Boycott Or Not?

[Herbie6590]

2 hours ago, Goozburger said:

Perhaps a financial expert on this matter can fill us in, but doesn't the club lose around £10m-£15m per season just by standing still? That would require a sale of Sammie and a bit every season to keep the club running. Not realistic because we aren't going to product that every season in my view. So somebody has to plug that gap. And my point is that new owners would have to do the same.

If they own the business then all the money that business generates belongs to the shareholders of that business (net of any tax etc) for them to use as they deem fit.

If the shareholders (owners) then elect not to provide additional share capital/directors loans because income (& cash flow) has increased (albeit temporarily) then that is their choice. 

Ultimately, all the money in Blackburn Rovers Football & Athletic Ltd “belongs” to the shareholders…i.e. ultimately Venky’s. 

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

Made in bad faith if you consider his rather childish comments in the other place.  

I’m always happy to debate on here - in hopefully a grown up manner.

The last 4000 Holes podcast for instance, I said I’d make the case against the boycott because I thought it was a good intellectual exercise to rehearse how the boycott might be challenged by others with different viewpoints.

I’m not remotely bothered by what is posted elsewhere TBH as there’s bugger all I can do about that - but if someone is civil on here & wants a debate I think that’s what this forum is for…& I’m happy to engage at face value 🤷‍♂️

[RevidgeBlue]

2 hours ago, Goozburger said:

No hatred from me at all.

Yet a quick scan of the other site will see numerous examples of where you've liked posts from other contributors being extremely abusive towards people who support the call for a boycott or of the organisers in particular.

[Goozburger]

18 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I think it is quite telling that when discussing division in the fan base you have referenced the boycotting fans as a cause. Unless I am mistaken, you haven’t once mentioned the rank abuse that both the coalition and boycotting fans have received.

The fans on both sides of this perceived divide who lower themselves to abuse are the minority. Yet, it is clear you put the blame more in one camp than the other 

The language in your posts is very telling. You have been at great pain to stress that you approach this debate without bias and with an open mind - I don’t think that is necessarily the case. It is always difficult to fully understand somebody from text only but your language points towards a person whose mind is made up - that the boycotting fans and coalition are at fault for the division. This is all my opinion of course. One thing I keep repeating is that you will have more in common with those boycotting fans than you will with the board. With all of your referencing of the minority of boycotting fans who cause division, perhaps you also need to work harder to find common ground with your likeminded town folk, instead of seeking to put the blame for the issues within the fan base at their doorstep. Ultimately there is one party to blame here and it is not any of the multiple fan groups. It is Venkys. 

Nowhere have I said the boycotters are to blame for supporter division. I've criticised the boycott and rationalised everything. You are totally wrong to interpret it that way.

[M_B]

13 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Different issue. Venky’s having no inclination to feck off is pretty much agreed on here, whatever the reasoning is.

But if they did, nobody being interested because they’d lose money is a very strange argument for anybody that has even a passing interest in English football.

All part of the same issue, the problem is Venkys aren't a distressed seller,which then influences any approach from a potential buyer.

If someone comes in now, I'd be confident that they had the funds and will required. If Venkys  were forced to just get rid of the club, I'd be extremely worried about any potential takeover. 

As I said the other week, the club doesn't have to be put up for sale for someone to buy it, a takeover in that situation would be much more preferable. 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, M_B said:

All part of the same issue, the problem is Venkys aren't a distressed seller,

You keep making a similar point, that one of the problems is Venky's are so rich they don't need to sell and also won't be starved out etc etc......

Well, seemingly, they aren't so FU rich that they are still either able, or perhaps more pertinently, willing, to pay the going rate for established Championship players anymore!

So I think further reductions in revenue will be relevant. To me there's clearly a limit to their annual funding that they are not willing to go beyond and it seems to be getting steadily less and less all the time.

[Mattyblue]

Forced to get rid. So we end up in administration. You obviously see that as too high a risk as presumably you see somebody even worse than these club wreckers turn up. 

It’s a possibility, I suppose, but then so is somebody emerging to grab this club by its bootstraps. 
 

[...]

7 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Forced to get rid. So we end up in administration. You obviously see that as too high a risk as presumably you see somebody even worse than these club wreckers turn up. 

It’s a possibility, I suppose, but then so is somebody emerging to grab this club by its bootstraps. 
 

Genuinely can't see anyone being worse owners. Surely anyone taking us on will of learnt from the last 15 years 

[M_B]

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You keep making a similar point, that one of the problems is Venky's are so rich they don't need to sell and also won't be starved out etc etc......

Well, seemingly, they aren't so FU rich that they are still either able, or perhaps more pertinently, willing, to pay the going rate for established Championship players anymore!

So I think further reductions in revenue will be relevant. To me there's clearly a limit to their annual funding that they are not willing to go beyond and it seems to be getting steadily less and less all the time.

Don't see it that way whatsoever, but there you go. It may well have worked with other owners, but it's the difference between wanting to and having to. 

[M_B]

9 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Forced to get rid. So we end up in administration. You obviously see that as too high a risk as presumably you see somebody even worse than these club wreckers turn up. 

It’s a possibility, I suppose, but then so is somebody emerging to grab this club by its bootstraps. 
 

Oh, I'd wish they'd go tomorrow. 

If someone has the money and the will to take us on they can step forward this week. They can see the situation, there is literally nothing stopping them making an approach, that's if someone hasn't done so already, and has been turned down. 

[RevidgeBlue]

17 minutes ago, M_B said:

Don't see it that way whatsoever, but there you go. It may well have worked with other owners, but it's the difference between wanting to and having to. 

So then, why won't they pay the going rate for established Championship players anymore?

Edited 26 minutes ago by RevidgeBlue

[...]

We're clearly all passionate about the Club and how crap the last 15 years has been under venkys, imagine if we all put our heads together for something united 👍🏻

💙🤍

[Herbie6590]

36 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Forced to get rid. So we end up in administration. You obviously see that as too high a risk as presumably you see somebody even worse than these club wreckers turn up. 

It’s a possibility, I suppose, but then so is somebody emerging to grab this club by its bootstraps. 
 

Technical point - but we only end up in Admin if Venky’s decide not to sell, not to fund & the UK directors of the club fear personal liability under insolvency law & to avoid the risk, they therefore call in the administrators. That’s why the departure of SW & a lack of CEO is intriguing. Who would actually do this? Suhail can’t if he isn’t a director.

That would be perverse in the extreme, it would mean Venky’s would rather get nothing for the club than even a token bid of £1.

I think we can rule out administration for now. 

[Herbie6590]

33 minutes ago, ... said:

Genuinely can't see anyone being worse owners. Surely anyone taking us on will of learnt from the last 15 years 

Chansiri says “Hi!” 😉

[Herbie6590]

19 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So then, why won't they pay the going rate for established Championship players anymore?

They’re bored of their hobby & have set a ceiling on spending. 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Technical point - but we only end up in Admin if Venky’s decide not to sell, not to fund & the UK directors of the club fear personal liability under insolvency law & to avoid the risk, they therefore call in the administrators. That’s why the departure of SW & a lack of CEO is intriguing. Who would actually do this? Suhail can’t if he isn’t a director.

That would be perverse in the extreme, it would mean Venky’s would rather get nothing for the club than even a token bid of £1.

I think we can rule out administration for now. 

Isn't there some weird EFL rule whereby they're entitled to 25p in the pound therefore they'd be entitled to expect c£55m?

[M_B]

21 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So then, why won't they pay the going rate for established Championship players anymore?

What they'd tell you is, that isn't the plan,as well you know. 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, Herbie6590 said:

They’re bored of their hobby & have set a ceiling on spending. 

Exactly.

But the point M-B was making was they're so rich they won't be starved out and I think they could be because they won't go beyond said ceiling any longer.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, M_B said:

What they'd tell you is, that isn't the plan,as well you know. 

You've done that thing again........... Lol.

That's not an answer to the question I asked whether you say it or they say it!