[Archived] Tom Finn Leaves Rovers

[Kelbo]

Instead of jumping on one post look and read the others. I have been talking about the takeover offer document. You are right anybody can change their minds. But I suggest that if it is acceptable to change their minds with regards to Sam, JW and TF - then they can change their minds on anything else mentioned in the takeover offer document. In that documents it mentions the Jack Walker statue and the Jack Walker stand. If you consider it acceptable for them to change their minds on one thing then everything else is open to them. Sacked, encouraged to resign (as I do not believe they did so willingly)they have been removed. Do you really believe that JW had lost interest in Rovers? Because I know he had not.

It is not scaremongering in anyway shape or form. I am stating that venkys have not stuck to the agreement in the takeover offer document, with Sam, JW and TF, that was given to the shareholders. So the question that can naturally be asked is, What next. Is it going to be the stadium or the Jack Walker statue? for example.

Thats extremely well put and no one can argue with that.

[imy9]

Instead of jumping on one post look and read the others. I have been talking about the takeover offer document. You are right anybody can change their minds. But I suggest that if it is acceptable to change their minds with regards to Sam, JW and TF - then they can change their minds on anything else mentioned in the takeover offer document. In that documents it mentions the Jack Walker statue and the Jack Walker stand. If you consider it acceptable for them to change their minds on one thing then everything else is open to them. Sacked, encouraged to resign (as I do not believe they did so willingly)they have been removed. Do you really believe that JW had lost interest in Rovers? Because I know he had not.

It is not scaremongering in anyway shape or form. I am stating that venkys have not stuck to the agreement in the takeover offer document, with Sam, JW and TF, that was given to the shareholders. So the question that can naturally be asked is, What next. Is it going to be the stadium or the Jack Walker statue? for example.

Hope other mods don't have an attitude like that. Sad day when it happens.

Firstly Paffell I did not jump on one post, I read post 75, 76, 78, 81, thats FOUR posts where you state Venkys are liars amongst other things, before I replied. You clearly wanted to emphasise the point.

Secondly the document states : "intends to continue to support the existing management team and staff" 2 resigned and one was fired- would you agree that in the world of football new owners changing the above is the norm if viewpoints dont match? Then the leap... it is not reasonable in any way to assume that Jack's statue will be removed/ placed somewhere else- look at the evidence, Venkys have spent 70k of their own money on the fans at the Wolves game, they then supply us with the cheapest tickets in the PL and football league- is this to maximise profits or show us that they care about the fans? Why then would they do the one thing that EVERY single Rovers fan out there agrees on, which is the significance of Jack's statue and his bond with the club- to clarify: "We will absolutely respect the Jack Walker legacy" scaremongering? You went as far as to say: "Supporters singing his name must really rile venkys."

I have mentioned this before and I will say it again- The Raos are decent people, their philanthropic work is evident of that (feeding 30k people a day) on top of giving millions of pounds to charity- their generosity towards Rovers is becoming clear too- after a rocky start the pendulum has begun to swing in their favour. IMO Change is the most difficult thing to accept, Tom Finn and John Williams have played a pivotal role in our history and I thank them for their work but its a new era and we must move on.

[TugaysMarlboro]

Anyway, to put it back on Topic. Best of luck in all future endeavors Mr. Finn.

[Gav]

Hope other mods don't have an attitude like that. Sad day when it happens.

Its a joke, to lighten the mood, obviously lost on you

[thenodrog]

Nice pic- if you take your head out of the sand and read the document again you will notice that there is nothing in there that constitutes a clear lie.

I try to judge everything on its own merit- Finn has said that he wanted to leave and was NOT fired, take him at his word or is he lying?

Simple. If he receives monetary compensation he was sacked.

[Parsonblue]

... any decent person who makes a mistake would apologise...

So I suppose we should expect an apology from Venkys about Steve Kean's appointment any day now.

[Amo]

Wonderful to watch the apologists for the new regime in full flow. Reminds to bring back the famous photograph of Rovers fans on their annual trip to the seaside.

Funny. You assume a similar pose from behind the last manager.

[Baz]

J?ust like to thank Tom for everything he has done over the years, and wish him well for the future. Pretty sure if he wants to stay in football he will be snapped up by another club quickly.

I have the same concerns as many of losing JW and TF, but we can only move forwards from here. If the appointment of a DOF is to take place that will be a very important appointment for the club.

I think Venkys need to realise that although the club is theirs to do with what they wish, ultimately if they continue as they have done so far, they will lose the fan base the likes of JW and TF have done so much to keep and build in the last decade.

[callumrovers]

All i want is to be optimistic

[Steve Moss]

The Venky's Board has given assurances to BRFCI that Venky's:

. . .

( intends to continue to support the existing management team and staff,

. . .

In line with this, pursuant to the terms of the Share Purchase Agreement, Venky's also has entered into

the following contractual commitments with BRFCI and the Club:

. . .

( the current President, Vice Presidents and Honorary Vice Presidents of Blackburn Rovers will not

be removed from those positions before June 2011 without the prior written consent of those

individuals;

© the statue of Jack Walker outside Ewood Park will be kept in a good state of repair and will not be

moved to a different location, obscured or have its prominence diluted without BRFCI’s prior

written consent; and

(d) the name of the stand at Ewood Park currently known as the Jack Walker Stand will not be

changed without BRFCI's prior written consent.

. . .

Commenting on the Offer, Anuradha J Desai, the Chairperson of Venky's, said:

“. . . We are particularly pleased that the deal has full support of the Walker

Trustees, the Chairman and the management team who will of course remain in place with our full

support."

A couple of things jump out at me. First, it appears the Jack Walker statute term is tied into a contractual obligation of some sort, while management support is merely an "assurance".

Second, an assurance is, based on my rural public school education, a pledge or promise of some sort. Even if it is not a contractual promise (on which issue I do not opine), if Venkys changed their mind on their "assurance" (aka promise) characterizing them as less than truthful is not far fetched.

Third, outside the Offer, it appears Ms. Desai stated that the Chairman and management team would remain in place with Venkys' full support. That was obviously not the case, as Sam was obviously, and JW was allegedly, forced out within roughly 2 months of the take over, if my memory serves. Again, this appears to lend credence to the claim that Venkys was being less than truthful.

Added to those points are the Maradona, Ronaldinho, and other fiascos. It is not out of bounds, in my opinion, to question Venkys' credibility.

Having said all of that, they are the owners. All we can do is gripe and voice our concerns, which I have done and will continue to do. When Venkys begins to act as if its house was in order, such as making some good moves in the transfer market, I'll applaud them. When their manager starts winning a bit more than this last season (more than 1.2 points per game average), my concerns will be largely put to rest. Unless, of course, it comes to light they have burdened the club with debt, in which case my opinion of them will continue to plummet.

Goodness, all those who keep going on about 'lies' take the biscuit. Have you never changed your minds, or decided that because of circumstances a situation cannot remain the same? I know I have, but then I am only human.

I respect you immensely but we have a difference of opinion for the reasons outlined above.

I do have a law degree, although I don't remember much of it. Spent most of it in a pub.

. . .

It's noteworthy that they didn't include the manager in this 'guarantee'.

Your law school experience sounds much like mine, though I rounded it out with ice fishing and deer hunting.

Wouldn't "manager" be included in the definition of "management", however? I ask as I understand that there is a difference between American English and English English.

Are you believing you have credibility, that is an honest question, you are unable to qualify the statements you make and appears as thought are bereft of evaluation even when it stares you in the face.

. . . I have been given because it is you who has the agenda, an agenda to try, and I say try as you have yet to succeed, in ridiculing posters on here for doing nothing other than posting information they have been given. BPF along with others have taken some stick, they have got a few things correct, . . .

Kelbo, you are a poster whom I enjoy reading and respect immensely. Don't let GAV wind you up. He has no credibility, in my opinion, and isn't worth the effort.

Simple. If he receives monetary compensation he was sacked.

In Arizona its called constructive termination. Employer makes employee miserable, embarrasses, humiliates, etc. in an effort to get the employee to resign. Its the same thing as an outright firing, as a practical matter.

Don't know if it happened in Tom Finn's or JW's cases, but payment of compensation would be a possible indicator.

[Paul]

Surprised people didn't work this one out too.

Really? Other people didn't realise what was going to happen. Why treat the rest of us like idiots Hughesy?

Its not a pi**ing competition, and I don't claim to have insider knowledge, so that comment is completely irrelevant.

Tom Finn has left the club, no story there, but as usual people are trying to make one, its becoming tiresome Kelbo, it really is.

I've always been one for people posting little snippets of information, in fact I've done it myself once I seem to recall, but nowadays these snippets NEVER have any truth to them, so that's why I'm getting sick of it.

Only person to ever get anything right was Nicko, sadly he's gone, the rest of you post nonsense, this has been proven time and time again.

You clearly have an agenda Kelbo in my opinion, I'm certainly not trying to wind you up, but its easy to sling mud to deflect the inadequacies of your so called 'insider knowledge'.

I'm sick to death of the constant negative spin and innuendo you and a small section of fellow poster put on everything Venkys do.

By the way I'd sack the mole, he/she hasn't got anything right yet have they? Including such things as Tom Finn leaving, you didn't break that did you? Or the chap from Leicester arriving? Run of the mill stuff wouldn't you agree? So don't pretend to know about transfer etc etc.

I'd like to add at this stage that I enjoy readings Kamys information, often correct and informative, but these other pretenders need to start getting things right, or lose even more credibility in my book.

GAV for years I have held the view you are a person who is very much a "supporter" of fans, their interests and "rights" - it's a bit difficult to describe. You often appear to stand up for fans in situations where I would find myself disagreeing with your opinion. These days I find your opinion of fellow supporters at odds with this which truely surprises me. I don't feel you are bring anything to this debate by accusing people of having an agenda.

In January I received a lot of criticism from a section of this board for posting information I had which reflected negatively on the Raos. I resolved to stop making any comment on our new ownership / management because no matter how carefully and reasonably one tried to post one's views the response from several MBers is always to accuse me and other posters of having "an agenda." If questioning what I see as wrong and a threat to the club is an agenda I have one but that is all.

Personally I've all but given up posting here and certainly have no intention of entering a long-running debate on our ownership / management other than make an occasional comment when I think things need saying. The saying "Don't shoot the messenger" is very apt and several good messengers, which doesn't include myself, have clearly given up. I don't think this is to the long term benefit of our support.

You think Nicko originally arrived here for altruistic reasons? More lately his contribution and motivation became extremely questionable but you would take this over the reasonably put views of a fellow supporter?

There is nothing wrong in questioning how the club is run.

[Paul]

Venkys have spent 70k of their own money on the fans at the Wolves game, they then supply us with the cheapest tickets in the PL and football league- is this to maximise profits or show us that they care about the fans?

I'd suggest this statement may be inaccurate and there is no public information to support it. My information is the ticket reduction was a Tom Finn initiative, I can't prove it but I believe the person who told me. There is certainly nothing I've seen in the public domain to support the view "Venky's have spent 70K of their own money" on this venture, equally there is nothing to disprove it. Without direct evidence one can't use this initiative to demonstrate Venky's understand the supporters.

With regard to the food voucher, I didn't meet anyone who was able to use these because of the enormous queues and understand prices were excessively high on the day. Personally I'd find it hard to spend £10 on the food / drink on offer at any ground I've visited and I doubt many fans redeemed the full value. At face value this cost £27,000, in reality it probably cost less than £10k. Again there is nothing to suggest this initiative was paid for by Venky's.

Rovers have long had the cheapest STs in the PL, and I'm happy to believe in the FL. This was a decision taken at Ewood several seasons ago. I understand the idea came from the marketing team and was enthusiastically taken up by JW and TF.. It was they who gave us cheap tickets not Venky's. Obviously the new owners are continuing the scheme, hopefully it is a sign they are beginning to understand the support but it is equally likely the Raos understand a hike in prices could have had a serious impact on sales?

I have no problem with any of these actions but they are not proof Venky's "care about the fans."

[PAFELL]

Firstly Paffell I did not jump on one post, I read post 75, 76, 78, 81, thats FOUR posts where you state Venkys are liars amongst other things, before I replied. You clearly wanted to emphasise the point.

Secondly the document states : "intends to continue to support the existing management team and staff" 2 resigned and one was fired- would you agree that in the world of football new owners changing the above is the norm if viewpoints dont match? Then the leap... it is not reasonable in any way to assume that Jack's statue will be removed/ placed somewhere else- look at the evidence, Venkys have spent 70k of their own money on the fans at the Wolves game, they then supply us with the cheapest tickets in the PL and football league- is this to maximise profits or show us that they care about the fans? Why then would they do the one thing that EVERY single Rovers fan out there agrees on, which is the significance of Jack's statue and his bond with the club- to clarify: "We will absolutely respect the Jack Walker legacy" scaremongering? You went as far as to say: "Supporters singing his name must really rile venkys."

I have mentioned this before and I will say it again- The Raos are decent people, their philanthropic work is evident of that (feeding 30k people a day) on top of giving millions of pounds to charity- their generosity towards Rovers is becoming clear too- after a rocky start the pendulum has begun to swing in their favour. IMO Change is the most difficult thing to accept, Tom Finn and John Williams have played a pivotal role in our history and I thank them for their work but its a new era and we must move on.

I will say again - in basic English - venkys have not stuck to the agreements in the takeover offer document, namely with regards to the management / board room. If they can break it in one area, then they can do so in others. It makes the document worthless. Can you not see that the first chance venkys got to remove the manager and JW and TF they took it. There was a date mentioned of June 2011, where continued support would be given to the management / boardroom. It may have been June 2011 - in India - when the announcment of TF leaving, but not in the UK. Sam, JW and TF were all removed, compensated before June 2011. This shows to me that there was never ever any intention for JW and TF to remain in place - even though this was stated in the document.

There are other things / assurrances mentioned in the same document. The question I ask is, which is a natural question to ask in light of recent events, are these things also now vulnerable. If they change their minds on one area, there is nothing to stop them doing the same in others. I am not saying they intend doing so - but the option is there to do so.

Venkys may well be decent people, may have a good record of doing good things. None of which I have been posting about. I have been posting about the contents of the takeover offer document and what appears to be Venkys lack of commitment to it. Therefore making it a completely worthless document. I do not believe Venkys had any intention of gapplying with the document - events have proved this. In my opinion that is dishonesty.

[callumrovers]

This thread is pathetic! Everyone who wants to slate the Venkys can do it somewhere else. I fancy a love in

I use to enjoy reading this messageboard, but with all the crap written about Venkys, it has become a chore.

Optimism? I think some people have never known the meaning of this.

If Venkys read this messageboard they probably would leave us in the s***, just for the amount of rubbish writen on here!

Some posters really do need to get a grip, it's easier to look at the bad points then it is the good!

[imy9]

I'd suggest this statement may be inaccurate and there is no public information to support it. My information is the ticket reduction was a Tom Finn initiative, I can't prove it but I believe the person who told me. There is certainly nothing I've seen in the public domain to support the view "Venky's have spent 70K of their own money" on this venture, equally there is nothing to disprove it. Without direct evidence one can't use this initiative to demonstrate Venky's understand the supporters.

With regard to the food voucher, I didn't meet anyone who was able to use these because of the enormous queues and understand prices were excessively high on the day. Personally I'd find it hard to spend £10 on the food / drink on offer at any ground I've visited and I doubt many fans redeemed the full value. At face value this cost £27,000, in reality it probably cost less than £10k. Again there is nothing to suggest this initiative was paid for by Venky's.

Rovers have long had the cheapest STs in the PL, and I'm happy to believe in the FL. This was a decision taken at Ewood several seasons ago. I understand the idea came from the marketing team and was enthusiastically taken up by JW and TF.. It was they who gave us cheap tickets not Venky's. Obviously the new owners are continuing the scheme, hopefully it is a sign they are beginning to understand the support but it is equally likely the Raos understand a hike in prices could have had a serious impact on sales?

I have no problem with any of these actions but they are not proof Venky's "care about the fans."

Firstly could I ask whose money they have spent if not their own? 'The simplest answer is usually the right one' Venkys own Rovers---Wolves away they take off £13 off the price of a ticket--- they then give a £10 voucher to all fans attending--- thats about £70k.

The intention was there for the fans to spend the money- again I will ask who paid for the initiative if not Venkys?

The marketing guys may well have thought of the idea but with all due respect to Mr Finn and the other employees I have not seen them put money into their pockets and fund the initiative. When a number of posters were talking about ridiculous rises in season ticket prices- Venkys have not followed the trend of most foreign owners and have instead continued to give us the cheapest tickets around- if they wanted extra money they would hiked up the prices- simple.

Your entire post has taken two gestures intended to show appreciation to the fans and manipulated them to show Venkys in a negative light.

In my eyes the three key areas for Venkys this summer were:

1. Season ticket prices

2. Funding of new players

3. Sponsorship deal

They have done an excellent job of the first one, now I am interested in the other two.

I will say again - in basic English - venkys have not stuck to the agreements in the takeover offer document, namely with regards to the management / board room. If they can break it in one area, then they can do so in others. It makes the document worthless. Can you not see that the first chance venkys got to remove the manager and JW and TF they took it. There was a date mentioned of June 2011, where continued support would be given to the management / boardroom. It may have been June 2011 - in India - when the announcment of TF leaving, but not in the UK. Sam, JW and TF were all removed, compensated before June 2011. This shows to me that there was never ever any intention for JW and TF to remain in place - even though this was stated in the document.

There are other things / assurrances mentioned in the same document. The question I ask is, which is a natural question to ask in light of recent events, are these things also now vulnerable. If they change their minds on one area, there is nothing to stop them doing the same in others. I am not saying they intend doing so - but the option is there to do so.

Venkys may well be decent people, may have a good record of doing good things. None of which I have been posting about. I have been posting about the contents of the takeover offer document and what appears to be Venkys lack of commitment to it. Therefore making it a completely worthless document. I do not believe Venkys had any intention of gapplying with the document - events have proved this. In my opinion that is dishonesty.

With all due respect Paffell you say on the one hand people are not reading your post properly then repost a reply (pretty much word for word) not answering a single question, you are making giant leaps based on what you 'think'

[PAFELL]

This thread is pathetic! Everyone who wants to slate the Venkys can do it somewhere else. I fancy a love in

I use to enjoy reading this messageboard, but with all the crap written about Venkys, it has become a chore.

Optimism? I think some people have never known the meaning of this.

If Venkys read this messageboard they probably would leave us in the s***, just for the amount of rubbish writen on here!

Some posters really do need to get a grip, it's easier to look at the bad points then it is the good!

It is a messageboard where people comment or debate or question things about the club, the team or anything else in relation to Blackburn Rovers. That includes the owners. When they do things good or bad for the club, people should and are allowed to comment. We all have opinions and comments to make, which may differ from other posters. Which we all can post on here. Sadly though there will always be people who during debates will start getting personal throwing insults like troll, wacko etc etc, which is wrong.

With regards to Venkys. It does not matter to me who the owners are, venky's or whoever. All I want them to do is run the club in a good, honest, and proffesional way. I am asking questions about the takeover offer document and venkys commitment or lack of commitment to it. As in my opinion it is questionable. I am wondering why the document was ever drawn up, if it can then be ignored. There are poeople on here who know about such documents. I hope they are able to enlighten us.

Venkys own the club and can do - within reason - what they want with the club. But if venkys intended to bring in there own people - which is of course their choice - why did they not say so at the beginning and why was the document drawn up stating different.

[roversmum]

Anyway, to put it back on Topic. Best of luck in all future endeavors Mr. Finn.

Indeed. Thank you Tom for everything. Top fellow. Good luck for the future and keep in touch.

With regard to the food voucher, I didn't meet anyone who was able to use these because of the enormous queues and understand prices were excessively high on the day. Personally I'd find it hard to spend £10 on the food / drink on offer at any ground I've visited and I doubt many fans redeemed the full value. At face value this cost £27,000, in reality it probably cost less than £10k. Again there is nothing to suggest this initiative was paid for by Venky's.

Meet two. By combining vouchers we managed to use the whole amount, the burgers we had were delicious, and realising there would be a demand we got there early to take advantage of it.

You can't blame Venky's for the poor catering supplies though. They feed 30,000 people per day in India and would have expected better service from Wolves who should have been well aware of the possible demand in advance, a poor do on Wolves' part. They hadn't even got enough basic stock in. The crafty pricing was obviously hurriedly arranged, and I know folks like to blame Venky's for everything but I don't think they are at fault here.

[deryck guyler's spoon]

Funny. You assume a similar pose from behind the last manager.

Zing!!

This thread is pathetic! Everyone who wants to slate the Venkys can do it somewhere else. I fancy a love in

I use to enjoy reading this messageboard, but with all the crap written about Venkys, it has become a chore.

Optimism? I think some people have never known the meaning of this.

If Venkys read this messageboard they probably would leave us in the s***, just for the amount of rubbish writen on here!

Some posters really do need to get a grip, it's easier to look at the bad points then it is the good!

You're p 1ssing in the wind Callum. This stuff is grist to the mill of the mob members. You wont stop them now, they are in full flow.

[xtp]

I am wondering why the document was ever drawn up, if it can then be ignored. There are poeople on here who know about such documents. I hope they are able to enlighten us.

I wouldn't say I'm one of the people on here who know much about these sort of documents, but I think the purpose is fairly clear.

The first half - all the 'assurances' - is primarily a PR exercise. The second half: the promise not to dismiss Tom Finn and John Williams without their consent, the promise not to move or get rid of Jack's statue, the promise about the Jack Walker stand. These are all intended to be legally binding. In other words, that's the bit of the document they can't ignore. While, yes, they've sort of got around the Tom Finn and John Williams clause by them resigning, its highly unlikely Jack Walker's statue or the Jack Walker stand are going to hand in resignation letters, so the document still has some value.

One of the more interesting clauses that is legally binding is:

(a) the principal activity of Blackburn Rovers will continue at all times to be that of a professional football club;

I assume this provides some sort of protection against asset stripping e.g. stopping them from turning Ewood Park into a shopping mall and selling it off.

Wouldn't "manager" be included in the definition of "management", however? I ask as I understand that there is a difference between American English and English English.

Yes, it would, but as you pointed out, the mention of management is in the 'assurance' part of the document. Not only that but it is qualified by the word 'intends'. If you look at the clause as a whole, it stands out even more.

intends to continue to support the existing management team and staff, and that it is committed to the future development of, and investment in, the Club’s academy and youth infrastructure;

So the argument is that Desai went in with the 'intention' to support the management, but found herself unable to do so after a few weeks e.g. after Allardyce ignored a public request for him to play more entertaining football (it was an interview in the LT, to which Allardyce replied with appropriate scorn). This is in contrast to the word 'commitment' which is a much stronger word used to describe a longer term goal towards youth development.

It's definitely not legally binding. And it's pretty much impossible to prove it as a lie. How can you prove that Desai didn't intend to keep all the management in place, but then based on an evaluation of the situation - which you'd expect any owner to do in their first few weeks - changed her mind?

That said, nothing hides the fact that it was incredibly stupid to give fans the impression you will stick with the current management team, then sack a highly successful manager three weeks later, and then release various contradictory statement about bringing in an experienced, former-international manager, while at the same time releasing other contradictory statements about transfer budgets and targeted final league position, before appointing a rookie coach in the experienced manager's place, thereby causing enough turmoil to plunge the club into a relegation battle...

But that's a whole other matter.

[Tris]

I will say again - in basic English - venkys have not stuck to the agreements in the takeover offer document, namely with regards to the management / board room. If they can break it in one area, then they can do so in others. It makes the document worthless. Can you not see that the first chance venkys got to remove the manager and JW and TF they took it. There was a date mentioned of June 2011, where continued support would be given to the management / boardroom. It may have been June 2011 - in India - when the announcment of TF leaving, but not in the UK. Sam, JW and TF were all removed, compensated before June 2011. This shows to me that there was never ever any intention for JW and TF to remain in place - even though this was stated in the document.

There are other things / assurrances mentioned in the same document. The question I ask is, which is a natural question to ask in light of recent events, are these things also now vulnerable. If they change their minds on one area, there is nothing to stop them doing the same in others. I am not saying they intend doing so - but the option is there to do so.

The only mention of the date of June 2011 is made specifically in relation to "the current President, Vice Presidents and Honorary Vice Presidents of Blackburn Rovers".

Tom Finn is (was) the Managing Director, SA was the Football Manager and JW was the Chairman. So if you're wanting to build a challenge on the exact wording of the document you are trying to discredit, I think you need to have a rethink.

You may have a case based on the spirit of what is written elsewhere in the document, but directly linking the departure of TF to the quoted date of June 2011 is misleading.

I'm quite sure that it was entirely Tom's own decision to choose the timing of yesterdays news, and I also think that fans, colleagues and owners owe him a huge vote of thanks for the work he's done over the last 15 years, but particularly over the last 6 months.

And I know for a fact that as much as any other fan of the club, he wants to see BRFC going on to enjoy a prosperous future - and that means under the new owners and management.

[philipl]

Very sad to see Tom go. He was a true Rover.

I can see the possibility of an interesting very short term future and the total ruination of the club thereafter.

The way Venky's are planning to run Rovers depends on them winning the Cups and league positions they perceive their involvement deserves. If those don't come, the club will find itself with a cost base £20m to £30m per year more than it can sustain. If Kean is unable to deliver the silverware, that will then need Balaji to show a degree of stickability that he has not shown in anything he has done.

[Gav]

GAV for years I have held the view you are a person who is very much a "supporter" of fans, their interests and "rights" - it's a bit difficult to describe. You often appear to stand up for fans in situations where I would find myself disagreeing with your opinion. These days I find your opinion of fellow supporters at odds with this which truely surprises me. I don't feel you are bring anything to this debate by accusing people of having an agenda.

In January I received a lot of criticism from a section of this board for posting information I had which reflected negatively on the Raos. I resolved to stop making any comment on our new ownership / management because no matter how carefully and reasonably one tried to post one's views the response from several MBers is always to accuse me and other posters of having "an agenda." If questioning what I see as wrong and a threat to the club is an agenda I have one but that is all.

Personally I've all but given up posting here and certainly have no intention of entering a long-running debate on our ownership / management other than make an occasional comment when I think things need saying. The saying "Don't shoot the messenger" is very apt and several good messengers, which doesn't include myself, have clearly given up. I don't think this is to the long term benefit of our support.

You think Nicko originally arrived here for altruistic reasons? More lately his contribution and motivation became extremely questionable but you would take this over the reasonably put views of a fellow supporter?

There is nothing wrong in questioning how the club is run.

I guess it depends on what you believe and who you believe Paul, we’ve both been around here long enough to question peoples motives and take certain posts with a pinch of salt.

I’ve never in all my time on here read so many lies, lies and more lies about the ownership of the club, by people claiming to have the inside track on all things Blackburn Rovers. Question how the club is being run by all means, but don’t claim you’re being told this the top brass from within, when clearly you’re not, that’s the big difference here.

In the cold light of day I think I was a little harsh on Kelbo, but we’ve crossed swords in the past about unsubstantiated rumour, and his latest snippet about Tom Finn not being happy and possibly having been forced out of the club has no foundation whatsoever, but I possibly took his words out of context and I’ll PM him to that affect shortly.

As for Nicko, like him or loath him, he’s the only person on the site to consistently get his ducks in a row, and he’s being doing this for years now, he didn’t just arrive when the Roas took over. So its not a case of taking his word over fellow posters, it’s a case of looking who’s been consistently right and who’s been consistently wrong.

On to Wolves:

You got a £10 voucher, never before have the club offered an initiative such as this, and you’re complaining about the fact you couldn’t spend it! Come on Paul.

Meet two. By combining vouchers we managed to use the whole amount, the burgers we had were delicious, and realising there would be a demand we got there early to take advantage of it.

You can't blame Venky's for the poor catering supplies though. They feed 30,000 people per day in India and would have expected better service from Wolves who should have been well aware of the possible demand in advance, a poor do on Wolves' part. They hadn't even got enough basic stock in. The crafty pricing was obviously hurriedly arranged, and I know folks like to blame Venky's for everything but I don't think they are at fault here.

Exactly, and only on here could a free £10 voucher be used to hammer the owners, beggers belief for me

[imy9]

Very sad to see Tom go. He was a true Rover.

I can see the possibility of an interesting very short term future and the total ruination of the club thereafter.

The way Venky's are planning to run Rovers depends on them winning the Cups and league positions they perceive their involvement deserves. If those don't come, the club will find itself with a cost base £20m to £30m per year more than it can sustain. If Kean is unable to deliver the silverware, that will then need Balaji to show a degree of stickability that he has not shown in anything he has done.

I think it is appropriate at this time to re-post Insiderrover79's post which is the stance that Nicko has taken consistently and has not changed his mind over:

"Firstly thanks Ste B for giving me permission to post this reply :-)

First and foremost, I have supported Rovers for 23 years now and feel as much pain and worry over our current plight as any other supporter, second I think it is fair I share what I can with fellow supporters.

I contacted Nicko in early september to tell him the company I work for had been approached by a rival bid to Mr Syed, they had approached us, a top lawyer and a sports agency and PR agency. I was asked if Jerome Anderson was involved and initially I was not aware of his involvement. I checked and confirmed to Nicko I knew him to be involved in some way with the planned bid though it took a time to see his involvement. As time developed I could not post or contact people massively as it was more than my job was worth.

I cannot give specifics but the owners we now have are not in this for a laugh, they do have money and do have plans that are in the clubs mid to long term best interests.

The decisions to remove Sam and allow JW to leave I cannot comment from a professional point of view, but I was saddened as a supporter about JW and baffled why a higher profile manager wasnt employed to replace Sam.

The future hopefully will be Premier League for us, but relegation though financially painful will not crumble us."

Phillip can you clarify how we will be spending a further £20-30 million a year- my assumption is transfer fees- but I guess you will say agent fees

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Thought it was too good to be true. A few months of buttering up the fans and not doing anything daft and bang, another club stalwart is axed. Possibly to be replaced by Myles Anderson when he's had enough of warming the reserve team bench?

[Paul]

Firstly could I ask whose money they have spent if not their own? 'The simplest answer is usually the right one' Venkys own Rovers---Wolves away they take off £13 off the price of a ticket--- they then give a £10 voucher to all fans attending--- thats about £70k.

The intention was there for the fans to spend the money- again I will ask who paid for the initiative if not Venkys?

There is a danger of being pedantic on this but you said "their own money" for me this directly implies the money is coming from Venky's or the Raos. It clearly is not, it is coming from Blackburn Rovers funds. I fully agree the club is owned by Venky's, the company, but this money is not coming directly from that company or the Raos, or at least there is nothing to suggest it is. Perhaps I'm being pedantic but I interpret "their own money" as something entirely different from Rovers funding the initiative. In the past when similar iniatives have occurred it was the club, not the Trust, which received the praise. Why not now?

The marketing guys may well have thought of the idea but with all due respect to Mr Finn and the other employees I have not seen them put money into their pockets and fund the initiative. When a number of posters were talking about ridiculous rises in season ticket prices- Venkys have not followed the trend of most foreign owners and have instead continued to give us the cheapest tickets around- if they wanted extra money they would hiked up the prices- simple.

Past ST initiatives have been funded by the club, i.e. the management JW/TF concluded it better to have increased support at low prices than higher revenue and low attendance. To balance the shortfall in income in the recent past Warnock, for example, was openly sold to balance the books. It was a management decision to lower ST revenue and risk selling a player to fund the shortfall.

You imply with the following statement "with all due respect to Mr Finn and the other employees I have not seen them put money into their pockets and fund the initiative" that Venky's / Raos will be directly funding any shortfall in revenue. There is no evidence to support this. From past experience, Warnock, we know the previous management was prepared to sell players to help fund the wage bill and therefore, indirectly, low ST prices. There is no evidence, either way, to argue if Venky's / Raos will or will not do this. Nothing in the public domain supports the view Venky's are directly funding low cost STs, cheap Wolves tickets or free food.

Your entire post has taken two gestures intended to show appreciation to the fans and manipulated them to show Venkys in a negative light.

At no point have I made a negative statement; I have questioned the assertion Venky's are funding these actions. I've given reasoned arguement backed up with historical fact. Your view is a touch simplistic, it's their club therefore it's their money. This is not correct, ask anyone who runs a business. If I wanted to put a negative spin on this I would argue investing £70,000 in getting a sell out away crowd to Wolves to support the team is a pittance compared to the £30,40, 50m the club would lose through relegation. That is the cynical view. I'm not arguing that point of view but it is the negative one.

The manner of your responses to those who present an alternative view is often close to insulting and certainly attempts to put words in others mouths. It would be nice if you could treat other posters with the respect you presumably like to have extended to your own views.

In my eyes the three key areas for Venkys this summer were:

1. Season ticket prices

2. Funding of new players

3. Sponsorship deal

They have done an excellent job of the first one, now I am interested in the other two.

In relation to ST prices all that has happened is the club's policy, initiated by previous management, has continued. I'm very pleased to see the right decision has been made. The owners could easily have dramatically increased prices, at no point have I suggested this would happen, and should be praised for sticking with established policy.

The other two points remain to be proven, please note I have not made any remarks on these as it is pure speculation.