[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[rivercider]

As I gather it, Villa was sold for a valuation derived from EBITDA, Net Assets and a DCF.

The theory is that Rovers, with EBITDA (then) of around £6mm (though nearly all of that being from Profit from Dispersal of Players) plus net assets of around £20mm, during the investment bubble and Real Estate craze, was worth a fair penny.

Ultimately though as we all realize now, any business or asset is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Back them someone here thought £35mm was a fair price, but other groups were saying they'd pay £50mm so the advice was clearly wait for the £50mm - no real blame on either side of the deal if you ask me, perhaps some would suggest the people claiming to be willing to pay £50mm but who ultimately didn't put a spanner in things a little but if you put an asking price on your house of £500k plus the mortgage, and someone offers £350k plus the mortgage, it is ultimately your choice if you want to sell up or wait to see if someone else comes up with the goods.

Fact is that Rovers are not the only people who were sellers in 2007 who now find that what they were selling then is worth a lot less now, my points are just that a/ they (Rovers Board and Trustees) acted totally professionally then and b/ that it is just crazy to suggest that Plainfield lacked the funds to do the deal, or were attempting to asset strip, or were told to get lost by the club.

Now I just hope that the Rovers fans get on the blower to one another, get some of the plastics out for the big game against the dingles, and that those bellends walk away in their wellies crying in to their butties.

It's like a whole new language for me! Have a great weekend - hope the sunshine makes it over to Lancashire - and here's hoping Chelski suffer a Euro-hangover.

Forever in Rovers.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Very interesting, and somewhat depressing, last few pages to say the least.

As I recall, the chief Williams rubbisher was our Maltese correspondent with his usual imaginary sources. I wonder if he will match Rivercider and name his names? Thought not.

[den]

Wellies = welly boots = wellington boots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_boot

See also: welly throwing -

I know you're his hero now Bry, but did we really need to head off looking for welly throwing youtubes?

Don't get carried away son.

[ewoodpo]

Does anyone know what our current debt figure actually is (roughly)?

Did Nicko not mention something in the region of £20 million? It won't be far off as I put the question to somebody up there at the club last season . He told me that we had a running debt of £15 million which for a football club is not a lot.

[47er]

Up until a couple of days ago the name Dan Williams was met with much derision around here - now we're hoping he's still interested.

Thank God the Trustees take a slightly longer view otherwise we really could be in Pompey's position right now.

I'm one who's said I hope Dan Williams is still interested but, then again, unlike the financial experts on here, I never derided him in the first place. Hope those who said, even recently, "thank God we were saved from takeover by that Yankee shyster who never had the finances in the first place etc etc" or words to that effect are eating their words. A redeveloped Riverside,Ewood park used to maximum, investment in the local community, gradually pulling out to let a fan increase his holding, new owners aware of Rovers history and admiring of us succeeding against the odds...........Dear oh dear---I could cry.

[rivercider]

I know you're his hero now Bry, but did we really need to head off looking for welly throwing youtubes?

Don't get carried away son.

People make a sport of throwing waterproof boots, and your biggest worry is that someone video-taped it?!

I thought you Brits were nuts for that crazy cheese roll you do or for drinking beer at room temperature, but now I see another slice of evidence to confirm my view that Britain is, without doubt, the most eccentric, brilliant, lunatic, old fashioned and wonderful place to be. If you could only make a decent pizza, sort out your gas (petrol) prices and taxes and do something about the weather, the reverse migration from the US would swamp your entire nation!

Last month we had "speak like a pirate" day over here in the US and several of the junior office staff devoted an hour to literally speaking like a pirate - I am proclaiming Monday a "speak like you're from Lancashire" day here. I'll order some of those meat pies we so loved and we'll all say a big "ey up" and munch it down with some Henderson's and a pint of John Smiths (served warm).

[47er]

Very interesting, and somewhat depressing, last few pages to say the least.

As I recall, the chief Williams rubbisher was our Maltese correspondent with his usual imaginary sources. I wonder if he will match Rivercider and name his names? Thought not.

I wasn't going to say that! Time for Phillip to tell us to read his posts properly and realise he was pro the takeover all along!

[rivercider]

I'm one who's said I hope Dan Williams is still interested but, then again, unlike the financial experts on here, I never derided him in the first place. Hope those who said, even recently, "thank God we were saved from takeover by that Yankee shyster who never had the finances in the first place etc etc" or words to that effect are eating their words. A redeveloped Riverside,Ewood park used to maximum, investment in the local community, gradually pulling out to let a fan increase his holding, new owners aware of Rovers history and admiring of us succeeding against the odds...........Dear oh dear---I could cry.

I really do think the Oakland Athletics (baseball) analogy which was used in the office a LOT back then is one you should be aware of. The Oakland "A"s as they are lovingly known are what we call a "small market" team - Oakland is a working class area and the team is overshadowed by the more glamorous San Francisco clubs who have more money. Yet Oakland, family owned, has "punched above its weight" constantly by finding bargain players and making/remaking their careers. I think Rovers has a similar feel to it. There is also a history of Oakland players leaving the club for more money to go to big name teams and not succeeding there - I think Jason Giambi should have been a lesson David Bentley could have learnt from.

As for "Yankee shysters" - Peter Cuneo is a very quiet, reserved man who I wish you could all meet, it might undo some of the damage that my countrymen suffer from as a result of an image that Americans somewhat deserve but is based on a vocal minority who think telling Brits "we bailed you out in the war" is somehow endearing or funny and that a flashy car is the measure of a man. Dan Williams himself is about as British as you'll find and last time I was at his house was for a July THIRD party to celebrate the anniversary of the last day of civilization in what he lovingly calls "Her Majesty's Former Colonies", so not sure how he got labeled a Yankee (which, by the way, only refers to people from above the Mason-Dixon line - as someone raised in the South, I am many things, but never a Yankee!)

[Balwer]

I really do think the Oakland Athletics (baseball) analogy which was used in the office a LOT back then is one you should be aware of. The Oakland "A"s as they are lovingly known are what we call a "small market" team - Oakland is a working class area and the team is overshadowed by the more glamorous San Francisco clubs who have more money. Yet Oakland, family owned, has "punched above its weight" constantly by finding bargain players and making/remaking their careers. I think Rovers has a similar feel to it. There is also a history of Oakland players leaving the club for more money to go to big name teams and not succeeding there - I think Jason Giambi should have been a lesson David Bentley could have learnt from.

Unfortunately as a diehard Packers fan Oakland will be forever tainted to me by three words. 'Undead' Al Davis.

[rivercider]

Unfortunately as a diehard Packers fan Oakland will be forever tainted to me by three words. 'Undead' Al Davis.

Yeah, steer clear of their football (American) team, that's a whole other can of worms.

I think the "A"s idea was more of a way to have got Rovers exposure in the US. As a Packers' fan you'll appreciate that there is a market in America for the plucky underdog - which has endeared Green Bay, in its tiny Wisconsin base, to many Americans as well as people worldwide not as devoted to football. That was the plan with Rovers - to market to the American audience the idea that instead of just following the usual Big 4, there was a club in England who the Americans could root for with its distinctive colors, its proud history and its habit for muscling in among the big boys. Part of the allure of Rovers to investors here at the time was the idea of creating a fan base for Rovers (and thus Rovers merchandise, online coverage etc) among the "real" Americans - the 9-5 working and lower middle class, regular Joe mid-western and southerners who make up 2/3rds of the US population and to whom Rovers could have been attractively marketed by way of media, internet and exhibition games/tours. For example a pre-season tour by Rovers (even the B side) playing, say, Iowa's PDL team, the Columbus Crew of MLS and the Carolina Railhawks of the USL would have undoubtedly sold out. The teams would have paid over $500k between them to have Rovers appear, and 60,000 fans would have attended the games. If just 5% of those buy a Rovers shirt, a $19.99 online access to watch the games, and attend one home game in Blackburn a year, that is 3,000 x $200 of totally new revenue a year for the club. Add that to the appearance fees and suddenly you are looking at nearly £1,000,000 in extra direct revenue a year, and ESPN suddenly starts getting calls to screen more Rovers' games, more kids in the US start to grow up with Rovers as an alternate (and to the American mindset that loves an underdog, an attractive alternative) to the Big Four, and so on and so on.

No-one's saying American exposure would have made all the difference, but then do that in Nigeria, Ghana, China, Japan, South Korea etc etc and it starts to make a mark.

[47er]

Rovercider (sounds like Riversider doesn't it?!) one issue is worth taking up with you. The squad has not been weakened as much as you might think. The loss of David Bentley was critical and we need someone of his ilk to fully recover. But we are getting new young players through now and more on the way. Warnock is a good player but not that crucial and Kalinic upfront is looking the real deal. It wouldn't take vast transfer funds to propel us into Euro- chasing places. However if a takeover is long delayed, in my opinion it will cost much more to revive us. We are at the "tipping point" as people are fond of saying these days. Not only will we not get the new players but we will lost the good ones we have left--like Samba and Kalinic.

So if Dan Williams is reading this----now's the time for a knight to ride in on a white charger. The club is way cheaper to buy, the ground isn't falling down and there's still plenty of talent to build on.Get a new group together-- you know you want to!

[rivercider]

Rovercider (sounds like Riversider doesn't it?!) one issue is worth taking up with you. The squad has not been weakened as much as you might think. The loss of David Bentley was critical and we need someone of his ilk to fully recover. But we are getting new young players through now and more on the way. Warnock is a good player but not that crucial and Kalinic upfront is looking the real deal. It wouldn't take vast transfer funds to propel us into Euro- chasing places. However if a takeover is long delayed, in my opinion it will cost much more to revive us. We are at the "tipping point" as people are fond of saying these days. Not only will we not get the new players but we will lost the good ones we have left--like Samba and Kalinic.

So if Dan Williams is reading this----now's the time for a knight to ride in on a white charger. The club is way cheaper to buy, the ground isn't falling down and there's still plenty of talent to build on.Get a new group together-- you know you want to!

He used to check in on here, but I think it got a little depressing for him given the levels of abuse. I actually set up an account for both him and a couple of the Plainfield team to be able to follow on here when the site was restricted, so know for a fact Plainfield and Williams were aware at the time of things on here, but no idea whether he is aware of the new opportunities from the club.

I don't have much sway with what he thinks either way, but I know a couple of fans reached out to him back in 2007 and that was very well received, so if you want to communicate with him I am sure he'd be glad to "banter" (another new word for me) with Rovers fans, but I only have his private e-mail address which I am reluctant to post on here.

Trust me if I had the money.......I'd spend it elsewhere......but if I had the money and the love for the club, I don't see why I wouldn't think about it at least.

[philipl]

This isn't a response to EiT's silly little jibe but to say thanks for an extremely interesting read.

A few observations and over to rivercider if he wants to comment.

In the first post he wrote: "The club started meeting with representatives from the investment group fronted by Dan Williams in early March of 2008." and "The trustees screened and approved the buying parties, reflected clearly by the repeated meetings over a total of over 2 months". Rivercider has also written that the NDA has expired on its anniversary so presumably as at 19 March 2010, it is now three years since the last confidential material passed between the interested parties.

The press broke in June or July 2007 and then the story ran fueled by personal interviews given by Dan Williams through the autumn/fall of 2007. This would seem to confirm that the press story was running after the substantive negotiations around the potential purchase were over. There is also this paragraph: "As a group who do not conduct business publicly, Plainfield withdraw their involvement in negotiations at that time deferring to Dan Williams, but remained financially committed, and a formal document was drafted and released to the club via Allen Overy of London."

Would it be fair or unfair to suggest that after the press got hold of the story, Dan Williams at the least took advantage of it having landed in the public domain to try to generate public support for a bid which had been faltering for several weeks?

To be honest I have never understood the motivation behind the false website being set-up. I took the assertions it made to be serious in the absence of any reason to doubt them especially after the IP address was practically located to Dan Williams' American home by some investigation conducted by people posting on this web site- the whole thing seems bizarre.

With regards to pricing, Jack Walker left Rovers exceptionally well endowed with land and buildings and that skews the Rovers valuation upwards. If the numbers mentioned on here are correct, then the offer made was many millions less than just the value of land and buildings in the Rovers' accounts. In other words the football club excluding its fixed assets but with a 7th place, Mark Hughes, Tugay et al in place was valued by the bidders at a significant negative number.

This would stack up with Plainfield regarding Rovers as an investment proposition- the were looking to yield both an income stream from their investment and a capital gain as ownership transferred progressively to Dan Williams. The Trust is not putting much in these days but it is reasonably clear that Plainfield planned to take plenty out.

[thenodrog]

If the post is indeed valid it would show greed by the trust, nothing more. A deal was being done but they preferred to believe the line of other parties being interested paying the full whack for the club, which turned out to be ######. And now with the current talk of the price being dropped, it really is egg on face for the trust.

Good grief. It's theirs to buy and sell. You have no say in the matter. If you did I dare say that you would want the top price too.

[47er]

He used to check in on here, but I think it got a little depressing for him given the levels of abuse. I actually set up an account for both him and a couple of the Plainfield team to be able to follow on here when the site was restricted, so know for a fact Plainfield and Williams were aware at the time of things on here, but no idea whether he is aware of the new opportunities from the club.

I don't have much sway with what he thinks either way, but I know a couple of fans reached out to him back in 2007 and that was very well received, so if you want to communicate with him I am sure he'd be glad to "banter" (another new word for me) with Rovers fans, but I only have his private e-mail address which I am reluctant to post on here.

Trust me if I had the money.......I'd spend it elsewhere......but if I had the money and the love for the club, I don't see why I wouldn't think about it at least.

I would love to chat to him and see if I could add my two penniworth (see Anglo dictionary!) to push him over the edge! He certainly received stuff on here that made me cringe at the time.Many fans on here have known nothing but the Walkers and feel secure with them. Akin to "let's all go down together'. So talk to him, tell him! The club is going to go to somebody sooner or later. Might be his only chance!

[Balwer]

I would certainly sign a petition for Dan Williams to buy the club if one was to be started. Let him see that the fanbase wants him to come and make a positive impact on the whole Rovers community, and that we are sorry for how things went the first time around.

[ScudCrater]

Well, Rivercider, what a joy it's been to read your posts this evening. Somewhat depressing considering what could have been but, in the same breath, you have made me chuckle with your comments (an American with an "English" sense of humour.. priceless!).

But can we really believe everything you say is true when it's almost 11 o'clocker time and you're still posting despite the allure of, and promised departure for, those lovely business ladies in Bryant Park?! ;-)

Yeah, steer clear of their football (American) team, that's a whole other can of worms.

I think the "A"s idea was more of a way to have got Rovers exposure in the US. As a Packers' fan you'll appreciate that there is a market in America for the plucky underdog - which has endeared Green Bay, in its tiny Wisconsin base, to many Americans as well as people worldwide not as devoted to football. That was the plan with Rovers - to market to the American audience the idea that instead of just following the usual Big 4, there was a club in England who the Americans could root for with its distinctive colors, its proud history and its habit for muscling in among the big boys. Part of the allure of Rovers to investors here at the time was the idea of creating a fan base for Rovers (and thus Rovers merchandise, online coverage etc) among the "real" Americans - the 9-5 working and lower middle class, regular Joe mid-western and southerners who make up 2/3rds of the US population and to whom Rovers could have been attractively marketed by way of media, internet and exhibition games/tours. For example a pre-season tour by Rovers (even the B side) playing, say, Iowa's PDL team, the Columbus Crew of MLS and the Carolina Railhawks of the USL would have undoubtedly sold out. The teams would have paid over $500k between them to have Rovers appear, and 60,000 fans would have attended the games. If just 5% of those buy a Rovers shirt, a $19.99 online access to watch the games, and attend one home game in Blackburn a year, that is 3,000 x $200 of totally new revenue a year for the club. Add that to the appearance fees and suddenly you are looking at nearly £1,000,000 in extra direct revenue a year, and ESPN suddenly starts getting calls to screen more Rovers' games, more kids in the US start to grow up with Rovers as an alternate (and to the American mindset that loves an underdog, an attractive alternative) to the Big Four, and so on and so on.

No-one's saying American exposure would have made all the difference, but then do that in Nigeria, Ghana, China, Japan, South Korea etc etc and it starts to make a mark.

[chaddyrovers]

Like i said before, i was happy for Dan Williams to buy the club back then. I trust people for the word. he said he was rovers fan so you got to believe him. After what i have learnt from reading riversider post i would be more infavour of a dan williams takeover then before. We have learnt that he is a passion rovers fan and comes to games, and would invest his OWN money!!!!!

Riversider you should email with what we have been saying on here.

I would certainly sign a petition for Dan Williams to buy the club if one was to be started. Let him see that the fanbase wants him to come and make a positive impact on the whole Rovers community, and that we are sorry for how things went the first time around.

We should start a facebook petition for Dan Williams to buy the club!!!!!!!

[thenodrog]

If the Trust's direction is purely to maximise wealth for the family how long til Brockhall gets made into a prime location housing estate??

As soon as convenient I guess. There's plenty of places around that could become the new Brockhall. Doesn't necessarily have to be in this country either.

[broadsword]

I know you're his hero now Bry, but did we really need to head off looking for welly throwing youtubes?

Don't get carried away son.

Just doing my bit for trans-intercontinental ballistic relations, Comrade Denski.

[rivercider]

This isn't a response to EiT's silly little jibe but to say thanks for an extremely interesting read.

A few observations and over to rivercider if he wants to comment.

In the first post he wrote: "The club started meeting with representatives from the investment group fronted by Dan Williams in early March of 2008." and "The trustees screened and approved the buying parties, reflected clearly by the repeated meetings over a total of over 2 months". Rivercider has also written that the NDA has expired on its anniversary so presumably as at 19 March 2010, it is now three years since the last confidential material passed between the interested parties.

The press broke in June or July 2007 and then the story ran fueled by personal interviews given by Dan Williams through the autumn/fall of 2007. This would seem to confirm that the press story was running after the substantive negotiations around the potential purchase were over. There is also this paragraph: "As a group who do not conduct business publicly, Plainfield withdraw their involvement in negotiations at that time deferring to Dan Williams, but remained financially committed, and a formal document was drafted and released to the club via Allen Overy of London."

Would it be fair or unfair to suggest that after the press got hold of the story, Dan Williams at the least took advantage of it having landed in the public domain to try to generate public support for a bid which had been faltering for several weeks?

To be honest I have never understood the motivation behind the false website being set-up. I took the assertions it made to be serious in the absence of any reason to doubt them especially after the IP address was practically located to Dan Williams' American home by some investigation conducted by people posting on this web site- the whole thing seems bizarre.

With regards to pricing, Jack Walker left Rovers exceptionally well endowed with land and buildings and that skews the Rovers valuation upwards. If the numbers mentioned on here are correct, then the offer made was many millions less than just the value of land and buildings in the Rovers' accounts. In other words the football club excluding its fixed assets but with a 7th place, Mark Hughes, Tugay et al in place was valued by the bidders at a significant negative number.

This would stack up with Plainfield regarding Rovers as an investment proposition- the were looking to yield both an income stream from their investment and a capital gain as ownership transferred progressively to Dan Williams. The Trust is not putting much in these days but it is reasonably clear that Plainfield planned to take plenty out.

Sir, I have no idea who you are, but I think you are assuming some information you got (from posters on here) is accurate versus information I have (and presumably Mr. Nixon has) from actually being involved and talking directly to the parties. I assume you have never actually spoken to anyone from Plainfield, nor Mr. Williams, nor anyone from the club.

First of all I need to clarify your last paragraph. Plainfield "planned to take plenty out" - out of where? The business plan, as approved by the trustees and John Williams on the one side, and by Dan Williams and his advisers on the other, clearly stated that no physical assets other than the corner of the car park (potentially) to Tescos were to be sold off. There was a provision for a net INVESTMENT of a further £20,000,000 in to the club contained in the offer. The only time Plainfield would have received money would have been directly from Williams/third parties in return for their ownership stake, so frankly you can attempt to make mischief by saying what you think is "clear" but since you apparently have chosen your sources to be "other posters" rather than, say, Rothschilds, the Trustees, the Club or the buyers, I think we can agree that what you may or may not guess to have been the case might very well (and in this case CLEARly is, quite wrong).

Secondly I don't recall there being a raft of interviews, nor frankly does it make sense to suggest that they sought "public support to prop up a bid that had been faltering". The trust were never going to reduce the price just because of the buyer's popularity, and the bid never faltered for weeks - the offer was X, it was rejected, nothing more to it.

As to your valuation theory. The club has net fixed assets of between £15,000,000 and £20,000,000. The main asset that makes this up is Ewood Park, which is valued at £33,000,000 based on its cost of building depreciated over time. Exclude Ewood and the company is insolvent, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that the tangible asset value of the club is, at most, £20,000,000. The club loses (ex-player sales) around £2,000,000 a year and that goes up to £5,000,000 if you extract the trustees putting money in to the business. The remainder of the value lies in the playing squad but as I am sure you'll appreciate - if even a Yankee shyster like me can (shyster being a Jewish lawyer, but never mind) - that you need players to have a club, and selling them was never on the agenda. The only argument for this club being worth £s is Ewood and Brockall, but since Plainfield and Williams had already agreed not to raise debt against those assets or sell them, I don't see how they were of the kind of value you suggest. Furthermore, stadiums are always overvalued on clubs' books because they are listed at cost-depreciation - so valuing Ewood over £30,000,000 - do you know anyone who would pay £30mm for Ewood if we put it on Rightmove.co.uk today? £20mm? £10mm? Actually the market value of Ewood Park is around £2.2mm which is value of land - cost of demolition, so it's not the most compelling "asset" value to a group who have legally bound themselves never to sell or mortgage it.

So ultimately you have to value something worth, if you accept the book price for Ewood, as having net assets of under £20,000,000 and losing £5,000,000 a year.

Then your (already very flimsy) argument makes no sense whatsoever there, since the Trustees themselves have basically admitted since that the club was overvalued - hence a/ no buyers and b/ a reduction in the price to half the original amount.

So your next argument, as I see it, is that Plainfield were clearly looking to take money out of the club based on nothing more than your own odd logic, and in spite of written commitments to put £20,000,000 IN to the club submitted by a law firm to the Club. Enough said there.

Then Plainfield and Williams did a 'series' of interviews (totalling, by my count, 2, which may have been re-quoted later but totaled one to the LET and a later statement) to drum up public support because a successful entrepreneur and a multi-billion dollar hedge fund thought that some popular support would make a bunch of savvy lawyers suddenly drop their asking price £15,000,000. Again, enough said there.

And finally to your point that the Trustees were right to think £35,000,000 represented a "significant negative number" in terms of valuation (out of interest, a 35 year old Tugay was worth what, in your mind, exactly?). This argument would seem rather daft (correct word?) even to a child given that those same trustees, 3 years on, have chosen to set the asking price a further £10,000,000 below your "negative" number. So you're saying that the buyers in 2007 were getting a bargain at £35,000,000.........so presumably the trustees by that rationale are delighted that they didn't sell for that price then, and are instead £6,000,000 poorer and left trying to sell for £25,000,000.

I really don't want to get in to any back and forth, but frankly sir when examined under any kind of microscope, your post is devoid of any logic at all. I just wanted to tell the events as they happened from someone who was there and involved, rather than getting his info second hand from posters on a forum. I have no desire to squabble with you, I think people can decide whether they want facts or illogically drawn conclusions.

[broadsword]

Wow, Ewood Park is worth half a Vincent Grella!

Or El Hadji Diouf plus Keith Andrews.

[jim mk2]

Doc Martens owner Max Griggs threw in the towel at Rushden and Diamonds a few years ago and sold the club to supporters for £1.

If our new American friend is to be believed and Rovers really are worth less than £5m and depreciating all the time, it is not improbable that the Jersey Trust will also give the club away in the end.

[rivercider]

Wow, Ewood Park is worth half a Vincent Grella!

Or El Hadji Diouf plus Keith Andrews.

If you follow Phillip's logic that Plainfield were going to asset strip the club, yes, they would have had to sell Ewood, and I don't know how much Phillip thinks 25 acres in Blackburn with £5,000,000 of demolition and site work needed is worth.

Of course, it could just be that Phillip hasn't thought through his argument that seems to consist of the Yankee Shysters selling off the assets and ending up having paid £35mm but cunningly having made back £2-3mm on selling the stadium (and presumably now playing home games in front of 200 at Brockall - surely that has an impact on revenues Phillip, or were they selling Brockall too which a/ has no prospect of planning and b/ was ALONG WITH EWOOD, part of the club they agreed legally not to sell.

Still stumped how these Yankee shysters intended to make any money here, but it is apparently CLEAR that they intended to take money out of the club.

[47er]

I told Philip a while ago that the value of Ewood Park was what you could get for the scrap after demolition and that the land was worth two thirds of bugger all unlike Highbury but I was informed i had it very wrong

However, I know you say you are on here Rovercider because your gag has expired but I'm hoping that there's more to it. I hope you're paving the way for another Williams takeover bid. You'll deny it of course but I live in hope.

We have to move on and I'd sooner it was with a genuine fan.