[Archived] Quick Poll: Venky's Takeover. Yes or No - Part II - The Return

[Glenn]

Back on Nov 2010 we ran a poll asking whether The Trust should sell to Venkys and 44% believed they should (and thanks to Waggy for bumping the old thread to give me an idea for this poll)

Now, I'm not going to do a follow up poll on "Are you happy now" or anything similar, as it's pretty obvious the vast majority of people feel we're in a far far worse state.

So I'll frame the question slightly differently. "Were the trust right in taking a chance on Venky's, rather than have us stagnate and slowly decline"

NOTE: UNLIKE OTHER POLLS WE RUN, THIS IS A PUBLIC POLL, WHICH MEANS OTHERS CAN SEE HOW YOU VOTED!

[Sandiway Blue]

NOTE: UNLIKE OTHER POLLS WE RUN, THIS IS A PUBLIC POLL, WHICH MEANS OTHERS CAN SEE HOW YOU VOTED!

Go on then,i`ll be first for the firing line!

[Glenn]

I've wanted to try the option for a while to see how people react

[Kelbo]

Glenn,

I think the question is slightly loaded, there were reports that if Rovers hadnt have been sold, the Trust would have looked at other ways at financing the club, so maybe the question 'slowly decline' under the Trust may not be relevent,could it perhaps be reworded as I cant really answer any of the three questions!!

[Tom]

I've voted maybe purely because there is still a 1% chance things could be turned around.

That means I am 99% sure this has been the wrong decision though apart from the fact the trust got what they ultimately wanted - the cash.

[philipl]

Agreed the wording is a bit loaded but there can be no argument that anyone is being misty-eyed voting for the third (no) option.

I asked for the question to be posed whether Venky's purchase had been positive for the club. That would have been 99% no!

[Glenn]

I did load it a little, in an attempt to make it a little more interesting.

We know 99% of the fans think Venky's are doing a poor job, a poll on that would be pointless and this would just be another spleen venting thread. So I thought that changing it to"were the trust right to take a chance (even if it didn't pay off)" may generate debate rather than people pitchfork waving.

[Clitherover]

No, no, no 100% NO!

How has Imy managed to vote 4 times btw?

[Exiled in Toronto]

I'm a definite maybe, while many can and do speculate on an hourly basis, no-one knows how this will end.

The Trust were determined to sell, the question is did they put in sufficient effort to check they were selling to the right people who were buying for the right reasons. I for one was surprised that their inital decision to sell was even within their remit, but when those tasked with the stewardship of something that had been close to a dead man's heart decide to sell it, then it becomes just goods and chattels to the buyer. They knew that.

[imy9]

No, no, no 100% NO!

How has Imy managed to vote 4 times btw?

Have I? Can't tell I'm using my iPhone, only voted once however.

Maybe option for me at the moment- am still praying that things will change for the better.

[Clitherover]

Have I? Can't tell I'm using my iPhone, only voted once however.

Maybe option for me at the moment- am still praying that things will change for the better.

I'm only jesting mate, perhaps I should have put an emoticon at the end.

[rebelmswar]

I can't decide, all the answers are...... wrong.

"I believed in a fairy tale and am now living a nightmare" would be my choice.

[John]

Don't think the wording is correct so can't vote...

[Glenn]

Added an "other" option, but please tell us why .....

[yoda]

Added an "other" option, but please tell us why .....

I voted other because I think the trust should have insisted that the new owners pay off the debt and not service it.

They should also have include better protection for key employees

[Miker]

Other, because it wasn't really a choice. The Trust wanted to sell and they did all they could to sell to the best owners they could find. Unfortunately, their decision has proved to be horribly wrong so far. However, I have always believed that Venky's had good intentions with the club, but due to a series of high-profile mistakes, their ownership of the club has now culminated in a huge mess that has seen our plans (if we had any) go up in smoke, surrounded by a media circus like I've never seen before.

I don't think our position would be much different under the Trust currently. The only difference would be that we'd have a decent manager in charge, rather than a numpty. The last budget we had under the trust we only signed Benjani on a free and Mame Diouf on loan. Not great. Not an excuse for Venky's not to do anything though. Time is running out fast and we desperately need signings. With Diouf and Kalinic leaving, we will be in big trouble. That'll make it 7 first teamers gone. Even if we're counting Rochina, Formica, Anderson and Blackman as their replacements, we'd still be about 3 players short...

[philipl]

I voted other because I think the trust should have insisted that the new owners pay off the debt and not service it.

They should also have include better protection for key employees

The Trust insisted the debt be aid off and indeed it was removed from Rovers.

But it turned up on Venky's London secured against Rovers assets then Venky's took out a completely new debt for Rovers secured against Rovers income.

[chris]

I could never vote for NO its like saying I'm happy being a loser.

Maybe

[Paul]

NOTE: UNLIKE OTHER POLLS WE RUN, THIS IS A PUBLIC POLL, WHICH MEANS OTHERS CAN SEE HOW YOU VOTED!

Are you sure about that? I can't see how anyone voted .....................I was NO

[PAFELL]

The Trust insisted the debt be aid off and indeed it was removed from Rovers.

But it turned up on Venky's London secured against Rovers assets then Venky's took out a completely new debt for Rovers secured against Rovers income.

Would this be in breach of the sale agreement? Could it be open to a legal challenge.

Are you sure about that? I can't see how anyone voted .....................I was NO

Glad I am not the only one who cannot see how others voted

[Teacup]

No from me. As far as I am concerned, Venky's have so far showed a complete lack respect to the fans and football in general. In hindsight, I don't think the Trust would of sold us if they knew what we know now.

However, we are stuck with them and they are stuck with us. I just hope they sort out their communication issues which seem to be their biggest problem.

[Kelbo]

I have voted 'Other' as it was widely reported at the time that if no sale was agreed, the trust were to have found other ways of financing the club.

This for me would have been the favoured option, for at least we would have been looked after by sensible owners and more importantly, run day to day with an experienced and respected board and management team ( although we didnt know this at the time,

or that they would sack Allardyce)

[Glenn]

Glad I am not the only one who cannot see how others voted

It took me a while to spot it too, just above each of the voting graphs bars, next to the percentage, is a tiny tiny "view" link.

[chaddyrovers]

No from me. As far as I am concerned, Venky's have so far showed a complete lack respect to the fans and football in general. In hindsight, I don't think the Trust would of sold us if they know what we know now.

I agree with this comment. It is why I voted no.

The Walker's were lied to by the Venky's brothers about their plans.

I wish now that the Walker's family had kept hold of us because at the moment we have no leadership on or off the field.

I believe they were other better offers on the table from other bidders after Venky's had agreed a price with the Walker's family, but the Walker's family kept their word and agreement to Venky's. Bet they didn't now tho!!!

[Teacup]

It took me a while to spot it too, just above each of the voting graphs bars, next to the percentage, is a tiny tiny "view" link.