[Archived] BIG STORY TO BREAK

[donnermeat]

"BLACKBURN ROVERS IN, INCOMPETENT INDIAN OWNERS SHOCKER!"

That headline just about covers all the possibilities for breaking news about Rovers...

'Shocker'??......Really??

[Ewoodbhappy]

Thanks guys within reason I always try to report what I am allowed to do so.

This one I cannot report because it would land myself and this site into a huge amount of legal problems. The information relating to this story has been bought by a newspaper and they were looking to publish something yesterday but I guess they couldn't overcome the legal hurdles. Eventually they will get this story out there.

All I can say is that it relates to Rovers, it is nothing to do with the new manager situation or seemingly any direct wrong doing by the owners, infact from what I have been told the owners would be the victims in this instance. That is all that I can say.

I wonder.. Would our good friend Mr Anderson be

Mentioned???

I have a theory that what goes around comes around.

[ada2020]

As Kamy says, this is not the story. There is an oblique reference to it by somebody posting on Facebook so if the newspaper which has paid for this story (NOT I hasten to add that anybody who posts on this MB was the recipient) reads this, they need to know their exclusive might be about to leak out. If it does, it is going to give Glenn and his colleagues one heck of a headache because posting the contents will undoubtedly be actionable if not backed up by the evidence.

Anyway, let's look at Nick Harris' scoop:

- A contract to 2016 for Kean. Rovers fans were never told that and certainly in private, if not in public, the fans and the press were told a story from Pune about Kean's new contract which WAS PALPABLY NOT TRUE

- the automatically escalating value of the contract if you read the Harris piece means Kean could have been paid something £4m in a year in 2016 if you do the sums...

- unlike the players, Kean had NO relegation clause YET this contract was signed when Rovers were sitting in the relegation places...

- by some considerable distance, Kean would ALREADY be the highest paid Manager in the Championship this season.

So once again, we are left looking at something that Venky's have done which makes no sense whatsoever on any football, commercial or moral basis. Remember this was signed when the brothers were ostensibly at Wigan to sack Steve Kean. No wonder Kean turned to the fans and gestured rudely at us on the final whistle at the DW Stadium- HE HAD £14.9m IN HIS BACK POCKET.

We are back into asking who exactly owns Blackburn Rovers FC.

No relegation clause? Really?????

Clearly states this in the article:

Pay reductions for relegations were factored in, hence his 2012-13 basic pay ofPay reductions for relegations were factored in, hence his 2012-13 basic pay of £600,000 a year.

With a bonus for promotion.

Wonder who negotiated that deal for Kean? Probably the same person that had been taking them for a ride since they bought the club.

[Mercer]

Thanks guys within reason I always try to report what I am allowed to do so.

This one I cannot report because it would land myself and this site into a huge amount of legal problems. The information relating to this story has been bought by a newspaper and they were looking to publish something yesterday but I guess they couldn't overcome the legal hurdles. Eventually they will get this story out there.

All I can say is that it relates to Rovers, it is nothing to do with the new manager situation or seemingly any direct wrong doing by the owners, infact from what I have been told the owners would be the victims in this instance. That is all that I can say.

I think that Kamy has told us enough here for folk to put 2 and 2 together and probably come-up with a fair old idea of what the issue is, If you do this, then the potential legal problems can be understood.

[Beta Ray Bill]

I'm more than a little confused by the analysis here....

- unlike the players, Kean had NO relegation clause YET this contract was signed when Rovers were sitting in the relegation places...

But Nick Harris says...

"He was on a £1m-a-year basic deal last season, which would have risen to £1.2m this season if Rovers were still in the top flight, ... Pay reductions for relegations were factored in, hence his 2012-13 basic pay of £600,000 a year,"

So when is a relegation clause not a relegation clause?

[philipl]

OK sorry, missed that.

Mercerman has sussed the situation.

Remember, Kean walked from that contract...

[Roost]

Oh well, another false dawn.

I am sure that there is some kind of story out there waiting to be told, but it will be a story of The Owners naivety and how they listened to the wrong people on almost every decision, regardless of what is says in 'the dossier'

As for Keans salary and contract length - I dont give a toss, he is history. Move on.

[Blue Cabbage]

Kammy - Loud an clear, cheers

[SouthAussieRover]

I think that Kamy has told us enough here for folk to put 2 and 2 together and probably come-up with a fair old idea of what the issue is, If you do this, then the potential legal problems can be understood.

It involves he who should not be mentioned then?

[T4E]

I assume the OP was regarding the Nick Harris story as the biggie, seeing as the Mail on Sunday was mentioned specifically?

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Thanks guys within reason I always try to report what I am allowed to do so.

This one I cannot report because it would land myself and this site into a huge amount of legal problems. The information relating to this story has been bought by a newspaper and they were looking to publish something yesterday but I guess they couldn't overcome the legal hurdles. Eventually they will get this story out there.

All I can say is that it relates to Rovers, it is nothing to do with the new manager situation or seemingly any direct wrong doing by the owners, infact from what I have been told the owners would be the victims in this instance. That is all that I can say.

Kamy - I think most can guess what you are hinting at. In your opinion would Rovers be better off for this information being out in the public domain ?

[HemelRover]

Philipl. Kean did not have £14.9 million in his back pocket.

He had a contract that, if he met all of the performance based targets, would pay him £14.9 million. Not even he is stupid enough to think he would meet all the targets.

Stop sensationalising everything.

[my_name_is_Earl]

I think it's shocking that Kean had a contract until 2016 and we were lied to. No wonder people thought he was unsackable. We need to get Paul Agnew out immediately. This ship is not yet free from it's rodent problem.

[philipl]

Philipl. Kean did not have £14.9 million in his back pocket.

He had a contract that, if he met all of the performance based targets, would pay him £14.9 million. Not even he is stupid enough to think he would meet all the targets.

Stop sensationalising everything.

He had a contract worth £14.9m in his back pocket.

Your post is a bit like somebody picking at a pimple on their bottom when they have cancer in every bone in their body.

Is that sensational enough?

[HemelRover]

He had a contract worth £14.9m in his back pocket.

Your post is a bit like somebody picking at a pimple on their bottom when they have cancer in every bone in their body.

Is that sensational enough?

For me, its the contract until 2016 that is the story. Not the amount of money he was never going to get.

[philipl]

Kamy - I think most can guess what you are hinting at. In your opinion would Rovers be better off for this information being out in the public domain ?

I think that is the wrong question as it appears too many people already know too much for it not to come out, either messily in bits or in one dump.

When it comes out, what else will then get dragged out as a consequence with it is what is pre-occupying me. I cannot see Rovers not suffering collateral damage in this- the question is how much?

[Glenn]

Can we stay away from guessing what the story that didn't break yet is? Some of you know that one of the accused parties has been happy to set the lawyers on unsuspecting websites in the past (on entirely unrelated matters), so until such time as we can all discuss "the validity of the story in newspaper x" it's a topic we need to stay the hell away from. For now, posts on the issue are likely to be removed.

[Pedro]

It involves he who should not be mentioned then?

I don't know, I mentioned Jimmy Saville and Lizard people - that was removed too so maybe it is them!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Can we stay away from guessing what the story that didn't break yet is? Some of you know that one of the accused parties has been happy to set the lawyers on unsuspecting websites in the past (on entirely unrelated matters), so until such time as we can all discuss "the validity of the story in newspaper x" it's a topic we need to stay the hell away from. For now, posts on the issue are likely to be removed.

You could start be removing this " Non-Story ".

[PAFELL]

for Kamy to post this >>>

Northern Rover ‏@Northern_Rover

I'd keep an eye on Sunday papers, there MIGHT be a big Rovers story (not about new manager) in one of them tomorrow. Can't say anymore.

is just silly. There is so much anger/frustration still around about our club (with no obvious outlet) that dangling a story then saying 'but I won't tell' comes across as a tad egotistical.

Although there are one or two who claim to be in the know, deserve a bit of stick at times. I do not believe kamy is one of them.

[greco]

Move on.This isn't just gossip. People seem to be suggesting the speculation is nothing more than poring over a slaughtered pigs entrails to see if our crops will grow next summer. For me, at least, the idea that something might be going seriously, maybe terminally, wrong at the club, and become public knowledge, is worrying. If legal issues are the only block to us all knowing about it, the material fact seems to be that some seriously newsworthy misdeeds are being done. Whether they appear in print or not is patently not the issue.

if you cant grasp what´s being written, perhaps you yourself should move on.

the issue is, that some more then others write "ohh smoking gun, smoking gun smoking gun!!!" and when they are being asked about it "cant reveal it, will be sued". If they cant spill the beans, there is no point in writing it and i dont give a kean if its phillip, kamy or the queen,

perhaps you should ask yourself this question, why is it that half of the posts in this thread, has the same sentiment as mine and when you figure that out, feel to post why

[Pedro]

He had a contract worth £14.9m in his back pocket.

Your post is a bit like somebody picking at a pimple on their bottom when they have cancer in every bone in their body.

Is that sensational enough?

No he didn't though Philip. He had a contract which was heavily performance based, his contract was stated as being worth 600k a year due to the circumstances of which league we currently reside in. Lots of factors, most importantly the team being successful, would need to come in to play for him to pocket £14.9million. It is almost like saying a lottery ticket is effectively worth £14.9m up until the draw is made and your numbers don't actually come up.

[philipl]

No he didn't though Philip. He had a contract which was heavily performance based, his contract was stated as being worth 600k a year due to the circumstances of which league we currently reside in. Lots of factors, most importantly the team being successful, would need to come in to play for him to pocket £14.9million. It is almost like saying a lottery ticket is effectively worth £14.9m up until the draw is made and your numbers don't actually come up.

My point about pimple picking remains.

Obviously we regard contracts of employment rather differently. Does your employer know you think your's is a lottery ticket?

[Pedro]

Considering you claim to be an accountant, your accountancy skills are very sketchy...as are your views on law and your methods of trying to squirm out of sticky situations.

Was Kean currently on £600k a year or not?

Apart from an unlikely promotion and a series of very unlikely factors coming to fruition - did Steve Kean have £14.9m "in his back pocket" as you say?

[T4E]

I'm sure Philip's clients would be delighted to know that he puts speculative potential earnings on their tax returns rather than what they've actually earned. I suspect there's a few folk in Malta paying a tad more tax than they ought to be.