[Archived] Berg at the High Court

[pk1875]

If that's the case (doctoring and re-creating headers) then sticking the doctored version up on line with no explanation or disclaimer seems a horrendous error of judgment. Especially if the doctoring has then been admitted in another very public domain (Twitter).

It immediately begs the question what else has been doctored and brings every challenge as to the legitimacy of these documents into sharper focus.

The content of the emails has not been altered at all, some of the headers had to be removed so as to protect the recipients who passed them onto us. We are in possession of the the documents in full but for obvious reason couldn't scan them on to the internet.

To reiterate the body of the emails are 100% unchanged and authentic.

[Hasta]

The content of the emails has not been altered at all, some of the headers had to be removed so as to protect the recipients who passed them onto us. We are in possession of the the documents in full but for obvious reason couldn't scan them on to the internet.

To reiterate the body of the emails are 100% unchanged and authentic.

Have you not just drastically narrowed down who your leak is there?

[Stuart]

Can I just clarify.

The accusation is that the headers have been altered, "backed up" by "Paul K on Twitter" (who I assume to be aka pk1875 on here).

People are assuming this explains the differences in date formats. Is this the case?

It seemed fairly obvious to me that some email addresses had been redacted to protect individuals.

So is it the email addresses you are referring to, Paul, or the dates as well?

[pk1875]

Have you not just drastically narrowed down who your leak is there?

No

[Kamy100]

Well done to BRAG on getting these released, the more information that gets out there the better the understanding of the circus that Rovers are at present. I have no doubts that these are genuine, a number of journos have been in possession of the said e-mails and have used parts of them to do stories over the last 2 weeks. There is plenty more to come out yet.

All I will say is despite this horrendous mess up by Shaw, he still remains at Rovers. You have to question why. Is it because Venky's aren't 100% incharge of Rovers? Or is it because they have decided to sell the club at the end of the season and don't want to pay out anymore to employees who have been removed/sacked? Even by Venky's very high standards this is very strange, how can they not sack someone who has gone against their wishes and has almost certainly cost the millions?

[DE.]

Well done to BRAG on getting these released, the more information that gets out there the better the understanding of the circus that Rovers are at present. I have no doubts that these are genuine, a number of journos have been in possession of the said e-mails and have used parts of them to do stories over the last 2 weeks. There is plenty more to come out yet.

All I will say is despite this horrendous mess up by Shaw, he still remains at Rovers. You have to question why. Is it because Venky's aren't 100% incharge of Rovers? Or is it because they have decided to sell the club at the end of the season and don't want to pay out anymore to employees who have been removed/sacked? Even by Venky's very high standards this is very strange, how can they not sack someone who has gone against their wishes and has almost certainly cost the millions?

Particularly when they have a due date in court using an argument that specifically uses said employees actions to defend themselves.

[G Somerset Rover]

I subscribe to the joint ownership theory. However, if this were the case and Shaw does answer to somebody else then surely his 'owner' would agree that his dismissal would be the best for all concerned given that it's at court, and have him given some form of pay off to sweeten the deal?

[John]

Imagine if Kentaro Kean resigning and getting some decent cash for it was all part of the plan.....

[T4E]

Or is it because they have decided to sell the club at the end of the season and don't want to pay out anymore to employees who have been removed/sacked?

This is the grossest of gross misconduct, he'd be due nowt.

I subscribe to the joint ownership theory. However, if this were the case and Shaw does answer to somebody else then surely his 'owner' would agree that his dismissal would be the best for all concerned given that it's at court, and have him given some form of pay off to sweeten the deal?

Unless the "owner" was in someway going to profit from Berg getting a higher payout.

[perthblue02]

As mentioned in an above post , Imo the withdrawal from the frontline was used by "the plan" to take the heat off one of their associates previously, and you could be right, and no doubt that if Mr Tipp-ex is taken out of the limelight it won't be long before Mr Lifelong Rovers supporter will exit stage left on behalf of his "owners".

Will be a decision hard to take by their "bosses " especially with some of the Prem relegation money still to come which they haven't got their grubby little fingers on yet , which no doubt they had pinpointed to oil the player conveyor belt in the next pre season..

[PAFELL]

Damned when they do, damned when they don't.

Thank you Glen and Mark for all your hard work on our behalf.

Yep, no credit due to BRAG for this!!!!

I have not questioned these letters. I did say that I can understand why some folk have or do.

Credit is due to brag if they are genuine. Would have been helpful if folk had been told at the beginning that the headers had been changed to protect certain individuals.

[Craigman]

When I was questioning the dates I meant the date format in the top right of the letter/email being different which is odd seeing as it is from the same person.

1st letter is 7th March 2013

2nd letter is 08/03/2013.

[perthblue02]

This is the grossest of gross misconduct, he'd be due nowt.

Unless the "owner" was in someway going to profit from Berg getting a higher payout.

Or perhaps they already have? Person A to Person B just get your little puppet to stick a couple of years on that clause and here's a nice little envelope for you and your puppet.

[Amo]

All starting to get a bit 'David Icke' around here (and this from someone who loves a good conspiracy theory!)

It would be naive to believe there aren't parties behind the scenes making a fast buck of Venky's negligence. I'm still not entirely buying the 'secret owner' theory, just yet.

[John]

All starting to get a bit 'David Icke' around here (and this from someone who loves a good conspiracy theory!)

It would be naive to believe there aren't parties behind the scenes making a fast buck of Venky's negligence. I'm still not entirely buying the 'secret owner' theory, just yet.

It's an interesting one generally - the channel 4 programme which exposed Bryan Robson stated that around 60% of football league ownership cannot be validated - ie traced to see who the real owners are apart from documentary evidence. They said it was nearly impossible to conduct an accurate financial trail back to certain owners - scary similarities with our situation.

[47er]

Was it not the Press release on the website seemingly exonerating Shaw that was mentioned in Court?

Anyhow even if the communications are genuine what are we gaining by having them publicly released? Learning the rather startling revelation that the owners are acting surprisingly prudently by setting a general policy of "only" twelve months severance pay? And actually they wanted six?

No wonder Venky's are keen to portray them as genuine.

Is that all you learned? Did you compare the original email/s as posted on BRAG"s site with those released to the LT?

And "yes" the owners do have a prudent policy on severance pay. The story is that it was ignored.Why it was ignored, by whom and what are the consequences are clearly to follow. What is the significance of the media release you refer to? Did this have the imprimatur of the Raos?

What's gained depends on whether you want to look. What is gained by not releasing them? If in doubt err on the side of enlightenment I say.

[Lathund]

When I was questioning the dates I meant the date format in the top right of the letter/email being different which is odd seeing as it is from the same person.

1st letter is 7th March 2013

2nd letter is 08/03/2013.

Could just have been typed by a different secretary or something.

Its one of those things where if it was indeed fake, youd expect the person making these to get these details right, presumably working on both at the same time and being able to compare.

[Rover_Shaun]

Excellent 5 pages relating to date formats and headers............but

Is anyone party to the replies to these emails? In particular the reason given for deviating from the club policy of 12 months severance pay for managers.

[philipl]

Well done to BRAG on getting these released, the more information that gets out there the better the understanding of the circus that Rovers are at present. I have no doubts that these are genuine, a number of journos have been in possession of the said e-mails and have used parts of them to do stories over the last 2 weeks. There is plenty more to come out yet.

All I will say is despite this horrendous mess up by Shaw, he still remains at Rovers. You have to question why. Is it because Venky's aren't 100% incharge of Rovers? Or is it because they have decided to sell the club at the end of the season and don't want to pay out anymore to employees who have been removed/sacked? Even by Venky's very high standards this is very strange, how can they not sack someone who has gone against their wishes and has almost certainly cost the millions?

Especially when you remember the speed with which the two Hunts and so many others were despatched with....

Paul Hunt's letter was entirely in the interests of the club (apart from the pay rise bit) yet he was fired for it.

Ditto the letter penned by John Williams which actually is gaining in relevance with the passage of time.

Yet Mrs D fingers these guys for cheating and does nothing? Very very smelly

[Gav]

We can point to hundreds, if not thousands, of annoying, pin-pricky questions that imply negligence and reprehensible behaviour on the part of others though----usually BRAG. Time for you to grow up and thank the people who have been working their guts out and spending their own money on trying to save YOUR Club.

Here here

[AJW]

Especially when you remember the speed with which the two Hunts and so many others were despatched with....

Paul Hunt's letter was entirely in the interests of the club (apart from the pay rise bit) yet he was fired for it.

Ditto the letter penned by John Williams which actually is gaining in relevance with the passage of time.

Yet Mrs D fingers these guys for cheating and does nothing? Very very smelly

Wasnt Hunt sacked months after the letter , only when the letter went Public ?? .... not picking holes just asking?

[mark1875]

Can I just clarify.

The accusation is that the headers have been altered, "backed up" by "Paul K on Twitter" (who I assume to be aka pk1875 on here).

People are assuming this explains the differences in date formats. Is this the case?

It seemed fairly obvious to me that some email addresses had been redacted to protect individuals.

So is it the email addresses you are referring to, Paul, or the dates as well?

Email addresses as you say are very clearly blanked out before being published. The trail of the emails, in the aftermath of it being sent has also been removed.

However the date's are unaltered. The only edits to the original email are the obvious blanking out of email addresses.

[Rover_Shaun]

Email addresses as you say are very clearly blanked out before being published. The trail of the emails, in the aftermath of it being sent has also been removed.

However the date's are unaltered. The only edits to the original email are the obvious blanking out of email addresses.

Do you know the content of the replies to Mrs D from Shaw?

[mark1875]

Do you know the content of the replies to Mrs D from Shaw?

At this stage no we don't, but we are presuming there is a reply in existence, and if we can lay our hands on it then of course it will be published also.

[Rover_Shaun]

Cheers Mark. I'm just intrigued to know, as probably are everyone else, what the excuse was for deviating from the club policy on severance pay