[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[gumboots]

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.

given the level of tribalism that surfaced when we played Burnley I'm surprised you still think there is any mileage in this at all.

[thenodrog]

given the level of tribalism passion that surfaced when we played Burnley I'm surprised you still think there is any mileage in this at all.

Reads rather different now wouldn't you say gumboots?

[gumboots]

Reads rather different now wouldn't you say gumboots?

Yes, but it's less accurate!

[thenodrog]

Yes, but it's less accurate!

Time heals all wounds. Rem in the early days our aggression and vice versa was with Darwen not Burnley. Now darreners are some of our staunchest fans.

[gumboots]

Time heals all wounds. Rem in the early days our aggression and vice versa was with Darwen not Burnley. Now darreners are some of our staunchest fans.

Don't go back that far! Not that I'm not old enough but my memories of Rovers don't even go back as far as the 94/95 season. Boro fan born and bred, me. Only started following Rovers when I finally realised that I'd lived more time here than I could remember living on Teesside, bearing in mind that you don't remember much before you start school.

[PAFELL]

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?

No offence taken whatsoever. If opinions, right or wrong, cannot be debated on a board like this, pointless having a board. We all have ideas, opinions etc and should be able to give and answer to opinions freely.

What I meant is that at the time Rovers bought players like Shearer, they pushed the boat out so to speak. Possible in relation to fees at the time paid more than they should. Because they wanted success as soon as possible and to get into the first premierleague - which they achieved. (yes as a Rovers supporter I am glad of the success it achieved, but lets be honest, it also helped pave the way to the system and prices we have now) Yes hindsight also says Rovers got good value on and off the pitch for those same players. So no grip there from me.

But I do believe it still is possible to buy players - not cheap youngsers - decent hard working players, who want to play football and not sit on the bench or be in squads just to pick up the wages. We have to believe that as football supporters of clubs outside of the so called top 4. If not, why the hell do the rest of us bother supporting other clubs? We support our clubs in hope that they can do what nobody else expects them to do.

We only have to look at the players Rovers have now, Ollson, Jones, Nzonzi, Samba, Givet. High prices were not paid for them. Yes it probable means for Rovers that they should invest in the youth system more and develop its own players. I believe in the current climate that is Rovers best option - possible cheaper option also.

What could new investment do for Rovers when the new rules come in? (Ok it is inevitable that Rovers will one day be sold, like it or not, the trustees want to sell.) New owners will not be able to buy players, pay wages. I do not know if they are allowed to finance the day to day running of the club. (any Imfo on this from anybody)

My understanding is that each club can only spend what they bring in. Other clubs will be in the same position. Clubs like Man U, Liverpool, WHU, Fulham (said on TV last night that Fulham are £200 mill in debt, who ironically have a wealthy owner) their income will have to go to pay off there debts. If a club is in debt, then they do not have income to spend on anything else, but their loans and debts.

Rovers debts are small, thanks to the way the trustees have cared for the club. As much as I have hated the fact they withdrew funding, in someways it has done Rovers good. The trustees withdrawal of funding forced the club to keep the debts down, the club has invested in the squad, slowly I acknowledge. But the club already know how to operate on a shoestring - other clubs do not.

I do not know if you saw the panorama programe last night on TV about Man U and the Glazier. That situation has to have an ending, it cannot go on for every. Nobody knows what will happen to a club like Man U if they were battling relegation season in season out because they were not able to buy players, because of the debts. Would the same supporter attend games, player sign for the club etc etc. These debts have to be paid eventually by all these clubs.

This, in my view, is when it will help clubs like Rovers. Finding the right talent, investing in the youth and scouting system. Yes it is time consuming. Whilst others are sturggling because of debts, Rovers could rise.

Time heals all wounds. Rem in the early days our aggression and vice versa was with Darwen not Burnley. Now darreners are some of our staunchest fans.

It is possible that football could end up like cricket. Clubs will be named the same as the county names. For example lancashire, yorkshire etc. (need a mighty big stadium for sauch a match)

As you say time heals old wounds. One way of doing that is to slowly introduce a competition every few seasons of county games. Yes it could be done, but unemployment would rise even higher than it is now, with footballers etc out of work. So may not be as financially feasible as some may think.

[Majiball]

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.

OK, I can see where your coming from there's only so many fans to go round.

I'll get on board if you promise me that I can be the one who pushes the plunger down that blows up Turd Moor.

[bluebruce]

What I meant is that at the time Rovers bought players like Shearer, they pushed the boat out so to speak. Possible in relation to fees at the time paid more than they should. Because they wanted success as soon as possible and to get into the first premierleague - which they achieved. (yes as a Rovers supporter I am glad of the success it achieved, but lets be honest, it also helped pave the way to the system and prices we have now) Yes hindsight also says Rovers got good value on and off the pitch for those same players. So no grip there from me.

But I do believe it still is possible to buy players - not cheap youngsers - decent hard working players, who want to play football and not sit on the bench or be in squads just to pick up the wages. We have to believe that as football supporters of clubs outside of the so called top 4. If not, why the hell do the rest of us bother supporting other clubs? We support our clubs in hope that they can do what nobody else expects them to do.

We only have to look at the players Rovers have now, Ollson, Jones, Nzonzi, Samba, Givet. High prices were not paid for them. Yes it probable means for Rovers that they should invest in the youth system more and develop its own players. I believe in the current climate that is Rovers best option - possible cheaper option also.

I'm not disputing the model of buying cheap youngsters (and despite what you say, the only example you named who isn't one is Givet, and he cost £4 million at about 27 years old, for a defender who is solid but not exceptional). In fact I not only wish us to use the model you seem to be getting at, but feel the club ARE using it under Sam. What I'm disputing the level of expectation you seem to have. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're talking about replicating the Jack Walker days and achieving that kind of success? Just not financially viable unless somebody wants to throw their money away, as we just won't get it back. We've mastered operating on the budget we have now, but what does the future hold in terms of attainable targets, how much they would cost, and how much they would yield?

We just finished tenth. We couldn't get more than a few places ahead right now in all likelihood without spending much more, and each place is only worth 750k and costs a lot more to achieve in terms of layout on players and wages. Europa League competition yields fairly small benefits unless you do exceptionally well. The Champions League is the big prize, with £15 million plus a season if you can get there regularly. But would £15 million a season in terms of fees and wages guarantee us finishing above the likes of Manure, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City, Tottenham, or even Villa and Liverpool? Nope. It might be possible, but if it went wrong we'd be up ###### creek because the board have made it blatantly obvious that they aren't willing to cover our losses. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that barring a miracle, we won't get any investor who will (without wanting returns on their investment whether it pays off or not- and that is the nightmare scenario Portsmouth had). So I'm content (if not exactly elated) to see us trundle along as we are doing. Buy cheap, sell high. Buy young, instead of buying with no resale value. And occasionally push the boat out for a player that can take us to the next level, or will represent a good long-term investment (financially above all else). All within a realistic budget unless our owners want to spank some of their own cash not ours.

Frankly, you're really best dropping the Shearer comparison. As I said, it was a British transfer record, and he cost that much because he was THE hottest thing on the market and we were up against Man United for him. We can neither spend the British transfer record nor beat United to players anymore. It's truly that simple.

[thenodrog]

OK, I can see where your coming from there's only so many fans to go round.

I'll get on board if you promise me that I can be the one who pushes the plunger down that blows up Turd Moor.

Spoke to a dingle last season who was strongly in favour of the Lanky Utd concept.

[Stuart]

I'm not disputing the model of buying cheap youngsters (and despite what you say, the only example you named who isn't one is Givet, and he cost £4 million at about 27 years old, for a defender who is solid but not exceptional). In fact I not only wish us to use the model you seem to be getting at, but feel the club ARE using it under Sam. What I'm disputing the level of expectation you seem to have. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're talking about replicating the Jack Walker days and achieving that kind of success? Just not financially viable unless somebody wants to throw their money away, as we just won't get it back. We've mastered operating on the budget we have now, but what does the future hold in terms of attainable targets, how much they would cost, and how much they would yield?

We just finished tenth. We couldn't get more than a few places ahead right now in all likelihood without spending much more, and each place is only worth 750k and costs a lot more to achieve in terms of layout on players and wages. Europa League competition yields fairly small benefits unless you do exceptionally well. The Champions League is the big prize, with £15 million plus a season if you can get there regularly. But would £15 million a season in terms of fees and wages guarantee us finishing above the likes of Manure, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City, Tottenham, or even Villa and Liverpool? Nope. It might be possible, but if it went wrong we'd be up ###### creek because the board have made it blatantly obvious that they aren't willing to cover our losses. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that barring a miracle, we won't get any investor who will (without wanting returns on their investment whether it pays off or not- and that is the nightmare scenario Portsmouth had). So I'm content (if not exactly elated) to see us trundle along as we are doing. Buy cheap, sell high. Buy young, instead of buying with no resale value. And occasionally push the boat out for a player that can take us to the next level, or will represent a good long-term investment (financially above all else). All within a realistic budget unless our owners want to spank some of their own cash not ours.

Frankly, you're really best dropping the Shearer comparison. As I said, it was a British transfer record, and he cost that much because he was THE hottest thing on the market and we were up against Man United for him. We can neither spend the British transfer record nor beat United to players anymore. It's truly that simple.

You need to spend money in the PL just to stand still. What took us to 10th this year is unlikely to do so next year as those around/below us strength.

I really hope that when we do actually get some proper takeover news that someone creates a new thread. Everytime I go into this thread I'm disappointed by the lack of actual posts about an actual takeover. (And me posting this isn't really helping!)

[thenodrog]

You need to spend money in the PL just to stand still. What took us to 10th this year is unlikely to do so next year as those around/below us strength.

I really hope that when we do actually get some proper takeover news that someone creates a new thread. Everytime I go into this thread I'm disappointed by the lack of actual posts about an actual takeover. (And me posting this isn't really helping!)

Jisty are you hoping for a takeover to happen? Have you read the last 2/3 pages? If so why on earth are you wishing for a takeover?

[Stuart]

Jisty are you hoping for a takeover to happen? Have you read the last 2/3 pages? If so why on earth are you wishing for a takeover?

I've already posted on the thread that the current speculation scares the hell out of me.

Being honest, I want something that we will never get. Another Jack.

I certainly don't want an investor because Blackburn Rovers Football Club is not an attractive option for a business venture. Where are the returns coming from? Asset stripping? Land sales? Even more player sales? Can't see much else on the cards. Punters aren't going to put up with £500 season tickets.

The Walkers don't want to own Blackburn Rovers Football Club. I think that's fairly clear - otherwise, I'd much rather they stayed as the apparent terms of the trust seem to protect the club from being raped by football mercenaries (inside and out).

The comment you've highlighted was that fact that we need money to continue to be spent on the playing staff if we are just to stay 10th - 13th in this league. In the "Other Premier League" thread someone made the point that after we won the league the plan was to defend it with the same squad. That couldn't and didn't work and the same can be said. We were incredibly lucky this season to finish 10th on the final day but even that seemingly isn't enough to enable us to improve the playing staff.

I don't really want a takeover, I'm resigned to there being one. I hope when it is sold, it is to someone who's heart is in the right place, i.e. BRFC.

In the meantime we have to hope that Sam (or his successor) can continue to work miracles on our budget. Next season's target could (should?) be 9th. I suspect it is more likely 13th again.

And it'll be more difficult next season.

[Majiball]

Spoke to a dingle last season who was strongly in favour of the Lanky Utd concept.

I do see the benefits, you could create one hell of a club from it all. As to the logistics of it all well I have no idea. It would be good to see the club in the area being able to compete with the big boys again and be able to sustain it long term.

Just even putting preston, burnley and Blackburn into one club would reap 40-50,000 season ticket holders.

[gumboots]

Spoke to a dingle last season who was strongly in favour of the Lanky Utd concept.

Yeah well at least that way they might get something to cheer about

[tony gale's mic]

I do see the benefits, you could create one hell of a club from it all. As to the logistics of it all well I have no idea. It would be good to see the club in the area being able to compete with the big boys again and be able to sustain it long term.

Just even putting preston, burnley and Blackburn into one club would reap 40-50,000 season ticket holders.

You're making a big assumption if you think the vast majority of PNE, Rovers and Bumley ST holders would magically transfer to Lancs Utd.

[koi]

No way on god's earth would I follow a Lancs Utd! It's Blackburn or nothing for me I'm afraid.

Rugby League tried to do a similar thing when putting Super League together; the idea was to merge smaller clubs to make them more competitive with the biggest clubs. The idea got as far as being pitched to Sky and subsequently agreeing a deal based on the new teams. The outcry was phenomenal and nearly finished the RFL.

The moral is that you can't erase 100+ years of history, it's a crazy idea!

[PAFELL]

I'm not disputing the model of buying cheap youngsters (and despite what you say, the only example you named who isn't one is Givet, and he cost £4 million at about 27 years old, for a defender who is solid but not exceptional). In fact I not only wish us to use the model you seem to be getting at, but feel the club ARE using it under Sam. What I'm disputing the level of expectation you seem to have. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're talking about replicating the Jack Walker days and achieving that kind of success? Just not financially viable unless somebody wants to throw their money away, as we just won't get it back. We've mastered operating on the budget we have now, but what does the future hold in terms of attainable targets, how much they would cost, and how much they would yield?

We just finished tenth. We couldn't get more than a few places ahead right now in all likelihood without spending much more, and each place is only worth 750k and costs a lot more to achieve in terms of layout on players and wages. Europa League competition yields fairly small benefits unless you do exceptionally well. The Champions League is the big prize, with £15 million plus a season if you can get there regularly. But would £15 million a season in terms of fees and wages guarantee us finishing above the likes of Manure, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City, Tottenham, or even Villa and Liverpool? Nope. It might be possible, but if it went wrong we'd be up ###### creek because the board have made it blatantly obvious that they aren't willing to cover our losses. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that barring a miracle, we won't get any investor who will (without wanting returns on their investment whether it pays off or not- and that is the nightmare scenario Portsmouth had). So I'm content (if not exactly elated) to see us trundle along as we are doing. Buy cheap, sell high. Buy young, instead of buying with no resale value. And occasionally push the boat out for a player that can take us to the next level, or will represent a good long-term investment (financially above all else). All within a realistic budget unless our owners want to spank some of their own cash not ours.

Frankly, you're really best dropping the Shearer comparison. As I said, it was a British transfer record, and he cost that much because he was THE hottest thing on the market and we were up against Man United for him. We can neither spend the British transfer record nor beat United to players anymore. It's truly that simple.

On a lot of subjects it can be hard to compare. we can all have different opinions etc. So I will leave that subject.

Many on here say, including myself that Rovers need new investment.

But in most of the posts on this subject, it appears that most have forgotton the new rules coming in.

An owner, investor, sugar daddy, super duper supporter of any club, will not be able to give the money to finance or pay the wages of any player. Therefore, what Rovers are CURRENTLY RECEIVING from the trust (nothing financially) would be no different under new owners.

Please correct me if I am wrong. But is that not what the new rules are saying. Each club has to operate on the funds they have coming in.

I am not sure if an owner, is allowed to pay towards the day to day (not wages of players or transfers of the same) running of the club. My understanding is that they would be allowed to pay for such things as a new stadium, training facilities.

If my understanding of the new UEFA rules is correct, HOW WOULD A NEW OWNER HELP ROVERS. Rovers have a stadium, yes it may need a few licks of paint etc, good training facilities etc. Maybe the Riverside can be redeveloped. But how else could a new owner help Rovers.

[bluebruce]

On a lot of subjects it can be hard to compare. we can all have different opinions etc.

Many on here say, including myself that Rovers need new investment.

But in most of the posts on this subject, it appears that most have forgotton the new rule coming in. An owner, investor, sugar daddy, super duper supporter of any club, will not be able to give the money to finance or pay the wages of any player. Therefore, what Rovers are CURRENTLY RECEIVEING

I haven't forgotten it, I said I want us to continue with that model unless better is available. But wasn't your whole point that you want us to push investment? The new rule will stop that.

[PAFELL]

No way on god's earth would I follow a Lancs Utd! It's Blackburn or nothing for me I'm afraid.

Rugby League tried to do a similar thing when putting Super League together; the idea was to merge smaller clubs to make them more competitive with the biggest clubs. The idea got as far as being pitched to Sky and subsequently agreeing a deal based on the new teams. The outcry was phenomenal and nearly finished the RFL.

The moral is that you can't erase 100+ years of history, it's a crazy idea!

Chill out, it would not happen. It would put more people out of work than in it. Players, stadium management, club staff etc etc. That is in itself makes it a no goer. Footbal wise alone it may make a little sence. But nothing else.

For example, imagine a lancashire V Yorkshire game. The biggest stadium in the country would not be enough, can you imagine the amount of people this would upset etc because they could not get a ticket. Then there is other rival counties, and the tale goes on. It would never work, unless as a seperate entity on its own. Lancashire, yorkshire, dorset, sussex utd or any other countie, would never ever work from a purely business, employment view point. Pity, but that is reality. Football is the wrong sport for such a project. Even if just Lancashire chose to do things that way, other counties would try to follow suit and destroy football for this country, especially for the working man. Sorry it would be a complete no go from a financial view point.

I am aware that others on this board sometimes toy with the idea. Others only give opinions with regards to club loyalty etc, but never come up with an argument / debate / opinion of why it would never work.

[PAFELL]

I haven't forgotten it, I said I want us to continue with that model unless better is available. But wasn't your whole point that you want us to push investment? The new rule will stop that.

Any new investment has to go into development of the youth system. As well as upgrading the Riverside. New investment, if my understanding is correct, can only pay for such things. This would mean that Rovers are on a level playing field. Why, because most of the top 4 clubs for example, have to pay off their debts, also from the same income they have coming in to the club. Rovers do not have the level of debt that other clubs have. therefore it will take less time to that off compared to other clubs. Even if Rovers have, say 20 mill debt, they could pay that off faster than man U can pay off 700 mill of debt.

You are right the current model that Rovers have is the best way for a club like Rovers. They have to stay in the prem by developing thier own players via their own youth system Correct me if I am wrong, but did not Ajax do the same (maybe still do) that keeps costs down. Its maybe slower, but financially the best option.

I suggest, that by getting hold of the correct young players, training them, coaching them etc, building them into a team that is what Rovers and any other small club has to do. That is where investment, yes cash is needed.

A new owner cannot pay for player transfers / wages. That applies to every club.

[allanncd]

The pending new rules do NOT mean that an owner cannot fund transfers fees or a wage bill in excess of the club's income. If the money is put in as share capital and not as a loan there is no problem. Furthermore the rules only prevent participation in Euro competitions - dream on. I suspect most fans would settle for an entertaining team capable of finishing mid-table and a trip to Wembley once in a while. I am glad to see the Walker Trustees have apparently reduced their asking price to a more realistic (albeit stiil too high ) figure rumoured to be £25m. In truth it is still too high because there is no business model under which BRFC can make a regular profit - and profit is the sole determinant of a company valued on a going concern basis - ie not for asset-stripping. The proper approach for the Trustees to take would be to sell the shares for £1 conditional on the new owners putting in £25m of new share capital. Of course it's not going to happen. Instead the Trustees will wait until the club is relegated and then sell for a £1 to leave the new owners (if any can then be found) to pick up the tab for the operating losses as aging players on long contracts (Pedersen, Emerton etc ) are paid off.

[47er]

I haven't forgotten it, I said I want us to continue with that model unless better is available. But wasn't your whole point that you want us to push investment? The new rule will stop that.

Aren't the new rules about ownership spending confined to qualification for European competition? They only prevent a club which receives "excessive" largesse from their owner participating in their Cup competitions. I'm not saying this isn't important but if we finished first every year but couldn't qualify for the Euro Champions League I could possibly live with it as opposed to fighting relegation every year!

Sorry allancd you beat me to it. I too was getting concerned that people were quoting the rule without understanding it.

[philipl]

The Premier League are debating introducing even tougher rules than the UEFA rules.

The key point is that all clubs will probably be forced to operate within the constraints the Rovers are already operating under with the Trust. As such Rovers would benefit.

Let's see if John Williams confirms the story about the "price being reduced" in his LT interview later today shall we?

[Guest Kamy100]

JW's interview has nothing about the price being reduced etc. He talks about the club doing well, the financial constraints, The Salgado signing and the impact on the finances, about wages, reiterates we don't need to sell players and the role that the fans can play in the future success of the club.

[Bobby G]

Any link to read it online?