[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[RevidgeBlue]

JASON CUNDY is on a par with that other gobshyte adrian derham. he was a crap footballer and he is a crap radio presenter, I turn off when he is on the radio.

I think Durham's footballing knowledge is second to none and he's a pretty intelligent bloke. He just takes a deliberately outrageous stance each night to provoke people into spending money by ringing in.

Cundy's as thick as two short planks. I don't necessarily disagree with him about it being good that more teams can spend money/compete etc but if it's good enough for Man Citeh it has to be good enough for a Blackburn Rovers as well.

[Ewood and I Would]

It was disgusting what the guy from the Guardian said about Jack on talksport, especially given the timing. He essentially 'blamed' him for starting the money revolution in football claiming that before clubs were owned by "local men" running them in the interest of the community (implying that description didn't fit Jack). He then said something along the lines of "then came Roman Abramovich another outsider who poured money into a club" again implying Jack wasn't from Blackburn or a fan like the "tradional owners" in the good old days.

Jack was one of the last local owners by the time of his death wasn't he? So what if he was richer than the others, he didn't spend anything like the amount City or even Chelsea have (even given the change in scales over the years). I remember Sutton being bought for £5m and that being a record, nowadays it doesn't even buy you an average player. I can't see £30m (what City spend on each transfer it seems) being the price of average players in 10 years time.

And why is Jack being blamed? Why not blame Brian Clough would bought the first £1m player (which was way back in 1979 btw), doubling the previous record and he didn't even play for most of their games initially. That was a much closer thing to City signing than anything Jack did.

[Brfcrule1]

Kamy if this takeover does go through can you also arrange a face to face interview with the chap if possible thanks.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

I have a feeling this has gone too far now for the takeover of our beloved club to fail,the media coverage of this has been very high profile,Mr Syed and Rovers would not want egg on there faces now!

THIS IS MASSIVE FOR OUR CLUB.

[Amo]

Jack was one of the last local owners by the time of his death wasn't he? So he was richer than the others, he did spend anything like the amount City or even Chelsea have (even given the change in scales over the years). I remember Sutton being bought for £5m and that being a record, nowadays it doesn't even buy you an average player. I can't see £30m (what City spend on each tansfer it seems) being the price of average players in 10 years time.

Also, look at the money we made on Sutton & Shearer. Chelsea & Man. City have to take massive losses when they sell their big money signings. Yes, we had the spending power back in the day, but we hardly bought an all-star team to leapfrog our rivals, as most sections of the media would believe.

[NookRover]

Just to expand on this Cundy and Gough were talking on Talksport about Man City spending so much money tonight.

Cundy disagreed with many callers saying it was "exciting" and "Brings more teams into the mix."

Two faced git.

Was so wound up by those two talking to the Guardian guy last night...............they made me make my first post, something I never thought I'd do!!

[Ewood and I Would]

Also, look at the money we made on Sutton & Shearer. Chelsea & Man. City have to take massive losses when they sell their big money signings. Yes, we had the spending power back in the day, but we hardly bought an all-star team to leapfrog our rivals, as most sections of the media would believe.

Exactly, if Jack were anything like Sheik Mansour he'd have bought Roberto Baggio, Stoichkov or Romario. We bought solid, but not World famous, English players and team spirit was massive part of it too; Coty won't achieve that bit for a long time.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Exactly, if Jack were anything like Sheik Mansour he'd have bought Roberto Baggio, Stoichkov or Romario. We bought solid, but not World famous, English players and team spirit was massive part of it too; Coty won't achieve that bit for a long time.

I fear that Rovers fans will always be fighting a losing battle to defend the Jack Walker era - and the reality of the spending (it is often ignored that the likes of Sherwood, Hendry, Berg, Le Saux, Atkins etc were purchased for relatively little money). Nobody mentions we had a free transfer aging centre-half playing for a good number of games during our Title winning season.

The press is always too lazy to really look at the background - the vision shown by Jack and the management and coaching of Dalglish and Harford.

The problem is - we broke the cartel of the big city clubs - which the press didn't take too kindly to. Yes we did it with the benefit of a rich owner - but Jack's roots were already in the club - unlike many current owners.

The truth is - if we hadn't purchased Shearer for £3.3m - United would have. Liverpool spent more on Collymore than we did on Sutton. United broke the transfer record signing Keane. Th big city clubs have always pushed the finances of the game - what Jack did is a relative blip in comparison to the financial impact of the likes of Man Utd, Newcastle, Liverpool, Tottingham and lately Chelsea and City have had on the transfer market and the games finances in general. Amongst all this - everybody conveniently ignores the disparity that Sky and the Champions League has created.

[Kelbo]

It was disgusting what the guy from the Guardian said about Jack on talksport, especially given the timing. He essentially 'blamed' him for starting the money revolution in football claiming that before clubs were owned by "local men" running them in the interest of the community (implying that description didn't fit Jack). He then said something along the lines of "then came Roman Abramovich another outsider who poured money into a club" again implying Jack wasn't from Blackburn or a fan like the "tradional owners" in the good old days.

Jack was one of the last local owners by the time of his death wasn't he? So what if he was richer than the others, he didn't spend anything like the amount City or even Chelsea have (even given the change in scales over the years). I remember Sutton being bought for £5m and that being a record, nowadays it doesn't even buy you an average player. I can't see £30m (what City spend on each transfer it seems) being the price of average players in 10 years time.

And why is Jack being blamed? Why not blame Brian Clough would bought the first £1m player (which was way back in 1979 btw), doubling the previous record and he didn't even play for most of their games initially. That was a much closer thing to City signing than anything Jack did.

Maybe we should educate the plonker from the gaurdian of two very important facts, firstly, almost all the money spent on players was to English clubs, money therefore bweing turned around withion our leagues as clubs bought replacement players etc, secondly, almost every player was sold on for huge profits!! Look at Spurs, City, Chelsea etc, selling for less than they paid for a player.

[BPF]

The takeover WILL go through.

Ali's international reputation now relies on it after he has been so public about it.

Just a matter of time now.

[rigger]

Maybe we should educate the plonker from the gaurdian of two very important facts, firstly, almost all the money spent on players was to English clubs, money therefore bweing turned around withion our leagues as clubs bought replacement players etc, secondly, almost every player was sold on for huge profits!! Look at Spurs, City, Chelsea etc, selling for less than they paid for a player.

Another plus was that most of the team where British, so I think, they knew what there achievement meant to us as fans, of our small town club

[thenodrog]

It was disgusting what the guy from the Guardian said about Jack on talksport, especially given the timing. He essentially 'blamed' him for starting the money revolution in football claiming that before clubs were owned by "local men" running them in the interest of the community (implying that description didn't fit Jack). He then said something along the lines of "then came Roman Abramovich another outsider who poured money into a club" again implying Jack wasn't from Blackburn or a fan like the "tradional owners" in the good old days.

Jack was one of the last local owners by the time of his death wasn't he? So what if he was richer than the others, he didn't spend anything like the amount City or even Chelsea have (even given the change in scales over the years). I remember Sutton being bought for £5m and that being a record, nowadays it doesn't even buy you an average player. I can't see £30m (what City spend on each transfer it seems) being the price of average players in 10 years time.

And why is Jack being blamed? Why not blame Brian Clough would bought the first £1m player (which was way back in 1979 btw), doubling the previous record and he didn't even play for most of their games initially. That was a much closer thing to City signing than anything Jack did.

If he had any gumption he need look back to

a. the abolishment of the maximum wage. The real biggy.

b. the 70's rule amendment that allowed the home team to keep the gate receipts instead of splitting them with the visiting club. (btw This was not really unfair but just another contributory factor to creating the rich / poor divide that has damaged the competition and spectator enjoyment in the top league.) Many sports have a handicap system to retain competitivity e.g. golf, horse racing, motor racing, American football etc. Football should too.

c. Johnny Bosman / Freedom of Contract.

[RovertheHill]

There are one billion people in India, he only needs to attract 0.1% of the population to spend £10 a year on Rovers to make £10m per annum.

How many Rovers fans are there in the UK? More than 60k I would bet and that is what 0.1% calculates like in this country. Does anybody know how many shirts we currently sell a year?

Football is rapidly growing in India and people support is up for grabs. Syed knows that market better than any other PL chairman and there is no reason with a good cup run we could become popular over there. Just one FA cup could see us gaining thousands of new Indian fans should Rovers target sensible things like that.

Only in the UK have I seen Rovers being described as "unfashionable", foreign news outlet are usually much kinder about us so I don't think it's the same as trying to convert people away from Man Utd and Chelsea here because that would never work.

But saying a "few shirts in Asia" is massively undderstating the potential there.

You sound really desperate for this all to be as good as it sounds. I hope it is but have you ever been to India? For a start, football is not growing as rapidly as you think. Almost nobody plays it - hockey is the national sport and cricket is the passion - and very few watch it. Secondly, India is massively contrasting in terms of income. For hundreds of millions of people £10 a year is simply not disposable income on any sport, let alone one that at best comes a poor third. There is potential I will agree, but quoting simple sums that just have no factual basis isn't helpful at all

[Mc Love]

Kamy if this takeover does go through can you also arrange a face to face interview with the chap if possible thanks.

Read through the thread and you will see this has been already mentioned

[bazza]

Speculation seems to concentrate on developing the Ewood area and building a team capable of challenging the current bigwigs and playing in Europe.

If this take-over goes ahead, my immediate relief will be our ability to retain players such as Phil Jones without having to sell to greedy clubs such as Arsenal.

Keep yer 'ands off 'im, Gunners!

[Ewood and I Would]

You sound really desperate for this all to be as good as it sounds. I hope it is but have you ever been to India? For a start, football is not growing as rapidly as you think. Almost nobody plays it - hockey is the national sport and cricket is the passion - and very few watch it. Secondly, India is massively contrasting in terms of income. For hundreds of millions of people £10 a year is simply not disposable income on any sport, let alone one that at best comes a poor third. There is potential I will agree, but quoting simple sums that just have no factual basis isn't helpful at all

Yes I have actually, 2 years ago. You seem to be talking of the India of ten years ago. India has the biggest growth in the middle classes in the World.

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Tracking_the_growth_of_Indias_middle_class_2032

"Over the next two decades, the countrys middle class will grow from about 5 percent of the population to more than 40 percent and create the worlds fifth-largest consumer market."

As for football, international football is currently India's second most watched sport (behind Cricket). The amount of people that play is it irrelevant, only the amount prepared to watch it (the popularity to play it comes from the increase in viewing figures not the other way around).

If you don't think there is potential there you are crazy. You've been watching too much slumdog millionaire...

Speculation seems to concentrate on developing the Ewood area and building a team capable of challenging the current bigwigs and playing in Europe.

If this take-over goes ahead, my immediate relief will be our ability to retain players such as Phil Jones without having to sell to greedy clubs such as Arsenal.

Keep yer 'ands off 'im, Gunners!

That's a good point...

[I_saw_Batty_score]

There is a danger with all the foreign ownership - effectively the Premier League becoming a franchise with clubs not necessarily based in England - but in the most lucrative locations possible. I know that has been resisted until now however since the Premier League makes its own rules given sufficient majority of the chairmen etc it can't be ruled out forever.

Sadly I can't see how an investment in Rovers can return a serious profit whilst based in East Lancs irrespective of any redevelopment of the Riverside; reality is that a club based in East Lancs is never going to attract the crowds paying the sort of gate money they take every home game at the Emirates, Old Trafford, White Hart Lane etc. Face facts - there is not the economy in East Lancs to sustain a club paying 100+ million a year in wages. In my view any takeover would inevitably result in an ownership supporting turning the premiership into a franchise.

I really hope I'm wrong because local rivalry it what makes the atmosphere in the premier league so much better than competitions such as the champions league.

[Majiball]

Exactly, if Jack were anything like Sheik Mansour he'd have bought Roberto Baggio, Stoichkov or Romario. We bought solid, but not World famous, English players and team spirit was massive part of it too; Coty won't achieve that bit for a long time.

Trouble is though that's exactly what we should have done when we won the league.

The targets Dalglish wanted were awesome.

[allan]

A £100m kitty - even if true - will only at best secure a mid-table position for a few (very few) years. It will need to cover wages as well as transfer fees - something that few on this site seem to realise. A moderate player costing £5m will require wages of at least £8m over a 4 year contract. Total cost £13m so £100m will buy about 7 such players. Nothing like enough to have even a prayer of breaking into the top 6. I sincerely hope the takeover will happen but I'm keeping it in perspective - as is the national media rather than the hysteria I read here.

[RovertheHill]

Yes I have actually, 2 years ago. You seem to be talking of the India of ten years ago. India has the biggest growth in the middle classes in the World.

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Tracking_the_growth_of_Indias_middle_class_2032

"Over the next two decades, the country’s middle class will grow from about 5 percent of the population to more than 40 percent and create the world’s fifth-largest consumer market."

As for football, international football is currently India's second most watched sport (behind Cricket). The amount of people that play is it irrelevant, only the amount prepared to watch it (the popularity to play it comes from the increase in viewing figures not the other way around).

If you don't think there is potential there you are crazy. You've been watching too much slumdog millionaire...

That's a good point...

No, I'm talking about the India of now. The one I regularly discuss with my Indian colleagues and the one I last visited just a month ago, where I had many long conversations about sport. I said there is potential there, of course there is, but two decades is a massive amount of time and a lot can happen in that time. Maybe Rovers will be pulling 10mil pa from India by then but you seem so desperate to see everything about this deal with tinted specs that any sensible caution is simply being ignored

[47er]

It is starting to grate a bit, now. As though he's begging us.

Jack was a fan. He came to watch the matches and support us. Syed won't be doing the same. Provide the money, let the management team handle it and we'll take care of the rest =)

Lets hope he doesn't read this stuff.

[Ewood and I Would]

No, I'm talking about the India of now. The one I regularly discuss with my Indian colleagues and the one I last visited just a month ago, where I had many long conversations about sport. I said there is potential there, of course there is, but two decades is a massive amount of time and a lot can happen in that time. Maybe Rovers will be pulling 10mil pa from India by then but you seem so desperate to see everything about this deal with tinted specs that any sensible caution is simply being ignored

I agree about the timing point you made but Syed also states this is a 15 year plan so if done right and slowly, given Indian projected growth's and Syed's marketing capabilities I can see it working. That's all I'm saying, I originally brought this up because someone said "selling a few shirts in Asia won't help" which I thought was a naive comment.

I suppose I am desperate for this to happen and so should every other Rovers fan be. Of course I'm cautious, read my Firoz Kassam and Oxford post from last night (more similarities between the two arose today with Syed) and I cannot rule out that all he is actually interested in is doing up the assets and then selling the club whilst retaining the property like Kasamm did to Oxford.

But I don't have a crystal ball so I either have to trust him, which brings optimism or carry on with hoping it falls though and the status quo of struggling every year and being linked with depressing targets. I choose to hope the former happens...

[RovertheHill]

I think we all wish it to be true in the way it is coming across. All I am saying is that it isn't signed yet and even if and when it is we have seen enough problems in other clubs to not get too carried away

[unclejack28]

India in general needs a football club to support. It is full of armchair supporters of Man u, Chelsea, Arsenal for which I dont blame them because these clubs are the only ones shown on Tv and marketed. They opened a Manchester United bar in Mumbai and for the first 6 months it was the most attended bar, I remember they had to kick people out because it was so crowded , I know the owner well and hes still killing it. My point being is that if market right and owned by an Indian and shown on Tv, any football club has HUGE potential and im not only talking about the middle or upper class but the country as a whole.

[47er]

There is a danger with all the foreign ownership - effectively the Premier League becoming a franchise with clubs not necessarily based in England - but in the most lucrative locations possible. I know that has been resisted until now however since the Premier League makes its own rules given sufficient majority of the chairmen etc it can't be ruled out forever.

Sadly I can't see how an investment in Rovers can return a serious profit whilst based in East Lancs irrespective of any redevelopment of the Riverside; reality is that a club based in East Lancs is never going to attract the crowds paying the sort of gate money they take every home game at the Emirates, Old Trafford, White Hart Lane etc. Face facts - there is not the economy in East Lancs to sustain a club paying 100+ million a year in wages. In my view any takeover would inevitably result in an ownership supporting turning the premiership into a franchise.

I really hope I'm wrong because local rivalry it what makes the atmosphere in the premier league so much better than competitions such as the champions league.

Syed says he's not looking for a profit.