[Archived] Rovers Might Have Been Sold?

[iamarover]

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

What dreary question was that then?

[philipl]

I trust the club and the Trustees to tell us honestly what and why they have done in the event of ownership of Rovers passing to someone else.

One of the most blatant factual errors is quoting a price for Rovers- no price has ever been quoted. Several prices have been guessed at.

Another factual error is that the Trust do not care or are disinterested- the most casual look at the annual reports and accounts over the past nine years shows that view to be risible.

Another factual error is I am writing off the Mumbai Group- I wrote that India is one of the few markets around where marketing investment for Rovers might work.

Finally it is absolutely cloud cuckoo land to be dreaming of a new striker and midfielder of the level you are thinking of and not to be equating that to a purchaser of Rovers who has well over £100m to throw at Rovers with no expectation of getting their money back.

[iamarover]

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

With far too many inaccuracies to trawl through in your rambling posts, I assume the questions about 'if the trust accept..drone drone ... will you accept their decision' is your rapier like thrust to the heart of the matter. Well, surprisingly, after vehement support for them in opposition to dingbats like you, my position has been clear. In the Trust we Trust. What is at issue here is not their Solomon like wisdom, which is not in question. But your utter refusal to face the fact that the Trust does not HAVE to sell, and the best result short of Jack II is that they don't. At present the Trust takes NO money out of the club and has NO charge on its future revenues. Any future owner will. So the circle that has to be squared for your position to be in any way supported, is...how can revenues be increased to support a non-benevolent takeover?

If Shah or anyone else lies about this saying, for example, ..oh I dont know...'we will convert India from cricket to football..and then fail, then there is then only one option - oblivion. Unless he is prepared to write off his investment the owner then asserts his right to asset strip the club to get his investment and profit back.

Which cannot, as Philip points out, happen if Jack drew up his Trust correctly. Ah. The Trust. Sure you want to get rid of them now?

Arte et Labore

[47er]

What dreary question was that then?

No, you were doing alright but clearly insults are your modus operandi. No more from me.

[gumboots]

Why does everyone say they can't be bothered with Rovers, (not aimed purely at you Gumboots)

Good because that wasn't what i said anyway. I said they want not to have to bother. Obviously they are currently bothering but they want not to have to. They want someone else to take on the running of the club and be free of the responsibility. That much has been obvious for years.

[47er]

I trust the club and the Trustees to tell us honestly what and why they have done in the event of ownership of Rovers passing to someone else.

One of the most blatant factual errors is quoting a price for Rovers- no price has ever been quoted. Several prices have been guessed at.

Another factual error is that the Trust do not care or are disinterested- the most casual look at the annual reports and accounts over the past nine years shows that view to be risible.

Another factual error is I am writing off the Mumbai Group- I wrote that India is one of the few markets around where marketing investment for Rovers might work.

Finally it is absolutely cloud cuckoo land to be dreaming of a new striker and midfielder of the level you are thinking of and not to be equating that to a purchaser of Rovers who has well over £100m to throw at Rovers with no expectation of getting their money back.

The selling price is 25M and you know it. I can't prove it as you are aware. This is sophistry.

To quote the last nine years is risible, things have changed drastically over that period.

Thirdly you're surely not positioning yourself to welcome the Indian bid if it comes off?!! All your posts on the subject have indicated such a take-over is impossible.

And four, you are wrong, no vast sum is needed.

[Majiball]

Which is what Majiball?

Come on, you know I don't know the restraints laid out in Jacks will, no-one does. But at the end of the day I believe it will be someone of integrity and with the funds to help us progress, or no-one. They have always helped us out financially even after saying they wouldn't but have more interests to consider within the trust than our football club.

I'm sick of people slating the trust when they have put in tens of millions into our club in a time when money in football has gone mad. How much did they spend when we came back up? When we got relegated? Ince, remember it was them stepping in that finally got rid of him. 5 million again this year and so on, its hardly pocket change and is more than they used to give. I have been critical of them in the past, but now I have to say I was wrong. They are great for this club and will ensure that we end up in the hands of someone who will carry on with the club at heart.

Yes we need investment, but having watched plenty of clubs go into more debt than you would think possible, then I praise them for their pragmatic approach. No-ones writing off the potential investors mentioned but those aiming insults at the trust are forgetting all they have done previously and continue to do.

[philipl]

The selling price is 25M and you know it. I can't prove it as you are aware. This is sophistry.

To quote the last nine years is risible, things have changed drastically over that period.

Thirdly you're surely not positioning yourself to welcome the Indian bid if it comes off?!! All your posts on the subject have indicated such a take-over is impossible.

And four, you are wrong, no vast sum is needed.

Sorry, that post is completely bonkers.

If the UEFA rules come in as presently drafted (and the Premier League follow through with their plan to tighten up even further than UEFA) then the Trust model will be the one that all clubs will need to work to and Rovers will be seen to be leading the way. That is not something to be lightly lost.

[den]

Come on, you know I don't know the restraints laid out in Jacks will, no-one does. But at the end of the day I believe it will be someone of integrity and with the funds to help us progress, or no-one. They have always helped us out financially even after saying they wouldn't but have more interests to consider within the trust than our football club.

It was a serious question Maj. You said the trust have always helped us out financially. I don't think they are doing anything at the moment are they? If they were Maj, I'd be happy as we are too.

[47er]

Sorry, that post is completely bonkers.

If the UEFA rules come in as presently drafted (and the Premier League follow through with their plan to tighten up even further than UEFA) then the Trust model will be the one that all clubs will need to work to and Rovers will be seen to be leading the way. That is not something to be lightly lost.

My post is bonkers! Is that the best you can do? I asked you for your solution, there is no solution here. All you can do is to bolster your argument with rules that have not been approved! Leading the way my ****.

[iamarover]

My post is bonkers! Is that the best you can do? I asked you for your solution, there is no solution here. All you can do is to bolster your argument with rules that have not been approved! Leading the way my ****.

It's because you just don't understand business. Or address issues like paying back money. Or making sure if you have an investment you also have a plan to pay it back. Yes Roves are leading the way, currently, and it is not just about running a tight ship. The Trust ran deficits of £19m and £31m when Rovers went down in order to secure the higher Premier league revenues that are now flowing. Incidentally they didnt ask for that money back... The question is whether there is an equal upside to justify more money being spent now than they currently own. And how any new owners will react once the investment of the type the Trust made has finished.

When you stop playing with that big coloured abacus and your mum has returned all your toys to your play pen, you can stop using those naughty words and see if you can work out l o g i c.

[thenodrog]

It was a serious question Maj. You said the trust have always helped us out financially. I don't think they are doing anything at the moment are they? If they were Maj, I'd be happy as we are too.

Helping us financially doesn't simply mean giving us money Den. Why do you want somebody else who isn't even interested in football and rarely goes to Ewood to simply give BRFC money? It seems there are many like you who still expect spoon feeding. You go to Ewood regularly, you care for BRFC far more than the current owner so other than the purchase of a season exactly how much have you simply given to the club in the past 12 months? Pennies make pounds you know.

[den]

Helping us financially doesn't simply mean giving us money Den. Why do you want somebody else who isn't even interested in football and rarely goes to Ewood to simply give BRFC money?

Whoa, hang on Gord.

I don't want that and no-one will do that, so it's totally missing the point.

If there is someone out there who considers that they can actually improve our club and has the determination to give it their best shot, then I would go along with that. Of course, the reality is that any investor will want to make money out of this, but if it works for both them and the club, then that's great in my opinion. The trustees want rid of BRFC and again, in my opinion, that alone means we should look for new owners, - but obviously the right owners. We can't move forwards while the current status exists.

and my question to Maj, about how the trust currently support us financially does still need an answer. Access to relatively cheap loans is one of the ways, but is that it?

[47er]

Helping us financially doesn't simply mean giving us money Den. Why do you want somebody else who isn't even interested in football and rarely goes to Ewood to simply give BRFC money? It seems there are many like you who still expect spoon feeding. You go to Ewood regularly, you care for BRFC far more than the current owner so other than the purchase of a season exactly how much have you simply given to the club in the past 12 months? Pennies make pounds you know.

I don't think Villa fans have been disappointed do you? Randy Lerner seems to be doing the right thing. Comes from a long way away as well!

[Brfcrule1]

Philip Lets get one thing straight it is not speculation how much they want for the club it has been quoted in a few newspapers they are after 25M so there is no need to question that. You say if the new uefa rules come in the model the trust have are going to be the way forward just a quick comment what if the rules are thrown out by the Prem. Lge. Then what I suppose the model we are carrying on with is going to be sustainable for the long term?. Or the big if what if the unthinkable happens we go down into the wilderness with not much chance of getting straight back I suppose then the model we have adopted will serve us ok?. You say you don't think the Trust want rid of the club and the amounts over the last 9 years are riseable ok they may have put a lot into the club over the 9 years I suppose they put the club on the market for a joke/wind upthe fact also they have withdrawn the 3M funding per season means they still want to keep hold of the club?. You say you are writing of the Indian interest as India is not somewhere where the marketing potential can succeed last I heard there was a Man Utd bar in Mumbai as one of our Indian posters mentioned it earlier. Still reckon Rovers can't be marketed over there?. You write off the Indian interest just like that I suppose if the Trust eventually sold us to the Indian consortium they are wrong?. Is there something wrong with the Indian group that makes them bad owners?. Have you done background checks on the members of the consortium even though they have not mentioned who the members of the consortium are?. Obviously you have some inside info?. There is obvious potential of marketing the prem. Lge in India also I suppose the fact they broadcast the games over there means we can't market the brand over there?. Again you say it is cloud cuckoo land to dream of a striker & a midfielder of the quality we dream off with putting 100M with no hope of getting it back?. I am getting tired of explaining this IO am not advocating throwing 100M around with no hope of getting it back all we would probably need to keep ticking over is an extra 4-5M on top of the Benni money 2.5M that would make a world of difference to a club like ours.

[thenodrog]

I don't think Villa fans have been disappointed do you? Randy Lerner seems to be doing the right thing. Comes from a long way away as well!

The clocks ticking on them too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/the-debt-league-how-much-do-clubs-owe-1912244.html

btw off topic slightly but googling around for the above I found this....

http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2010/02/28/aston-villa-keeper-s-football-school-business-is-5m-in-debt-66331-25927890/

[rebelmswar]

Helping us financially doesn't simply mean giving us money Den. Why do you want somebody else who isn't even interested in football and rarely goes to Ewood to simply give BRFC money? It seems there are many like you who still expect spoon feeding. You go to Ewood regularly, you care for BRFC far more than the current owner so other than the purchase of a season exactly how much have you simply given to the club in the past 12 months? Pennies make pounds you know.

I think that caring for the town, or team itself for that matter, does not come into the equation at all.

A football team, now a days, is the replacement phallus of choice amongst incredibly wealthy people.

[patrickvalery]

This back biting between 47er and Philip etc.. is all really pointless. Both have good and relatively well reasoned arguments.

Essentially, 47er is correct. The future holds little promise for us if the Premier League trend continues. We have done tremendously well to achieve a top ten finish. However, the financial restraints will catch up with us over time. It is also clear the Trust are being and have been proactive in looking to sell the club. Whether its for the reported £25m is up for debate. I certainly wouldn't accuse them of being desperate to sell. But it remains true the Trust themselves are fully aware they need to rid themselves of Blackburn Rovers FC as the burden we have become. A sentimental one yes, but still a burden. They see that for the club to remain where we are we need an investor with more capital.

I believe the Trust have been fantastically generous in how they have treated us as fans and the club we all love. No claims of neglect can honestly be levelled at them. For this i am eternally grateful. It also seems clear they are going above and beyond in their background searches etc... in terms of any potential investment. However will this ultimately save us if things go pear shaped with a new owner? Surely they can only stipulate terms such as asset stripping and aquiring assurances over medium - long term plans for the club and or business. If we are put into the hands of someone more reckless than the Walkers then there surely can be nothing to stop loans being taken out against such assests? Consequently putting us at great risk.

It would be wrong to make assumptions about this Indian consortium at this stage. Nothing new has come to light and we remain pretty clueless as to Mr Shah's background, wealth or ambitions. We also know little to nothing about the aother members of the consortium. However, all i will say is the entire notion of a consortium, be it from India, Thailand or wherever, is a worry. A single vision is greater than comitee. It worries me that too many people with money tied up in Rovers could be detrimental in terms of all having a common goal. Or put more accurately, working in the same direction to achieve that goal.

As Philip said a few pages back, the total amount required for investment is signifcantly higher than the reported £25m. For us to see a noticable difference it would take 4,5 or 6 times that amount. I have very real concerns that whoever buys the club will struggle to make significant returns to deem that level of investment viable. With all the will in the world, the Trust cannot gaurantee any buyer will safeguard us against reckless loans or unecessary risk taking of this kind.

The only viable option i can hope for is we are able to find a buyer who is willing to cover debt and not look beyond sustaining the club as a mid table force. With the new UEFA directives coming into play any owner coming in looking to invest heavily in the short term will surely have their fingers burnt in the medium term. It sometimes feels as if under the current ownership we are suffering death by Chinese water torture. However, the same bit by bit approach in reverese seems the only way forward with new owners. Any drastic changes in terms of heavy investment in the playing squad is surely not the best approach.

[philipl]

Philip Lets get one thing straight it is not speculation how much they want for the club it has been quoted in a few newspapers they are after 25M so there is no need to question that. You say if the new uefa rules come in the model the trust have are going to be the way forward just a quick comment what if the rules are thrown out by the Prem. Lge. Then what I suppose the model we are carrying on with is going to be sustainable for the long term?. Or the big if what if the unthinkable happens we go down into the wilderness with not much chance of getting straight back I suppose then the model we have adopted will serve us ok?. You say you don't think the Trust want rid of the club and the amounts over the last 9 years are riseable ok they may have put a lot into the club over the 9 years I suppose they put the club on the market for a joke/wind upthe fact also they have withdrawn the 3M funding per season means they still want to keep hold of the club?. You say you are writing of the Indian interest as India is not somewhere where the marketing potential can succeed last I heard there was a Man Utd bar in Mumbai as one of our Indian posters mentioned it earlier. Still reckon Rovers can't be marketed over there?. You write off the Indian interest just like that I suppose if the Trust eventually sold us to the Indian consortium they are wrong?. Is there something wrong with the Indian group that makes them bad owners?. Have you done background checks on the members of the consortium even though they have not mentioned who the members of the consortium are?. Obviously you have some inside info?. There is obvious potential of marketing the prem. Lge in India also I suppose the fact they broadcast the games over there means we can't market the brand over there?. Again you say it is cloud cuckoo land to dream of a striker & a midfielder of the quality we dream off with putting 100M with no hope of getting it back?. I am getting tired of explaining this IO am not advocating throwing 100M around with no hope of getting it back all we would probably need to keep ticking over is an extra 4-5M on top of the Benni money 2.5M that would make a world of difference to a club like ours.

As far as I can tell from your post:

- No you cannot assume the £25m is the correct figure until or if a deal is completed and becomes public. If the Trust are willing to sell for as little as £25m it is yet another incredible act of generosity on their part. It is not unusual for one member of the press to get hold of a number and all the rest to report it as Gospel when in fact it may or may not have any solid foundation.

- The Premier League as I understand it has no choice but to go with the UEFA rules or tougher. Well they do have a choice, England could leave UEFA and FIFA and we can forget about participating in any international competitions and hosting the World Cup.

- You have misread my posts. I have not said the Trust do not want to sell. I am saying people who are portraying the Trust as "desperate" are probably wrong.

- You have misread my posts. India is possibly one of the very few places that an owner could market Rovers and create a significant body of support and income stream for relatively little marketing investment outlay.

- You misread my posts. I have not written off the Indian bid (nor the Thai bid) but I have urged caution. Yes there are dodgy characters who presumably would fail fit and proper rules apparently not too far from both consortia if certain press reports are correct

- Are you seriously suggesting we exchange the known safe harbour that is the Trust for an injection of £4m to £5m increase in the transfer budget this year? Therein lies the death of Blackburn Rovers.

Patrickvalery's post sums up the current state of affairs very well.

Re-posting this table shows that all PL clubs are to a greater or lesser extent highly precarious and deeply dependent on thegood sense of their owners. Sales of players improved Rovers' position around this last year but a combination of the new media deals starting, the state of the economy and the new UEFA rules mean that Rovers are paradoxically much safer and sounder than practically all other PL clubs looking forwards. That is not something to be wished away in exchange for an inexperienced new owner gambling £4m or £5m (which Rovers might have to pay for in the future) on a forward who is bound to be one enormous risk anyway if he is available at such a low price.

[47er]

This back biting between 47er and Philip etc.. is all really pointless. Both have good and relatively well reasoned arguments.

Essentially, 47er is correct. The future holds little promise for us if the Premier League trend continues. We have done tremendously well to achieve a top ten finish. However, the financial restraints will catch up with us over time. It is also clear the Trust are being and have been proactive in looking to sell the club. Whether its for the reported £25m is up for debate. I certainly wouldn't accuse them of being desperate to sell. But it remains true the Trust themselves are fully aware they need to rid themselves of Blackburn Rovers FC as the burden we have become. A sentimental one yes, but still a burden. They see that for the club to remain where we are we need an investor with more capital.

I believe the Trust have been fantastically generous in how they have treated us as fans and the club we all love. No claims of neglect can honestly be levelled at them. For this i am eternally grateful. It also seems clear they are going above and beyond in their background searches etc... in terms of any potential investment. However will this ultimately save us if things go pear shaped with a new owner? Surely they can only stipulate terms such as asset stripping and aquiring assurances over medium - long term plans for the club and or business. If we are put into the hands of someone more reckless than the Walkers then there surely can be nothing to stop loans being taken out against such assests? Consequently putting us at great risk.

It would be wrong to make assumptions about this Indian consortium at this stage. Nothing new has come to light and we remain pretty clueless as to Mr Shah's background, wealth or ambitions. We also know little to nothing about the aother members of the consortium. However, all i will say is the entire notion of a consortium, be it from India, Thailand or wherever, is a worry. A single vision is greater than comitee. It worries me that too many people with money tied up in Rovers could be detrimental in terms of all having a common goal. Or put more accurately, working in the same direction to achieve that goal.

As Philip said a few pages back, the total amount required for investment is signifcantly higher than the reported £25m. For us to see a noticable difference it would take 4,5 or 6 times that amount. I have very real concerns that whoever buys the club will struggle to make significant returns to deem that level of investment viable. With all the will in the world, the Trust cannot gaurantee any buyer will safeguard us against reckless loans or unecessary risk taking of this kind.

The only viable option i can hope for is we are able to find a buyer who is willing to cover debt and not look beyond sustaining the club as a mid table force. With the new UEFA directives coming into play any owner coming in looking to invest heavily in the short term will surely have their fingers burnt in the medium term. It sometimes feels as if under the current ownership we are suffering death by Chinese water torture. However, the same bit by bit approach in reverese seems the only way forward with new owners. Any drastic changes in terms of heavy investment in the playing squad is surely not the best approach.

That's a pretty fair summary PV. 2 points though--as others have pointed out the new UEFA rules do not preclude owners from investing in their club by means of the creation of new stock. Further they only apply in terms of participation in European competition. Additionally the new "rules' have not been approved and may not be. Even then they don't come into force for 3 years and there is a lot new owners could do to lift the club in that time.

Secondly I agree with Brfcrule1 that no drastically heavy investment is needed, just some "decent" transfer money which would, say, have allowed us to sign Lewandowski if the manager rated him and pay Guti. Thats the sort of investment I had in mind.That would take nothing like 4/5/6 times the 25M asking bill. I would expect us to improve very gradually on that basis, rather than decline which I think is the alternative

Where I have fallen out with some on here its because I feel they have ruled out the Indian bid without really knowing the ins and outs of it. At least give them a chance and allow the Trust to reach a decision.

[philipl]

But if you want a sustainable investment, it is 4, 5 or 6 times the £25m.

Or are you saying give us Guti and a striker this summer then never put a penny in ever again?

[47er]

But if you want a sustainable investment, it is 4, 5 or 6 times the £25m.

Or are you saying give us Guti and a striker this summer then never put a penny in ever again?

Is that really a serious question? I was thinking of that sort of investment yearly if needed but it could be at least partly off-set by sales. When you talked about 6 times the 25M I didn't realise you were looking at the amount an owner might put in over the entire period of ownership. That could be anything depending on events. But it would take many more years than you seem to be envisioning as I see it. In any case we don't know what new revenue streams can be created by new thinking. Additionally, if we can improve the squad over time,the amount we will recoup from sales of players we don't want to keep will increase as well. So the net expenditure on transfers might not be great at all.

What I do know though is that we can't go on like we are for all the reasons that have been stated in this thread for pages. And that's where I continue to say you offer no solution.

Finally Philip, I think people are always going to " misread "your posts because you write in such an oblique way. You give yourself "wriggle room" so that when challenged on anything you can say "that's not what I said."

[thenodrog]

In any case we don't know what new revenue streams can be created by new thinking. Additionally, if we can improve the squad over time,the amount we will recoup from sales of players we don't want to keep will increase as well. So the net expenditure on transfers might not be great at all.

Had you not noticed 47er we cant get rid of poor players never mind make money out of them. The only money we can make from transfers is from selling the best ones.

Imagine a group of new owners coming in all bright eyed and bushy tailed, they've given the Walkers their money and positively stretched themselves by sanctioning a similar amount for new players. They come in and a few make weights in the squad are despatched for buttons.

The team performs poorly and finds themselves in the relegation spots so what happens then? The new group sees cracks develop in the performances and the finaces and so pull back funding. We can sell players only in a window and only if they agree to a move so like the Grella situation there's a huge loss in store..... maybe you could use WHU or Portsmouth as an example here.

Anyway what happens next in your opinion?

Still what do I know I've still not got over selling Fred Pickering to Everton the mersey millionaires.

[47er]

Had you not noticed 47er we cant get rid of poor players never mind make money out of them. The only money we can make from transfers is from selling the best ones.

Imagine a group of new owners coming in all bright eyed and bushy tailed, they've given the Walkers their money and positively stretched themselves by sanctioning a similar amount for new players. They come in and a few make weights in the squad are despatched for buttons.

The team performs poorly and finds themselves in the relegation spots so what happens then? The new group sees cracks develop in the performances and the finaces and so pull back funding. We can sell players only in a window and only if they agree to a move so like the Grella situation there's a huge loss in store..... maybe you could use WHU or Portsmouth as an example here.

Anyway what happens next in your opinion?

Still what do I know I've still not got over selling Fred Pickering to Everton the mersey millionaires.

[/quote

If the squad is stronger supernumeries would be more attractive to other clubs would they not? And I've no intention of commenting on your worst nightmare which is in your fertile head and nowhere else.

On the subject of Randy Lerner....no, the clock is not ticking for Villa.Lerner has loads of alternatives open to him:

He can extend the loan period

He can commute loans to new stock (as Jack did)

He can write the debt off

He can do a combination of the above

Owners prefer loans to gifts because of the tax advantages.

One thing he is not going to do is foreclose on his own club!

[thenodrog]

One thing he (Lernar) is not going to do is foreclose on his own club!

Not until his bankers tell him to that is.

If the squad is stronger supernumeries would be more attractive to other clubs would they not? And I've no intention of commenting on your worst nightmare which is in your fertile head and nowhere else.

I bet the supporters of WHU, Pompey and LUFC wish it was just a nightmare.