[Archived] Venky's 'have abided by rules', says Premier League chief

[Ewoodbhappy]

From last nights LET.

PREMIER League chief Richard Scudamore insists Blackburn Rovers’ owners Venky’s ‘abide by the rules’ as they continue to come under heavy criticism.

Rovers fans have previously called for the league to look into Venky’s control of the Ewood Park outfit but Premier League chief executive Scudamore is adamant they have done nothing wrong.

He said: “It’s not been a great season for them. It is entirely right that fans are able to express their concerns. It is entirely right that clubs have to have a dialogue with fans. But do they (Venky’s) abide by the rules? Yes they do.

“Are they law-abiding people who are putting their money in? Yes they are.

We like Pompey don't matter to the FA. As long as the Sky band waggon continues to roll,the top 6 stay as the top six (to make an exciting league - boll#cks!!)

It doesnt matter if the odd 136 year old institution gets rolled over by foriegn crooks.

Thanks you bunch of corporate bum boys for doing sweet FA

Why has it come to this?

[K-Hod]

Scudamore's a prick and he only cares about money, we'll soon be relegated so we'll cease to be his problem.

Hence the apathy, oh, and that we're Blackburn Rovers.

[EwoodDawn]

See PL Statement thread for full LT text and post 57 onwards of Venkys Financial Arrangements thread for some other posters' views

[Roost]

The sickener is that he is most probably right.

they may have lied, deceived, broken their promises and invested F all, but they have 'abided by the rules'

The fact that they are clueless shysters that have destroyed our club in record time matters not to the likes of this cretin, after all its only Blackburn Rovers.

[AspRover]

Yes, unfortunately there is no rule that says that if you buy a football club you have to be any good at it. They're quite at liberty to make any staff appointments they want, sell any players they want, release funds as they see fit (providing creditors and employees get payed, which so far they have), and frankly do what they like. Legally its their company.

I'm certain that, what with the drastically cut wage bill and the fees recieved for outgoing players, we probably are meeting all our financial obligations (which is what 95% of the rules concerning ownership of a football club deal with). If they want to pocket the difference or roll it into a different one of their subsidiaries then there is nothing to stop them doing that, it effectively is profit. The fact that in football you take it for granted that 100% of this should be re-invested into the club is neither here nor there, no other industry in the world works like that.

They probably can, by reducing our stature in the football world to minimise running costs, actually turn a bigger profit in the championship (assuming we can buy/train up the right players), destroying the club in the process. And then sell the club to cap the healthy net profit on their investment. Without breaking any rules.

It makes you want to kick something but there you go.

Thankfully that they haven't decided to re-name us Venky's FC, playing in the Venkishwara Hatcheries Arena in chicken suits. They could if they wanted to. Without breaking any rules.

[Amo]

Scudamore has put my fears firmly to bed.

Venky's systematic dismantling of one of the football league's founding clubs in 18 months that has seen them sell our best players, remove all senior authority figures at the club, and blindly back an unqualified and record-breakingly terrible excuse for a manager that has seen us all but relegated to the lower leagues is clearly no cause for suspicion and we can all sleep easy knowing these paragons of virtue are running our club into the ground.

Case closed.

[Baz]

Just shows the rules are wrong.

Not that scuds more will have any worries about Rovers next season anyway.

[AspRover]

I think an interesting topic for debate might be what rules should govern ownership of a football club, and by what standards would they be judged?

You couldn't put a law in place preventing the appointment of an inexperienced manager, but would you have some kind of 'being bloody useless' clause to forceably fire one over the head of a clubs owners if they are sufficiently poor, without mitigating circumstances, over a given period of time, in the interests of keeping the league as competitive as possible?

Or would willfully sticking with such a manager be held as evidence against a yearly renewed 'fit and proper persons' test?

We could call it the Kean law...

[thenodrog]

If Scudamore had owt about him he should be investigating every transfer dealing conducted by the club since the Venky's took over and the influence of Jerome Anderson in them. The HMRC might want a look see too.

[booth]

If they have abided by the rules then it's quite clear that the rules need to be changed as they are failing.

[den]

Scudamore's making judgements without looking at any evidence. No surprise. Football's crooked.

[blue_n_white99]

A decent article reference all our troubles including that pompous pr1ck Scudamore:

http://thepremierleagueowl.com/why-has-the-premier-league-allowed-this-to-happen-to-blackburn/?

[Devon Rover]

Well, as Scudamore will have quite understandably anticipated, this is no longer his problem. I suspect he and his pals will be very pleased to see Rovers, and their owners, lose their place at the top table.

[philipl]

There is a reasonable chance that Scudamore will bitterly rue the day he made that comment about the Venky's.

[waggy]

fit and proper vermin is the word on the street

[True Blue & White]

Football governing bodies are lazy and don't take any responsibility for the owners they allow to sign on, instead blaming other factors when things go wrong and bringing in new rules that hamper the clubs but mean they don't have to do their job properly.

Why have the financial fair play rules been brought in really? Bceause the FA's fit and proper person test is a load of crap; instead of just admitting that and changing them to make it harder for con men to take over football clubs they've just basically invented rule that still allows unsuitable owners to take charge, but just limits the damage they can do. At the same time, ensuring that 'big clubs' will always a have an advatage over smaller clubs and removing their dream of a sugar daddy coming in and giving them some glory.

All they needed to do was improve their processes and made new owners prove they have the wealth they say they do before they take over and prevent them from selling up and moving on without either finding an equally wealthy replacement or getting the books balanced before they are allowed to leave....but that would take some effort on the FA's part and an admission they've not been good enough in the past.