[Archived] Venky's willing to sell?

[Bluefudge]

  On 07/01/2012 at 22:19, hanks said:

Dan Williams i think was last heard failing to take over the Rochester Rhinos, a second tier american outfit. He didn't have the cash

Ah........give it 6 months we will be in his price bracket then!

[2PAC 4 Blackburn]

No quotes, just a poorly put together article by the Independant. If its true im not sure if it's good or bad, if true we can expect no invest and who would really want to buy Rovers at the min with their current situation?!!

[Aberdeen Blue]

  On 07/01/2012 at 19:53, deryck guyler said:

pass the Fit and Proper Owners test.

Oh aye, otherwise you could end up with any old crocked gobshites running the club..... Oh, wait a minute.....

[booth]

Can't see it, but then again there's a lot of strangeness that doesn't make sense at the moment. This would make sense of the complete lack of interest Venky's appear to have in their "investment".

[John]

  On 08/01/2012 at 03:04, booth said:

Can't see it, but then again there's a lot of strangeness that doesn't make sense at the moment. This would make sense of the complete lack of interest Venky's appear to have in their "investment".

Their "baby" remember.

[rovers11]

My personal feeling is that they will sell a stake in the club but keep a small stake. This will mean they keep face and show that they are still commited to their 'baby' and can concentrate on using blackburn to promote football in india.

[miqaayil]

  On 08/01/2012 at 13:32, rovers11 said:

My personal feeling is that they will sell a stake in the club but keep a small stake. This will mean they keep face and show that they are still commited to their 'baby' and can concentrate on using blackburn to promote football in india.

My feeling exactly ....

[PAFELL]

  On 08/01/2012 at 13:32, rovers11 said:

My personal feeling is that they will sell a stake in the club but keep a small stake. This will mean they keep face and show that they are still commited to their 'baby' and can concentrate on using blackburn to promote football in india.

Wish you were right. But cannot see this lot sharing anything.

[rovers11]

  On 08/01/2012 at 13:48, PAFELL said:

Wish you were right. But cannot see this lot sharing anything.

I believe Alan Brazil said on talksport a few weeks ago that Venky's were in Dubai looking for a wealthy backer. It was disputed on here that they were actually in Dubai looking for a new bank.

Remember,talksport did break the clement to psg story so you never know...

[PAFELL]

  On 08/01/2012 at 14:00, rovers11 said:

I believe Alan Brazil said on talksport a few weeks ago that Venky's were in Dubai looking for a wealthy backer. It was disputed on here that they were actually in Dubai looking for a new bank.

Remember,talksport did break the clement to psg story so you never know...

Looking for money and giving a share in the club completely different. But lets be honest who would want to share with venkys?

[BangkokRover]

  On 09/01/2012 at 06:03, PAFELL said:

Looking for money and giving a share in the club completely different. But lets be honest who would want to share with venkys?

Would totally depend on what the split was. If you had 80% of the club the other 20% is not important. If the new money also believes that Rovers can be turned in India's EPL team. It could be useful having an Indian partner.

[USABlue]

  On 06/01/2012 at 09:48, imy9 said:

If the Qataris were genuine bidders then why have they not purchased another club?

IF we are for sale then surely they would come back and put in a bid- I think they are 'tyre kickers.'

I've asked the same question meself on a couple of occasions and haven't been answered,

[USABlue]

idont believe for one minute they would sell until they have asset stripped us to a satisfactory level. But we can live in hope.

[booth]

  On 09/01/2012 at 07:46, USABlue said:

I've asked the same question meself on a couple of occasions and haven't been answered,

Which club would they be interested in buying? They were apparently interested in buying Man Utd but it was amazingly expensive even for the crown prince of Qatar. Then they moved onto Everton and with the debts and costs of a new stadium, this also was deemed too expensive (I've been told by my Everton supporting good mate, half a billion). They then turned their attention to Rovers and allegedly the offer for the club was turned down point blank.

Man Utd - costs billions, too expensive.

Everton - big club but too expensive at half a billion.

Rovers - could get it relatively cheap but the owners don't want to sell.

What other Premier League clubs are there that can be had relatively cheap with owners that do want to sell? If you whittle it down there aren't many.

[True Blue & White]

  On 09/01/2012 at 10:44, booth said:

Which club would they be interested in buying? They were apparently interested in buying Man Utd but it was amazingly expensive even for the crown prince of Qatar. Then they moved onto Everton and with the debts and costs of a new stadium, this also was deemed too expensive (I've been told by my Everton supporting good mate, half a billion). They then turned their attention to Rovers and allegedly the offer for the club was turned down point blank.

Man Utd - costs billions, too expensive.

Everton - big club but too expensive at half a billion.

Rovers - could get it relatively cheap but the owners don't want to sell.

What other Premier League clubs are there that can be had relatively cheap with owners that do want to sell? If you whittle it down there aren't many.

Why does it have to be a PL team. I heard Racing Santander are in need of new owners and seem to be a good place to go after being rebuffed by Rovers

[booth]

  On 09/01/2012 at 11:04, True Blue & White said:

Why does it have to be a PL team. I heard Racing Santander are in need of new owners and seem to be a good place to go after being rebuffed by Rovers

Because they want a Premier League team.

You are aware that the Qatari's already own Malaga and PSG?

[broadsword]

Please, please ... just go.

You've done so much damage, it's incredible. It gets worse with every passing week. It's not your "baby", it's the centre of a community, it puts Blackburn on the map, it gives people something to hope for and hold on to.

You're ruining all of that, with your gross incompetence and lack of care and interest.

Please ... put the club up for sale.

[True Blue & White]

  On 09/01/2012 at 11:15, booth said:

You are aware that the Qatari's already own Malaga and PSG?

Not the same Qatari's surely, I'm sure FIFA only allow you to own one football team otherwise there would be a conflict of interest if say Sheik Mansour owned Barca and City and they played each other in the CL.

  On 09/01/2012 at 11:20, Bryan said:

It's not your "baby", it's the centre of a community

If Rovers are Venky's 'baby' then Balaji, Venkatesh and Mrs Desai must be our Steven Barker, Jason Owen and Tracey Connelly.

[booth]

  On 09/01/2012 at 11:28, True Blue & White said:

Not the same Qatari's surely, I'm sure FIFA only allow you to own one football team otherwise there would be a conflict of interest if say Sheik Mansour owned Barca and City and they played each other in the CL.

Malaga CF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1laga_CF

PSG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Saint-Germain_F.C.

Qatar Investment Authority own both clubs.

[True Blue & White]

  On 09/01/2012 at 11:44, booth said:

Malaga CF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1laga_CF

PSG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Saint-Germain_F.C.

Qatar Investment Authority own both clubs.

Then they can't both play in the same competitions then if true...

  Quote

Ownership issues have arisen when one company has had a shareholding in more than one European football club competing in the same UEFA competition. The seminal example is the CAS decision in the ENIC case. ENIC at the time had a minority shareholding in AEK Athens FC (42.8%) and a majority shareholding in Slavia Prague (96.7%), and both clubs qualified for the UEFA Cup competition in the same season.

The CAS decision signalled the intention of the football authorities to take measures to ensure that conflicts of interest do not occur between commonly owned clubs. The rule which was subsequently brought into effect by UEFA (‘the UEFA Rule') effectively prohibited clubs in which ENIC had an ownership stake from competing in the same UEFA competition. However, as the UEFA Rule had only been added after the clubs had already qualified for the following season's European club competitions (the 1999/2000 season), it only became effective for the 2000/1 season.

The ENIC decision stated that a company or a person has an ‘Interest' in a club when it has:

the majority of the shareholders' voting rights in another club in the same UEFA club competition;

the right to appoint or remove a majority of the directors in another club in the same UEFA club competition; or

the majority of the shareholders' voting rights (through a Shareholders' Agreement) in another club in the same UEFA club competition.

The decision prohibited two clubs in which a person or company had an Interest from being admitted into the same UEFA club competition. The CAS stressed the need for transparency and legitimacy in all UEFA competitions. The supporters' perception of a particular game could be damaged by the differing business aims of two clubs in the same competition in which the same person or company had an Interest.

The CAS ruled that, for these purposes, a shareholding of 50.1% or more in two clubs competing in the same UEFA club competition would potentially breach Article 2 of the UEFA Rules on Integrity of Competition (‘the UEFA Integrity Rules') under the first bullet point, above.

Additionally, after the CAS cleared the UEFA Rule in time for the 2000/1 season, a further stipulation was added to the UEFA Integrity Rules. It is now prohibited for a company or person to have an Interest in a club when it has the ability to exercise a ‘decisive influence' in the decision-making of another club in the same UEFA club competition.

In analysing the ENIC decision, it could be suggested that one person or company having an Interest in two clubs could face two significant conflicts, which UEFA was keen to nullify. One interesting situation could arise if a person or company had a 100% ownership stake in a non-PL European club (Team A) competing in the Champions League and had a 49% shareholding (but not an Interest) in a PL club (Team B ). That person or company would have a significant shareholding, as defined under the PL Rules (as it is greater than 30%), and would be required to pass the PL FPPT, but the 49% shareholding would not breach the UEFA Integrity Rules. Both teams would be allowed to play in the same competition. The contrast that such a situation presents to the transparent and fair competition rationale espoused in the ENIC decision is a matter of degree.

Such questions relating to the integrity of the competition would be heightened, for example, if Team A needed to win a match against Team B to qualify for the next round, whilst Team B was not in a position to qualify for the next stage. Accusations of match fixing and footballing impropriety would almost certainly follow if Team B fielded a weakened team.

[booth]

  On 09/01/2012 at 11:54, True Blue & White said:

The they can't both play in the same competitions then if true...

What do you mean "if true" it's as true as the nose on your face

Just discovered this, been going on for a couple of months apparently. Now looking to take over Villa according to this...

http://www.7500toholte.com/2012/1/9/2692955/aston-villa-qatar-investment-authority-takeover-plans

Two clubs and now looking for a Premier League club but according to Alan Nixon "Tyre Kickers."

[thenodrog]

  On 07/01/2012 at 00:04, Langwarrin Rover said:

Blackburn growing more bizarre

Whilst we can virtually accept that the club will make no money from Hoilett am I alone in thinking that somehow Dastardly and Muttley will manage to get a cut?

  On 07/01/2012 at 02:14, Rovermatt said:

I was very critical of the previous regime's crippling lack of ambition however they look like veritable high-rollers compared to these clowns. Finances have been tight for years but at least the club used to be run in a professional manner. Everything about it is now small-time and highly amateurish.

There were too many like you Matt unfortunately. Too few appreciate what they've got until it's gone.

  On 07/01/2012 at 19:53, deryck guyler said:

A potential rescue does seem a fantasy to me.

Any decent investor would have a clue about football (or be advised by somebody who does) and therefore understand that we need a proper manager and urgent reinforcement otherwise we are going down.

My understanding, as a lay person, is that new owners would need to do due diligence, pass the Fit and Proper Owners test and conduct all the complexities of the purchase. After that they would need appoint a manager who by then would have a matter of days to assess the squad, identify targets and negotiate their transfers all before the window closes. If that dosnt happen then the new investor has essentially bought a Championship club. Much as I love Rovers I have to admit that there are more attractive clubs in that position.

I have no knowledge of takeovers whatsoever so I'm desperately hoping somebody is going to come along and tell me how wrong I am.

Just musing but........If Jack Walker could return I'd think the last thing he would do would be to pay big money for something that he can pick up for nothing in a year or two.

[jim mk2]

Charlton Athletic fans all over again. And look how far that club fell after they sacked Curbishley for no reason.......

[thenodrog]

  On 08/01/2012 at 00:09, 2PAC 4 Blackburn said:

No quotes, just a poorly put together article by the Independant. If its true im not sure if it's good or bad, if true we can expect no invest and who would really want to buy Rovers at the min with their current situation?!!

This is an old potato that is doing my head in.

2PAC... Please resist using the word 'invest'. It is just so wrong as any investment demands a return and this is not possible with BRFC and most other Prem clubs. The word you are looking for is 'fund'.

[Mattyblue]

Didn't Curbishley resign?

I was at the Valley when he did a teary farewell on the pitch.

Though, a lot of their fans did come out with the old 'time for a change', 'took as far as he can' when he left.