[Archived] Rovers STILL not sold.

[47er]

To be fair, if I came on here to express my opinion and got accused of being one of Goldberg's moles without any basis or justification I'd be a little narked off too.

Funny how nicko has said the BBC have done a good job on this but everyone on here is ignoring that as it's not what they want to hear..

C'mn--he said on the 5 Live site that Goldberg is 'owed an apology" by a lot of Blackburn fans! And he's a Rovers fan? That's a good basis and justification imo for the criticisms of him.

[JohnD]

If so good on you, Rovers needs all the fans it can get.

Again, I hope so too – but your swallowing of a sensation journalists information and complete disregard to anything said otherwise is questionable. Blind faith in the press is one thing that has bothered me since I stepped foot in the sands of Iraq. They have an agenda and that is to make money, they will cover up things that do not fit their agenda and build trivial things into massive mountains that are at best the size of an ant’s penis.

Well you can bugger off or not read it if you think this is bollucks. You seem to have no problem swallowing Goldberg’s conjecture and imaginative waffle. How has Mr. Ali failed to respond? It is Goldberg who is left with questions, the statement released stated that there were problems with the story and all that bottom feeder did was thump his chest and say how he sticks by his story.

Well attacking the intellectual capacity of the inmates is a good way to start. Hope you have a good laugh while you are here – feed the monkeys and so on.

I wouldn't trust any of the press as far as I can throw them.

It's quite simple but you seem to be struggling to keep up.

The BBC made some allegations.

Mr Ali stated that he would reply to the false accusations but didn't, though he did admit that one allegation was true.

Mr Ali issued a broad legal letter which did not contain any specifics.

The BBC reiterated their allegations and claimed to have the evidence to support them. They would not have done this if they did not have some evidence

.

The ball is now in Mr Ali's court to respond or not as is his want.

A lack of a response does not reflect well on Mr Ali.

Journalists are journalists and always will be, I believe very little of what I read and check the facts myself where it is possible.

If these allegations had been falsely made against me I would have responded, demanded an apology and sued for as much as I could get for charity. If they had been made against me and were true I would have said nowt but that's just the way I am.

Many of the things Mr Ali is supposed to have said are contradictory (LSE and financial background for example) but as far as I know they have been reported by the press rather than directly attributed to comments by Mr Ali. These are difficult to prove one way or the other. The BBC allegations are specific and provable so should be answered.

Let there be no doubt that if the current board deems Mr Ali suitable to takeover the Rovers I shall be as happy as anyone.

You see I am old enough to be cynical of the press and strangers bearing gifts alike.

[Paul]

Funny how nicko has said the BBC have done a good job on this but everyone on here is ignoring that as it's not what they want to hear..

I've been struggling with this one as well. Nicko brings information, news and insight which is welcomed by the MB. Goldberg brings much the same via a radio programme but the detail is not what the majority want to hear, therefore Goldberg is a w*nker. I'd guess both journalists use similar methods, or at least their methods will have something in common, yet one is very acceptable and the other unacceptable. I don't understand it, other than football fans are fickle.

[rebelmswar]

I wouldn't trust any of the press as far as I can throw them.

Really, well your tone on Facebook and here would suggest otherwise.

It's quite simple but you seem to be struggling to keep up.

Yes that is the problem with wading through bullshit

The BBC made some allegations.

Assertions, we have seen no proof yet.

Mr Ali stated that he would reply to the false accusations but didn't, though he did admit that one allegation was true.

If he didn't how could he admit one was true?

Mr Ali issued a broad legal letter which did not contain any specifics.

It didn't? I think it specifically stated that they were not true, except for the one that he took care of.

The BBC reiterated their allegations and claimed to have the evidence to support them. They would not have done this if they did not have some evidence.

Evidence to support them? I have heard that before.

The ball is now in Mr Ali's court to respond or not as is his want.

A lack of a response does not reflect well on Mr Ali.

Journalists are journalists and always will be, I believe very little of what I read and check the facts myself where it is possible.

If these allegations had been falsely made against me I would have responded, demanded an apology and sued for as much as I could get for charity. If they had been made against me and were true I would have said nowt but that's just the way I am.

Many of the things Mr Ali is supposed to have said are contradictory (LSE and financial background for example) but as far as I know they have been reported by the press rather than directly attributed to comments by Mr Ali. These are difficult to prove one way or the other. The BBC allegations are specific and provable so should be answered.

Let there be no doubt that if the current board deems Mr Ali suitable to takeover the Rovers I shall be as happy as anyone.

You see I am old enough to be cynical of the press and strangers bearing gifts alike.

Well if you are old enough then you would know that things take time. I for one do not wish to burn the man at the stake and take the word of a journalist that makes money discrediting people. Sorry if that is old fashioned of me, but you see I am cynical enough of everyone to believe noone until proof is delivered. In my opinion something that is so trumpeted and yet so inconclusive is suspect and trite.

[Iceman]

It depends how you got the taped interview...and whether you really need it. The BBC are a bit more worried by morals than the tabloid press and this may be a case in point.

Have to say the BBC have done a good job on this.

Anyway, another day ticks by and Syed has not done the deal he wanted pushed through in a hurry a month ago...

hmmm, Nicko we get along quite well, but surely you should know better than to be jumping the gun right now on Syed. The period of exclusivity has ended, and Syed is expected to roll into town soon I would hope to start the PL fit and proper test. I know you are still questioning where he got the 1billion from, but that’s one for him to explain. maybe he could give you some of it

[nicko]

hmmm, Nicko we get along quite well, but surely you should know better than to be jumping the gun right now on Syed. The period of exclusivity has ended, and Syed is expected to roll into town soon I would hope to start the PL fit and proper test. I know you are still questioning where he got the 1billion from, but that’s one for him to explain. maybe he could give you some of it

I was always brought up not to take sweets from strangers...

[rebelmswar]

I've been struggling with this one as well. Nicko brings information, news and insight which is welcomed by the MB. Goldberg brings much the same via a radio programme but the detail is not what the majority want to hear, therefore Goldberg is a w*nker. I'd guess both journalists use similar methods, or at least their methods will have something in common, yet one is very acceptable and the other unacceptable. I don't understand it, other than football fans are fickle.

I have questioned Nicko lots of times in the past, and still do. At this time he is just posing questions and thinking that the 5Live stuff is interesting.

If he whipped out a story about it I would question him.

The fear of the resounding condemnation from certain groups make questioning Nicko somewhat of a minefield and you shouldn’t do it unless you have a Sherman crab, or preferably something to run with.

[tony gale's mic]

C'mn--he said on the 5 Live site that Goldberg is 'owed an apology" by a lot of Blackburn fans! And he's a Rovers fan? That's a good basis and justification imo for the criticisms of him.

No it's not.

Goldberg flags up some things that are definitely of note concerning Mr Syed, especially given what's happened with Premier League takeovers in recent years.

Yes he comes across a bit smug in his tone and doesnt exactly endear himself to us but it's still fair enough.

Syed takes an age to reply and when he does, it's a fairly non specific denial (apart from the CCJs which are impossible to deny as they can be proved very easily if needed). He also denies being from Bhongir despite being from a village 10 mins down the road and having told Goldberg that was where he came from.

Goldberg then says they have letters in their office proving Ali Syed was being chased for rent over quite a few years, that they have an interview which they haven't broadcast for moral reasons - Ali Syed didnt intend for it to be broadcast and his team have said they don't want it being broadcast.

Clearly however those claims can't be false as if it came to any legal proceedings and they were asked for evidence, if they didn't have it they'd be in serious trouble.

Goldberg has done a pretty good job on this, even our resident journalist has said so, yes he come across as pretty smug and yes Syed may yet turn out to be a perfectly decent owner. But it's good things like this are getting flagged up but instead he just gets a torrent of abuse and ridiculous claims he's making things about interviews up when anyone with half a brain could see there's no way he'd make interviews up, it'd be professional suicide. Sadly people with half a brain are lacking in this thread...

[Iceman]

How wonderfully ironic - criticise the thread for pointless posts, drivel and useless content by posting.... pointless drivel without any meritable content.

Impressive, yet troubling that you don't even realise it.

Seriously, we now have posters complaining the thread is unreadable because some of you are treating it like a chat room - can you not have your petty arguments, silly jokes and clicky love-in's by PM?. Just remember the VAST MAJORITY of board users are readers not posters, how about some consideration?

oh c'mon Oscar, seriously now. this thread has spiralled out of control since page 2 of the old takeover thread. You cannot expect this to turn out any other way, people will chat. just look at the beginning of this new thread, its already reached 5 pages, and nothing worth reading imo.

I completely understand where you are coming from, but unfortunately thats just how it is, and how its been.

[JohnD]

Really, well your tone on Facebook and here would suggest otherwise.

Yes that is the problem with wading through bullshit

Assertions, we have seen no proof yet.

If he didn't how could he admit one was true?

It didn't? I think it specifically stated that they were not true, except for the one that he took care of.

Evidence to support them? I have heard that before.

Well if you are old enough then you would know that things take time. I for one do not wish to burn the man at the stake and take the word of a journalist that makes money discrediting people. Sorry if that is old fashioned of me, but you see I am cynical enough of everyone to believe noone until proof is delivered. In my opinion something that is so trumpeted and yet so inconclusive is suspect and trite.

I don't recall offering to burn anyone at the stake and you don't appear to be capable of conducting a reasoned discussion.

[67splitscreen]

Goldberg is trying to keep this story alive (listening figures).

If not why keep the most relevant information off air.

He clearly details the dates of the CCJ.

He does not date the rest of the allegations. Syed's legal team via the PR release state there is no record of outstanding debt.

There are many mitigating circumstances as to why, when someone leaves an address and over a period of time demands for payment arise, they don't necessarily mean that there was not administration errors.

The congestion charge for instance, was it a hire car was it Syed's owned vehicle, maybe if he sold it to say a dealer, it was used within the inner ring road for some reason, maybe the V5 was not sent to the DVLA, most car traders don't, they like to keep the ownership record to a minimum.

A hire car may have gone out the very next day that he terminated his agreement, maybe the hire company failed to update the records, when the driver details was requested.

If any of the above are correct Syed's address would be were all the correspondents would go.

If Syed is a iffy as some suggest, why would a person leave all that mail, opened and unopened, leaving a trail to possible bankers and every one else he was dealing with at the time.

Is he trying to draw Syed out into a on air confrontation?. Probably,(boost his ratings) IMO the aim of that would be to draw Syed into publicly stating with more detail as to where his wealth has come from.

No harm in that, unless he is truly bound by NDA's from his other dealings, failing to detail them in public would only lead to even more scepticism.

As an aside was the last public statement not the third week in September, ish, for completion/agreement to the sale, we are approaching that time scale.

[philipl]

I come back to my point of last week.

At this stage, Ali Sayed's "audience " is the Walker Trustees and Rothschilds. Whether they are convinced is what matters.

Secondary is getting responses out to the press in a way and time that doesn't create a press firestorm or score reputational own goals. And how he answers Goldberg is also a matter for the Rovers because the club's good name has got wrapped up in this as well.

Third on the priority list just now are us lot.

As for who is winning, Syed remains in front but all indicators are that there are five serious contenders and that means who is sitting where in the race will be changing by the hour as we reach the sharp end.

for the swingometer.

[Iceman]

I was always brought up not to take sweets from strangers...

hang on Mr Nixon, was that your story in the People recently, about Syed about to complete the takeover? That certainly felt like a happily ever after story

[rebelmswar]

I don't recall offering to burn anyone at the stake and you don't appear to be capable of conducting a reasoned discussion.

You got me.

Its called a metaphor. I am sure that you wouldnt wish to burn him at the stake FFS.

You were the one to state that I was having a hard time "keeping up" if my retort hurt your feelings I am sorry.

[tony gale's mic]

Goldberg is trying to keep this story alive (listening figures).

If not why keep the most relevant information off air.

Because as nicko says, there's journalistic morals involved here.

The interview was not originally meant for broadcast.

They asked Syed's team if they could broadcast it.

They then declined, so Goldberg didn't broadcast it.

We should be asking why Syed's team was so reluctant to allow his interview to be broadcast, not why Goldberg didn't want to broadcast it surely?

[nicko]

hang on Mr Nixon, was that your story in the People recently, about Syed about to complete the takeover? That certainly felt like a happily ever after story

It was just a small update with the odd nearly-new item and some new items cut out.

I suggest you read the intro again...that point seems to have been missed.

This is a race.

The guy who fired his own starting pistol may not prove to be the one who crosses the line.

Don't ask me to tip a winner. Right now it is like watching old nags trying to win a two mile job at Wolverhampton in the off season.

[Iceman]

Goldberg is trying to keep this story alive (listening figures).

If not why keep the most relevant information off air.

He clearly details the dates of the CCJ.

He does not date the rest of the allegations. Syed's legal team via the PR release state there is no record of outstanding debt.

There are many mitigating circumstances as to why, when someone leaves an address and over a period of time demands for payment arise, they don't necessarily mean that there was not administration errors.

The congestion charge for instance, was it a hire car was it Syed's owned vehicle, maybe if he sold it to say a dealer, it was used within the inner ring road for some reason, maybe the V5 was not sent to the DVLA, most car traders don't, they like to keep the ownership record to a minimum.

A hire car may have gone out the very next day that he terminated his agreement, maybe the hire company failed to update the records, when the driver details was requested.

If any of the above are correct Syed's address would be were all the correspondents would go.

If Syed is a iffy as some suggest, why would a person leave all that mail, opened and unopened, leaving a trail to possible bankers and every one else he was dealing with at the time.

Is he trying to draw Syed out into a on air confrontation?. Probably,(boost his ratings) IMO the aim of that would be to draw Syed into publicly stating with more detail as to where his wealth has come from.

No harm in that, unless he is truly bound by NDA's from his other dealings, failing to detail them in public would only lead to even more scepticism.

As an aside was the last public statement not the third week in September, ish, for completion/agreement to the sale, we are approaching that time scale.

agree with this. This whole, Goldberg is a good journalist ###### is rubbish. if Goldberg is not legally binded into sharing that information, then why is he not revealing on air as he stated that is the prefered 'medium" on this matter. Im still not convinced with this Goldberg revelations, unless of course he can prove his accusations.

again, no other media interest in this, why is that? The BBC website has hardly covered this in more detail, so that says quite a bit about whats going on.

I believe MikeB's golf friend, its game, set and match Ali

[T4E]

Really, well your tone on Facebook and here would suggest otherwise.

Yes that is the problem with wading through bullshit

Assertions, we have seen no proof yet.

If he didn't how could he admit one was true?

It didn't? I think it specifically stated that they were not true, except for the one that he took care of.

Evidence to support them? I have heard that before.

Well if you are old enough then you would know that things take time. I for one do not wish to burn the man at the stake and take the word of a journalist that makes money discrediting people. Sorry if that is old fashioned of me, but you see I am cynical enough of everyone to believe noone until proof is delivered. In my opinion something that is so trumpeted and yet so inconclusive is suspect and trite.

WIN - but remember - proof is required from both sides.

[den]

Goldberg has done a pretty good job on this, even our resident journalist has said so,

I've never had any problem whatsoever with Goldberg making the allegations that he did, TGM. As for whether or not he's done a pretty good job, depends on whether these allegations have made any difference, especially to Syed's progress in his efforts to buy the club. I said a few days ago that I don't think it will make any difference at all and that's also the view of Andy Cryer [for what it's worth].

So, IMO, Goldberg has every right to say whatever he wants, but if at the end of the day it doesn't make one iota of difference to the takeover proceedings, then I can't see how he's done a good job. Goldberg couldn't follow up his first programme with any substance that would cause Syed or the trustees with renewed concern. So unless he comes up with something better, I would say he's pretty well failed to have had any real effect on proceedings. If his evidence causes the PL to reject Syed's bid via their "fit and proper persons test", then that would be a different story.

[67splitscreen]

Because as nicko says, there's journalistic morals involved here.

The interview was not originally meant for broadcast.

They asked Syed's team if they could broadcast it.

They then declined, so Goldberg didn't broadcast it.

We should be asking why Syed's team was so reluctant to allow his interview to be broadcast, not why Goldberg didn't want to broadcast it surely?

I agree with your last point.

The outstanding allegations are in the format of letters not a tape, so why not date them, doing so would give the allegations more credibility, surely.

[rebelmswar]

Because as nicko says, there's journalistic morals involved here.

The interview was not originally meant for broadcast.

They asked Syed's team if they could broadcast it.

They then declined, so Goldberg didn't broadcast it.

We should be asking why Syed's team was so reluctant to allow his interview to be broadcast, not why Goldberg didn't want to broadcast it surely?

I don't want any bad blood with you about any of this TGM, its not worth it.

I just believe that there should be reasonable doubt on both sides, and quoting from the scripture of Goldberg is about as polarized as you can get.

Not saying you are doing so, just some are and that is who I ask questions of. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when people start saying that Rovers fans should apologise to Goldberg and so on, that is a bit far off the mark, at this moment in time.

[Paul]

Don't ask me to tip a winner. Right now it is like watching old nags trying to win a two mile job at Wolverhampton in the off season.

That's an image none of us wanted!!!

[tonyoz]

I've never had any problem whatsoever with Goldberg making the allegations that he did, TGM. As for whether or not he's done a pretty good job, depends on whether these allegations have made any difference, especially to Syed's progress in his efforts to buy the club. I said a few days ago that I don't think it will make any difference at all and that's also the view of Andy Cryer [for what it's worth].

So, IMO, Goldberg has every right to say whatever he wants, but if at the end of the day it doesn't make one iota of difference to the takeover proceedings, then I can't see how he's done a good job. Goldberg couldn't follow up his first programme with any substance that would cause Syed or the trustees with renewed concern. So unless he comes up with something better, I would say he's pretty well failed to have had any real effect on proceedings. If his evidence causes the PL to reject Syed's bid via their "fit and proper persons test", then that would be a different story.

I think there is little chance of complacency down at Ewood after these programs. That's a good thing. Ali's lawyers' response to the first program warned that the allegations were "damaging"........So what does Goldberg do?

He goes back on air and repeats them and tells us all that he has a paper trail as evidence. The PR firm refused an interview and they turned down a request for a written statement. No sign of any legal action.

The Bahrain close down is the strangest business of all.

[booth]

I just believe that there should be reasonable doubt on both sides, and quoting from the scripture of Goldberg is about as polarized as you can get.

Not saying you are doing so, just some are and that is who I ask questions of. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when people start saying that Rovers fans should apologise to Goldberg and so on, that is a bit far off the mark, at this moment in time.

Sums up my thoughts perfectly.

[Alan75]

Don't ask me to tip a winner. Right now it is like watching old nags trying to win a two mile job at Wolverhampton in the off season.

Well it beats hen racing !