[Archived] Grandson of former player wants memorabilia back

[mark1875]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9662616.Grandson_of_Blackburn_Rover_s_star_wants_memorabilia_back/

[Jock]

I do hope the Nationals pick up on this but i wont hold my breath. No comment from the Stassi as usual.

Cant blame the guy, those clowns will start the firesale soon.

[Baz]

When was the last time Venkys made any sort of formal response to anything? Honestly, September? October?

Good on the guy too, protecting his heritage.

[perthblue02]

This would be great if it made the nationals and reported as the LET piece but fear once Agnew and Anderson have spinned it to their mates will end up as an headline " Super Hero Keano saves Rover's History from marauding supporters"

[Paul]

In 1991, his family donated his cap and shirt from his only international appearance for Scotland, against Ireland in 1912, to the club.

There's a clue in there.

[Ralfinho]

  On 21/04/2012 at 03:23, Paul said:

In 1991, his family donated his cap and shirt from his only international appearance for Scotland, against Ireland in 1912, to the club.

There's a clue in there.

Donated to be on display. Not given to them for keeps. Big difference.

[Uddersfelt Blue]

  On 21/04/2012 at 05:23, Ralfinho said:

Donated to be on display. Not given to them for keeps. Big difference.

So if you donate to charity you reserve the right to ask for your money back?

[Stuart]

  On 21/04/2012 at 06:44, Uddersfelt Blue said:

So if you donate to charity you reserve the right to ask for your money back?

If you've told them its only for display...

[Uddersfelt Blue]

  On 21/04/2012 at 06:46, Stuart said:

If you've told them its only for display...

So in that case it is lent rather than donated,

In any case it's pretty sad that it has come to this.

[Stuart]

  On 21/04/2012 at 03:23, Paul said:

In 1991, his family donated his cap and shirt from his only international appearance for Scotland, against Ireland in 1912, to the club.

There's a clue in there.

By definition, there is no contract in place between donor and receiver because there is no exchange of consideration. The guy can ask for it back... and is doing... probably in his mind before "the club" hold an auction to raise money to pay debts/wages.

It was donated to a different cause that it has become - one that cherished, respected and protected Rovers history and purpose. Don't you think there would be an outcry if UNICEF started using donations to buy weapons...?

  On 21/04/2012 at 06:51, Uddersfelt Blue said:

So in that case it is lent rather than donated,

In any case it's pretty sad that it has come to this.

Everything in life is borrowed...

[Kelbo]

Heres another clue,

Mr Aitkenhead, a clerk to a Lord Justice in London, who lives in Chelsea, said he was unhappy with the situation at Ewood.

A clerk to the Lord Justice would have access to top legal advice!!

[Paul]

  On 21/04/2012 at 05:23, Ralfinho said:

Donated to be on display. Not given to them for keeps. Big difference.

Without wishing to be picky that isn't what the article, and it's my only knowledge of the subject, states:

"In 1991, his family donated his cap and shirt from his only international appearance for Scotland, against Ireland in 1912, to the club.

They have been on display in the Ronnie Clayton Blackburn End ever since."

The family made the donation and the club decided to display the items in the BBE. I can understand why Paul Aitkenhead wants the items back but feel he's on shaky ground. For one thing 21 years have passed, granted for many years stable and happy ones, and it seems a bit late to change one's mind out of a dislike of the current regime.

  On 21/04/2012 at 06:55, Stuart said:

By definition, there is no contract in place between donor and receiver because there is no exchange of consideration. The guy can ask for it back... and is doing... probably in his mind before "the club" hold an auction to raise money to pay debts/wages.

It was donated to a different cause that it has become - one that cherished, respected and protected Rovers history and purpose. Don't you think there would be an outcry if UNICEF started using donations to buy weapons...?

Everything in life is borrowed...

If there is no contract between donor and receiver does that mean if I hit hard times I can ask charities for my regular contributions to be returned? Serious question as it would appear to have significant implications. Does one give or donate to charity?

[Stuart]

  On 21/04/2012 at 07:35, Paul said:

If there is no contract between donor and receiver does that mean if I hit hard times I can ask charities for my regular contributions to be returned? Serious question as it would appear to have significant implications. Does one give or donate to charity?

It will come down to a common law v civil law question. I'm no legal expert by any means but to have a legal contract, there has to be consideration from both parties. (For those who don't know consideration is a promise - it's also why bank notes are not themselves valuable but are the promise of value - check the wording on your tenners).

The promises don't have to be equal either. If I promise to give someone a thousand pounds for a mars bar and they give me the mars bar, we have a contract. (There are other factors but I'm simplifying).

It's an interesting one Paul as I've never heard of a test case for your scenario but if you donated to UNICEF and they promised to use your money for good causes then you may have your consideration. I don't imagine anyone would try it either because of the potential backlash. In this case, if the donator feels that the promise had been broken (possibly an implicit one), or is likely to be broken, then he might argue breach.

The club can either quietly hand it back and avoid a lot of fuss or say no and see if he takes them to court over it. Possession is 9/10ths and all that.

So, as it's made the press, he's either already been refused or simply wants to make a public stand against what he feels the owners are doing to the club and therefore besmirching the good name of his family.

[SAS]

I think it's more a publicity piece, and for the right reasons. I don't trust venkys with my money, so guess what!! They ain't getting any of it.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

As we debate his right to ask for it back - I think people are missing the point :

1. He has gone to the papers - do you think they could afford the negative publicity by saying "no you can't have it back" ?

2. It could be that asking for it back was his way of trying to further highlight the problems since the Venky's took over ?

For those that want Venky's either out - or to live up to the promises they made when they took over - it is good as it further highlights the issues at the club. Hopefully the nationals will pick up on it.

[Stuart]

  On 21/04/2012 at 07:55, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

As we debate his right to ask for it back - I think people are missing the point :

1. He has gone to the papers - do you think they could afford the negative publicity by saying "no you can't have it back" ?

2. It could be that asking for it back was his way of trying to further highlight the problems since the Venky's took over ?

For those that want Venky's either out - or to live up to the promises they made when they took over - it is good as it further highlights the issues at the club. Hopefully the nationals will pick up on it.

Good points. However, given what has happened so far this won't hurt Venkys reputation. Nor would they care. Even the Economic Times of India article did nothing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the nationals lampooned the grandson and made out like he was either an oddball or had links to a protest group.

It's really sad that it has got to a point where even sponsors and benefactors no longer trust the club.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

  On 21/04/2012 at 08:07, Stuart said:

Good points. However, given what has happened so far this won't hurt Venkys reputation. Nor would they care. Even the Economic Times of India article did nothing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the nationals lampooned the grandson and made out like he was either an oddball or had links to a protest group.

It's really sad that it has got to a point where even sponsors and benefactors no longer trust the club.

Let me cling to these small glimmers of hope - though unfortunately you are probably right.

[SouthAussieRover]

Studying law teaches you to research things such as case law etc.

Rather than take a guess at what the law is re gifts/donations etc I suggest you take the time to look it up.

The previous page or two highlights a problem with this MB. Too many comments on matters without taking the time to research the facts to support your argument.

[Stuart]

So educate me with your greater knowledge oh wise one - instead of sneering and looking down your nose.

I did qualify my post by saying I'm no legal expert. However, I do have some knowledge in the area and my comments on contract law are correct.

[SouthAussieRover]

The trouble with you Stuart is that you have to comment on everything.

As I said go and do some research before commenting on everything.

[Stuart]

  On 21/04/2012 at 11:10, SouthAussieRover said:

The trouble with you Stuart is that you have to comment on everything.

As I said go and do some research before commenting on everything.

So you don't know then.

I won't get started on the trouble with you...

[SouthAussieRover]

I do Stuart.

I've set you the task in a previous post or two to prove your point.

I've got plenty of time on my hands to get into a circular argument.

However I've challenged you to argue about gifts/donations in the eyes of the law.

[david_daft]

  On 21/04/2012 at 11:16, SouthAussieRover said:

I do Stuart.

I've set you the task in a previous post or two to prove your point.

I've got plenty of time on my hands to get into a circular argument.

However I've challenged you to argue about gifts/donations in the eyes of the law.

ZZZZZZzzzzzz

[Stuart]

I've already posted my case, and qualified my basis.

Over to you for the rebuttal.

If you can't see past a personal problem you clearly have with me to, first, read my posts in context, and, second, provide a lucid response that's exactly that - your problem.

Unlike you I don't have all afternoon to get into circular arguments, I've a march to attend, followed by a game to go to. How about you?

Carry on sneering!

[SouthAussieRover]

  On 21/04/2012 at 11:20, david_daft said:

ZZZZZZzzzzzz

Suitable username David.

  On 21/04/2012 at 11:23, Stuart said:

I've already posted my case, and qualified my basis.

Over to you for the rebuttal.

If you can't see past a personal problem you clearly have with me to, first, read my posts in context, and, second, provide a lucid response that's exactly that - your problem.

Unlike you I don't have all afternoon to get into circular arguments, I've a march to attend, followed by a game to go to. How about you?

Carry on sneering!

Poor response.

I'll give you a week to do you're research.

Otherwise I'll write you off as a no mark.