[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[Sparky Marky]

It's not about 'raising' that sort of money, I suppose I could kill my parents and sell their house and what little i own of mine and probably scratch £250k too but would i do it just to enter Due Dilligence with a club I couldn't afford???

The point is, if Shah is holding off on DD because it costs £250k to do so but Syed paid it, it shows that either Mr Syed is very confident of being able to buy us (so not a penny-less conman) and that £250k is not a large amount to him.

I've got £1000 in my bank, that doesn't mean I don't think about it when I spend a £10 and certainly wouldn't go around wasting them on things that don't have a chance of happening.

Let me ask you a question, why would someone who only has £30m buy a football club with his entire wealth, leaving him skint and in the public eye? What financial or physical benefit would this provide to Mr Syed?

A con has to have an objective of profit, I can't see how any the conspriacy theories you are making benefit Mr Syed in any way?

The trustees have owned the club for the past 10 years without any serious investment, just pocketing the £17m for roque, £17m duffer, £15m bentley etc....Maybe our friend Syed has got a bit of money, but I don't want him to own us unless he has billions and so far, there is no evidence to suggest he's another abramovich.....in fact the evidence points towards him more likely to be another pompey shyster...

[HemelRover]

in fact the evidence points towards him more likely to be another pompey shyster...

What "evidence" do you have. Or are you just basing this on whats on this message board. None of which is "evidence"...its conjecture and rumour.

[Guest bluerovers]

The trustees have owned the club for the past 10 years without any serious investment, just pocketing the £17m for roque, £17m duffer, £15m bentley etc....Maybe our friend Syed has got a bit of money, but I don't want him to own us unless he has billions and so far, there is no evidence to suggest he's another abramovich.....in fact the evidence points towards him more likely to be another pompey shyster...

So for you it's either an Abramovich/Mansour type owner or stick with the trust? I agree I'm not sure the optimistic of Syed's claims will come true (like a £100m instant transfer pot, I think it will be spread over 5 years) but wouldn't you prefer someone who can at least give us 5-10m to play with every window instead on the zero we get from the trust now?

As for the evidence only pointing one way, you are only counting the stuff you want to see (i.e BBC allegations) and dismissing anything to the contrary (the WGA accounts, the various news reports about the McCabe and Aussie investments, the various high profile people involved in bid). You can question the evidence on either sides but you can't say there is 'no' evidence to suggest Ali Syed is a very wealthy man.

[Sparky Marky]

So for you it's either an Abramovich/Mansour type owner or stick with the trust? I agree I'm not sure the optimistic of Syed's claims will come true (like a £100m instant transfer pot, I think it will be spread over 5 years) but wouldn't you prefer someone who can at least give us 5-10m to play with every window instead on the zero we get from the trust now?

As for the evidence only pointing one way, you are only counting the stuff you want to see (i.e BBC allegations) and dismissing anything to the contrary (the WGA accounts, the various news reports about the McCabe and Aussie investments, the various high profile people involved in bid).

Yes, I can't see any point in us being taken over by someone who can't spend money...we might aswell have the devil we know....

The WGA accounts are sketchy and don't show any real tangible cash, aussie investment???...high profile people??? Name one.

[Guest bluerovers]

Yes, I can't see any point in us being taken over by someone who can't spend money...we might aswell have the devil we know....

The WGA accounts are sketchy and don't show any real tangible cash, aussie investment???...high profile people??? Name one.

You've missed BOTH my points...

1) There are owners in between the Skeik Mansours and our current zero giving trust, any of which would be better than our current position (providing they run the club as well of course and with JW there I think that will happen). So you don't want anyone, even if they could give us £10m more a year unless they are prepared to break transfer records every Window like the Chelsea/City style ownership? If yes, you may be waiting a very long time for someone like that to come and buy us.

2) I could equally say Goldberg's claims are "sketchy", see what I mean now. There is "evidence" on both sides of the argument and both can be dismissed as rubbish if we already have an opinion set in stone. The Aussie investment is Cubbie Station and Jean Claude Darmon is has a pretty good reputation on the line too...

[Iceman]

if we could get 5-10mill a year for players, then its better than what is happening right now. this talk of, Mansour and Abromovich type money is crazy, we do not want that ( i think), but rather a stable base to work from. There is nothing wrong with our current way of doing things, except for the lack of transfer money, and the high wage bill that needs to be sorted out.

[den]

The WGA accounts are sketchy and don't show any real tangible cash, aussie investment???...high profile people??? Name one.

Taking a position that says "I can't see his money, so don't want him at Ewood" is quite silly if you really think about it.

Now if you were to say "I don't know whether he has any money or not", - what position would you take then Sparky?

[Guest bluerovers]

Sorry if this has been posted before but I found this intersting article on Jean Claude-Darmon....

In English using Google translate

Original French article

Now it seems clear to me that Mr Darm himself is a very, very rich man. Ignore the 'billionaire' photo tag it should translate as 'multi-millionaire' but he is the head of an 'empire' worth E870m. Thus I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that hiring the main man himself would require a pretty substantial fee.

But of course Monsoir Darmon could just be another 'mark' in Syed's big game of real-life Hustle.

[Sparky Marky]

Taking a position that says "I can't see his money, so don't want him at Ewood" is quite silly if you really think about it.

Now if you were to say "I don't know whether he has any money or not", - what position would you take then Sparky?

either way Den, this guy's opening statements at the beginning of this were something like, "£300m investment, £100m straight away for player for Big Sam..."....that's the talk of someone who is a billionaire in the abramovich/citeh chap category....that's what he was trying to have us belive initially........why say it? Now everyone is happy that he might put £10m in more a year......If he'd have started by saying he'd invest £10m a year, then this board would have taken a very different course....

[Guest bluerovers]

either way Den, this guy's opening statements at the beginning of this were something like, "£300m investment, £100m straight away for player for Big Sam..."....that's the talk of someone who is a billionaire in the abramovich/citeh chap category....that's what he was trying to have us belive initially........why say it? Now everyone is happy that he might put £10m in more a year......If he'd have started by saying he'd invest £10m a year, then this board would have taken a very different course....

But he didn't say "straight away" he just said he'd earmarked £100m for transfers, that could be over the 15 years (£3.3m per window). It actually annoyed me that no interviewer asked him to specify the timescales of these promised funds but of course they may have got less sensational headlines then.

[pancini]

But of course Monsoir Darmon could just be another 'mark' in Syed's big game of real-life Hustle.

He has already been taken in by his fiancee I wonder why she is happy with the 40 year age difference

[Guest bluerovers]

He has already been taken in by his fiancee I wonder why she is happy with the 40 year age difference

They both get something out of it though...

[Iceman]

again, what makes you believe that he doesnt have the money? Those early statements could well have been what he intends doing, and knowing that he has the funds to pull it off. ive kept to the 'positive side' of the fence, because if it works out, then great. If it doesnt, then okay ill admit that perhaps he was a chancer. Those of you that have completely written the guy off, what will your response be if he pulls out his cheque book and says, "here you guy Big Sam, enjoy"

[HemelRover]

The WGA accounts are sketchy and don't show any real tangible cash

The above doesnt matter.

He stated in an interview with the BBC that the money he is using to buy the club is his. From his own fortune. He is not using his company's money. So the money wouldnt be in their accounts filed would it?

[den]

either way Den, this guy's opening statements at the beginning of this were something like, "£300m investment, £100m straight away for player for Big Sam..."....that's the talk of someone who is a billionaire in the abramovich/citeh chap category....that's what he was trying to have us belive initially........why say it? Now everyone is happy that he might put £10m in more a year......If he'd have started by saying he'd invest £10m a year, then this board would have taken a very different course....

So, have I to take from this, that you and I have no idea how much wealth he actually has?

[Iceman]

I still find it astonishing that he's putting £300m of his own cash into the club and expecting no return during the first five (or maybe ten) years. I just hope that, if the first five years don't go according to plan, he won't start to get cold feet and lumber the club with debt with an aim to get rid. Five years isn't a long time in his masterplan but it is in the demanding world of football, especially if your club isn't doing well.

I've built my hopes up with the thoughts of us signing big name players (well, big name to us at least). Getting excited now because we should know one way or the other in the next week or two. I just hope the deal doesn't fall over the last hurdle through no fault of Syed's

i dont see any problems with that, if it has no direct effect on his actual businesses. if he is using his own money, and not that of his company, then the only losses he makes is through his own private wealth. his business remains unaffected, and he recoups the loss through his company. Remember if he genuinely has over 130 companies, he will still be making money as this is his core businesses. his personal money, has got nothing to do with WGA, so Rovers would not be owned by WGA but by Mr Syed himself.

[HemelRover]

I've built my hopes up with the thoughts of us signing big name players (well, big name to us at least).

Ive built my hopes up with the thought of us permanently signing any players!

[Amo]

Can someone please bring me up to speed? Where do we stand on the takeover?

[Hughesy]

Mr Meaners.

Love it.

You like that one? It was intentional too before the spelling brigade pull me up on it!

either way Den, this guy's opening statements at the beginning of this were something like, "£300m investment, £100m straight away for player for Big Sam..."....that's the talk of someone who is a billionaire in the abramovich/citeh chap category....that's what he was trying to have us belive initially........why say it? Now everyone is happy that he might put £10m in more a year......If he'd have started by saying he'd invest £10m a year, then this board would have taken a very different course....

No he clearly said he had a 15 year plan split into 3x 5 year plans, the first one containing £100m for players over the 1st 5 years....should have gone to ear-waxers!

[rebelmswar]

According to nicko, Syed and his team are working as hard as they can to wrap it up ASAP. I believe it's dragged on due to Rovers being owned by a Trust - probably more negotiating and red tape than with a single owner.

The BBC rumours appear to have been resolved and so the only thing left to happen now is the purchase of the club.

That is a very perfect world with shiny rainbow summation, very nice.

For an alternative view

[philipl]

The trustees have owned the club for the past 10 years without any serious investment, just pocketing the £17m for roque, £17m duffer, £15m bentley etc....Maybe our friend Syed has got a bit of money, but I don't want him to own us unless he has billions and so far, there is no evidence to suggest he's another abramovich.....in fact the evidence points towards him more likely to be another pompey shyster...

And with that post you crash and burn into total irrelevance.

[OscarRaven]

The trustees have owned the club for the past 10 years without any serious investment, just pocketing the £17m for roque, £17m duffer, £15m bentley etc....

Are you not embarrassed to make such uninformed, potentiality libellous and factually incorrect statements about a trust that has carefully managed and kept this club alive for 10 years. The trust is an instrument set-up by a man revered by all the supportors at this club and around the football world.

Is your grasp of football economics really so weak? Try and think before you post or if your going to mouth off – back it up with some real facts.

[Amo]

According to nicko, Syed and his team are working as hard as they can to wrap it up ASAP. I believe it's dragged on due to Rovers being owned by a Trust - probably more negotiating and red tape than with a single owner.

The BBC rumours appear to have been resolved and so the only thing left to happen now is the purchase of the club.

Thanks. There seems to be (as ever) a lot of mixed messages flying about, so I needed a basic gist of what's going on. I'm naturally dubious about the takeover, but I can't see this turning into a Pompey scenario. Pompey simply didn't do their homework and sold themselves down the swanny; I don't think the Trust & co, would allow Syed to get this far if he didn't have the hard cash. Yet the longer this goes on, the more sceptical I am. The takeovers at Chelsea & Man. City felt quicker and smoother than this, but that could just be paranoia talking.

[gumboots]

Yes, I can't see any point in us being taken over by someone who can't spend money...we might aswell have the devil we know....

The WGA accounts are sketchy and don't show any real tangible cash, aussie investment???...high profile people??? Name one.

How many times - that is not an option. We might prefer to stick with them, but they

don't want us. They will sell, if not to this guy then to someone else but as soon as they reasonably can to someone who meets whatever criteria they and the premier league set

[47er]

So, have I to take from this, that you and I have no idea how much wealth he actually has?

Its amazing isn't it? People can categorically tell you he's he's a "shyster" and has no real money! In fact none of us know one way or the other as you say Den. There are 2 arguments I can put forward that are positive:

If he's no money how could he have got this far without being sussed by Rothchilds or the club?

Secondly-----wouldn't he be really stupid to have taken it this far, and presumably spent a lot of cash if he didn't have the money? I mean--he must know he'd be found out eventually wouldn't he?

However I'm really worried that Sam has called the likelihood of a deal with Ali "doubtful". I just can't believe he wouldn't know what was happening and say that if it wasn't true.

So, however hard I try I just can't reconcile the conflicting evidence and its doing my head in! Like everyone else I just have to wait.

The only thing that appears certain is that the club will be sold, probably in the near future and to a foreign individual or consortium. I assume that because I've never heard of any British interest.