[Archived] Rumour: Venky's To Sell?

[Speedie Dived]

t'was in jest!

Sorry, it's amazing how differently you can read things on here. Apart from some tosh that you can spot a mile off, ha ha

At least Joey Barton would be able to slip in under the radar!

Not to sure I believe all this stuff. Seems too good to be true. Don't get me wrong, to suddenly have City's kind of wealth would be a hell of a ride but I just can't see it happening.

That said, fate always seems to find a way of keeping us up with the big boys...

Certainly know what you mean. Does seem to have happened so fast, with real interest supposedly developing in the club, however, the only thing left with Venkys that would surprise me is if they changed the colour we play in.

[ada2020]

First off the podcast was a good listen, thanks to kamy, Philip et al, for taking the time to produce it.

Not sure that I believe this potential buyer rumour though, or should I say I doubt it will come off. If a Saudi billionaire family/group whatever they are wanted to buy a football club there are far better prospects out there, why oh why would they want Rovers.

Lord help them trying to negotiate with this lot, venkys will probably want twice their initial outlay for rovers fully believing that the club is in a better place than it was when they bought us.

Why did they not come in last december before venkys got hold of us?

I guess perhaps because of the widely reported clauses the trust had to adhear too could be one answer to that, but hey, venkys have run roughshot over everything they promised to hold dear so why couldn't other potential buyers.

If the rumours are true then I guess something could happen soon, so it's another wait and see scenario.

Those getting all excited abuot the wealth, UEFA's new financial laws would render that wealth almost redundant anyway would it not?

However, looking at where we are now, I would take just about anyone over venkys, they just are not right for football and more especially Blackburn Rovers.

Now for the waiting game......and the likelihood that a little ray of hope will be smothered.

[Craigman]

You can understand why the Venky's would like to keep a percentage of the club. They would still be associated with us and would be able to continue with their plans to build a club and academy in India. Maybe Kean could become their manager out there !! Hehe.

[Athlete]

haha !! Kick the tyres !! (in the podcast) Saudi Bugshan

http://www.saudibugshan.com/

wake up and smell the perfume......

[Kelbo]

You can understand why the Venky's would like to keep a percentage of the club. They would still be associated with us and would be able to continue with their plans to build a club and academy in India. Maybe Kean could become their manager out there !! Hehe.

He'd get them relegated

[chaddyrovers]

The new UEFA's financial laws ONLY apply to Europe competitions and NOT to the premier league. So the owners could spend alot money to get us to Europe but then would have to apply to the UEFA's new financial laws then.

That is my understand of the Laws anyway.

[Stuart]

The new UEFA's financial laws ONLY apply to Europe competitions and NOT to the premier league. So the owners could spend alot money to get us to Europe but then would have to apply to the UEFA's new financial laws then.

That is my understand of the Laws anyway.

But how do you arrange it so that our wage bill falls in line with the regulations for the players who get us there?

I watch the situation with City's stadium rights case with interest!

[cn174]

The new UEFA's financial laws ONLY apply to Europe competitions and NOT to the premier league. So the owners could spend alot money to get us to Europe but then would have to apply to the UEFA's new financial laws then.

That is my understand of the Laws anyway.

For now though, they plan to implement it in the leagues soon (although soon is an undefined amount of time at the moment)

[Speedie Dived]

But how do you arrange it so that our wage bill falls in line with the regulations for the players who get us there?

I watch the situation with City's stadium rights case with interest!

The whole Fair Play rules stink to me. It's making a closed shop of a league like fort Knox. I know a lot of people don't like City's way of spending, but they have mixed things up and given the big boys a run for their money. There is no way they could have generated this amount of money themselves.

It's painted as fair play, when in fact it's one of the most unfair things to recently happen.

[niggit]

Go on to uefa and this new rule for Europe starts this year, not fully, but over next 2 years, and on the 3rd, use the last two to check the clubs that can enter. Or so it seems.

[Kelbo]

The whole Fair Play rules stink to me. It's making a closed shop of a league like fort Knox. I know a lot of people don't like City's way of spending, but they have mixed things up and given the big boys a run for their money. There is no way they could have generated this amount of money themselves.

It's painted as fair play, when in fact it's one of the most unfair things to recently happen.

Its unfair play because under the rules only big city clubs will ever meet the criteria due to stadium size gates etc!!

[Speedie Dived]

Its unfair play because under the rules only big city clubs will ever meet the criteria due to stadium size gates etc!!

Exactly, i would put a fair size wager that the old G14 got their heads together and came up with this rule. Platini is the poster boy for it

[niggit]

Is it not going to make the premier league stupid. I mean with wages and the cost of players going up each year. Smaller clubs will soon struggle to buy any players that are good enough for the league. Will split the league in two, and say half the clubs will be In a relegation battle every year.

[Teacup]

Party time!

[Stuart]

The whole Fair Play rules stink to me. It's making a closed shop of a league like fort Knox. I know a lot of people don't like City's way of spending, but they have mixed things up and given the big boys a run for their money. There is no way they could have generated this amount of money themselves.

It's painted as fair play, when in fact it's one of the most unfair things to recently happen.

It's only really unfair to clubs like Rovers, Bolton and Wigan who wouldn't be in this league if it came in. I'd argue Man City would be fine under the new rule without their billions, given the size of their fans base.

It probably is a fairer way though, as clubs would have to find ways of increasing their supporter base to get the funds to compete rather than having some benefactor chucking money in. A bit rich coming from a Rovers fan, I know, but just look at it from similar sized clubs' perspectives.

Besides the benefactor route isn't sustainable long term, and the financial peril we are in due to the threat of relegation is the price we have paid for the heady days we enjoyed. At least with a larger fan base there is a better chance of a sustained income but even that isn't guaranteed.

Back in the early 20th century, we had incredible numbers of supporters at Ewood. Health and safety would have a fit (or at least that's how my dad tells it). Now we 'struggle' to get 30k on £10 tickets.

Rovers wouldn't suffer as a result of this rule, they'd suffer as a result of the apathy of a large part of the local community towards the club.

There are three other options, as I see it, neither of which are ideal:

1) Every club in the PL has a billionaire owner but all that will do is push player wages even higher and increase the ever widening gulf between the Premier League and Championship, effectively franchising the competition

2) Have a breakaway European League from England, Spain, Germany, France and Italy, with the top 4 clubs in each withdrawing from their respective domestic leagues altogether

3) Introduce a two-tier Premier League

[allanncd]

Venkys are the owners from Hell. They are driving the club into the ground with mass defections not only by the leading players but also the administration and support functions. Why did they buy a Premier League when they don't have a clue how to run it and a totally unrealistic view of the cost. Their whole approach is a vanity project with the only objective being to get their own and their company's names in the Indian press. With talk of putting a 21 year old on the board and a transfer budget cut from £30m to zero in 2 weeks, BRFC would be a laughing stock if only the press had any interest in it rather than their beloved London clubs.

[Mattyblue]

Thing is Jisty, those super crowds only appeared for the FA Cup, our average league attendance was usually less than we get now.

Our crowds are excellent, however we are in a small town surrounded by other football towns/cities, not sure how we could ever grow any bigger..

[Speedie Dived]

It's only really unfair to clubs like Rovers, Bolton and Wigan who wouldn't be in this league if it came in. I'd argue Man City would be fine under the new rule without their billions, given the size of their fans base.

It probably is a fairer way though, as clubs would have to find ways of increasing their supporter base to get the funds to compete rather than having some benefactor chucking money in. A bit rich coming from a Rovers fan, I know, but just look at it from similar sized clubs' perspectives.

Besides the benefactor route isn't sustainable long term, and the financial peril we are in due to the threat of relegation is the price we have paid for the heady days we enjoyed. At least with a larger fan base there is a better chance of a sustained income but even that isn't guaranteed.

Back in the early 20th century, we had incredible numbers of supporters at Ewood. Health and safety would have a fit (or at least that's how my dad tells it). Now we 'struggle' to get 30k on £10 tickets.

Rovers wouldn't suffer as a result of this rule, they'd suffer as a result of the apathy of a large part of the local community towards the club.

There are three other options, as I see it, neither of which are ideal:

1) Every club in the PL has a billionaire owner but all that will do is push player wages even higher and increase the ever widening gulf between the Premier League and Championship, effectively franchising the competition

2) Have a breakaway European League from England, Spain, Germany, France and Italy, with the top 4 clubs in each withdrawing from their respective domestic leagues altogether

3) Introduce a two-tier Premier League

I think it's unfair on a lot more people than that. Chelsea for example were on the verge of going out of business when Roman took over, so that would mean they could not spend and climb the league.

How can you attract bigger crowds/sponsors etc when you cannot attract the best players?

The cherry on the top of the cake is being allowed to over spend on youth teams and investment in the club. Again, i wonder who will benefit from that? Teams at the top protecting themselves again

[Stuart]

Thing is Jisty, those super crowds only appeared for the FA Cup, our average league attendance was usually less than we get now.

Our crowds are excellent, however we are in a small town surrounded by other football towns/cities, not sure how we could ever grow any bigger..

I'm talking about the really old days, very early in the 20th C but fair do's, I wasn't there!

Does our gate size mean that it's fair for us to continue to rely on hand-outs to compete though? How long is this likely to continue?

The only way we could continue as we are is to buy players cheap, or even 'grow our own', and sell high. But owners are criticised for this.

I'm also not sure if this is acceptable in the Fair Play rules as a means of income to support paying wages. Presumably revenue from player sales counts as part of the overall turnover. If so, it means money can this be used to fund wages and transfers but unless we continue to be as good at making money out of young players as we have been, this isn't sustainable either.

It also means we continue with the balancing act of trying to stay in the league from blooding youngsters and gambling on foreign talent.

Business as usual then!

[niggit]

To hell with Europe, with it now becoming the big 6. What is the chance without blowing loads of cash. Spend what we want, don't apply for Europe and stay in the league.

[Stuart]

I think it's unfair on a lot more people than that. Chelsea for example were on the verge of going out of business when Roman took over, so that would mean they could not spend and climb the league.

How can you attract bigger crowds/sponsors etc when you cannot attract the best players?

The cherry on the top of the cake is being allowed to over spend on youth teams and investment in the club. Again, i wonder who will benefit from that? Teams at the top protecting themselves again

But we have had some of the best players in this league. Did our crown numbers ever really swell to higher than say, Man City or Arsenal? What has been the longest waiting list for a season ticket at Ewood? Even in the mid 90s?

It's all well and good saying that if we had the best players our crowds would increase to a sustainable level but I'm not sure that's true. I can see where you are coming from though, it's a bit chicken and egg.

But surely the only fair way is for Chelsea and City, and Rovers to stand on their own two feet? And make it the same for all? If the team with the most supporters wins then it simply seems like survival of the fittest, no?

Having said that, like tax avoidance, the richest clubs will have teams of experts working out all of the loopholes to avoid being caught out.

The funny thing is though, that we already have an unfair system call the Champions League, once you get on that gravy train (and crucially stay on it - see Rovers and Spurs - if only Jack had a crystal ball) then then revenue you receive from it means you stay at the top end in terms of money and players anyway. Is that fairer than, say, Newcastle or Man City getting there because of large crowds?

[Speedie Dived]

I'm talking about the really old days, very early in the 20th C but fair do's, I wasn't there!

Does our gate size mean that it's fair for us to continue to rely on hand-outs to compete though? How long is this likely to continue?

The only way we could continue as we are is to buy players cheap, or even 'grow our own', and sell high. But owners are criticised for this.

I'm also not sure if this is acceptable in the Fair Play rules as a means of income to support paying wages. Presumably revenue from player sales counts as part of the overall turnover. If so, it means money can this be used to fund wages and transfers but unless we continue to be as good at making money out of young players as we have been, this isn't sustainable either.

It also means we continue with the balancing act of trying to stay in the league from blooding youngsters and gambling on foreign talent.

Business as usual then!

I actually agree with the idea of buying young players and selling high. Was actually one that thought the link up with Kentaro could really work for us, based around this idea. But it appears Venkys have stopped working with them as well??

I don't understand the link between gate sizes and whether you deserve to be in a certain league? The top and bottom of this for me is simple, if we carry on with the current rules, the best/most successful team in the league in 5 years will be Man City and the top teams have got together to stop City and anyone else doing it.

[Stuart]

To hell with Europe, with it now becoming the big 6. What is the chance without blowing loads of cash. Spend what we want, don't apply for Europe and stay in the league.

If you were the owner of the club (i.e. A realistic fan who was in it for the sheer enjoyment of having their own club in the top league year on year) then it could work.

But most owners are it for the kudos of 'being the best' (who knows what will happen when Abramovic finally wins the CL) or for returns on their investment (e.g. The Glazers) where the big money ONLY comes from being in the Champions League year after year.

Go and empty you savings account. niggit for owner! You've got my vote.

I actually agree with the idea of buying young players and selling high. Was actually one that thought the link up with Kentaro could really work for us, based around this idea. But it appears Venkys have stopped working with them as well??

I don't understand the link between gate sizes and whether you deserve to be in a certain league? The top and bottom of this for me is simple, if we carry on with the current rules, the best/most successful team in the league in 5 years will be Man City and the top teams have got together to stop City and anyone else doing it.

Sorry, I'm not being clear. It's not about bigger fan-base deserving success. It's simple economics. Without the benefactor, more fans equals more revenue, meaning higher wages and war chest for transfers.

[Speedie Dived]

But we have had some of the best players in this league. Did our crown numbers ever really swell to higher than say, Man City or Arsenal? What has been the longest waiting list for a season ticket at Ewood? Even in the mid 90s?

It's all well and good saying that if we had the best players our crowds would increase to a sustainable level but I'm not sure that's true. I can see where you are coming from though, it's a bit chicken and egg.

But surely the only fair way is for Chelsea and City, and Rovers to stand on their own two feet? And make it the same for all? If the team with the most supporters wins then it simply seems like survival of the fittest, no?

Having said that, like tax avoidance, the richest clubs will have teams of experts working out all of the loopholes to avoid being caught out.

The funny thing is though, that we already have an unfair system call the Champions League, once you get on that gravy train (and crucially stay on it - see Rovers and Spurs - if only Jack had a crystal ball) then then revenue you receive from it means you stay at the top end in terms of money and players anyway. Is that fairer than, say, Newcastle or Man City getting there because of large crowds?

Your crowd will go up with better players but it will never dramatically increase, i never said that. I said that's the only realistic way to increase revenue, along with selling players (to the bigger clubs).

I don't see the correlation at all between fair and keeping the larger supported teams near the top, as this will do. You are correct with the Champions league, again another G14 competition designed to keep them at the top

[Speedie Dived]

If you were the owner of the club (i.e. A realistic fan who was in it for the sheer enjoyment of having their own club in the top league year on year) then it could work.

But most owners are it for the kudos of 'being the best' (who knows what will happen when Abramovic finally wins the CL) or for returns on their investment (e.g. The Glazers) where the big money ONLY comes from being in the Champions League year after year.

Go and empty you savings account. niggit for owner! You've got my vote.

Sorry, I'm not being clear. It's not about bigger fan-base deserving success. It's simple economics. Without the benefactor, more fans equals more revenue, meaning higher wages and war chest for transfers.

You were being clear with your response, i don't think i was with my reply :-). Ok, i will put it like this..

What's the difference between 1 fan having a billion pounds and 100,000 fans have 500 million between them. You deserve to have what "fans" are prepared to put into your club.