[Archived] Rumour: Venky's To Sell?

[PAFELL]

Sorry but I've been a bit pedestrian on this and the penny has only just dropped - whilst I've been scooting through the pages looking for info and comments there are actually some who are questioning whether we should have allowed this thread to exist???!!!!! What nonsense is this? Glenn/Kamy/Wen have every right to start any thread they damn well please, this is not a police state with a controlled media and the board is not an arm of BRFC.

The thought that some can challenge the right of others to discuss anything is quite beyond me. Cheer leading is fine but not at the cost of trying to shut down all conversation on topics that aren't sanctioned by the intellectual elite (said through gritted teeth).

Bpards like this are supposed to be (IMO) a meeting place for like minded people who can talk freely about topics that interest them without being cowed down by considerations of gender, age, race, social standing etc., we are all anonymous and share only our thoughts.

This is a board to discuss Rovers issues be they favourable or not, rumour or not. If the lynch mob don't feel that they are 'like minded' with the majority I would respectfully suggest that they consider their options.

Well said Timmyjimmy. Could not agree more.

[Paul Mellelieu]

Once again Paul, Kamy et al. Keep up the good work and put to one side the flood of ill-informed posters. I don't know how you keep it up to be honest.

[PAFELL]

Indeed, Paul. Glenn, Kamy and myself did indeed exchange a number of emails regarding the matter. The source was credible and reliable and I even prepared something for the front page. However, we were unable to get confirmation on an important issue and so the story was put out on the forum as an unconfirmed rumour.

And, to answer True Blue & White's query, which I think is valid and well worth discussion, BRFCS is most certainly an independent site. I think this particular story is a good example of that, as will become clear in due course. As supporters of the club - in more ways than one - we obviously want to maintain good relations with the club irrespective of the make-up of its administration at any given time. Maintaining good relations shouldn't, however, be confused with us not having independence, as Glenn alluded to in his reply.

Keeping good relations with the club, the owners is commonsence. Remaining independant is also commonsence. People can come on here - an open public forum about Blackburn Rovers FC and give praise or complaint to various issues involving the club. It also makes all sides accountable to each other. We all want what is good for the club, a common goal. A rumour that has been going around for awhile, needed dealing with, for the simple reason that it was a growing reason. Out of politeness it was only right the venkys PR was contacted. Letting them know of the thread on here. Which I suppose in turn gave them a chance to respond to it.

This messageboard has other good things about it. for example a supporter who has either never been to England and Ewood Par in particular can come on here and get help on how to get to Ewood Park. This is useful - though in my view that is an area that could be built on.

It is a messageboard where views can be debated. Sadly there are some who do not know how to debate and then choose to resort to insults.

[RoverMad86]

Keeping good relations with the club, the owners is commonsence. Remaining independant is also commonsence. People can come on here - an open public forum about Blackburn Rovers FC and give praise or complaint to various issues involving the club. It also makes all sides accountable to each other. We all want what is good for the club, a common goal. A rumour that has been going around for awhile, needed dealing with, for the simple reason that it was a growing reason. Out of politeness it was only right the venkys PR was contacted. Letting them know of the thread on here. Which I suppose in turn gave them a chance to respond to it.

This messageboard has other good things about it. for example a supporter who has either never been to England and Ewood Par in particular can come on here and get help on how to get to Ewood Park. This is useful - though in my view that is an area that could be built on.

It is a messageboard where views can be debated. Sadly there are some who do not know how to debate and then choose to resort to insults.

Agreed.

Any more news come out since the story broke? I don't have time to read through every page.

[TimmyJimmy]

I think there were a few people who had an opinion that posting this was a mistake. You talk about freedom to post and talk freely. You then seem to label those posters disagreeing with you in a particular way and invite them to consider their options?

Isn't your post simply contradicting itself?

Opinions are great, they can be debated. Directives are not great as they can only be obeyed or resisted. Mandating that we should not talk about something or that a thread should or should not be allowed or that it should be closed is, I contend, a directive and is entirely the opposite of encouraging the debate of opinion that both you and I seem to be in favour of.

If you say to someone "shut up" and that person retorts "stop telling me to shut up" then it's sloppy logic to accuse the second person of doing what the first mover did.

I'm in favour of everybody agreeing or disagreeing with anything they like, I disapprove of people stating what should or should not be debated.

In the context of Venkys, the so called 'anti Venky' faction seem to me to be coming up with new views and new evidence/rumour/gossip (whatever charaterisation you give it), this stimulates interesting debate. The so called 'pro venky' faction sound like a stuck record, there's nothing new, it's just the same old mindless ra ra why can't we all just get along nonsense. Any sound position will survive any challenge, trying to stifle debate smells like a fear that it will not actually survive the discussion.

Venkys may be the best intentioned, capable and wonderful people known to humanity, I'm happy to believe this is so, but I have only track record to form a judgement on - and to be fair surely it's beyond argument that they have made a right Horlicks of it so far.

[imy9]

Nothing wrong with starting the thread or questioning Venkys BUT when they communicate some will say they are lying, if they don't others will criticise. Life would be so much better on here if certain posters left their agendas behind IMO.

[dubdubdub]

I agree that this rumour should have been posted but dislike the panic and hysteria it caused. That doesn't stop it being justified.

Nobody knows what effect it will have on the club. The likelihood of it being detrimental is minimal. The likelihood of it having no effect (other than on the few who visit here in terms of respect) is high. The chance that it will have a positive effect on the owners i'd say was higher than the chance of it having a negative one. Maybe they'll realise how important it is to stick to your word and not feck about every two seconds. At the end of the day at least you've been able to all get your points across regarding the club we all want to have babies with if the family do indeed read this site.

Obviously this is all rumour so the above goes to pot if the situation changes for the worse (by that I mean that we are indeed being put on the market).

[yeti-dog]

Here I was just beginning to like you, and you have to drop the no alcohol comment. Back on probation you go.

I don't think big spending is the way to go. If I were Venkys I would, in order of priority:

1. Pay off the debt and keep it paid off.*

2. Calculate an average performance of 10th place and base the wage bill on 80% of revenue at 10th.

3. Get rid of players until such time we were equal to or less than the set wage bill.

4. Fund transfer fees but not the wage bill (unless we perform worse than 10th).

5. Gradually improve the squad as 'space' becomes available on the age bill through attrition.

6. Focus on bringing in quality youth (Hughes' scouting program would be immense here) and improving the Academy.

7. Make capital improvements to the stadium, facilities, etc.

8. Never, ever talk to the papers. But be at every game, Guiness in hand.

9. Fire anyone who deviates from the plan (i.e. wants to run up debt, pressures me through the papers, etc.).

* Actually, this is the third thing I would do. First up is getting rid of Kentaro/SEM and Kean. Second is brining in an experienced manager and chairman.

Don't agree with all of your post Steve (for instance I would keep Kean for now,particularly as the young players seem to enjoy playing for him and buying young should be the model we follow)but have to say you do talk a lot of sense.

[John]

I love the word “agenda”. I think some fans have been against Venky’s from the beginning therefore they are going to be negative regarding them whatever the circumstances.

Personally I look at what Venky’s have done so far and their decision making has been horrendous. They clearly don’t understand football and up until now have little idea of how to run a football club effectively. The structure (can you call it a structure!?) they have recently put in place is slightly strange even though I believe Paul Hunt to be a good appointment and I am sure he is a very busy man at the moment.

One of the major decisions they made last season nearly resulted in a catastrophic relegation – some fans found that exciting however it has a poor decision from the owners who also seemingly have no comprehensive plan (yet) in place about how the football club can be developed on or off the pitch.

I have heard additional feedback from organisations, in the UK, who they have dealt with and the recurring line which is relayed to me is that Venky’s don’t have a clue what they are doing.

I would love to be really “positive” (Steve Kean style) about the future with Venky’s but I can’t at the moment. Of course things can change and things may become clearer over the summer if we get some proper communication from them – hopefully it is a case of onwards and upwards.

[True Blue & White]

I love the word “agenda”. I think some fans have been against Venky’s from the beginning therefore they are going to be negative regarding them whatever the circumstances.

That works both ways my friend. There are people on here that would defend them even if they said they were selling off everything and shutting the club down.

The rest of your post I agree with.

[greco]

Nothing wrong with starting the thread or questioning Venkys BUT when they communicate some will say they are lying, if they don't others will criticise. Life would be so much better on here if certain posters left their agendas behind IMO.

what agenda is it you a referring to imy.?

life would be much better on here, if you and others of the agenda conspiracy theorists ilk, would stop labelling other posters as purely agenda driven, just because you disagree with them.

its a forum, where there will always be a difference of opinion, accept it and quit whining about it.

as an example, some posters want venky to come out and SAY we are not selling. They would then be satisfied. I wouldnt be, as im not convinced by their words, so far the only thing they have proven correct, is that talk is cheap.

probably the first time i have agreed with you on this site. This was in regards to your post, where you wanted venky to do something and show their intentions. Its something i completely agree with. They need to buy a couple of class player imo. That would definelty stop rumours regarding them selling and imo give them a piece of their credebility back. Something they really do need.

[RovertheHill]

Opinions are great, they can be debated. Directives are not great as they can only be obeyed or resisted. Mandating that we should not talk about something or that a thread should or should not be allowed or that it should be closed is, I contend, a directive and is entirely the opposite of encouraging the debate of opinion that both you and I seem to be in favour of.

If you say to someone "shut up" and that person retorts "stop telling me to shut up" then it's sloppy logic to accuse the second person of doing what the first mover did.

I'm in favour of everybody agreeing or disagreeing with anything they like, I disapprove of people stating what should or should not be debated.

In the context of Venkys, the so called 'anti Venky' faction seem to me to be coming up with new views and new evidence/rumour/gossip (whatever charaterisation you give it), this stimulates interesting debate. The so called 'pro venky' faction sound like a stuck record, there's nothing new, it's just the same old mindless ra ra why can't we all just get along nonsense. Any sound position will survive any challenge, trying to stifle debate smells like a fear that it will not actually survive the discussion.

Venkys may be the best intentioned, capable and wonderful people known to humanity, I'm happy to believe this is so, but I have only track record to form a judgement on - and to be fair surely it's beyond argument that they have made a right Horlicks of it so far.

You make a very good point in your last paragraph. If you want to bash venkys then the evidence is pretty much right in front of you. They have not made a good start to their ownership of rovers. That argument is only weakened by rumours and hearsay though IMHO. I thought it was a mistake posting this rumour not in any way because I thought it would upset venkys. I thought it was a mistake because it had the potential to further destabilise the club we all support and drive further wedges between people who, when all is said and done, have the same good intentions at heart for the club

[rebelmswar]

I have an agenda.

A big one.

The success and lasting legacy of Blackburn Rovers. Every manager, player, owner, and boot boy plays a very distant second to that.

It should be everyones agenda.

[Mattyblue]

I have an agenda.

A big one.

The success and lasting legacy of Blackburn Rovers. Every manager, player, owner, and boot boy plays a very distant second to that.

It should be everyones agenda.

Hear hear Reb!

What 'agendas' are the 'negative nellies' on here supposed to have apart form wanting the best for the club?

[Seggie]

Interesting piece in the LT,

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/9129080.Blackburn_Rovers_owners_not_big_name_hunting/

Last paragraph points to the Rao's being here at least another 4 years.

[Paul]

what people from outside of Blackburn don't seem to grasp is that Blackburn is a small town and once something is heard on the grapevine you can guarantee most of the town know about it...whats the old saying no smoke without fire ???

I just want to go back to this one. I'm on holiday this week - just bumbling around the place and doing a spot of decorating. This morning I was in Leyland on some errands and met someone I have got to know recently. The chat turned to football and Rovers and the person I was talking to announced "oh yes XXXXXX is my cousin. We meet the players from time to time." I managed to resist the temptation to launch a major interogation of my recently made acquaintance, it does though demonstrate what a very small place we live in.

[Black Burn]

Here I was just beginning to like you, and you have to drop the no alcohol comment. Back on probation you go.

Huh? I was just expressing my personal dislike of alcohol. I don't care if anyone drinks or not, that's up to them. In the same way it's up to me whether I want to drink or not. And I choose the latter.

I apologize if I have offended you, but I really have nothing against alcohol. I just don't like it. The same way some people don't like bitter food and some people don't like sweet stuff.

Anyway, Kamy, I don't get something. Didn't Mr. Rao say in the interview that Venkys are here for the long term, and even that his son will be the director in 4 years? If they are looking for a buyer, he wouldn't say that, would he?

[gumboots]

Huh? I was just expressing my personal dislike of alcohol. I don't care if anyone drinks or not, that's up to them. In the same way it's up to me whether I want to drink or not. And I choose the latter.

I apologize if I have offended you, but I really have nothing against alcohol. I just don't like it. The same way some people don't like bitter food and some people don't like sweet stuff.

Anyway, Kamy, I don't get something. Didn't Mr. Rao say in the interview that Venkys are here for the long term, and even that his son will be the director in 4 years? If they are looking for a buyer, he wouldn't say that, would he?

Wouldn't he? Would depend on when the interview was actually given not when it was published and whether he and the rest of his family are singing from the same hymn sheet.

[rebelmswar]

Huh? I was just expressing my personal dislike of alcohol. I don't care if anyone drinks or not, that's up to them. In the same way it's up to me whether I want to drink or not. And I choose the latter.

I apologize if I have offended you, but I really have nothing against alcohol. I just don't like it. The same way some people don't like bitter food and some people don't like sweet stuff.

Anyway, Kamy, I don't get something. Didn't Mr. Rao say in the interview that Venkys are here for the long term, and even that his son will be the director in 4 years? If they are looking for a buyer, he wouldn't say that, would he?

You have to forgive Mr. Moss there he is an ex Marine who believes that alchol is something that belongs in a baby bottle.

As far as the singing about board members and such, well, it's no different to a player saying he is happy and doesn't want to leave.

As accurate as a blind archer.

[dubdubdub]

Huh? I was just expressing my personal dislike of alcohol. I don't care if anyone drinks or not, that's up to them. In the same way it's up to me whether I want to drink or not. And I choose the latter.

I apologize if I have offended you, but I really have nothing against alcohol. I just don't like it. The same way some people don't like bitter food and some people don't like sweet stuff.

Anyway, Kamy, I don't get something. Didn't Mr. Rao say in the interview that Venkys are here for the long term, and even that his son will be the director in 4 years? If they are looking for a buyer, he wouldn't say that, would he?

People are a little unsure as what to believe these days. Whilst a lot of the hysteria regarding false promises came from the £50 million budget and may or may not have been true, the Raos were definitely promising more than they are now.

As a hopeful supporter of Venkys even I don't believe what we've been told in this interview for that reason and the reasons explained above (family ties seem to be poor, could just be stringing us along). I hope they will come good but for me, only actions will be acknowledged from now on.

[Black Burn]

I see. If that's the case, I understand.

[dubdubdub]

I see. If that's the case, I understand.

That's how I feel at this point in time anyway. Actions...words etc.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Surely the main quesion mark against this thread is headline of Venky's looking to sell when what appears to be the case is that somone may well be looking to buy. I have read nothing on here that suggests Venky's are actively soliciting buyers despite the thread title leading me initally to believe that Venky's had a desire to get out - something that surely could only be confirmed by themselves rather than the vast army of people in East Lancs who are "in the know".

[winstonsmith]

Interesting piece in the LT,

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/9129080.Blackburn_Rovers_owners_not_big_name_hunting/

Last paragraph points to the Rao's being here at least another 4 years.

This piece in the LT is based on the Reuters telephone interview with Balaji on Thursday 7 July in which there is a direct quote from him stating that "This is a lifetime association. My son...will take over soon...He is 17 and will be on the board when he becomes 21". That is tantamount to a complete denial of the rumour.

Whether that is to be believed or considered a good thing is another matter. What is clear is that one of the Raos says they are not selling Rovers.

[yoda]

This piece in the LT is based on the Reuters telephone interview with Balaji on Thursday 7 July in which there is a direct quote from him stating that "This is a lifetime association. My son...will take over soon...He is 17 and will be on the board when he becomes 21". That is tantamount to a complete denial of the rumour.

Whether that is to be believed or considered a good thing is another matter. What is clear is that one of the Raos says they are not selling Rovers.

No, they are selling the assets at the moment and not replacing them!