[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[47er]

I've put this together as a summary of the reported takeover bid by Saurin Shah with specific reference to the status of the bid inasmuch as this is public knowledge. The duplication of information in various forms in different news sources, often taken out of context, makes it rather difficult for the casual reader to ascertain the sequence of events involved and separate fact from speculation. In particular, the matter of whether the Indian group led by Saurin Shah has been granted the right to carry out due diligence or not can be confusing. Here I've tried to identify the key sources that have been referenced on this thread for the sake of clarity. I'm thinking of maybe posting this summary to the transfer digest thread for informational purposes because of its relation to transfers (perceived or actual), so if I've missed anything out, please add your comments. Note that philipl has posted while I was preparing this, so apologies for any duplication there.

As far as I can make out, since the story was broken by nicko, there have been links in this thread to three main sources - The Times, DNA, and the Lancashire Telegraph - with the latter two having had direct access to Shah himself.

In the Two mystery buyers target Blackburn article in the 6 June issue of The People, nicko broke the news of "an Indian cricket entrepreneur" being interested in taking over the club. Later that week in the evening of 10 June, both The Times and Mumbai-based online news source DNA (Daily News & Analysis) published articles revealing the identity of the Indian bidder as Saurin Shah.

The DNA article Little-known Mumbai firm eyes English Premier League presence, dated 11 June, made reference to nicko's article and, presumably having been prompted by that article to identify the mystery Indian bidder, carried direct quotes attributed to Shah himself.

Meanwhile, Oliver Kay's piece Indian magnate lines up £25m takeover of Blackburn in The Times, dated 11 June, stated that

The Times article does not have any direct quotes from anyone connected to the Indian bidders, so whether The Times had picked up on the DNA interview or not is unclear. It would, however, make perfect sense if that had been the case, although one cannot rule out the possibility that Oliver Kay had his own sources for this information. (India is 4.5 hours ahead of BST, so the DNA article would have been available from around 8:30pm on the 10th - around an hour before The Times went public as far as I can tell.)

On the following morning, 11 June, the Lancashire Telegraph had a brief article on the newly identified bidder, adding that an offer was understood to have been made:

In an update on the following day, 12 June, the Lancashire Telegraph had evidently followed up on the story with the article Indian businessman: I want to buy Blackburn Rovers. There were no direct quotes from sources connected with the Rovers, but they did manage to contact Shah himself, who was somewhat more guarded in his statements regarding the status of the negotiations than when he had spoken to DNA earlier in the week.

The Lancashire Telegraph took a cautious approach to the matter, indicating that it understood that an official bid of around £25million had been faxed to Rothschilds by Shah and that it was thought that none of "a number" of parties had been "granted exclusivity". As such, the Lancashire Telegraph concluded, "suggestions that the bid has already reached due diligence - when the accounts are opened up to be checked - are premature".

As far as I can see, there have been no further articles of any substance published on the matter that have been reported here on this thread. Thus, to sum up, it would seem that an official bid has been received by the club from the Saurin Shah group, but beyond that it is not possible to make any statement of fact relating to the current status of the bid. It is conceivable that counter bids from "other interested parties" have been received or, perhaps, invited, and it is equally conceivable that due diligence has already commenced, with the bidder bound not to discuss this in public. But such potential developments are merely a matter of speculation at present in the absence of concrete reports.

Thanks for your efforts mate. Not easy to make sense of it. Guess we have to wait and see.

imarovers post was excellent. Yours above is stupid.

Wonderfully deep analysis there! Did you read Kevin Gallagher's article in the LT? Without new investment we will be relegated was the gist of it. Just another idiot eh?

[John]

Drog, get where you are coming from.

However, our recent success in relation to high finishes in the league is down to the superb management of Sparky and Sam in my view. Generally, the work (particularly Hughes) did at Rovers was top class. His record in the transfer market was astounding and impossible to replicate. And Sam, in tougher times, has done exceptionally well too with relatively average players IMO.

I think it is unrealistic to think we will continually have a sucession of good managers therefore the emphasis will fall back on to having quality players. Of course, hopefully we are unlikely to have anyone as bad as Ince again but there will come a point when the squad will need investment otherwise there is a real danger of the club spiralling downwards.

That's not to say I think there is potentially new owner(s) out there who can genuinely maintain/progress our situation. Personally I am happy with the Trust as our owners - as someone else pointed out, almost every takeover has been an unhappy one.

[thenodrog]

Drog, get where you are coming from.

However, our recent success in relation to high finishes in the league is down to the superb management of Sparky and Sam in my view. Generally, the work (particularly Hughes) did at Rovers was top class. His record in the transfer market was astounding and impossible to replicate. And Sam, in tougher times, has done exceptionally well too with relatively average players IMO.

I think it is unrealistic to think we will continually have a sucession of good managers therefore the emphasis will fall back on to having quality players. Of course, hopefully we are unlikely to have anyone as bad as Ince again but there will come a point when the squad will need investment otherwise there is a real danger of the club spiralling downwards.

That's not to say I think there is potentially new owner(s) out there who can genuinely maintain/progress our situation. Personally I am happy with the Trust as our owners - as someone else pointed out, almost every takeover has been an unhappy one.

If the trust sells us for 20m it's probably an act of charity.

The best business plan to make big money out of BRFc is to sell any players of value, replace them with lower league players on little money, take the 90 million in parachute payments, basically put BRFC back to where they belong and run for cover. Easy and relatively quick. Way more than 20m just there for the taking.

Trouble is living around here would become impossible. Any owner prepared to do that would need to live at least half way around the world.

Wonderfully deep analysis there!

Thanks 47er. Short, straight to the point and most of all accurate. I agree with you, it was one of my better ones.

[47er]

If the trust sells us for 20m it's probably an act of charity.

The best business plan to make big money out of BRFc is to sell any players of value, replace them with lower league players on little money, take the 90 million in parachute payments, basically put BRFC back to where they belong and run for cover. Easy and relatively quick. Way more than 20m just there for the taking.

Trouble is living around here would become impossible. Any owner prepared to do that would need to live at least half way around the world.

Thanks 47er. Short, straight to the point and most of all accurate. I agree with you, it was one of my better ones.

You have no better ones What you describe as a business plan is simply shutting the club down. The Trust ought to be able to sort out rubbish like that. After all it could go that route itself. Why let someone else get easy profits? You're not thinking.

Go back and read Gallacher's comments.

[thenodrog]

Why let someone else get easy profits? You're not thinking.

Go back and read Gallacher's comments.

Not thinking eh?...... Read the last sentence of my first post a bit slower 47er.

[47er]

Not thinking eh?...... Read my last sentence a bit slower 47er.

I read it, just didn't believe you would seriously post such stupid stuff.

So we don't want anyone from halfway around the world then? Nothing new there then!

I suppose if the Trust sell to them they'll be safe in Jersey? What a weird world you inhabit!

[Exiled in Toronto]

The best business plan to make big money out of BRFc is to sell any players of value, replace them with lower league players on little money, take the 90 million in parachute payments, basically put BRFC back to where they belong and run for cover. Easy and relatively quick. Way more than 20m just there for the taking.

Easy and relatively quick? Because of the high salaries we pay, most of the squad are effectively unsellable. We only ever sell our top players who clubs higher up than us both fancy and can afford their wages. That would be Samba. The rest, e.g. Grella and MGP to name recent examples, aren't financial assets, they are liabilities as any new owner is legally committed to their bloated wages for the length of their contracts. Who would buy Diouf, Chimbonda, Nelsen, Salgado, Robbo, Dunn, Andrews, Roberts etc etc who would not move to earn less money?

Paying 25 million to buy a 20 million debt and wage commitments of probably 80-90 million, assuming an average outstanding contract length of 2 years, is not a deal for the faint-hearted

[Brfcrule1]

That sentence is very derogatory of the superb achievements of all concerned at BRFC. We finished 10th without going into debt. Why should we spend silly money jsut for the sake of it? To get more than 1 possibly 2 higher places up we would still not get into Europe but would prob need to spend more than the value of the entire club. Which wannabee owner with even an ounce of business acumen would be likely to do that?

Funny how some people find it so easy to spend other people's money.

you totally have misunderstood my point. I appreciate up to know everyone at BRFC has done a superb job there is no doubt about that yes we finished 10th with not much debt I did not say we should spend silly money. I know to get near Europe we have to spend huge. What I was saying is we need this takeover to go through because at this point in time it is very difficult to get players in when all we have is the 2.5M to spend. I am saying is if we had even a little bit more say for instance another 4-5M on top of the 2.5M we could get the players we need maybe 1 striker and 1 midfielder I never advocated we spend huge amounts on players just enough to keep things ticking over. That is why the situation with Grella and his wage demands make this all the more galling as we really needed that 2M. Also another point that needs making is this sort of thing buy a player relatively cheap them sell on for massive profit how long will we be able to do it?. This year Sam has struggled to get the players within budget you think suddenly next year will be easier I think the time for picking up bargain basement players has long gone. I see the only way forward is by having extra investment to not to the proportions of Man City but at least able to compete along side a Sunderland/middle of the table type team. Also even with a bit of investment even if we manage to climb the table by a couple of places that is progress and more money in the pot at the end of it.

[brian_gallagher85]

CLICK THE "REPLY" BUTTON, THEN TYPE YOU REPLY AS NORMAL. IF YOU CAN COPY OVER HIS ENTIRE POST THEN YOU SURELY CAN DO THIS, sorry for shouting but my god your posts are so hard to follow and are almost meaningless as a result!

[dave birch]

It's alright guys, I'll go and have a word with Frank Lowy, the owner of Westfields. He was trying to buy Leeds.

I don't think it will be hard to convince him that the Rovers are a better investment.

[1864roverite]

I dont understnad why supporters and people on here are lambasting each other, the honest truth about this story is that unless you are actually involved in the negotiations then yoo knw the square root of faff all.

Nobody knows if an offer is in or has been accepted.

Nobody knows the sums of cash involved.

Nobody appears to know anything apart from pure unadulterated speculation.

The lines of communication at Ewood appear to be tightly closed, that is in relation to the takeover (or proposed takeover), in relation to potential sales and/or signings and just about everything else.

Even the new home shirt hasnt been leaked yet and its due out in 4 weeks.

The only information coming out of Ewood is the need for a striker, Olssons new contract, the new seasons fixture list and the list of friendly games already arranged.

Chill out everyone, if its going to happen it will.

far too many of the boards members have had too much sun :!:

[Brfcrule1]

sorry Brian & everyone just tried to get the point across as best I could.

p.s. Is Nicko around any news tommorrow in the people?.

[brian_gallagher85]

It's ok mate nobodies perfect and I don't make a habit of pointing out each and every error I see but posting like that just makes your posts unreadable at times.

Just try and use the reply button in future for your own good

[47er]

you totally have misunderstood my point. I appreciate up to know everyone at BRFC has done a superb job there is no doubt about that yes we finished 10th with not much debt I did not say we should spend silly money. I know to get near Europe we have to spend huge. What I was saying is we need this takeover to go through because at this point in time it is very difficult to get players in when all we have is the 2.5M to spend. I am saying is if we had even a little bit more say for instance another 4-5M on top of the 2.5M we could get the players we need maybe 1 striker and 1 midfielder I never advocated we spend huge amounts on players just enough to keep things ticking over. That is why the situation with Grella and his wage demands make this all the more galling as we really needed that 2M. Also another point that needs making is this sort of thing buy a player relatively cheap them sell on for massive profit how long will we be able to do it?. This year Sam has struggled to get the players within budget you think suddenly next year will be easier I think the time for picking up bargain basement players has long gone. I see the only way forward is by having extra investment to not to the proportions of Man City but at least able to compete along side a Sunderland/middle of the table type team. Also even with a bit of investment even if we manage to climb the table by a couple of places that is progress and more money in the pot at the end of it.

A very sensible post. I don't see us paying 20/30M for a player either and wages of 100000 a week are unsustainable for a club like our's. Moreover it just wouldn't "sit right" with the sort of club we are. I wouldn't feel comfortable with it and I'd be looking over my shoulder waiting for the creditors.I also get a great feeling of pride from our team battling against the odds season after season.However it can't last.

In any case the situation we are now in is one where we can't fill even 2 glaring gaps in the squad with a totally unrealistic 2.25M. A new owner could fix that relatively cheaply and we'd at least be able to compete in the transfer market with the likes of Bolton,Wolves and Birmingham and secure our Premiership future.

This isn't being ungrateful to the Trust, far from it.They have done a wonderful job but they know time's up.I simply agree with them.

[iamarover]

A very sensible post. I don't see us paying 20/30M for a player either and wages of 100000 a week are unsustainable for a club like our's. Moreover it just wouldn't "sit right" with the sort of club we are. I wouldn't feel comfortable with it and I'd be looking over my shoulder waiting for the creditors.I also get a great feeling of pride from our team battling against the odds season after season.However it can't last.

In any case the situation we are now in is one where we can't fill even 2 glaring gaps in the squad with a totally unrealistic 2.25M. A new owner could fix that relatively cheaply and we'd at least be able to compete in the transfer market with the likes of Bolton,Wolves and Birmingham and secure our Premiership future.

This isn't being ungrateful to the Trust, far from it.They have done a wonderful job but they know time's up.I simply agree with them.

Relatively cheaply you say. What does that mean? 10m 20m? Name a figure now add that to the 20m the Trust is asking. Add the 20m debt. Now tell me how Shah or anyone else is going to get that 50 or 60m of net revenue back out of the club. Because if they cannot do that then they have no business plan and are either buying us as a fan or because they need to launder dirty money.

We know he isn't a fan. We pray he isn't a crook.

So. Can you please tell me how this man will be the first man in football history to take out that kind of money without damaging the club itself? That is the point I Philip Nodrog and others keep trying to make.

[47er]

Relatively cheaply you say. What does that mean? 10m 20m? Name a figure now add that to the 20m the Trust is asking. Add the 20m debt. Now tell me how Shah or anyone else is going to get that 50 or 60m of net revenue back out of the club. Because if they cannot do that then they have no business plan and are either buying us as a fan or because they need to launder dirty money.

We know he isn't a fan. We pray he isn't a crook.

So. Can you please tell me how this man will be the first man in football history to take out that kind of money without damaging the club itself? That is the point I Philip Nodrog and others keep trying to make.

Good-a civilised response from you and I'll reply in kind.

I don't know anymore about Shah than you do. That's the job of the Trust to evaluate. I asked you whether you'd be supporting the Trust's decision if they decide to sell to his group.I notice you ignored that but expect answers from me to questions which are unanswerable at this time.

As for the financial possibilities that you can't see,that's why these guys are rich and the rest of us remain wage slaves. You pray he isn't a crook--is this how you approach anyone you don't know anything about? What evidence is there that he's a crook?

The point which neither you, Drog or Philip ever address is-----what is the future of the club? Some sort of takeover is inevitable because the Trust is determined to sell. You berate me for expecting the Walkers to fund the club better but then want to foist the club on them forever when they clearly don't want it! If this sale fails, fair enough it wasn't meant to be but what about the next lot? are all bids from "halfway round the world" to be rejected automatically?

In summary, I'll trust the Trust to make the right decision and I'll support it when they do. Will you? Or is clinging to the Trust ownership just a habit you can't break?

[philipl]

There are a number of factual errors you make 47er.

I dispute "the Trust is determined to sell". They have never said that and the price, whatever it might be has never been made public, up, down or sideways.

Instructing Rothschilds four years ago and no sale being made clearly does not suggest a "desperate" seller- that is the hard evidence.

The "Trust would prefer to sell if they can find a buyer whom they can trust to fulfil the obligations they hold in respect of the club" is how the club has portrayed the situation and as the club is extremely careful to say little but to be totally honest when it does speak, I think they deserve to be respected in this matter.

The Trust are funding the club- there is £5m in loans on the softest terms believable and the club has zero costs of ownership. That is without going back into the history and seeing that in terms of actual cash put into Rovers per year and absolute capitalisation, the Trust has been more generous than even during Jack Walker's life time.

Finally, let's talk hard numbers about a purchaser. Unless the new owner is willing to commit £120m+ they won't see back, nobody on this messageboard wants to see the Trust leave if they really think about it.

£25m "purchase" price if we accept the press guess

£20m debt

£25m cost of simply managing the ownership of Rovers at £2.5m per year over ten years

£50m net investment of £5m per year over ten years

If supporters are dreaming of new cash which would make a serious difference to the club's standing in the Premier League, more than double that commitment number to £250m+.

As I have written previously, the people who have £250m for a football club plaything which they can cheerfully lose are massively fewer than those who can scrape together £25m to buy a questionable asset. And post the 2008 banking crisis, newly minted billionaires are almost as rare as hens' teeth anywhere in the world.

[gumboots]

There are a number of factual errors you make 47er.

I dispute "the Trust is determined to sell". They have never said that and the price, whatever it might be has never been made public, up, down or sideways.

Instructing Rothschilds four years ago and no sale being made clearly does not suggest a "desperate" seller- that is the hard evidence.

The "Trust would prefer to sell if they can find a buyer whom they can trust to fulfil the obligations they hold in respect of the club" is how the club has portrayed the situation and as the club is extremely careful to say little but to be totally honest when it does speak, I think they deserve to be respected in this matter.

The Trust are funding the club- there is £5m in loans on the softest terms believable and the club has zero costs of ownership. That is without going back into the history and seeing that in terms of actual cash put into Rovers per year and absolute capitalisation, the Trust has been more generous than even during Jack Walker's life time.

Finally, let's talk hard numbers about a purchaser. Unless the new owner is willing to commit £120m+ they won't see back, nobody on this messageboard wants to see the Trust leave if they really think about it.

£25m "purchase" price if we accept the press guess

£20m debt

£25m cost of simply managing the ownership of Rovers at £2.5m per year over ten years

£50m net investment of £5m per year over ten years

If supporters are dreaming of new cash which would make a serious difference to the club's standing in the Premier League, more than double that commitment number to £250m+.

As I have written previously, the people who have £250m for a football club plaything which they can cheerfully lose are massively fewer than those who can scrape together £25m to buy a questionable asset. And post the 2008 banking crisis, newly minted billionaires are almost as rare as hens' teeth anywhere in the world.

And yet, the bottom line is still, they want to sell otherwise the club wouldn't be on the market. And they recognise the difficulty they will have inselling, hence the lower initial asking price. Desperate they are obviously not or we'd have been sold at some time to the first person to come along who looked about right, as many other clubs have been. But you cannot dispute the fact that we are on the market and will at some point be sold and we the fans can do nothing whatsoever abut it other than hope that everyone does their homework and any sale is to the best possible advantage for the club as well as for the current owners. I accept what you say about our current owners doing perhaps a better job than we fans realise, but they still, at some point, want not to have to bother about Rovrs any more.

[Brfcrule1]

iamarover I did say in my post a little over what we have will make a difference I am not advocating 10-20M on players I did say however an extra 4-5M on top of the the 2.5M from the Benni money would make a difference I did say that in my post.

p.s. any news in today's People?.

[47er]

There are a number of factual errors you make 47er.

I dispute "the Trust is determined to sell". They have never said that and the price, whatever it might be has never been made public, up, down or sideways.

Instructing Rothschilds four years ago and no sale being made clearly does not suggest a "desperate" seller- that is the hard evidence.

The "Trust would prefer to sell if they can find a buyer whom they can trust to fulfil the obligations they hold in respect of the club" is how the club has portrayed the situation and as the club is extremely careful to say little but to be totally honest when it does speak, I think they deserve to be respected in this matter.

The Trust are funding the club- there is £5m in loans on the softest terms believable and the club has zero costs of ownership. That is without going back into the history and seeing that in terms of actual cash put into Rovers per year and absolute capitalisation, the Trust has been more generous than even during Jack Walker's life time.

Finally, let's talk hard numbers about a purchaser. Unless the new owner is willing to commit £120m+ they won't see back, nobody on this messageboard wants to see the Trust leave if they really think about it.

£25m "purchase" price if we accept the press guess

£20m debt

£25m cost of simply managing the ownership of Rovers at £2.5m per year over ten years

£50m net investment of £5m per year over ten years

If supporters are dreaming of new cash which would make a serious difference to the club's standing in the Premier League, more than double that commitment number to £250m+.

As I have written previously, the people who have £250m for a football club plaything which they can cheerfully lose are massively fewer than those who can scrape together £25m to buy a questionable asset. And post the 2008 banking crisis, newly minted billionaires are almost as rare as hens' teeth anywhere in the world.

I have made no factual errors Philip. What you say you regard as fact when it is merely opinion. For example,"I dispute the Trust is determined to sell" means you are giving a different opinion( for which,by the way,you provide no evidence). Of course they have "never said they are determined to sell'. That would lower the price!They've said hardly anything publicly for that matter.

The sums you've ascribed to any future owner are your's, they may be right, they may not. Has the Indian group that sort of money? I don't know, do you? But I'm not prepared to write them off as you seem to be. What a doom-laden future you spell out for us. According to you, no-one will buy the club ever.

So what's your solution? We carry on with inadequate funding under owners who want rid? In truth you have no solution and we look likely to have no new striker and no new central mid-fielder and this will go on season after season till we go down.Not a fact, my opinion and that of many others.

Finally I'll ask you the question I put to Iamarover;if the Trust accept Shah's offer, will you trust their judgement? If what you say about the Trust's attitude to a sale is true surely we can trust them because they are not desperate to sell?

[Majiball]

And yet, the bottom line is still, they want to sell otherwise the club wouldn't be on the market. And they recognise the difficulty they will have inselling, hence the lower initial asking price. Desperate they are obviously not or we'd have been sold at some time to the first person to come along who looked about right, as many other clubs have been. But you cannot dispute the fact that we are on the market and will at some point be sold and we the fans can do nothing whatsoever abut it other than hope that everyone does their homework and any sale is to the best possible advantage for the club as well as for the current owners. I accept what you say about our current owners doing perhaps a better job than we fans realise, but they still, at some point, want not to have to bother about Rovrs any more.

Given all that has happened in recent years with sales of clubs etc, why are people worried? The last thing the trust will want to see is all of their fathers/brothers/husbands work and dreams go down the drain. They want what's best for the club, proven by there constant digging deep and giving us money to keep going.

There will be check after check, clause after clause to ensure that we don't go down the routes that we have seen at other clubs post sale. All they are doing is what is best for the club and us the fans and of course Jack, to preserve his legacy and dreams. Yes at some point we will be sold, but only and if only they are 150% certain we will improve beyond what we currently are. Should during this time relegation loom they will act as they did with Ince. Look at the asking price its less than the value of our squad, most reports suggest that investment must be guaranteed, that surely is the difference between what they where asking. Its almost akin to the Chap that owned Wolves, and yet people say they want rid they can't be bothered.

Why does everyone say they can't be bothered with Rovers, (not aimed purely at you Gumboots) time and again they have done what was best for our club. I really feel people are doing them a dis-service with comments like those as they have always helped us out and always will whilst they are around. As far as I'm concerned they most certainly can be bothered with Rovers, proven by all the money they've loaned us/given us and the fact that even after 4 years of being up for sale we haven't been sold to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

If they cannot find the perfect buyer they will always do what they can for us and Jacks dream to remain.

[trueblue]

iamarover I did say in my post a little over what we have will make a difference I am not advocating 10-20M on players I did say however an extra 4-5M on top of the the 2.5M from the Benni money would make a difference I did say that in my post.

p.s. any news in today's People?.

Absolutely nothing Rovers related in 'The People' today mate

[den]

If they cannot find the perfect buyer they will always do what they can for us and Jacks dream to remain.

Which is what Majiball?

[iamarover]

I have made no factual errors Philip. What you say you regard as fact when it is merely opinion. For example,"I dispute the Trust is determined to sell" means you are giving a different opinion( for which,by the way,you provide no evidence). Of course they have "never said they are determined to sell'. That would lower the price!They've said hardly anything publicly for that matter.

The sums you've ascribed to any future owner are your's, they may be right, they may not. Has the Indian group that sort of money? I don't know, do you? But I'm not prepared to write them off as you seem to be. What a doom-laden future you spell out for us. According to you, no-one will buy the club ever.

So what's your solution? We carry on with inadequate funding under owners who want rid? In truth you have no solution and we look likely to have no new striker and no new central mid-fielder and this will go on season after season till we go down.Not a fact, my opinion and that of many others.

Finally I'll ask you the question I put to Iamarover;if the Trust accept Shah's offer, will you trust their judgement? If what you say about the Trust's attitude to a sale is true surely we can trust them because they are not desperate to sell?

Can't put up with your banalities anymore. Am off to Pakistan next week and Mumbai soon after. I'll ask around Leopolds to see if anyone is buying your strategy.

[47er]

Can't put up with your banalities anymore. Am off to Pakistan next week and Mumbai soon after. I'll ask around Leopolds to see if anyone is buying your strategy.

Ah! A reversion to type! Ignored the question again I note.