[Archived] BRSIT reaches £1.2m in pledges!

[waggy]

The BRSIT has too many unanswered questions/ rules for it be a success im afraid.....

this from a guy who welcomed the slumdog rupeeaires with open arms

[waggy]

how do you make a pledge,ive a spare million.ps its cambodian reil

[Blackburn Ender]

Like i said this will never take off as BRSIT are saying we need average 28000 min per game at home to make ends meet. Never going to happen, theres is more chance of Rovers getting champions league football in four years.

Pitty, where have you read or heard about 28,000 average gates?

Do you think you may have confused this with reports from different clubs, e.g. Portsmouth?

[booth]

Pitty, where have you read or heard about 28,000 average gates?

Do you think you may have confused this with reports from different clubs, e.g. Portsmouth?

You're best off speaking to Daniel Grabko for all of that info, but after chatting with them not once was 28,000 average gates mentioned and I can't find it on the website. I doubt that it's been touted as 28,000 as it seems to be a bit of a high benchmark.

[Hughesy]

this from a guy who welcomed the slumdog rupeeaires with open arms

Class response….no sensible argument so gives a point scoring response!!! Bore off, actually think about things 1st before the childish comments!

Back on topic.....

Read the proposals properly people....NOBODY can own more than 1% of the REMAINING STAKE of the club, therefore the maximum input is £100k. (UNLESS they changed the rules of the plan, which therefore might lose some of the original people interested)

As we are now at £1.2m, the max is just £88k – get all the big hitters you want, but £88k isn’t going to make much difference.

What happens when they reach £10m?? Venkys paid £23m for the club, converted £10m into shares and put other bits in……Does anyone actually believe they would give the club away for free or for even £10m?? Im sorry but NO CHANCE.

Lets say they did hand it away for nothing - then what??

In the past it has been reported that the club was running at 86.6% of income (£57.6m) on wages (£49.9m).

The club was running at a £4.24m loss, and had debts of £26.3m.

In the championship the income is likely to be around £22m (maybe slightly more - that is based on a 2/3 reduction in commercial & Match day income from £15m to just £5m) if you consider the £16m parachute payment and the £1m or so you get for competing in that league....

If the club installs a 75% of income rule on player wages, and the club has 40% relegation reduction clauses in player’s wages (IF we are lucky).....we then let go Hoilett, Salgado, Grella, Goulon, Blackman (Say they earn a combined £100k a week) then we will have a short fall of between £6.5-10.5m….(The lower figure if the wage ratio is now around 75% following the January window)

From that - obvious questions are....

• How do we clear the £30m+ worth of debt (Debt + loss for year based on last year)
  
• How do we make the debt interest payments?
  
• How do we make up the shortfall?
  
• How do we compete?
  
• How do we make signings?
  
• How do will the trust repay the £10m investment to fans when we have no spare wonga?
  

Like I said - MANY unanswered questions

[thenodrog]

Haven't read any of this thread yet but has emulating Ebbsfleet Utd's model and opening it up to the internet community across the world been discussed at all?

The chance to own a piece of a worldwide brand like an English Prem Club (for a week or two) might appeal to many.

[47er]

I can't answer your questions Hughesy but I do know the club won't last long with the current owners. You always support the status quo, then you're the first to jump when things change.

If BRIST ever do menage to own the club you'll be singing their praises before the first day has ended.

[K-Hod]

This has gotten me thinking- if everyone has a small share, who will be in charge, and what will the situation be with board meetings et al?

Can imagine if every share holder wanted a say the boardroom might get a bit crowded!!

[StubbsUK]

The BRSIT has too many unanswered questions/ rules for it be a success im afraid.....

If you have ANY questions, you can use the Contact us form on the website, or post them here & I'll get Wayne or Dan to answer them.

[BPF]

If you have ANY questions, you can use the Contact us form on the website, or post them here & I'll get Wayne or Dan to answer them.

I think he did?

From that - obvious questions are....

How do we clear the £30m+ worth of debt (Debt + loss for year based on last year)

How do we make the debt interest payments?

How do we make up the shortfall?

How do we compete?

How do we make signings?

How do will the trust repay the £10m investment to fans when we have no spare wonga?

Like I said - MANY unanswered questions

[PAFELL]

I commend the efforts but as Blackburn isn't much bigger or affluent than the likes of Exeter then I just don't see how it can work. Exeter's trust has raised millions and they struggle to fund a league one team as evidenced this season. How we can hope to build a club hoping to compete in the prem is beyond me. We'll need people with deep pockets I hope they are being sourced.

Although why has no one on here mentioned that Indian interview? Sure they said they had heard rumours of Qutar petroleum buying us, is it an old interview?

The only way to do it, is the way Swansea did it. 20% owned by the fans. but 100% won't happen.

this from a guy who welcomed the slumdog rupeeaires with open arms

Er I think most folk gave them a chance at the beginning- but then as venkys made more and more cock ups, they blew the chance they were given.

[Majiball]

Er I think most folk gave them a chance at the beginning- but then as venkys made more and more cock ups, they blew the chance they were given.

Mrs D can make as many cock ups as she likes, shes a fox.

[Amo]

Er I think most folk gave them a chance at the beginning- but then as venkys made more and more cock ups, they blew the chance they were given.

Yeah, but as per, Hughesy got a little more carried away than most. Bless him.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Hi all!

Been away a good spell, and I'm sure many of you were happy to see the back of me But I just wanted to address a few of the items of concern here.

The proposed share issue would constitute a one share = one vote model. The 1% share limit is designed to make sure that BRSIT cannot be controlled by any one shareholding entity or a few colluding ones. "Big hitters" would, if they expressed an interest in spending over this amount, would be invited to become partners in a joint venture bid as opposed to investing in BRSIT itself. If this did occur, it would be a situation in which BRSIT would not be the 100% owner. BRSIT is very open to this eventuality as long as any partner investing entity had the best interests of the community and the clib at heart, and was not coming in to try to make a return on their investment.

We will not be asking for money or conversions of pledges into subscriptions for shares until such time as a deal in principle is agreed to, and due diligence processes begin. It is at that time that we would be required to issue subscriptions for shares that would be legally binding if a share issue indeed went ahead.

To address some of the income level issues, particularly those that Hughsey has brought up regarding match day and commercial income, etc. plus the player wage bill, etc.

To suggest that Rovers would only generate £5m in commercial and match day revenue next season under decent management of senior officials is pessimistic in the extreme. At assumed home crowd levels averaging 17,500, with 10,000 season ticket holders and 7,500 match day ticket purchasers, and assuming a match day ticket price of £15 on average and a season ticket at current levels averaging about £220, you are already at £4.8m and that does not take into account corporate boxes, merchandise sales, food and beverage, etc. Then of course you have sponsorships and advertising income, etc. I agree these would not be at the levels attainable in the PL as Hughsey points out, but to say you will lose two thirds of your income is not a realistic assumption. Match day income may lose half a million over the course of the season, depending on the performance of the team, and if supporters are engaged with the club or not. Reducing the commercial income to basically zero (which is the assumption Hughsey is making) is just not credible. This realistically would probably be reduced by one third, meaning instead of £9m you end up with £6m.

So, Hughsey, I submit that there is your missing £6.5m or so almost completely accounted for. Then you are omitting the Championship TV money, which is currently a base of £2.5m to each club, and league position is also worth money in the Championship, plus as you say for competing in the league. If you then assume we finish only mid-table next year in the Championship, the income looks like this -

TV/League - £3,5m

Parachute - £16m

Match day - £5,5m (including merchandise and refreshments, hospitality, etc)

Commercial - £6m

Total - £31m

I also am of the mind that this is a conservative estimate and that properly run there could very well be £2-3m more in it. So there you have your entire shortfall and then some accounted for, even in your worst case.

Next, let's look at the wage bill situation. At the beginning of this season, the wage bill was at £49m reportedly. Most estimations of the current wage bill situation land between £40-£44m. Let's split the difference and say £42m. 60% of that (your assumption of the wage reduction clauses that hopefully exist) makes next seasons wage bill around £22m assuming we lose the staff you mentioned (which we more than likely will) at the wage level you mentioned (£100k a week in total). That makes our Championship wage bill next year 71% of turnover.

Everything else being equal, (club operating costs, debt service, etc) the club should then be able to make a tidy operating profit based on these numbers, and that assuming 100% reinvestment of all player sales in the transfer market.

Addressing the income loss from the proposed 5% annual return on investment from the BRSIT shares. This amounts to £500k in lost income (not an expense or cash outlay, but a loss in income, it is an important distinction) for every £10m in shares issued. Meaning that in the above scenario, it would amount to a loss of 1.6% of total turnover if it were a £10m share issue. This is also only a loss in income if the shareholder chooses to redeem the Rovers Cash. If a shareholder decided he/she would rather not use the Rovers Cash for the benefit of the club, then it never reduces the club's turnover.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

1335387993[/url]' post='1251672']

Like i said this will never take off as BRSIT are saying we need average 28000 min per game at home to make ends meet. Never going to happen, theres is more chance of Rovers getting champions league football in four years.

This assertion was never made by BRSIT.

[Tom]

Daniel could you clarify, what is the proposed purchase price f the club?

Would it be £10m or less?

[PAFELL]

Hi all!

Been away a good spell, and I'm sure many of you were happy to see the back of me But I just wanted to address a few of the items of concern here.

The proposed share issue would constitute a one share = one vote model. The 1% share limit is designed to make sure that BRSIT cannot be controlled by any one shareholding entity or a few colluding ones. "Big hitters" would, if they expressed an interest in spending over this amount, would be invited to become partners in a joint venture bid as opposed to investing in BRSIT itself. If this did occur, it would be a situation in which BRSIT would not be the 100% owner. BRSIT is very open to this eventuality as long as any partner investing entity had the best interests of the community and the clib at heart, and was not coming in to try to make a return on their investment.

We will not be asking for money or conversions of pledges into subscriptions for shares until such time as a deal in principle is agreed to, and due diligence processes begin. It is at that time that we would be required to issue subscriptions for shares that would be legally binding if a share issue indeed went ahead.

To address some of the income level issues, particularly those that Hughsey has brought up regarding match day and commercial income, etc. plus the player wage bill, etc.

To suggest that Rovers would only generate £5m in commercial and match day revenue next season under decent management of senior officials is pessimistic in the extreme. At assumed home crowd levels averaging 17,500, with 10,000 season ticket holders and 7,500 match day ticket purchasers, and assuming a match day ticket price of £15 on average and a season ticket at current levels averaging about £220, you are already at £4.8m and that does not take into account corporate boxes, merchandise sales, food and beverage, etc. Then of course you have sponsorships and advertising income, etc. I agree these would not be at the levels attainable in the PL as Hughsey points out, but to say you will lose two thirds of your income is not a realistic assumption. Match day income may lose half a million over the course of the season, depending on the performance of the team, and if supporters are engaged with the club or not. Reducing the commercial income to basically zero (which is the assumption Hughsey is making) is just not credible. This realistically would probably be reduced by one third, meaning instead of £9m you end up with £6m.

So, Hughsey, I submit that there is your missing £6.5m or so almost completely accounted for. Then you are omitting the Championship TV money, which is currently a base of £2.5m to each club, and league position is also worth money in the Championship, plus as you say for competing in the league. If you then assume we finish only mid-table next year in the Championship, the income looks like this -

TV/League - £3,5m

Parachute - £16m

Match day - £5,5m (including merchandise and refreshments, hospitality, etc)

Commercial - £6m

Total - £31m

I also am of the mind that this is a conservative estimate and that properly run there could very well be £2-3m more in it. So there you have your entire shortfall and then some accounted for, even in your worst case.

Next, let's look at the wage bill situation. At the beginning of this season, the wage bill was at £49m reportedly. Most estimations of the current wage bill situation land between £40-£44m. Let's split the difference and say £42m. 60% of that (your assumption of the wage reduction clauses that hopefully exist) makes next seasons wage bill around £22m assuming we lose the staff you mentioned (which we more than likely will) at the wage level you mentioned (£100k a week in total). That makes our Championship wage bill next year 71% of turnover.

Everything else being equal, (club operating costs, debt service, etc) the club should then be able to make a tidy operating profit based on these numbers, and that assuming 100% reinvestment of all player sales in the transfer market.

Addressing the income loss from the proposed 5% annual return on investment from the BRSIT shares. This amounts to £500k in lost income (not an expense or cash outlay, but a loss in income, it is an important distinction) for every £10m in shares issued. Meaning that in the above scenario, it would amount to a loss of 1.6% of total turnover if it were a £10m share issue. This is also only a loss in income if the shareholder chooses to redeem the Rovers Cash. If a shareholder decided he/she would rather not use the Rovers Cash for the benefit of the club, then it never reduces the club's turnover.

Lets say you buy the club for 10m. Where does the money come from to pay off any debt that venkys would have left the club in. Then the operating costs of the club. Then more money required for transfers and trying to progress the club. Do you honestly think rovers would get 20,000 gates being in the championship?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

1335440623[/url]' post='1251794']

This has gotten me thinking- if everyone has a small share, who will be in charge, and what will the situation be with board meetings et al?

Can imagine if every share holder wanted a say the boardroom might get a bit crowded!!

An AGM would be held to elect the first Board of BRSIT and BRFC. At each successive AGM the Boards would present to the shareholders, and member of each would either be confirmed or replaced. Major policy decisions would be put on the AGM agenda (such as ticket pricing policy, Board member ratification, budget approval, etc.), presented by the Boards and put up for a vote by the shareholders. All football-related decisions would be solely in the realm of the BRFC Board (transfer targets, employees, manager and staff, etc.)

The role of the BRSIT Board would be to represent the shareholders of BRSIT as the "face" of the owners on a day to day basis in dealings with the BRFC Board and senior staff.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

1335358497[/url]' post='1251519']

OT: I haven't heard anything from the two Ians for awhile. Are they connected to BRSIT, at all?

No.

[Doug]

An AGM would be held to elect the first Board of BRSIT and BRFC. At each successive AGM the Boards would present to the shareholders, and member of each would either be confirmed or replaced. Major policy decisions would be put on the AGM agenda (such as ticket pricing policy, Board member ratification, budget approval, etc.), presented by the Boards and put up for a vote by the shareholders. All football-related decisions would be solely in the realm of the BRFC Board (transfer targets, employees, manager and staff, etc.)

The role of the BRSIT Board would be to represent the shareholders of BRSIT as the "face" of the owners on a day to day basis in dealings with the BRFC Board and senior staff.

At what point would an independant auditor/accountant be brought in?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

1335475312[/url]' post='1251930']

Lets say you buy the club for 10m. Where does the money come from to pay off any debt that venkys would have left the club in. Then the operating costs of the club. Then more money required for transfers and trying to progress the club. Do you honestly think rovers would get 20,000 gates being in the championship?

Debt service was already included in my analysis above, Pafell, and I've been through this before. £20m in debt costs about £1m a year in interest at the current rates being charged by Barclays. All accounts point to this being halved this year due to demands to reduce the debt facility by Barclays. The club could reduce the debt by the few million in profit it generated in the anlysis above, plus transfer fee income could be partially allocated to reduce the debt facility further if required. Otherwise the analysis above, as stated also assumes a full 100% reinvestment of transfer fees received back into the transfer market, or did you miss that? I never claimed 20,000 gates, did I? The average gate I suggested was 17,500 and Is indeed very close to the historical average gate the last time Rovers found themselves in the second tier. Look it up.

I have demonstrated that the club can and should operate on the internal turnover it produces. The money is not going to come from magical men living in the clouds and spewing forth black crude oil from their pores, nor is it meant to come from the average supporter continuously being asked to reinvest more and more cash. Indeed , Pafell, it would seem that in order to keep trading, a business actually has to take in more money than it lets flow out.

The FFP rules going into effect starting next season in the Football League punctuate this fact, and there are also other really good programs such as the Football League's Bronze Standard program that allows Football League clubs to gain a special charity status if they conform to the rules of the program, which allows them special tax status to commercial partners, as well as revenue boosts, etc. that if properly utilized could boost the club's coffers in a not insignificant manner. And contrary to many an opinion on here, FFP will narrow the financial gap between small and large clubs, because currently the largest clubs for the most part operate at by far the largest losses. Related party transactions will be heavily scrutinized so that they will not be allowed to be counted when calculating a club's financial result, meaning hugely rich owners won't be able to use their other interests to "sponsor" ludicrous amounts of money to skirt the rules.

1335476353[/url]' post='1251934']

At what point would an independant auditor/accountant be brought in?

Immediately in the case of the club's and BRSIT's books. Or are you referring to due diligence before the takeover event?

1335475163[/url]' post='1251928']

Daniel could you clarify, what is the proposed purchase price f the club?

Would it be £10m or less?

Impossible to speculate with any sort of accuracy at this point, Tom, sorry. The £10m number is a notional amount set as a goal from the very beginning in order to be credible as a potential buyer, and based on our research and professional advise we have received, it could be the amount that the equity is valued at as a Championship club. If we miraculously stay up, then it will definitely be a higher number. Obviously we'd like to beat this number.

[TBTF]

OT: I haven't heard anything from the two Ians for awhile. Are they connected to BRSIT, at all?

My work colleague saw the Currie family at the Norwich game and fronted him up .He said he was scathing of what's going on at the Club but woulnt be drawn on what was going on in the background.he backed the efforts of the trust and fans owning part of the club .

My colleague was convinced the Ians might be the guys to bring substantial cash and then maybe work alongside the trust -we have convinced ourselves of a happy ending every lunchtime this week!

But he did say Mr currie seemed a quiet guy who knew what was going on but woulnt give anything away saying until Venkys decide what they want to do it's all academic as they hold all the shares and talk to nobody.

That's about all I can add.it's fact but where it leads us am not sure

[booth]

Thanks for the replies Daniel.

[Parsonblue]

The average gate I suggested was 17,500 and Is indeed very close to the historical average gate the last time Rovers found themselves in the second tier. Look it up.

With respect Dan, you seem to forget that last time we were relegated that Jack was still at the helm and in the second second the Trust continued to invest at the same levels that Jack had done. There was a totally different feel to the club at that point and fans were not walking away in their thousands because they were so disgusted with the owner. Indeed, quite the opposite, it was because of Jack, his memory and his continued funding of the club through the Trust that the fans remained loyal. If you look at what happened to gates in the mid to late sixties and early seventies, indeed even in the mid-eighties, when the fanbase had become disillusioned you will see a dramatic decline that took Jack and his huge investment in the club to rebuild. Let's be honest, BRIST is not going to be able to fund the sort of uplift on the field that Jack supplied and that, in turn, brought people back to the club. I suspect that many of those not renewing season tickets may well not return if their present exile from the club lasts for any length of time.

[Blackburn Ender]

I believe the opposite.

If the Trust succeeds, I believe there will be a real upsurge of both interest and good will from supporters in season ticket termas and walk-on support.

We will then be reliant on a decent team, good management and league position, but then we always have, haven't we?

I think Brighton is a good example of what feel-good factors can be generated simply by a belief that club and fans are together and pulling in the same direction.