[Archived] Rovers Takeover: End game ?

[Balwer]

  On 05/11/2010 at 09:27, Roversider said:

Very fair point but I know that John Williams is significantly motivated by what this means in respect of Jack Walker. I would expect his flesh and blood also to have some senytimental connections to Jack. That will be a reason why they have walked away from several other bidders.

I agree it's not black and white, however some people seem to think the only thing driving this sale is the future welfare of the club. It's also a business, and a multi million pound one at that.

[Roversider]

  On 05/11/2010 at 09:41, Balwer said:

I agree it's not black and white, however people seem to think the only thing driving this sale is the future welfare of the club. It's also a business, and a multi million pound one at that.

I 100% agree with you and my desire is that VH see that as well. If Rovers are being run as a succesful business that will ensure our future much more effectively than a weak business model which we are operating at the moment. Our wages to turnover % is unsustainable and we can't defy gravity forever. Somehow we need to increase turnover and that appears to be beyond the Trust in either ability or motivation, maybe both.

Howver the sellers will have an emotional element to the sale.

[T4E]

  On 05/11/2010 at 07:01, PAFELL said:

I thought you said there are clauses that prevent the club being bought with debt put on it!!!!!!

Care to respond to this philip? You seem extremely eager to post when you think you have something insightful to say, yet when subsequent events prove your musings incorrect you completely ignore all questions.

You desire to be seen as "in the know" and "connected", if you want that image to stick you need to justify what you are saying. Unless of course you are just posting your opinion as fact. Again.

[yoda]

  On 04/11/2010 at 14:36, philipl said:

And still you do not understand that I was reflecting what I was hearing- there were numerous twists and turns.

When I stated my opinion, I clearly indicated it to be what I thought.

Outside of the Blackburn bubble, most people are looking at what is happening with astonishment- the sort of astonishment when you can see a car crash is about to happen to someone you know.

on what basis, any chance of a few facts?

[Al]

  On 05/11/2010 at 09:14, Balwer said:

What's the relevance? If they sell they get 30m, if they don't then presumably the asset depreciates further without investment.

Say your dad buys you a £120K Mercedes, then some bloke offers to purchase it for £46K a few years later. Once you've paid the loan off you've got £30K in your pocket. Surely that £30K is your number one concern, not what happens to the car afterwards, regardless of its initial cost? Yeah it'd be nice if the guy treats it right, because it's a sentimental favourite of a lot of people, but it's now his car so it's time to move on with your life and spend your £30K.

It's not a car. It's an institution that represents the hopes and aspirations of many of the local population and needs to be treated as such.

[Balwer]

  On 05/11/2010 at 11:15, Al said:

It's not a car. It's an institution that represents the hopes and aspirations of many of the local population and needs to be treated as such.

That's all well and good Al, and I appreciate the sentiment as much as anyone, but I imagine VH Group and perhaps even the Trust see it as a business first and a dream factory second. We may believe it needs to be treated that way, but unfortunately the powers that be aren't legally bound to abide by that viewpoint, and there's nothing we can do or say to change that.

[jumpin']

  On 05/11/2010 at 09:39, duffbear said:

Are you willing to name the 2 clubs that turned them down?

I was told Newcastle United & one other unnamed club.

[nicko]

  On 05/11/2010 at 11:33, jumpin said:

I was told Newcastle United & one other unnamed club.

When? Post Ashley and pre Ashley?

[jumpin']

  On 05/11/2010 at 11:44, nicko said:

When? Post Ashley and pre Ashley?

I wasn't told

[Majiball]

  On 05/11/2010 at 11:44, nicko said:

When? Post Ashley and pre Ashley?

Can we assume from your "when" reply that he has the name of one of the clubs correct?

[67splitscreen]

  On 05/11/2010 at 11:33, jumpin said:

I was told Newcastle United & one other unnamed club.

Are you sure that your contacts reference (regarding the clubs) is to our buyers and not Kentaro's plans for a dream team.

[jumpin']

  On 05/11/2010 at 12:00, 67splitscreen said:

Are you sure that your contacts reference (regarding the clubs) is to our buyers and not Kentaro's plans for a dream team.

The talk was about the buyers.

[nicko]

  On 05/11/2010 at 11:57, Majiball said:

Can we assume from your "when" reply that he has the name of one of the clubs correct?

It's not one of the two. Championship clubs. Both bought by other owners than the ones they were hoping to align with.

Newcastle could be right. I suspect not. Ashley bought the club his way and has used his contacts ever since.

The 'blether alert' on the chap's info is in the red just now...

So if the Newcastle link is just made-up, so will the rest of the info be. It's just a form guide I use.

[T4E]

  On 05/11/2010 at 12:32, nicko said:

The 'blether alert' on the chap's info is in the red just now...

There's only a finite number of us porridge wogs on here mate that are going to know what "blethering" is. Although, I too suspect Jumpin' may be havering.

[67splitscreen]

  On 05/11/2010 at 12:48, T4E said:

There's only a finite number of us porridge wogs on here mate that are going to know what "blethering" is. Although, I too suspect Jumpin' may be havering.

Your having a laugh aren't you.

[HemelRover]

  On 05/11/2010 at 09:39, duffbear said:

Are you willing to name the 2 clubs that turned them down?

Im pretty sure i remember someone saying it was Leicester?

[Fife Rover]

  On 05/11/2010 at 12:48, T4E said:

There's only a finite number of us porridge wogs on here mate that are going to know what "blethering" is. Although, I too suspect Jumpin' may be havering.

I think most of the readers will be OK with "blethering" T4E, but "havering" they might struggle with.

[TimmyJimmy]

  On 05/11/2010 at 09:14, Balwer said:

What's the relevance? If they sell they get 30m, if they don't then presumably the asset depreciates further without investment.

Say your dad buys you a £120K Mercedes, then some bloke offers to purchase it for £46K a few years later. Once you've paid the loan off you've got £30K in your pocket. Surely that £30K is your number one concern, not what happens to the car afterwards, regardless of its initial cost? Yeah it'd be nice if the guy treats it right, because it's a sentimental favourite of a lot of people, but it's now his car so it's time to move on with your life and spend your £30K.

I get your drift Balwer, sounds like I misinterpreted your post.

I read it that "People seem to forget the Trust will receive 30m pounds for their troubles after the debts are cleared ..." as "So why should the Trust care about selling us down the river, look at how much cash they're getting". To which I was just pointing out that as an investment they are in reality bequeathing circa 70M+ of Jack's money to the club (100M'ish - 30M). Which isn't too shoddy. I believe Syed made an improved bid that would have given them more cash, so I don't think it is a prime motivator for them to be fair. Maybe that's the 'Trust the Tust' bit.

An aside on the "... Syed and Shah never actually fronted the money by all accounts" bit. I have it on very good authoity that whilst this may be true of the Shah approach it is definitely inaccurate when it comes to the Syed bid. I think any 'concerns' may have been more to do with the possible future of his other 'open' positions, not whether he had the cash to show today. Again maybe another nod towards 'Trust the Tust'.

On the 'Debt' and Trust covenants discussion raised by others, I would say there is a distinction here without a difference. If the Trust said 'absolutely no Debt on the club's balance sheet to fund this deal' then that could be met by the VH folk going to their bankers and borrowing money in their own right but secured against the shares in the now fully owned BRFC. The debt is against them and not the club. That's the 'distinction' bit. The 'no difference' bit is what would happen if the VH group defaulted on their debts. The bank would seek to regain it's funds by turning to the shares held as security/collateralisation. In other words they would either make a forced sale to the highest bidder or break up the company to claw as much cash back as possible. As far as we are concerned there's no difference in the outcome of these two scenarios, it's all bad. Not that I am saying in any way that this is what is happening behind the scenes, just that it's a trivial exercise for any financial engineer who wanted to arrange this.

I think that this is what Philip was alluding to. The Trust can only legislate for the first scenario, what Venky's choose to do with their share holding cannot be controlled or influenced by anyone. Therefore in theory Philip makes a very valid point. Sorry.

[Majiball]

  On 05/11/2010 at 12:32, nicko said:

It's not one of the two. Championship clubs. Both bought by other owners than the ones they were hoping to align with.

Newcastle could be right. I suspect not. Ashley bought the club his way and has used his contacts ever since.

The 'blether alert' on the chap's info is in the red just now...

So if the Newcastle link is just made-up, so will the rest of the info be. It's just a form guide I use.

Cheers.

Surely everyone on here knows what "blethering" is every member does it at some stage!!

It surely can't be that hard to figure out the two clubs, how many championship clubs have had takeovers since SEM & Kentaro joined in feb 2009???

[Balwer]

  On 05/11/2010 at 13:19, TimmyJimmy said:

I get your drift Balwer, sounds like I misinterpreted your post.

I read it that "People seem to forget the Trust will receive 30m pounds for their troubles after the debts are cleared ..." as "So why should the Trust care about selling us down the river, look at how much cash they're getting". To which I was just pointing out that as an investment they are in reality bequeathing circa 70M+ of Jack's money to the club (100M'ish - 30M). Which isn't too shoddy. I believe Syed made an improved bid that would have given them more cash, so I don't think it is a prime motivator for them to be fair. Maybe that's the 'Trust the Tust' bit.

An aside on the "... Syed and Shah never actually fronted the money by all accounts" bit. I have it on very good authoity that whilst this may be true of the Shah approach it is definitely inaccurate when it comes to the Syed bid. I think any 'concerns' may have been more to do with the possible future of his other 'open' positions, not whether he had the cash to show today. Again maybe another nod towards 'Trust the Tust'.

On the 'Debt' and Trust covenants discussion raised by others, I would say there is a distinction here without a difference. If the Trust said 'absolutely no Debt on the club's balance sheet to fund this deal' then that could be met by the VH folk going to their bankers and borrowing money in their own right but secured against the shares in the now fully owned BRFC. The debt is against them and not the club. That's the 'distinction' bit. The 'no difference' bit is what would happen if the VH group defaulted on their debts. The bank would seek to regain it's funds by turning to the shares held as security/collateralisation. In other words they would either make a forced sale to the highest bidder or break up the company to claw as much cash back as possible. As far as we are concerned there's no difference in the outcome of these two scenarios, it's all bad. Not that I am saying in any way that this is what is happening behind the scenes, just that it's a trivial exercise for any financial engineer who wanted to arrange this.

I think that this is what Philip was alluding to. The Trust can only legislate for the first scenario, what Venky's choose to do with their share holding cannot be controlled or influenced by anyone. Therefore in theory Philip makes a very valid point. Sorry.

Some good points TJ. I guess I am fairly black and white on the Syed/Shah bids without any understanding, I have just assumed that Syed in particular couldn't show the cash, rather than the club not liking his vision for the future. Don't think we will ever know the full truth on this matter but it is what it is and there's little point dwelling on it.

You make good points on the fact they've lost money, the outstanding shareholder loan was 117m in the 07/08 accounts Hughesy sent me, a substantial amount of which would have been post-Jack. That must make it harder to walk away from.

Regarding any conditions precedent/covenants on the sale, I'd only be speculating but my experience with these sorts of deals is that the only institution that puts these sorts of things in is the financial institute that's lending money rather than the vendor, however that's just a guess. In terms of collateralising any loans a bank would make, my own experience is that you grab any security you can get your hands on, and for an asset as risky as Rovers that would certainly be the case, even if it's not the direct entity being lent to, banks lend on a group basis and take cross collateralising, so one entity will guarantee the other.

[Brownie]

My friend at rovers says venkys lot got in trouble last week for smoking inside the ground !

[modes98]

  On 05/11/2010 at 16:13, Brownie said:

My friend at rovers says venkys lot got in trouble last week for smoking inside the ground !

The entire company was smoking inside the ground, not surprised there was trouble! Deals off!

[JAL]

  On 05/11/2010 at 16:13, Brownie said:

My friend at rovers says venkys lot got in trouble last week for smoking inside the ground !

So thats why they were escorted off the premises before the game finished

[Billy Castell]

Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

[ada2020]

  On 05/11/2010 at 17:26, Billy Castell said:

Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

No, now sit still!!