[Archived] Rovers Takeover: End game ?

[Bobby G]

Why is it being widely reported that the bank will fund the deal if its not the case? A bit of clarity and an official line on this subject would be a good thing.

[thenodrog]

One of the things that interests me about this post is the differing attitiude towards extra monies being put into the club to fund transfers.

I have every sympathy with owners who, having sanctioned £4 mil for grella one summer, then sanction £6 mil for Kalinic the following summer, and are then expected to sanction further capital outlays, are rather reluctant to go through with them. (In retrospect, the Trust might concede it would have been better to use the funds available in the Summer to make an appropriate purchase with those funds).

Similarly, I have sympathy with owners who are expected to top up the income of a business who receive £50 mil per annum and still need extra funds to buy players.

The Trust did not receive dividends or take money out of the club.

None of them received a salary from the club.

We are also the first club to suffer from the effects of being in an era after the death of our greatest benefactor-what will happen to Fulham, Wigan, Bolton etc when they are in a similar situation? I speculate they will be in a far worse position than we have been in.

I also wonder if we will enter a period when our owners do take a salary, and possibly dividends etc.

We shall see.

Very good post but I suggest it's a waste of your time. It'll take more than that to tear DGS from the nipple of dependendency.

[philipl]

I notice that Nicko hasn't answered my question concerning a board position for Jerome Anderson.

The FA Regulations are pretty clear concerning dual representation-

• If Clubs have a contract with an Agent or Solicitor,

that individual must act for them only and look after

their interests in any negotiation. The individual

must not also act for the Player or any other Club

involved; (C.1)

• A Club cannot use an Agent in relation to a Player

where the Agent (or any connected Agent) has

acted for the Player during the previous 2 transfer

windows (“switching”); (C.2)

• If an Agent acts for the Club in a transaction

involving a Player, the Agent will not be permitted to

act for a Club in relation to that Player (i) in the next

transaction involving the same player or (ii) for a

period of two transfer windows. This will prevent

Agents from “shadow” representing Players

through their careers and seeking payments from

Clubs (i.e. repeatedly claiming to act for a Club

when in fact the Agent is the Player’s Agent); (C.3)

• A Club cannot use an Agent in relation to a Player

where the Agent (or any connected Agent) has

acted in relation to the Player’s commercial rights

during the previous 2 transfer windows. (C.5)

Owning shares in an agency

• Clubs, Club Officials or Managers must not own any

interest or shares in agencies (over a 5% limit).

Club Officials

• Clubs must use reasonable endeavours to ensure

that their Players and staff (including Managers)

comply with the Regulations.

Contracts

• If Clubs use an Agent or Solicitor they must have a

written contract in place. They must ensure that

they get a copy of the contract, that it is signed,

dated and submitted to The FA within 5 days of

execution (or at the time of a transaction if that is

within the 5 days); (B.1 & B.9)

• Clubs must only enter into representation contracts

with Authorised Agents as individuals, and not with

the company or practice. It is the contracted

individual who should carry out the Agency Activity

and not another individual from the same company;

(App II)

• A Club’s contract with an agent must not be for a

period of more than two years.

All of which seems to negate the advantages of having an Agent inside the Rovers set-up even if it were not so patently obvious that you cannot have somebody whose sole remit is to represent the financial interests of potential employees on an exclusive basis (including moving them on for transfer fee cuts) also working for and/or as the employer.

As for the ICICI Bank involvement, Venky's really are going to have to get what they say privately and what they say publicly aligned and what they say in India and what they say in Lancashire to match up as well. This is the second time an extremely authoritative financial journal in India has run with this issue. There might be good reason for the disconnects but it is not winning Venky's any fans.

After all, the raison d'etre of the take over is to promote Venky's globally.

Add the VH web site to the PR they have done so far and all I can say is "good luck with that one". Unfortunately the Rovers are the laboratory chicken they are experimenting on and that is something I am terrified about.

[tony gale's mic]

One of the things that interests me about this post is the differing attitiude towards extra monies being put into the club to fund transfers.

I have every sympathy with owners who, having sanctioned £4 mil for grella one summer, then sanction £6 mil for Kalinic the following summer, and are then expected to sanction further capital outlays, are rather reluctant to go through with them. (In retrospect, the Trust might concede it would have been better to use the funds available in the Summer to make an appropriate purchase with those funds).

Similarly, I have sympathy with owners who are expected to top up the income of a business who receive £50 mil per annum and still need extra funds to buy players.

The Trust did not receive dividends or take money out of the club.

None of them received a salary from the club.

We are also the first club to suffer from the effects of being in an era after the death of our greatest benefactor-what will happen to Fulham, Wigan, Bolton etc when they are in a similar situation? I speculate they will be in a far worse position than we have been in.

I also wonder if we will enter a period when our owners do take a salary, and possibly dividends etc.

We shall see.

This is frankly rubbish.

They "sanctioned" £4million for Grella and £6 million for Kalinic? How nice of them! You seem to forget the money that was brought in from selling Bentley, Warnock and RSC in order to finance those deals.

The business may recieve £50 million per annum, but it is in a league competing with other teams who are recieving at least that much per annum, usually more. To stay in this league it is essential to spend every last penny we are spending - sure one can argue with certain wage packets doled out to players and one or two transfer fees, but we are still hardly spending anything compared to most of our competitors. The odd transfer fee that was too high or wages that don't justify future performances are part and parcel of our game and when it comes to that we are still one of the most economical teams in the division.

The reason why we are in such a good position post Uncle Jack is down to the actions of JW and the succession of managers (bar Ince) we have had.

We have to remember that this isn't the Trust's hard earned money. It was money they inherited from a man who had earned this money and who was passionate about Rovers. Yes Jack wanted the club to stand on its own two feet but in this day and age having a negative transfer budget of the scale we had a couple of summers ago or having zero money to spend this summer means we're doing the equivalent of standing on one leg.

It is hard to say what Jack's wishes would have been and there's certainly no way of telling. Given there's people 20 times richer than him funding some clubs, it's unlikely we would have been spending enough to compete for the title. However it also seems unlikely he would have withdrawn all funding to Rovers just as the rest of the league would start spending huge amounts of money. Even a transfer fund of £4-5 million a season would have done wonders.

[Silencio]

This is frankly rubbish.

They "sanctioned" £4million for Grella and £6 million for Kalinic? How nice of them! You seem to forget the money that was brought in from selling Bentley, Warnock and RSC in order to finance those deals.

The business may recieve £50 million per annum, but it is in a league competing with other teams who are recieving at least that much per annum, usually more. To stay in this league it is essential to spend every last penny we are spending - sure one can argue with certain wage packets doled out to players and one or two transfer fees, but we are still hardly spending anything compared to most of our competitors. The odd transfer fee that was too high or wages that don't justify future performances are part and parcel of our game and when it comes to that we are still one of the most economical teams in the division.

The reason why we are in such a good position post Uncle Jack is down to the actions of JW and the succession of managers (bar Ince) we have had.

We have to remember that this isn't the Trust's hard earned money. It was money they inherited from a man who had earned this money and who was passionate about Rovers. Yes Jack wanted the club to stand on its own two feet but in this day and age having a negative transfer budget of the scale we had a couple of summers ago or having zero money to spend this summer means we're doing the equivalent of standing on one leg.

It is hard to say what Jack's wishes would have been and there's certainly no way of telling. Given there's people 20 times richer than him funding some clubs, it's unlikely we would have been spending enough to compete for the title. However it also seems unlikely he would have withdrawn all funding to Rovers just as the rest of the league would start spending huge amounts of money. Even a transfer fund of £4-5 million a season would have done wonders.

NAIL. ON. HEAD.

[Sparky Marky]

It is hard to say what Jack's wishes would have been and there's certainly no way of telling. Given there's people 20 times richer than him funding some clubs, it's unlikely we would have been spending enough to compete for the title. However it also seems unlikely he would have withdrawn all funding to Rovers just as the rest of the league would start spending huge amounts of money. Even a transfer fund of £4-5 million a season would have done wonders.

I'm sure Jack would have sought inward investment into rovers...however I'm sure he would have kept control or at least "made sure" the buyers were right....after all he had the rovers in his heart....these faceless people trust/rothschilds etc have no other wish but to sell and we're gonna end up in the hands of some right crack-pots.

Isn't it time that the rovers current owners make themselves heard properly here? Who is the real boss of our club...? Who makes the final decision about everything?

[Parsonblue]

As for the ICICI Bank involvement, Venky's really are going to have to get what they say privately and what they say publicly aligned and what they say in India and what they say in Lancashire to match up as well. This is the second time an extremely authoritative financial journal in India has run with this issue. There might be good reason for the disconnects but it is not winning Venky's any fans.

After all, the raison d'etre of the take over is to promote Venky's globally.

Add the VH web site to the PR they have done so far and all I can say is "good luck with that one". Unfortunately the Rovers are the laboratory chicken they are experimenting on and that is something I am terrified about.

Whilst I take on board what you say philipl, the Trust clearly have a different view which is why they are selling to Venky's. Do you not think that it could be that what they have seen in private - and which we do not have access to - is the reason why they are happy to sell to Venky's. There must have been very good reasons for them to select Venky's over Syed and Shah. While it may be difficult to understand what those are at the moment, given the limited amount of information that has been made public, the Trust have clearly opted to put their faith in Venky's over the other two bidders. After a decade of carefully managing the club's affairs, I would hope that the Trust would not be party to selling the club to a group who wish to use the Rovers as a "laboratory experiment", as you imply.

[PAFELL]

This is frankly rubbish.

They "sanctioned" £4million for Grella and £6 million for Kalinic? How nice of them! You seem to forget the money that was brought in from selling Bentley, Warnock and RSC in order to finance those deals.

The business may recieve £50 million per annum, but it is in a league competing with other teams who are recieving at least that much per annum, usually more. To stay in this league it is essential to spend every last penny we are spending - sure one can argue with certain wage packets doled out to players and one or two transfer fees, but we are still hardly spending anything compared to most of our competitors. The odd transfer fee that was too high or wages that don't justify future performances are part and parcel of our game and when it comes to that we are still one of the most economical teams in the division.

The reason why we are in such a good position post Uncle Jack is down to the actions of JW and the succession of managers (bar Ince) we have had.

We have to remember that this isn't the Trust's hard earned money. It was money they inherited from a man who had earned this money and who was passionate about Rovers. Yes Jack wanted the club to stand on its own two feet but in this day and age having a negative transfer budget of the scale we had a couple of summers ago or having zero money to spend this summer means we're doing the equivalent of standing on one leg.

It is hard to say what Jack's wishes would have been and there's certainly no way of telling. Given there's people 20 times richer than him funding some clubs, it's unlikely we would have been spending enough to compete for the title. However it also seems unlikely he would have withdrawn all funding to Rovers just as the rest of the league would start spending huge amounts of money. Even a transfer fund of £4-5 million a season would have done wonders.

One big difference is that Jack Walker did not want to sell Rovers - but the trust do. There must be something within the instructions given to the trust that allows this.

Who's idea was the setting up of the trust?

Who would have given the instructions on the trustees responcibility?

We on here do not know the details of the trust. But from the way things have gone over the years the trustees have had the responcibility, they must have operated within the instructions first given to them. Would not the trustees have had legal elements to comply with in their dealings with the club. I am not trying to defend the trustees, but maybe the instructions that were originally given tied the hands of the trustees. Something that we on here will not know.

I do not know how trusts work. But if any of us were in a position to have the need to set up a trust in the event of our deaths, would we not want the trustees to do as we instructed them to do? I therefore suggest that that is what is happening now with regards to the Walker Trust and Rovers. The trustees would be under obligation to do as they were instructed.

[92er]

This is frankly rubbish.

They "sanctioned" £4million for Grella and £6 million for Kalinic? How nice of them! You seem to forget the money that was brought in from selling Bentley, Warnock and RSC in order to finance those deals.

The business may recieve £50 million per annum, but it is in a league competing with other teams who are recieving at least that much per annum, usually more. To stay in this league it is essential to spend every last penny we are spending - sure one can argue with certain wage packets doled out to players and one or two transfer fees, but we are still hardly spending anything compared to most of our competitors. The odd transfer fee that was too high or wages that don't justify future performances are part and parcel of our game and when it comes to that we are still one of the most economical teams in the division.

The reason why we are in such a good position post Uncle Jack is down to the actions of JW and the succession of managers (bar Ince) we have had.

We have to remember that this isn't the Trust's hard earned money. It was money they inherited from a man who had earned this money and who was passionate about Rovers. Yes Jack wanted the club to stand on its own two feet but in this day and age having a negative transfer budget of the scale we had a couple of summers ago or having zero money to spend this summer means we're doing the equivalent of standing on one leg.

It is hard to say what Jack's wishes would have been and there's certainly no way of telling. Given there's people 20 times richer than him funding some clubs, it's unlikely we would have been spending enough to compete for the title. However it also seems unlikely he would have withdrawn all funding to Rovers just as the rest of the league would start spending huge amounts of money. Even a transfer fund of £4-5 million a season would have done wonders.

The balance of the monies raised went to covering losses and some went to purchase new players.

None of the money went directly to the Trust.

If you feel it is imperative for us to stay in this league by finding someone who is willing to provide funds to each year buy new players who might,or might not, come up to scratch,then that is fine. that is your opinion.

However, I cannot see why anyone would want to do that-and they would probably not wish to disclose an ulterior motive.

You seem to want all the funds raised, and maybe extra, to be used in player purchases.

I can't see how a business, which needs monies for other reasons, can justify that.

[BPF]

[broadsword]

The balance of the monies raised went to covering losses and some went to purchase new players.

None of the money went directly to the Trust.

If you feel it is imperative for us to stay in this league by finding someone who is willing to provide funds to each year buy new players who might,or might not, come up to scratch,then that is fine. that is your opinion.

However, I cannot see why anyone would want to do that-and they would probably not wish to disclose an ulterior motive.

You seem to want all the funds raised, and maybe extra, to be used in player purchases.

I can't see how a business, which needs monies for other reasons, can justify that.

What is the group profit judged against the annual loss Rovers makes?

Is the offset negative or positive, and by how much?

Rovers aren't a business investment. That's why they're currently owned by a trust whose onerous responsibility as dictated by the man who bequeathed them his fortune, is to do their best for Blackburn Rovers. Not to try to make money out of them.

[Sysagent]

So have Venkys borrowed the money of the ICICI Bank or not, who do we believe?

[92er]

Rovers aren't a business investment. That's why they're currently owned by a trust whose onerous responsibility as dictated by the man who bequeathed them his fortune, is to do their best for Blackburn Rovers. Not to try to make money out of them.

We don't know anything about details of Uncle Jack's will.

However, it remains prudent for the club to ensure limited debts in the way they have done it.

I can also understand the club, given the amount of monies received, no longer recive either a gift, or a loan, from the Trust.

[nicko]

I notice that Nicko hasn't answered my question concerning a board position for Jerome Anderson.

I hear he could be working in a 'director of football' capacity - signing players and doing deals. That would clearly mean he could not be an agent as well.

But whether he is a 'director' or an employee is down to how they shape things up.

I don't see any conflict in that - as long as good players come and play is really all that matters.

The current regime has relied on signing and selling players for years.

So why the worry about someone coming in and doing it professionally - for the benefit of the club?

I did say about three weeks ago that Anderson was in at the Premier League interviews with the VH Group. So it was no secret then - and doesn't seem to have caused a problem with the authorities.

So have Venkys borrowed the money of the ICICI Bank or not, who do we believe?

The latest panic has been caused by a paragraph in a re-heated curry of a story. The line about a 'loan' is one of about 12 details that have just been picked up and put together.

The people selling the club don't seem to regard this as an issue...and I think the VH mob denied this when it first came up.

[Spansterkid]

Does anybody actually get this?

The deal is funded by ICICI Bank.

Desai will pay 46 million pounds (Rs. 325 crore) in an equity-based deal for Blackburn Rovers

Forbes India

This means that ICICI bank will be shareholders in Rovers once the deal has gone through, that's what an equity-based deal is.

[Jim Royle]

I'm affraid most folk on here sound like spoilt brats - they have been kidded into a false sense of identity. Prior to Jack Walker choosing to spend some of his wealth on BRFC we were skint and had been for decades. Jack invested for c10 years and we were taken to places we could never have wished for - we dined at the top table and bloodied some noses on our way. Thanks Jack

Jack however passed away some 10 years ago and again fortunately for us fans he saw to it that Rovers were in safe hands via the trust he set up to manage all his going concerns. Thanks Jack

Now we have had nearly 20 years of protection from Jack - now it is time for our part in the deal i.e. to not forget the debt we owe him and allow the Trust to walk away and let the Walker family remain in high regard and not this constant bickering of "Jacks will", "The trust owe us" etc - it is petty and unsightful, it reminds me of unthankful kids that get spoilt on Christmas Day and yet whinge about the one thing they didn't get.

So thanks Jack and thanks to the Trust, as I for one recognise that Jack would not want BRFC to become a millstone for his family and appreciate the journey they have allowed us to join with them. Who knows, it just might be about to get thrill packed again, but let us be honest we just do not know what the future holds but better to be with an organisation that wants BRFC in their portfolio now and in the future.

[Bennisfromheaven]

Nicko, you have provided us with some interesting information over the years & for the most part it has been very reliable

So, I was wondering, with all the knowledge you have gained about this takeover, what is your feeling about it & how do you see it working out?

I realise that you cannot predict an outcome but you seem to have played devils advocate with all of the proposed takeovers, pointing out good & bad points. So I was hoping, as you have no allegiance to the club, you could provide us with an informed opinion without the Blue & White specs on??

[philipl]

I hear he could be working in a 'director of football' capacity - signing players and doing deals. That would clearly mean he could not be an agent as well.

But whether he is a 'director' or an employee is down to how they shape things up.

I don't see any conflict in that - as long as good players come and play is really all that matters.

The current regime has relied on signing and selling players for years.

So why the worry about someone coming in and doing it professionally - for the benefit of the club?

I did say about three weeks ago that Anderson was in at the Premier League interviews with the VH Group. So it was no secret then - and doesn't seem to have caused a problem with the authorities.

The latest panic has been caused by a paragraph in a re-heated curry of a story. The line about a 'loan' is one of about 12 details that have just been picked up and put together.

The people selling the club don't seem to regard this as an issue...and I think the VH mob denied this when it first came up.

Thanks for the clarification Alan.

Since I posted my original question, a little bird told me that Anderson is actually slated to be the new Chairman after a decent interval post-take over.

[Al]

Does anybody actually get this?

Forbes India

This means that ICICI bank will be shareholders in Rovers once the deal has gone through, that's what an equity-based deal is.

A little knowledge can again be dangerous. You've already made a fool of yourself by claiming you calculated the total wealth of the Venkys based on the value of one of the companies they own.

The equity involved is much more likely to be the equity in one of their existing companies than in Rovers. They are a far better risk.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

I'm affraid most folk on here sound like spoilt brats - they have been kidded into a false sense of identity. Prior to Jack Walker choosing to spend some of his wealth on BRFC we were skint and had been for decades. Jack invested for c10 years and we were taken to places we could never have wished for - we dined at the top table and bloodied some noses on our way. Thanks Jack

Jack however passed away some 10 years ago and again fortunately for us fans he saw to it that Rovers were in safe hands via the trust he set up to manage all his going concerns. Thanks Jack

Now we have had nearly 20 years of protection from Jack - now it is time for our part in the deal i.e. to not forget the debt we owe him and allow the Trust to walk away and let the Walker family remain in high regard and not this constant bickering of "Jacks will", "The trust owe us" etc - it is petty and unsightful, it reminds me of unthankful kids that get spoilt on Christmas Day and yet whinge about the one thing they didn't get.

So thanks Jack and thanks to the Trust, as I for one recognise that Jack would not want BRFC to become a millstone for his family and appreciate the journey they have allowed us to join with them. Who knows, it just might be about to get thrill packed again, but let us be honest we just do not know what the future holds but better to be with an organisation that wants BRFC in their portfolio now and in the future.

Well said Jim. I am becoming increasingly annoyed by supporters who seem to think that we are entitled to be subsidised. At the end of the day the reason most other clubs have more money than us is down to their fan base. Even without benefactors - City and Chelsea still generate far more money than Rovers do - only Fulham, Wigan and possibly Bolton are on a par. Maybe this is why the trust went the way they did - Venky's possibly have a vision that could increase our revenue. Without this we will be constantly at the whim of a rich owner - who might just get bored of ploughing in money.

Jack was a one off - but even he would have realised even his pockets aren't deep enough to continually fund Rovers in the way he did. Transfers are one thing - but the club doesn't generate enough cash to pay the types of wages the top 4 now pay. A new vision is needed - maybe India is part of that vision ?

[broadsword]

Aren't all premiership clubs subsidised?

It's not the supporters who are feeling the benefit of the subsidies, it's the players.

What happens if Venky's vision doesn't come to fruition? What's to stop them off-loading to anyone?

[nicko]

I realise that you cannot predict an outcome but you seem to have played devils advocate with all of the proposed takeovers, pointing out good & bad points. So I was hoping, as you have no allegiance to the club, you could provide us with an informed opinion without the Blue & White specs on??

PROS...you need a change...more money [hopefully enough]...and maybe fresh ideas because it must be wearing having to juggle sand for all of the senior staff at the club...VH look to be keen to impress and come from a stable business background rather than a flash one...I don't mind Kentaro being involved because they need a successful club to make their money both in terms of players and the commercial side.

CONS...disruption...it happens whenever there is change...there has been lots during the process and there will be lots when it happens...you can't control the timing of a takeover, so you just have to get on with it...the first few months will be the rockiest and there is still a survival fight on here...anyone coming into the club will have to bear all of that in mind.

There isn't a definitive answer because football is football.

Jack Walker's era might never have taken off if you didn't get a dodgy penalty at Wembley.

The new buyers could walk into a good set of results or some bad ones, all based on luck, in a season that is the tightest in memory.

If Rovers are a Premier League side at the end of the season then you may have a better chance to assess where everyone and everything is going.

The new people have to address that factor more than any. All long-term thinking goes down the pan if you finish in the bottom three. Talk of top ten targets or top four targets are irrelevant right now.

So I would be anxious in the short-term - but only for football reasons.

Since I posted my original question, a little bird told me that Anderson is actually slated to be the new Chairman after a decent interval post-take over.

I wouldn't be surprised about that. Anderson has not hidden in the process which is probably good news rather than bad. I am always more wary when people try to cover things up.

[philipl]

I wouldn't be surprised about that. Anderson has not hidden in the process which is probably good news rather than bad. I am always more wary when people try to cover things up.

So it looks like Jerome Anderson will be the new Chairman at some point.

That begs more questions-

How would this work with an independently minded autonomous manager? eg the sometimes bloody minded Sam.

How will relations with existing players and their agents be handled when many of these people have had their professional differences with Anderson in the past?

Will all connections with Kentaro be severed as well as Anderson terminating his agent's license? There are clauses designed to prevent "hidden" agents.

JW's salary is disclosed in the accounts at about £300k all up. Will Anderson work for a similar salary or will he draw his pay from a different source?

[Bennisfromheaven]

Thanks Alan!!

[67splitscreen]

I hear he could be working in a 'director of football' capacity - signing players and doing deals. That would clearly mean he could not be an agent as well.

But whether he is a 'director' or an employee is down to how they shape things up.

I don't see any conflict in that - as long as good players come and play is really all that matters.

The current regime has relied on signing and selling players for years.

So why the worry about someone coming in and doing it professionally - for the benefit of the club?

I did say about three weeks ago that Anderson was in at the Premier League interviews with the VH Group. So it was no secret then - and doesn't seem to have caused a problem with the authorities.

The latest panic has been caused by a paragraph in a re-heated curry of a story. The line about a 'loan' is one of about 12 details that have just been picked up and put together.

The people selling the club don't seem to regard this as an issue...and I think the VH mob denied this when it first came up.

Did you not voice your concerns a week or two back after Ms, Desai commented on their position with Kentaro (advisory).

Yours in response to her comments along the lines of ...... Joined at the hip ...... serious damage could be caused ...... need to get their stories straight ..........

It seems now that if this Anderson story is true and does infact come to fruition, that our owners are at best econimical with the truth.

If Anderson is appointed as you say how can there not be a conflict of interest, SEM and Kentaro in partnership, Kentaro's agents on their own books, every player that is brought in through one of Kentaro's agents will have big question marks around it.

I would imagine Anderson has a good income from his agency, that hole will take some filling, I'd suggest a rather large expense that the club could do without until some new revenue streams are flowing.