[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[Majiball]

Good.

I'm going back to figuring out the "interference effect" then, as opposed to looking for god knows what in 20-30 posts. Physiology by number's is far simpler.

One thing I would like to know is that people have mentioned that there are set requirements,

1.) pay the 25M asking price

2.) set period of ownership?

3.) invest some dollar

If these are set can someone shed some light on 2 & 3???

[67splitscreen]

Are we still talking about the same two parties from March, one had other business to attend to at the time, also wanted to buy young develop and sell on.

Is ciderrover the publicity seeker you mentioned.

[nicko]

Our we still talking about the same two parties from March, one had other business to attend to at the time, also wanted to buy young develop and sell on.

Is ciderrover the publicity seeker you mentioned.

These are two NEW parties entirely.

The Arab bought a media company in his homeland.

Rovercider was interesting stuff but that cider was pressed three years ago.

[67splitscreen]

These are two NEW parties entirely.

The Arab bought a media company in his homeland.

Rovercider was interesting stuff but that cider was pressed three years ago.

Cheers. Guess we are left with consortium's then.

[beanie]

just looked through and cant find the name anywhere can anyone help

[Bobby G]

As nicko said, someone gave away some of the link of the interested consortium somewhere here today, so its obvious that they are not too much of a mystery for the club. However, it is a consortium, so having one "link" worked out doesnt really give you the whole story about who is actually investing.

Nevertheless, I also agree with nicko about not losing sleep despite solid interest for the club.

I dont buy the rosy picture that philipl draws simply because the numbers and the era discussed are two distinct opposites. Yes, we do know that the Trust will be better owners than potentially 90% of other "interested parties", but that doesnt mean they will invest or push us to the next level. I just hope we dont screen out the "right" buyer one day because of the adamant belief that all "foreign owners" seem to be bad.

[Brfcrule1]

right here goes after looking back over all today's posts I think I may have uncovered the person who might be heading the consortium. With another interested party from Today's posts. I would say Bobby G is somehow involved with the consortium just gathering the people with finance. I have a feeling Mandrake is one of the people in one fo the consortiums involved with putting some finance in.

Nicko can you confirm?

[67splitscreen]

Have you ever played Cluedo?. my wall needs re-painting (coffee)

[1864roverite]

Why would anyone with a connection to takeovers and consortiums come onto a fans forum and drop subtle hints ? I cannot fathom that one out.

I think any one connected with BRFC and its management would want the best for the club as well as complying with the requests set out in a will by JW. Thats plain common sense.

As for the guesswork? Wait and see. If its right for Rovers then all will be good. If its wrong the club wont be sold.

Until then we carry on with the solid foundations we have in place. Its a business model that works for BRFC and its a successful one at that.

If The Walker family wanted rid that bad they would have given the club away by now and that clearly is not the case.

[47er]

It is not a question of "heads in sand"; it IS a question of Jacks Will and Trust Deed being drawn up under Jersey Law, and Nobody on God's Earth can change that without the agreement of the Jersey Court. I would have thought that with Jack's Will setting out all the criteria that have to be met for Rovers to be sold, then that is the ONLY way that the club can be sold. It is not something that Jack did not forsee and allow for, but rather something that clearly lays down the requirements and conditions that MUST be met. IE NON-NEGOTIABLE, and I would imagine that if it is what Jack wants then it will be something that all of us supporters would welcome as well

"you would imagine" Fife. People talk as if they knew the contents of Jack's will and of the Trust Ageement. In reality none of us know.

And 67 Splitscreen, your memory is the same as mine. Rivercider did say there was nothing in the Trust Arrangement that was difficult to meet.

[47er]

Fife is hitting the nail on the head with his research. There is one other thing which is totally certain- the last revision of Jack's Will happened in 2000 (or earlier).

It always puzzles me that people find shades of grey difficult to understand and 47er I am addressing you.

The Trust is in no form or shape the enemy or the baddy in all this. They are looking at a situation in which the PL monies have no relationship to the finances that were contemplated just ten short years ago. And that change of course primarily concerns the multiples of millions players earn. They are the direct beneficiaries of any football finance be it from PLCs, Americans, Thai PMs, Sheikhs or old fashioned families like the Walkers or Moores.

Why would any rich Brit impoverish themselves to make a rich overseas player even richer??? It is a totally different equation to the one Jack entered twenty years ago when he swamped the very grateful existing Rovers shareholders with new capital.

The situation is simple- the Trust have loaned the club another £5m (remember that loan potentially puts Rovers outside the UEFA rules on 1 August 2012 even though Rovers were run at a profit last season). So although it is not Man City munificence or Pompey/West Ham lunacy, it is better than what is happening to the Prem largesse at Burnley or the net withdrawals looming large at Liverpool and Man U.

The Trust have also installed and entrusted the best all round management in the PL at Rovers.

However, the Trustees know that this is now a different world neither they nor the Trust deeds ever envisaged and so they are willing to step aside if anyone comes forwards who can assure them of Rovers' long term well being and put more into the club than they are able to do so given they are directed by a document prepared when football numbers were four times smaller than they are going to be shortly.

Putting this in context, the money Jack allocated to make up the difference for Rovers' disadvantage at the gates compared with Man U's gates- £3m per season- will not even pay Guti's costs and is now about £150m per season less than the difference between Rovers' non-media earning power and Man U's.

This is not the Trust being desperate to sell but it is the Trust being desperate to do the very best by Rovers, the fans and the town of Blackburn.

Now step back and my opinion is that 90% of all the new owners who have entered football in the last decade have been failures- some little failure, some abject failures and the likes of Man U, Liverpool, Leeds, Portsmouth, West Ham and Duffen at Hull absolute steaming catastrophies. By the law of averages, there are going to be 9 of the ilk of Paul Duffen and Thaksin ringing up Rothschild before there is one whom the Trust can even remotely consider. And because of Blackburn's limitations as a town, nobody who is looking to make a commercial return out of being at Rovers can be a better owner than the Walker Trust because they are not making a profit and are not even claiming their expenses for looking after the club.

That is why I am pretty certain those anticipating an early change of ownership are not going to see one and Kamy is 100% right when commenting that what Bobby G is hearing will disqualify whoever he is talking to if they take that line within earshot of the Rothschilds or Walker Trust. Anyone who has read my previous posts on the subject will see I am being totally consistent with what I have written previously and relying on material which has gone into the public domain in the ten years since Jack Walker fell ill.

And Philip you and others continue to ignore the obvious. The Walker family is determined to sell which is why they drastically reduced the selling price recently.. Eventually they will. Fans on here talk as if we have some choice in the matter, "best we stick with the Walkers etc'! You point out how tiny the 3M per season "bonus' from the Trust is, even that tiny,insignificant amount is no longer paid! The Trust withdraws 3m, the manager is scrambling to find basement bargains. Essentially we have been living off the player capital left us by Mark Hughes. It can't last.

Whatever financial support for the club he did ensure Rovers were left with, was put in place in a different era.

The best young players in the world changed clubs for 5 - 10 million quid, instead of the 30 to 80 million today.

Over the same period player wage inflation in the PL has not doubled or trebled - it has multiplied by a factor of 10 or more.

Global TV income has gone through the roof beyond what anyone could have expected in the late 1990s.

Jack Walker would have had to be a clairvoyant to foresee the landscape altering to that extent -- and even if he had, do people really think he would have left behind an arrangement which escalated the Walkers' financial support to the club to keep it in line?? To do that would have meant he put in jeopardy the entire family fortune and business empire, just to keep Rovers competing at the level we had become used to at the time.

What was put in place was generous but entirely sensible, and along with prudent stewardship at the top of the club has helped Rovers play in Europe 3 times this decade, along with 6 cup semi finals and respectable league placings more often than not.

To define that as being "without a pot to p**s in" is at best naive, and not far off being ungrateful.

Trust you to get personal. I'm neither naive nor ungrateful. Its been a wonderful ride and I'll never forget it. But, for all the reasons you stated, its over. Time to look forward rather than back.

[Darwen Rover]

My personal view on a buy out is.. be careful what we wish for.. so many examples where its gone horribly wrong!!

[FourLaneBlue]

Yes but lets be honest, if Rovers were to go on a very successful run in the top half of the table, with decent football - supporters would come back to Rovers.

Come back? I don't think that is the case.

Our average attendance last season was one of our highest ever.

The area simply cannot support that many more supporters. There are not too many nearby clubs. We have pretty much saturated our catchment area. Small advances may be possible but, well, we are what we are.

[RoyRover]

My personal view on a buy out is.. be careful what we wish for.. so many examples where its gone horribly wrong!!

This is very true. It is clear to all Rovers supporters that if we are to progress as a club, it will require the kind of investment that the trustees are unwilling to make. However, we have to be so careful who we look to for such an investment, because we easily become a Portsmouth, Notts County or Cardiff. As nice as it would be to have the billions that Manchester City have to spend, I would also be nervous about this sort of approach by a potential buyer. I despise City and everything they now stand for and would hate to see our club being run in the same manner. We need someone who has a long term commitment to the club and its supporters and isn't going to pull out as soon as they get bored or realise that success isn't achieved overnight, no matter how much money you throw at it. So as nice as it would be to have a new owner willing to spend some cash, the character and the plans of the investor have to be correct.

[Roberto Policano]

technically the new UEFA ruling on debt would forbid any new owners from increasing the wage bill above our net earnings. The new rules are designed to prevent another Portsmouth or Leeds scenario, this will probably make us even less atractive for potential buyers, as already discussed the fan base has little potential to grow above what it is now.

Some club or another is going to contest the new UEFA rulings for certain.Theres a hell of alot of water to flow under the bridge before they come to pass.

The Premier League will suffer the most if the ruling comes into force.

And quite honestly the rules in the new UEFA fair play white paper help the bigger clubs even more than they do now.

Total comedy,but after all it is UEFA,so thats what we come to expect.

[philipl]

There do seem to be flaws in the UEFA position, Robert.

At Chelsea, Abramovich has loaned money to a holding company which has bought all Chelsea's £700m of shares or whatever the number is.

The restrictions on debt are primarily on direct owner debt. So what happens when the investment bank retained by the purchaser lends the money or some other third party construct appears?

What happens when an owner who also owns a commercial enterprise suddenly discovers that the best way to promote his painting and decorating business in Ulan Bator is to buy a £20m per year advertising board at Wigan Athletic?

With regards to 47er arguing with certainty that the Walker Trust have dropped their price on the club, neither they nor the club have made any such statement but there are occasional public statements from them and John Williams consistently made over a number of years mentioning safeguards.

If Bobby G's people are negotiating on a "money talks" basis the price must be going up when you think about it (that's a joke by the way).

[PAFELL]

There do seem to be flaws in the UEFA position, Robert.

At Chelsea, Abramovich has loaned money to a holding company which has bought all Chelsea's £700m of shares or whatever the number is.

The restrictions on debt are primarily on direct owner debt. So what happens when the investment bank retained by the purchaser lends the money or some other third party construct appears?

What happens when an owner who also owns a commercial enterprise suddenly discovers that the best way to promote his painting and decorating business in Ulan Bator is to buy a £20m per year advertising board at Wigan Athletic?

With regards to 47er arguing with certainty that the Walker Trust have dropped their price on the club, neither they nor the club have made any such statement but there are occasional public statements from them and John Williams consistently made over a number of years mentioning safeguards.

If Bobby G's people are negotiating on a "money talks" basis the price must be going up when you think about it (that's a joke by the way).

Tt was reported recently - about a month ago - that the holding company that bought chelseas share can with an 18 month notice ask for the money back. As it is only a loan.

[The Gull]

IF this change goes through then I am worried for the fans in English football.

We already pay relatively more than our European counterparts for tickets and merchandise, Rovers maybe being the exception to the rule for ticket prices, and if owners are only broadly allowed to spend what they raise from the fans and sponsors then ticket/merchandising prices will surely rise significantly over the coming years and it will be the fans which are hit in the pocket.

This is surely more likely at a club like Rovers where we can not compete with clubs getting 35-40k on every game and the extra revenue that generates.

[Roberto Policano]

Agree.Same go's for clubs who own hotels.Rent the penthouse out at £1 million pounds a night a few times over the course of the year and your onto a winner.

[Bobby G]

Some people are blowing things out of proportion here. I am in no way involved with any consortium, nor is anyone on this board either I am sure.

Sometimes you come across certain info, and with no "ill" intentions you want to share it in a "censored" fashion to some extent with fellow supporters.

At any rate, lets see how this pans out. Although judging by some people's tone here, their dismissive language tells you they know things too about how potential take-overs will fare.

[Iceman]

So who is Mr X and who is Mr Y

[Duff's Minder]

I cannot imagine under any circumstances an owner that would be better for the long and medium term future of Rovers than the trust.

Unless there is a billionaire rovers fan out there who doesn't mind throwing a few hundred million our way with no return. If I had a few hundred million I can think of much better things to do with it than buying Rovers and paying mediocre footballers £1m+ a year.

[47er]

I cannot imagine under any circumstances an owner that would be better for the long and medium term future of Rovers than the trust.

Unless there is a billionaire rovers fan out there who doesn't mind throwing a few hundred million our way with no return. If I had a few hundred million I can think of much better things to do with it than buying Rovers and paying mediocre footballers £1m+ a year.

Well we are in trouble then because the Trust is determined/keen/desperate to sell. How do you suggest we surmount this seemingly insoluble problem?

By the way, if I had a few hundred million I'd buy Rovers tomorrow---it would be the greatest day of my life.

[broadsword]

A few hundred million?

That would get whittled away in short order, no?

[47er]

A few hundred million?

That would get whittled away in short order, no?

No.