[Archived] Venky's Takeover Complete

[Mattyblue]

  On 22/11/2010 at 20:33, philipl said:

Yes from what has been said by Mrs Desai- see the post above your's.

from the linked article:

'Fresh from clinching the deal, she plans to restructure the club and find a new coach.'

Oh...

[Beta Ray Bill]

  On 22/11/2010 at 20:35, den said:

So the debt has been paid off Philip?

The reason I asked the other question, is that the club made a large surplus on transfers in/out during that period, so if it wasn't used to pay off the debt, then how is it accounted for?

Wasn't the asking price about £40m + debt clearance of around £20m a couple of years ago?

Has the Trust taken the money of Bentley etc to keep the debt stable, and trimmed down the asking price by having the money from sales?

[den]

  On 22/11/2010 at 20:37, Mattyblue said:

from the linked article:

'Fresh from clinching the deal, she plans to restructure the club and find a new coach.'

Oh...

She means club bus Matty. It all gets lost in the translation.

[philipl]

  On 22/11/2010 at 20:37, Mattyblue said:

from the linked article:

'Fresh from clinching the deal, she plans to restructure the club and find a new coach.'

Oh...

It also says the club will go down once a year and we play at Edwood Park- sorry I wouldn't have reposted that link if I had spotted that was sitting there. I think the reporters totally messed up.

She gave several other interviews which are also on this thread and she certainly didn't talk about finding a new coach anywhere else- quite the opposite in fact.

Mrs Desai repeatedly said the tab for the purchase is in fact £54m broken down as per the list above. I know that cash is coming in instalments so the overdraft might not yet have been paid down in total yet but the intent from what she has said is that it is to be paid off.

[67splitscreen]

  On 22/11/2010 at 20:42, den said:

She means club bus Matty. It all gets lost in the translation.

Glad you cleared that one up den, thought she meant the RS stand, now that would never do.

[den]

  On 22/11/2010 at 20:39, Beta Ray Bill said:

Wasn't the asking price about £40m + debt clearance of around £20m a couple of years ago?

Has the Trust taken the money of Bentley etc to keep the debt stable, and trimmed down the asking price by having the money from sales?

Hello Ed, good to hear from you.

You're asking whether the surplus on transfers was used to keep the trusts selling price, in effect, higher? Hmmmm.

[philipl]

The Trust is taking £23m in the end (for shares that cost them £123m)- that is below every figure anybody speculated about.

[Mattyblue]

  On 22/11/2010 at 20:45, philipl said:

It also says the club will go down once a year and we play at Edwood Park- sorry I wouldn't have reposted that link if I had spotted that was sitting there. I think the reporters totally messed up.

She gave several other interviews which are also on this thread and she certainly didn't talk about finding a new coach anywhere else- quite the opposite in fact.

Maybe the journo forgot what was on and off the record as he wrote the article...

[allanncd]

The Trust did NOT subscribe £125,000,000 for the shares as stated above. Most of the share capital (about £100m) was subscribed for during Jack Walker's lifetime. The Trust subscribed for about £25m some 6 years ago to capitalise the funds put in between 2000 - 2004.

[philipl]

  On 22/11/2010 at 22:11, allanncd said:

The Trust did NOT subscribe £125,000,000 for the shares as stated above. Most of the share capital (about £100m) was subscribed for during Jack Walker's lifetime. The Trust subscribed for about £25m some 6 years ago to capitalise the funds put in between 2000 - 2004.

The Trust has always owned the club- Jack was never the direct owner at any point. So the Trust subscribed every penny.

In terms of the division between when Jack was alive and now. The issued share capital in 1999 was £25 million I believe. The called up share capital in the latest published accounts (30 June 2009) was £133,988,000 (£10m more than I remembered the figure to be).

The Trust capitalised over £100m of loans after Jack died of which about £60m was new money post-1999/2000. The Trust took the hit of the seasons in the Championship plus funded the acquisitions of Grabbi and Cole in the first season back. Up to 2007 they were contributing £6m a year- £3m in direct injection and £3m in loans which were then converted into shares (the most recent loan to equity conversion was a wrap up of about £18m of such loans).

Sorry to call you out on this but I have the accounts in front of me.

[True Blue & White]

  On 22/11/2010 at 18:04, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Probably the most sensible outcome of renaming our ground would surely be to just incorporate 'EWOOD PARK' after the sponsors name.

Venky's Ewood Park Stadium

Air India Ewood Park Stadium

Tata steel Ewood Park Stadium

Why on earth would anyone be against the above?...we retain our grounds full name so everyone is happy.

LETS JUST HOPE IT PAYS!!

Beacuse any name change would only benfit the Raos and not Blackburn Rovers whilst at the same time cheapening the oldest football ground in the league.

If they renamed it "Venky's Ewood Park Stadium" who would that be benefitting other than the Venky's Group cause they're getting their name mentioned onevery EPL show reel shown around the World? They're not going to pay themselves sposorship money so how does it benefit Rovers?

If they go with an outside sponsor I'd still be highly doubtful any extra money would go into Rovers. When our new owner talked abut expanding the Rovers brand, I think she meant Venky's brand because I have yet to see any plan they have that solely benefits our football club. Tour of India, risk of injury playing against poor opposition whilst the "Venky Tournament" pulls in some extra business from our owners. Sending our scouts to India, they would be there now if there was any talent; instead the best of a bad bunch of Indians kids will be forced into the first team in that vein attempt to find football's Sachin Tendulka.

[Hughesy]

  On 23/11/2010 at 00:52, True Blue & White said:

Tour of India, risk of injury playing against poor opposition whilst the "Venky Tournament" pulls in some extra business from our owners.

Sending our scouts to India, they would be there now if there was any talent; instead the best of a bad bunch.

So basically nobody should play pre-season games & we should therefore wrap the players up in Cotton wool?

As for NO TALENT. ...1.2 BILLION people, there MUST be some there :!: . Its the fastest growing sport amongst the youngsters, like anything they will strive to copy the best leagues & therefore Talent will be progressing, its just a case of identifying it.

[evukovic]

Clubs all over the world have stadiums with corporate sponsorship. It's time people woke up and smelled how the world works. It's a revenue stream that Rovers could dearly do with.

[Hughesy]

  On 23/11/2010 at 01:04, evukovic said:

Clubs all over the world have stadiums with corporate sponsorship. It's time people woke up and smelled how the world works. It's a revenue stream that Rovers could dearly do with.

Selling the naming rights for me is TOO SOON.

Grow the brand/ improve the team 1st, then get a much bigger sum for it.

[67splitscreen]

  On 23/11/2010 at 01:07, Hughesy said:

Selling the naming rights for me is TOO SOON.

Grow the brand/ improve the team 1st, then get a much bigger sum for it.

Depends on the deal/offer, if someone did come in with a reasonable figure and the figure was given to build the team, possibly the success and brand Rovers grows quicker, Venky's brand grows and the name gets the exposure they are looking for.

We do not know just how much they are going to be putting in over the next season or two, never look a gift horse ......... springs to mind.

Two sides to every coin and we will all call it different.

[doctorryan]

  On 23/11/2010 at 01:04, evukovic said:

Clubs all over the world have stadiums with corporate sponsorship. It's time people woke up and smelled how the world works. It's a revenue stream that Rovers could dearly do with.

Some do, some don't. Even in the commercial name happy USA the most famous and historic grounds have no corporate titles. Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Soldier Field, Lambeau Field, Beaver Stadium, Wrigley Field, etc....I could go on and on. The history behind those places makes them as big a brand name as the clubs who play in them. If the 'Dons had decided to redevelop parts of Windy Hill rather than play at the MCG do you think anyone in the old VFL (it should still be called the VFL but that's another discussion) would have stood for selling its name to some company?

No Premier League club has ever changed the name of its stadium without moving to a new venue (the St James nonsense? .........Please.). Ewood Park is the second oldest home to a Premier League club(Stamford Bridge is oldest). Under no circumstances should it even be considered. Even here in the US, home of some of the greediest assholes on earth, it would be laughed out of the room. The name and the history behind it are just too important to the club, both emotionally and commercially, and you better believe those 2 things are related. Hopefully the Colonel & his fellow chicken pluckers will figure that out.

[PAFELL]

  On 22/11/2010 at 18:04, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Probably the most sensible outcome of renaming our ground would surely be to just incorporate 'EWOOD PARK' after the sponsors name.

Venky's Ewood Park Stadium

Air India Ewood Park Stadium

Tata steel Ewood Park Stadium

Why on earth would anyone be against the above?...we retain our grounds full name so everyone is happy.

LETS JUST HOPE IT PAYS!!

For the Venky's renaming the ground may give them more advertisment for themselves, promote their own brand over here or india. But revenue not as much as people think. Even if a company came is and named it after themselves, it would only generate a few million.

If we take man U as an example, the name Old Trafford, is worth a lot more than any other sponsers name - if it wasn't, considering the debt they are in, would have sold the name rights ages ago. Ok for a club like Rovers, one or two million is nothing to scoff at, it would be well received extra income.

Both Bolton and Arsenal moved to completely different grounds so did not rename their grounds. Newcastle did chanage their name, yet the old name is still the one used. But they would have received a few million for doing so. Which for them made it worthwhile doing.

[sparkspakespoke]

  On 23/11/2010 at 03:29, doctorryan said:

Some do, some don't. Even in the commercial name happy USA the most famous and historic grounds have no corporate titles. Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Soldier Field, Lambeau Field, Beaver Stadium, Wrigley Field, etc....I could go on and on. The history behind those places makes them as big a brand name as the clubs who play in them. If the 'Dons had decided to redevelop parts of Windy Hill rather than play at the MCG do you think anyone in the old VFL (it should still be called the VFL but that's another discussion) would have stood for selling its name to some company?

No Premier League club has ever changed the name of its stadium without moving to a new venue (the St James nonsense? .........Please.). Ewood Park is the second oldest home to a Premier League club(Stamford Bridge is oldest). Under no circumstances should it even be considered. Even here in the US, home of some of the greediest assholes on earth, it would be laughed out of the room. The name and the history behind it are just too important to the club, both emotionally and commercially, and you better believe those 2 things are related. Hopefully the Colonel & his fellow chicken pluckers will figure that out.

You mean Wrigley Field which started life as club park before William Wrigley(of the chewing gum)had it renamed after him ....

[doctorryan]

  On 23/11/2010 at 07:27, sparkspakespoke said:

You mean Wrigley Field which started life as club park before William Wrigley(of the chewing gum)had it renamed after him ....

More than a few baseball owners in the first half of the 20th century named their team's stadiums after themselves. I was waiting to see which fool would try to cite Wrigley as an example of corporate names.

I wonder which uninformed schmuck gave you +1.

..........and Wrigley actually started life as Weeghman Park, but why digress?

[Wilky]

Chicken farmers united will be hour new club name....

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk

[philipl]

  On 23/11/2010 at 08:02, Wilky said:

Chicken farmers united will be hour new club name....

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk

Silly boy.

[True Blue & White]

  On 23/11/2010 at 00:58, Hughesy said:

So basically nobody should play pre-season games & we should therefore wrap the players up in Cotton wool?

No we should be playing pre-season games against competitive opposition, be that in teh UK, Germany, South America even Australia but currently the standard in India is dire. Rovers touring India would provide no benefit to us from a footballing perspective.

  On 23/11/2010 at 00:58, Hughesy said:

As for NO TALENT. ...1.2 BILLION people, there MUST be some there :!: . Its the fastest growing sport amongst the youngsters, like anything they will strive to copy the best leagues & therefore Talent will be progressing, its just a case of identifying it.

?

Once, again I ask if there was talent there why have Man Utd, Barcelona, Milan etc got scouts and academies there? I'm noot saying don't look there, I'm saying don't put all our eggs in one basket and concentrate on forcing Indiann talent whcih the owners may well do.

  On 23/11/2010 at 03:29, doctorryan said:

Ewood Park is the second oldest home to a Premier League club(Stamford Bridge is oldest).

Aye but Chelsea didn't start playing football there til 1905 so we have the oldest home football ground (just in case the above was a dig at my original comment .

[SAS]

  On 23/11/2010 at 06:38, PAFELL said:

For the Venky's renaming the ground may give them more advertisment for themselves, promote their own brand over here or india. But revenue not as much as people think. Even if a company came is and named it after themselves, it would only generate a few million.

If we take man U as an example, the name Old Trafford, is worth a lot more than any other sponsers name - if it wasn't, considering the debt they are in, would have sold the name rights ages ago. Ok for a club like Rovers, one or two million is nothing to scoff at, it would be well received extra income.

Both Bolton and Arsenal moved to completely different grounds so did not rename their grounds. Newcastle did chanage their name, yet the old name is still the one used. But they would have received a few million for doing so. Which for them made it worthwhile doing.

DW stadium

[Mattyblue]

  On 23/11/2010 at 08:22, True Blue & White said:

No we should be playing pre-season games against competitive opposition, be that in teh UK, Germany, South America even Australia but currently the standard in India is dire. Rovers touring India would provide no benefit to us from a footballing perspective.

Pre season is for fitness. We lost 3-0 at PNE tihs summer... and they are anything but competitive!

[broadsword]

It's like being on Dragon's Den coming on here at the minute.

:-(