[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[47er]

I'll tell you what will relegate the club.

"Investors" coming in. They will be looking to make money - end of story. Be that in the short, medium, or long term.

The club already uses TV revenue to chase wage inflation - which helps maintain our status. Some of the next TV increase appears to have already been spent on current wages.

So how are "investors" going to make money in the short term, without diminishing what is spent on wages? Maybe double ticket prices - as that's the only other major income stream. Won't that go down well with the fans?

So maybe keep the £209 Season Tix and instead have a drastic cut in wages for short term financial return on the back of the TV money. Cut top wages = goodbye Samba, goodbye Givet, goodbye Salgado, goodbye Robinson ... that will eventually lead to ... relegation.

In the longer term, the only way to make money out of BRFC would be to increase the value of the club. Not many ways to do that - drag the club into the Champions League places on a regular basis is one (cost 100s of millions, see Man City) ... construct on Ewood and / or Brockhall is another ... increase revenue from the existing fan base is the only other.

And if someone comes in, and does increase the value of the club to sell it on - what is the next buyer going to want to do?? ---->> Increase the value of the club again!! How?? Can't you understand that this barmy model just doesn't work?? Look at Porstmouth for crying out loud.

Your £15 million quid into a transfer pot isn't going to help in the slightest, because whoever puts in the £15 million is going to want it back with interest. And it's only going to buy one Steven Fletcher and less than a half of Joe Cole.

If new owners don't follow the curve and use TV money to pay wages, the club will drop down the league. The only other place they can come for cash is ticket revenue. The current owners have allowed the current management to perform miracles on price and attendance, and you want to throw all that away for a minor boost to the trasfer kitty.

Thankfully none of the dreadful scenarios above are being played out under the current ownership. They recognise they can't throw money at Rovers but the Trust sure as hell won't let Rovers be destroyed by "investors" looking for profit.

There is no profit to be made from owning this football club, playing in this crazy league. It really is that simple.

You're typically attacking an argument I never made. I never said we should sell to anyone. I share everybody's hopes that Jack made sufficient provision to ensure we are never "asset stripped' and that the Trust will care enough to ensure the club is protected. But this "crisis" has only come about because the Trust is determined to sell and the club has no investment in the meantime. That is something you doggedly refuse to recognise. To use Phil's word "deluded'.

[Paul]

Tom Hicks

George Gillet

Mike Ashley

Thaksin Shinawatra

Ali al-Faraj

Sacha Gaydamak

Sulaiman Al Fahim

Balram Chainrai

Simon Jordan

Eggert Magnusson

Rupert Lowe

Peter Ridsdale

Just a few people who most of us would regard as seriously wealthy or at least having access to serious funds. All have failed, or lost significant amounts, in their takeovers and management of football clubs. These are just a few that spring to mind on the drive to work. I'm sure the list can be expanded.

You're typically attacking an argument I never made. I never said we should sell to anyone. I share everybody's hopes that Jack made sufficient provision to ensure we are never "asset stripped' and that the Trust will care enough to ensure the club is protected. But this "crisis" has only come about because the Trust is determined to sell and the club has no investment in the meantime. That is something you doggedly refuse to recognise. To use Phil's word "deluded'.

Hope is the problem. Nobody is going to buy a football club if they are tied, in the longterm, to the wishes of Jack Walker. It simply does not make sense. Anyone wanting to invest in Rovers will have an exit strategy in mind before they contemplate purchase. In the hands of a consortium this will simply be sell the club or realise the assets.

Hope is no use to us at all.

[Tris]

You're typically attacking an argument I never made. I never said we should sell to anyone. I share everybody's hopes that Jack made sufficient provision to ensure we are never "asset stripped' and that the Trust will care enough to ensure the club is protected. But this "crisis" has only come about because the Trust is determined to sell and the club has no investment in the meantime. That is something you doggedly refuse to recognise. To use Phil's word "deluded'.

So are you going to withdraw your earlier statement about remaining with the Trust -

Continue down that road and we WILL be relegated

??

There is no crisis whilst the Trust remains, because they are not asset strippers.

It's a big jump from there, to finding someone who will "invest" without at some future stage then having to asset strip.

Unless of course, you have all the money to go with all the answers. In which case I'd get on the phone to Rothschilds.

It doesn't matter how many times you attack me or Paul or whoever and say we are all deluded. We all recognise the Trust would sell if the right buyer comes along, but that doesn't mean that we are doomed to be relegated whilst we wait.

[47er]

Tom Hicks

George Gillet

Mike Ashley

Thaksin Shinawatra

Ali al-Faraj

Sacha Gaydamak

Sulaiman Al Fahim

Balram Chainrai

Simon Jordan

Eggert Magnusson

Rupert Lowe

Peter Ridsdale

Just a few people who most of us would regard as seriously wealthy or at least having access to serious funds. All have failed, or lost significant amounts, in their takeovers and management of football clubs. These are just a few that spring to mind on the drive to work. I'm sure the list can be expanded.

Hope is the problem. Nobody is going to buy a football club if they are tied, in the longterm, to the wishes of Jack Walker. It simply does not make sense. Anyone wanting to invest in Rovers will have an exit strategy in mind before they contemplate purchase. In the hands of a consortium this will simply be sell the club or realise the assets.

Hope is no use to us at all.

Well I've said my piece so I'll leave this thread alone till something happens. No point in being sniped at by the likes of Tris who can never move on. Can't let go of the Trust (though it wants to let go of him), Souness, Ince.......The point is , it will happen because the Trust wants it to. No future without hope.

[Muddboy]

I'll tell you what will relegate the club.

"Investors" coming in. They will be looking to make money - end of story. Be that in the short, medium, or long term.

The club already uses TV revenue to chase wage inflation - which helps maintain our status. Some of the next TV increase appears to have already been spent on current wages.

So how are "investors" going to make money in the short term, without diminishing what is spent on wages? Maybe double ticket prices - as that's the only other major income stream. Won't that go down well with the fans?

So maybe keep the £209 Season Tix and instead have a drastic cut in wages for short term financial return on the back of the TV money. Cut top wages = goodbye Samba, goodbye Givet, goodbye Salgado, goodbye Robinson ... that will eventually lead to ... relegation.

In the longer term, the only way to make money out of BRFC would be to increase the value of the club. Not many ways to do that - drag the club into the Champions League places on a regular basis is one (cost 100s of millions, see Man City) ... construct on Ewood and / or Brockhall is another ... increase revenue from the existing fan base is the only other.

And if someone comes in, and does increase the value of the club to sell it on - what is the next buyer going to want to do?? ---->> Increase the value of the club again!! How?? Can't you understand that this barmy model just doesn't work?? Look at Porstmouth for crying out loud.

Your £15 million quid into a transfer pot isn't going to help in the slightest, because whoever puts in the £15 million is going to want it back with interest. And it's only going to buy one Steven Fletcher and less than a half of Joe Cole.

If new owners don't follow the curve and use TV money to pay wages, the club will drop down the league. The only other place they can come for cash is ticket revenue. The current owners have allowed the current management to perform miracles on price and attendance, and you want to throw all that away for a minor boost to the trasfer kitty.

Thankfully none of the dreadful scenarios above are being played out under the current ownership. They recognise they can't throw money at Rovers but the Trust sure as hell won't let Rovers be destroyed by "investors" looking for profit.

There is no profit to be made from owning this football club, playing in this crazy league. It really is that simple.

Possibly the most sensible post on this entire thread. Investment from anyone else other than a Jack Walker-type local enthusiast that doesn't want their money back will simply ruin this club.

That's not something I want. Better the devil you know, in my opinion.

Serious suggestion here.

Rovers to take out a one-off prominent advert in the Manchester and Liverpool papers extolling our season ticket prices.

The sods from those clubs have not been backwards in advertising in the LT in the past so let them have it back.

What's the point?

I think you'll find that there's already a waiting list for the Riverside and Blackburn ends and not too many spaces available anywhere else.

[Eddie]

Is it unlikely that we find someone who is a passionate supporter of the club with tens, if not hundreds, of millions to spare who is willing to essentially waste it? Yes.

Is it unlikely that someone can turn Blackburn Rovers into a functioning business that is both successful on the pitch (by our relative standards) and turns a profit? Yes.

Are either of those things impossible? No.

We've already seen the first thanks to Jack Walker, the second will probably never happen, but that doesn't mean that it can't. We're talking about business that so long as it stays in the Premier League has an absolutely massive revenue. With our current business model it is impossible to make a profit, but with a significant cut in wages accompanied by improved performances on the field we could easily be looking at making a profit. The immediate reaction will be that we can't possibly maintain our current position and cut our wage bill, but I really think that isn't true. We have significant dead weight in our squad who are also probably some of the teams highest earners (Chimbonda, Diouf and Grella contributed very little this season, realistically Salgado is probably unnecessary when you factor in how high his wages will be, etc.) If you cut these wages down and replaced them with lower earning players or youth players we would hardly notice a difference in performances on the pitch (unless we were to have a season with a spectacularly bad sequence of injuries). Realistically we may also have to accept the role as a selling club, which isn't necessarily a negative. Investing in younger players with the intention of making a profit on a good proportion of them is simply a practical way of approaching modern football. It may be disappointing for fans when a player is sold, but so long as the club has a long-term policy and is constantly investing in younger players and replacing those who leave then it is fine. From time-to-time it may be impossible to immediately replace a particular player with one of identical quality (say when Duff left), but so long as money is always being spent and that effort is being put in the squad can still remain strong.

Is it possible that someone could come in tomorrow and have the club making a nice profit next season? No, but that wouldn't necessarily be the aim. It's perfectly acceptable in my opinion for someone to buy this club with the aim of making a profit, especially when you consider the price. What we would need though is owners who don't think it is essential that they do make a profit and that is the key. If they are willing to come in and put money into the club in the hope that we make good decisions and have a bit of luck and that the club progresses nicely that is fine. It's not impossible, simply improbable.

It's all much easier on paper, but it seems rather silly to completely rule it out.

[PAFELL]

I'll tell you what will relegate the club.

"Investors" coming in. They will be looking to make money - end of story. Be that in the short, medium, or long term.

The club already uses TV revenue to chase wage inflation - which helps maintain our status. Some of the next TV increase appears to have already been spent on current wages.

So how are "investors" going to make money in the short term, without diminishing what is spent on wages? Maybe double ticket prices - as that's the only other major income stream. Won't that go down well with the fans?

So maybe keep the £209 Season Tix and instead have a drastic cut in wages for short term financial return on the back of the TV money. Cut top wages = goodbye Samba, goodbye Givet, goodbye Salgado, goodbye Robinson ... that will eventually lead to ... relegation.

In the longer term, the only way to make money out of BRFC would be to increase the value of the club. Not many ways to do that - drag the club into the Champions League places on a regular basis is one (cost 100s of millions, see Man City) ... construct on Ewood and / or Brockhall is another ... increase revenue from the existing fan base is the only other.

And if someone comes in, and does increase the value of the club to sell it on - what is the next buyer going to want to do?? ---->> Increase the value of the club again!! How?? Can't you understand that this barmy model just doesn't work?? Look at Porstmouth for crying out loud.

Your £15 million quid into a transfer pot isn't going to help in the slightest, because whoever puts in the £15 million is going to want it back with interest. And it's only going to buy one Steven Fletcher and less than a half of Joe Cole.

If new owners don't follow the curve and use TV money to pay wages, the club will drop down the league. The only other place they can come for cash is ticket revenue. The current owners have allowed the current management to perform miracles on price and attendance, and you want to throw all that away for a minor boost to the trasfer kitty.

Thankfully none of the dreadful scenarios above are being played out under the current ownership. They recognise they can't throw money at Rovers but the Trust sure as hell won't let Rovers be destroyed by "investors" looking for profit.

There is no profit to be made from owning this football club, playing in this crazy league. It really is that simple.

I agree the trust has been good for Rovers for many years. New investment, thoguh needed, opens up a different ball game.

Though I am wondering when the new rules from uefa come in how that will change club ownership. Is it right to say that owners will not be able to buy players or pay the wages. But only clubs income will be able to do that. Many other clubs may have greater income than Rovers, but they also have greater debts.

[Majiball]

I agree the trust has been good for Rovers for many years. New investment, thoguh needed, opens up a different ball game.

Though I am wondering when the new rules from uefa come in how that will change club ownership. Is it right to say that owners will not be able to buy players or pay the wages. But only clubs income will be able to do that. Many other clubs may have greater income than Rovers, but they also have greater debts.

And thats the reason this investment you are talking about is only a short term fix.

The second the new rules come into play and restrictions are placed, in that you can't spend more than you earn, we are back to where we are now. We could even be up ###### creak with a wage bill outside of our means, stuck with players no others want etc etc.

The best way forward for Rovers IMO is to readdress the balance we have between wages and funds for transfers and stick with what we have. People who are not looking to make money and the such, because the new rules are going to make things trickier for a club like ours as gone will be the days of mega transfer fee's. Which we have relied on in recent times.

[gumboots]

And thats the reason this investment you are talking about is only a short term fix.

The second the new rules come into play and restrictions are placed, in that you can't spend more than you earn, we are back to where we are now. We could even be up ###### creak with a wage bill outside of our means, stuck with players no others want etc etc.

The best way forward for Rovers IMO is to readdress the balance we have between wages and funds for transfers and stick with what we have. People who are not looking to make money and the such, because the new rules are going to make things trickier for a club like ours as gone will be the days of mega transfer fee's. Which we have relied on in recent times.

The chief problem in all of this is that the Trust want rid so there can be no sticking with what we've got. It's not a management choice, or a fans' choice. We will be sold because the Trust have been seeking to offload us for some time and seem to be getting increasingly keen to do so. Sticking with the Trust despite their lack of investment might be our choice, but it certainly isn't theirs.

[only2garners]

What's the point?

I think you'll find that there's already a waiting list for the Riverside and Blackburn ends and not too many spaces available anywhere else.

Eh? We sold 19.5K season tickets last year and we could sell up to 28K. Are you seriously suggesting we have 8,000 on waiting lists? I think there is plenty of scope to widen our search for new season ticket holders and plenty of fans out there who don't know what value they could find at Ewood.

[den]

A takeover of Rovers might indeed work out to be a terrible thing. Or there is a chance that any new owner might simply be in it because of their love of the club. Paul/Tris, with respect to both of you good people, the argument that we are better off under the trust might well be a great argument, but as 47er keeps saying the trust are going to sell the club, whatever any of us think. They aren't going to change their minds, are they?

I really don't see the point in hoping the trust stay as our owners.

EDIT. Just seen Gumboots post. Glad to see someone else coming around to the reality of the position.

[philipl]

At 19,000 season ticket sales and an average attendance of nearly 26,000, Ewood is still the third empiest in the Premier League.

There is a tiny proportion of Rovers' supporters not renewing so imagine what proportion of ST holders at OT and Anfield are seriously thinking of quitting but still love their football.

Putting a decent advert in the MEN and Liverpool Wotsit will pay for themselves if just eight individual ST holders are recruited.

More to the point, if the ad is provocative enough, it will create a serious stink and talking point about how expensive it is to watch the big city clubs and should create a significant amount of follow-on news coverage which will really project Rovers' prices to a much larger audience especially if the club primes the right people in the media to pick up the story.

[Majiball]

The trust can want to sell us as much as possible, but given we've been up for sale for years with nothing doing, what makes everyone think its going to happen. Investors want a return which will not be easy with our club, I think they might be around for a while yet.

I'd place the ad as well.

[PAFELL]

At 19,000 season ticket sales and an average attendance of nearly 26,000, Ewood is still the third empiest in the Premier League.

There is a tiny proportion of Rovers' supporters not renewing so imagine what proportion of ST holders at OT and Anfield are seriously thinking of quitting but still love their football.

Putting a decent advert in the MEN and Liverpool Wotsit will pay for themselves if just eight individual ST holders are recruited.

More to the point, if the ad is provocative enough, it will create a serious stink and talking point about how expensive it is to watch the big city clubs and should create a significant amount of follow-on news coverage which will really project Rovers' prices to a much larger audience especially if the club primes the right people in the media to pick up the story.

Totally agree. I live in the south of the country. Yet a small club in London Charlton Athletic coach in supporters from my area - 65 miles away. These coaches are full every week - times you have to book well in advance. If a club like Charlton, which is a club very much simular to Rovers, can attract supporters from 65 miles away, and bear in mind the 'big' clubs in london, then so could Rovers. Anyway an advert would not cost that much and if it is not tried, then nobody knows how it would pan out.

Anyway I wouldn't mind seeing Rovers play at Old Trafford with a green and yellow halved shirt.

[67splitscreen]

There is no doubt what so ever if certain criteria are met we will be sold.

The big difference now being the asking price to previous years.

When we are I hope the senior management is left in tack, stability at board room level will be crucial IMO, no Cook types upsetting the mix at Rovers.

Anyway I wouldn't mind seeing Rovers play at Old Trafford with a green and yellow halved shirt.

That would be hilarious in the current climate. The biggest away following in history at OT.

[Craigman]

So, is there any news on this or are will we still be up for sale in a months time ?

[bluebruce]

Sorry Den, I did not say cheap youngsters. But players who had not yet reached the big name stage. Rovers paid the money for them yes,they paid it because they could do. Others afterwards paid a lot more for those same players. Why, because they were maded into proper, players at Rovers. They were doing ok in the teams they came from, they had the potential, Rovers saw it and developed it. Basically they took a chance on them - which paid off.

Goodness grief Pafell, no offence but, are you listening to yourself? Rovers paid the money for them because they could, by your own words. Well now they CAN'T! It's that simple!

Sure, we made profits on most of the players we bought at the time, but that was by no means guaranteed and inflation in football in the following years was probably worse than it has ever been. Currently, we're more on the verge of a bubble bursting than the chance of doubling our money on investments of that nature.

You seem to be looking at the amount of money we paid as though we could pay out the exact same money now. No matter what you want to say about where the players were coming from, the fact is, only one team in the Premiership had been more expensively assembled. Manchester United (it's never mentioned of course, but their team in 94/95 had both cost more to assemble, and they'd spent more that same season). For us to spend the second-most now would require lumping something in the region of 70 million upwards at squad development. And a king's ransom in wages. With no true worth to fall back on if we didn't automatically get mighty dividends. In short, it would be the Leeds United/Portsmouth model.

The argument yourself and Den had about where the players were in their careers was interesting, but totally tangential to the fact we cannot afford to make the same level of investment relative to the time we operate in, and have utterly zero chance of winning the league again without a sugar daddy or a wholesale revolution of the footballing environment in the Prem. Yes, we can do better than we are but, short of omniscient scouts, we are not going to be able to assemble a team of that quality with our budget. Where Shearer was in his career is irrelevant, because he cost a British transfer record. To break the British transfer record now requires about what, £35 million?

[only2garners]

At 19,000 season ticket sales and an average attendance of nearly 26,000, Ewood is still the third empiest in the Premier League.

There is a tiny proportion of Rovers' supporters not renewing so imagine what proportion of ST holders at OT and Anfield are seriously thinking of quitting but still love their football.

Putting a decent advert in the MEN and Liverpool Wotsit will pay for themselves if just eight individual ST holders are recruited.

More to the point, if the ad is provocative enough, it will create a serious stink and talking point about how expensive it is to watch the big city clubs and should create a significant amount of follow-on news coverage which will really project Rovers' prices to a much larger audience especially if the club primes the right people in the media to pick up the story.

Unless ad rates have significantly shrunk from when I used to place ads in the MEN I think we would need to sell a few more than 8 to get our money back. Having said that I agree with your general point Phil, that it would be worth a couple of cheeky ads in the MEN and Echo.

[Ozz]

But how long will the Trust keep trying to sell for? How long has it been so far? Two years? More?

Something has got to give on one side or the other, either the sellers terms change or a buyer who fits the criteria in Jacks will arrives.

[LeChuck]

Goodness grief Pafell, no offence but, are you listening to yourself? Rovers paid the money for them because they could, by your own words. Well now they CAN'T!

Don't agree there. Our owners do have money, so it's a case of "won't" not "can't".

In the current climate I don't blame them actually, but it stills irks me that they didn't choose to invest money in Hughes when he was here. I am in no doubt that he would have made them a fair a bit of money if they'd given him a good amount to spend - virtually every player he signed significantly increased in value.

[bluebruce]

Don't agree there. Our owners do have money, so it's a case of "won't" not "can't".

In the current climate I don't blame them actually, but it stills irks me that they didn't choose to invest money in Hughes when he was here. I am in no doubt that he would have made them a fair a bit of money if they'd given him a good amount to spend - virtually every player he signed significantly increased in value.

I say pot-ay-to, you say pot-ah-to...fine, they won't, but I was talking about the club, and in the real world the club (seperate to the owners who simply won't) can't. Even in the owners case they'd be taking an enormous gamble to spend the levels I was talking about. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy they won't spend a bit more either.

[yeti-dog]

Don't agree there. Our owners do have money, so it's a case of "won't" not "can't".

In the current climate I don't blame them actually, but it stills irks me that they didn't choose to invest money in Hughes when he was here. I am in no doubt that he would have made them a fair a bit of money if they'd given him a good amount to spend - virtually every player he signed significantly increased in value.

Can't disagree with this,although don't forget the exception that proves the rule...Mr Mokoena,bought for peanuts and could barely be given away at the end!!

[Majiball]

Did the trust not recently loan us 5 million?

[thenodrog]

What do you do?

Simple. Suprised you need to ask rth. Basically employ a manager that can put a team together on the cheap which is capable of surviving year in year out in the Prem whilst playing ugly football so no one else will want to nick him. Then to get people through the gates offer dirt cheap ST's. Easy peasy.

What's the point?

I think you'll find that there's already a waiting list for the Riverside and Blackburn ends and not too many spaces available anywhere else.

Just to stir the pot. Jack would have loved that..... it's the same aggressive reasoning that made him bid for Cantona.

[thenodrog]

And thats the reason this investment you are talking about is only a short term fix.

The second the new rules come into play and restrictions are placed, in that you can't spend more than you earn, we are back to where we are now. We could even be up ###### creak with a wage bill outside of our means, stuck with players no others want etc etc.

The best way forward for Rovers IMO is to readdress the balance we have between wages and funds for transfers and stick with what we have.

Suprised nobody's mentioned it yet so I will.

Most people cannot help but agree that the new rules are completely necessary to bring sanity back to the game before it implodes (might actually be too late for some). The North West is a hot bed of football and much more so than Yorkshire, Brum and the North East for example. Unfortunately the new rules will hit over achieving clubs with limited income like ourselves and our neighbours hardest. It is a nail in the coffin of town clubs and a huge step forward toward a Lanky Utd scenario imo.

Jack Walker missed a remarkeable opportunity when we were top dogs and the rest of Lancashire clubs were in the basement divisions to forge a powerhouse of a club from the remnants of the current 19th century set ups, a single unit capable of surviving without investment sorry donations from wealthy benefactors. I rather think that Trevor Hemmings might have the initiative, the power, the momentum and the wherewithal to go where Jack did not deem necessary to tread. Unfortunately any PNE influence would be much stronger than if JW had done it 15 or so years ago.

I know people will be queuing up to criticise so I'd ask you not to reply unless you have a better proposal for the future of football in this area. Constructive comments rather than stereotypical criticism please.