[Archived] Battersby and Currie

[RibbleValleyRover]

As regards the Ian's and their supposed "investors", would people be happy either with

a) Completely anonymous owners we didn't know the identity of? or

b ) Owners who made no bones about the fact players had to be sold on a consistent conveyor belt basis to produce them a profit?

I wouldn't.

Point a would depend on how well Rovers were doing as a result of the ownership. Take Venky's for example, do you think fans would care at all about them not attending games or communicating to the fan-base if the club was doing well under their ownership? Most fans wouldn't care as long as the club was successful. So overall point a wouldn't concern me.

Point b however would concern me a lot as that would be probably the only way (that and tv income if we got into the Premier League) that the investors would get a return on their investment. A lot would depend on what percentage would be reinvested, but we wouldn't know that until each time we sold a player and that would be subject to change at any time.

[Boz]

As regards the Ian's and their supposed "investors", would people be happy either with

a) Completely anonymous owners we didn't know the identity of? or

b ) Owners who made no bones about the fact players had to be sold on a consistent conveyor belt basis to produce them a profit?

I wouldn't.

We have always been a selling club, I am amazed that you might suggest otherwise. Well possibly we weren't for a couple of seasons when Jack resisted United's initial Shearer advances.

I would suggest that most supporters can understand an astute buying/selling policy in order to balance the books is a million times better than what we have now.

Owners/manangement might say otherwise but realistically there are few clubs in the world who do not need to sell players, what they say and what they do are two differing things.

[RibbleValleyRover]

We have always been a selling club, I am amazed that you might suggest otherwise. Well possibly we weren't for a couple of seasons when Jack resisted United's initial Shearer advances.

I would suggest that most supporters can understand an astute buying/selling policy in order to balance the books is a million times better than what we have now.

Owners/manangement might say otherwise but realistically there are few clubs in the world who do not need to sell players, what they say and what they do are two differing things.

The model worked because we constantly managed to find rough diamonds that could be cut and polished for a profit. I thought at the time that policy was a risky one and eventually would have resulted in a major decline of the club. What happens when those mines are empty or you start getting far more misses than hits?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

We have always been a selling club, I am amazed that you might suggest otherwise. Well possibly we weren't for a couple of seasons when Jack resisted United's initial Shearer advances.

I would suggest that most supporters can understand an astute buying/selling policy in order to balance the books is a million times better than what we have now.

Owners/manangement might say otherwise but realistically there are few clubs in the world who do not need to sell players, what they say and what they do are two differing things.

That's an excellent summary, Boz.

[Parsonblue]

As regards the Ian's and their supposed "investors", would people be happy either with

a) Completely anonymous owners we didn't know the identity of? or

b ) Owners who made no bones about the fact players had to be sold on a consistent conveyor belt basis to produce them a profit?

I wouldn't.

Let's be honest Rev we have always been a selling club and always will be. I learnt that lesson when Fred Pickering left for Everton when we were challenging at the top end of the First Division. A sensible buying and selling strategy is how the Rovers functions. Under the Trust, John Williams and Tom Finn seemed to perfect the art of allowing one player out and bringing another in. The wheels have only come off that particular bandwagon since Venkys embarked on a transfer policy which was always destined to fail. As for knowing who the investors are - well we all know who Venkys are and how many of us are happy with them!

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

The model worked because we constantly managed to find rough diamonds that could be cut and polished for a profit. I thought at the time that policy was a risky one and eventually would have resulted in a major decline of the club. What happens when those mines are empty or you start getting far more misses than hits?

A prudent player trading strategy will always be part and parcel of the budget structure of a club like Rovers. What do you think the investment in the youth program is all about? It is about producing the Duff's, Dunn's, and Jones' of the past. Investing in your youth programs in clubs like ours is not only an excellent value for money in producing quality players for your first team, but also a long term extension of you player trading strategy. The accumulated cost of running and developing the youth program since its modern inception at Rovers has been repaid in spades with just a few of the players it has produced, not only in the transfers fees it has produced, but the value players like Dunn have brought to the club through being successful on the pitch.

This was successfully combined with some excellent transfer market finds by Souness and especially Hughes during their time as manager.

There is a huge difference between selling off half your first team on annual basis, and selling one player to balance the books. As John Williams put it, Rovers has been more of a trading club since the early 90's, reinvesting in the playing squad regularly, losing money in some years and making money in others, basically going break even on player trading over time, up until 3 years ago, anyway.

I think this approach seems more prudent than risky. Risky for me would be making consistently unsustainable losses on player trading. I think the most risky thing that Rovers had done prior to Venkys ownership was the wage to turnover ratio that was very high, especially in later years. The idea was to have this as a calculated risk to ensure PL status was maintained, and making sure you had the right manager in charge to do this, working together with an integrated player trading policy to keep the books on an even keel. As long as you could maintain that status, it would work.

When you don't have the money to be a solely buying club, this is what you are forced to do to compete.

[West Yorks Rover]

I am a bit surprised when I hear people say or intimate, that Venky's brand is damaged goods because of their crazy ownership of

BRFC. I have worked in business for many years and I certainly don't see it that way. What they have done is get their brand name

recognised in a very large market indeed.

If and when they decide to open their Venky's Express restaurants in this country or elsewhere, outside India, if the product is decent

and they choose the correct locations, I believe they will prosper, because after all everyone knows, that Indians on the whole no

nothing about the football industry and won't hold that against them.

ITS ALL ABOUT HAVING A RECOGNISED BRAND !

[Majiball]

The model worked because we constantly managed to find rough diamonds that could be cut and polished for a profit. I thought at the time that policy was a risky one and eventually would have resulted in a major decline of the club. What happens when those mines are empty or you start getting far more misses than hits?

Everton seem to be doing very well in this regard and clubs like Rovers should look to follow their lead.

[LeChuck]

The model worked because we constantly managed to find rough diamonds that could be cut and polished for a profit. I thought at the time that policy was a risky one and eventually would have resulted in a major decline of the club. What happens when those mines are empty or you start getting far more misses than hits?

It's a model that smaller clubs without a rich owner have to follow though.

Swansea have done it perfectly so far. Selling Joe Allen and Scott Sinclair for ~£25 million and replacing them with De Guzman and Pablo Hernandez for about 1/3 of that allowed them to sign extra players like Chico, Michu, Ki etc.

It's a model that Newcastle seem to be working perfectly at the moment as well. Almost all of their signings over the last 2-3 years have increased in value.

Obviously it's not a fool proof method and requires a club to be very well run with an excellent scouting network. We had both of these things not so long ago.

[rightrover]

Much luck to Battersby and Currie, but ...

Nothing that the Venkys have said, done, say or do - absolutely NOTHING - from their lack of motives for buying (and lack of exploiting them if they had any genuine motive), to the secrecy surrounding everything, to every decision which has been made and the complete lack of reasoning behind it (assuming you are running a club as any genuine owner would) - suggests they are the authentic owners of the club.

In that I include also all the things they DON'T do as well - like not responding to anything, offers, offers of talks, anything at all, their total indifference to horrendous, mocking criticism... there is not a semblance of anything which suggests they truly run the club, or care about it. NOTHING to suggest they would have stumped up millions to buy it.

Whereas, EVERYTHING that certain other parties do and behave suggests that they are - and they are very interested indeed in everything that goes on and all the attendant damaging criticism.

If we are nearing the end game, it has nothing to do with Venkys, but merely that the press are closing in on the exposing the truth, which was always likely to happen.

We need to continue that process to get as many damaging (truthful) facts into the public domain about the role of those truly interested parties. That is the only way to bring this nightmare to an end. Venkys are an irrelevance.

[ABBEY]

As regards the Ian's and their supposed "investors", would people be happy either with

a) Completely anonymous owners we didn't know the identity of? or

b ) Owners who made no bones about the fact players had to be sold on a consistent conveyor belt basis to produce them a profit?

I wouldn't.

I'd prefer bob lord to venkys

[West Yorks Rover]

Much luck to Battersby and Currie, but ...

Nothing that the Venkys have said, done, say or do - absolutely NOTHING - from their lack of motives for buying (and lack of exploiting them if they had any genuine motive), to the secrecy surrounding everything, to every decision which has been made and the complete lack of reasoning behind it (assuming you are running a club as any genuine owner would) - suggests they are the authentic owners of the club.

In that I include also all the things they DON'T do as well - like not responding to anything, offers, offers of talks, anything at all, their total indifference to horrendous, mocking criticism... there is not a semblance of anything which suggests they truly run the club, or care about it. NOTHING to suggest they would have stumped up millions to buy it.

Whereas, EVERYTHING that certain other parties do and behave suggests that they are - and they are very interested indeed in everything that goes on and all the attendant damaging criticism.

If we are nearing the end game, it has nothing to do with Venkys, but merely that the press are closing in on the exposing the truth, which was always likely to happen.

We need to continue that process to get as many damaging (truthful) facts into the public domain about the role of those truly interested parties. That is the only way to bring this nightmare to an end. Venkys are an irrelevance.

Must admit the post in the LT comments section about Glasgow gangsters, sounded very feasible at the time.

[tomphil]

Much luck to Battersby and Currie, but ...

Nothing that the Venkys have said, done, say or do - absolutely NOTHING - from their lack of motives for buying (and lack of exploiting them if they had any genuine motive), to the secrecy surrounding everything, to every decision which has been made and the complete lack of reasoning behind it (assuming you are running a club as any genuine owner would) - suggests they are the authentic owners of the club.

In that I include also all the things they DON'T do as well - like not responding to anything, offers, offers of talks, anything at all, their total indifference to horrendous, mocking criticism... there is not a semblance of anything which suggests they truly run the club, or care about it. NOTHING to suggest they would have stumped up millions to buy it.

Whereas, EVERYTHING that certain other parties do and behave suggests that they are - and they are very interested indeed in everything that goes on and all the attendant damaging criticism.

If we are nearing the end game, it has nothing to do with Venkys, but merely that the press are closing in on the exposing the truth, which was always likely to happen.

We need to continue that process to get as many damaging (truthful) facts into the public domain about the role of those truly interested parties. That is the only way to bring this nightmare to an end. Venkys are an irrelevance.

Bang on the money. Especially when you stand back and think of the sheer number of players in and out of the club in the past 2an a half years. Thats before any Managers or coaches. If someone was benefiting from just a couple of % of all that lot it might go some way to explaining events and motives!

[M-K]

ITS ALL ABOUT HAVING A RECOGNISED BRAND !

Like Exxon or Union Carbide.

[West Yorks Rover]

Like Exxon or Union Carbide.

Yes but Venky's are good with chickens or so were led to believe.

[bellamy11]

I am a bit surprised when I hear people say or intimate, that Venky's brand is damaged goods because of their crazy ownership of

BRFC. I have worked in business for many years and I certainly don't see it that way. What they have done is get their brand name

recognised in a very large market indeed.

If and when they decide to open their Venky's Express restaurants in this country or elsewhere, outside India, if the product is decent

and they choose the correct locations, I believe they will prosper, because after all everyone knows, that Indians on the whole no

nothing about the football industry and won't hold that against them.

ITS ALL ABOUT HAVING A RECOGNISED BRAND !

Off-topic I know, but I completely agree with this. Venky's name is dirt in football circles but I don't see it being a significant inhibitor to a successful fast food franchise. Of course there would be people who don't go based on some sort of solidarity with us, but there are an awful lot of people who couldn't care less.

[47er]

As regards the Ian's and their supposed "investors", would people be happy either with

a) Completely anonymous owners we didn't know the identity of? or

b ) Owners who made no bones about the fact players had to be sold on a consistent conveyor belt basis to produce them a profit?

I wouldn't.

Read this in disbelief! Since we have to have owners of some sort, what kind would you suggest? Another Jack? We'd all love that but we would surely die waiting.

Given that, a consortium including 2 life-long Rovers supporters is about as good as we could reasonably expect isn't it? If they included the Trust on a 20% basis so much the better. What else could you possibly expect?

[RevidgeBlue]

Read this in disbelief! Since we have to have owners of some sort, what kind would you suggest? Another Jack? We'd all love that but we would surely die waiting.

Given that, a consortium including 2 life-long Rovers supporters is about as good as we could reasonably expect isn't it? If they included the Trust on a 20% basis so much the better. What else could you possibly expect?

Why are you reading it in disbelief?

I would want owners that wanted to run the Club on a break even basis, not those who looked upon it as an investment wanting to line their pockets.

The involvement of the 2 Ian's and or the trust is irrelevant to me as neither have the finances to sustain the Club.

[47er]

I want another Jack Walker but I realise I"ll have to settle for something less.

We can sit and dream or live in the real world. A consortium with 2 life-long Rovers fans in it is as good as it gets and should be welcomed.

[Eddie]

Why is that as good as it gets? Good intention doesn't take you very far.

The club runs at a massive loss at the moment and, even if you make radical changes in the business strategy straight away, that will continue for some time without a return to the Premier League.

It's as if so many on here think that caring owners will somehow find the way to pay for player transfers and wages, not to mention the other overheads of running a football club.

Say what you want about Venkys, but at least they appear to be paying the bills. Until another group is found that actually has the financial power to seriously invest in the club on an annual basis, the intent of the Trust should be to improve Venksy management, not to replace it with some do-gooders who can't back themselves up.

[RevidgeBlue]

We have always been a selling club, I am amazed that you might suggest otherwise. Well possibly we weren't for a couple of seasons when Jack resisted United's initial Shearer advances.

I would suggest that most supporters can understand an astute buying/selling policy in order to balance the books is a million times better than what we have now.

Owners/manangement might say otherwise but realistically there are few clubs in the world who do not need to sell players, what they say and what they do are two differing things.

Maybe so. And until Jack came along we had 26 years outside of the top flight and precious little to cheer about in relative terms unless you can call a Full Members Cup triumph a major achievement.

Even so though, there is still all the difference in the world between selling the odd player from time to time to pay the bills or if they want to leave under committed owners such as Bancroft/Brown/Fox who are in it for the love of it and not for their own financial ends as opposed to having a deliberate policy of selling players to produce a profit for shareholders which is the potential drawback to Battersby style "investors"

Why is that as good as it gets? Good intention doesn't take you very far.

The club runs at a massive loss at the moment and, even if you make radical changes in the business strategy straight away, that will continue for some time without a return to the Premier League.

It's as if so many on here think that caring owners will somehow find the way to pay for player transfers and wages, not to mention the other overheads of running a football club.

Say what you want about Venkys, but at least they appear to be paying the bills. Until another group is found that actually has the financial power to seriously invest in the club on an annual basis, the intent of the Trust should be to improve Venksy management, not to replace it with some do-gooders who can't back themselves up.

Amen to that Eddie. Amen to that.

Best piece of advice on here for a very long time imo.

[Athlete]

Why is that as good as it gets? Good intention doesn't take you very far.

The club runs at a massive loss at the moment and, even if you make radical changes in the business strategy straight away, that will continue for some time without a return to the Premier League.

It's as if so many on here think that caring owners will somehow find the way to pay for player transfers and wages, not to mention the other overheads of running a football club.

Say what you want about Venkys, but at least they appear to be paying the bills. Until another group is found that actually has the financial power to seriously invest in the club on an annual basis, the intent of the Trust should be to improve Venksy management, not to replace it with some do-gooders who can't back themselves up.

Paying the bills yes maybe but with someone else's money

[Lathund]

Like Exxon or Union Carbide.

Exxon, who made $44 billion profits last year and who have the highest revenue of any company in the world? That Exxon? They seem to be doing alright.

(Although I wouldn't exactly say that they're doing so well because of their reputation, rather despite of it. But they were well known even before the Valdez incident. Noone had heard of Venky's before the takeover)

[Athlete]

Why are you reading it in disbelief?

I would want owners that wanted to run the Club on a break even basis, not those who looked upon it as an investment wanting to line their pockets.

The involvement of the 2 Ian's and or the trust is irrelevant to me as neither have the finances to sustain the Club.

so you want to continue under Venkys do you ? The 2 Ians can get investment

[AndyC]

I am a bit surprised when I hear people say or intimate, that Venky's brand is damaged goods because of their crazy ownership of

BRFC. I have worked in business for many years and I certainly don't see it that way. What they have done is get their brand name

recognised in a very large market indeed.

If and when they decide to open their Venky's Express restaurants in this country or elsewhere, outside India, if the product is decent

and they choose the correct locations, I believe they will prosper, because after all everyone knows, that Indians on the whole no

nothing about the football industry and won't hold that against them.

ITS ALL ABOUT HAVING A RECOGNISED BRAND !

I'm glad you're not the brand manager at my company!

Awareness of any kind , at any cost is not welcome. In this day and age where there is so much consumer choice for products, and ever more increasing levels of transparancy demanded by the public, the venkys would be in a terrible situation if they decided to launch here. Can you imagine the negative publicity that would be garnered?