[Archived] Rovers Takeover

[yankrover]

iceman wrote:Things are moving at quite a pace, talks to continue next week

do you have something concrete or is that just a wild guess if you have some info does it include Syed or a mystery party?

I think he was being sarcastic.

[47er]

Well said. £5-10m a year could go a long way in the right hands. I said as much when the takeover debate started and no-one was interested. Of course, in an ideal world we'd have a large honeypot, but that's a dangerous game to play without the right man.

Well I was interested and said it too! Got hammered for it as I recall!

[47er]

Billionaires avoid tax. Which is legal. Very few of them evade it. Which isn't. A small point but a critical one if assessing the suitability of the Rover Prince Charming. And the truth is, as Nicko suspects, none of them are. I would wager that Jack's legacy is too onerous to carry... in effect he is asking for people to donate money to the Rovers with strict rules on taking any subsequent money out. Anyone who signs up to that is either a barking fan, a raving egotist, or a criminal. We've had the first already and there won't be another one. The other two, I for one, will pass on.

In a sense Rovers are trapped in a gilded cage. The Indian plan to take Rovers to the sub continent might be a project to get some of their up front cash back. If they honestly believe that, then a modern day Don Quixote of thecomebackid fame, rides again - this time in Blackburn. But if that is their dream then that is theirs to have. However, the Trust is almost certainly holding them to a commitment not to take out any cash should their tilting at Mumbai windmills be ultimately as fruitless as those of medieval Andalusia. The Jersey Boys are not selling to anyone, because, in effect, they can't.

Enjoy the Trust's sunflower seeds, people. There will be no one taking us out of here. And with their honest protection the chance to bite the hands of the bigger beasts in the zoo will always remain. For Lancashire's premier club the horror alternative sits at the two ends of the East Lancs road. And that, my friends, is the road to Hell.

Hope you are wrong. I can't believe the Trust will simply hang on to us when its patently clear they don't want the club anymore. If you are right and they do, I'd forecast death by a thousand cuts for this proud old club of ours'. The alternative is that the price would go down and real shysters, chancers and conmen would sniff around, people who would be calculating what profit could be made on the sale of players, the steel in the stands and the lead on the roof.

[PAFELL]

Somebody put that Everton rumour on the LT chat section quite a few days ago but this is the first time it has recycled.

From those speaking with Julia Thiem, I understand that is not how WGA see life.

Everton has a similar problem to Liverpool. Anyone buying them needs to find around £120m to sort out existing debts and obligations before the exiting shareholders collect any profit and there is the little matter of a new stadium required. So something over £400m is needed before you even begin to start on transfers and players' wages- chuck in another £160m and you can get Liverpool and a similar set of issues!

Makes the Rovers look an absolute bargain.

For those with a lot of money to spend, Rovers are a bargain buy. For those with money to spend and looking for investment, Rovers are not.

At this moment in time, I cannot help believe that all that is happening behind close doors, is nothing but talk and more talk. I cannot help belive that that the trust, although they have said they want to sell, are reluctant sellers. They know they cannot take Rovers further. But torn between economic realities and duty and consideration to Jack Walker. There is conflict with economics and conscience within the trust.

My view is that if the trust gave £10 mill per transfer window (20 mill per season), leaving the club to gain angthing more towards the same pot, then the trust would be able to oblige both economics and conscience.

The reality is that the current transfer fees, wages etc etc is unsustainable. Everybody in football and business knows that. So the bubble will eventually burst. Although ten mill is not a lot in the current transfer market, when the bubble bursts, it will be enough.

The trust have looked after the club in a very good way. But as fans we have to except there is not a bottomless pit that the trust have to play with. But they are the best owners that Rovers could ever have. But a figure needs to be set by both the club and the trust that is acceptible to all, for the trust to remain the owners.

[67splitscreen]

For those with a lot of money to spend, Rovers are a bargain buy. For those with money to spend and looking for investment, Rovers are not.

At this moment in time, I cannot help believe that all that is happening behind close doors, is nothing but talk and more talk. I cannot help belive that that the trust, although they have said they want to sell, are reluctant sellers. They know they cannot take Rovers further. But torn between economic realities and duty and consideration to Jack Walker. There is conflict with economics and conscience within the trust.

My view is that if the trust gave £10 mill per transfer window (20 mill per season), leaving the club to gain angthing more towards the same pot, then the trust would be able to oblige both economics and conscience.

The reality is that the current transfer fees, wages etc etc is unsustainable. Everybody in football and business knows that. So the bubble will eventually burst. Although ten mill is not a lot in the current transfer market, when the bubble bursts, it will be enough.

The trust have looked after the club in a very good way. But as fans we have to except there is not a bottomless pit that the trust have to play with. But they are the best owners that Rovers could ever have. But a figure needs to be set by both the club and the trust that is acceptible to all, for the trust to remain the owners.

I'll have a pint of what you've been drinking. 20m a season, dream on.

[iamarover]

Hope you are wrong. I can't believe the Trust will simply hang on to us when its patently clear they don't want the club anymore. If you are right and they do, I'd forecast death by a thousand cuts for this proud old club of ours'. The alternative is that the price would go down and real shysters, chancers and conmen would sniff around, people who would be calculating what profit could be made on the sale of players, the steel in the stands and the lead on the roof.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. And I dont think the Trust do want to hold onto the club - but unfortunately I dont think they have a choice until they find someone prepared to be almost as generous as Jack was. And I agree, there will need to be some radical thinking done inside Ewood if that is the case. The 'Find a Billionaire' strategy is not working.

[TimmyJimmy]

... assessing the suitability of the Rover Prince Charming ... There will be no one taking us out of here.

I think there's no shortage of cash on the table at the present moment. The key question though is, well do we want to accept it? Much of the debate on here has been about peoples backgrounds, sources of money etc.. My question was, do we care?

If we care then I agree with your statement and we should stop carping on about having no money to spend, as that would have been our choice, there are no white knights out there. If we don't care then why focus on the Goldberg stuff for example.

I suspect the answers all begin with "it depends" so I was interested in what we think it depends on. Volume of wealth? Is a dirty fortune of £1 any less dirty that a dirty fortune of £1Bn? It doesn't matter if we 'only' want £5M per season. The definition of 'dirty'? Seems some are distinguishing between tax evasion and say drug activity.

I'm sure we all have interesting views but eventually some choice will have to be made and the choices are always going to be in shades of grey (if I am correct in my understanding as to the bidders identities).

Is the 'dirty background' of messy flats, CCJs etc sufficient to 'can' Ali Syed or is it more the fear of the unknown re the sources of his wealth? Whatever the answer should we even care?

We can and do pontificate endlessly on here but if it is true that JW reads this stuff how should we advise him? What will the fans live with? Best to say up front rather than take to the streets LFC style after the event.

[T4E]

There isnt a Billionaire alive who doesnt do this.

Indeed - but the term is tax avoidance, not evasion. Tax can't be avoided legitimately and completely legally if done the right way. Anybody who runs their own business does this, billionaires included.

[MikeB]

I have yet to come across a businessman who is 'whiter than white'; generally, they are an unscupulous lot despite their posturing about ethics and corporate social responsibility.

So the best the Trust can hope for is someone who is 'a paler shade of white'. I am sure that this is what Jack Walker would have settled for and what Fred Walker will be advocating.

The silence from Ewood should be interpreted as a statement of intent to get the thing done.

[Kelbo]

I have yet to come across a businessman who is 'whiter than white'; generally, they are an unscupulous lot despite their posturing about ethics and corporate social responsibility.

So the best the Trust can hope for is someone who is 'a paler shade of white'. I am sure that this is what Jack Walker would have settled for and what Fred Walker will be advocating.

The silence from Ewood should be interpreted as a statement of intent to get the thing done.

Agree entirely Mike, you simply cannot succeed in business without finding every loophole possible to protect your cash!!

regarding the silence from Ewood, that is exactly as I see the situation1

[dave birch]

Indeed - but the term is tax avoidance, not evasion. Tax can't be avoided legitimately and completely legally if done the right way. Anybody who runs their own business does this, billionaires included.

I'm sure what you have written is not what you are meaning.

Tax CAN be avoided legitimately and legally.

[BuckyRover]

For example, ticking the Gift Aid box is tax avoidance and is legal.

[dave birch]

I have yet to come across a businessman who is 'whiter than white'; generally, they are an unscupulous lot despite their posturing about ethics and corporate social responsibility.

So the best the Trust can hope for is someone who is 'a paler shade of white'. I am sure that this is what Jack Walker would have settled for and what Fred Walker will be advocating.

The silence from Ewood should be interpreted as a statement of intent to get the thing done.

They may be not "whiter than white", but they do use the facilities that they have to minimise their tax liabilities, which is fair enough.

As long as it's legal then there's no problem.

As far as "unscrupulous" I've found more businesspeople quite the opposite. Too ready to give rather than take. Yep, they've made their money, but now want to share their largesse.

[dave birch]

For example, ticking the Gift Aid box is tax avoidance and is legal.

So if someone ticks 2 pounds into the "gift aid box" its wrong?

So if someone ticks 2m pounds into the "gift aid box" its wrong?

The only thing that is wrong is if you don't actually give it.

Lots of wealthy people give back lots of money to their community.

Jack Walker did it long and often.

[Paul]

For example, ticking the Gift Aid box is tax avoidance and is legal.

I suspect you are incorrect when you say this. Ticking the Gift Aid box allows the charity to reclaim the tax the doner has already paid. With Gift Aid you are not avoiding tax but you are allowing another organisation to reclaim the money you have paid. Surely tax avoidance is when an individual or company takes all the legal opportunities to avoid paying tax on income or profits?

I'd suggest the two are entirely different.

[tonyoz]

I've found more businesspeople quite the opposite. Too ready to give rather than take. Yep, they've made their money, but now want to share their largesse.

Buffet and Gates for instance.

Hey!..............maybe the mystery man is Warren Buffet............how good would that be?

[Iceman]

Buffet and Gates for instance.

Hey!..............maybe the mystery man is Warren Buffet............how good would that be?

He is not Indian

[nicko]

He is not Indian

But his brother Allyoucaneat is...

[Iceman]

But his brother Allyoucaneat is...

This is what happens, when you dont get out that much anymore Nicko. Time to pull up your socks, and find out what is happening with this takeover, you are losing it.

[BuckyRover]

I suspect you are incorrect when you say this. Ticking the Gift Aid box allows the charity to reclaim the tax the doner has already paid. With Gift Aid you are not avoiding tax but you are allowing another organisation to reclaim the money you have paid. Surely tax avoidance is when an individual or company takes all the legal opportunities to avoid paying tax on income or profits?

I'd suggest the two are entirely different.

Paying money into a pension scheme, buying second hand goods, buying merchandise abroad, utilising tax free saving schemes, capital gains allowance on shares and charitable donations via gift aid.

All examples of legal tax avoidance. That is why I hold my head in my hands when union leaders quote very high figures for tax evasion, because they are usually referring to tax avoidance, as described above

[sparkspakespoke]

Paying money into a pension scheme, buying second hand goods, buying merchandise abroad, utilising tax free saving schemes, capital gains allowance on shares and charitable donations via gift aid.

All examples of legal tax avoidance. That is why I hold my head in my hands when union leaders quote very high figures for tax evasion, because they are usually referring to tax avoidance, as described above

Not really the same thing as eventually a pension has to be taken as an income. Pension contributions are tax free, when it come to crystalise a pension then at that point it is taxable, so it is a defferred tax to aavoid it being deducted twice.

[pancini]

<P>Just out of interest how have Liverpools new owners been able to pass fit and proper persons in 48 hours yet we were told it was a 10 day of a job</P>

[chaddyrovers]

<P>Just out of interest how have Liverpools new owners been able to pass fit and proper persons in 48 hours yet we were told it was a 10 day of a job</P>

probably the premier league started looking at them about 10 days ago before the takeover deal was announce to the public. Or they have look into the them quickly and everything is ok.

[JC4LAB]

On the tax avoidance issue didnt our Uncle Jack live on the Channel Islands.?A bit naughty but totally legal of course....

[chaddyrovers]

Did anybody see Andy Cryer Takeover article in the LET about where we are, who's in the race and answering some questions about the takeover. I thought the fight to the finish using a 100 meters track was quite good. Showing that the mystery buyer is in the lead with Ali Syed second and Shah third. The most important thing he said was Patience is key as race for rovers still to hot up. Andy thinks we will be sold but doesn't know when. Also says that The Mystery buyer is a group with links to India and are believed to be substantially back financially. It's says that it is not Mahindra group, the Tata Group and Bharti Mittal. Also the Mystery Buyer are understood to have entered due diligence with Rovers. Interest news is that.

In the Gulf Daily News it says other investors have gone ahead of Mr Ali Syed bid. Also say that WGA will comment about that at the easliest on Sunday.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=288631