[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[rovers1995]

Maybe Nicko means meltdown of this board, everyone online at the same time to get the latest news

[Inta Beaver]

  On 14/05/2010 at 19:45, nicko said:

It's not Dan Williams...this one is serious...or so I am told.

Unfortunately nobody else has heard what I have heard, so I am going to have to keep it quiet for now.

If I print what I know on here it will just start doing the rounds and I won't be able to get to the bottom of it.

There HAVE been people over this week who want to buy.

My only reservation is that the intermediary is what is politely know as a 'tool.'

Is it Screwfix?

[47er]

  On 15/05/2010 at 10:38, 1864roverite said:

on the signings thread, Nicko predits a major headline for Rovers tomorrow suggesting MELTDOWN !

maybe the city chairman has decided city isnt the vehicle for success and is buying Rovers instead !!

He never mentions Rovers.

[chaddyrovers]

  On 15/05/2010 at 11:38, Bobby G said:

Isnt meltdown a bad thing? So why are we putting a positive spin onto it?

why not positive for once.

[Blue n White Rover]

  On 15/05/2010 at 15:49, chaddyrovers said:

why not positive for once.

Because it's not allowed on this board!

[Bobby G]

We have been hearing these tales for the last 3-4 years now and nothing ever happens. I dont see how this would be any different.

[ewoodpo]

I've figured it out it's Peter let me ruin your club Risdale.

[Waggy76]

Actually . ithought it was Peter Storrie

[Bobby G]

Nicko, any movement on this front further to what you said a couple of days ago?

[PAFELL]

  On 17/05/2010 at 13:08, Bobby G said:

Nicko, any movement on this front further to what you said a couple of days ago?

Don't be daft, it Rovers. Apart from Rovers supporters, nobody else likes Rovers. speculation and speculation, rumours etc etc that is all we get with regards to a Rovers takeover. Anyway it is the right takeover that is of interest, not any takeover.

[bonerdude]

nicko has it gone quiet on the takeover front or are you just finding it difficult to get info?????

[G Somerset Rover]

I've heard from a colleague that the Walkers look set to come into some serious cash very soon from one of their businesses. Not sure if this will affect us at all, I'd imagine a few million for new players would still be out of the question.

[Majiball]

  On 19/05/2010 at 22:52, Somerset Rover! said:

I've heard from a colleague that the Walkers look set to come into some serious cash very soon from one of their businesses. Not sure if this will affect us at all, I'd imagine a few million for new players would still be out of the question.

Whlist I'm grateful for all they did post Jack on our return to the big leagues, I doubt they'd even buy us a bag of balls these days.

[PAFELL]

  On 19/05/2010 at 22:52, Somerset Rover! said:

I've heard from a colleague that the Walkers look set to come into some serious cash very soon from one of their businesses. Not sure if this will affect us at all, I'd imagine a few million for new players would still be out of the question.

I do not think it would effect Rovers at all. The Walker Trust want to sell, they have made that clear for awhile. The fact they withdrew the 3 million a year - which would have helped Rovers out in the transfer market - points to that. Basically the impression I have is that no matter how much money they have, they do not want to keep hold of Rovers.

As to anybody else interested - Nicko said there was interest. How serious they are remains to be seen. I noticed in the news the other day that Chelsea owe their owner about 700 million. At anytime, with an 18 month notice, he can ask for it back. Something about a holding company.

Can you imagine the panic if the owners of Liverpool, man U, Man city, Chelsea all said at once asked for their money back.

[nicko]

  On 18/05/2010 at 17:47, bonerdude said:

nicko has it gone quiet on the takeover front or are you just finding it difficult to get info?????

I know the identity of one of two possible bidders at the moment. But, like I said before, I think there is a publicity seeker involved in it...

So until I hear they have put money in I will probably just leave it.

[Billy Castell]

Bit of a Richard Branson/Michael Knighton type then?

Ayone know the Sultan of Brunei's number?

[nicko]

  On 20/05/2010 at 08:00, Billy Castell said:

Bit of a Richard Branson/Michael Knighton type then?

Ayone know the Sultan of Brunei's number?

More Knighton than Branson possibly.

And more Sultan of Burnley.

[BPF]

  On 20/05/2010 at 08:11, nicko said:

More Knighton than Branson possibly.

And more Sultan of Burnley.

Haha,

Yet another waste of time?

[Grez]

The king of thailands pretty minted and Blackburn might be a bit safer than Bangkok at the moment. He could see ewood as his industrial paradise so he can get away from the daily grind of sovereinty.

[ewoodpo]

  On 20/05/2010 at 07:50, nicko said:

I know the identity of one of two possible bidders at the moment. But, like I said before, I think there is a publicity seeker involved in it...

So until I hear they have put money in I will probably just leave it.

Now be honest Nicko , out of the two possible bidders or even timewasters without revealing any names , would you have running your club.

[thenodrog]

  On 19/05/2010 at 22:52, Somerset Rover! said:

I've heard from a colleague that the Walkers look set to come into some serious cash very soon from one of their businesses. Not sure if this will affect us at all, I'd imagine a few million for new players would still be out of the question.

I sincerely hope so. There's no need to saddle ourselves with debt and create a jealous and unhappy squad to boot.

The current abomination that is Man City aside it's obvious that previous big spending clubs are being dragged back to our level by excessive debt and crippling player contracts.

  On 20/05/2010 at 07:22, PAFELL said:

I do not think it would effect Rovers at all. The Walker Trust want to sell, they have made that clear for awhile. The fact they withdrew the 3 million a year - which would have helped Rovers out in the transfer market - points to that. Basically the impression I have is that no matter how much money they have, they do not want to keep hold of Rovers.

As to anybody else interested - Nicko said there was interest. How serious they are remains to be seen. I noticed in the news the other day that Chelsea owe their owner about 700 million. At anytime, with an 18 month notice, he can ask for it back. Something about a holding company.

Can you imagine the panic carnage if the owners of Liverpool, man U, Man city, Chelsea all said at once asked for their money back.

That reads a bit better pafell.

[PAFELL]

  On 22/05/2010 at 16:21, thenodrog said:

I sincerely hope so. There's no need to saddle ourselves with debt and create a jealous and unhappy squad to boot.

The current abomination that is Man City aside it's obvious that previous big spending clubs are being dragged back to our level by excessive debt and crippling player contracts.

That reads a bit better pafell.

Thanks for the Emglish lesson. Anyway its off topic

[philipl]

Two very significant articles which go a long way towards explaining why Rovers have not been sold and might not be in future.

David Moores has broken his silence and urged Hick and Gillett to sell Liverpool

Anyone who is interested in the future of Rovers should read this in full. You will see Jack Walker gets an honourable mention and Rothschild put in an appearance as well.

The rub so far as I am concerned is that David Moores took a great deal of care to try to ensure he found the right sort of owners for Liverpool and effectively admits he failed. He now feels compelled to urge the people he sold to get out of the club.

Liverpool took several years and failed to find the right new ownership so is it any wonder the Rovers are struggling similarly?

UEFA are introducing their new fair play rules with effect from 2012/13

It is a moot point that on current structures, all the Premier League clubs in contention and for sure Real Madrid and the Italian clubs of any stature would be debarred from entering UEFA competitions so perhaps these regulations will not reach 2012/13 without changes being made!

The key quote is:

"In 2008-09, the most recent year for which the Premier League's 20 clubs' accounts are published, 14 made substantial losses. One other, Blackburn Rovers, made a £3.6m profit but were subsidised with a £5m loan from the club's owners, which will no longer be permitted."

In other words, Rovers are in a tiny minority of clubs that would actually benefit from these new rules but more presciently, these rules are going to make an outsider coming into Rovers (or any other club) and bankrolling expenditure beyond the club's natural means (for anything except infrastructure unless injected as straight capital) far less likely.

Back to David Moores and his motivation for seeking a buyer more or less exactly reflects the comments made by the Walker Trust when they indicated their desire to find new Rovers ownership in 2006:

"But in the wake of Euro 96 with the influx of more and more overseas superstars on superstar wages, I was aware the game was changing beyond all recognition and deeply worried, too, about my ability to continue underwriting the financial side. I was from the ever-decreasing pool of old-school club owners, the locally based, locally wealthy supporter like Jack Walker who stuck his money in out of his passion for the club."

The Walker Trust are not looking to profit from selling Rovers (but rightly are not looking to make a donation of assets of underlying real value at Rovers) whilst in retrospect, David Moores selling for £83m is probably nothing like the figure he could have sold for had he been truly seeking to maximise his family's worth.

It could well be that the model adopted by the Walker Trust for Rovers is in fact one the rest of the Premier League will have to adjust to painfully over the coming three seasons. Let's see whether this summer is another low key transfer window or not but unfortunately player wages are going to be a lagging indicator on this one.

[PAFELL]

  On 26/05/2010 at 06:45, philipl said:

Two very significant articles which go a long way towards explaining why Rovers have not been sold and might not be in future.

David Moores has broken his silence and urged Hick and Gillett to sell Liverpool

Anyone who is interested in the future of Rovers should read this in full. You will see Jack Walker gets an honourable mention and Rothschild put in an appearance as well.

The rub so far as I am concerned is that David Moores took a great deal of care to try to ensure he found the right sort of owners for Liverpool and effectively admits he failed. He now feels compelled to urge the people he sold to get out of the club.

Liverpool took several years and failed to find the right new ownership so is it any wonder the Rovers are struggling similarly?

UEFA are introducing their new fair play rules with effect from 2012/13

It is a moot point that on current structures, all the Premier League clubs in contention and for sure Real Madrid and the Italian clubs of any stature would be debarred from entering UEFA competitions so perhaps these regulations will not reach 2012/13 without changes being made!

The key quote is:

"In 2008-09, the most recent year for which the Premier League's 20 clubs' accounts are published, 14 made substantial losses. One other, Blackburn Rovers, made a £3.6m profit but were subsidised with a £5m loan from the club's owners, which will no longer be permitted."

In other words, Rovers are in a tiny minority of clubs that would actually benefit from these new rules but more presciently, these rules are going to make an outsider coming into Rovers (or any other club) and bankrolling expenditure beyond the club's natural means (for anything except infrastructure unless injected as straight capital) far less likely.

Back to David Moores and his motivation for seeking a buyer more or less exactly reflects the comments made by the Walker Trust when they indicated their desire to find new Rovers ownership in 2006:

"But in the wake of Euro 96 with the influx of more and more overseas superstars on superstar wages, I was aware the game was changing beyond all recognition and deeply worried, too, about my ability to continue underwriting the financial side. I was from the ever-decreasing pool of old-school club owners, the locally based, locally wealthy supporter like Jack Walker who stuck his money in out of his passion for the club."

The Walker Trust are not looking to profit from selling Rovers (but rightly are not looking to make a donation of assets of underlying real value at Rovers) whilst in retrospect, David Moores selling for £83m is probably nothing like the figure he could have sold for had he been truly seeking to maximise his family's worth.

It could well be that the model adopted by the Walker Trust for Rovers is in fact one the rest of the Premier League will have to adjust to painfully over the coming three seasons. Let's see whether this summer is another low key transfer window or not but unfortunately player wages are going to be a lagging indicator on this one.

So in reality there is no motive for anybody to invest in a football club. A club will have to spend within its means. Owners could not bankroll transfers / wages only buildings and land for such things as training grounds or new stands / stadium.

Therefore this must make it even harder for the Walker Trust to sell the club, with there being no incentive for investors. The trust must be paying Rothschilds to find them a buyer for Rovers - which must now be a waste of money.

Where does this leave Rovers now? After all they have a fairly good stadium and training facilities - ok the Riverside could be brought in line with the other stands. The Walker Trust or any other investor, could only fund that. But not transfers or players wages.

It is my view that it is not the owners that need the slap on the wrist, but agents and players. It is these that are killing football clubs. Every single player should examine themselves with regards to the wages they demand.

Unless I am mistaken, Platini etc have not even addressed that area of the game - but he wouldn't as he was a player. But if that area was addressed less clubs would go to the wall.

[47er]

  On 26/05/2010 at 07:24, PAFELL said:

So in reality there is no motive for anybody to invest in a football club. A club will have to spend within its means. Owners could not bankroll transfers / wages only buildings and land for such things as training grounds or new stands / stadium.

Therefore this must make it even harder for the Walker Trust to sell the club, with there being no incentive for investors. The trust must be paying Rothschilds to find them a buyer for Rovers - which must now be a waste of money.

Where does this leave Rovers now? After all they have a fairly good stadium and training facilities - ok the Riverside could be brought in line with the other stands. The Walker Trust or any other investor, could only fund that. But not transfers or players wages.

It is my view that it is not the owners that need the slap on the wrist, but agents and players. It is these that are killing football clubs. Every single player should examine themselves with regards to the wages they demand.

Unless I am mistaken, Platini etc have not even addressed that area of the game - but he wouldn't as he was a player. But if that area was addressed less clubs would go to the wall.

These "Fair Play Rules" are anything but. They maintain the status quo. Such is life.