[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[philipl]

And in whose interests is a 'nine figure' deal?

This is me guessing. However, it is not contradicted by anything I have not read in the public domain over the past seven and a half years.

If somebody went to the Trust with a cheque which said pay Blackburn Rovers £100 million and asked to be issued with new shares at two thirds discount to the existing shareholding price so the ownership became 75% new owner 25% existing shareholders, I would be surprised if the person offering that deal didn't get a very considered hearing from the Trust and their advisers.

How did Jack "acquire" Blackburn Rovers in the first place and why are the shareholdings which were owned in the Rovers in 1989 still around as a massively diluted holdings today? By doing something very similar to what I've suggested- Jack's money went into the club because few shareholders exited.

[BRFC95]

Surprised theno hasn't jumped in. He's been saying for a while we should give Hughes a share of the profits.

Isn't giving him shares in the club and making him a Board Member doing just that.

Or is theno really Rocket Ronnie

[iamarover]

This is me guessing. However, it is not contradicted by anything I have not read in the public domain over the past seven and a half years.

If somebody went to the Trust with a cheque which said pay Blackburn Rovers £100 million and asked to be issued with new shares at two thirds discount to the existing shareholding price so the ownership became 75% new owner 25% existing shareholders, I would be surprised if the person offering that deal didn't get a very considered hearing from the Trust and their advisers.

How did Jack "acquire" Blackburn Rovers in the first place and why are the shareholdings which were owned in the Rovers in 1989 still around as a massively diluted holdings today? By doing something very similar to what I've suggested- Jack's money went into the club because few shareholders exited.

My Dad was a shareholder from the Rally Round the Rovers days of the 70s. The princely sum of £10. He was offered cash for them by Jack but money wasnt the issue - and as a result we get annual accounts and get to go to the AGM by holding onto the shares. I presume JJack achieved over 90% fromo the major shareholders who if memory serves was broadly the board at the time so getting all the voting rights he needed to manage the club. But didnt enforce the purchase then off people like my Dad as was his right, presumably because he rightly didnt see them as any kind of threat at a later stage. Most shareholders actually did exit. A few survive but your are right they are massively diluted after the debt conversion in recent years. And presumably my Dad will have his shares compulsorily bought once the new takeover takes place. Which is a shame

[Blackburn Ender]

You don't give the manager a seat in the boardroom because, when results are terrible and we are facing relegation, it'd be pretty embarrassing having to criticise or even sack a fellow director.

[RevidgeBlue]

You don't give the manager a seat in the boardroom because, when results are terrible and we are facing relegation, it'd be pretty embarrassing having to criticise or even sack a fellow director.

Exactly, I thought the above was so blindingly obvious it didn't really need saying.

Not a happy recipe for when you need to give a manager the chop or even simply when results aren't going too well.

Plus, how could the manager fight his corner properly when it comes to investing in the team? He'd be wearing two hats.

Also, he'd sort of have a vested interest in selling on our best players.

[BrianPotter]

Brian said that two Ronaldos are probably worth more than the Trust...I think it ought to be noted that the Trust are reputed to be worth over 500 million. I can't vouch for that being a certainty before somebody leaps on me, just what I've read.

The trust doesn't have a value a such, but according to the latest ST List the Walker family are worth 750m. I also said two Ronaldos could be worth one tenth of the trust, not the whole trust so that would be 75m on the previous figure so with todays prices that might be a little low.

[bluebruce]

The trust doesn't have a value a such, but according to the latest ST List the Walker family are worth 750m. I also said two Ronaldos could be worth one tenth of the trust, not the whole trust so that would be 75m on the previous figure so with todays prices that might be a little low.

Oh, apologies, you did say that. I was pretty knackered when I posted that, but still not sure how I misread it.

So they're getting richer then? And investing less? And not that it's particularly pertinent but I would assume Ronaldo wouldn't be going anywhere for less than 50 million unless he wanted out. Probably not even for that unless he wanted out.

[Alan75]

You don't give the manager a seat in the boardroom because, when results are terrible and we are facing relegation, it'd be pretty embarrassing having to criticise or even sack a fellow director.

No difference to any other business, when profits arent coming in - directors get the bullet, (with a hefty payout.)

[iamarover]

No difference to any other business, when profits arent coming in - directors get the bullet, (with a hefty payout.)

Profits. That's the key word in all this. Something the new owners will be looking for and the current Trustees are not. Which is a key difference. Drafting a coach onto the board is a daft thing. The two sides of a club - business and football - need to be kept separate. For all JW has done on the admin side I wouldnt really countenance bringing him on the coaching side to stop him leaving. Nor should it be for Hughsie. Seems to me like this is a ham fisted PR solution to try and bring Hughes into the tent and 'onside' if and when our prospective owner tightens the purse strings to keep his dividend up. Hughes as a coach on the outside will not stand for something like that and our shirt selling market trader knows that.

If they want to keep Hughes onside they need to get him funds to do the job. Hughes wants to be a top class manager not a director of a mid ranking Prem club. If Rocket Ronnie doesnt deliver then Hughes will be off and we will be up the Kyhber.

The takeover either has to be from a sugar daddy (and lightening isnt going to strike twice), a crook laundering Mafiosi money from somewhere East (no thanks), a chancer trying to make money out of a club that has gone way above its natural place in the pecking order (Rocket Ronnie), or, a marketer who thinks they can leverage the Rovers brand into China or India (possibly the best but also the riskiest). And to do that they would have to be from either of those countries.

If they latter doesnt arrive then the Trustees are our best bet. They let the management team get on with the job and by and as long as the club washes its face will not interfere. It's not the most glamorous route but overall its the most sensible and our best chance of continuing what has largely been a successful period since Jack's death. It isn't broke. It doesn't need fixing.

[krislu]

It isn't broke. It doesn't need fixing.

Hate that phrase! One should in general always look to improve and not wait until something gets broken before fixing it...

[iamarover]

Hate that phrase! One should in general always look to improve and not wait until something gets broken before fixing it...

So your suggestion is....?

[T4E]

Hate that phrase! One should in general always look to improve and not wait until something gets broken before fixing it...

Exactly. The concept that something is either "working" or "broken" with no middle ground is not applicable to a sport as complex as football. The more applicable mantra is the "if you're standing still you're moving backwards" line - as we witnessed in '95. We certainly weren't broke back then, but there's not very many of us that would advocate doing things in the same way as we did that Summer, given our time again.

[Martin]

So your suggestion is....?

If it's not perfect - improve it!!

[Iceman]

Well any foreign investment should be perceived as being risky,whether its from a local businessman or a foreign consortium.The problem is that unless the people taking over becomes true fans of the club,and not just in it to make an extra bit on the sidelines,you will always be classed as "Risky". If you look at SGE at City,he imo has done well,but yet may face the chop,because their owner is an idiot who doesnt understand football.i would hate to see some rich guy taking over Rovers,looks at our current position and says "Hughes you not good enough"

Who ever takes over should say,"you have done a good job,and your job is safe because you have improved the team" i agree with those that say if something aint broke,it doesnt mean you cant improve on it.

[iamarover]

Exactly. The concept that something is either "working" or "broken" with no middle ground is not applicable to a sport as complex as football. The more applicable mantra is the "if you're standing still you're moving backwards" line - as we witnessed in '95. We certainly weren't broke back then, but there's not very many of us that would advocate doing things in the same way as we did that Summer, given our time again.

Saying we should improve things is a bit like saying we should be in favour of truth and against sin. All I am trying to point out is that at a macro level the Trustees are far and away the best bet for us at the moment, although to read posters on here you wouldn't think so. Their commitment to the Rovers means our assets are always protected. Ask fans of Bournemouth, Wrexham, Mansfield, Brighton and others and they would tell us to stick to what we know and steer well clear of Princes on white chargers. Of course we have to improve, and to be fair to the Rovers they have. Better prices, great football, good marketing.... and in return for that they get falling gates which makes big money signings impossible. Dont listen to me. Listen to Hughsie : ""People have expressed interest but the view of the trustees is there is no point selling to people who will just acquire the club and not take it forward. We may as well keep the status quo and stay as we are (in that instance)."

He then goes on to wish for a 'rich benefactor'. Well dont we all. And so do the Trustees. In the absence of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Dream Catcher, my faith is with the Walker Family.

[Blackburn Ender]

Another consideration is that some Far East/US/Shirt Saleman* (*delete as applicable) worth billions on paper can convince Rovers to sell up, put some cash in for a season or two and play around with us until they realise they ain't going to break into the Top 4.

They then get bored, get arrested, or their business collapses.

The crucial point being - if they are wealthy enough to buy the club and invest money in players; they are also wealthy enough to be prepared to just walk away and take a loss when selling the club on again.

This time with no Trust conditions to satisfy.

And would the Jack Walker Trust step in to buy us back?

[Iceman]

its going to happen,the takeover of rovers will happen..its just who will be taking over the club,that will be the interesting thing for me.We need the extra bit of cash injection into the club,there is no ways we can compete with the clubs around us without more money.we have certianly punched above our weight,but saying that its fair play to Hughes and the Board for not panicking and taking on more and more debt.

i would have loved to have seen Dan Williams take over the club,as he is a fan...What the reasons are for his bid being turned down im not sure.i know i read that he didnt think the club was more than the 40mill he offered.

[OscarRaven]

If ever a club was right to be owned by a fans group Rovers now would have to be it.

All we need is 140,000 supporters each paying £300 each, own a chunk of premier league club for £300 bet you could sell that on e-bay.

[Eddie]

Saying we should improve things is a bit like saying we should be in favour of truth and against sin. All I am trying to point out is that at a macro level the Trustees are far and away the best bet for us at the moment, although to read posters on here you wouldn't think so. Their commitment to the Rovers means our assets are always protected. Ask fans of Bournemouth, Wrexham, Mansfield, Brighton and others and they would tell us to stick to what we know and steer well clear of Princes on white chargers. Of course we have to improve, and to be fair to the Rovers they have. Better prices, great football, good marketing.... and in return for that they get falling gates which makes big money signings impossible. Dont listen to me. Listen to Hughsie : ""People have expressed interest but the view of the trustees is there is no point selling to people who will just acquire the club and not take it forward. We may as well keep the status quo and stay as we are (in that instance)."

He then goes on to wish for a 'rich benefactor'. Well dont we all. And so do the Trustees. In the absence of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Dream Catcher, my faith is with the Walker Family.

Our "assets" may be protected, but our greatest asset, both to our value and status as a football club, our place in the premiership, is not safe under the current ownership. The level of investment simply isn't their and sooner or later that is going to become a huge issue; just think of the number of players we will need to replace within the next 2-3 seasons (Friedel, Tugay, Ooijer, Nelsen basically, Benni basically, Roberts basically, Vogel) and where is the money going to come from to simply keep this squad at the level it currently is, let alone to help it improve?

It's not broken, but to keep everything running things need to be maintained and at the moment we aren't really able to do that properly.

The key for me here really is the fact that we don't HAVE to sell at this point, but I think most people can recognise the fact that sometime in the next 10 or so years we probably will have to. Now do you think it is better to sell when you don't have to, when you can take your time and when you are also a more attractive prospect, or when you have to bite the hand off of the first offer that is put forward?

[Hughesy]

And Where would we get 140,000 fans? Also where would get transfer funds from after that??

If ever a club was right to be owned by a fans group Rovers now would have to be it.

All we need is 140,000 supporters each paying £300 each, own a chunk of premier league club for £300 bet you could sell that on e-bay.

[iamarover]

Our "assets" may be protected, but our greatest asset, both to our value and status as a football club, our place in the premiership, is not safe under the current ownership. The level of investment simply isn't their and sooner or later that is going to become a huge issue; just think of the number of players we will need to replace within the next 2-3 seasons (Friedel, Tugay, Ooijer, Nelsen basically, Benni basically, Roberts basically, Vogel) and where is the money going to come from to simply keep this squad at the level it currently is, let alone to help it improve?

It's not broken, but to keep everything running things need to be maintained and at the moment we aren't really able to do that properly.

The key for me here really is the fact that we don't HAVE to sell at this point, but I think most people can recognise the fact that sometime in the next 10 or so years we probably will have to. Now do you think it is better to sell when you don't have to, when you can take your time and when you are also a more attractive prospect, or when you have to bite the hand off of the first offer that is put forward?

'Investment' is a word often mis used in football. Are you asking for 'investment' from a new owner. or, in really a donation? If it is the former then how does it work?

Investor Shirt Seller pays £60m for the Rovers. And then say £25m in transfers as you suggest. How does shirt seller get his £85m back? Or, given that this is an 'investment', how does he get £100m out? The Glazers loaded the club with debt and are gambling that Fergie will keep them in the top 4 for long enough to pay back millions in loans and then sell the club. Even if said Shirt Seller 'only' took out £10m a year for 10 years - and so barely break even given the value of money over time - how is this possibly financed? Where is the extra £10m going to come from? Hence my original point.

Either we get a sugar daddy where the 'investment' is in fact a donation. As per Walker and Abramavich. Or, we somehow break into a new market via Chinese or Indian investors. There simply is not enough spare cash in any Rovers finance model to be remotely attractive in any alternative scenario. We are blessed that our Trustees dont even want the money they put in back out. Unlike Rocket Ronnie who, not unreasonably, will want money he puts in to increase in value. And we have already seen that any increased TV revenue always end up in the pockets of players so that value isnt going to come from continuing to challenge for the top 6. Even a miraculous top 4 finish will see all that extra cash vanish - how much do you think Bentley will be asking for then!

So given there is no chance of either the above scenarios the Trust is the only option. Do not be blinded by an investor waving £10m on top of the £10m already promised for next season. At some point he will want it back. Probably just after Hughesie has left for United. Managers, players and owners all leave at some point. Only the fans remain. So if they want our club they will have to fight for it and prove to our guardians that they are not the shysters most businessmen in football are. Until that day they can all go hang.

[Hughesy]

I trust that Williams and the Trust will get the right deal for the club. If its in Jack’s best interest then surely they will make sure our future is secure by whoever is buying the club.

Maybe Ronnie is after the club for a few years before selling out to his mate, Whelan? Maybe he is getting fed up of Wigan and wants to buy the club that he wanted originally? Who knows!

[PAFELL]

I trust that Williams and the Trust will get the right deal for the club. If its in Jack’s best interest then surely they will make sure our future is secure by whoever is buying the club.

Maybe Ronnie is after the club for a few years before selling out to his mate, Whelan? Maybe he is getting fed up of Wigan and wants to buy the club that he wanted originally? Who knows!

It is strange that there is total silence on this possible take over - has anything more been heard since the paper mentioned it the other weekend. the only thing the club said was that they knew nothing about it. Hughes has stated that no take over is worthwhile without transfer money - is this a huge hint to us all that there is No imminent take over?

I do not know if Nicko has anything else to report (update) on this subject.

[HairwayToSteven]

'Investment' is a word often mis used in football. Are you asking for 'investment' from a new owner. or, in really a donation? If it is the former then how does it work?

Investor Shirt Seller pays £60m for the Rovers. And then say £25m in transfers as you suggest. How does shirt seller get his £85m back? Or, given that this is an 'investment', how does he get £100m out? The Glazers loaded the club with debt and are gambling that Fergie will keep them in the top 4 for long enough to pay back millions in loans and then sell the club. Even if said Shirt Seller 'only' took out £10m a year for 10 years - and so barely break even given the value of money over time - how is this possibly financed? Where is the extra £10m going to come from? Hence my original point.

Either we get a sugar daddy where the 'investment' is in fact a donation. As per Walker and Abramavich. Or, we somehow break into a new market via Chinese or Indian investors. There simply is not enough spare cash in any Rovers finance model to be remotely attractive in any alternative scenario. We are blessed that our Trustees dont even want the money they put in back out. Unlike Rocket Ronnie who, not unreasonably, will want money he puts in to increase in value. And we have already seen that any increased TV revenue always end up in the pockets of players so that value isnt going to come from continuing to challenge for the top 6. Even a miraculous top 4 finish will see all that extra cash vanish - how much do you think Bentley will be asking for then!

So given there is no chance of either the above scenarios the Trust is the only option. Do not be blinded by an investor waving £10m on top of the £10m already promised for next season. At some point he will want it back. Probably just after Hughesie has left for United. Managers, players and owners all leave at some point. Only the fans remain. So if they want our club they will have to fight for it and prove to our guardians that they are not the shysters most businessmen in football are. Until that day they can all go hang.

This quite adequately sums up my future fears for this club. It seems that we are doomed, because Blackburn is a small place and doesn't have the bright lights of say London, Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool. Sooner or later we'll run out of tricks - no matter how well we are run as a club. I'd say within five years we'll be back in the lower devisions. It'll take extraordinary amounts of money, to get us even close to the clubs that are around us in the league table year in year out. We'll firstly have to get decent placings every single year, maybe win a few cups along the way. Then there is a possibility for us to last, because lets face it - we are grossly over-performing atm.

That is if we don't find a new Jack Walker, and I just cannot see it happening...

[ffan]

Probably won't affect Rovers but Daily Mail are reporting that Fulham and Watford are up for sale.