[Archived] Rovers Takeover Thread

[den]

Everyone understands the need to keep debt under control and plenty of clubs keep a little back from transfer revenues to keep the debt manageable. The difference here, is that it appears to some people that the holding back of, up until now anyway, of a huge £10m when there is a dire need to bring some quality into the midfield, is giving the impression that the trustees are more concerned with finances than football. If they were still intent on keeping the club then that view would hold little substance - but they aren't. As Rev said, JW always said that any money from selling players would be made available to the manager, but apparently not so any more. That has changed.

Yes there are plenty of clubs who can illustrate the pitfalls of spending money they don't have, but are Rovers really so badly off after the sale of RSC and Derbs, not to mention Bentley last season, that they must deny the manager 50% of the money? Or is it more to do with the fact that the clubs owners have only one thing in their mind?

Newcastle, Leeds and Portsmouth have hit hard times all by their own making, but are we any better off having owners who want rid?

[PAFELL]

Everyone understands the need to keep debt under control and plenty of clubs keep a little back from transfer revenues to keep the debt manageable. The difference here, is that it appears to some people that the holding back of, up until now anyway, of a huge £10m when there is a dire need to bring some quality into the midfield, is giving the impression that the trustees are more concerned with finances than football. If they were still intent on keeping the club then that view would hold little substance - but they aren't. As Rev said, JW always said that any money from selling players would be made available to the manager, but apparently not so any more. That has changed.

Yes there are plenty of clubs who can illustrate the pitfalls of spending money they don't have, but are Rovers really so badly off after the sale of RSC and Derbs, not to mention Bentley last season, that they must deny the manager 50% of the money? Or is it more to do with the fact that the clubs owners have only one thing in their mind?

Newcastle, Leeds and Portsmouth have hit hard times all by their own making, but are we any better off having owners who want rid?

One thing I have noticed for awhile is the silence with regards to the trustees. Nothing is ever mentioned in local press about fans concern for rovers, the trustees etc. It is as though somebody is deliberatley keeping everything quiet. I think fans in the Blackburn area should be going to the LET etc to express concerns about the trustees - if they have concerns - as this make make the trustees at least make a statement with regards to their position.

I also do not believe that Rothschilds are doing much with regards to trying to sell the club. We hear tales / rumours of other clubs being taken over but nothing about Rovers. Rothschilds reputation is being damaged in my view because of their inability to sell the club.

I say again local supporters need to go to the local press and express their cocerns - and see what develops.

[stuwilky]

So, is the expectation that the trust simply pays for our ongoing losses?

[PAFELL]

So, is the expectation that the trust simply pays for our ongoing losses?

Because the trustees remain silent - nobody knows what the trustees are doing / want to do etc. It would therefore help if they spoke up a bit more.

[den]

So, is the expectation that the trust simply pays for our ongoing losses?

The expectation is Stu, that the trustees carry out the wishes of Jack Walker, as defined in the terms of the Jersey trust.

Blase reply, to a blase comment.

[PAFELL]

The expectation is Stu, that the trustees carry out the wishes of Jack Walker, as defined in the terms of the Jersey trust.

Blase reply, to a blase comment.

Den, nobody outside of the club or trustees knows the terms of Jacks will - unless I am mistaken.

Rovers need to generate more income. I noticed only one pre-season friendly at home again. Why Rovers cannot put on a tournament at home during close season like Arsenal did (Emirates cup) beats me.

[Parsonblue]

The expectation is Stu, that the trustees carry out the wishes of Jack Walker, as defined in the terms of the Jersey trust.

Blase reply, to a blase comment.

But I assume den that the Trust is responsible for the running of all of Jack's business interests not just Blackburn Rovers. Perhaps his other companies don't have the luxury of Sky money being poured into them. As I have mentioned before, what has been published in the Times suggests that the Walker family took a huge hit over the past twelve months due to the financial downturn. In those circumstances, it's perhaps understandable that the Trust are reluctant to pour more money into the football club. Jack always said that the Rovers had to stand on their own two feet and not rely on his money.

Paying money back to the bank and reducing the debt seems a sensible business plan on the part of John Williams. Perhaps we, as supporters, have become too ambitious in our outlook in recent years. The success in reaching Europe that Mark Hughes achieved has perhaps led us to believe that we are a top ten club when the financial reality may be somewhat different.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Trust, I really don't see the situation changing in the short to medium term. The club has been on the market for some time now and there appear to have been no serious bidders knocking our door down to throw money at us.

[den]

Den, nobody outside of the club or trustees knows the terms of Jacks will - unless I am mistaken.

Correct Pafell.

I've got no problem with keeping debt under control. Most clubs live with debt though and most clubs withold a small percentage of incoming monies to service the debt and keep it within control, - but 50% of the RSC and Derbs money is a huge amount to deny the manager, and at a time when we have just narrowly fought off relegation. Without adding quality to the midfield, we might very well struggle just as badly, and don't forget it might be even harder this season because of the number of clubs who have moved further ahead of us in the financial stakes.

It's not the paying off of debt - it's the amount and timing of it that worries me. Does football, or the future of BRFC still really matter to the trustees?

EDIT:

In other words, are the trustees paying off debts to the detriment of results on the park, and with the dangers of relegation that might follow because of the timing, in order to get rid? - and if so, would that be what Jack would have wanted?

[Paul]

Correct Pafell.

I've got no problem with keeping debt under control. Most clubs live with debt though and most clubs withold a small percentage of incoming monies to service the debt and keep it within control, - but 50% of the RSC and Derbs money is a huge amount to deny the manager, and at a time when we have just narrowly fought off relegation. Without adding quality to the midfield, we might very well struggle just as badly, and don't forget it might be even harder this season because of the number of clubs who have moved further ahead of us in the financial stakes.

It's not the paying off of debt - it's the amount and timing of it that worries me. Does football, or the future of BRFC still really matter to the trustees?

EDIT:

In other words, are the trustees paying off debts to the detriment of results on the park, and with the dangers of relegation that might follow because of the timing, in order to get rid? - and if so, would that be what Jack would have wanted?

Taking the bit I have highlighted isn't this where we are now? I don't have the figures to hand but something like 85% of income goes on the wage bill, the total wage bill it should be emphasised. After the Sky money the only significant source of income is selling players. Personally I'm already resigned to the prospect that if Kalinic is any good it will be two seasons before he's sold for £20m or whatever. Which just leads to the usual discussion of the sell-on clause, the profit, the release clause etc. I agree with your concerns about the squad but surely the reality is we just do not have the money to address all the questions that need answering?

[PAFELL]

Correct Pafell.

I've got no problem with keeping debt under control. Most clubs live with debt though and most clubs withold a small percentage of incoming monies to service the debt and keep it within control, - but 50% of the RSC and Derbs money is a huge amount to deny the manager, and at a time when we have just narrowly fought off relegation. Without adding quality to the midfield, we might very well struggle just as badly, and don't forget it might be even harder this season because of the number of clubs who have moved further ahead of us in the financial stakes.

It's not the paying off of debt - it's the amount and timing of it that worries me. Does football, or the future of BRFC still really matter to the trustees?

EDIT:

In other words, are the trustees paying off debts to the detriment of results on the park, and with the dangers of relegation that might follow because of the timing, in order to get rid? - and if so, would that be what Jack would have wanted?

Den, why don't your raise your concerns with the LET and see what happens. Get hold of a sports reporter.

[den]

I agree with your concerns about the squad but surely the reality is we just do not have the money to address all the questions that need answering?

We don't know what the reality is Paul. All I can see is Sky money soaring year after year, more and more players being given release clauses, more and more of our best players being sold and less and less money being made available to the manager - which all allows doubts about the trustees real relationship with the club.

No top manager would come anywhere near us if Sam leaves, which must be a real prospect if this continues.

Den, why don't your raise your concerns with the LET and see what happens. Get hold of a sports reporter.

When BRISA was running, we asked the club for contact with the trustees and were told that it was most unlikely that they would speak to us. The club recommended that we put questions in writing, they would pass them onto the trustees and they might reply to us. It went no further than that, but it was obvious that the trustees aren't really open to discussion.

That's a while ago now and maybe things have changed, but I doubt it.

[Boz]

The trustees asset stripping? I've not heard such guff in all my life, but thought I'd just check to see on Companies House if indeed the company had purchased any of it's capital. As I thought, no it hasn't.

I will agree though that the trustees don't help themselves by not making at least the occasional public announcement to the supporters, bearing in mind they are the owners. Though I don't think that it would be vastly any different from anything John Williams might say, but there is a difference between the shareholders (owners) and the officers (employees), and hence at least an annual address would not go amiss in my opinion.

[RevidgeBlue]

The trustees asset stripping? I've not heard such guff in all my life, but thought I'd just check to see on Companies House if indeed the company had purchased any of it's capital. As I thought, no it hasn't.

So do you know for a fact that the 10m surplus from sales went to "the Bank" and not Jersey?

Or that even if it did go to "the Bank" that that was absolutely necessary and wasn't simply an attempt to reduce the debt level to facilitate a sale?

[JAL]

So do you know for a fact that the 10m surplus from sales went to "the Bank" and not Jersey?

Or that even if it did go to "the Bank" that that was absolutely necessary and wasn't simply an attempt to reduce the debt level to facilitate a sale?

Someone mentioned last night in the blues bar that a bill for £2.9m was submitted to the club from Ibbotsons the builder were did that amount come from ?

[rover the hill]

Someone mentioned last night in the blues bar that a bill for £2.9m was submitted to the club from Ibbotsons the builder were did that amount come from ?

Seems like a huge amount but the directors at the club, who all claim to be unpaid, always seem have money paid to them for 'services rendered'. I take it Ibbotsons builders would have something to do with Terry Ibbotson who sadly passed away recently. Maybe there was an IOU in the will and the family want their cash?!

[Parsonblue]

Seems like a huge amount but the directors at the club, who all claim to be unpaid, always seem have money paid to them for 'services rendered'. I take it Ibbotsons builders would have something to do with Terry Ibbotson who sadly passed away recently. Maybe there was an IOU in the will and the family want their cash?!

Terry was a retired solicitor and not a builder. He had spent his entire working life in the legal profession and was head of his firm when he retired to become the managing director at the Rovers.

[Boz]

So do you know for a fact that the 10m surplus from sales went to "the Bank" and not Jersey?

Or that even if it did go to "the Bank" that that was absolutely necessary and wasn't simply an attempt to reduce the debt level to facilitate a sale?

Yes In do know 100% that all the eventual transfer fee income will be paid into BRFC's bank account held at Barclays Bank.

It would be wrong for anyone to assume that this is some sort of property conveyance whereby all transfer fees are paid in full on completion.

There has never been one iota of doubt that money has gone out of BRFC and headed to Jersey, nothing ever appearing in the accounts, other than repaying debts. Unless you know for a fact that this is so?

I trust the Directors' of BRFC implicitly and am sure that any steps they take such as these with the finances are prudent and done with the best interest of our club's short and long term future. We should avoid at all costs spending money that we have not got, this would just lead to a financial disaster for a club such as Rovers. We must balance the budget.

I would bet that our overall debt is manageable and sustainable, and one of the lowest in the EPL.

[den]

Rovers have run with debt for a long time now, it's not as though we have suddenly inherited a debt from nowhere and decided it has to be paid off immediately. What's the thinking, or more to the point, lack of thinking, in keeping back a huge £10m from the much under invested playing squad. Is it the desperation of the trustees to get rid of the debt completely, no matter how that affects results on the pitch, in order to get rid of the club ASAP? That decision might very well put us in another relegation fight.

[Boz]

Debt is not a bad thing just so long as it is manageable. Our level of debt is in no way excessive and is manageable on condition we remain in the EPL (possibly after last season's fright it might be considered wise at present to keep a bit of wool on our backs so to speak?), but here is the dilemma and where the balancing of plates act come in. Best left to those paid to do this job, up to now they have succeeded very well for a club the size of us, in my opinion.

Is there £10m sat in the club's bank account or available as part of any agreed overdraft limit? I personally doubt it. I think that the reason is more down to balancing the budget, with a surplus on player trading needed in order to meet the wages/operating costs.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Rovers have run with debt for a long time now, it's not as though we have suddenly inherited a debt from nowhere and decided it has to be paid off immediately. What's the thinking, or more to the point, lack of thinking, in keeping back a huge £10m from the much under invested playing squad. Is it the desperation of the trustees to get rid of the debt completely, no matter how that affects results on the pitch, in order to get rid of the club ASAP? That decision might very well put us in another relegation fight.

If, and I repeat if, we assume that the goals of the Trustees have shifted to 'sell the club for the cash we have put in since Jack died' circa 40 million I believe, they would have faced four stumbling blocks:

i) Ince

ii) The overdraft that has built up in recent years would be deducted from the value of the club by any purchaser, making it either a lowball cash offer unacceptable to the Trustees or a ludicrous ask for any purchaser if the price was stuck at 40 million.

iii) Our massive inflation in salaries has eaten up the windfall extra Sky money, meaning the club cannot hope to turn a profit

iv) The ground looked half empty on tv, and not at all attractive as a marketing vehicle for some a-rab looking to promote their fly-infested bit of sand, which seems to be the only viable business model for owning an EPL club these days.

Lo and behold, everything that has happened at the club recently has been geared to addressing these problems:

i) The Trust pulled the plug on Ince while Williams was fiddling as Ewood burned.

ii) Half the transfer fees going to pay down an overdraft despite the fact that it was being serviced adequately and was backed by saleable assets. We were never at risk of defaulting and banks make money from debt servicing, so I am at a loss to understand why the bank would demand the overdraft be paid off.

iii) Cut the wage bill by 5 million on orders from Jersey - a slap in the face for JW's stewardship of the business, following the big slap he got in December when he vacillated over Ince. Far from supporting him, they are now making the key operational decisions.

iv) Fill the bits of the ground that appear on telly with remarkably cheap season tickets. Good idea.

Hopefully during this season, Rovers will look a much more attractive 40 million purchase than it has done to date: a rocking matchday atmosphere, a half-decent league position, no overdraft and turning an operating profit.

[CrazyIvan]

If, and I repeat if, we assume that the goals of the Trustees have shifted to 'sell the club for the cash we have put in since Jack died' circa 40 million I believe, they would have faced four stumbling blocks:

i) Ince

ii) The overdraft that has built up in recent years would be deducted from the value of the club by any purchaser, making it either a lowball cash offer unacceptable to the Trustees or a ludicrous ask for any purchaser if the price was stuck at 40 million.

iii) Our massive inflation in salaries has eaten up the windfall extra Sky money, meaning the club cannot hope to turn a profit

iv) The ground looked half empty on tv, and not at all attractive as a marketing vehicle for some a-rab looking to promote their fly-infested bit of sand, which seems to be the only viable business model for owning an EPL club these days.

Lo and behold, everything that has happened at the club recently has been geared to addressing these problems:

i) The Trust pulled the plug on Ince while Williams was fiddling as Ewood burned.

ii) Half the transfer fees going to pay down an overdraft despite the fact that it was being serviced adequately and was backed by saleable assets. We were never at risk of defaulting and banks make money from debt servicing, so I am at a loss to understand why the bank would demand the overdraft be paid off.

iii) Cut the wage bill by 5 million on orders from Jersey - a slap in the face for JW's stewardship of the business, following the big slap he got in December when he vacillated over Ince. Far from supporting him, they are now making the key operational decisions.

iv) Fill the bits of the ground that appear on telly with remarkably cheap season tickets. Good idea.

Hopefully during this season, Rovers will look a much more attractive 40 million purchase than it has done to date: a rocking matchday atmosphere, a half-decent league position, no overdraft and turning an operating profit.

Where do you get the situation between the Trustees and John Williams from? Not a criticism, I'm just interested to know if this is conjecture or based on some inside knowledge...

[elwaxo]

Debt is not a bad thing just so long as it is manageable.

Broadly speaking debt, and the way in which the banks and rich elite profit from common individual debt is criminal. The banking system only really serves the people running it, and this imoral and disproportionate distribution of wealth is, sadly, like the difference in wages the players get and the wages most fans get. Debt is a bad thing.... nobody should be in debt, it's a question of great greed that some have all and most have very little. It's a shame football exists as it does at the moment - beautiful game, suffering from the economic system it is a part of!!! Bit of a rant, sorry, not directed at you Boz, just some things that have been playing on my mind recently. 4 EVA!

[Exiled in Toronto]

Where do you get the situation between the Trustees and John Williams from? Not a criticism, I'm just interested to know if this is conjecture or based on some inside knowledge...

Conjecture, but a reasonable interpretation of events. Or conversely, JW, having built up the overdraft, suddenly decides to pay it off, and having personally approved every increase to a player's contract, suddenly decides he's been too generous and needs to shift bodies off the payroll. Hardly credible.

If a Chairman, who even has a Managing Director reporting to him, is not empowered to decide such operational matters, then one can only assume the tiller has been taken from his hands for a very good reason.

[CrazyIvan]

Conjecture, but a reasonable interpretation of events. Or conversely, JW, having built up the overdraft, suddenly decides to pay it off, and having personally approved every increase to a player's contract, suddenly decides he's been too generous and needs to shift bodies off the payroll. Hardly credible.

If a Chairman, who even has a Managing Director reporting to him, is not empowered to decide such operational matters, then one can only assume the tiller has been taken from his hands for a very good reason.

I doubt the tiller has been taken from his hands but I would suggest he is 'under orders' (his own maybe?) to balance the books to make the club a more attractive opportunity because he knows that for Rovers to stand a real chance of progressing needs new investment. A real future for Rovers needs a stable base. That's been JW's aim all along.

[Exiled in Toronto]

That's been JW's aim all along.

Persevering with Ince too long; running up a big overdraft and spending all the extra Sky money on overly-generous contracts for pedestrian players were funny ways of meeting that aim; that's why I suggest all three of those issues were taken out of his hands