New takeover bid for Blackburn Rovers debunked using critical thinking

So, according to the Sunday People, there is a ‘new bid for Rovers’ is there?

Sunday People – new bid for Rovers

This story is so laughably poor and tenuous, it’s hard to know where to start!

So, taking my lead from Brian Dunning’s excellent Skeptoid.com’s 15 step guide to critical thinking , we can debunk the ‘news’ with in seconds.

Normally I wouldn’t bother with such a laughably poor bit of news, but this is such a no-news item the only thing noteworthy of it is excrementitial on so many levels.

So, is it anything more than papworthy speculative dross in a gutter Sunday tabloid, ‘leaked’ by a status-anxiety ridden citizen journalist? Let’s see (I won’t need anything like the 15 points)

“3. Was the claim first announced through mass media, or through scientific channels?”

Hmm – it was ‘leaked’ on a forum that an ‘exclusive’ ‘big news’ would be announced the following day.

6. Does the claim sound far fetched, or too good to be true?

Yes – the very fact it’s being spun by someone close to the journalist seems it’s more aligned to an ego trip by the named ‘bidder’. All 3 parties (bidder, journo, leaker) get some kudos out of it – despite it being utter tripe speculation at this point.

7. Is the claim supported by hokey marketing?

See previous point.

8. Does the claim pass the Occam’s Razor test?

No – what is the simpler solution to the story – that there is a real bid that will go through, or it’s perpetuated by folk who suffer from status anxiety and enjoy the attention it brings? Additionally, if the supposed bidder was such an astute businessman, wouldn’t he better keeping his interest under wraps rather than increasing competion/demand when other bidders are ‘supposedly’ keen (according to same sources).

9. Does the claim come from a source dedicated to supporting it?

See previous point.

15. Does the claim have support that is political, ideological, or cultural?

Not exactly – but everyone involved in ‘leaking’ this story benefits to some degree.

So let’s look a bit deeper, and ‘flesh out the bones’ on this.

This guy’s wealth is in property – a deprecating asset at present; commercial property (which is a large part of this guy’s portfolio) is tanking faster than anything.

The very fact this guy is quoted directly, and is trying to run his campaign through the media, suggests he doesn’t fit the club’s profile anyway. As stated with previous ‘bidders’, the club aren’t short of prospective buyers, just the right buyers – ginger Daniel proved that he wasn’t really serious as he didn’t have the money and then chose to blurt to the media blaming other reasons.

Anyone that usually claims about the price being too high, often doesn’t have the resources to purchase anyway, and is in denial & probably looking to obfuscate the real issue. As the price region would account for at least 25% of this guy’s wealth (which is deprecating mind), it’s hard to see where the leverage in a commercial aspect for this guy. One can understand the Glazers taking debt on to profit from the world’s biggest moneyspinning club, but not some two bob Flash Haroon – albeit one that has said it’s purely a business deal.

If the guy is using The Sunday People to spin his PR, it doesn’t really say a lot about the gravitas of the deal, or the bidder does it? Not exactly the FT or a broadsheet is it?

Personally, I can’t see this guy’s angle in wanting the club.

  1. Is he rich enough to turn it into a plaything like Abramovich? No.
  2. Is there money to be made in the deal? Possibly, but unlikely; given the debt he would likely have to take on, & the high % of his wealth (in a rapidly depreciating market) set against the high ratio of wages/turnover and relatively low profit margins, it’s likely he would be looking to asset strip the club/business.
  3. Is he likely to invest in the growth of the club, particularly the playing squad? Doubtful – he’s stretched enough to purchase the club – even if he knocks down the purchase price & re-invests that saving, it won’t be more than 5 million.
  4. Has he a vested interest in the club, is he a fan or has he an altruistic agenda? No – about the only tie he claims is a friendship with a player; no Jack Walker by any stretch

About the only possible positive I can see in this story is something Ray Harford alluded to in 1996; if there was an Asian element involved at Ewood, it would enthuse and motivate the local population exponentially – maybe even improve the attendances.

Of course, as the Mark Hughes exit showed us, ultimately we know nowt – and strange things happen. However, I feel it’s a pretty safe bit that once the attention has died down on this story – in a couple of days time – this is the last we’ll hear of this fella.

I still hold the view that IF the club was to be sold, it would be done in the way Rovers usually do their business – with minimal speculation or spin.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “New takeover bid for Blackburn Rovers debunked using critical thinking”

  1. Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you.

    Tom Humes

  2. Hi Tom

    Will keep an eye on your blog too,!

    Thanks for reading, and commenting, please keep on ……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: