[Archived] Rumour: Venky's To Sell?

[yeti-dog]

That's absolute rubbish. You continually try to compare the business of running a football club to other types of businesses and it's an utterly redundant comparison.

We WERE well run before. We had little option but to spend that much money on wages so we could compete with our peers. I guarantee that at almost every club that huge increase in Sky money went on wages. The only difference being that other clubs' revenue streams are much more than ours; their gate receipts, sponsorship and money ploughed into the club by the owners was a hell of a lot more than what we were getting.

But even with that, our debt levels compared to some of our peers (eg Bolton) was minimal, and compared to clubs like Sunderland we had zero money ploughed into our club by rich owners. And the number one test of how you judge how well a football club is being run is by the results on the pitch. We were on course for our fifth top ten finish in six years (the only exception being when we appointed Ince, and even that season we showed top 10 form from December onwards) until Venky's started going absolutely crazy. How many clubs with our revenue streams achieved anything close to that in the same period of time?

Zero.

Actually, I think Exiled has a valid point.

Our business plan was okay when Jack was around because it didn't really matter.Once the money dried up it became more and more obsolete. Throwing huge wages at semi past it,distinctly average footballers was always ultimately going to end in tears. The trust actually got out before this happened because,believe me,it was coming.

Many smaller clubs in europe follow a different model and have been pretty successful at it. A thriving academy (not the stagnant thing ours had become until quite recently btw),buying youth and potential,selling big.Repeat. This is the right way to do it-not run at wages as 80-90% of turnover.

Unsustainable,not to mention lazy.

[rogerjonesgloves]

Actually, I think Exiled has a valid point.

Our business plan was okay when Jack was around because it didn't really matter.Once the money dried up it became more and more obsolete. Throwing huge wages at semi past it,distinctly average footballers was always ultimately going to end in tears. The trust actually got out before this happened because,believe me,it was coming.

Many smaller clubs in europe follow a different model and have been pretty successful at it. A thriving academy (not the stagnant thing ours had become until quite recently btw),buying youth and potential,selling big.Repeat. This is the right way to do it-not run at wages as 80-90% of turnover.

Unsustainable,not to mention lazy.

Absolutely, but people still complain when we don't sign average players on huge wages like some other clubs. We aren't in a position where the owners can fund that, even Jack, if he were alive today, wouldn't be able to do it.

[chaddyrovers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indians_by_net_worth

[john.leigh]

Comment From Bangkok Rover

Nay news on Venkys to sell up after the Asian tour?

Andy Cryer (LT): Bangkok Rovers. Venky's have been asked if they are selling up and they have said no. We have to believe them until proof of otherwise

All down to semantics - "selling up" would imply selling all shares in Rovers and I don't think that's what they intend to do - so Venkys are telling the truth & the LT is reporting the truth.

[den]

Many smaller clubs in europe follow a different model and have been pretty successful at it. A thriving academy (not the stagnant thing ours had become until quite recently btw),buying youth and potential,selling big.Repeat. This is the right way to do it-not run at wages as 80-90% of turnover.

Unsustainable,not to mention lazy.

Wages at 80-90%of turnover is sustainable. As for running a PL club mainly on the academy and buying/selling young players - I don't think, for Blackburn Rovers, that is sustainable. For two reasons. 1] the best young players worldwide cost a lot of dosh and are being snapped up around the world by much bigger clubs than us. 2] we can't survive by youth alone. We need experience, and plenty of it.

While bringing in youth is always desirable, it can't be at the expense of experience. To run both systems side by side is only achievable at the richest clubs in the Country. It's also debatable whether the academy has actually paid for itself since it's been in existence.

[Paul]

I suppose this should be in the Samba thread but it really us more to do with club finances and management than player transfers.

IMO Samba will be sold in late August to spurs or Arsenal to fund the coming season. Why? City, Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool probably don't need him. Arsenal need him and Wenger is a wily old bird. He will wait till the last moment to make a reasonable bid which will further unsettle the player. Venky's will seize the opportunity to gain revenue to fund the gap in ST and sponsorship and the increased salaries widely praised by the fans in January. This means they will avoid having to fund the inevitable losses heading Rovers way in the year ending June 2012.

I guess Spurs might see Samba as a player to help further their ambition but would go 90% for Arsenal.

[Kelbo]

Actually, I think Exiled has a valid point.

Our business plan was okay when Jack was around because it didn't really matter.Once the money dried up it became more and more obsolete. Throwing huge wages at semi past it,distinctly average footballers was always ultimately going to end in tears. The trust actually got out before this happened because,believe me,it was coming.

Many smaller clubs in europe follow a different model and have been pretty successful at it. A thriving academy (not the stagnant thing ours had become until quite recently btw),buying youth and potential,selling big.Repeat. This is the right way to do it-not run at wages as 80-90% of turnover.

Unsustainable,not to mention lazy.

I dont think you understand football Yeti, if a pro club produce one player per season from the academy, that is classed as outstanding, indeed Everton did it for 10 years or so in a row and by far the most successful of our Prem clubs, The Man U youth team, ala Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, and the two Nevilles was an exception as was the Rovers youth team of the 60s (Newton, England, Pickering etc.

A manager is judged on results and in the majority of situations, has to find a quick fix, rarely does a manger stay at a club long enough to bear the fruits of his labours via the Academy, Wenger and Fergusen apart, 3 to four years is the maximum time a manager will stay at a club, if successful, they move on, unsuccessful, get sacked.

[chaddyrovers]

here is a blog about the owners and rovers

http://footballblog.co.uk/chicken-farmers-venkys-blackburn-rovers-fly.html

I totally agree with it

[Kelbo]

here is a blog about the owners and rovers

http://footballblog.co.uk/chicken-farmers-venkys-blackburn-rovers-fly.html

I totally agree with it

Probably the most accurate assessment of the state of our club I have seen, no Rover bashing, factual comments.

[yeti-dog]

Wages at 80-90%of turnover is sustainable. As for running a PL club mainly on the academy and buying/selling young players - I don't think, for Blackburn Rovers, that is sustainable. For two reasons. 1] the best young players worldwide cost a lot of dosh and are being snapped up around the world by much bigger clubs than us. 2] we can't survive by youth alone. We need experience, and plenty of it.

While bringing in youth is always desirable, it can't be at the expense of experience. To run both systems side by side is only achievable at the richest clubs in the Country. It's also debatable whether the academy has actually paid for itself since it's been in existence.

It can be done Den...it's not easy,it takes balls and foresight,a top-notch scouting team and a fully functioning academy. You may well be right about the academy not paying for itself but I attribute much of this to periods when it was allowed to churn out mediocrity. You don't need too many Phil Jones' to be self-sufficent.

As for your statement about 80-90% wages-turnover being sustainable,it may well be-just,but any company that's happy to stay at that kind of level will find ultimately that it will all end in tears.

[modes98]

Yes the official line is JW resigned and so would not be due any form of compensation. I also believe Rebekah Brooks knew nothing about phone hacking at NI and will receive nothing because she resigned.

Well of course they wanted him out and stopped him doing his job which allowed him no real choice in the matter but he resigned. He should only get the benefits as dictated by his contract, unless you are saying Venky's asked him to leave and then negotiated a severance package before him leaving by 'mutual consent'.

Rebekah Brooks offered her resignation to Mr Murdoch once the story broke, however Mr Murdoch decided that she was more important than the most profitable paper in his empire. If the press had laid off she would still be employed, Murdoch wanted to keep her and so I imagine his feelings towards her swayed his judgement to give her a payoff she should never have received.

To get back on topic I wouldn't have a go at JW for getting Compo but the way it was portrayed in the statements indicated that he had decided to leave because he couldn't look after the clubs best interests anymore.

[RoverInverness]

Jesus existed as numerous sources other than the bible state it, Eesa as he is refered to in Islam.

The entire post by Phillip is guesswork, say its that and no issue but sheesh...after the last few months surely lessons should have been learnt?

If you fancy a debate on this Imy then it will have to go to a non footballing thread, but I am beginning to understand your credulity regarding our current owners.

Jesus VERY VERY PROBABLY did exist. However, it is not possible to disprove the theory that he was a figure fabricated by Paul, we don't really have any primary source material from before this time, apart from the purely hypothetical source Q. That there was no historical Jesus is a very unlikely scenario, but these other sources you refer to (I hope you are not ignorant enough to be refering to the notorius Josephus forgery) all have later dates than the gospels and Paul's letters and therfore in no way whatsoever prove the existence of Jesus.

Anyway - yes Philp's posts should be treated with some caution. But it is far less a work of fiction than say for example the gospel according to John. The posters original point is a valid one. We have to base our assumptions on the evidence available to us - but nothing can be proved. Of course much of what anyone posts is based on their interpretation of the evidence.

Your refusal to believe that the Club is falling apart is based on what exactly? Blind faith?

[tony gale's mic]

Actually, I think Exiled has a valid point.

Our business plan was okay when Jack was around because it didn't really matter.Once the money dried up it became more and more obsolete. Throwing huge wages at semi past it,distinctly average footballers was always ultimately going to end in tears. The trust actually got out before this happened because,believe me,it was coming.

Many smaller clubs in europe follow a different model and have been pretty successful at it. A thriving academy (not the stagnant thing ours had become until quite recently btw),buying youth and potential,selling big.Repeat. This is the right way to do it-not run at wages as 80-90% of turnover.

Unsustainable,not to mention lazy.

Rubbish.

Those "semi past it, distinctly average" footballers got us to heights no other club in the country with our revenue streams managed. I'm referring to the time from Hughes onwards btw, not 94/95. They must have been doing something right? Even EHD was instrumental in the fight against the drop when Allardyce signed him, although the following season he was dross. Comparing us to clubs in Europe is null and void. The economy Ligue 1 and Bundesliga clubs operate in is entirely different to ours. They compete with other clubs whose only option is to break even, whereas almost half of our league now can afford to effectively run at a big loss - though this might change soon with the new rules. How would you have done things differently then? Paid lower wages than the vast majority of the rest of the league? Or found some magical way to increase our turnover?

You say "a thriving academy" like it's such an easy thing to achieve. How many great players has Liverpool's famed academy fired off since the class of Gerrard/Owen/Carragher etc? Having a thriving academy is extremely tough when you've got so many clubs nearby who are competing for the same set of young players locally, and several massive clubs nearby who can scour the globe for the world's best young talent in ways which we can't.

That said, the current crop of young players which have come through (Jones, Olsson, Hoilett, Hanley) together with the likes of Josh Morris came through when we were being run by the previous regime, so it's another indication that's yet another thing they were getting very right, though this did take a fair amount of time.

Like I said, likely fifth top ten finish in six years, with several saleable assets in the team to generate revenue for further players - even taking into account the possibility of having to set aside a few million to cover budget holes every now and then. A club with a reputation for finding bargains under successive managers (admittedly with the odd blemish) which seems to indicate that the structure in place at the club with regards to JW and the scouting team etc was excellent. Attendances increasing year on year despite the bleatings about the managers' style, and although gate receipts were lower due to the ST prices increasing the fanbase was very healthy for the club. A successive string of managerial appointments who were excellent for the club, Ince excluded. Some debt but nothing like the levels of debt our peers have, especially if you take into account clubs who had money ploughed into them effectively run at a loss.

Would it have definitely ended in tears? I'm not as foolish as to say "definitely not" like you were to claim we definitely were. But considering the only time we were even remotely close to it "ending in tears" was during the Ince tenure, I don't think it was anywhere near as likely as you claim.

[rogerjonesgloves]

I dont think you understand football Yeti, if a pro club produce one player per season from the academy, that is classed as outstanding, indeed Everton did it for 10 years or so in a row and by far the most successful of our Prem clubs, The Man U youth team, ala Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, and the two Nevilles was an exception as was the Rovers youth team of the 60s (Newton, England, Pickering etc.

A manager is judged on results and in the majority of situations, has to find a quick fix, rarely does a manger stay at a club long enough to bear the fruits of his labours via the Academy, Wenger and Fergusen apart, 3 to four years is the maximum time a manager will stay at a club, if successful, they move on, unsuccessful, get sacked.

And when the sky money reduces all those who run at 90% are screwed.So you say jump on the merry-go-round until you are too dizzy to care or spat out the side. managers come and go, stability and a business plan that a manager is judged by in addition to results is the way we have to go. Success for us is Premier League stability, not europe/cups/Championships, the league Cup was a bonus.

We can compare every time we stay in the PL to MU winning or be runners up in the Premier League. It is our reasonable target.

[yeti-dog]

I dont think you understand football Yeti, if a pro club produce one player per season from the academy, that is classed as outstanding, indeed Everton did it for 10 years or so in a row and by far the most successful of our Prem clubs, The Man U youth team, ala Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, and the two Nevilles was an exception as was the Rovers youth team of the 60s (Newton, England, Pickering etc.

A manager is judged on results and in the majority of situations, has to find a quick fix, rarely does a manger stay at a club long enough to bear the fruits of his labours via the Academy, Wenger and Fergusen apart, 3 to four years is the maximum time a manager will stay at a club, if successful, they move on, unsuccessful, get sacked.

I think I understand enough thanks Kelbo.

A decent academy can enable a manager not to always have to go out and seek a "quck fix" to use your own words.When a quick fix equates to Bejani on a free then clearly this concept is a busted flush.

There are plenty of clubs that follow the model reasonably successful. Throwing out the Utd example(which was I agree an exception),doesn't necessarily disprove smaller scale examples by the way.

Also,remember I didn't suggest it would be solely sustained by an academy..clever buying needs to exist alongside it.

[keaney23]

Philip one question, How come you know all of this and the national media dont. We know if the media had a sniff at this and outing venkys into their stupidity well the media would simply jump all over it

[den]

It can be done Den...it's not easy,it takes balls and foresight,a top-notch scouting team and a fully functioning academy. You may well be right about the academy not paying for itself but I attribute much of this to periods when it was allowed to churn out mediocrity. You don't need too many Phil Jones' to be self-sufficent.

Rovers had one of the first, and one of the best academies yeti. Thing is, the other big clubs - as they always do - have come in and bettered us. They no doubt invest more in their academies and scouting systems, than we spend on incoming transfers for the first team squad.

Bottom line is, if we accept that the academy has made little, or indeed any profit since it's been in existence, then to bring it into bigger profit would take even more money. That money would have to come from the already inadequate transfer budget. We really can't put more cash into gambling on youth, while at the same time spending more cash on the transfer budget. We don't have the funds to do both.

IMO.

[tony gale's mic]

I think I understand enough thanks Kelbo.

A decent academy can enable a manager not to always have to go out and seek a "quck fix" to use your own words.When a quick fix equates to Bejani on a free then clearly this concept is a busted flush.

There are plenty of clubs that follow the model reasonably successful. Throwing out the Utd example(which was I agree an exception),doesn't necessarily disprove smaller scale examples by the way.

Also,remember I didn't suggest it would be solely sustained by an academy..clever buying needs to exist alongside it.

When your Academy player starts performing regularly in the first team, is noticed as a top prospect and comes to sign his five year contract, do you think he'll be happy to get wages considerably lower than most first team players at other clubs get? Or do you think he's going to demand the sort of wages that most mid table players pay their first team regulars?

Paying the wages we did was unavoidable. Trying to be like Blackpool with your wage bill in this league is a lot less sustainable than having wages 80-90% of turnover. I'm sure you can list players who we have paid a bit too much in wages to, but thats just the nature of the beast. It's not as if we were like West Ham with a string of bad/permacrocked players on £50k plus a week.

[leerovers1980]

In the nature of these things, the sale is going to look very uncertain/unlikely until virtually the moment it is announced. I am not putting any %ages on it not least because there might just be an Indian concern talking to Venky's over in Pune which could be a more attractive exit to Venky's than the Bugshans.

If we are sold, it is a huge leap into the unknown.

If we are not sold, we will be relegated this season

... you asked my opinion.

what utter tripe you think your god or something, how can you say we would be relegated are you mystic meg as well, we have a better squad than the teams that came up and a great youth system, also look what Bolton did last season with the debt there in, I accept things aren't great right now but to come out with the line we will be relegated is utterly stupid and naive of you, weren't you the same person who said syed was going to buy us also , I take what you say with a pinch of salt its like your on a gender to put are club down at any opportunity you get, maybe its best if you kept your rubbish to yourself until you can give proof, everyone is buying into what you are saying and that ain't fare on everyone, I don't think you know as much as you come out with and most of it you try and put two an two together and hope that its right

[yeti-dog]

Rubbish.

Those "semi past it, distinctly average" footballers got us to heights no other club in the country with our revenue streams managed. I'm referring to the time from Hughes onwards btw, not 94/95. They must have been doing something right? Even EHD was instrumental in the fight against the drop when Allardyce signed him, although the following season he was dross. Comparing us to clubs in Europe is null and void. The economy Ligue 1 and Bundesliga clubs operate in is entirely different to ours. They compete with other clubs whose only option is to break even, whereas almost half of our league now can afford to effectively run at a big loss - though this might change soon with the new rules. How would you have done things differently then? Paid lower wages than the vast majority of the rest of the league? Or found some magical way to increase our turnover?

You say "a thriving academy" like it's such an easy thing to achieve. How many great players has Liverpool's famed academy fired off since the class of Gerrard/Owen/Carragher etc? Having a thriving academy is extremely tough when you've got so many clubs nearby who are competing for the same set of young players locally, and several massive clubs nearby who can scour the globe for the world's best young talent in ways which we can't.

That said, the current crop of young players which have come through (Jones, Olsson, Hoilett, Hanley) together with the likes of Josh Morris came through when we were being run by the previous regime, so it's another indication that's yet another thing they were getting very right, though this did take a fair amount of time.

Like I said, likely fifth top ten finish in six years, with several saleable assets in the team to generate revenue for further players - even taking into account the possibility of having to set aside a few million to cover budget holes every now and then. A club with a reputation for finding bargains under successive managers (admittedly with the odd blemish) which seems to indicate that the structure in place at the club with regards to JW and the scouting team etc was excellent. Attendances increasing year on year despite the bleatings about the managers' style, and although gate receipts were lower due to the ST prices increasing the fanbase was very healthy for the club. A successive string of managerial appointments who were excellent for the club, Ince excluded. Some debt but nothing like the levels of debt our peers have, especially if you take into account clubs who had money ploughed into them effectively run at a loss.

Would it have definitely ended in tears? I'm not as foolish as to say "definitely not" like you were to claim we definitely were. But considering the only time we were even remotely close to it "ending in tears" was during the Ince tenure, I don't think it was anywhere near as likely as you claim.

You know what TGM I'd love to say it's nice to have you back but it isn't so I can't.

Just a suggestion,if you genuinely do want to debate issues it might help if you don't arrogantly preface all your posts when responding to

peoples thoughts with "Rubbish", "Absolute rubbish" etc as you've just done with me and exiled.

Just because people see things differently to you doesn't make their thoughts rubbish.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Wages at 80-90%of turnover is sustainable.

No it isn't because the playing assets depreciate (get old, injured, crap or all three in our case) and need to be replaced, and you need free cash-flow to do that, which at that level of turnover can only come from selling the best players. It only worked for a while because of one man - Mark Hughes.

[tony gale's mic]

You know what TGM I'd love to say it's nice to have you back but it isn't so I can't.

Just a suggestion,if you genuinely do want to debate issues it might help if you don't arrogantly preface all your posts when responding to

peoples thoughts with "Rubbish", "Absolute rubbish" etc as you've just done with me and exiled.

Just because people see things differently to you doesn't make their thoughts rubbish.

A quick copy and paste job into Word counted 503 words in that post.

Yet you very oddly chose to focus on just one word.

How very strange.

If I say you are talking rubbish then proceed to justify exactly why I think you're talking rubbish, then that's perfectly defensible. I tell my best friends when I think they're talking rubbish too. I tell my girlfriend when she's talking rubbish (sometimes).

If you don't want to debate the topic at hand, then that's your prerogative. But there's absolutely no need for the abuse yeti, there's a good boy.

[den]

No it isn't because the playing assets depreciate (get old, injured, crap or all three in our case) and need to be replaced, and you need free cash-flow to do that, which at that level of turnover can only come from selling the best players. It only worked for a while because of one man - Mark Hughes.

If you buy first division players, you'll get first division football.

Your argument is flawed by arguing that all players lose value. They don't.

[Exiled in Toronto]

You know what TGM I'd love to say it's nice to have you back but it isn't so I can't.

Just a suggestion,if you genuinely do want to debate issues it might help if you don't arrogantly preface all your posts when responding to

peoples thoughts with "Rubbish", "Absolute rubbish" etc as you've just done with me and exiled.

Just because people see things differently to you doesn't make their thoughts rubbish.

Don't worry, he'll soon be gone again

[imy9]

If you fancy a debate on this Imy then it will have to go to a non footballing thread, but I am beginning to understand your credulity regarding our current owners.

Jesus VERY VERY PROBABLY did exist. However, it is not possible to disprove the theory that he was a figure fabricated by Paul, we don't really have any primary source material from before this time, apart from the purely hypothetical source Q. That there was no historical Jesus is a very unlikely scenario, but these other sources you refer to (I hope you are not ignorant enough to be refering to the notorius Josephus forgery) all have later dates than the gospels and Paul's letters and therfore in no way whatsoever prove the existence of Jesus.

Anyway - yes Philp's posts should be treated with some caution. But it is far less a work of fiction than say for example the gospel according to John. The posters original point is a valid one. We have to base our assumptions on the evidence available to us - but nothing can be proved. Of course much of what anyone posts is based on their interpretation of the evidence.

Your refusal to believe that the Club is falling apart is based on what exactly? Blind faith?

Firstly the bloke existed- his importance and what he did can be questioned.

The club is on a downward spiral but I chose not to believe the word of a person who only yesterday was telling us that Venkys workers were crying for help via a Nazi symbol on a sign lol.

Give it 6 weeks and I expect Phillip to come on here and tell us that the sale fell through because of an unknown factor and that there were 10 people looking to sell the club etc etc.

Anyway each to their own I've made my point.