[Archived] Battersby and Currie

[RevidgeBlue]

Good question, but with Seneca leading it, you would have to say that they would be worthy of a higher confidence level from the community than a Venkys-led Probiz consortium, wouldn't you say?

Apology accepted, Rev. That's just not how it works with mergers and acquisitions, and I'm not trying to be patronising. It isn't like buying a used car or bidding for a Rovers shirt on eBay or even buying a house. The sums are much larger than this, and therefore there is a lot more sizing up that is done between semi-interested parties. You can't go and say you are going to make a conditional offer, and just keep upping the number with the caveat that you will have to take a look at the books first, just as you can't go up to the owners of a multi million pound enterprise and ask them what they want for it. Due diligence is part of the process of coming to that number.

That process doesn't even begin unless the owner is interested in selling, number one, and number two, they have to know that you are serious enough and have the resources to complete the deal once they let you start fingering in their accounts.

Just as you don't want unserious buyers coming and test driving the used ferrari you have on the market, thrashing the clutch and the brakes, revving the stuffing out of the engine with no intention of buying, just wanting a joy ride, you don't want a bunch of people looking at your accounts who have no hope of completing a transaction that can be mutually agreeable.

I don't know where you get the idea that anyone is asking Venkys to give the club away for free. Just because the (correct) observation is continuously being made that the club's value is decreasing at an alarming rate doesn't mean that they are asking for Venkys to give it away for free. It is basically a warning that if they don't come to the table soon with someone, it actually WILL be worthless when they finally decide they've had enough. And if they can't reach an agreement with any potential buyer and they want to get out, then the real asset stripping may begin, as well as administration after that, etc.

So I hope you can begin to see why the supporters, Rovers Trust, Seneca, local and regional government officials, etc are up in arms in almost panic mode, trying to shake Venkys into doing the sensible thing.

I don't understand your reasoning Dan. I agree entirely with the bit of your post Ive underlined and highlighted in bold. The rest of your post seems to contradict that.

This is not a situation like last time where the Trust were willing sellers and potential suitors knew the asking price etc.

Let's assume for a second the Venky's are genuinely not interested in selling. (They'd have to be gluttons for punishment but still)

1) They're under no obligation at all to talk to someone who attempts to get in touch saying they want to buy the Club. And there's no real reason why they should talk to anyone under those circumstances is there?

2 ) That being the case, the only way to catch their attention is to submit an offer which might cause them to sit up and take notice and possibly cause them to have a change of heart.

Otherwise you're just in the category of tyrekicker you describe in the rest of your post surely?

[Fife Rover]

It was great to listen to someone with common sense, an understanding of the game, the club, it's background, what it means to the fans and he made it clear he was certainly no fan of Singh, if they manage to get themselves in any kind of position to be some part of the club whether running it or owning it they would have my 100% backing and my season ticket funds.

Make that two.

[USABlue]

Only a supporter of Rovers or someone with an affinity to the town would buy the club. It's not a club you can make money from as Venkys have found out.

Venkys won't sell all of the club, im almost certain of that. However, they may sell a stake in the which would be better than nothing. Tbh, the only people I can see them selling a stake to is Probiz simply because they have a good relationship with Venkys. I can't see Mrs D opening dialogue with the two Ian's.

Perhaps if Probiz buy a stake it would open the door for the two ians to get involved in the club in some capacity.

Would you buy a stake in a club with Venkys at the helm. Not me they'd be a fookin nightmare to be partners with.

[rovers11]

Would you buy a stake in a club with Venkys at the helm. Not me they'd be a fookin nightmare to be partners with.

As a supporter I certainly would. It would be a chance to have some influence on the club which it desperately needs. If things were going well, Id have less desperation to own the club because all we want is a well run club we can be proud of and be a premier league team.

If I was a businessman with no interest in rovers then Id no way want any part of it, especially having to work with Venkys.

[broadsword]

Unless you have a controlling stake, it's pointless.

You would get a voice on the board, but doubtless be over-ruled by the majority shareholders time and time again.

There's only one way Rovers can be saved. By getting rid of Venky's. Nothing else will do.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

I don't understand your reasoning Dan. I agree entirely with the bit of your post Ive underlined and highlighted in bold. The rest of your post seems to contradict that.

This is not a situation like last time where the Trust were willing sellers and potential suitors knew the asking price etc.

Let's assume for a second the Venky's are genuinely not interested in selling. (They'd have to be gluttons for punishment but still)

1) They're under no obligation at all to talk to someone who attempts to get in touch saying they want to buy the Club. And there's no real reason why they should talk to anyone under those circumstances is there?

2 ) That being the case, the only way to catch their attention is to submit an offer which might cause them to sit up and take notice and possibly cause them to have a change of heart.

Otherwise you're just in the category of tyrekicker you describe in the rest of your post surely?

That's fine, Rev, but you wouldn't do that out in the public realm unless you had enough money to intimidate them into accepting the offer through public pressure and ridicule - and nobody has that kind of money but the Fortune 100, Russian oil and energy tycoons, and ME royalty. Unfortunately we aren't dealing with those category of folk, here, are we?

You also wouldn't be able to gauge their response when you couldn't even get a meeting with them, and they didn't answer your offer or any other correspondence. You can't very well offer your maximum bid and and show all your cards if you do have a limit, or if you are a prudent person in any case.

Say you have £400k to buy a house and find one you like that isn't on the market, but is worth about £200k according to your estate agent. Do you really just go offer £400k right away to entice them when you could save £150k by only offering £50k over market price and that offer might be enough to entice them to the table? Now magnify the sums by a factor of 100.

Now you might begin to understand you just don't do that unless money is absolutely no object whatsoever. And it is really unfair for you to have that as a criteria for what is acceptable behavior in trying to get Venkys attention, because anything less is just "hopping about in the background for 12 months."

Unless you have a controlling stake, it's pointless.

You would get a voice on the board, but doubtless be over-ruled by the majority shareholders time and time again.

There's only one way Rovers can be saved. By getting rid of Venky's. Nothing else will do.

Agreed. You would have to have golden share type of assurances and clauses in such a deal, especially with owners with a dubious track record.

[TBTF]

Listen, like I said, I haven't looked at Seneca's accounts, so I can't comment - but I am certain that they have other companies, and looking at those in isolation is not a fair take. I of course would be happy to put up my hands and say I am wrong if I am!

Its not the Ian s or Seneca s own money thats being used anyway is it? tell me if i am being dense but they are bringing an investor group to the table arent they? Surely . if the wealthy investor Group are happy to row in behind a Seneca led deal then who are we to argue.

I am not bright enough to understand all this but a trip on their website seems to suggest there are some pretty serious high up people in that business .Dont suppose theyre all on the breadline!!

[Bundesburn]

Is it only me that finds Seneca's inability to communicate with the Raos disconcerting?

From what I've read, the extent to which effort has been made is a handful of emails. They appear to have put as much effort into their press releases and phone-in appearances as they have opening a dialogue between themselves and the owners. The overriding sentiment of the wrongs that the club has suffered is vanity, so hardly inspired prioritising of efforts from Seneca.

If they're trying to somehow "shame" the owners into action then they've made a mess of their approach. If they'd done the slightest bit of homework, they'd see just how proud these folk are. A discreet approach would've been far more palatable for Mrs D, I'm sure. But then, you can't be a hero if nobody knows that you're saving the day.

There are ways to force people's hand in situations such as this. Here's a hypothetical for you all, which relies upon a lot of speculation, but what else do we really have?

Seneca/a group in some way affiliated with Rovers, approach the Raos, unsuccessfully, during the course of which the Raos have been targeted with claims about their seemingly inept practices. The Raos aren't amused by this and flatly ignore any further communication as a matter of principal. Nevertheless, the venture is still on it's way down and the Raos are looking to cut their losses.

In comes a third party, tentatively enquiring about the Raos' experiences owning a team in England. Let's say, for instance, the premise for the meeting is expansion of said third party into livestock pharmaceuticals, perhaps looking to broker a deal for an asset in their considerable portfolio. We can perhaps hypothesise that eyebrows are raised, that the Raos are starting to put two and two together. Maybe the Raos can do more than just make a tidy profit on their own infrastructure. Maybe they can get their problem child off their hands.

Another meeting is arranged and, this time, the third party comes in hard on Rovers, talking about investment, co-branding and is even open to the idea of taking the whole thing off their hands. We'll assume the Raos were happy to offer up their true opinions about the pitfalls of football club ownership, being in the presence of similarly-minded business people.

Let's jump ahead and assume that all goes well between the two parties and progress is made. The initial interest in Venky's' infrastructure has taken a back seat, as this exciting opportunity has the full attention of the third party. At the root of it, this deal is going to happen.

Cometh the 11th hour and the deal fails, reasons as yet undetermined. But not just the 11th hour as bandied around in day to day life. The absolute point of no return, the Raos are totally pot-committed, desperate, even.

Trust me, when pot-committed, pride vanishes. Will you take a 2 on the River to beat pocket aces when all-in? Yes, please and you'll dance on the table to celebrate. No shame in getting out of the @#/?, irrespective of how you do it.

So, who's waiting in the wings, perfectly timing their entrance, olive branch in humble hand?

Now, what's interesting about this hypothetical? Well, it doesn't have to be a hypothetical. Not more than three weeks ago (admittedly, on a much smaller scale) I saw exactly the same thing happen. It's the oldest trick in the book; the bait and switch.

[thenodrog]

There were some very minor conditions attached to the sale mentioned in the LT.

Not to move Jack's statue. Jack's son in law to stay on Board until certain date.

I think there are covenants safeguarding the future of the training ground at Brockhall.

Beyond that I'd be extremely surprised if there were any sort of conditions enabling the Trust to take back control of the Club. They couldn't wait to get us off their hands and that would be the last thing they'd want tbh.

I think you may be making a mistake Simon by assuming the Trust is a collective rather than a number of individual family members.

[darrenrover]

Is it only me that finds Seneca's inability to communicate with the Raos disconcerting?

From what I've read, the extent to which effort has been made is a handful of emails. They appear to have put as much effort into their press releases and phone-in appearances as they have opening a dialogue between themselves and the owners. The overriding sentiment of the wrongs that the club has suffered is vanity, so hardly inspired prioritising of efforts from Seneca.

If they're trying to somehow "shame" the owners into action then they've made a mess of their approach. If they'd done the slightest bit of homework, they'd see just how proud these folk are. A discreet approach would've been far more palatable for Mrs D, I'm sure. But then, you can't be a hero if nobody knows that you're saving the day.

There are ways to force people's hand in situations such as this. Here's a hypothetical for you all, which relies upon a lot of speculation, but what else do we really have?

Seneca/a group in some way affiliated with Rovers, approach the Raos, unsuccessfully, during the course of which the Raos have been targeted with claims about their seemingly inept practices. The Raos aren't amused by this and flatly ignore any further communication as a matter of principal. Nevertheless, the venture is still on it's way down and the Raos are looking to cut their losses.

In comes a third party, tentatively enquiring about the Raos' experiences owning a team in England. Let's say, for instance, the premise for the meeting is expansion of said third party into livestock pharmaceuticals, perhaps looking to broker a deal for an asset in their considerable portfolio. We can perhaps hypothesise that eyebrows are raised, that the Raos are starting to put two and two together. Maybe the Raos can do more than just make a tidy profit on their own infrastructure. Maybe they can get their problem child off their hands.

Another meeting is arranged and, this time, the third party comes in hard on Rovers, talking about investment, co-branding and is even open to the idea of taking the whole thing off their hands. We'll assume the Raos were happy to offer up their true opinions about the pitfalls of football club ownership, being in the presence of similarly-minded business people.

Let's jump ahead and assume that all goes well between the two parties and progress is made. The initial interest in Venky's' infrastructure has taken a back seat, as this exciting opportunity has the full attention of the third party. At the root of it, this deal is going to happen.

Cometh the 11th hour and the deal fails, reasons as yet undetermined. But not just the 11th hour as bandied around in day to day life. The absolute point of no return, the Raos are totally pot-committed, desperate, even.

Trust me, when pot-committed, pride vanishes. Will you take a 2 on the River to beat pocket aces when all-in? Yes, please and you'll dance on the table to celebrate. No shame in getting out of the @#/?, irrespective of how you do it.

So, who's waiting in the wings, perfectly timing their entrance, olive branch in humble hand?

Now, what's interesting about this hypothetical? Well, it doesn't have to be a hypothetical. Not more than three weeks ago (admittedly, on a much smaller scale) I saw exactly the same thing happen. It's the oldest trick in the book; the bait and switch.

All hypothetical granted and understand where you may be coming from but disagree nonetheless.

Would you mind using similar logic and hypothesis to perhaps make sense and explain the virtues of the previous 30 months ownership?

Moreover, what would you suggest as a potential solution?

[thenodrog]

If she was always a big Rovers fan and as strong willed as you state, surely she would have been up in arms with the trustees when she found out from her husband who was on the Board at the time, that they intended going against her father's wishes?

Or then again, perhaps it is not quite so strange that she has (or her family, or relations, or the trustees) remained quiet!

Not strange at all. The Walkers trade mark was always to use discretion and to never ever to discuss business in public.

[Bundesburn]

All hypothetical granted and understand where you may be coming from but disagree nonetheless.

Would you mind using similar logic and hypothesis to perhaps make sense and explain the virtues of the previous 30 months ownership?

Moreover, what would you suggest as a potential solution?

I think you've probably missed the point of the post.

The suggestion of a solution is the post itself. I don't see any virtues of the current owners' tenure, so I'm not going to make sense of it, as it can't be done. The point I was making was that I'm disappointed by the lack proactivity on display. The hypothetical demonstrated a very simple line of enquiry. As an inherently cynical person, I'm merely commenting that I've not been in awe at the prospect of Rovers-affiliated owners. What impresses me - indeed, the only thing that impresses me - is getting the job done and done well.

[Aberdeen Blue]

Would you buy a stake in a club with Venkys at the helm. Not me they'd be a fookin nightmare to be partners with.

Absolutely!

If you have a property infested with vermin like the Venky's you do not snuggle down next to them, you terminate every last one of the @#/?s.

[darrenrover]

I think you've probably missed the point of the post.

The suggestion of a solution is the post itself. I don't see any virtues of the current owners' tenure, so I'm not going to make sense of it, as it can't be done. The point I was making was that I'm disappointed by the lack proactivity on display. The hypothetical demonstrated a very simple line of enquiry. As an inherently cynical person, I'm merely commenting that I've not been in awe at the prospect of Rovers-affiliated owners. What impresses me - indeed, the only thing that impresses me - is getting the job done and done well.

Point taken and you are correct I had misinterpreted some of your post, apologies.

Perhaps The Rao's, Seneca and the Trust will hopefully read your post and exercise some reactive, proactivity and communicate!

[Boz]

Not strange at all. The Walkers trade mark was always to use discretion and to never ever to discuss business in public.

Or perhaps it was her who pushed the trustees to go against what they were instructed by the trust and to sell to anyone?

Hence they may all feel suitably embarrassed and have no desire to say otherwise?

[RevidgeBlue]

That's fine, Rev, but you wouldn't do that out in the public realm unless you had enough money to intimidate them into accepting the offer through public pressure and ridicule - and nobody has that kind of money but the Fortune 100, Russian oil and energy tycoons, and ME royalty. Unfortunately we aren't dealing with those category of folk, here, are we?

You also wouldn't be able to gauge their response when you couldn't even get a meeting with them, and they didn't answer your offer or any other correspondence. You can't very well offer your maximum bid and and show all your cards if you do have a limit, or if you are a prudent person in any case.

Say you have £400k to buy a house and find one you like that isn't on the market, but is worth about £200k according to your estate agent. Do you really just go offer £400k right away to entice them when you could save £150k by only offering £50k over market price and that offer might be enough to entice them to the table? Now magnify the sums by a factor of 100.

Now you might begin to understand you just don't do that unless money is absolutely no object whatsoever. And it is really unfair for you to have that as a criteria for what is acceptable behavior in trying to get Venkys attention, because anything less is just "hopping about in the background for 12 months."

Agreed. You would have to have golden share type of assurances and clauses in such a deal, especially with owners with a dubious track record.

No of course you don't offer 400k straight away. But you're not going to get the house without making some form of offer in the first place are you? And if your initial offer of 200k doesn't elicit any interest then you have to go back with an offer of say 225k and hope that that does and if that doesn't work, you have to consider whether it is worth raising your offer further. I would imagine you'd also be best served keeping your interest discreet and between the two parties.

Do we know if the Ian's have ever submitted any sort of offer to the Club?

If on the other hand you go stomping around the village first announcing to the world that the person's ownership of the house is a disgrace and that they've allowed the house to fall into rack and ruin and that you're the only ones who can put it right, and then request an audience to discuss the potential sale of the house, how far do you think you're likely to get? You'd probably put that person off dealing with you at almost any price on principle.

[RevidgeBlue]

Is it only me that finds Seneca's inability to communicate with the Raos disconcerting?

Odd certainly.

The other thing I found odd was that someone on here said IB said on the radio he was surprised the Walker Trust had not used "warrants" contained in the sale agreement to wrest back control of the Club.

I'd be interested in other people's views on this, but in my view there was nothing that jumped out from the copy of the sale agreement Dan posted as being particularly enforceable. How do you prove that someone hasn't sought or used their best endeavours to do something? In any case, in the unlikely event a breach of the agreement could be proved, in the absence of a specific clause in the agreement stating that in the event of a breach ownership returned to the Walkers, then the most likely remedy would be specific performance of the particular clause. i.e. the Walker Trust could insist that Venky's did X,Y or Z as per the terms of the agreement.

That comment by IB, if of course it was accurately reported, did nothing to enhance his credibility imo.

[Bundesburn]

Odd certainly.

The other thing I found odd was that someone on here said IB said on the radio he was surprised the Walker Trust had not used "warrants" contained in the sale agreement to wrest back control of the Club.

I'd be interested in other people's views on this, but in my view there was nothing that jumped out from the copy of the sale agreement Dan posted as being particularly enforceable. How do you prove that someone hasn't sought or used their best endeavours to do something? In any case, in the unlikely event a breach of the agreement could be proved, in the absence of a specific clause in the agreement stating that in the event of a breach ownership returned to the Walkers, then the most likely remedy would be specific performance of the particular clause. i.e. the Walker Trust could insist that Venky's did X,Y or Z as per the terms of the agreement.

That comment by IB, if of course it was accurately reported, did nothing to enhance his credibility imo.

Another interesting point. I think it amounts to the tactic of "shaming" the Raos into action. As you've highlighted, the likelihood of this particular line of enquiry amounting to anything at all is so low, that it reeks of desperation. It inspires so much scepticism, a real "clutching at straws" move and does make me query just how much Senenca really "want" it. Tell me, if they're season ticket holders, presumably, they're local? How much presence and/or veritas does it give your own company to be seen to be trying to solve such a tragic set of circumstances, irrespective of the actual probability of you being able to do so? That might seem cynical, but I do know a little but about business and, moreover, the people that own businesses. I know people who have done a lot worse to further their brand/interests, than grab a bit of the spotlight at a time when media coverage is increasing on the Rovers. I dare say, I've done worse myself!

[bypass06]

I posted Yesterday, About the point Ian Battersby made, of not getting any reply from the owners.

With Shebby being in contact with them, Has anyone approached him to get your questions answered.

[thenodrog]

Or perhaps it was her who pushed the trustees to go against what they were instructed by the trust and to sell to anyone?

Hence they may all feel suitably embarrassed and have no desire to say otherwise?

I seriously doubt that. Why make wild speculation without any factual basis? Especially when you know what this board is like.

Whichever way you want to spin it this club has benefitted greatly from the efforts of one particular family over virtually a full generation. It's arguable that their contribution even exceeded that of John Lewis. With the club never being financially self sustainable such a situation could never continue indefinitely and is the reason for my belief that lancashire should be represented by just one club formed by amalgamating the current Lancashire minnows.

Needless to say that if I had been Jack Walker circa 1990 that is exactly what I would have done! BWFC, Blackpool, PNE and Burnley were all 3rd or 4th Div and on their knees financially. All the old 'never over my dead bodies' dinosaurs would by now be be dead or dying and the club would be vibrant and well supported by anyone under the age of 40. It needs to be done.

[Boz]

I seriously doubt that. Why make wild speculation without any factual basis? Especially when you know what this board is like.

Merely surmising as indicated by my question marks.

Not unlike yourself who similarly has no idea, given the cloak of secrecy surrounding the parties.

However still worthy of consideration for a Rovers' supporters forum given the plight BRFC are in as result, don't you agree?

[chaddyrovers]

Seneca Partners Ian Battersby & Ian Currie discuss their intentions for Blackburn Rovers

http://audioboo.fm/boos/1284207

[TBTF]

Seneca Partners Ian Battersby & Ian Currie discuss their intentions for Blackburn Rovers

http://audioboo.fm/boos/1284207

does it cut off a bit before it should or is it just me Chaddy? I was starting to get quite into it.What did you glean assuming you can get all of it?

[OscarRaven]

Odd Really, "Do we see ourselves as the next chairman and CEO of BRFC, not at all".

I will be shot for this but they sound like they want influence and control without spending a penny. Advice at a price? I can see why Venky's would be wary.

[TBTF]

Odd Really, "Do we see ourselves as the next chairman and CEO of BRFC, not at all".

I will be shot for this but they sound like they want influence and control without spending a penny. Advice at a price? I can see why Venky's would be wary.

i took that in the context of one of them saying there could not be egos involved anywhere and assumed it meant theyd get experienced people in to do those jobs ie they arent power crazy egotists , they just want to get this properly sorted