone comes along who can meet the (what we can only presume) are strict covenants and obligations set out by Jack Walker. They do want to sell, but they only want to sell on their terms. And those terms are not purely financial. Which is ...like... what is happening now.

The only difference between you and I is that I can see this is the only conceivable solution without a Jack II, and you have absolutely no idea about what you wish for.

[iamarover]

Really? I didn't know that. How much exactly has Whelan sucked out of Wigan? More than Eddie Davies has leeched out of Bolton? And how does that compare to how much Gold and Sullivan snaffled from Birmingham in over a decade there? What about those shysters at Sunderland, how much have they run off with? More than Mike Ashley shook out of the Newcastle piggybank.....???

Here's a thought for you: the Trust could just as easily have said, 'No more free cash, but we will remain your owners and protect you from the big bad boogiemen out there ad infinitum.' Wouldn't cost them a penny. But no, they instead said, 'Your up for sale', exposing us to the terrifying nightmares of another owner, the only benefit being to them of raking in some cash as a result of owning a football club.

Whelan and Davies are both fans. I'll give you them. And that is the point..consistently I have argued that making money out of football is nigh on impossible and only fans as owners work - especially for the Rovers. So the Trust operates as a fan like you and i would, or did so in the past. ie we dont take money out and try as best to raise cash elsewhere.

Sunderland is another Villa - they will want that money back and are banking on commercial revenues rising from a Championship base.. possible but not certain, and ultimately like Lerner it will start to reverse. Sullivan and Gold took money out of Birmingham but they are probably the exception that proves the Rule. The Rule is that clubs without fans as owners, who 'loan' or 'invest' money ultimately use it as a private finance house without need for disclosure...Wrexham, Leeds, Portsmouth, United, Liverpool, Leeds, Oxford, Rotherham, Mansfield, York etc etc.

The Trust could leave us 'ad infinitum' in protection as The Guardian Media Group is set up in the Scott Trust. Unfortunately we dont know the terms under which Jack set it up, but it is quite possible that he insisted on Rovers finally setting up on their own two feet once solvent and Premier League established. He might not have done that had he known the commercial horrorfest that was about to explode, but at the time of his death that would have been a more than reasonable wish, given his other responsibilities to hundreds of other Walker employees.

[wandel77]

Whelan and Davies are both fans. I'll give you them. And that is the point..consistently I have argued that making money out of football is nigh on impossible and only fans as owners work - especially for the Rovers. So the Trust operates as a fan like you and i would, or did so in the past. ie we dont take money out and try as best to raise cash elsewhere.

Sunderland is another Villa - they will want that money back and are banking on commercial revenues rising from a Championship base.. possible but not certain, and ultimately like Lerner it will start to reverse. Sullivan and Gold took money out of Birmingham but they are probably the exception that proves the Rule. The Rule is that clubs without fans as owners, who 'loan' or 'invest' money ultimately use it as a private finance house without need for disclosure...Wrexham, Leeds, Portsmouth, United, Liverpool, Leeds, Oxford, Rotherham, Mansfield, York etc etc.

The Trust could leave us 'ad infinitum' in protection as The Guardian Media Group is set up in the Scott Trust. Unfortunately we dont know the terms under which Jack set it up, but it is quite possible that he insisted on Rovers finally setting up on their own two feet once solvent and Premier League established. He might not have done that had he known the commercial horrorfest that was about to explode, but at the time of his death that would have been a more than reasonable wish, given his other responsibilities to hundreds of other Walker employees.

Spot on ! :-)

[Earlydoors]

No news. Is very good news. A salutary reminder to 47er and all those praying for a takeover, that you must be very careful for what you wish for, is in this morning's Currant Bun. The lead sports story on Aston Villa shows what even the most benevolent of buyers will eventually do. They will take their money back.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/?CID=ILC-HP&ATTR=sportindx

The most recent accounts I could find for Villa don't make great reading once the foreign owner tires of his latest Christmas plaything. Currently Villa are paying £4m for the privilege of having Lerner's £45m transfer loans. Which achieved? Precisely nothing. That £45m is due in full in 6 years time. Lerner will have looked at the Premier League and realised there is no profit at all in football whilst voracious players and agents hoover up surplus cash, and fans' demands for the short term cash fix get ever shriller. The lexicon of transfers - injection, fix - are not dissimilar to that of drug users, not coincidentally.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/the-debt-league-how-much-do-clubs-owe-1912244.html

To pay that £45m off, Villa will now have to pay around £8m in interest/capital fees a year, and that money has to come from transfers or wage reductions. Commercial revenue will not rise, as Lerner hoped, unless Villa hit the Champions League - and that is looking increasingly unlikely. So they now need a trading manager, Allardyce-esque, to do that and give Lerner his cash back. Just about manageable for a big city club like Villa, but not easy, hence O'Neill's departure.

For the Rovers that sort of deal would be terminal. Look at the net outgoings demanded by the Trust.....it is a pleasureble nothing.

A takeover only makes sense if commercial revenues rise significantly as a result of it. £45m only buys the Rovers and its debt. Add in around £25m for the transfer funds postes here want and The Rovers Lerner would need a plan to get £70m out. Following the Villa model (the softest takeover yet in the Premier League so far) this would load Rovers with a debt payment of around £6m a year. Plus salaries, bonuses etc as they see fit. Philip thinks they would need still more to satisfy the Trust, which is all the more worrying.

Where will this £6m come from? Not, clearly, the Champions League. Not really either from improved League positions. Not at £750k a place anyway. Shah thinks this can be generated from a few thousand Asians in Lancashire and converting millions of cricket lovers 5,000 miles away to football, and then, unimaginably, to the Rovers. That is dreamland. Syed has no plans for us to see.

It's boring, but in the Black Jack world of the Premier League, Rovers are on 15. And like any pro player with that hand, the only option is not to Twist and hope for a Foreign Five or a Syed Six, but to hold on and watch the rest go bust.

The Trust has run its course and will not be putting money in. But, thankfully, they are not taking money out. That is why Liverpool will be bought this week and Rovers wont be. The Yanks dont care who they sell to, and the Trust does. And that is the best story you can read in a newspaper this morning. Thank the Lord this morning you are not a Villain.

Seconded.

[den]

The solution is as it is being played out. The Trust should continue to manage the club until someone comes along who can meet the (what we can only presume) are strict covenants and obligations set out by Jack Walker. They do want to sell, but they only want to sell on their terms. And those terms are not purely financial. Which is ...like... what is happening now.

The only difference between you and I is that I can see this is the only conceivable solution without a Jack II, and you have absolutely no idea about what you wish for.

Well revolutionary stuff there iamarover. The solution is as it is being played out. So what was the point in that big, original post highlighting the woes of clubs - Aston Villa and Randy Lerner in particular - who have suffered through bad owners, when all along you're in favour of the trustees selling? Is it that you know of the dangers of the wrong takeover, where others don't?

Oh and by the way, what terms are the trustees looking for?

[OscarRaven]

It's boring, but in the Black Jack world of the Premier League, Rovers are on 15. And like any pro player with that hand, the only option is not to Twist and hope for a Foreign Five or a Syed Six, but to hold on and watch the rest go bust.

Trouble is minimum stick is 17, we have no choice but to twist.

Besides the decision has already been taken all that remains now is to see the value of the card.

[philipl]

As far as I am aware, the position of the Trust remains they are only selling to a new owner who can do better for the club than they are able to.

[broadsword]

As far as I am aware, the position of the Trust remains they are only selling to a new owner who can do better for the club than they are able to.

I guess that means we'll be perpetully on the market, then, and suffering a chronic lack of backing in the transfer market. Great.

[Mr. E]

So basically we were told we might have new owners with decent investment coming in.

We waited all summer.

And now got absolutely nothing.

Fantastic.

[47er]

The solution is as it is being played out. The Trust should continue to manage the club until someone comes along who can meet the (what we can only presume) are strict covenants and obligations set out by Jack Walker. They do want to sell, but they only want to sell on their terms. And those terms are not purely financial. Which is ...like... what is happening now.

The only difference between you and I is that I can see this is the only conceivable solution without a Jack II, and you have absolutely no idea about what you wish for.

I wish for a future for the club and i don't want it dying on its feet in the meantime.

And we have lost...?

you come into this world with..........?

[Mr. E]

And we have lost...?

Our transfer budget which was supposed to be around 4 million according to John Williams.

And our time and patience.

[47er]

The solution is as it is being played out. The Trust should continue to manage the club until someone comes along who can meet the (what we can only presume) are strict covenants and obligations set out by Jack Walker. They do want to sell, but they only want to sell on their terms. And those terms are not purely financial. Which is ...like... what is happening now.

The only difference between you and I is that I can see this is the only conceivable solution without a Jack II, and you have absolutely no idea about what you wish for.

That's a travesty of my position over a takeover. Unlike you I've been actively looking forward to a takeover since it became clear that the Trust couldn't or wouldn't support the club at the financial levels it needs.However I've always assumed the new owners would have the right financial clout and the correct intentions to make it work. I was and am relying on the Trust to work that out.

You, on the other hand are subtly changing your tune. According to this post you've been in favour of a take-over all along! In fact you and a host of others believed no takeover would ever occur and we would stay with the Walker Trust forever. You welcomed this despite me and others pointing how how impractical this proposition was.

You've recognised this yourself now and you're keen to rewrite history.