Summer Transfer Window

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Depends who we are looking at the position for. I would look at getting Barry Douglas from Leeds. Quality player. 

Yes some free agents market is start to go elsewhere but would you say in your opinion we miss out on someone you would have like here?

The point is more that we are always playing catch up and giving everyone else a head start.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, Richard Oakley said:

If the player is down to receive a cut of the transfer fee, the bigger the transfer fee the more to him.

@Bigdoggsteel I very much doubt he'd sulk. His agent would probably be telling him, he can get a much bigger deal than that.

Again, not relevant to the point. The point is a player wouldn't NOT give himself a way out if he knows bigger clubs with more money are in for him. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, Richard Oakley said:

If the player is down to receive a cut of the transfer fee, the bigger the transfer fee the more to him.

@Bigdoggsteel I very much doubt he'd sulk. His agent would probably be telling him, he can get a much bigger deal than that.

Ya, if that is in his contract. I'm not sure the intricacies of how it does be broken down between a player getting a cut and there being a release clause.

Probably wouldn't come into it though as if he scored 30 goals as it would be a PL team who came in, so they would be offering ridiculous wages and a signing on fee. I doubt he would be dragging his feet about the fee. 

[tomphil]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

He is only 23 years old. So you aren't asking him to commit to his best years are you?

Of course you are in terms of age if nothing else he's a young pacy forward, anything can happen in the next 4 years. There's zero chance of him signing a contract with no release clause unless you are going to set him up for life financially. 

You should know by now nothing is guaranteed in football he's a decent championship forward in a mid table team at the moment. That's the be all and end all at the moment.

I'd love to keep him but at the same time don't want to over commit.

[Richard Oakley]

Just now, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Again, not relevant to the point. The point is a player wouldn't NOT give himself a way out if he knows bigger clubs with more money are in for him. 

Of course, it is relevant. A player always has a way out.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, Richard Oakley said:

Of course, it is relevant. A player always has a way out.

If he has a 4 year contract with no release clause the only way out (if the club won't sell) is to sulk and down tools. As we have seen happen with players many times.  

Edited August 7, 2020 by Bigdoggsteel

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, Richard Oakley said:

Of course, it is relevant. A player always has a way out.

It's a lot easier with a release clause, which is what the discussion was about. You misunderstood. It's fine.

[Theaxe15]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

The point is more that we are always playing catch up and giving everyone else a head start.

Depends how you spin it... if we wanted that guy then yeah we've given up a head start and lost out. But if we didn't then we're not playing catch up at all as we didnt want him anyways.  Not saying we're the most proactive, from the outside looking in, but just because someone else has signed a free left back doesn't mean we're playing catch up so to speak. 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

The point is more that we are always playing catch up and giving everyone else a head start.

But then thats come back to recruitment and we might have different transfer targets to someone like Stoke. 

We might have bids in for the players we want right now. We just don't know

[roversfan99]

Just now, Theaxe15 said:

Depends how you spin it... if we wanted that guy then yeah we've given up a head start and lost out. But if we didn't then we're not playing catch up at all as we didnt want him anyways.  Not saying we're the most proactive, from the outside looking in, but just because someone else has signed a free left back doesn't mean we're playing catch up so to speak. 

No I said that I am not sure whether I wanted him and didnt say that we wanted him. I was just saying in general, our dithering will put us at a disadvantage in general and has done since these tossers bought us.

[Richard Oakley]

24 minutes ago, phili said:

I doubt the collateral has anything to do with Rovers, the SBOI is the Venky's bank for all of their companies and personal wealth management. If any collateral was attached to Rovers or the holding company it would be registered at companies house.

SBOI have provided the mortgages on the prime real estate outside of Pune which has been used to fund Rovers. That is the collateral, and is probably worth more than the £200m they have invested in us so far. The mortgages are being paid back through with Venky's personal or company funds.

The only issues we have to worry about is if SBOI do not renew the overdraft or call it in. As we are still in buisness and not in administration as well as having £4m injected a few months ago, we are ok at the moment.

There were other banks involved, at onepoint. Each deal is separate and has its own secured collateral. Of course, SBOI may not treat them so. SBOI would appear to have Venkys by the short and curlies.

All our accounting is done at VH Group,so if the SBOI has called in our overdraft,it wouldn't show anywhere else.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Richard Oakley

[bluebruce]

21 minutes ago, Richard Oakley said:

A release clause puts in a lower floor. Unless there's a bidding war, the club is voluntarily putting itself in a worst position.

I think they should be banned, personally. They protect the players not the clubs and the players already have the upper hand. They make millions and nearly all clubs live in debt trying to feed them.

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

our dithering will put us at a disadvantage in general

How do you know we are dithering this summer? Forget past transfer windows. 

[roversfan99]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

How do you know we are dithering this summer? Forget past transfer windows. 

Because Mowbray had numerous interviews including after the Luton game whereby he seemed frustrated at the lack of clarity given to him regarding his budget.

Also, because it is Venkys.

[Mercer]

28 minutes ago, Richard Oakley said:

The Raos aren't directors of Blackburn Rovers. Irrelevant.  I have dealt with many instances over the years where '3rd parties' have personally guaranteed (and sometimes secured with land / property)  a lender's facility - most recently, where parents guaranteed a substantial loan facility made to their son's company. I expect that the collateral offered the SBOI was the clubs issued share capital as owned by VLL. It probably looked like a very sweet deal at the start.  Would be very surprised if that happened.  If the lender had to rely upon that it would be in the circumstances of distress / insolvency and such 'security' would be pretty much worthless in those circumstances.

 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

Because Mowbray had numerous interviews including after the Luton game whereby he seemed frustrated at the lack of clarity given to him regarding his budget.

Also, because it is Venkys.

That's was over 2 weeks ago. Alot would have gone on since then. Cant go.off a manager in a post match interview 

Mowbray said he hadn't had full clarity on his budget after the Luton game. 

 

[Mercer]

5 minutes ago, Richard Oakley said:

There were other banks involved, at onepoint. Each deal is separate and has its own secured collateral. Of course, SBOI may not treat them so. SBOI would appear to have Venkys by the short and curlies.

All our accounting is done at VH Group,so if the SBOI has called in our overdraft,it wouldn't show anywhere else.

Of course it would.

The overdraft is to The Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Limited.  The borrower would be the first to know! 

[tomphil]

9 minutes ago, Richard Oakley said:

There were other banks involved, at onepoint. Each deal is separate and has its own secured collateral. Of course, SBOI may not treat them so. SBOI would appear to have Venkys by the short and curlies.

All our accounting is done at VH Group,so if the SBOI has called in our overdraft,it wouldn't show anywhere else.

There was an article in an Indian business site on the takeover back in the day talking about Venkys and VH group.  It had another banks name down as providing the buying price funds.

I reckon the finance thing back in India could be very very complex indeed but these things never come tumbling out unless the proverbial hits the fan.

Edited August 7, 2020 by tomphil

[Bigdoggsteel]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Because Mowbray had numerous interviews including after the Luton game whereby he seemed frustrated at the lack of clarity given to him regarding his budget.

Also, because it is Venkys.

As is always the case, the proof will be in what we see with our own eyes. 

No signings in yet. 

[Richard Oakley]

12 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Of course it would.

The overdraft is to The Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Limited.  The borrower would be the first to know! 

No. I repeat. All our accounting is done through VH group. As phili stated, in the past when our overdraft was exceeded,money would be sent through VH to issue/fully pay up new share capital to reduce it to the limit.

I doubt Venkys could be forced to make a third party guarantee and we were a much better financial bet when taken over and when SBOI permitted an overdraft facility. If the club defaulted on the overdraft re-call, the bank got the lot.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Richard Oakley

[tomphil]

Vs must have SBOI in their pockets and vice versa, they clearly have a very good working relationship and line of credit.

The reason they switched was Barclays were about to take hold of the clubs affairs because of an outstanding 10 million they were demanding. 

Soon after Chris Samaba disappeared to Russia in an out of window transfer for around that amount.......

[arbitro]

54 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Now, is it an attack-minded player or a defensive one??

Bloody hell mate, you're like a dog with a bone ?? ??

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, arbitro said:

Bloody hell mate, you're like a dog with a bone ?? ??

Is that a cryptic clue??

[Richard Oakley]

Just now, tomphil said:

Vs must have SBOI in their pockets and vice versa, they clearly have a very good working relationship and line of credit.

The reason they switched was Barclays were about to take hold of the clubs affairs because of an outstanding 10 million they were demanding. 

Soon after Chris Samaba disappeared to Russia in an out of window transfer for around that amount.......

VLL had an influx of £33m to deal with the debt owed Barclays.Barclays had instigated liquidation proceedings. I've never seen a figure as low as £10m quoted. The most common figure I've seen quoted is £19m, but it was a private transaction. Venkys took us private from being a publicly quoted company. Samba did go soon after, but we still needed financing.

[simongarnerisgod]

goalkeepers are coming?i hope