[Archived] Rovers STILL not sold.

[den]

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.

He was repeating allegations that make no difference to anything though Tonyoz. They were trivialities.

[seekay]

At the moment the buzz has gone out of this thread. Where's Julia Thiem?

[booth]

He was repeating allegations that make no difference to anything though Tonyoz. They were trivialities.

Unlike the allegations levelled at Sheikh Mansour's family, yet Man City hasn't yet fallen under Goldberg's spotlight. Perhaps he considers CCJ's and untidy flats more important

http://www.uaetorture.com/ (warning, some pretty strong stuff)

The person doing the torturing in that picture on the first page is allegedly the Man City owners brother by the way

Daily Mail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1176091/UAE-prince-caught-camera-torturing-Afghan-trader.html

Or Goldberg could investigate Abramovich... Allegedly, he has a colourful past.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4272509.ece

[Jackson]

Unlike the allegations levelled at Sheikh Mansour's family, yet Man City hasn't yet fallen under Goldberg's spotlight. Perhaps he considers CCJ's and untidy flats more important

http://www.uaetorture.com/ (warning, some pretty strong stuff)

The person doing the torturing in that picture on the first page is allegedly the Man City owners brother by the way

Or Goldberg could investigate Abramovich... Allegedly, he has a colourful past.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4272509.ece

That is because Goldberg would be scared of running a story on these two.

Syed isn't tarnished with mafiosa/human rights abomination, ergo easy "soft" target.

[LeChuck]

That is because Goldberg would be scared of running a story on these two.

Syed isn't tarnished with mafiosa/human rights abomination, ergo easy "soft" target.

I don't agree with that at all.

This is obviously a fall-out from the Pompey disaster. Whilst Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour might not be the nicest characters, they undoubtedly have the money to run a Premier League club. That's the issue in question here, Pompey were taken over by charlatans and run into the ground.

Whoever was the next PL club to be subject of a takeover bid from a little-known foreigner was always going to be subject to this intense scrutiny. Unfortunately for Syed, it happens we're first.

[booth]

I don't agree with that at all.

This is obviously a fall-out from the Pompey disaster. Whilst Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour might not be the nicest characters, they undoubtedly have the money to run a Premier League club. That's the issue in question here, Pompey were taken over by charlatans and run into the ground.

Whoever was the next PL club to be subject of a takeover bid from a little-known foreigner was always going to be subject to this intense scrutiny. Unfortunately for Syed, it happens we're first.

Yes but it's "5 Live Investigates", not "5 Live Investigates some folks but not the ones with definite wealth."

My point was that if the intentions behind that show were any good, they would be investigating these things too. In the grand scale of things, these things are absolutely immense. That's another reason why for me 5LI can't be taken too seriously.

[den]

I don't agree with that at all.

This is obviously a fall-out from the Pompey disaster. Whilst Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour might not be the nicest characters, they undoubtedly have the money to run a Premier League club.

Well that's not what Goldberg said it was about. He wasn't saying that Syed didn't have the money to take over Rovers, he was asking the question whether he was a fit and proper person. Nothing to do with whether he has the cash LeChuck.

[LeChuck]

Well that's not what Goldberg said it was about. He wasn't saying that Syed didn't have the money to take over Rovers, he was asking the question whether he was a fit and proper person. Nothing to do with whether he has the cash LeChuck.

I haven't looked into the 'fit and proper' thing, but isn't it basically just a test of finance? I doubt Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour would even come close to failing that test if they were put through it.

Anyway, why would you bother doing a program on the 'fit and proper' test and focus on two people who don't have to take it? It makes sense to do it about the potentially first new foreign owner of a PL club since the Pompey incident.

Even if Five Live did do a show on Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour, would they be able to find anything not already uncovered elsewhere? Incredibly doubtful.

[modes98]

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.

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

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.

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

Apart from he paid off the CCJ which was the main gem in Goldbergs piece.

The only thing I know of that the BBC has presented as physical evidence is a few pictures of a flat they claim to have been left in a messy state. Whether that is true or not really isn't a big issue for me. More the fact that the post doesn't appear to be in his name seems to indicate that it wasn't his flat. The rest of the allegations seemed to be around the opinions of "experts" and ex-landlords, etc. Which is very difficult to prove either way, it is very much one word against another.

There is no pressure on Mr Ali to produce a further statement as there has been no further media spin on the story, which to me indicates that they don't think it is worth even a small article. The key is for him is to convince the people that count and unfortunately for Mr Goldberg that isn't him. As others have mentioned maybe he should investigate Man City's owners, he might get a better story.

The LSE thing seems a bit muddled but again isn't really a big concern. If he did great, if he didn't it doesn't make him any less capable of running our club IMO.

Being cynical of the press is good, majority of them have not got anymore idea than us. Sorry Mr Nixon.

Also you never get anything for free, whether he intends to sell us in 15 years or what there will always been an angle for him. He is a businessman, even if he gets it wrong.

[Mc Love]

I have a headache!

[Guest bluerovers]

Unlike the allegations levelled at Sheikh Mansour's family, yet Man City hasn't yet fallen under Goldberg's spotlight. Perhaps he considers CCJ's and untidy flats more important

http://www.uaetorture.com/ (warning, some pretty strong stuff)

The person doing the torturing in that picture on the first page is allegedly the Man City owners brother by the way

Daily Mail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1176091/UAE-prince-caught-camera-torturing-Afghan-trader.html

Or Goldberg could investigate Abramovich... Allegedly, he has a colourful past.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4272509.ece

Not to mention him bankrupting the State he goverened, which is about financial responsibility....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3735971.stm

Can't believe after reading that we are questioning Syed's ability to finance a football club after an alleged unpaid rent and CCJ, methinks the above is an example of much more worrying accounting is it not?

Oh yeah I forgot, he didn't matter because by 2004 he had a wiki page

Oh and this is very interesting, some quotes from Chelsea fans/Tony Banks prior to the takeover by Roman, a lot of them sound very familar (should make very intersting reading for Tony Gale's Mic)

Misgivings

One Chelsea fan told the BBC he was shocked by the news.

"I think it's disgraceful because I always thought that Ken Bates was Mr Chelsea."

HAVE YOUR SAY

I fear for the future of Chelsea, especially with all the debts

From David Pottinger

Join the 606 debate

And former sports minister Tony Banks said he wanted more information on Mr Abramovich's business background.

"I want to know whether this individual is a fit and proper person to be taking over a club like Chelsea. Until that question is answered, then I'm afraid the jury is out," he told the BBC.

"A sale has been arranged to an individual we know nothing about."

Mr Banks added that he would be raising the issue with sports minister Richard Caborn.

But Mr Bates, who is expected to remain as chairman, said the deal would help the club.

"This is a great deal for Chelsea Village, the club and its fans," he said in a statement.

"In today's highly competitive football market, the club will benefit from a new owner with deeper pockets to move Chelsea to the next level.

"I look forward to working with Roman Abramovich to achieve even greater things."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3036838.stm

[rebelmswar]

Not to mention him bankrupting the State he goverened, which is about financial responsibility....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3735971.stm

Can't believe after reading that we are questioning Syed's ability to finance a football club after an alleged unpaid rent and CCJ, methinks the above is an example of much more worrying accounting is it not?

Oh yeah I forgot, he didn't matter because by 2004 he had a wiki page

Oh and this is very interesting, some quotes from Chelsea fans/Tony Banks prior to the takeover by Roman, a lot of them sound very familar (should make very intersting reading for Tony Gale's Mic)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3036838.stm

None of that makes good copy - a dirty flat, a Safeway receipt and some congestion charges trump money laundering, torture, and gangland hits any day.

Plus it’s all old news anyway who cares what the CURRENT owners of a Premier League team got up to, and whether or not they fit the NEW fit and proper tests. Let’s just make sure someone who doesn’t pay for his rent is rightfully chastised.

Let’s go back to flower fetishes and out of the way towns in India, all very much more compelling.

[den]

I haven't looked into the 'fit and proper' thing, but isn't it basically just a test of finance?

Well yes, apparently it is - all of which makes it difficult to see exactly what Goldberg was trying to prove.

[LeChuck]

Well yes, apparently it is - all of which makes it difficult to see exactly what Goldberg was trying to prove.

I'd guess that he's trying to suggest Syed doesn't have the money he says he does (like Pompey's owners did) by questioning why a rich man would have a trail of unpaid bills, a scruffy rented flat and an untraceable billionaire family.

I noticed you cut out the rest of my quote which was more relevant to what we started discussing!

[JohnD]

I accused someone of not keeping up earlier and in fact I have struggled to keep up and have missed quite a few posts - not much access to the board this afternoon.

1. Goldsberg has a new radio show and makes accusations against Mr Ali. He gave Mr Ali an opportunity to nip it in the bud (before the show) but got no reply. Goldsberg goes ahead and makes accusations and he knows that he is on very unsafe ground if he is not accurate.

2. Mr Ali does nothing to refute any of the allegations but fires off a shot in the form of pretty general legal letter - nothing specific stated.

3. Having got away with it the first time and with no sign of any real opposition Goldsberg repeats the allegations (which I view as sue me if you dare) and claims to have written legal documents to back up his case.

4. At this stage I believe that the ball is in Mr Ali's court. Goldsberg has made accusations that remain unanswered, why should he show his full hand (if there is one)?

Meanwhile many Rovers fans spit the dummy out and attack Goldsberg with personal comments, many of which are not particularly nice. It is these "fans" that should be apologising, you see love him or loathe him Goldsberg is a human being doing a job.

MB's are great for debate and the craich but those who resort to personal attacks rather than state their case or provide proof don't deserve the time of day.

Goldsberg has done nothing wrong whatsoever and, as far as I know, neither has Mr Ali.

Mr Ali has been accused of certain things and he can reply if he wishes. A lack of a reply does not make him guilty.

[Guest bluerovers]

I'd guess that he's trying to suggest Syed doesn't have the money he says he does (like Pompey's owners did) by questioning why a rich man would have a trail of unpaid bills, a scruffy rented flat and an untraceable billionaire family.

Why would the State that Abramovich was govenor of go bankrupt? Why did the Sports Minister at the time say "he'd never heard of Abramovich"?

2. Mr Ali does nothing to refute any of the allegations but fires off a shot in the form of pretty general legal letter - nothing specific stated.

Why do you keep making this same contradiction?

[den]

I'd guess that he's trying to suggest Syed doesn't have the money he says he does

No, he [Goldberg] specifically said that he wasn't saying that. He was asking an open question to the PL and Rovers fans - "after what we have disclosed, is the kind of man who is fit to run a PL club".

[rebelmswar]

Meanwhile many Rovers fans spit the dummy out and attack Goldsberg with personal comments, many of which are not particularly nice. It is these "fans" that should be apologising, you see love him or loathe him Goldsberg is a human being doing a job.

Are you referring to my Mr. Ali 1 Mr. Goldberg P45 comment? I think that is about as low as it got from me.

Your post there seems to be night and day from what you were saying earlier though which is nice to see in regards to giving both parties the benefit of the doubt.

"Human being" and "job" are still overly complimentary though.

[LeChuck]

No, he [Goldberg] specifically said that he wasn't saying that. He was asking an open question to the PL and Rovers fans - "after what we have disclosed, is the kind of man who is fit to run a PL club".

I know that's what the statement said, but that's a bit of a damp squib in terms of an exposé.

I'd imagine accusing him of lying about his wealth would be a pretty serious accusation in legal terms, so rather than accuse him of that they've gone for the safer option.

Surely the underlying point was to attempt to uncover him as chancer though, pretending he has more money than he really does. Why else would Goldberg report being unable to find trace of him in his home town? That's not an attempt to smudge his reputation (as the CCJ and rent could do), but a direct attempt to say his wealth is questionable.

[rebelmswar]

Surely the underlying point was to attempt to uncover him as chancer though, pretending he has more money than he really does. Why else would Goldberg report being unable to find trace of him in his home town? That's not an attempt to smudge his reputation (as the CCJ and rent could do), but a direct attempt to say his wealth is questionable.

If true LeChuck , then that is very underhanded and churlish of him. I would rather him come out with something substantial and truthful, backed up with proof, rather than standing at a distance and taunting from afar. I can’t for the life of me understand why such a man would hold off on any manner of proof when a statement like the one from Mr. Ali came out basically calling him factually inaccurate and full of nonsense.

[T4E]

Yes but it's "5 Live Investigates", not "5 Live Investigates some folks but not the ones with definite wealth."

My point was that if the intentions behind that show were any good, they would be investigating these things too. In the grand scale of things, these things are absolutely immense. That's another reason why for me 5LI can't be taken too seriously.

The point of the "investigation" was to put pressure on the Premier League's owners vetting process. Thats the only reason it was news worthy. Goldberg was using the Pompey debacle as reasoning to investigate the next seemingly unknown foreigner that wants to buy a PL club. Abramovich and Mansour are irrelevant to that, their time to be scrutinised has been and gone.

Not to mention him bankrupting the State he goverened, which is about financial responsibility....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3735971.stm

Can't believe after reading that we are questioning Syed's ability to finance a football club after an alleged unpaid rent and CCJ, methinks the above is an example of much more worrying accounting is it not?

Nothing personal BR, but the above post is a perfect example of the problem with this thread (and its predecessor). People only half read things. The below is an extract from the article that YOU linked above -

Mr Ryabukhin said Mr Abramovich had described the remote region as bankrupt when he become governor in 2000, but since then had failed to extricate it from this state.

So, he didn't bankrupt the state, he came to power when this was already to case. Doesn't seem quite so sensationalist now does it? Ever thought of becoming an Investigative Journalist? You've already got the key skills down

[den]

I know that's what the statement said, but that's a bit of a damp squib in terms of an exposé.

I'd imagine accusing him of lying about his wealth would be a pretty serious accusation in legal terms, so rather than accuse him of that they've gone for the safer option.

Surely the underlying point was to attempt to uncover him as chancer though, pretending he has more money than he really does. Why else would Goldberg report being unable to find trace of him in his home town? That's not an attempt to smudge his reputation (as the CCJ and rent could do), but a direct attempt to say his wealth is questionable.

Yes, I would go along with that LeC, in particular that the show was a damp squib.

Thing is he had absolutely no proof whatsoever that Syed didn't have the money. Goldsberg knew that and that's why he couldn't say it. All I'm trying to do here, is to object to the point that some people reckon Goldsberg has done a good job with that show.

[JohnD]

Are you referring to my Mr. Ali 1 Mr. Goldberg P45 comment? I think that is about as low as it got from me.

Your post there seems to be night and day from what you were saying earlier though which is nice to see in regards to giving both parties the benefit of the doubt.

"Human being" and "job" are still overly complimentary though.

No I wasn't referring to anyone in particular it was just that some of the responses were way out of order.

As for my tone changing, yes I thought I would try to get you and others to see exactly what I have been saying. Previous posts were in response to aggressive posts and personal attacks. I enjoy the debate and, in particular the banter that a board can provide and look for a laugh in everything.

Do you expect me to sit back and not respond when someone is having a go at me on here or other sites?

So many people on here seem to think they have a right to responses from the board, Syed and Goldsberg but we are all but pawns in their game. The process will take as long as it takes.

The people on here who claim to have contacts on the inside clearly have not, just read through their posts. BRFC will be locked down tight until the process is complete then the "insiders" will get to know just before the rest of us.

[Guest bluerovers]

Nothing personal BR, but the above post is a perfect example of the problem with this thread (and its predecessor). People only half read things. The below is an extract from the article that YOU linked above

So, he didn't bankrupt the state, he came to power when this was already to case.

Fair enough, I'll scurb that one...just these ones to go then...

Allegation of blackmail

Boris Berezovsky (his one-time business partner) alleged in 2008 that Abramovich harassed him with "threats and intimidation" to cheat him to sell his valuable shares at less than their true worth. Abramovich has been sued for US$3.3 billion(£2.35 billion/£2 billion).

Berezovsky is said to have sold his stake in Sibneft for $650 million (£462 million/£326 million) at today's prices. He received $450 million (£320 million/£272 million), for the Rusal shares. He claims the price should have been much higher US$2 billion (£1.42 billion/£1.2 billion) more for the Sibneft shares, and US$1.5 billion (£1.06 billion/£900 million) for Rusal. The former forestry engineer and used car salesman is claiming a total of US$ 3.36 billion (£2.39 billion/£2.03 billion), a significant part of Abramovich's estimated US$17.9 billion (£12.73 billion/£10.8 billion) fortune. Berezovsky is believed to be worth around £500 million.

Bribes

In 2008, The Times reported that Abramovich, along with close associate, American-born, Greek billionaire, Constantine N. Alexander-Goulandris, admitted that they paid billions of dollars for political favours and protection fees to obtain a big share of Russia's oil and aluminium assets as was shown by court papers The Times obtained.

Allegations of illegal share-dilution

Yugraneft, an affiliate of Sibir Energy, is seeking billions of dollars in damages in a lawsuit in London against Roman Abramovich and his investment company Millhouse Capital, alleging that it was cheated out of its Russian assets.[36] It alleges that another of Roman Abramovich's companies, Sibneft, illegally diluted Yugraneft's interest in their joint-company that had oil fields in Russia to 1% from 50%. The proceedings "involve substantial claims to recover the proceeds of the diluted interest", said Sibir Energy, a company co-owned by the billionaire Shalva Chigirinsky.

Arrest for theft

In 1992 he was arrested in a case of theft of government property: AVEKS-Komi sent a train containing 55 cisterns (tankers) of diesel fuel, worth Р3.8 million (Roubles), from the Ukhtinsk Oil Production Factory (Case No. 79067 for the large-scale theft of state property); Abramovich met the train in Moscow and resent the shipment to the Kaliningrad military base under a fake agreement, but the fuel arrived in Riga. Abramovich co-operated with the investigation, and the charges were dropped after the oil production factory was compensated by the diesel's buyer, the Latvian-US concern, Chikora International.

Allegations of loan-fraud

An allegation emerging from a Swiss investigation links Roman Abramovich, through a former company, and numerous other Russian politicians, industrialists and bankers to using a US$4.8 billion (£3.4 billion) loan from International Monetary Fund as personal slush fund; an audit sponsored by the IMF itself determined that all of the IMF funds had been used appropriately.

In January 2005, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) indicated that it would be suing Abramovich over a £9 million (US$14.9 million/£10.6 million) loan. The EBRD said that it is owed US$17.5 million (£12.45 million/£10.6 million) by Runicom, a Switzerland-based oil trading business which had been controlled by Abramovich and Eugene Shvidler. Abramovich's spokesman indicated that the loan had previously been repaid.

Aluminium wars

The Times said that Abramovich "famously emerged triumphant after the "aluminium wars", in which more than 100 people are believed to have been killed in gangland feuds over control of the lucrative smelters. He avoided the fate of a rival oligarch who annoyed the Kremlin and ended up being transported to jail in Siberia for ten years," and "Numerous officials and executives are said to have lost their lives".

Antitrust law violation in Russia

International Herald Tribune report that "Russia's antitrust body said Wednesday that Evraz Holding, part-owned by Kremlin-friendly businessman Roman Abramovich has breached anti-monopoly rules, overcharging customers for coking coal."

[JohnD]

JohnD, on 14 September 2010 - 16:43 PM, said:

2. Mr Ali does nothing to refute any of the allegations but fires off a shot in the form of pretty general legal letter - nothing specific stated.

Why do you keep making this same contradiction?

Specific allegations were made and repeated. Mr Ali made no specific response. He did fire off a wishy washy legal letter though.

Where do you see a contradiction?