[Archived] Venky's willing to sell?

[philipl]

Just out of interest, has anybody- Steve Kean, Paul Hunt, Karen Silk, Glen Mullan, Wayne Wild - anybody talked to a real Rao/Dessai recently?

Thought not.

[darrenrover]

Just out of interest, has anybody- Steve Kean, Paul Hunt, Karen Silk, Glen Mullan, Wayne Wild - anybody talked to a real Rao/Dessai recently?

Thought not.

Philipl first off I'm with you. Total mistrust of everybody associated with the club and suspicious of everybody's motives that surround it.

How crap is that?

We're all squabbling amongst ourselves for differing reasons or point scoring, FFS let's bin it all, take a step back and think.

All in my opinion but these are my views for what they are worth

1. Nothing is going to change this season with regards to Venkys ownership. Who can blame them, current Championship value, go down same applies, stay up Premier League premium applies.

2. I know where I'd rather BRFC would be come next August and that is competing with Man U as opposed to an East Lancs derby.

3. Whilst I hope that Wayne Wilds and Dan Grescos (and I sincerely hope not BRAGS) proposals are totally honourable, I regretfully consider them as a none starter. I think the effort (not PR, they would never be a salesperson for me!) is fantastic and to be commended. If they were looking for £15 million from 100,000 committed fans over a period, ably supported by a suitably committed bank with regards to working capital requirements, they may have a chance. In any event hats off and I wish them luck.

4. Nobody knows what the Ians have in place but I suspect they won't be chasing Venkys any more but will be ready, willing and able should they receive a call!

Finally, is it not about time all us Rovers fans regained respect for one another as we always used to have rather than trying to knock spots off each other.

We are all entitled to our opinions but I cannot believe the animosity currently amongst kindred spirit. FFS let's all have a think and look inward!

[Paul]

Yeah, apparently it is a £49m tax dispute (Scottish or English pounds?? ) but I was unaware it was over the wage taxation. You are right though, it seems HMRC is the one the football clubs don't want to pay. I don't understand that - do owners think they won't have to pay? Why are things just done above board, full disclosure? Then you don't have any problems!

While it is far less true today than in years passed HMRC was something of a "soft option" for a business in trouble. These days the revenue are very tough people to deal with as governments of either hue look to bring in as much tax as possible. I should stress the revenue was never easy but was the payment which could be delayed with the least impact on daily business.

To take a Rovers related example who would you pay first - the beer and pie supplier or HMRC? Tax payments are delayed by financially stressed businesses as its probably the only creditor that does not supply goods or services. Clearly when cash is short the taxman is low on the list.

Daniel can I ask one question re your proposal? You may have answered this already. At present, as i understand it, supporters would be asked to place money and faith in Wayne Wild, yourself and possibly BRAG. For me that would be difficult as I have, in financial terms, zero knowledge of the collective ability to handle the proposal.

To place my £1000 in to BRFC I would need to see a convincing board of directors who could demonstrate a meaningful track record BEFORE I made my donation. How would this be approached and surely it would be a chicken and egg situation?

With respect it's going to take a lot to convince supporters there are people in the plan who can be trusted, in a financial sense, with my £1000

[dave birch]

Paul, Dan partly answered that point a while back to me.

The whole thing would have to be put up in a document that will have to pass certain criteria.

For instance (in Australia) you need to have a prospectus stating what you are doing, the risks attached and what the outcomes are to be. There's probably a heap more, such as who is running it and why, as well.

For my part, I think what has been put out is a bit of a "tester", to judge any potential market, to iron out any potential problems.

To me, this is a start.

It would show that people are concerned enough to consider such a course of action. I'd guess that the thought processes in this proposal are more focussed and are more aware of the potential problems than the Venkys and their advisers were a little over twelve months ago.

My thoughts are, in the absence of any other proposal, we should run with this, and see where it takes us.

To those that might disagree with me, fair enough, but don't just come on and "pooh pooh" the idea. Bring your own solution. Put that up for public comment.

[ABBEY]

Paefell your not singled out .your the one who gives it but can't take it tho.

[Roost]

Oh ! oh!

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

While it is far less true today than in years passed HMRC was something of a "soft option" for a business in trouble. These days the revenue are very tough people to deal with as governments of either hue look to bring in as much tax as possible. I should stress the revenue was never easy but was the payment which could be delayed with the least impact on daily business.

To take a Rovers related example who would you pay first - the beer and pie supplier or HMRC? Tax payments are delayed by financially stressed businesses as its probably the only creditor that does not supply goods or services. Clearly when cash is short the taxman is low on the list.

Daniel can I ask one question re your proposal? You may have answered this already. At present, as i understand it, supporters would be asked to place money and faith in Wayne Wild, yourself and possibly BRAG. For me that would be difficult as I have, in financial terms, zero knowledge of the collective ability to handle the proposal.

To place my £1000 in to BRFC I would need to see a convincing board of directors who could demonstrate a meaningful track record BEFORE I made my donation. How would this be approached and surely it would be a chicken and egg situation?

With respect it's going to take a lot to convince supporters there are people in the plan who can be trusted, in a financial sense, with my £1000

With regards to avoiding taxation - it is simply illegal, as has been shown many many times as HMRC have become more aggressive. It has been suggested, for example, that the Rangers situation is simply a method of erasing a legitimate tax liability by winding up the current entity and starting a new one - under the assumption that in the winding up, that debt would be erased, and that the new entity could take over the club's registration with the ten point deduction, still finish second in the league and be playing European football next year...while this is a stretch, it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility, and it highlights how the people that run football clubs, in general, feel that they do not have to operate under the same rules and regulations as other business industries, even though they enjoy the same advantages that their PLC or private ltd. company status provides them, such as personal liability protections, etc. It is not honest, and it stinks.

I realize that "that's just the way things work" but it is the average citizen that suffers when these tens and hundreds of millions go missing - and the government has to try and find those moneys somewhere else to maintain their budgets and programs that many many citizens enjoy and benefit from. How do they then find that? Well on the long term they have very few real options - be much more aggressive in enforcing their legitimate taxes through court actions, which in themselves cost the tax payers extra money - Write legislation that curbs the ability of Company's to do things like this, which also has the effect of making it less attractive to do business in the country, and thus can have a negative economic effect, which just exacerbates the problem and punishes all the companies and industries that are paying their tax bills - or they can instead raise taxes in other areas, such as VAT, income tax, capital gains, etc...but that then punishes the private citizen for the sins of large corporate entities and can also lead to a negative economic impact. Definitely not an easy choice of action, but my personal view is that more aggressive collection action would be the way to go. In addition to this I would also advocate much harder penalties for football clubs. Any regular company would have to start from scratch...why should a new Club bearing the same or similar name have any right to a place in the same league or even league system as the one that just died?

In any case, on to your question about where the money goes and who you are putting your faith in. You would not be putting your money or your faith in either Mr. Wild or myself. We are just offering up this proposal as a way to save the club in the event of the worst happening.

I feel that it should work something like this: You would give your money to a frozen escrow-type account in the stewardship if the supporters' trust entity (and I would be delighted if that entity could be the BRST which is already in existence). They already have a hierarchy in place for that entity. They would act as Trustees of that account, and the money would then as said be frozen until a purchase event triggered its release to the Club for the purpose of being set up as an investment fund which would be wholly owned by the club and recorded as a cash injection of shareholder's paid-in capital. The document produced for prospective shareholders in the trust would outline the intent of the Trust to re-establish a proven and capable BoD for the Club, and the intent of the supporters' Trust to run the club via its Executive Committee, which would be elected by the shareholders - just like any other company runs. In the event of a failure to gain control of the club, there would be a memorandum vote by the shareholders to either keep the money in escrow to make a continued attempts by working with other groups or explore other options to achieve the goals, or to liquidate the account and return all funds back to the shareholders with interest and minus bank fees

This also addresses the comments made about who would stand for the fit and proper persons test, which, with respect seem a bit more like goading than anything else, as it is not a valid concern. All companies have shareholders, whether it is one or a million, and none of the shareholders ever stand for scrutiny in that fashion, nor do any of them run the company/organization. Instead companies are run by BoD's approved by a majority of the shareholders, who also can influence their replacement and policy, it is not some kind of new concept. Venkys are run the the same way, but were their thousand of shareholders put up to the fit and proper persons test? Of course not, their Chairperson was.

Back to your question, though Paul - Wayne and I don't even come into the equation, and neither does BRAG, except as hopefully common shareholders in the supporters' organization. That's it. We are just trying to come up with a solution that would save the club in a worst case scenario and that would in that event be able to achieve a supporter owned and controlled Rovers, which would ensure that the Club would not be run with the intention of fleecing it for profit or other monetary gain. I can't stress enough that nobody has eyes on rising to a position of power or influence through this initiative at all.

I also would like the opportunity to address concerns raised about self-promotion and self-importance. I feel it is impossible for there not to be some element of that whenever someone puts themselves out there for public scrutiny in the fashion that Wayne and myself, and Glen and whoever else have done, or have had their motivations questioned in this way. The simple reason is because people ask questions about who these people are, they are forced to explain themselves. No matter how they do this or what they say, there is going to be a lot of people that will not have anything good to say about how it is done If someone is too self-depricating and humble, one comes off as pretentious and false. If one touts their qualifications and history like a CV, they are branded as arrogant or full of self importance. It is an impossible task to satisfy everyone's sensibilities about what is an appropriate level of humble honesty and reporting of one's qualifications and/or skills and knowledge, even though if they do not do this they come under even more suspicion and resentment. I feel that a lot of unfounded personal resentment comes from this fact. It is not jealousy, I am not saying that at all, I am saying that it is more of a "who do you think you are?" attitude. For my part, I absolutely do not feel like I am any better or more entitled to my opinion than anyone else, and hope that I don't come across that way. What I am saying is that it is really a frustrating expenditure of time and effort responding to commentary that is at best uninformed and at worst inflammatory and baiting.

DarrenRover said it best when he wrote that we need to regain respect for each other and realize that we all want the same thing. PAFELL and others like him are equally entitled to their opinions, and I am happy to discuss things with them, but I would also hope that they take the time to read my responses and come back with reasons for rejecting my answers with the same specificity and detail that I provide instead of one line dismissals with no alternative interpretation of the data presented.

[Paul]

Thanks Dave and Dan

[OscarRaven]

Are you of the opinion that this would have been much more well received if we were in the same position in the table at the end of March? Or would the plan and BRAG's support have been received in the same way? I know it is totally hypothetical, but I am truly curious as to people's opinion on that.

I wouldn't have gone public at all whilst there is any chance of us staying in the league. I accept these things take time and whilst they run in the background they can take thier time.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

I wouldn't have gone public at all whilst there is any chance of us staying in the league. I accept these things take time and whilst they run in the background they can take thier time.

Fully agree that this would have been ideal, but as the idea involves all the supporters world wide, it would be hard to run in the background and be ready to go unannounced until after the season is over, don't you agree? Tough situation!

[47er]

I think somebody getting warm. I wondered when somebody would think that way when I saw the post earlier today.

The whole idea is hocus pocus stuff.

Maybe time for BRAG to go to Burnley & get them relegated

"Am I having digs at BRAG? No"

WTF

[ABBEY]

Forgive me if it's been asked but what happens if for example .. Everyone puts a grand in and the tax man knocks for 50million ? Does everyone expect a bailiffs knock?

[PAFELL]

Paefell your not singled out .your the one who gives it but can't take it tho.

All I have given out is my opinion. Also why I have that opinion.

So why don't you give your opinion about this plan. Do you think it will work, if so. Why.

If not why.

With regards BRAG others have also made comments. Have you replied to them?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Forgive me if it's been asked but what happens if for example .. Everyone puts a grand in and the tax man knocks for 50million ? Does everyone expect a bailiffs knock?

Ha ha ha, no. As in the case of Rangers, the PLC (or Private Ltd., but in Rovers case PLC) status means that the liability cannot be taken further than that entity, and especially not down to individual shareholder level. That is the reason people set up companies like this, and is essentially what the "limited" part of a company's title means, limited liability, as in the buck stops here.

This is why Barclay's for example, would try to make sure that Venkys aren't funneling money out of Rovers and over to another of their business entities. BRF&A PLC is the debtor, not the owners, currently Venkys.

[yoda]

Ha ha ha, no. As in the case of Rangers, the PLC (or Private Ltd., but in Rovers case PLC) status means that the liability cannot be taken further than that entity, and especially not down to individual shareholder level. That is the reason people set up companies like this, and is essentially what the "limited" part of a company's title means, limited liability, as in the buck stops here.

This is why Barclay's for example, would try to make sure that Venkys aren't funneling money out of Rovers and over to another of their business entities. BRF&A PLC is the debtor, not the owners, currently Venkys.

Unless mis-management can be established, then all bets are off!

[PAFELL]

With regards to avoiding taxation - it is simply illegal, as has been shown many many times as HMRC have become more aggressive. It has been suggested, for example, that the Rangers situation is simply a method of erasing a legitimate tax liability by winding up the current entity and starting a new one - under the assumption that in the winding up, that debt would be erased, and that the new entity could take over the club's registration with the ten point deduction, still finish second in the league and be playing European football next year...while this is a stretch, it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility, and it highlights how the people that run football clubs, in general, feel that they do not have to operate under the same rules and regulations as other business industries, even though they enjoy the same advantages that their PLC or private ltd. company status provides them, such as personal liability protections, etc. It is not honest, and it stinks.

I realize that "that's just the way things work" but it is the average citizen that suffers when these tens and hundreds of millions go missing - and the government has to try and find those moneys somewhere else to maintain their budgets and programs that many many citizens enjoy and benefit from. How do they then find that? Well on the long term they have very few real options - be much more aggressive in enforcing their legitimate taxes through court actions, which in themselves cost the tax payers extra money - Write legislation that curbs the ability of Company's to do things like this, which also has the effect of making it less attractive to do business in the country, and thus can have a negative economic effect, which just exacerbates the problem and punishes all the companies and industries that are paying their tax bills - or they can instead raise taxes in other areas, such as VAT, income tax, capital gains, etc...but that then punishes the private citizen for the sins of large corporate entities and can also lead to a negative economic impact. Definitely not an easy choice of action, but my personal view is that more aggressive collection action would be the way to go. In addition to this I would also advocate much harder penalties for football clubs. Any regular company would have to start from scratch...why should a new Club bearing the same or similar name have any right to a place in the same league or even league system as the one that just died?

In any case, on to your question about where the money goes and who you are putting your faith in. You would not be putting your money or your faith in either Mr. Wild or myself. We are just offering up this proposal as a way to save the club in the event of the worst happening.

I feel that it should work something like this: You would give your money to a frozen escrow-type account in the stewardship if the supporters' trust entity (and I would be delighted if that entity could be the BRST which is already in existence). They already have a hierarchy in place for that entity. They would act as Trustees of that account, and the money would then as said be frozen until a purchase event triggered its release to the Club for the purpose of being set up as an investment fund which would be wholly owned by the club and recorded as a cash injection of shareholder's paid-in capital. The document produced for prospective shareholders in the trust would outline the intent of the Trust to re-establish a proven and capable BoD for the Club, and the intent of the supporters' Trust to run the club via its Executive Committee, which would be elected by the shareholders - just like any other company runs. In the event of a failure to gain control of the club, there would be a memorandum vote by the shareholders to either keep the money in escrow to make a continued attempts by working with other groups or explore other options to achieve the goals, or to liquidate the account and return all funds back to the shareholders with interest and minus bank fees

This also addresses the comments made about who would stand for the fit and proper persons test, which, with respect seem a bit more like goading than anything else, as it is not a valid concern. All companies have shareholders, whether it is one or a million, and none of the shareholders ever stand for scrutiny in that fashion, nor do any of them run the company/organization. Instead companies are run by BoD's approved by a majority of the shareholders, who also can influence their replacement and policy, it is not some kind of new concept. Venkys are run the the same way, but were their thousand of shareholders put up to the fit and proper persons test? Of course not, their Chairperson was.

Back to your question, though Paul - Wayne and I don't even come into the equation, and neither does BRAG, except as hopefully common shareholders in the supporters' organization. That's it. We are just trying to come up with a solution that would save the club in a worst case scenario and that would in that event be able to achieve a supporter owned and controlled Rovers, which would ensure that the Club would not be run with the intention of fleecing it for profit or other monetary gain. I can't stress enough that nobody has eyes on rising to a position of power or influence through this initiative at all.

I also would like the opportunity to address concerns raised about self-promotion and self-importance. I feel it is impossible for there not to be some element of that whenever someone puts themselves out there for public scrutiny in the fashion that Wayne and myself, and Glen and whoever else have done, or have had their motivations questioned in this way. The simple reason is because people ask questions about who these people are, they are forced to explain themselves. No matter how they do this or what they say, there is going to be a lot of people that will not have anything good to say about how it is done If someone is too self-depricating and humble, one comes off as pretentious and false. If one touts their qualifications and history like a CV, they are branded as arrogant or full of self importance. It is an impossible task to satisfy everyone's sensibilities about what is an appropriate level of humble honesty and reporting of one's qualifications and/or skills and knowledge, even though if they do not do this they come under even more suspicion and resentment. I feel that a lot of unfounded personal resentment comes from this fact. It is not jealousy, I am not saying that at all, I am saying that it is more of a "who do you think you are?" attitude. For my part, I absolutely do not feel like I am any better or more entitled to my opinion than anyone else, and hope that I don't come across that way. What I am saying is that it is really a frustrating expenditure of time and effort responding to commentary that is at best uninformed and at worst inflammatory and baiting.

DarrenRover said it best when he wrote that we need to regain respect for each other and realize that we all want the same thing. PAFELL and others like him are equally entitled to their opinions, and I am happy to discuss things with them, but I would also hope that they take the time to read my responses and come back with reasons for rejecting my answers with the same specificity and detail that I provide instead of one line dismissals with no alternative interpretation of the data presented.

This is not a dig. But I do not need to go into lengthy detail for me to say I do not believe this plan will work.

How many words and sentences are required to say I do not believe the money would be raised by fans alone. People do not have the money to risk.

I cannot see the bank in todays climate, going aloong with a project that has never been done before. Ask local businessess who have tried to get loans or an extention of credit. Ask those who have lost jobs, because how banks have treated the businessess that these people worked for.

10mill is nowhere near enough money. I live in sussex, as do one or two on here. A clubdown here came up from league one last season, now in the championship. They have no debt. You would not be able to buy that club for 10mill. So what makes you or others think they could get the club for 10mill?

The whole plan is dependant on

1/ Relegation

2/ Venkys willing to sell the club cheaply, for as little as 10mill - which is unlikely.

3/ 10,000 fans putting in £1000. als0 unlikley. Not because of not wanting too, but unable to do so.

4/ Bank going along with an idea that has never been done before - not in this current financial climate

5/ Fit and proper test set by the the prem / football league - are they going to test the whole supporters.

6/ Lawyers would have a field day putting such plan together - costs a lot more than 10mill.

If the plan was for an amature club, then yes very possible. But not for a proffessional club.

"Am I having digs at BRAG? No"

WTF

That is called humour. But sadly totally beyond you.

[yoda]

This is not a dig. But I do not need to go into lengthy detail for me to say I do not believe this plan will work.

How many words and sentences are required to say I do not believe the money would be raised by fans alone. People do not have the money to risk.

I cannot see the bank in todays climate, going aloong with a project that has never been done before. Ask local businessess who have tried to get loans or an extention of credit. Ask those who have lost jobs, because how banks have treated the businessess that these people worked for.

10mill is nowhere near enough money. I live in sussex, as do one or two on here. A clubdown here came up from league one last season, now in the championship. They have no debt. You would not be able to buy that club for 10mill. So what makes you or others think they could get the club for 10mill?

The whole plan is dependant on

1/ Relegation

2/ Venkys willing to sell the club cheaply, for as little as 10mill - which is unlikely.

3/ 10,000 fans putting in £1000. als0 unlikley. Not because of not wanting too, but unable to do so.

4/ Bank going along with an idea that has never been done before - not in this current financial climate

5/ Fit and proper test set by the the prem / football league - are they going to test the whole supporters.

6/ Lawyers would have a field day putting such plan together - costs a lot more than 10mill.

If the plan was for an amature club, then yes very possible. But not for a proffessional club.

That is called humour. But sadly totally beyond you.

Sadly, you seem to be developing a complex

[47er]

BRAGS idea is dependant on Rovers going down. Well they must have cursed WBA yesterday. Their victory and Rovers the day before, took us out the bottom 3. BRAG's motives from now on will be questioned by many, even if it has not already been questioned.

More non-dig humour.

[dave birch]

This is not a dig. But I do not need to go into lengthy detail for me to say I do not believe this plan will work.

How many words and sentences are required to say I do not believe the money would be raised by fans alone. People do not have the money to risk.

I cannot see the bank in todays climate, going aloong with a project that has never been done before. Ask local businessess who have tried to get loans or an extention of credit. Ask those who have lost jobs, because how banks have treated the businessess that these people worked for.

10mill is nowhere near enough money. I live in sussex, as do one or two on here. A clubdown here came up from league one last season, now in the championship. They have no debt. You would not be able to buy that club for 10mill. So what makes you or others think they could get the club for 10mill?

The whole plan is dependant on

1/ Relegation

2/ Venkys willing to sell the club cheaply, for as little as 10mill - which is unlikely.

3/ 10,000 fans putting in £1000. als0 unlikley. Not because of not wanting too, but unable to do so.

4/ Bank going along with an idea that has never been done before - not in this current financial climate

5/ Fit and proper test set by the the prem / football league - are they going to test the whole supporters.

6/ Lawyers would have a field day putting such plan together - costs a lot more than 10mill.

If the plan was for an amature club, then yes very possible. But not for a proffessional club.

And your solution is?..........

It's easy to knock down something.

It takes guts and determination, a vision, to build .

Those that sit back and say it can't be done never achieve anything.

As my mother used to say "can't wont try"

[Sparky Marky]

Got to agree with Paffell. Seems like an awful lot of posturing and time being wasted on this. I wish I had Grabkos time to type such lengthy posts.

[BRFC95]

I wish I had Grabkos time to type such lengthy posts.

I wish I had the energy

[dave birch]

Got to agree with Paffell. Seems like an awful lot of posturing and time being wasted on this. I wish I had Grabkos time to type such lengthy posts.

What's your solution then?

[deryck guyler's spoon]

What's your solution then?

An unbelievable lack of respect for the lad's time and effort IMO. And you're correct, no alternatives suggested.

[bellamy11]

There seems to be a bit of a "Ashley Ward effect" happening here. People are commending energy spent running down blind alleys because at least it is a show of commitment. There seems to be an admirable amount of effort going into formulating these contingencies but if they simply aren't feasible what's the point? I'm probably in the minority who thinks work for work's sake is not a good use of time or emotion. People would argue that it's better than doing nothing but it's arguably worse.

When times are desperate, we draw comfort in the Ashley Wards because they've given it their all, and criticise the Nathan Blakes because they appeared not to care. The fact is - both are as useless as each other.

[dave birch]

There seems to be a bit of a "Ashley Ward effect" happening here. People are commending energy spent running down blind alleys because at least it is a show of commitment. There seems to be an admirable amount of effort going into formulating these contingencies but if they simply aren't feasible what's the point? I'm probably in the minority who thinks work for work's sake is not a good use of time or emotion. People would argue that it's better than doing nothing but it's arguably worse.

When times are desperate, we draw comfort in the Ashley Wards because they've given it their all, and criticise the Nathan Blakes because they appeared not to care. The fact is - both are as useless as each other.

So, you'll sit back and do nothing? Right?