[Archived] Venky's willing to sell?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

1329332302[/url]' post='1226152']If we have 15,000 season ticket holders paying an average assumed price of £500 per ticket (I think this is top side) generates an annual income of £7.5 million against a current annual wage bill of £43 million plus.

I cannot really understand the lengthy debates regarding the status of The Venky organisation, its worth, value in rupees, US dollars, £ sterling or whatever currency's relevance. What is relevant is for whatever reason(and I do not think we have helped our own cause)little money has been forthcoming to BRFC.

Its a big ask of any benefactor, never mind a woman scorned. IMO food for thought.

You are absolutely right, and the dire thing is that it is even worse. We currently have a wage bill that might top £50m this year and total match day revenue last year was £5.5m! Barely 10% of the wage bill! THAT is food for thought.

I also agree with you that the whole valuation thing is a side show distraction to the real issues and problems.

[Ozz]

We have sold or paid off Roberts, Andrews, Emerton, Nelsen, Kalinic, Jones. (Did I miss anyone??)

I assume Michel will be off anytime soon, certainly looks like he wont play another game.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

1329338515[/url]' post='1226165']

I assume Michel will be off anytime soon, certainly looks like he wont play another game.

True! Depending on the timing of hus departure though, we'd probably only save £300-500k there...

[Athlete]

Perhaps that's part of the trouble, Baz. Have they ever had to deal with a large group of dissatisfied customers?

when are we going to win the league under Venkys ? rovers mum ?

we arent dissatisfied with the above but everything venkys have done, said , etc since they bought the club !

[roversmum]

Depends which league you're looking at...

[Athlete]

Depends which league you're looking at...

sorry couldnt rsist that one

but in all seriousness we are in a weird situation at the moment

[Miker]

Just to quickly clarify (my browser stuffed up and lost my post so I can't bother re-writing), in my posts I am not talking about fans, I am talking about them obtaining respect and authority of people working at or involved with the club.

Their relationship with the fans is a whole different matter.

However, the question has to be what happened? Ian Battersby said something very telling in his interview with the LT a few months ago where he said they were being offered advice from too many places and didn't know who to trust. I think that's the chief reason for regaining authority.

[47er]

No doubt the daft policies did happen before protests. But much of that I put down to a certain agent and advisors at the time. But the sad reality is venkys have dug their heals in. They will not be dictated to by anybody.

Neither will Assad, but should the Syrian people go home and not bother? Same goes for Egypt with Moubarak (now on trial). Should people just put up with a dictator who digs in?

Or should they proceed on the basis that all dictators hold this position but they don't survive forever?

[darrenrover]

Neither will Assad, but should the Syrian people go home and not bother? Same goes for Egypt with Moubarak (now on trial). Should people just put up with a dictator who digs in?

Or should they proceed on the basis that all dictators hold this position but they don't survive forever?

I despair at the analogy.

Ken Furphy's Blue and White army!

Who? Was the cry from the masses. Exactly........

[47er]

I despair at the analogy.

because you are unable to discern the general principle involved in both.

[BuckyRover]

Neither will Assad, but should the Syrian people go home and not bother? Same goes for Egypt with Moubarak (now on trial). Should people just put up with a dictator who digs in?

Or should they proceed on the basis that all dictators hold this position but they don't survive forever?

Shocking analogy. I thought you said you were a former teacher?

Hope you didn't teach history

[47er]

Shocking analogy. I thought you said you were a former teacher?

Hope you didn't teach history

Its not a shocking analogy at all. The general principle iI'm trying to get across is that countless people have adopted obdurate positions and others have despaired of ever moving them on.

Yet, in the end they nearly always do move on when the opposition doesn't give up. Imo we should continue to maintain a hostile atmosphere against the Raos and continue create the conditions in which they don't want to remain. It may have already reached that point for all we know.

This is not the quick process we all hoped for but it will succeed in the end.

The alternative is to cuddle up to them in the pathetic hope they will treat us better. Again,imo, they will see that merely as a sign of weakness.

That's what history has taught me Bucky. And, re the constant references to my former status as a teacher, don't feel inferior, I'll still talk to you.

[Baz]

Just to quickly clarify (my browser stuffed up and lost my post so I can't bother re-writing), in my posts I am not talking about fans, I am talking about them obtaining respect and authority of people working at or involved with the club.

Their relationship with the fans is a whole different matter.

However, the question has to be what happened? Ian Battersby said something very telling in his interview with the LT a few months ago where he said they were being offered advice from too many places and didn't know who to trust. I think that's the chief reason for regaining authority.

I would say your point about CEO's is still wrong however. A CEO should listen to those experts within each department (especially if new to that industry) and make an informed decision on that basis. If they are to listen to those people and set off on a different route, then that is obviously their call, but it does not make IMO a good CEO. Being told different things by different people does not constitute a reason for going into hiding or needing to re-ascertain authority rather than the need to dig deeper into each argument until you can make an informed decision. Indecision is in many cases worse than making a wrong decision and correcting it when it is proven wrong. In this case maybe they should have listened to those who were proven succesful in making the decisions rather than listening to those in those who could make a massive financial gain from said same decisions. Whatever else, if the situation is to get any better, decisions need to be made, as if things continue as they have done for the past 12 months, then they will own a business in or nearing oblivion and with a much lower resale value than what they may have paid.

[Baz]

Perhaps that's part of the trouble, Baz. Have they ever had to deal with a large group of dissatisfied customers?

Venkys busineses are primarily Business to Business (apart from the much more recent Xpress venture) and not Business to consumer, so yes it probably has some bearing. Thats why they should be more in contact with the fans than ever, basically ignoring and cutting off communication with the fans is the worst possible acion they could have taken IMO.

A quick poll on here to ask current season ticket holders if they intended to renew for next season ,even if in Premier League, would no doubt prove that.

[BuckyRover]

Its not a shocking analogy at all. The general principle iI'm trying to get across is that countless people have adopted obdurate positions and others have despaired of ever moving them on.

Yet, in the end they nearly always do move on when the opposition doesn't give up. Imo we should continue to maintain a hostile atmosphere against the Raos and continue create the conditions in which they don't want to remain. It may have already reached that point for all we know.

This is not the quick process we all hoped for but it will succeed in the end.

The alternative is to cuddle up to them in the pathetic hope they will treat us better. Again,imo, they will see that merely as a sign of weakness.

That's what history has taught me Bucky. And, re the constant references to my former status as a teacher, don't feel inferior, I'll still talk to you.

Im sorry for talking about your career, im sure you did a good job. I just think the comparison is crass.

[EgyptianPete]

Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but hasn't the Venky business epxanded greatly under the children? The father died quite some time ago. To suggest they are playboys/girls running their father's business into the ground is wide of the mark.

It is, I am sure written that Mrs Deasi is the brains behind the success, how many posts on various fans forums have there been about the playboy image of one particular brother who won't give his toy OUR CLUB up, so yes I agree they have been successful but I would say it's down mainly to one lady. Having said all that I don't think I said they were running their fathers business into the ground, just our club unfortunately, why cock us up ????

[EgyptianPete]

I despair at the analogy.

Ken Furphy's Blue and White army!

Who? Was the cry from the masses. Exactly........

Off topic a bit regarding Ken Furphy but I remember him well back in the 70's, a better wheeler dealer than good old arry. :blush:

[Miker]

I would say your point about CEO's is still wrong however. A CEO should listen to those experts within each department (especially if new to that industry) and make an informed decision on that basis. If they are to listen to those people and set off on a different route, then that is obviously their call, but it does not make IMO a good CEO. Being told different things by different people does not constitute a reason for going into hiding or needing to re-ascertain authority rather than the need to dig deeper into each argument until you can make an informed decision. Indecision is in many cases worse than making a wrong decision and correcting it when it is proven wrong. In this case maybe they should have listened to those who were proven succesful in making the decisions rather than listening to those in those who could make a massive financial gain from said same decisions. Whatever else, if the situation is to get any better, decisions need to be made, as if things continue as they have done for the past 12 months, then they will own a business in or nearing oblivion and with a much lower resale value than what they may have paid.

Agreed, baz. I think at the moment there may be a lot of things for them to deal with at the club (and I'm happy to say they were of their own making), and that's not even taking into account that they have over 100 other businesses to look after and their own families and various community projects.

So how they will deal with that situation is anyone's guess, but they are obviously not happy to just throw money at their problems and let others make the decisions.

[Glenn]

The important thing for me is that the Rao family was communicating DIRECTLY with fans (Fans Forum and the two Ians), but this has now stopped.

The mistake for me is that people thought that the chance to open dialogue with them was a chance to dictate to them what they should do. Authority is important at any business and this authority was already being undermined by stories of their incompetency, to allow fans to dictate business matters would be even worse. I can't imagine the CEO of any business being happy to allow that to happen, so Mrs D has rightly grabbed the bull by the horns and is now showing that she's the boss. In my view, she has to regain respect and authority before anything else happens. They won't sell.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now, but Miker is dead on the money on this. It's an action that seems alien, destructive, counter intuitive and just plain insane to us, but that's exactly how it seems to me. They won't be bullied or bought, they need at exit strategy that (in their eyes) allows them a dignified exit, otherwise I doubt they'd sell no matter how bad things got or what pressure they were under.

Pafell and Glen not Glen

Having read through this thread in its entirity and others, I would like to say I am with you both and endorse most of your comments for what it's worth.

No usually hard with me, I'm the biggest fence sitter since Mikey Delap

That said, I also believe that Daniel and Wayne are acting in best intentions

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">Absolutely, 100%, I have never believed anything different all along and as much as I don't think it'll work, it's currently probably the best (only) options we have.

I cannot really understand the lengthy debates regarding the status of The Venky organisation, its worth, value in rupees, US dollars, £ sterling or whatever currency's relevance. What is relevant is for whatever reason(and I do not think we have helped our own cause)little money has been forthcoming to BRFC.

I also think that we all need to take a reality check regarding the paying customer scenario and it's influence. It's not right I know and truly should have a massive influence but unfortunately in the great scheme of things it doesn't.

If we have 15,000 season ticket holders paying an average assumed price of £500 per ticket (I think this is top side) generates an annual income of £7.5 million against a current annual wage bill of £43 million plus.

Its a big ask of any benefactor, never mind a woman scorned. IMO food for thought.

That's another point I've been trying to make. Wether they have money or not (and I strongly believe they do), they're not spending it on Rovers (or at least in the fashion we'd expect) and the money we put into the deal is insignificant. Personally I don't think this has even been about the money. It's been about pride.

[PAFELL]

Neither will Assad, but should the Syrian people go home and not bother? Same goes for Egypt with Moubarak (now on trial). Should people just put up with a dictator who digs in?

Or should they proceed on the basis that all dictators hold this position but they don't survive forever?

I thought I had to many pints of harveys tonight. What are you on? Glue? Worse comparison ever heard. Best I can reply as I am really speechless.

[PAFELL]

I've been trying to explain this for a while now, but Miker is dead on the money on this. It's an action that seems alien, destructive, counter intuitive and just plain insane to us, but that's exactly how it seems to me. They won't be bullied or bought, they need at exit strategy that (in their eyes) allows them a dignified exit, otherwise I doubt they'd sell no matter how bad things got or what pressure they were under.

No usually hard with me, I'm the biggest fence sitter since Mikey Delap

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">Absolutely, 100%, I have never believed anything different all along and as much as I don't think it'll work, it's currently probably the best (only) options we have.

That's another point I've been trying to make. Wether they have money or not (and I strongly believe they do), they're not spending it on Rovers (or at least in the fashion we'd expect) and the money we put into the deal is insignificant. Personally I don't think this has even been about the money. It's been about pride.

Totally correct. Money is NOT the issue. Pride is. They will take NO NOTICE OF ANY PROTESTS. That I am certain of. Hate banging this drum. But it is a fact.

BRAG are detriment to venkys chosing to sell the club.. BRAG may as well go and do something else with their lives. As venkys will not give in to protests. BRAG & PROTESTS. Are one and the same to venkys. Both will be ignored.

[deftangel]

Totally correct. Money is NOT the issue. Pride is. They will take NO NOTICE OF ANY PROTESTS. That I am certain of. Hate banging this drum. But it is a fact.

BRAG are detriment to venkys chosing to sell the club.. BRAG may as well go and do something else with their lives. As venkys will not give in to protests. BRAG & PROTESTS. Are one and the same to venkys. Both will be ignored.

Actually I don't think this is completely true.

After Kean's ridiculous comments post the Cardiff game, he came under significant pressure from the media and there was substantially more chat about about him getting canned. Perhaps someone like Kamy can be more illuminating but based on my memory of his tweets at the time, there were meetings to discuss his future. Whether that was the Ewood management (what there is of it) acting unilaterally separate from the Venky's management I don't know. The fog of war surrounding Rovers really is that thick.

One could argue that the increased pressure on Kean was not a result of the protests but of his own actions in making daft comments about "forfeiting" the game. I would not be completely unsympathetic to that view but it's indisputable that the protest movement got significant momentum out of it and he was a lot more under the cosh. At the time Sky were still able to get a comment out of Venky's and if memory serves they had to comment but the language supporting him was a lot more woolly than previously.

(It's late, I've had a beer so forgive me if this version of events is not completely accurate);

Regardless, the failure on BRAG's part is in not realising the booing of the Yak high-fiving Kean at the Swansea game was a watershed moment that almost instantaneously reversed what pressure that had built up and sparked the "poor old Kean" narrative that persists today. I don't think this was ever preventable, it was a spontaneous reaction and I personally found it almost as uplifting as the result itself (gallows humour and all). However, it was obvious following the media reaction the next day that the rules of engagement had changed but the protesters largely took the "nobody likes us, we don't care" attitude rather than adapt tactics.

All in all, I think this is a long way of saying that I don't think it's possible to completely disregard the potential of protests based on the last few months because in my view, BRAG haven't adapted quickly enough. Venky's showed some, admittedly small but some signs of being reactive to media pressure. They got into this for the marketing, after all. Protest should be managed tightly with this in mind.

Even the last official one that I remember (forget the game) had enough people rocking up in the admittedly fetching Yellow shirts of which the first line nearly alreays reads "Kean out". What's the media story here? Oh, it's the Blackburn fans protesting about poor old Steve Kean again. I'm not saying that's right, but it's the reality of things and it was only ever with the media on-board that any pressure was created on Venky's. Dare to make a counter-suggestion to that point and you would be branded a Rovers Fan do nothing no gooder which hardly inspires people to the cause. In that regard, you're absolutely right that Venky's probably don't care what the protesters say, directly. Indirectly, with the right people involved it is a bit less tangible.

I fear without something more catastrophic occurring, it will be difficult to get things back protest wise back to that high water mark. If it did, I couldn't completely disregard the potential for protest having an impact, even if i take the point about the family's sheer bloody mindedness and/or Indian business culture making this less likely.

[Steve Moss]

I think Barclays would disagree with that

+1

Totally correct. Money is NOT the issue. Pride is. They will take NO NOTICE OF ANY PROTESTS. That I am certain of. Hate banging this drum.

Rovers supporters are not Venkys' suppliers or employees. Rovers' supporters are customers. And as a whole, the customer base is deeply dissatisfied. Serving up more of the same crap, in the name of "pride", is pure idiocy. It will lose Venkys money and will further underscore their incompetence for the entire world to see.

The supporters/customers will NOT roll over and ask Venkys to tickle their bellies, merely because Venkys feelings are hurt.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

I've always wondered if there is room for attracting outside investment purely for the purchasing of players, without treading on the "3rd party ownership rule".

For example...let's say Ian Battersby was able to take over the club, and had business friends that had significant money to invest, but didn't want to have it tied up in the running of a football club. Excluding transfer fees, could the club be run without any outside investment? You would hope so.

So what would we do about buying players? Well let's say we had a strong management and scouting network in place, like under Hughes. Could we approach these people with money to invest and say "we've scouted a great young talent. We need £4 million to bring him here, but we expect he will quickly increase in value. If you finance the deal, we will give you 50% of any profit made selling him".

So the player would be entirely contracted to Blackburn Rovers, but with a separate contract in place that entitles the investor to £4 million + 50% of anything over when they are sold. If someone had done this during the Hughes era, with the likes of Santa Cruz, Bentley, Samba, Bellamy, Warnock etc., they would have made a lot of money in a relatively short period of time.

Obviously there would be scope outside of this for the club to bring in loans/free transfers to supplement these "investment" signings, providing the club was within its trading budget. Perhaps more every so often when a Damien Duff/Phil Jones comes through the academy and gives the club an unexpected windfall.

Would it be possible to have investors that way? With the right management they could stand to make a fair bit of money, without being tied to the club and it's expenditure and all the risks that are involved. Nobody will ever make money from investments in football clubs in terms of overall profits, but it's definitely possible to make profits in the buying and selling of individual players.

Obviously there is still a risk in hoping you will get the money back for players after you have bought them, but we have shown time and again that you are likely to make money than you spend if you choose players wisely.

That's a good idea in principle, but from what I have read, it is very borderline, and you'd have to be very careful how you worded contractual agreements. It would definitely have to be something based on total player trading and profit sharing based over and above the original investment value. It would never fly if specific players were mentioned. For example, you want to buy a player for £10m. You get a backer for that, but in the agreement you would have to specify that the investment is for general transfer activity, not bound the player you bought with the money. The investor then is entitled to whatever percentage agreed upon of the profit made in transfer activity above that £10m base investment. So say you sell a Jones later for £20m. The original investor that you bought the established star for would be entitled to his take on the net £10m profit.

The problem with this is you would be put under pressure to continually make profit on player trading, meaning emphasis would be put on financial gain and not football considerations. Exactly the anti-thesis of what this whole plan is about. I see how, if it was allowed, it could work on up and coming young talent in specific cases, but I don't see it being allowed on a player by player basis in the first place. I mean I think this is actually the form most of these shady third party ownership of player scandals have been about. The club own the registration, but a third party owns rights to the player's value and in many cases is in a position of influence about the business being done with that player. You see the conflict of interest there and how this situation can easily be taken advantage of.

EDIT: But I really like the lateral thinking! This is good constructive contribution.

[Paul]

I think Dan is exactly right on this, it was certainly my first reaction to Le Chuck's idea. I like the idea and see the logic but ultimately it is third party ownership which is illegal and frequently decried by fans. I've a suspicion it's a plan fans might support for their own club on the basis "my club is fundamentally decent etc." but be outraged by other clubs taking similar action. A lot of rules would probably get bent.

I also feel there is a moral dilemma in the idea of an investor "owning" a player. I know in reality itsn't true ownership but it feels like the player becomes nothing more than a commodity rather than a human being.