[Archived] The Trust's Agenda Version 2

[ABBEY]

Whose getting uptight?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

I have to say, seeing the trust openly admit that they would not like another Jack Walker to own Rovers unless they could be a part of it has completely knocked me for six. So if the Blackburn born Issa brother's sold Euro Garages for billions and decided to invest it all in Rovers, the Trust would be upset about it? Wow

im not being a tit or causing trouble before anyone says i am but I still cant get my head around that if a "knight in shining armour " came and didnt offer the trust a place then the trust wouldnt be happy.

Would the Trust be happy if the V's said here you go one of the trust could be on the board?

sorry to keep going on about Glen it seems its down to A.Nother and noone else really that his offer has been rejected.WHY does he or any other person HAVE to be a member of anything...?

FFS WHATEVER THE REASONS FOR NOT HAVING A TOGETHERNESS SURELY HAS GROWN MEN IT CAN BE ADDRESSED OVER A PINT OF THWAITES ,CHRIST EVEN I SHOOK HANDS WITH STEB AND HAD A CHAT AND I RESPECT THE FACT WE COULD . ITS PATHETIC WE CANT COME TOGETHER BUT I CANT HELP FEELING THE TRUST WANT SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT AS WHAT US FANS ACTUALLY WANT ,ITS LIKE THERES POLITICS AND A SECRETIVE UNDERTONE.(IM NOT SAYING THERE IS ITS JUST HOW I VIEW IT COMING ACROSS)

LETS RID THE CLUB OF THE SCUM #VENKYSOUT

To you both - No Rovers Trust would not be happy about such a sale of the club. Our remit is to gain a significant shareholding in the club and to promote supporter and community based ownership of professional football clubs, as this is the absolutely only way of safeguarding them in the long term. What if the Sheiks decide they've had enough at Man. City suddenly, and another Venky's type owner takes over there? They're screwed!

ABBEY, if Venky's tomorrow offered a position on the Board of the club, executive or otherwise, to Rovers Trust tomorrow, we would refuse, unless our members mandated otherwise. We don't want a spot on the Board, that is not our goal. We want a proper Board for the club. We also are no longer willing to discuss the matter with Venky's, even if they all of a sudden decide to engage us. It has gone beyond that now for all of us I think. Our own membership has made it clear the only way we can deal with them at this point is to get them out of the club. That is the remit our members gave us. I can't comment on your last bit about some ulterior motive, because there is nothing I can say or write that will change your mind, and I respect that.

cmb, if they loved the club and loved the town, they wouldn't hesitate to include the official supporters trust of the club in a significant stake in the ownership structure, whether that meant a golden share type of clause, or a significant minority shareholding, enough to secure the long term future of the club should they then for whatever reason want to sell the club down the line. That is the point and the ultimate goal. Once the club has a significant element of community ownership, that will be extremely hard to remove, ever.

Please can I ask if the Trust has the funds in place should Venky's decide to exit? For example if they sell and want say £15 million for the club does the Trust have funds in place to be able to achieve that? Or even funds for a partial ownership (say £3 million)?

No. There are 5 year old pledges totalling just over £3 million that we would hope people could hold themselves to, but obviously no hard cash at that level. If we had that you would have heard about it from us.

[den]

Whose getting uptight?

. You. Again.

[cmb211087]

To you both - No Rovers Trust would not be happy about such a sale of the club. Our remit is to gain a significant shareholding in the club and to promote supporter and community based ownership of professional football clubs, as this is the absolutely only way of safeguarding them in the long term. What if the Sheiks decide they've had enough at Man. City suddenly, and another Venky's type owner takes over there? They're screwed!

ABBEY, if Venky's tomorrow offered a position on the Board of the club, executive or otherwise, to Rovers Trust tomorrow, we would refuse, unless our members mandated otherwise. We don't want a spot on the Board, that is not our goal. We want a proper Board for the club. We also are no longer willing to discuss the matter with Venky's, even if they all of a sudden decide to engage us. It has gone beyond that now for all of us I think. Our own membership has made it clear the only way we can deal with them at this point is to get them out of the club. That is the remit our members gave us. I can't comment on your last bit about some ulterior motive, because there is nothing I can say or write that will change your mind, and I respect that.

cmb, if they loved the club and loved the town, they wouldn't hesitate to include the official supporters trust of the club in a significant stake in the ownership structure, whether that meant a golden share type of clause, or a significant minority shareholding, enough to secure the long term future of the club should they then for whatever reason want to sell the club down the line. That is the point and the ultimate goal. Once the club has a significant element of community ownership, that will be extremely hard to remove, ever.

No. There are 5 year old pledges totalling just over £3 million that we would hope people could hold themselves to, but obviously no hard cash at that level. If we had that you would have heard about it from us.

What would you class as a significant shareholding. 50/50? If so, you would turn down a 49% share because you had no say I am assuming, from what you are saying above?

Sorry, saw the rest of the post, which has now confused me some more, ie minority shareholdings. So you would take less than 50? But then that would leave you with no say in how the club was ran. Anything other than 50/50 would be no good for you surely?

[ABBEY]

. You. Again.

no at all , im trying to get my head round everything thats all.

[AggyBlue]

Jeez, it's not hard to understand. The trust believes that supporters should should have some involvement in the running of a football club.

What is there to get uptight about?

Jeez. Supporters/fans don't need a Trust to do that.

Up until the Rao's, the club was run by fans/supporters for 135 years.

[Reedy You're A Star]

I may be totally wrong but, wasn't the trust set up as an emergency, last line of defence sort of entity, in case the club was going to go bust? Not a "we'll throw our collective toys out of our prams if we don't get a say"? If Jack reincarnated and started the last 20 years again you wouldn't be happy? If I could afford to splash hundreds of millions on my football club, why would I give a share to a group of (albeit well meaning) people who comparatively and by their own admission above, haven't got a penny to scratch their arses?

Most of your members would be more than happy (after the last 5 years I'd be @#/? ecstatic) if we got another Jack Walker. Would you risk jeapordising a potential owner like Jack taking over by demanding things that, financially, you have no right to demand? I would say put up the right percentage of dosh for a share and I'll gladly share with the supporters trust, otherwise sod off. What if your demand for a piece of the action scares away the next walker as he feels it's not worth the time, money and grief facing the possibility of another supporters uprising?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

I may be totally wrong but, wasn't the trust set up as an emergency, last line of defence sort of entity, in case the club was going to go bust? Not a "we'll throw our collective toys out of our prams if we don't get a say"? If Jack reincarnated and started the last 20 years again you wouldn't be happy? If I could afford to splash hundreds of millions on my football club, why would I give a share to a group of (albeit well meaning) people who comparatively and by their own admission above, haven't got a penny to scratch their arses?

Most of your members would be more than happy (after the last 5 years I'd be @#/? ecstatic) if we got another Jack Walker. Would you risk jeapordising a potential owner like Jack taking over by demanding things that, financially, you have no right to demand? I would say put up the right percentage of dosh for a share and I'll gladly share with the supporters trust, otherwise sod off. What if your demand for a piece of the action scares away the next walker as he feels it's not worth the time, money and grief facing the possibility of another supporters uprising?

I'd have to say that you are exactly right, and I am not saying 'give' I'm saying 'include.' Of course Rovers Trust would have to raise funds in order to gain that share of the club. Based on the engagement we got with our pledge campaign 5 years ago, there is that interest in doing so, especially if it can guarantee supporter based community ownership on the long term. The Trust was able to muster over £3m in pledges without there being a concrete opportunity to gain such a share, and we are confident the response will be greater than that should such a concrete opportunity arise.

There is a big difference in being a tiny minority shareholder and being a large minority shareholder. At above a 25% shareholding, for example, the community benefit society could not be pushed out of ownership in any circumstance should the majority shareholder decide to sell. There are other aspects as well. Having a 'golden share' clause in the shareholder's agreement, for example, would ensure that things like changes in majority ownership could only be ratified by the 'golden share' holder, regardless of ownership percentage. This could also apply to any pre-emotive rights, anti-dilution, anti-transfer, drag-along and tag-along, and enhanced minority shareholder rights clauses, like the right to approve, appoint, or veto the appointment of a Director, for example.

With an agreeable shareholder's agreement in place, Rovers Trust would be satisfied with a significant minority shareholding. The devil is in the details.

Also, yes, the Trust was originally set up as an emergency fall back should the worst happen and the club is put into administration, so the organization is already in place and ready to help save the club in that instance. In that vein, the ultimate goal is to secure the long term future of the club through supporter based community ownership.

[Reedy You're A Star]

So, and this is fantasy land at the minute obviously, someone came in and offered to take the club off the Vs hands for, say £100m. That would mean you would have to find £25m for that 25% share. Would be confident of raising that? If not and "only" raised the £3m of pledges above for a 3% share, how would sit with the Trust? Would that be enough of a share to satisfy your mandate?

And another hypothetical, if someone gave the Vs their initial money back and just took on the debt from them, would you be in a position to pay 25% of that debt off? If yes, how? (If that's how it even works in these situations, I've got no financial knowledge whatsoever!).

Apologies if it sounds like I'm having a go, I'm not, I'm just trying to get my head around it all.

[cmb211087]

I'd have to say that you are exactly right, and I am not saying 'give' I'm saying 'include.' Of course Rovers Trust would have to raise funds in order to gain that share of the club. Based on the engagement we got with our pledge campaign 5 years ago, there is that interest in doing so, especially if it can guarantee supporter based community ownership on the long term. The Trust was able to muster over £3m in pledges without there being a concrete opportunity to gain such a share, and we are confident the response will be greater than that should such a concrete opportunity arise.

There is a big difference in being a tiny minority shareholder and being a large minority shareholder. At above a 25% shareholding, for example, the community benefit society could not be pushed out of ownership in any circumstance should the majority shareholder decide to sell. There are other aspects as well. Having a 'golden share' clause in the shareholder's agreement, for example, would ensure that things like changes in majority ownership could only be ratified by the 'golden share' holder, regardless of ownership percentage. This could also apply to any pre-emotive rights, anti-dilution, anti-transfer, drag-along and tag-along, and enhanced minority shareholder rights clauses, like the right to approve, appoint, or veto the appointment of a Director, for example.

With an agreeable shareholder's agreement in place, Rovers Trust would be satisfied with a significant minority shareholding. The devil is in the details.

Also, yes, the Trust was originally set up as an emergency fall back should the worst happen and the club is put into administration, so the organization is already in place and ready to help save the club in that instance. In that vein, the ultimate goal is to secure the long term future of the club through supporter based community ownership.

The bold part is the reason I am so shocked at the insistence that the trust would not be happy at a new Jack Walker coming in.

The trust was set up as a last resort. Im sure most of its members, 5 years ago, pledged based on that aspect.

If you went to the fan Base right now, putting the cards on the table and showing the version of the trust as is now compared to what the trust was 5 years ago, I'm pretty certain that £3m pledged figure will be a hell of a lot less.

Same as the above, I don't mean to be coming across as negative, but this new trust vision is not what it was set out to be originally

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

So, and this is fantasy land at the minute obviously, someone came in and offered to take the club off the Vs hands for, say £100m. That would mean you would have to find £25m for that 25% share. Would be confident of raising that? If not and "only" raised the £3m of pledges above for a 3% share, how would sit with the Trust? Would that be enough of a share to satisfy your mandate?

And another hypothetical, if someone gave the Vs their initial money back and just took on the debt from them, would you be in a position to pay 25% of that debt off? If yes, how? (If that's how it even works in these situations, I've got no financial knowledge whatsoever!).

Apologies if it sounds like I'm having a go, I'm not, I'm just trying to get my head around it all.

No problem, Reidy.

In your scenarios it would be an obvious overvaluation of the share value, and during the due diligence process a proper share value on paper would be found based on the particulars of the proposed deal. That would be the basis for the starting point of negotiations, the Rovers Trust position being that there is a large amount of goodwill in that valuation that simply doesn't exist.

As to the debt question, a probable scenario in this case would be that should Rovers Trust agree to a valuation, succeed in raising the funding, and close the deal, the proportionate portion of the debt would then be owned by Rovers Trust, and I am pretty sure the first motion to be made would be to conver that portion of debt to equity at the same value per share as the original purchase, which would raise the ownership percentage of the Trust at the same time as lowering the debt burden on the club.

cmb - you are very entitled to your opinion, but you have to understand, Rovers Trust believes that there is no ownership model better than one which includes a significant supporter based community ownership element. How long does the new Jack Walker stick around? 1 year, 5, 10, 20? What happens after that??? Another nightmare? Not if Rovers Trust is a significant shareholder with a bulletproof shareholder's agreement.

I personally pledged on the basis that Rovers Trust would be in a position to save the club in the case the worst happened, but also in the case that given the opportunity, it would never ever again allow the club to go through the same thing as the last 6 years.

[cmb211087]

Fair enough Dan. Thanks for answering the questions anyway!

[JohnD]

When I pledged a relatively small amount to the trust I thought it was an attempt to "save" the club should the opportunity arise.

[glen9mullan]

So what is WAR campaigning for? The trust to have a stake of the club?

[chaddyrovers]

Jeez, it's not hard to understand. The trust believes that supporters should should have some involvement in the running of a football club.

What is there to get uptight about?

I believe that supporters should have a stake in the club like 20% similar to the Swansea model.

Look at the way German clubs are owned. Fans owned part of the club

[Neal]

As a crucial part of communities i feel those communites should be have a say in how their football clubs are run... Afterall those are the people who have their clubs best interests at heart, not journeymen going from club to club.

I fail to understand why people wouldn't support the trust.

[AggyBlue]

I fail to understand why people wouldn't support the trust.

I fail to understand why people think the Trust is needed for fan ownership.

[darrenrover]

I fail to understand why people think the Trust is needed for fan ownership.

You're right Aggy, after all if there were sufficient fans who were prepared to put their money where their mouth is when it mattered, we wouldn't be where we are now. I ain't blaming anyone btw but merely stating a fact.

Playing devils advocate, if we're in Div 1 and the Trust have the keys, how many season ticket holders would we have now that we are 'free' and what price a season ticket?

I personally don't believe the Trust have anything to offer going forward despite what they may say or think. What role would they have with Battersby and Currie for example? They're both avid fans and would fulfil the mantra of fan involvement.

[Mercer]

I have seen 'trusts' operate in numerous walks of life and, by and large, I don't think they work !

A big risk is that they are beset with politics, jealousy and internal turbulence. I would suggest we have seen evidence of this already - imagine what a real whiff of power would do!

I am not convinced by anything I have seen or heard from Rovers' Trust and I do not support them.

In my view, the way forward for Rovers is through a strong new independent ownership and a shrewd and efficient executive management team.

[Neal]

The trust is just a vessel to get a seat at the board for a voice of the supporters. If someone takes over with money who's a Rover's fan then great but its still their club without the rest of the fanbase still having a voice.

I just fail to understand why supporters wouldn't support anything which would put the club partly back in the hands of the fan base.

[darrenrover]

The trust is just a vessel to get a seat at the board for a voice of the supporters. If someone takes over with money who's a Rover's fan then great but its still their club without the rest of the fanbase still having a voice.

I just fail to understand why supporters wouldn't support anything which would put the club partly back in the hands of the fan base.

I fail to understand why if fans from 'the fan base' invested and effectively owned the club why there would be any need for any other?

Sadly hypothetical at this point, we just need to get these feckers to the table somehow!

[47er]

Have a look at how football operates in Germany. Look what Swansea and Wimbledon have done. Don't underrate us, they can do it and so can we.

[darrenrover]

Have a look at how football operates in Germany. Look what Swansea and Wimbledon have done. Don't underrate us, they can do it and so can we.

Agreed but there's a bit of pedaling to do first

[Baz]

Can I ask how much money the Trust has in the bank, and if it does if it was able (via member vote) to donate directly to the We Are Rovers campaigns?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Baz - Rovers Trust has roughly 12k in the bank at the moment. Absolutely that is a possible scenario. They are the members' funds after all!

Neal, 47er and darren - These are exactly my personal views as well.

Mercerman and Aggy - I see exactly where your coming from, but I hope you can see my point as well. I am talking about the long game here. What happens when those benevolent owners pass on or sell at some point? Supporters-based community ownership in perpetuity is how I personally see the way forward to safeguarding of this club for another 135 years. We've all seen how quickly the first 135 years has been nearly wiped from the face of the Earth in 6 years time at this point, right? Also thoroughly agree with a shrewd and efficient management team, don't think anyone can argue with that!

Glen - Yes, if you boil it down to the quintessential essence, I guess, of what Rovers Trust would hope to happen if the WAR campaign succeeded. Is there a subtle point you are trying to make with the question? WAR is about coming together to save the club from Venky's terrible ownership. I've already stated my personal views on this a couple of times in the last few days.

John - I understand and respect that viewpoint. I understand that quite a lot of supporters don't want to deal with any of this at all and just want to go out on a Saturday and enjoy themselves and support the team on the pitch. It is only when they are presented with a real threat that their club could cease to exist that they feel the need to get involved. It is just my personal view that in order ensure that you and others like you can do that, supporter-based community ownership should be an integral element of the club structure.