[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[Paul]

Agreed, this all went off topic a long time ago. It became a look what I know and you don't topic. Nothing about rovers might or are being sold. Planifield etc nothing to do with rovers - maybe they showed interest 3 years ago - therefore history and nothing to do with rovers might have been sold topic.

I didn't want to make a new topic for this, so maybe it can spark some proper discussion back into this thread?

Very interesting BBC article, comparing the regulations of German club ownership to here.

In terms of ticket price vs quality/entertainment, I think the Germans have it better than anyone in Europe...not to mention that they have standing areas too.

Are the majority of clubs over here too far in debt for us to employ a similar system?

Surely the whole point of a conversation, which is the basis of all topics, is the subject tends to widen around the central point. Which makes Le Chuck's contribution valid, just as valid as those by people who want to discuss Plainfield et al in relation to takeovers at Ewood?

[rivercider]

American and one or two others have asked me to post what I know. I hadn't intended doing so but all of this stuff is just a Google away (there is more but what is private stays private)...

It really doesn't look good for those terribly nice chaps from Plainfield. All this stuff is in the public domain:

Fortune Magazine So from managing $5 billion before the crash, Plainfield’s down to $560 million (or less- see below) plus $2 billion held captive until 2012 from investors who want their money back.

Taken from this public blog:

"A copy of Plainfield’s end of 2009 financials, reviewed by this reporter, says the two non-gated funds only had $388 million in assets. The New York Post reported that Plainfield lost its CFO, Robert DeSantis, last week so maybe he decided to bail before investors filed lawsuits that could uncover the assets are not exactly the value Plainfield says they have.

"Plainfield’s co-founder, Niv Harizman, had left the hedge fund to start one of his own called Tyto Capital Partners. A move that leaves Holmes without his right hand tough guy negotiator. According to Harizman’s blog, he served as a First Lieutenant in military intelligence in the Israel Defense Force. A few of Plainfield’s borrowers told this reporter, he’s been the strong man who dealt with those that couldn’t pay on their hard money, high-interest loans. It’s this type of lending that has the attention of the Manhattan District Attorney who is investigating the fund.

"With the fund is being investigated for criminal violations involving possible lending fraud, which was first reported by Fortune in late January, and is suffering an apparent drain on cash flow — the question investors are asking is will Plainfield be forced into bankruptcy before they get their money back."

According to the New York Post:

Plainfield has denied the claims, but the accusations have reportedly attracted the attention of the Manhattan District Attorney's office and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Rob Sieden, whose firm, Confidential Security & Investigations conducted an investigation into Plainfield on behalf of disgruntled borrowers, said he was recently interviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission about what he had discovered.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/pasture_land_for_plainfield_UVU3uOeontSlFzQsSfAuXN#ixzz0jSfUO8SM

This is not a new problem:

Plainfield Freezes Redemptions

Posted by Bess Levin, Nov 06, 2008, 4:54pm

Plainfield Special Situations Master Fund, a $5 billion credit fund run by Plainfield Asset Management, apparently notified investors on a conference call yesterday that there have been over $1.6 billion in redemptions, and sorry, but the firm has supposedly decided to create a Special Purpose Vehicle which will liquidate redeemed assets over a period of years. Investors were given a choice to rescind their redemptions by November 30 or be issued interests in the new SPV.

So Dan Williams would have thrown Rovers to the mercy of that lot. And don't think that Plainfield would "only" have taken a charge over what they put into Rovers. We would be facing the prospect of a West Ham Icelandic situation before too long if they had become involved.

Because it has little to do with Rovers, I see no reason for an epic reply, but this does highlight the danger of selective cutting and pasting.

First of all, Plainfield (who actually fired me, so no huge love lost) has over $3bn in assets still today, and as far as I am aware none of the businesses they invested in have suffered because of their own financial situation (which is actually mild compared to most hedge funds). I doubt it would have affected Rovers in any way even if Plainfield had taken over - Plainfield might have sought to sell its share of Rovers, but the terms of the deal were such it would have been impossible to liquidate assets - scaremongering is all well and good but again devoid of facts is exactly that.

Secondly, if you actually read the articles, far from lawsuits in high courts, it says that a firm of Private Investigators was hired by a disgruntled client (Confidential Security) and the NY District Attorney asked to see what they found out. You neglect to mention that he then found no wrongdoing and brought no charges.

I can only assume that your vendetta stems from something personal between you and Mr. Williams - 3 years on and you continue to selectively cut and paste from google searches. I presume you stole your gal or ###### in your Frosted Flakes but it is a little scary, maybe he should hire Confidential Security!

The fact is that had Plainfield invested, the club would have had far more money poured in to it in the last 3 years than is the case. The fact is that whoever buys the club now (assuming someone does) is not bound by any covenants of Jack's will as you continually claimed. The fact is, the club is up for sale and the past is the past, there is no relevance to today, and I think the only thing that Rovers fans want now is someone to come in, buy the club and move it forwards. Sensationalist claims "Dan Williams would have left us at their mercy", or "Icelandic-style a la West Ham" or "Brockall and Ewood would have been sold" is just attention seeking, and clearly that's how you get your kicks so good for ya.

What (as a relative newcomer to the Rovers world) I am curious/concerned about is how the club is being marketed now and who can come along and take things forwards. What I do know is that there is a TON of latent value there, not just in TV monies and payments for being in the Prem, but in marketing the club to new demographics, to expanding the Rovers brand overseas, and in developing the club infrastructure which has been largely neglected in the past decade (not a criticism, just a reflection of the understandable shift of passion away from the club since the passing of Mr. Walker). It seems like the interest in the club is all coming from overseas at the moment, specifically (and ironically) the two sides of the religious divide there. Not sure how big a worldwide market the Jewish one is (well, actually can't be more than 10mil) but certainly the Middle East market consists of avid fans but that hardly saved Portsmouth. Should be an interesting few months for the club - obviously for ANY fan the ideal scenario is that the Walker Trust suddenly develops a love for the Rovers, but I just don't see that one happening so here's hoping it is someone who can see the potential (and who passes Philip's google tests).

Sort of exciting times really.

[Iceman]

Give it a rest rivercider. You have made your point, we appreciate your views and opinions, but its getting a bit boring now. Are we going to get a new owner, yes or no? Thats all i want to know, because Plainfield did NOT buy us, so next. If Dan Williams wants in again, then so be it, but he needs to prove that he really has what it takes to take over.

[rivercider]

Give it a rest rivercider. You have made your point, we appreciate your views and opinions, but its getting a bit boring now. Are we going to get a new owner, yes or no? Thats all i want to know, because Plainfield did NOT buy us, so next. If Dan Williams wants in again, then so be it, but he needs to prove that he really has what it takes to take over.

Yes, we are going to get new owners, because the current owners are keen to sell. It won't be Plainfield, Dan Williams or anyone I know, so makes me a little nervous but at the same time quite excited, especially if they are from overseas and can expand the profile of the club.

[broadsword]

I have heard a rumour that we'll be bought by Her Majesty the Queen of England, and we'll be playing our games at Buck-in-hem Palissssss. el Hadji Diouf will be photographed wearing Diana's clothes and Chuck the Prince of Wales will rub Bio_gro on Vinny Grella's knee and start talking to it! Oh my!

Sal Allardyce will be executed at the Tower of London for being fat and common and Paul Burrell the straight butler who absolutely isn't gay but rather likes it in the ass will be appointed joint head team coach alongside Chuck's royal asshole flosser.

Funds for team improvements will come from Burrell selling Lei-sester Square and London Bridge to Dan Williams.

The team will henceforth be known as HM Blackburn Rovers FC and play in Red and Purple halved shirts.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

I have heard a rumour that we'll be bought by Her Majesty the Queen of England, and we'll be playing our games at Buck-in-hem Palissssss. el Hadji Diouf will be photographed wearing Diana's clothes and Chuck the Prince of Wales will rub Bio_gro on Vinny Grella's knee and start talking to it! Oh my!

Sal Allardyce will be executed at the Tower of London for being fat and common and Paul Burrell the straight butler who absolutely isn't gay but rather likes it in the ass will be appointed joint head team coach alongside Chuck's royal asshole flosser.

Funds for team improvements will come from Burrell selling Lei-sester Square and London Bridge to Dan Williams.

The team will henceforth be known as HM Blackburn Rovers FC and play in Red and Purple halved shirts.

.....

Nicko?

[thenodrog]

What I do know is that there is a TON of latent value there, not just in TV monies and payments for being in the Prem, but in marketing the club to new demographics, to expanding the Rovers brand overseas, and in developing the club infrastructure which has been largely neglected in the past decade (not a criticism, just a reflection of the understandable shift of passion away from the club since the passing of Mr. Walker).

It's funny rivercider but it appears that only you holds that view. We've been for sale for donkeys years but with no end product.

[JAL]

It's funny rivercider but it appears that only you holds that view. We've been for sale for donkeys years but with no end product.

Rivercider comes across as a guy angling for a job at Rovers as overseas marketing development manager.

[rivercider]

Rivercider comes across as a guy angling for a job at Rovers as overseas marketing development manager.

If only such a job existed and if only Mrs. C would let me quit to do it!

[TimmyJimmy]

It's funny rivercider but it appears that only you holds that view. We've been for sale for donkeys years but with no end product.

Not so young sir, I have posted several times on the topic. The window of opportunity on this brand building business is fast slipping away, but it needs funding and it is expensive. The Trust aren't up for it so I guess that's what rivercider was pointing to.

I believe we should brand and brand big before it's too late. Hey don't shoot - just two guys opinions.

[thenodrog]

Not so young sir, I have posted several times on the topic. The window of opportunity on this brand building business is fast slipping away, but it needs funding and it is expensive. The Trust aren't up for it so I guess that's what rivercider was pointing to.

I believe we should brand and brand big before it's too late. Hey don't shoot - just two guys opinions.

Well if no one is coming forward to buy the club then why not contact them yourself. I'm sure the Walker businesses are run by switched on people who know how to make money and are driven by that need.

[broadsword]

Because they don't want to break any eggs, even if there's some very good chefs out there who could make a delicious omelette or two.

[doctorryan]

Rivercider comes across as a guy angling for a job at Rovers as overseas marketing development manager.

He'd have to get in line behind 100 other members on this board whose posts reek of people hoping to impress in order to follow the Lee Grooby model.

[TimmyJimmy]

Well if no one is coming forward to buy the club then why not contact them yourself. I'm sure the Walker businesses are run by switched on people who know how to make money and are driven by that need.

You sound like my wife Gordon, "If you want it doing do it yourself"

In of itself I struggle to see why people have any issue with the concept of building up the image of the club for a wider audience. It's a harmless enough notion surely. The reason why it is not done IMO is that it is enormously expensive so you have to put cash in now for the promise of hoped for future cashflows. You also have to repeat the investment year after year. The Trust aren't in this for the long ride so they aren't going to pump cash in for that purpose. Get a new owner and the option is back on the table.

There is no new owner in the offing I hear you say. Probably not but that doesn't mean it's not an idea worth pursuing. Any prospective buyer will be factoring in all possible cash generating scenarios, this is just one of many. I believe rivercider is saying that when you look at it hard enough the proposition of buying the club isn't as outrageous as originally thought. At the end of the day it boils down to the price being asked for the club, as I've posted on umpteen other occasions. At long last the message seems to be getting through and the Trust have dropped the price, nothing to do with my bleatings I hasten to add.

IMO investors like DW aren't interested in annual profits they're interested in building up the long term value of the balance sheet. They will therefore be willing investors in anything that helps that aim - including player and brand investment. They do this because they will want out for a profit at some future time. But then every owner excepting the Jacks of this world will do the same thing. The only question is timing. On the whole I believe that the DW type of investment is the better of the the second choices ( the first being another Jack). A typical timeframe would be between 7 and 12 years - which is a fair stretch in this day and age of instant everything.

As for doing it myself, no thanks I have zero interest in taking on any more work, there's only 24 hours in a day and I'm already getting old before my time mate. Besides I sharpen pencils for a living

[Iceman]

Should have been done, when we won the premiership. To try and win over new fans, is not going to be easy considering the impact United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal have made. In South Africa for instance, if you dont support a big team, then you nothing more than a joke. As i said, our brand image should of taken off when we won the league. We are now seen, as the team who won the league in 95 end of. For us to gain brand recognition, we would have to throw lots of money( which we dont have) around. However, that doesnt guarantee it will work, and there in lies the risk. We need major investment, we need the results from that investment, and we need success from those results. Once we have all of that, will there be a possibility that the Rovers brand will take off. Until then, we will just be making up the numbers and upsetting the apple cart now and then.

[roversmum]

In truth, the matter has been discussed, but it seems the club are just not interested in promotiong the 'Rovers' brand. Comfort zone etc methinks ...

[sleepyjack]

our brand image should of taken off when we won the league.

I understand what you're saying but IMO the concept of football teams as a brand was still pretty new and unpolished in 1995. I'm not sure how we could have taken advantage of winning the league in any way other than continuing to be successful. And to say that we'd be better off now if we'd continued to be successful is stating the obvious.

[Hughesy]

it seems the club are just not interested in promotiong the 'Rovers' brand. Comfort zone etc methinks ...

Or is it that we dont have the money to spend on promoting elsewhere?!?

[Tim Southampton Rover]

Buy a couple of big named Indian star players (excluding Tendulkar and co.) and then the Rovers brand will be promoted to an audience of up to a billion and then we can take over the world

[PAFELL]

Surely the whole point of a conversation, which is the basis of all topics, is the subject tends to widen around the central point. Which makes Le Chuck's contribution valid, just as valid as those by people who want to discuss Plainfield et al in relation to takeovers at Ewood?

I was actually thinking of the posts about what the name of the league rovers play in that I considered to off topic and pointless.

Also as the plainfield thing was 3 years ago, thereofre no longer relevant to rovers. But as in most things opinions differ.

[Hughesy]

Buy a couple of big named Indian star players (excluding Tendulkar and co.) and then the Rovers brand will be promoted to an audience of up to a billion and then we can take over the world

If we could find a player by the name of Tikka or Massala then Pataks would probably offer us a mega sponsorship deal too!

[Tim Southampton Rover]

If we could find a player by the name of Tikka or Massala then Pataks would probably offer us a mega sponsorship deal too!

Get the club to change a few of the players names as well:

Míchel Salgado = Míchel Sag aloo

Chris Samba = Chris Samb-osa

Mark Bunn = Mark Naan

[thenodrog]

IMO investors like DW aren't interested in annual profits they're interested in building up the long term value of the balance sheet. They will therefore be willing investors in anything that helps that aim - including player and brand investment. They do this because they will want out for a profit at some future time. But then every owner excepting the Jacks of this world will do the same thing. The only question is timing.

Sorry to appear pedantic but accepting that the people who run the Walker trust and their advisers at Rothschilds aren't stupid so why have they not attempted to do this once they decided that they wanted to offload? We've been on the market long enough for the board to have done most of what rivercider suggests off their own bat in order to maximise the value of the club.

In truth, the matter has been discussed, but it seems the club are just not interested in promotiong the 'Rovers' brand. Comfort zone etc methinks ...

Or would flogging a dead horse be more accurate?

[TimmyJimmy]

Sorry to appear pedantic but accepting that the people who run the Walker trust and their advisers at Rothschilds aren't stupid so why have they not attempted to do this once they decided that they wanted to offload? We've been on the market long enough for the board to have done most of what rivercider suggests off their own bat in order to maximise the value of the club.

It's tough to comment gordon, we aren't privy to the business rationale that the Trust are following. I'd just reiterate that branding is mega expensive and is a multi year investment. Getting any kind of money out of the Trust is about as painful as pulling a layer of skin off at the best of times and player purchase you can argue is in the category of short term survival not long term development. Then we have to expect not to see the full value of the brand development investment for quite a few years. I don't think the Trust ever had any intention of holding on to us for the long run therefore they wouldn't get their money back.

These are my hunches only so I cannot answer your question properly, but then I don't think I'm too far away with my guesses.

I'm not suggesting the Trust are business numptys it's just that they probably have different business objectives and different investment time horizons to those of say a hedge fund.

Re Iceman's comments (and others) about us having nothing to brand and missing the boat post 1995, I think this completely misses the point. Surely if branding and marketing is about anything then surely it's about creating a need for a product. You just need an image that people can identify with, which brands are you with, Gillette or Wilkinson, Microsoft or Apple, Ferrari or Lamborghini etc etc, do you go for the safe bet or do you walk on the wild side, it's not about which is better, it's about which image you aspire to.

I think it was Abbey sometime last year who suggested a kind of a Millwall image ie 'nobody likes us and we don't care' to appeal to the non conformists of this world. Well why not, it's as good a brand as any other. I have no idea of what we could or should do in terms of an image and to some extent that also misses the point, to brand or not to brand is the question, we can leave the how's until later.

I guarantee that there won't be one single prospective buyer who will not look at this potential. They may dismiss it, but they will look.

Last point, if you can persuade young males to buy Lynx and think that they're turned into babe magnets then you can persuade anyone of anything, have you smelt that stuff?

[JAL]

If only such a job existed and if only Mrs. C would let me quit to do it!

For ther love of the club rivercider.... love of the club