[Archived] Rovers Takeover

[philipl]

The take overs at Chelsea and City had single "acceptable" bidders with the sellers on the verge of going bust!

Rovers have received three completely acceptable bids and neither the club nor the Trust are forced sellers.

Of course the Trust should take their time and be incredibly careful in their selection of buyer.

[47er]

  On 04/10/2010 at 10:27, philipl said:

Iceman- Because it is probably not that black and white.

Suppose Syed has the same background as Abramovich?

Should the Trust sell, not sell or ask a lot of follow-up questions then ask some more and some more...

There was no 5live investigates when he was buying Chelsea but Goldberg could have had some serious fun when Roman first appeared. Put Abramovich into Wikipedia and read section 3 of his profile...

Joking aside, there is a clear matter of trust at stake. Whomever, the Trust sells to has to be TRUSTED to look after Rovers long into the future. Trust is not something that happens over night, especially if it transpires WGA were not upfront about the Goldberg stuff and the Bahrain closure. If they were not entirely open about that, the Trust has every right to ask "what else haven't we been told?" and lean to another wealthy individual who has been more straightforward to deal with- the other bidder in the two man short list.

What you're really saying is that the Trust must impose on the new owners conditions which they are clearly not fulfilling themselves.

[broadsword]

I thought News Bunny was going to be anonymous?

[philipl]

  On 04/10/2010 at 10:55, 47er said:

What you're really saying is that the Trust must impose on the new owners conditions which they are clearly not fulfilling themselves.

The Trust have been and are exemplary owners.

[broadsword]

  On 04/10/2010 at 10:43, philipl said:

The take overs at Chelsea and City had single "acceptable" bidders with the sellers on the verge of going bust!

Rovers have received three completely acceptable bids and neither the club nor the Trust are forced sellers.

If there's not the money to back it up, any offer that meets the Trust's valuation is not an "acceptable bid" in my view.

[philipl]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:12, Bryan said:

If there's not the money to back it up, any offer that meets the Trust's valuation is not an "acceptable bid" in my view.

I think we have had our heads turned by billionaires popping up.

Believe me, without the talk from Ali Syed, we'd all have been very happy with Saurin Shah.

[broadsword]

Even though it was dubious as to whether it was his own wealth or whether he was claiming he had wealthy backers, and trying to follow his connections to his backers was all rather confusing?

I personally had misgivings about him.

[Amo]

By all accounts, the Trust want to wash their hands of the club. If Syed met the valuation of the club, with the cash to prove it, I don't know why this wouldn't be wrapped up in a neat little bow. The only reason for the Trust to be 'cautious' is if Syed is indeed all mouth, and no trousers. Which is why we're in the position that we're in, talking about viable alternatives and "mysterious" bidders.

[Stuart]

  On 04/10/2010 at 10:04, BRFCS News said:

Good observation.

I think we should make it clear that Kamy's article was submitted last night before similar information was published elsewhere by the press. At Kamy's request, publication was held back until this morning in order to give WGA the opportunity to respond to it. WGA have yet to issue a response, but we will be happy to publish any such details here as soon as they are received.

The tone of that post suggests that WGA are no longer as friendly with BRFCS as they have been.

I wonder if this is a sign that they are backing off - or that they are becoming more introverted about the bid?

This new thread has already got my hopes up and dashed them several times!

[Fife Rover]

  On 04/10/2010 at 10:27, philipl said:

Iceman- Because it is probably not that black and white.

Suppose Syed has the same background as Abramovich?

Should the Trust sell, not sell or ask a lot of follow-up questions then ask some more and some more...

There was no 5live investigates when he was buying Chelsea but Goldberg could have had some serious fun when Roman first appeared. Put Abramovich into Wikipedia and read section 3 of his profile...

Joking aside, there is a clear matter of trust at stake. Whomever, the Trust sells to has to be TRUSTED to look after Rovers long into the future. Trust is not something that happens over night, especially if it transpires WGA were not upfront about the Goldberg stuff and the Bahrain closure. If they were not entirely open about that, the Trust has every right to ask "what else haven't we been told?" and lean to another wealthy individual who has been more straightforward to deal with- the other bidder in the two man short list.

Absolutely right Philip; you have smmarised the position as it SHOULD be perfectly there. Obviously none of US are in any position to judge, but we ALL have to TRUST the Trust to get it right first time........because the stark staring truth is that there only is ONE time. If they get it wrong the consequences for Rovers future could be catastrophic indeed!

But predictably only a few posts into this new thread and we have already had a number of "knee jerk" reactions from the usual suspects. It would seem that some people never learn no matter how hard the Admin and Mods try to keep things sensible there will always be some that are far too much concerned about when/where and how are Rovers going to make their next big money signing, and that is all that matters to them. The REAL thing that matters (and to me the ONLY thing that matters) is that the Trust get it right and Rovers are NOT sold to any owner that will ditch them as soon as he finds the expense of running them, and the lack of of a clear profit is not to his liking and simply ditches them to the first bidder. In that sense we are FAR better off with the Trust. And yes I DO know the Trust wants out, but by now it should be clear to all but the dimmest readers that they are FULLY meeting their responsibilities to Jack and the club, and are not just dumping the club onto the first bidder that meets their price.

[den]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:23, Topman said:

By all accounts, the Trust want to wash their hands of the club. If Syed met the valuation of the club, with the cash to prove it, I don't know why this wouldn't be wrapped up in a neat little bow.

As Philip keeps saying, there are other potential buyers. So, they must give all buyers the opportunity to put their case forward. It may be that other parties could be potentially better, but need more time to complete DD.

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:23, Topman said:

The only reason for the Trust to be 'cautious' is if Syed is indeed all mouth, and no trousers. Which is why we're in the position that we're in, talking about viable alternatives and "mysterious" bidders.

See above.

[47er]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:12, philipl said:

The Trust have been and are exemplary owners.

Exemplary owners would not have left us in the mess we are now with no money in the transfer window.

[BigNuts]

With this news coming from the Trust/LET rather than Syed, does this mean the Trust are confident that a sale is close with the rival bidder. Surely if it wasn't they might as well have kept things quiet longer rather than have any backlash from frustrated fans?

[47er]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:26, Fife Rover said:

Absolutely right Philip; you have smmarised the position as it SHOULD be perfectly there. Obviously none of US are in any position to judge, but we ALL have to TRUST the Trust to get it right first time........because the stark staring truth is that there only is ONE time. If they get it wrong the consequences for Rovers future could be catastrophic indeed!

But predictably only a few posts into this new thread and we have already had a number of "knee jerk" reactions from the usual suspects. It would seem that some people never learn no matter how hard the Admin and Mods try to keep things sensible there will always be some that are far too much concerned about when/where and how are Rovers going to make their next big money signing, and that is all that matters to them. The REAL thing that matters (and to me the ONLY thing that matters) is that the Trust get it right and Rovers are NOT sold to any owner that will ditch them as soon as he finds the expense of running them, and the lack of of a clear profit is not to his liking and simply ditches them to the first bidder. In that sense we are FAR better off with the Trust. And yes I DO know the Trust wants out, but by now it should be clear to all but the dimmest readers that they are FULLY meeting their responsibilities to Jack and the club, and are not just dumping the club onto the first bidder that meets their price.

Just stick to your own views Fife, too many insults towards others in that post. Everyone here is just as loyal a Rovers fan as yourself and nobody's as thick as you're making out.

[Hughesy]

  On 04/10/2010 at 09:20, philipl said:

No doubt if a group of fans described the Accrington v Gillingham game to you Hughesy, you'd tell them: "Clearly nobody on here has a clue what is happening anymore" and you would say they know nothing about football.

WTF are you on about now?! You talk in riddles!

[deryck guyler's spoon]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:44, Hughesy said:

WTF are you on about now?! You talk in riddles!

You aren't really in a position to slag off other poster's contributions.

[philipl]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:44, Hughesy said:

WTF are you on about now?! You talk in riddles!

The point I am making is this is a contest.

As such each side is trying to win and so the apparent advantage is swinging from time to time.

It doesn't mean that nobody has any idea and that there is no information.

No doubt you'd tell a Stanley supporter describing the 7-4 win in which the lead changed hands three times that they hadn't got a clue what they were watching and knew nothing about football.

[Brfcrule1]

Philip just a couple of major questions need answering:

1.) What are the issues Syed has yet to resolve in his bid to buy Rovers? Is it to do with where the funds are from?

2.) I asked this before which group do you think the trust are leaning towards? I reckon it could be the mystery Indians The Mahindra group?

This is not a dig at you Philip but to say the Trust are exemplary owners looking at Saturday's toothless display should tell you they are in no way exemplary owners. If we continue down the same route with the Trust we will slip into oblivion maybe not this season but next year we could well be relegated. Also another point if they were exemplary owners they would not have put the club on the market and would be ploughing money each season into the playing squad & would not have withdrawn the small amount they were donating into the club completely.

[Amo]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:30, den said:

As Philip keeps saying, there are other potential buyers. So, they must give all buyers the opportunity to put their case forward. It may be that other parties could be potentially better, but need more time to complete DD.

I know the point Philip was making, but the Trust aren't reluctant sellers. They want out, and have done for a number of years. If the figures Syed was throwing about were indeed true, I don't see why they wouldn't have chewed his hand off.

[Roversider]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:31, 47er said:

Exemplary owners would not have left us in the mess we are now with no money in the transfer window.

Your opinion of course, in my opinion the Trust have been outstanding. Where possible funds are made available, we don't have (neither do the Trust) access to the funds other owners have.

The key thing is that they are not determined to sell at all costs and are willing to line up a number of appropriate suitors.

Also, can we avoid the degeneration of this thread in the same way as previous ones.

[deryck guyler's spoon]

  On 04/10/2010 at 12:01, Roversider said:

Your opinion of course, in my opinion the Trust have been outstanding. Where possible funds are made available, we don't have (neither do the Trust) access to the funds other owners have.

The key thing is that they are not determined to sell at all costs and are willing to line up a number of appropriate suitors.

Also, can we avoid the degeneration of this thread in the same way as previous ones.

I think John Williams has been quoted as saying that if we go down we go bust. Given that that, yet again, through disinterest and wanton neglect, they are playing fast and loose with our Premiership status how do you think that The Trust are "outstanding".

[TimmyJimmy]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:31, 47er said:

Exemplary owners would not have left us in the mess we are now with no money in the transfer window.

It's easy to understand why we are upset with the transfer situation, you are, I am , we all are. But to be balanced the Trust have been clear for some time that they won't be putting money into the club and that they have been trying for a sale for a few years. That's obviously bad for the playing side of the club and if that's all there was to it then we should all be up in arms, but it's not all there is to it so we have to be more balanced.

The moment the Trust put the 'for sale' sign up then there was nothing else for me to moan at, assuming of course that the sale price was reasonable. They don't want a football club, they have no money for it but they are willing to sell to someone else who wants to make the investment. That's all they can do, let's be fair.

Exemplary is I think a good word to describe them now because if it was just a case of getting the asking price then the club would have been sold three times over already. That clearly isn't what they want, it's not just about the money, it's about keeping to the spirit of Jack's Will and the traditions and history of a great club. They aren't just going to take the cash and run. Simply by putting themselves through these seemingly never ending cycles of pain shows that they will not p!ss the club away to any chancer who happens along with a fist full of cash. They want to be sure that they are passing the baton to a safe pair of hands. I think it's fair to call that exemplary.

Selling the club was never a challenge, that's the easy bit, the Trust and the Board are concerned with far more important matters and I think we should be too. Probably best to be patient and stay positive.

In the meantime nothing changes and that's painful too because we are left in a stable but fragile position. If we stay with the Trust then it is clear that we will have no transfer funds yet we will not be in the hands of some cowboy who wants to do a Leeds, Southampton, Portsmouth, Liverpool on us.

For me the Trust/Board are doing the best for us. I still think matters will be concluded by the end of October, and by concluded I mean sold.

[den]

  On 04/10/2010 at 11:58, Topman said:

I know the point Philip was making, but the Trust aren't reluctant sellers. They want out, and have done for a number of years. If the figures Syed was throwing about were indeed true, I don't see why they wouldn't have chewed his hand off.

Because they might be looking at a better offer?

[Roversider]

  On 04/10/2010 at 12:07, deryck guyler said:

I think John Williams has been quoted as saying that if we go down we go bust. Given that that, yet again, through disinterest and wanton neglect, they are playing fast and loose with our Premiership status how do you think that The Trust are "outstanding".

Simply in comparison with other clubs, I know there are good and bad examples but Jack is long gone, sad to say, and when he left the Trust had to look for alternative owners for Rovers. Is it reasonable that we should always rely on their largesse for Rovers to survive and flourish?

What we need from them is good stewardship and time taken to make certain any new owners are as good as we could possibly get.

The board and the Trust have managed to keep us up in the Premiership and have authorised spending levels which other clubs of a similar stature would have baulked at. The amount spent on transfers and wages is still at the top limit Rovers can manage. They have also sanctioned low ticket prices for us.

As for the quote attributed to John Williams about going bust if we go down, I seem to remember that it would be almost impossible for us to return to the Premier if we went down. Then again I'm an old fart and my memory isn't what it was.

My desire is that my team that I have followed for many years continues in existence without insanity throwing the future away.

[67splitscreen]

  On 04/10/2010 at 12:07, deryck guyler said:

I think John Williams has been quoted as saying that if we go down we go bust. Given that that, yet again, through disinterest and wanton neglect, they are playing fast and loose with our Premiership status how do you think that The Trust are "outstanding".

I don't think it matters if JW said it or not,

The writing is on the wall in any case, the current wages to revenue ratio, the loans due for repayment in 2012, loss of the TV revenue, reduced gates, the list goes on.

The parachute payments may soften the landing but it would still be a very hard one.

We may not go bust be we would be in serious trouble and I'm sure that the trust would have to act (as per Jacks wishes) as they have done in the past, reluctantly yes!

I for one doubt we would recover as we did last time around.