[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[Bobby G]

Thats the one plus which should quell (relatively) our worries over the future of the club, in that the Trust rejected many people in the last couple of years. Those people did have MONEY. At least some of them did.

[Gav]

You can certainly understand peoples scepticism about possible new owners taking over the club. But for the ones who believe we’re doing ok with the trust, need look no further than the signing of Benjani for further evidence of how we’re losing pace with teams such as Stoke, Wolves and Birmingham who have all bought big compared to us this summer.

This can’t go on see and us retain our premiership status, simple as that.

[Amo]

I say buckle up and enjoy the ride. From what I've seen, Syed doesn't strike me as a cowboy. I remember when Pompey's new owner turned up at Fratton Park, swamped by the fans, you could just tell he wasn't a tycoon by the way he was dressed! Syed has been saying all the right things, and his business acumen speaks for itself. If he takes over the club, I'm looking forward to a period of uncertainty, excitement, and the opportunity to dream for once. Rather that, than scrimping by every year, and having to look at players like Benjani because we haven't got a pot to piddle in.

[philipl]

I might be reading too much into this, but if you accept that Andy Cryer is very close to the Rovers people then looking between the lines this article points to today's game against Arsenal being the last at Ewood under Trust ownership.

[DanLad]

I say buckle up and enjoy the ride. From what I've seen, Syed doesn't strike me as a cowboy. I remember when Pompey's new owner turned up at Fratton Park, swamped by the fans, you could just tell he wasn't a tycoon by the way he was dressed! Syed has been saying all the right things, and his business acumen speaks for itself. If he takes over the club, I'm looking forward to a period of uncertainty, excitement, and the opportunity to dream for once. Rather that, than scrimping by every year, and having to look at players like Benjani because we haven't got a pot to piddle in.

You're comparing us to Pompey?!?

I hope we don't go down that road.

[Amo]

You're comparing us to Pompey?!?

I hope we don't go down that road.

How did you ascertain that?

[sparky12]

I might be reading too much into this, but if you accept that Andy Cryer is very close to the Rovers people then looking between the lines this article points to today's game against Arsenal being the last at Ewood under Trust ownership.

you probably are looking to far into it but i can see where your coming from!!

[den]

Are we after "huge results", Den? I think there are plenty of players around the world who would cost less than 8 million who could make a major difference to us and have us competing in the top half of the league.

If we were to really invest in the Academy and scouting system and focus on investing in and developing real talent then that would be good enough for me.

I didn't say we were after huge results bish - Joey said we could achieve that while spending somewhere between £2.5m and £5m max on players.

Great theory mind you, that we could improve things by spending next to nothing on players and bring through academy lads. You just wonder why Chelsea/Man Utd/Arsenal/Liverpool etc don't do the same. They could save themselves an absolute fortune.

Truth is, there's no reason to limit our spending. If the player you want is available at the right price and you can afford him, then buy him.

[joey_big_nose]

I didn't say we were after huge results bish - Joey said we could achieve that while spending somewhere between £2.5m and £5m max on players.

Great theory mind you, that we could improve things by spending next to nothing on players and bring through academy lads. You just wonder why Chelsea/Man Utd/Arsenal/Liverpool etc don't do the same. They could save themselves an absolute fortune.

Truth is, there's no reason to limit our spending. If the player you want is available at the right price and you can afford him, then buy him.

My point is if you spend less you can get as good players and you reduce the long term dependency on the owner, plus avoid a lot of the huge and often massively damaging baggage you get with big money buys.

Den - you must see the point that the vast majority of big money buys for mid table clubs have not produced good results for the teams that bought them.

If Syed really does produce 300m then we can compete with Man City, Spurs, Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal. But, call me skeptical, but I just can't see it. We need investment definitely, and I am 100% behind the takeover, but we need to look at where other clubs in our position have tried and failed with big money transfers. It is a dangerous approach that creates long term instability imo without much real gain in competitiveness. If we find a player who is a big spend and clearly a different class - like Sam did with Anelka at Bolton - then by all means we should go for it. But we need to be 100% certain. You can count the players who made that sort of impact for a mid table club on your fingers.

I am talking about spending 20-30m but just spending it on several cheaper players rather than a couple of big names who all too often turn out to be massive wastes of money.

Anyway I have made my point I think, and what matters is 1) if the takeover completes 2) if Syed produces the money 3) Sam's transfer strategy. I hope we stick with and enhance the young player approach that is looking so good for us at the moment.

[Bobby G]

You can never be 100% certain when signing players. I dont think the club's philosophy or scouting network will change just cause we have got money in.

[den]

Den - you must see the point that the vast majority of big money buys for mid table clubs have not produced good results for the teams that bought them.

No, I don't see that Joey and I wonder why you only include mid table teams. In fact I see exactly the opposite.

Rest assured though, that if we do get significant investment, the owners wont cap their spending on any one player. They will pay the going rate as long as it's affordable - and that's the key. It isn't about the individual cost of a player, it's about getting the right player at the right price.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we splash stupid amounts on the wrong player. I would be very happy indeed if we could go into the summer transfer window for the next ten years, knowing that we are in a position to strengthen the squad. I would be delighted with that. There's absolutely no need to restrict your self with fee limits though.

[Silencio]

I didn't say we were after huge results bish - Joey said we could achieve that while spending somewhere between £2.5m and £5m max on players.

Great theory mind you, that we could improve things by spending next to nothing on players and bring through academy lads. You just wonder why Chelsea/Man Utd/Arsenal/Liverpool etc don't do the same. They could save themselves an absolute fortune.

Truth is, there's no reason to limit our spending. If the player you want is available at the right price and you can afford him, then buy him.

I wasn't really thinking of a max amount on players, I guess I'm thinking between you and Joey. You talk about Man U/Arsenal/Chelsea and Liverpool but there are other clubs around Europe who we could follow the model of.

Seville, Udinese, Ajax, Wolfsburg, Bremen, Porto and Lyon are clubs that spring to mind. They do bring through Academy players and develop young, bought-in talent. When bigger clubs come in for those players they then sell them on for a massive profit and carry on with what they were doing. I doubt we will ever be big enough to be able to resist doing that so I'd be happy for us to make the best of our natural situation.

Your right, we don't have to limit our spending but we need to be careful of making statement signings...

[joey_big_nose]

No, I don't see that Joey and I wonder why you only include mid table teams. In fact I see exactly the opposite.

Well Den the reason I exclude the top teams is because I think it is absolutely delusional to think we can have the same transfer policy as the top five or six spenders even with significant investment.

You learn from history, and the history is that plenty of clubs have come along and spent big - Sunderland, Pompey, Newcastle, Hull, Stoke, Boro, West Ham - and it has not improved things for the outlay. We are not the first club to have a big money takeover (of it happens), and we need a cleverer approach than those clubs above.

[Balwer]

My point is if you spend less you can get as good players

this is a strange statement. Are you suggesting that football doesn't operate in a free market economy where the price of a product is determined by the 'invisible hand' balancing supply and demand? If you could spend less and get as good players then everyone would do it, thus no players would be worth more.

On the whole you get what you pay for.

[S15]

this is a strange statement. Are you suggesting that football doesn't operate in a free market economy where the price of a product is determined by the 'invisible hand' balancing supply and demand? If you could spend less and get as good players then everyone would do it, thus no players would be worth more.

On the whole you get what you pay for.

No, you pay for in form players in top leagues.

There are plenty of players who can be as good as these players, you have to spot the talent and hunger, then make them worth top dollar.

[Balwer]

No, you pay for in form players in top leagues.

There are plenty of players who can be as good as these players, you have to stop the talent and hunger, then make them worth top dollar.

A player is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for them at that point in time. In that they're no different to any other commodity. Sometimes hindsight changes that perspective but hindsight is always 20/20.

Anyway my point was that players worth less are worth less for a reason.

[S15]

A player is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for them at that point in time. In that they're no different to any other commodity. Sometimes hindsight changes that perspective but hindsight is always 20/20.

Anyway my point was that players worth less are worth less for a reason.

Yeah and I've told you the reason.

Why was Bentley worth less than Alan Smith when we signed him, but three times more when we sold him?

[Balwer]

Yeah and I've told you the reason.

Why was Bentley worth less than Alan Smith when we signed him, but three times more when we sold him?

Because he was an unproven commodity when we took him on. Obviously. My point, and the point of den and several others, is that joey seems to imply that increased spending is pointless. I disagree with this, of course there's the chance that things don't pan out, and coincidentally lower priced players can turn out to be gems, but there's plenty that don't too.

[Paul]

Same old stuff I'm afraid. You've been asked for your alternative several times but all you do is analyse the problems associated with ownership of Premier League clubs. We all know them anyway but what you can't seem to get your head around is that Rovers have an ownership problem now!

The Walker Trust no longer wishes to own the club and is putting in less and less funding so that our ability to compete in this League is severely at risk. Are we to reject all offers? Certain relegation then beckons. What is the point of that?

Ok so you don't trust the likely owner despite his declarations of honourable intent. Certainly the club will be entirely reliant on the owner and would collapse if he walked away-------EXACTLY AS NOW!

Can't you see that this offer is as good as it is ever likely to get? What you seem to want is a takeover without any possible portion of risk whatsoever. Life isn't like that.

In the present circumstances (have you noticed the current transfer window passing us by?) we have no option but to suck it and see. You have no alternative because there is no alternative. All this has been said over and over again but still you can't/won't get it.

I do hope your rant at me has helped make you feel better and will have an enjoyable weekend.

May I mention the post JBN made related to the type of transfer policy he favoured following the club's sale. As far as I can see it was not a post regarding the positive or negative side of the proposed takeover. My response was to point out that Fulham, his example, while being a club that is cautious in the transfer market, something he was advocating, are £168m in debt and cannot be a good example of the success of such policy. JBN also went on to say under new ownnership he felt we would not compete with several top teams financially. My point was, and still, is that a new owner investing £300m over a 15 year plan (Al Fayed has been at Fulham for 13 years) might be looking for more than seventh; ergo buying small and settling for mid-table up to around 7th is not going to be good enough for the new owners. If Syed buys the club, which I'm sure he will, it seems certain he will be looking to buy bigger than £2.5-5m players and will be expecting to at least challenge the 5-6 teams mentioned by JBN. If Syed is prepared to invest £300m in the club surely he is expecting more in return for his investment than 7th?

That was my point and I made absolutely no reference, positive r negative to the proposed takeover, but if you wish to see it in a different light please feel free to do so - after watching today it is even more apparent the team needs some wise investment, and I doubt many £2m players would make much difference to our side.

[Gav]

Plenty of cameras pointing at the directors box today, was the potential owner in town?

[Craigman]

Almost done !

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

"The first step is to maintain Premier League status, enhance the capabilities of the academy, see if there lies potential to increase the seating of the stadium, help Big Sam [Allardyce] with the transfer budget and to market the club rightly in other parts of the world, specifically in India, the far east and Middle East."

- This is what we want to hear, not

"There's huge potential. We need to be more innovative. If you go back in history [Manchester] United and Real Madrid started somewhere. They did not start as giants"

- I hope he doesnt increase the capacity of Ewood but the rest from the first quote is spot on. Its a bit embarrassing to hear potential comparisons to Madrid/United, we dont need that. We want a sustained top 10 premier league side. Nobody should expect anything more.

[philipl]

Different leagues but Auxerre and Villarreal are less than half the size of Blackburn.

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

Different leagues but Auxerre and Villarreal are less than half the size of Blackburn.

True, but im not comfortable with those comparisons. If we get to that level fantastic but we need to keep our feet on the ground. Our ambition should be to build slowly and not expect to reach the heights of say a Man Utd. Top 6 is a long long way away right now, and that should be the aim in a year or so's time. Winning the Champions League etc is not something we should be expecting right now.

[mogster]

First comment from Mr Ali's team for a long time so it must be very very close..

Julia Thiem, spokeswoman for Western Gulf Advisory, Syed's investment company, saidsaid: "We are progressing well and hopeful of completing the due diligence process this week. It's fingers crossed for that. Then we will approach the Premier League to complete the paperwork needed. We also have to make an offer to the minority shareholders of the club."

Asked when Syed may complete and hold executive power over Blackburn, Thiem said: "It is a little more complicated because of [the majority] of the club being owned by a trust. The lawyers say this could make the deal longer to conclude. We hope it could be done by the middle or end of September. But it is difficult to know at the moment."