[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[broadsword]

How much money are we losing per year at the moment?

A few hundred million wouldn't last forever, and if you started getting tetchy that your money was running down, you sure as hell wouldn't get much back if you put teh club on the market.

EDIT: Ideally what you'd want to do is take the rest of the money and plough it into other investments that would offer returns that would more than offset the loss you're making owning the club. Not sure how easy that is to do though.

[HemelRover]

How much money are we losing per year at the moment?

EDIT: Ideally what you'd want to do is take the rest of the money and plough it into other investments that would offer returns that would more than offset the loss you're making owning the club. Not sure how easy that is to do though.

Isnt that exactly what the Walkers do/are trying to do?

[broadsword]

Well, yes it is, buit the point I was originally trying to make is thaat even with a pot of a few hundred million, if you're continually taking out and not putting anything back into it, it will eventually run out.

[benhben]

How much money are we losing per year at the moment?

A few hundred million wouldn't last forever, and if you started getting tetchy that your money was running down, you sure as hell wouldn't get much back if you put teh club on the market.

EDIT: Ideally what you'd want to do is take the rest of the money and plough it into other investments that would offer returns that would more than offset the loss you're making owning the club. Not sure how easy that is to do though.

Sky Sports did a piece on premier league club finances last week and had us one of about 5 teams operating at a profit. They claimed we profited by around £3.5m last year. Though I dont know how they worked it out and player sales could well be part of that.

On the other hand some premier league clubs were shocking, loosing hundreds of millions a year. Aston Villa were pretty bad and they havent even bought that many players lately. Big fan base and attendances, their wages must be through the roof

[47er]

Sky Sports did a piece on premier league club finances last week and had us one of about 5 teams operating at a profit. They claimed we profited by around £3.5m last year. Though I dont know how they worked it out and player sales could well be part of that.

On the other hand some premier league clubs were shocking, loosing hundreds of millions a year. Aston Villa were pretty bad and they havent even bought that many players lately. Big fan base and attendances, their wages must be through the roof

Randy Lerner spent around 84M in the last year on Villa. A pretty poor return for his investment I'd say.

You could run Rovers pretty much as we are now but topping up, as required for transfers. You would still look for the Sambas and N'Zonzis and still develop the youth. So long as the rest of your money continues to earn a decent return, this could continue indefinitely.

Remember the bulk of income still comes from TV. A transfer pot of even 15M a year would transform our team but would be small change for someone with say, 500M.

Cue Philip to tell me how utterly wrong I am!

[Bobby G]

The big question is how much does it cost to close the gap from 10th to 5th place. Is it 20 million, 50 million or 100 million? Because effectively we should be pushing for a Europa League spot with possible challenge for cups.

[broadsword]

Don't forget with 15m of players coming in, you'd need an appropriate budget for wages.

And you never know if something momentous might occur, say if the TV money collapsed and Sky went bust.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Randy Lerner spent around 84M in the last year on Villa. A pretty poor return for his investment I'd say.

MY GOD! I find that an astonishingly ridiculous amount to pay for mediocrity.....sorry to all Villa posters!

[LeChuck]

MY GOD! I find that an astonishingly ridiculous amount to pay for mediocrity.....sorry to all Villa posters!

Is it definitely true? Seems a massive amount considering Barry went for £20+ million and they didn't seem to spend much more than that.

[67splitscreen]

Is it definitely true? Seems a massive amount considering Barry went for £20+ million and they didn't seem to spend much more than that.

i think that is since Learner took over. Ins & Outs

[Barney Blue]

Is it definitely true? Seems a massive amount considering Barry went for £20+ million and they didn't seem to spend much more than that.

City paid £12 million for Gareth Barry

[Sysagent]

Look very carefully at the posts on this subject...and you will find one of the potential interested parties...I knew someone with inside knowledge would break the silence at some point...

Well I have re-read all the posts (though I note some have been edited) and I for one cannot see any naming of a party, the only real "thumb" sticking out is Mandrake's post...

[PAFELL]

Look very carefully at the posts on this subject...and you will find one of the potential interested parties...I knew someone with inside knowledge would break the silence at some point...

chowdrey (spelling) but was that not mentioned In post on the 30th May?

[Paul]

As ever all the usual points come out when another bit of rumour is chucked into the conversation. The club is very unlikely to be sold and if it is those who desire this should be careful what they wish for. Why?

The question of buyers meeting certain criteria is a smokescreen, it means nothing. Yes I'm sure these criteria exist but once the sale is made there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure the criteria are met by new owners. Once sold the Trust would have no influence, power or interest over club matters and the new ownership could do as they please. As we have seen a very dangerous situation in 90% of cases.

One really has to question why anyone would buy Rovers. The club's own database contains 146,000 unique records, compiled over how long? 10 years? Talk of increasing the fan base, world wide marketing etc simply do not stack up. In ten years or so only 146,000 names gathered. I know more people who have stopped attending than who go to matches. We are what we are and the area simply cannot sustain a larger club.

There was mention of £15m "transforming" our squad. TBH £15m makes no difference whatsoever. Look what you get for £6m, and I'm not criticising the player or manager, a two goal a season striker. We don't have £15m to spend, can't afford to borrow it or to fund the wages. In a couple of years UEFA / FIFA (not sure which) will ban owner investment (and about time too) and we will be no further forward. Why bother?

Stick with what we know. Do not allow this club to be sold, anyone wishing for anyhting else is blind to the inherent danger of a sale.

[Iceman]

Paul, should the Trust do the smart thing, and NOT sell the majority of the club? I know they want out, but by what you say, its perhaps in the best interest of the trust, to maintain a small percentage of Rovers. You make a valid point, but at the end of the day, if a new owner meets the criteria, and they own 100% of Rovers, then they can do whatever they want.

[47er]

As ever all the usual points come out when another bit of rumour is chucked into the conversation. The club is very unlikely to be sold and if it is those who desire this should be careful what they wish for. Why?

The question of buyers meeting certain criteria is a smokescreen, it means nothing. Yes I'm sure these criteria exist but once the sale is made there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure the criteria are met by new owners. Once sold the Trust would have no influence, power or interest over club matters and the new ownership could do as they please. As we have seen a very dangerous situation in 90% of cases.

One really has to question why anyone would buy Rovers. The club's own database contains 146,000 unique records, compiled over how long? 10 years? Talk of increasing the fan base, world wide marketing etc simply do not stack up. In ten years or so only 146,000 names gathered. I know more people who have stopped attending than who go to matches. We are what we are and the area simply cannot sustain a larger club.

There was mention of £15m "transforming" our squad. TBH £15m makes no difference whatsoever. Look what you get for £6m, and I'm not criticising the player or manager, a two goal a season striker. We don't have £15m to spend, can't afford to borrow it or to fund the wages. In a couple of years UEFA / FIFA (not sure which) will ban owner investment (and about time too) and we will be no further forward. Why bother?

Stick with what we know. Do not allow this club to be sold, anyone wishing for anyhting else is blind to the inherent danger of a sale.

The only person I'd hope to see buy Rovers would either be a genuine supporter (unlikely) or someone mega-rich who wants to own a premiership club for the fun of it and isn't looking for a financial return. Hard to find but not out of the question. Dan Williams (if it was truly him) seemed to think a return was possible but he'd know better than me.

I mentioned 15M "transforming" the club, each and every year with no strings attached + any revenue from sales would transform the club over time. If we can finish 10th on a -budget what would we do with a minimum +15M each and every year?

And finally we come to the head in the sand bit---"Do not allow this club to be sold". Exactly how is that to be achieved? Can't you accept that the Walkers want out? The club is up for sale right now and has been for 3 years. The only reason it hasn't been sold is that the Trust hasn't received what they consider a satisfactory offer. So we lurch on from season to season, without a pot to pi** in, while clubs like Wolves, Fulham and even Bolton can spend more on players than we do. Get real.

This is not to say that a sale isn't without risk, it certainly isn't. But it represents hope as against certain relegation sometime in the next few years. We are 1 Paul Ince away from oblivion. Which makes it all the more remarkable that some idiots were calling for the manager's head midway through the season and some still can't support him even though he got us to tenth. At the moment all we need is an annual miracle and we're OK.

[philipl]

Paul, should the Trust do the smart thing, and NOT sell the majority of the club? I know they want out, but by what you say, its perhaps in the best interest of the trust, to maintain a small percentage of Rovers. You make a valid point, but at the end of the day, if a new owner meets the criteria, and they own 100% of Rovers, then they can do whatever they want.

Granted there is an issue of needing the will to enforce it after the sale but the selling party can do many things to bind the ongoing actions of the buying party at the time of sale.

The Moores family had an agreement that the Americans would not load Liverpool with the debt cost of buying the club- now look where Liverpool are because the covenant only lasted for a defined period of time which has elapsed.

[bellamy11]

I mentioned 15M "transforming" the club, each and every year with no strings attached + any revenue from sales would transform the club over time. If we can finish 10th on a -budget what would we do with a minimum +15M each and every year?

Not so sure about this. Firstly, we can't take 10th as a given with a negative budget. The bottom half of the Premier League is poor and we were helped by the likes of Fulham effectively ignoring the league in search of EUROPA glory.

Once we get to around 8th we're against teams who can spend £15m on one player. Man City have billions and came 5th (in a league where the 2nd placed team from the season before imploded beyond all predictions) How are we going to overtake them? Liverpool finished 7th last season - at what point can we expect to compile a squad to beat them over 38 games?

More money would undoubtedly help but IMO it's a case of it helping not to go backwards. For serious upward movement here we're talking about investment running into a LOT more than the numbers we're talking about (and £15m no strings attached a season is approaching fantasy for us anyway). James Milner is rated at £30m.

Above us are Birmingham who we can realistically expect to overtake and I suppose Everton are vulnerable at a push (I think they are an excellent team with a very good manager and more money than they like to admit). After that we're talking billionaires and/or clubs with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of supporters. It is a LOT easier to go from 15th to 10th with reasonable investment than it is to go from 10th to even 6th.

[American]

Many a club invested a lot more than we have over the past couple of seasons yet finished below us.

Those who decry our wage bill should note that there have been studies showing a much higher correlation between wages and success than between transfer fees and success. Part of that is probably keeping continuity.

[Majiball]

Paul, do you really think Rovers have given it best shot at tapping into the asian and american markets?

[47er]

Not so sure about this. Firstly, we can't take 10th as a given with a negative budget. The bottom half of the Premier League is poor and we were helped by the likes of Fulham effectively ignoring the league in search of EUROPA glory.

Once we get to around 8th we're against teams who can spend £15m on one player. Man City have billions and came 5th (in a league where the 2nd placed team from the season before imploded beyond all predictions) How are we going to overtake them? Liverpool finished 7th last season - at what point can we expect to compile a squad to beat them over 38 games?

More money would undoubtedly help but IMO it's a case of it helping not to go backwards. For serious upward movement here we're talking about investment running into a LOT more than the numbers we're talking about (and £15m no strings attached a season is approaching fantasy for us anyway). James Milner is rated at £30m.

Above us are Birmingham who we can realistically expect to overtake and I suppose Everton are vulnerable at a push (I think they are an excellent team with a very good manager and more money than they like to admit). After that we're talking billionaires and/or clubs with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of supporters. It is a LOT easier to go from 15th to 10th with reasonable investment than it is to go from 10th to even 6th.

I agree with every word of that. Even with the sort of investment i was talking about it would do no more than stop us going backwards which will happen without it. No way can we expect to finish 10th next season. Look at the money Sunderland expect to be shelling out. Personally I'd be happy to finish 10th every year, to be free of relegation worries and to win the odd Cup every now and then.

[philipl]

I agree with every word of that. Even with the sort of investment i was talking about it would do no more than stop us going backwards which will happen without it. No way can we expect to finish 10th next season. Look at the money Sunderland expect to be shelling out. Personally I'd be happy to finish 10th every year, to be free of relegation worries and to win the odd Cup every now and then.

Which is by and large what the Walker Trust has delivered for ten seasons.

American makes an extremely valid point about wages and continuity. Remember Rovers typically spend over 70% of turn over on wages- I am not saying that is a good thing but a significant reason for this being the case and Rovers keeping roughly on a break even basis is because the club has zero costs of ownership.

All other clubs are leaking at least £1m per year (and several much more) paying owner director fees, salares and expenses. This is a hidden "below the line" subsidy from the Trust. If you don't believe me, just look at what Storrie paid himself at Pompey for destroying that club, Ridsdale's fees for destroying Leeds and the Eggman's pay cheques for making the Tevez farce cost West Ham an extra £25m over the original £7m fine and costs.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Many a club invested a lot more than we have over the past couple of seasons yet finished below us.

Those who decry our wage bill should note that there have been studies showing a much higher correlation between wages and success than between transfer fees and success. Part of that is probably keeping continuity.

Due to a combination of good management on our part and bad management of those with superior budgets. The time when enough of these clubs with their superior budgets get it right will probably come at some point and we will struggle.

The wage budget being stretched means its likley every so often we will have to sell one our best or upcoming players to fill that gap. This could make it difficult for the club to compete if we can't find a cheap replacement. The Bentley sale set us back several years and we still haven't recovered imo.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

But it represents hope as against certain relegation sometime in the next few years.

Have you been polishing your crystal ball's again 47 er?

[47er]

Which is by and large what the Walker Trust has delivered for ten seasons.

American makes an extremely valid point about wages and continuity. Remember Rovers typically spend over 70% of turn over on wages- I am not saying that is a good thing but a significant reason for this being the case and Rovers keeping roughly on a break even basis is because the club has zero costs of ownership.

All other clubs are leaking at least £1m per year (and several much more) paying owner director fees, salares and expenses. This is a hidden "below the line" subsidy from the Trust. If you don't believe me, just look at what Storrie paid himself at Pompey for destroying that club, Ridsdale's fees for destroying Leeds and the Eggman's pay cheques for making the Tevez farce cost West Ham an extra £25m over the original £7m fine and costs.

Well we've flirted with relegation a few times and looked like succumbing. We've finished 15th at least 3 times as well.

But how is what the Walker trust has delivered in the last ten years relevant to our future? I'm reminding you once again that they have put the club on the market.