[Archived] Rovers Trust/Action Group/Ians

[Paul]

It makes it significantly harder for the asset to change hands, and since there is an approved bidding process that must take place, it would be very hard to make it collateral on a loan because an automatic transfer of ownership couldn't be stipulated or guaranteed in the event of default.

The Localism Act enshrines the Community Right to Bid (NOT buy) should an area of land or building which is registered as an Asset of Community Value is offered for sale.

To be specific if Ewood were to be offered to, for example, a supermarket chain there is legal obligation for Rovers Trust to be informed of this. The Trust then has two months to declare an interest in making an official offer and a further four months to prepare the bid.

The club would not be obliged to accept this OR any other offer. Importantly though the local authority might consider the ACV demonstrates the value of the ground to the community as without the ground the club could not continue to play and it is the football which provides the social value. A consequence could be the local authority might consider a change of use to the ACV was inappropriate. - that has a huge impact on its value.

Two things to keep in mind - I'm only a fan and its three years since I looked at all this. Basically an ACV doesn't stop the sale of Ewood but it gives the fans a damn good chance of buying it.

[Stuart]

I will dig out the actual document for the ACV submission and post it here tomorrow. The link below is the official documentatio:

https://www.blackburn.gov.uk/Lists/DownloadableDocuments/Ewood-park-community-right-to-bid-report-BL2013ENQ05352.pdf

Studying the map closely people familiar with the area will see the boundary of the ACV is the footprint of Ewood prior to development. This is because Roverstore, as an example, is outside the Ordnance Survey mapped boundary and while it is now within in the boundary it's questionable if the store is a community asset. Defining the asset precisely was crucial and a search of the land registry suggested to use anything other than the mapped area was difficult to prove as being Ewood Park. Keep in mind I had no experience of this at all!

Just to correct Dan, hundreds of pubs are protected as ACVs but this is not the birthplace of the ACV, its only that pubs fit very well in to the legislation.

Interesting stuff. It looks as though the shop and BRIC were originally included but removed after intervention by Shaw. I accept that the shop would be outside of scope but I'd have thought that, by virtue of the fact that it serves the community, the BRIC would qualify as 'community value' - although that really wasn't / isn't the prize. It must have been a beautiful moment when Neil Rodgers' letter came through!

A couple of questions. The original application cited the near 25k (17% of Blackburn) attendance and was applied for by the Rovers Trust. If the attendance drops below a reasonable number, or if the Rovers Trust ceases to exist as a legal entity, could the ruling be reviewed, or warrant an opposing application from the club (Venkys) to have it removed from the ACV list?

[Exiled in Toronto]

Yes, Exiled in Toronto, tomphil pretty much summed it up correctly. Although, I apologise for the clumsy wording in my post. Rovers Trust is speculating the end of next season, not this upcoming close season.

Reasoning being this (my personal thoughts):

This season was the last with the PL parachute payment money. The P&L account has been heavily burdened this past year to clear it out in preparation for exiting the FFP transfer embargo, mostly by writing down and clearing out overvalued booked player assets, which has had an obvious negative effect on the balance sheet, namely the shareholders funds deficit (i.e. net book value of the club) which will easily be in the 9 figures range once those accounts come out in a few weeks, unless Venkys have converted another huge chunk of owner-owned debt into equity (which to their own credit, they have done in the past). The club has sold it only player asset with any meaningful transfer value in Rhodes.

Murmurs within the club are that next year will be a big one for the club. It is assumed this means one final push for promotion next season, and if it doesn't pan out the owners will have to seriously review their position. The timing of bringing in Paul Lambert goes along with that. He was brought in with proper time to assess the squad and make his transfer targets for the summer - probably why we saw virtually no action during January and saw the sale of Rhodes.

Obviously that old adage you refer to is a factor, but given the above it appears more applicable to next season than to any prior.

Yeah, too bad the Reebok (or is it something else now, the Macro or something) Stadium isn't registered as an Asset of Community Value...

Thanks Dan, makes sense, although I think how close we get to promotion next season could extend their tenure. Such are the riches that flow from promotion now, given that all the accrued losses are sunk costs, in any one season you'd be looking at an exceptional return on a 20 million punt if it got you promotion.

[perthblue02]

Interesting stuff. It looks as though the shop and BRIC were originally included but removed after intervention by Shaw. I accept that the shop would be outside of scope but I'd have thought that, by virtue of the fact that it serves the community, the BRIC would qualify as 'community value' - although that really wasn't / isn't the prize. It must have been a beautiful moment when Neil Rodgers' letter came through!

A couple of questions. The original application cited the near 25k (17% of Blackburn) attendance and was applied for by the Rovers Trust. If the attendance drops below a reasonable number, or if the Rovers Trust ceases to exist as a legal entity, could the ruling be reviewed, or warrant an opposing application from the club (Venkys) to have it removed from the ACV list?

I presume the club shop is still owned by the club and did not become a "Friends of Preston North End" scenario ?

[Paul]

Interesting stuff. It looks as though the shop and BRIC were originally included but removed after intervention by Shaw. I accept that the shop would be outside of scope but I'd have thought that, by virtue of the fact that it serves the community, the BRIC would qualify as 'community value' - although that really wasn't / isn't the prize. It must have been a beautiful moment when Neil Rodgers' letter came through!

A couple of questions. The original application cited the near 25k (17% of Blackburn) attendance and was applied for by the Rovers Trust. If the attendance drops below a reasonable number, or if the Rovers Trust ceases to exist as a legal entity, could the ruling be reviewed, or warrant an opposing application from the club (Venkys) to have it removed from the ACV list?

BRIC and the Roverstore were never part of the application. Precise definition of the buildings and land which constitute Ewood Park had to be established. Reference to the Land Registry, to establish what the club as owner considered to be Ewood Park, and very detailed Ordnance Survey mapping held in Blackburn library confirmed the area defined in the application had been in use as Ewood Park for decades and as such could be defined as an ACV. BRIC is outside of this boundary (which runs just behind the DE) but the Roverstore is inside the boundary (which runs immediately behind the store along the car park edge). However the store is very new, it's ownership as shown at the Land Registry is not clear to me as a layman (DON'T read anything in to that) and including the store could have given grounds for objection.

The club argued only the pitch and the Riverside should be an ACV and areas such as the offices, Blues Bar, function suites etc should not. Our point was these areas are central to the operation of a modern football club and also are contained within the building which constituted Ewood.

Attendance levels are not relevant to the application though I imagine an application for something used by one man and his dog would be harder to argue. Clearly the larger the percentage of the community using the ACV the stronger the argument.

I don't know the answer to the point re if Rovers Trust ceased to exist. The other point which will arise soon is the listing lasts for five years and is now half way though that period. The renewal process and whether or not it can be opposed will be the next stage. My hope is renewal is a relatively straightforward process.

It was a great moment when we got the ACV but for me more than anything relief. You only get one shot at this and failure would have been an awful thought - this is why BRIC, for example, was excluded. All potential for dispute had to be removed.

[MCMC1875]

Interesting stuff. It looks as though the shop and BRIC were originally included but removed after intervention by Shaw. I accept that the shop would be outside of scope but I'd have thought that, by virtue of the fact that it serves the community, the BRIC would qualify as 'community value' - although that really wasn't / isn't the prize. It must have been a beautiful moment when Neil Rodgers' letter came through!

A couple of questions. The original application cited the near 25k (17% of Blackburn) attendance and was applied for by the Rovers Trust. If the attendance drops below a reasonable number, or if the Rovers Trust ceases to exist as a legal entity, could the ruling be reviewed, or warrant an opposing application from the club (Venkys) to have it removed from the ACV list?

The fact is that '17% of Blackburn' do not attend Ewood. A great deal travel from far and wide, including Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Rossendale and South Ribble. I suspect that a lot less than 17% of BwD residents are part of our 9,000 hardcore support and I doubt that 17% of BwD population have attended Ewood in the last 50 years. Asset of regional value would be more apt.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Thanks, Paul. Much appreciated, I was hoping you'd chime in and clear up a few things.

Can you comment on the compulsory purchase rights clause? My understanding is that an asset having ACV status makes it much less valuable from a collateral/creditors point of view due to the higher risk involved - as there is no real chance to liquidate that value, successfully change its use, and in extreme circumstances it could be taken out from under you (at a fair market value).

To add to Paul's answer to Stuart on the attendance and Rovers Trust bit. I think of it more as an itrinsic value that Blackburn Rovers playing in upper tier football has on Blackburn and the surrounding local community. It puts Blackburn on the map, so to speak. How many people in the world would never even have heard of the town at all if it weren't for the football club? Attendance is one small argument, but the positive economic, and above all social, impact the club has on the surrounding community isn't really measured in attendance. As MCMC1875 so rightly points out above, this positive effect extends out beyond the boundaries of Blackburn with Darwen.

The underlying argument is that the club is the real community asset, and that Ewood Park is an essential and necessary part of allowing the club to function. Essentially an extension of the club itself. I don't think Rovers Trust ceasing to exist would have a negative effect on the ACV status of Ewood in and of itself, but the question is, who would then be around to maintain and renew that status if Rovers Trust and Paul weren't around anymore? :-)

[Stuart]

The fact is that '17% of Blackburn' do not attend Ewood. A great deal travel from far and wide, including Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Rossendale and South Ribble. I suspect that a lot less than 17% of BwD residents are part of our 9,000 hardcore support.

That's as maybe but unless you do a census of all fans it's about as accurate as one could be.

The worry is - thanks for clarifying Paul - that upon reapplication we will have close to, and potentially even below, 10% which might give could give the club an angle to appeal.

The idea that only the Riverside constitutes 'Ewood Park' is also laughable.

[Paul]

That's as maybe but unless you do a census of all fans it's about as accurate as one could be.

The worry is - thanks for clarifying Paul - that upon reapplication we will have close to, and potentially even below, 10% which might give could give the club an angle to appeal.

The idea that only the Riverside constitutes 'Ewood Park' is also laughable.

While I agree attendance is important in the general scheme of things I don't feel it's an issue in this instance. The successful application puts the Trust in a strong position,the case has been proved and it would be up to the club to disprove. The first ACVs were awarded, to my knowledge, in 2013 with Old Trafford being one of the first in January/February of that year and from which I got the inspiration re Ewood. This means the first renewals will come due in 2018 and with several trusts ahead of Rovers Trust in the "queue" there will be opportunity to learn from their experience.

NOTE BELOW:

A building or other land is an asset of community value if its main use is, or has recently been, to “further the social well-being or social interests of the local community” and it could do so in the future.

[Paul]

The fact is that '17% of Blackburn' do not attend Ewood. A great deal travel from far and wide, including Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Rossendale and South Ribble. I suspect that a lot less than 17% of BwD residents are part of our 9,000 hardcore support and I doubt that 17% of BwD population have attended Ewood in the last 50 years. Asset of regional value would be more apt.

I'm not able to provide statistic, no one is, but this point was made in the original application:

"As founder members of both the Football and Premier leagues the club brings international recognition and visitors to the area providing the town and East Lancashire as a whole with an invaluable public profile."

[BlueMonday]

I would just add to this, that the Blackburn Rovers Community doesn't just include the attending supporters however many there are at any given time or the people of BwD.

It's who ever follows the Club, cares about its future and is invested, be it through shared past history, allegiance from afar or even sticking up for the club/arguing its case in a pub in Glasgow.

[Paul]

Thanks, Paul. Much appreciated, I was hoping you'd chime in and clear up a few things.

Can you comment on the compulsory purchase rights clause? My understanding is that an asset having ACV status makes it much less valuable from a collateral/creditors point of view due to the higher risk involved - as there is no real chance to liquidate that value, successfully change its use, and in extreme circumstances it could be taken out from under you (at a fair market value).

To add to Paul's answer to Stuart on the attendance and Rovers Trust bit. I think of it more as an itrinsic value that Blackburn Rovers playing in upper tier football has on Blackburn and the surrounding local community. It puts Blackburn on the map, so to speak. How many people in the world would never even have heard of the town at all if it weren't for the football club? Attendance is one small argument, but the positive economic, and above all social, impact the club has on the surrounding community isn't really measured in attendance. As MCMC1875 so rightly points out above, this positive effect extends out beyond the boundaries of Blackburn with Darwen.

The underlying argument is that the club is the real community asset, and that Ewood Park is an essential and necessary part of allowing the club to function. Essentially an extension of the club itself. I don't think Rovers Trust ceasing to exist would have a negative effect on the ACV status of Ewood in and of itself, but the question is, who would then be around to maintain and renew that status if Rovers Trust and Paul weren't around anymore? :-)

Re compulsory purchase I'm not clear what you mean? To me compulsory purchase is when a Local Authority or government forces the purchase of property or land to facilitate road building, airport expansion etc. etc. Other than road widening(!!!) I don't see this impacting Ewood. Do you have something else in mind?

Your first sentence in the third paragraph is the essence of the value of an ACV. The football club is the asset we are trying to protect and the route to achieving this is to protect the ground as the two are closely linked. How does protecting the ground help? As you refer to earlier the ACV is crucial in determining the land value as is the potential for change of use - for those who are not aware selling Ewood has little benefit if the Local Authority were to refuse permission to redevelop for housing, supermarket etc.

Some scenarios here and I STRESS this is me thinking out loud. If Rovers Trust perceived a potential purchaser/sale as hostile and as the sale of the club involves the sale of the ground the opportunity would exist for RT to exercise the "Community Right to Bid." With ACV status the council then has to consider change of use, it may be a potential purchaser would see the ACV as bringing real doubt to the financial viability of the deal.

If the above happened perhaps RT would negotiate with the potential purchaser for a stake in the club, seat on the board etc. in return for not exercising the Community Right to Buy.

Alternatively a friendly bid arrives RT simply does not exercise the CRB.

The ACV is a powerful negotiating tool in many different situations.

[Paul]

For those interested a copy of the full application can be downloaded - it's been slightly redacted to remove my personal details.

The plan is the one lodged at the Land Registry and seeing this may help clarify why the ACV application was very specific and used an 1:1250 OS map to define the boundary - this level of detail is needed for certainty. Add to that Ewood actually sits on two different adjoining maps!!! Yo can view this for yourself in Blackburn library.

Asset of Community Value Submission REDUCTED.pdf

PlanLAN99840 Ewood Park.pdf

ACV Response to BwD Request for Clarification 2013 07 23 REDACTED.pdf

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Thanks for that, Paul! I was referring to this:

Compulsory purchase rights: an ACV-registered building can be compulsorily purchased by the local authority or council "if the asset is under threat of long-term loss to the community".

Yes in theory that could be for road widening, as you say, or it could be to save Ewood from being sold to a supermarket chain planning to demolish it and redevelop the land.

[Paul]

I've either forgotten that aspect or missed it three years ago. I'm getting older!! That is a very nice part of ACV status.

[VinjayV4]

Thanks for that, Paul! I was referring to this:

Compulsory purchase rights: an ACV-registered building can be compulsorily purchased by the local authority or council "if the asset is under threat of long-term loss to the community".

Yes in theory that could be for road widening, as you say, or it could be to save Ewood from being sold to a supermarket chain planning to demolish it and redevelop the land.

...and that supermarket would either be boycotted for life or preferably burnt to a crisp.

[ABBEY]

So your advocating burning a building down . What if there is someone in ? People say I post bad stuff but ... Arson wow.

[TBTF]

...and that supermarket would either be boycotted for life or preferably burnt to a crisp.

A mate of mine who is a 100 club member wrote to Seneca today and got a response from one of the Ian's along the lines of '' we are as distressed as every other Rovers fan about where this is going but rest assured we wont allow 135 years of Rovers history to slide down the toilet. We need to ensure this Club is there for future generations and is delivered back to the fans and the Town. What gets left behind in the final analysis is total guesswork but we will do everything we can''.

I scribbled down as he was reading it to me so might not be exactly word for word.

Whichever Ian it was also confirmed that he had spoken with Wayne Wild and the Trust just in general terms.

I have to say I did feel reassured that somebody out there feels like all of us on here and will be fighting tooth and nail for the Club.

This combination has always been our best option and I wondered if we should be making some collective noises and banging the public drum for venkys to at least speak with these parties.

[Stuart]

A mate of mine who is a 100 club member wrote to Seneca today and got a response from one of the Ian's along the lines of '' we are as distressed as every other Rovers fan about where this is going but rest assured we wont allow 135 years of Rovers history to slide down the toilet. We need to ensure this Club is there for future generations and is delivered back to the fans and the Town. What gets left behind in the final analysis is total guesswork but we will do everything we can''.

I scribbled down as he was reading it to me so might not be exactly word for word.

Whichever Ian it was also confirmed that he had spoken with Wayne Wild and the Trust just in general terms.

I have to say I did feel reassured that somebody out there feels like all of us on here and will be fighting tooth and nail for the Club.

This combination has always been our best option and I wondered if we should be making some collective noises and banging the public drum for venkys to at least speak with these parties.

Great to hear. Can this be the catalyst for an immediate, sustained campaign against Venkys?

The trouble is there will still be some Rovers fans who would prefer to have Venkys in charge - under some pretence that they are propping us up. I'd take League Two to be shut of Venkys and replace them with people who care.

On Rovers On!

[Iceman]

Both Ians to be fair have the clubs best interest at heart. Heck they could probably have gotten us proper owners, or been part of a successful consortium 3 or 4 years ago, had the dimwits of India just listened and sold up. If that was one of the response of one of the Ians, then I guess there is some serious work being done behind the scenes. Along with Wayne Wild, there should be enough encouragement I hope to help us get rid of these clowns

[Iceman]

I've also sent the Ians an email through their Seneca page. Basically also sent out an SOS, and I'm hoping that through their contacts, that this time they will put the heat on Venkys big time

[Blackburn Ender]

Just to confirm, we are all talking in general terms as Ian Battersby says.

One of the key roles of the Rovers Trust, as we have always seen it, is to have 'behind the scenes' conversations with the club, the owners, and other supporters.

Wayne and others in the Trust are very good at this and we are lucky to have them on board. It's also some comfort to know people like Ian Battersby, with their background and expertise, care as much as we do.

We've always said we need to ready for any eventuality to save Blackburn Rovers, if and when them time comes, and a lot of what we do is geared towards that.

[Ben-2000]

So have the trust had contact with the Owners?

[koi]

My worry is what Venky's will want. Comparing us to Bolton is fine and dandy but you have to remember a huge portion of the debt was written off by the owner. I very much doubt Venky's will do that for Rovers. I can seriously see this going straight to liquidation.

[TBTF]

I've also sent the Ians an email through their Seneca page. Basically also sent out an SOS, and I'm hoping that through their contacts, that this time they will put the heat on Venkys big time

To be fair Iceman I think it stopped short of ''putting the heat on Venkys'' largely because they don't reply or talk to anyone. I think it was more a message of being ready should it all hit the fan-much like Blackburn Ender is saying