[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[PAFELL]

The banks converted the £110m part of the £237m owed which they feel totally exposed on into "Payment in Kind" or PIK. It is similar to the originally £150m now £215m debt the Glazers have that turns into £500m of debt by 2015 except that is to a hedge fund- the banks have simply used this hedge fund device themselves. You could say that the banks see Liverpool's liquidation value to be no more than £127m which is probably a fair bet.

This is how banks are now biting back at debts which are in the so big that the banks have a problem category. It is what has enabled them to appoint Martin Broughton to oversee the sale and puts then into total control over what happens on 6 October when they are due to be repaid. Only Politics would prevent them from foreclosing and taking full ownership.

I guess they will be telling Gillett and Hicks today that their share holding is lost now following the cancellation of that meeting today and will be taking full control immediately to negotiate a sale before 6 October with no say in the process from the Americans. The Americans of course can always write a cheque for £237m plus accumulated interested before 6 October and the banks and Broughton would walk away.

It is strange that Liverpool are mega millions in debt, yet are trying to buy players. rovers a mere 20 mill in debt and cannot buy players. How does that work?

[BuckyRover]

Do you need a finance lesson?

Liverpool are worth more so can borrow more. Mortgage owners are in more debt than me, but they can borrow more as they have more assets.

[47er]

But you have absolutely no practical answer.

All your posts are airy fairy waffle.

I'm waiting for a takeover that works. There are 2 Indian groups who both genuinely believe they can grow the club.That's my practical answer. Your's appears to be that no bid can succeed therefore the club is best left in the hands of people who:

a) no longer want it

are actively trying to sell it

c )will no longer finance it to reasonable levels (witness this transfer window)

d) but who should continue to own it in perpetuity.

Airy fairy waffle is your speciality not mine. When a takeover does succeed you'll claim it as your own.

[nicko]

It is strange that Liverpool are mega millions in debt, yet are trying to buy players. rovers a mere 20 mill in debt and cannot buy players. How does that work?

Liverpool will sell a player for £25 million [Mascherano] and replace him with another similar type for £4.5 million [Poulsen]...the profit pays some bills.

That is one big difference at Rovers this summer. You have had nobody to sell to cover for the fact that you do not have benefactors who put their hands in their pockets.

[47er]

Losing the will to live? You/They need to take a reality check. We follow Blackburn Rovers, a club without a benefactor. The management and board are doing a tremendous job to keep us in the best league in the world. I am proud that the clup are not willing to go down the same road as Hull & Portsmouth by spending money they haven't got and the likes of West Ham by selling out to whoever is interested. We are pretty self sufficient as far as football clubs go and we should be proud of our existence in the top flight. As a child in the 70's I dreamt of being in the top flight and here we are about to start our 10th consecutive season in the Premier League.

I assume those losing the will to live only jumped on the band wagon when it stopped to pick up the glory hunters in 1992-1995.

I think the time taken to agree the best deal for Blackburn Rovers Football Club is time well spent. I'm sure the board and the trustee's will ensure that the best decision possible is made for the future of our club.

Well I can only speak for myself. I "jumped on board" from the age of 5 probably before you were born. I was at the 1960 Cup Final so I think I qualify.

[BuckyRover]

Exactly. At the moment the Trust is simply a means to end, the end being a successful take over.

Philipl seems to believe that we are the only club in the world that just cannot have a successful take over, which is obviously rubbish. Clubs that have found themselves in difficulties, did so because the takeover was rushed, or shareholders sold out for a quick buck. This is not the case with our club, the trust seem to have stringent guidelines that need to be followed.

[PAFELL]

Losing the will to live? You/They need to take a reality check. We follow Blackburn Rovers, a club without a benefactor. The management and board are doing a tremendous job to keep us in the best league in the world. I am proud that the clup are not willing to go down the same road as Hull & Portsmouth by spending money they haven't got and the likes of West Ham by selling out to whoever is interested. We are pretty self sufficient as far as football clubs go and we should be proud of our existence in the top flight. As a child in the 70's I dreamt of being in the top flight and here we are about to start our 10th consecutive season in the Premier League.

I assume those losing the will to live only jumped on the band wagon when it stopped to pick up the glory hunters in 1992-1995.

I think the time taken to agree the best deal for Blackburn Rovers Football Club is time well spent. I'm sure the board and the trustee's will ensure that the best decision possible is made for the future of our club.

I also remember the old days and supported Rovers well before the Jack Walker era. I am therefore also very grateful as a Rovers supporter for what Jack did and what the trustees are doing. But that does not stop me being concerned at the current situation.

My view is that if the trust were willing to help get Rovers further up the table by investing a little more in the playing side. which would then in turn help more towards being self - sufficient. Lets be honest, if Rovers were able to get into the top 4 and into the champs league, with the current debt, the club would be a lot nearer to standing on its own two feet.

When Rovers finsihed 6th under Mark Hughes, that was the time to invest a little more and Push the club on further. This would have first of all prevented the Ince situation,(which possible cost more than Rovers need now for a striker) possible have kept Hughes as manager, into europe etc. But failing to do that has put the club in its current situation.

The trust is good in what it does from a business point of view. Credit where it is due they have kept the club on an even keel. But the lack of investment at a time when it was seriously needed to push the club a little bit further, has cost the club heavily. The trust needs a football person on board with them.

[philipl]

It is total waffle because

1) You cannot point to any serious willing buyer the Trust have turned down.

2) You cannot come up with anything that shows investment in Rovers now equals hard cash profit for new owners in the future

3) You cannot point to any new benefactor willing to give money so you can indulge your hobby.

Exactly. At the moment the Trust is simply a means to end, the end being a successful take over.

Philipl seems to believe that we are the only club in the world that just cannot have a successful take over, which is obviously rubbish. Clubs that have found themselves in difficulties, did so because the takeover was rushed, or shareholders sold out for a quick buck. This is not the case with our club, the trust seem to have stringent guidelines that need to be followed.

Wrong- you are imagining what I have written, not reading what I have written.

[PAFELL]

It is total waffle because

1) You cannot point to any serious willing buyer the Trust have turned down.

2) You cannot come up with anything that shows investment in Rovers now equals hard cash profit for new owners in the future

3) You cannot point to any new benefactor willing to give money so you can indulge your hobby.

If it cannot be done, why have the trust put the club up for sale?

[philipl]

If it cannot be done, why have the trust put the club up for sale?

Why don't you read this thread?

I am not saying it cannot be done- I am saying 47er is waffling because he cannot answer those questions himself.

[47er]

It is total waffle because

1) You cannot point to any serious willing buyer the Trust have turned down.

2) You cannot come up with anything that shows investment in Rovers now equals hard cash profit for new owners in the future

3) You cannot point to any new benefactor willing to give money so you can indulge your hobby.

I don't pretend to have inside knowledge of Who's Who in the football world or in the finance world so it isn't necessary for me to answer other than to say that there surely must be business men around with more vision than you. To repeat--all you can come up with is that the club must stay in the hands of people who don't want it! That is plain dumb.

Pafell has asked you a beauty--go on have a go at answering it! And please don't think that piece of waffle above answers him.

[den]

Backing that up-

Gap between Rovers' points total and the number of points the Premier League's 18th-placed club:

2001/02 10 points

2002/03 18

2003/04 11

2004/05 9

2005/06 29

2006/07 14

2007/08 22

2008/09 7

2009/10 20

Again Philip, the season where we actually did get relegated is ignored. We aren't safe as we are, far from it.

BTW, you don't really believe we're safe from the drop under the current structure either, do you?

Let me say this. To progress we need the takeover sorting out as soon as possible, because the current situation is doing the club harm. We need owners who might have some kind of vision for the club, even if it's simply to redevelop the riverside stand, and make attempts to open new markets and new income for us. It has to happen, so the sooner, the better. That's the progressive stance to take.

The position of consistently ridiculing every takeover bid, suggesting that we are better off staying as we are under the trustees guidance while that is patently not possible, is the negative stance.

I can't believe anyone could argue against that, but they do.

Not aimed at you or anyone in particular Philip.

[Duff's Minder]

As Randy Lerner is discovering there is no such thing as a financially solvent Premier League club unless you are in the Champions League. Rovers can never be a champions league club in the current climate. How much would it take to compete with Spurs & City? £300 million? £500 million?

Who wants to invest hundreds of millions of pounds to move Rovers from 10th in the table to 6th? I tell you now as a life-long Rovers supporter that if I had £300 million I wouldn't pour it down an East Lancs drain.

I don't care if the trust wants to get rid. It seems that they won't sell us to the first cowboy that comes along so they are probably stuck with an asset that they will prop up until our next fairy godmother comes along. Does this mean we will eventually get relegated? Probably. Is that better than doing a Portsmouth? Definately.

[PAFELL]

Why don't you read this thread?

I am not saying it cannot be done- I am saying 47er is waffling because he cannot answer those questions himself.

I have read this thread. But it appears that the situation is so tight, the rules so stringent that it makes a takeover impossible. That is if these rules etc are real.

If that is the case, why put the club up for sale. I suggest that the reason the club is up for sale is first the trustees do not want it and are willing to sell to the best buyer, for the best price they can get. Which I have no problem with as that is business.

What I will suggest that there are not any of these so called clauses in either Jack's will or the trustees responcibilities. If there was it would make the club impossible to sell.

Therefore the club would be left in the same situation as it now. Being stagnet and going nowhere and waiting for the premier league to self explode.

on the other hand if there are these clause etc, they must be able to be removed. If not what is the point of lengthy takeover talks? Because all the club has to say is, this is the situation, do you want it or not, the clauses or whatever you want to call them will not change, take it or leave it.

According to media reports we have somebody willing to come in, pay off the debts and invest 300 million over the next 3 years or so. So what could be holding up the trust to decide to say yes or no? It is up to the new owner what they did to the club (yes we may not like it, but, its the buyers choice)

[OscarRaven]

My view is that if the trust were willing to help get Rovers further up the table by investing a little more in the playing side. which would then in turn help more towards being self - sufficient.

... and there went your credibilty. Thats all it takes for the trust to invest money on the same sustainble basis as Chelsea, Man Utd and City? I can't belive I didn't see it before - pure Genius!

I'm going to invest a little bit more in the lottery this weekend now that I have realised this I'm bound to win.

According to media reports Freddie Starr ate my hamster

[philipl]

A take over has to be securely funded. The backers of Dan Williams and Chris Ronnie are both now in creditor protection.

A take over has to be properly funded. On the face of it Saurin Shah runs a small company that is retrenching and is perhaps in money terms worth one thirtieth of what Jack Walker was worth in 1991- in real terms, far less obviously.

We got relegated when Jack was alive, not when the Trust was solely entrusted with the club- that is why that season is not included in the table.

I am not saying a take over will not happen. But if one does not happen, the Trust are much better owners than most Premier League clubs have and they have an excellent track record of custodianship of the club. They don't need to spout about aims and objectives- they are delivering Premier League football every year and last season was the third highest safety margin over relegation the club has achieved during their tenure. Rovers are not alone in enduring a tough transfer window this summer.

[Hughesy]

That is one big difference at Rovers this summer. You have had nobody to sell to cover for the fact that you do not have benefactors who put their hands in their pockets.

Course we do - we just dont WANT to sell our top players like Liverpool are doing.

BTW, you don't really believe we're safe from the drop under the current structure either, do you?

Aslong as Sam is in charge...I do.

[PAFELL]

... and there went your credibilty. Thats all it takes for the trust to invest money on the same sustainble basis as Chelsea, Man Utd and City? I can't belive I didn't see it before - pure Genius!

I'm going to invest a little bit more in the lottery this weekend now that I have realised this I'm bound to win.

I did not say invest on the same scale as other clubs. I said invest a little more. Rovers finsihed a few points behind getting into europe that season. The lottery point is complete nonsence as that is sheer luck. Rovers had the players and the squad and the manager who needed a little bit more support in the transfer market. Instead, we got Ince and the team was ripped apart and went backwards. Money was then spent on sacking Ince and appointing Sam - how much was that? That money would be nice to spend in the tranfer market now. That was a total screw up by the trust not backing the club.

I am not a business man, so I ask questions or probe answers received back, searching for answers from others who claim to be business people. I have never claimed any credability etc, I am just a man asking questions - and not receiving answers that an average layman wants to know.

[Gav]

Same way they have over the last ten years?

The proof is in the pudding.

Different ball game now though, all the clubs around us have the potential to spend much more than we can, that hasn’t always been the case.

No investment means relegation, simple as that.

As for the rest of the cr@p on this thread, its embarrassing, some of you need to get out more.

[philipl]

Ok, the answer is nobody invests in football, they just lose money.

It is simply how much, when and do you get enough of a kick or other side benefit out of the losing?

There is a hell of a lot of judgement involved obviously- appointing Hughes was excellent judgement, appointing Ince was horribly bad, Sam looks like a good call. But the club had enough strength to pull through Ince as a Premier League top half side and John Williams, rightly, is regarded as one of the best Chairmen in the game, anywhere.

[Balwer]

I am not saying a take over will not happen. But if one does not happen, the Trust are much better owners than most Premier League clubs have and they have an excellent track record of custodianship of the club. They don't need to spout about aims and objectives- they are delivering Premier League football every year and last season was the third highest safety margin over relegation the club has achieved during their tenure. Rovers are not alone in enduring a tough transfer window this summer.

The counterpoint is that Premier League status has been consistently secured in spite of the Trust's investment (or lack thereof) rather than because of it. I would point to the excellent leadership of JW and his team, as well as a succession of managers who have been able to work within serious financial constraints (Ince aside), as bigger reasons for staying up.

To say that the ownership model is better than most Premier League clubs assumes that the continued new investments of other clubs will almost always fail rather than succeed, and that's a view I and many others don't subscribe to. There are far more examples of clubs improving than failing when new money is provided (Man City, Chelsea, Rovers under Jack). When failures do occur that's often a result of the manager making poor purchases or increasing spending beyond the club's natural means (ie. Portsmouth, Leeds).

If we receive new investment and fail that would be the manager's fault for making poor choices. If wages spiral out of control and players are sold to balance the books then how is that any different to now. If the owner decides not to make further money available because of a lack of perceived return then how is that any different to now?

[Clitherover]

Why don't you read this thread?

Because it got extremely boring a long time ago.

[philipl]

The counterpoint is that Premier League status has been consistently secured in spite of the Trust's investment (or lack thereof) rather than because of it. I would point to the excellent leadership of JW and his team, as well as a succession of managers who have been able to work within serious financial constraints (Ince aside), as bigger reasons for staying up.

To say that the ownership model is better than most Premier League clubs assumes that the continued new investments of other clubs will almost always fail rather than succeed, and that's a view I and many others don't subscribe to. There are far more examples of clubs improving than failing when new money is provided (Man City, Chelsea, Rovers under Jack). When failures do occur that's often a result of the manager making poor purchases or increasing spending beyond the club's natural means (ie. Portsmouth, Leeds).

If we receive new investment and fail that would be the manager's fault for making poor choices. If wages spiral out of control and players are sold to balance the books then how is that any different to now. If the owner decides not to make further money available because of a lack of perceived return then how is that any different to now?

You are speculating that the future will not be as good whilst I am pointing to four top half finishes in the past five years.

You guessing that the other clubs' money will be better spent and I am looking at Wolves and Sunderland thus far and saying pull the other one.

You are suggesting that the money going into these other clubs will be sustained and I am looking at Villa.

Above all, the argument rests on there being at least one serious bidder for the Rovers with sustained intent to put money in hoping to take the club forwards and not expect a return otherwise it is entirely academic. Is there one?

[rebelmswar]

It is strange that Liverpool are mega millions in debt, yet are trying to buy players. rovers a mere 20 mill in debt and cannot buy players. How does that work?

The people who run our finances are responsible and realists.

I have to admit at times that I wish they were a bit more hedgy but all in all not bad hands to be in.

[Balwer]

You are speculating that the future will not be as good whilst I am pointing to four top half finishes in the past five years.

You guessing that the other clubs' money will be better spent and I am looking at Wolves and Sunderland thus far and saying pull the other one.

You are suggesting that the money going into these other clubs will be sustained and I am looking at Villa.

Above all, the argument rests on there being at least one serious bidder for the Rovers with sustained intent to put money in hoping to take the club forwards and not expect a return otherwise it is entirely academic. Is there one?

I am saying that the failures of the other clubs you mention has been due to the manager, not due to the owners. All the owner does is open the purse strings, the manager then decides what to do with it. If the owner gives you no money then you are put at a distinct disadvantage. If our ownership doesn't give our manager the opportunity to do so then how are they better than most other clubs? If the other clubs fail then they just end back at the spot we are currently in now, selling our best players to balance the books.

You talk about four top half finishes like that's somehow entirely the Trust's doing. It isn't. It's Souey's, Sparky's and Big Sam's.