[Archived] Unsustainable Rovers

[Stuart]

Just now, Jbizzle said:

Both are problems if you can see past the end of your nose, which admittedly is much harder for Barry Snozalow's like me. 

That's not the point Rev was making. He was implying that greedy future owners are putting their own interests ahead of Rovers' immediate predicament. Well, duh!

Nobody is going to give Venkys what they are asking for.

[JBiz]

Just now, Stuart said:

Because it would stop them losing money? Any normal business person who had got themselves into such a massive hole, with no way out, would be looking to cut their losses and avoid major reputations like damage.

But this lot are happy to take the reputational hit by doing what they always do - keeping their heads down - meanwhile turning of the taps and watch it rot, rather than hand over control - even as a 49% shareholder. They have no idea what they are doing but are so arrogant our demise is preferable to them accepting help.

And they have the cheek to talk about loss of face! They don't have credibility, pride, or honour.

Any normal business person would probably have found a way out come parachute payments, or not allowed agents to cut our corpse up but this is the Raos we are talking about.

Do you not think their arrogance, ignorance and overall need for control would somewhat be a problem in signing away half the shares a company they've invested millions in for nothing? 

[Stuart]

Just now, Jbizzle said:

Any normal business person would probably have found a way out come parachute payments, or not allowed agents to cut our corpse up but this is the Raos we are talking about.

Do you not think their arrogance, ignorance and overall need for control would somewhat be a problem in signing away half the shares a company they've invested millions in for nothing? 

But it's not for nothing. Right now they are set to get nothing. They were handing over decision making to a group who were prepared to work with them and could give them a chance of getting at least some of their money back.

Turn it around - why would Venkys expect anyone to pump in money (after they have ruined the club) and NOT want a controlling stake? Just imagine a 50:50 partnership where Venkys still had power of veto and could continue their inertia - or 51% to Venkys were nothing changed. What's in that for Seneca? The dummies in this equation remain Venkys. Seneca's offer was better than they are going to ever get again.

(All of this of course ignores tinfoil hat theories about joint ownership).

[AllRoverAsia]

It was reported that Senecca had 60 mil of their investors money to run/rebuild including transfers but not to repay Venky loans/losses.

Vs would still hold 49% so benefit from a PL return.

A very good deal.

Vs appear happy with a split of ever decresing agent fees and maybe the odd sale.

Personally I still think Brockhall is at risk despite covenants.

[Stuart]

Just now, broadsword said:

How dare interested parties wait until they can buy us when we come out of admin.

They should do the decent thing and buy us from ownbers who refuse to sell, and take on £120m of bets. Wow, freudian slip there, I meant debts. Where did that come from?

Makes sense, that does.

[Stuart]

Just now, AllRoverAsia said:

It was reported that Senecca had 60 mil of their investors money to run/rebuild including transfers but not to repay Venky loans/losses.

Vs would still hold 49% so benefit from a PL return.

A very good deal.

Vs appear happy with a split of ever decresing agent fees and maybe the odd sale.

Personally I still think Brockhall is at risk despite covenants.

If there are covenants then you have to think that they are linked to Rovers remaining a football club for them to apply. Not sure they will ever get close to £100m back regardless of what they sell.

Saying that if a local cash rich Premier League club made them an offer...?

[RevidgeBlue]

7 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

It was reported that Senecca had 60 mil of their investors money to run/rebuild including transfers but not to repay Venky loans/losses.

Vs would still hold 49% so benefit from a PL return.

A very good deal.

Vs appear happy with a split of ever decresing agent fees and maybe the odd sale.

Personally I still think Brockhall is at risk despite covenants.

If I had access to 60m of other people's money I'd happily suggest a similar sort of proposal as well. It's great gambling when it's other people's money at risk and not your own.

Realistically though there's no merit whatsoever in the proposal from Venky's point of view. Everything would hinge on us returning to the Premiership in the 2-3 seasons before the pot of investors money runs out. After that they lose any  control over what  happens. So they may want to try and muddle on in the hope that the right managerial appointment and/or an exceptional batch of academy starlets sees us scrape into the PL only to find the majority shareholders have wound us up over their heads thereby liquidating their investment.

Conversely, if things didn't go as well as hoped and debts were still mounting they might want to get out be be tied in to an escalating mountain of debt indefinitely.

I would have thought that if they wanted out at any point any deal would have to entail them being free from any future liability even if they accept substantially less than they would ideally like. 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 hours ago, broadsword said:

How dare interested parties wait until they can buy us when we come out of admin.

They should do the decent thing and buy us from ownbers who refuse to sell, and take on £120m of bets. Wow, freudian slip there, I meant debts. Where did that come from?

Makes sense, that does.

Obviously an impartial investor isnt going to want to pay more for the Club than is absolutely necessary.But isn't that basically  the point that jonnyp was making originally and I was agreeing with?

In your haste to be facetious you're arguing against yourself.

[Stuart]

35 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

If I had access to 60m of other people's money I'd happily suggest a similar sort of proposal as well. It's great gambling when it's other people's money at risk and not your own.

Realistically though there's no merit whatsoever in the proposal from Venky's point of view. Everything would hinge on us returning to the Premiership in the 2-3 seasons before the pot of investors money runs out. After that they lose any  control over what  happens. So they may want to try and muddle on in the hope that the right managerial appointment and/or an exceptional batch of academy starlets sees us scrape into the PL only to find the majority shareholders have wound us up over their heads thereby liquidating their investment.

Conversely, if things didn't go as well as hoped and debts were still mounting they might want to get out be be tied in to an escalating mountain of debt indefinitely.

I would have thought that if they wanted out at any point any deal would have to entail them being free from any future liability even if they accept substantially less than they would ideally like. 

Yes, it's worked out much better this way.

PL League in 2-3 years? We'll be lucky if it's 2-3 decades doing things the Venky way.

[broadsword]

57 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Obviously an impartial investor isnt going to want to pay more for the Club than is absolutely necessary.But isn't that basically  the point that jonnyp was making originally and I was agreeing with?

In your haste to be facetious you're arguing against yourself.

In no haste at all. 

Your arguments make no sense at all. Would-be investors circling like vultures waiting for the club to fail? Are you sure about that? 

Happy to discuss things but I can't make any sense out of what you're saying at all. Why are you blaming the fans? Why are you misrepresenting senecas's attempts to get involved at rovers? 

What is motivating you? 

[duggy9197]

Unless some chinese idiots with zillions of bucks turn up we are in the mire,the only thing that will bring this game of cowboys and indians to the end,is a total boycott pity the cowboys are not up for it.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, broadsword said:

In no haste at all. 

Your arguments make no sense at all. Would-be investors circling like vultures waiting for the club to fail? Are you sure about that? 

Happy to discuss things but I can't make any sense out of what you're saying at all. Why are you blaming the fans? Why are you misrepresenting senecas's attempts to get involved at rovers? 

What is motivating you? 

I'm not blaming the fans. You're misrepresenting me by alleging that. The mess we're in is entirely Venky's doing and no-one can blame anyone for boycotting or giving up given what's happened over the last 6 years. Surely though  not even you can deny it doesn't help the financial situation.

Stuart also accused me somewhere  above of EXPECTING people to come in and save us now. I'm pretty sure I conveyed fairly clearly in my post that I expect exactly the opposite and that I dont expect there will be a queue of suitable people capable of taking us on lining up to save us either now or in the future.

[Stuart]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Stuart also accused me somewhere  above of EXPECTING people to come in and save us now. I'm pretty sure I conveyed fairly clearly in my post that I expect exactly the opposite and that I dont expect there will be a queue of suitable people capable of taking us on lining up to save us either now or in the future.

Stop making stuff up. Read your original post and my reply. You implied that potential new owners out there were full of self-interest rather than helping Rovers out of the mire when they need it. I didn't "accuse" you of EXPECTING anything. I pointed out that it was daft to think anyone might.

[broadsword]

People boycotting the club doesn't help the situation. However, the overall effect is negligible given our overall losses. 

To moan about non-attending fans when gross financial mismanagement has seen this club rack up staggering losses that we can never hope to repay is like moaning about a defective brake light on a car plunging over beachy head.

Venkys refuse to sell to anyone so what all this guff is about vultures I don't know. 

[47er]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

If I had access to 60m of other people's money I'd happily suggest a similar sort of proposal as well. It's great gambling when it's other people's money at risk and not your own.

Realistically though there's no merit whatsoever in the proposal from Venky's point of view. Everything would hinge on us returning to the Premiership in the 2-3 seasons before the pot of investors money runs out. After that they lose any  control over what  happens. So they may want to try and muddle on in the hope that the right managerial appointment and/or an exceptional batch of academy starlets sees us scrape into the PL only to find the majority shareholders have wound us up over their heads thereby liquidating their investment.

Conversely, if things didn't go as well as hoped and debts were still mounting they might want to get out be be tied in to an escalating mountain of debt indefinitely.

I would have thought that if they wanted out at any point any deal would have to entail them being free from any future liability even if they accept substantially less than they would ideally like. 

Well thank goodness we always have fans capable of explaining away Venkys decisions to us.

[47er]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

If I had access to 60m of other people's money I'd happily suggest a similar sort of proposal as well. It's great gambling when it's other people's money at risk and not your own.

Realistically though there's no merit whatsoever in the proposal from Venky's point of view.

So Venkys studied and rejected an offer they said was never made?

[RevidgeBlue]

33 minutes ago, 47er said:

So Venkys studied and rejected an offer they said was never made?

I can't be bothered looking back but I thought they stated that no offer to purchase the Club had been received. Which it hadn't.  Apologies if I'm mistaken on that particular point.

[47er]

I don't remember it that way. My memory is that Venkys denied any offer had been made and I distinctly remember Ian Battersby's reaction as being one of frustration and disbelief.

However if they did use the words ascribed to them by you, then they resorted to weasel words to suggest the opposite of what actually occurred.

If they didn't you did. Why is beyond me.

[Dunnfc]

Seneca proposal was 20/20/20 investment in return for 51 percent of the club and they'd put the structure in place what was badly needed and still is. 3 year plan.

venkys didn't get back and Cheston claims he didn't see anything of it.

That time the debts were 80 million ish... Didn't take it thinking they could fluke a promotion perhaps. Would they take it now? I have a sneaking suspicion that the 87 million owed to a parent undertaker in both accounts is actually owed to the bank. Hence they are looking for full debt costs.

thats what I remember of it, could be wrong

[JHRover]

The Seneca proposal, if it was reported accurately, was the best deal and possibly only deal Venkys were ever going to get.

Seneca were never going to pay off Venkys debts. Nobody ever will. Why should they? Venkys have run that tab up through 6 years of hideous mismanagement. They are to blame and they have to swallow that bitter pill.

If Venkys have had enough of losing millions a year then Seneca provided them with an easy way to immediately stop doing that.

The club is costing them millions every year just to try and tread water. Seneca's proposal would have enabled Venkys to stop losing money, stop adding to the mammoth debts, hand over the cost and hassle of running the club to others, with the prospect of a return in a few years time if the club got promoted.

It really was a no brainer. The best deal they could possibly ever get. No more of their money down the drain in exchange for letting half a worthless club go

Instead they've covered losses for the year by selling the family silver, with relegation and further financial misery the possible outcome. The debt will grow again next year, and every year after that, unless they find another £20 million of assets to sell off before then. The club is further away from the riches of the Premier League than ever and only a major investment of tens of millions of pounds or a very fortunate set of circumstances will see us pushing for promotion any time soon. They aren't going to change or take this club seriously so the prospect of any manager making a silk purse out of a sow's ear at Ewood are very slim.

Nobody is ever or will ever pay money for shares in this club or pay off Venkys debts. It makes no sense. Letting the club go, stopping their own losses with a potential windfall down the line from owning 49% of the club in the Premier League was the best deal they were ever going to get.

[Mike E]

16 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I'm not blaming the fans. You're misrepresenting me by alleging that. The mess we're in is entirely Venky's doing and no-one can blame anyone for boycotting or giving up given what's happened over the last 6 years. Surely though  not even you can deny it doesn't help the financial situation.

Stuart also accused me somewhere  above of EXPECTING people to come in and save us now. I'm pretty sure I conveyed fairly clearly in my post that I expect exactly the opposite and that I dont expect there will be a queue of suitable people capable of taking us on lining up to save us either now or in the future.

Sounded like it when you claimed I was boasting. You were talking out your rear then, and are continuing to do so now.

We have had 4 legitimate enquiries to buy our club in 7 years, with the most recent Seneca bid being the most favourable from the fans perspective and Venky's.

Seneca's proposal was basically to provide the funding that Venky's refuse to, while allowing them to benefit.

Even a couple of million pounds per season is better than what we're getting at the moment! 

[broadsword]

Typical RevidgeBlue procedure. Claim white is black is white and then when he gets caught out, disappear for a few weeks, then come back and start all over again.

 

Quite what he gets out of it is anyone's guess.

[JBiz]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

We have had 4 legitimate enquiries to buy our club in 7 years, with the most recent Seneca bid being the most favourable from the fans perspective and Venky's.

Seneca's proposal was basically to provide the funding that Venky's refuse to, while allowing them to benefit.

Even a couple of million pounds per season is better than what we're getting at the moment! 

I agree it was a good move from the fans point of view but I think it's a tad naive to suggest it would suit the owners from their point of view.

If they value their "baby" at their investment level, (which is plausible when you consider suggestions of strange pride, discontent with fans, and a disconnect from reality) why would they give up half of it, and half of its future value for nothing outright?

The idea that it's a "way out" does wash, but doesn't take into account why they've continued to look to "fund" the club, surely tap would've been off completely a lot earlier if they sought that outcome? 

The suggestion it gives Venkys the investment they would want, well firstly they've shown nothing but a will to turn us into a self sufficient outfit since GB - why would they entertain further money spent (likely "loaned" to the club in a similar way to be paid back to the lender after promotion) or a bigger wage bill? 

Tomphil amongst many will love this part, if they truly want us to move backwards to run cheaper then they would've rejected any interest to invest outright. Reasons for doing that? Hurt pride? Lack of connection with the club?

I would love to see some Rovers fans back involved with the club, and to be honest I have a lot of time for Battersby after a few of his interviews, but I think he will need to come up with something unrealistic to even get in the ears of the arrogant idiots who own our club.

 

Out of interest Mike, what are the other previous legitimate offers? 

[Mike E]

2 hours ago, Jbizzle said:

I agree it was a good move from the fans point of view but I think it's a tad naive to suggest it would suit the owners from their point of view.

If they value their "baby" at their investment level, (which is plausible when you consider suggestions of strange pride, discontent with fans, and a disconnect from reality) why would they give up half of it, and half of its future value for nothing outright?

The idea that it's a "way out" does wash, but doesn't take into account why they've continued to look to "fund" the club, surely tap would've been off completely a lot earlier if they sought that outcome? 

The suggestion it gives Venkys the investment they would want, well firstly they've shown nothing but a will to turn us into a self sufficient outfit since GB - why would they entertain further money spent (likely "loaned" to the club in a similar way to be paid back to the lender after promotion) or a bigger wage bill? 

Tomphil amongst many will love this part, if they truly want us to move backwards to run cheaper then they would've rejected any interest to invest outright. Reasons for doing that? Hurt pride? Lack of connection with the club?

I would love to see some Rovers fans back involved with the club, and to be honest I have a lot of time for Battersby after a few of his interviews, but I think he will need to come up with something unrealistic to even get in the ears of the arrogant idiots who own our club.

 

Out of interest Mike, what are the other previous legitimate offers? 

A group of Qataris in 2012 (might have been 2011?), the Ians/Seneca original offer of a straight sale in 2013, Seneca again last year (as discussed) and the McNair family in late January this year.

I agree with a lot of your post too. The trouble we have is that we're at a point where Venky's will keep hold of us until they get money back.

Our only realistic hopes are they give up and put us in admin, or they accept a Seneca-type bid. A full buyout which covers their losses will only come from an Uncle Jack type and we've already had ours :/

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, Jbizzle said:

I agree it was a good move from the fans point of view but I think it's a tad naive to suggest it would suit the owners from their point of view.

If they value their "baby" at their investment level, (which is plausible when you consider suggestions of strange pride, discontent with fans, and a disconnect from reality) why would they give up half of it, and half of its future value for nothing outright?

The idea that it's a "way out" does wash, but doesn't take into account why they've continued to look to "fund" the club, surely tap would've been off completely a lot earlier if they sought that outcome? 

The suggestion it gives Venkys the investment they would want, well firstly they've shown nothing but a will to turn us into a self sufficient outfit since GB - why would they entertain further money spent (likely "loaned" to the club in a similar way to be paid back to the lender after promotion) or a bigger wage bill? 

Tomphil amongst many will love this part, if they truly want us to move backwards to run cheaper then they would've rejected any interest to invest outright. Reasons for doing that? Hurt pride? Lack of connection with the club?

I would love to see some Rovers fans back involved with the club, and to be honest I have a lot of time for Battersby after a few of his interviews, but I think he will need to come up with something unrealistic to even get in the ears of the arrogant idiots who own our club.

 

Out of interest Mike, what are the other previous legitimate offers? 

If they are using the club for other purposes like number crunching or running money through from India to invest in projects over here then they won't let go. No real need to once it's costing them next to nothing and every now and again a Liverpool or Man U or West Ham game comes up with their logo flashes all over the world so it's worth hanging to the club even if it's like an afterthought to them.

Just another theory of course but so is the they've now borrowed to the hilt and the SBOI and their other lenders have slammed the door on it one.  As has been said without getting 60/70 million to square up they'll just keep scaling it back and getting a bit back now and then.

Not sure I've ever really believed the Quatari thing but the blatant stubbornness and ignorance towards Seneca I can believe. Doubt the bank would force Vs hand yet if they have security on land in India as they wouldn't want to lose millions of rupees business every month for VH. Then again the bank probably own most of that as well.