[Archived] Berg at the High Court

[onlyonejackwalker]

Alternatively, they can't actually prove he did anything wrong.

Find it very strange that Shaw would want or feel the need to change any contract terms. How would Shaw benefit getting Berg a larger / longer pay-off in the event of dismissal? A commission fee from Berg? Doesn't add up to me.

[T4E]

Indeed. The burning question is why haven't they sacked him? The most obvious answer is they can't prove he did wrong.

[den]

Well, for me, I don't see anything from this Berg case that the authorities could, or should investigate. The case is an embarrassment and brings into the public eye what an inept bunch Venky's are, but I see no evidence of hidden ownership.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Well, for me, I don't see anything from this Berg case that the authorities could, or should investigate. The case is an embarrassment and brings into the public eye what an inept bunch Venky's are, but I see no evidence of hidden ownership.

Me neither

[Hasta]

[tomphil]

Rather than hidden ownership perhaps Venkys just signed a large, long rather watertight contract with an agent/agency as primary advisors on the day to day running of the club and a hand in recruitment at all levels. Maybe that contract made the club obliged to have a certain number of said agent/agencies staff to be on the books and maybe that contract is nigh on impossible to wriggle out of without it costing tens of millions. This could explain a lot and wouldn't be illegal.

[arbitro]

Indeed. The burning question is why haven't they sacked him? The most obvious answer is they can't prove he did wrong.

Whenever did they need a good reason to get rid of people? Paul Hunt, Simon Hunt and several others were seemingly relieved of their duties without justification were they not? Something just doesn't sit right here.

[den]

I'm not saying we don't have hidden owners Hasta, but it would have to be proven that the money used to buy the club came from elsewhere. That isn't going to come from this Berg case.

[47er]

I'm not saying we don't have hidden owners Hasta, but it would have to be proven that the money used to buy the club came from elsewhere. That isn't going to come from this Berg case.

Not necessarily Den. You could buy a club and lease it out as others have suggested.

[RoverScot]

Alan Nixon has been tweeting something I thought about yesterday.

Alan Nixon ‏@reluctantnicko Protected account1h

@ChoiKaHei Berg was rushed into job. Didn't sign contract before he started. Had them by the balls after that and got 3-year not 1-year.

Alan Nixon ‏@reluctantnicko Protected account50m

@ChoiKaHei Go back to when it happened. Shebby deadline. Daft Maradona idea. Needed boss. Rushed it. Starting to make sense.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Not necessarily Den. You could buy a club and lease it out as others have suggested.

Could isn't the same as did though

[47er]

Could isn't the same as did though

Correct, but you wouldn't expect to find the level of proof you require on here would you? Sworn evidence, original documents and all that......

The letters provide a very strong indication of what's going on. The proof, will come later or it won't.

We'll all have to wait won't we?

[T4E]

Whenever did they need a good reason to get rid of people? Paul Hunt, Simon Hunt and several others were seemingly relieved of their duties without justification were they not? Something just doesn't sit right here.

Given payoffs though weren't they? Which I assume they'd want to avoid with Shaw.

[philipl]

Rather than hidden ownership perhaps Venkys just signed a large, long rather watertight contract with an agent/agency as primary advisors on the day to day running of the club and a hand in recruitment at all levels. Maybe that contract made the club obliged to have a certain number of said agent/agencies staff to be on the books and maybe that contract is nigh on impossible to wriggle out of without it costing tens of millions. This could explain a lot and wouldn't be illegal.

Not illegal but in specific contravention with FIFA and FA regulations leading to the immediate suspension of licenses of any and all organisations involved.

Alan Nixon has been tweeting something I thought about yesterday.

Alan Nixon ‏@reluctantnicko Protected account1h

@ChoiKaHei Berg was rushed into job. Didn't sign contract before he started. Had them by the balls after that and got 3-year not 1-year.

Alan Nixon ‏@reluctantnicko Protected account50m

@ChoiKaHei Go back to when it happened. Shebby deadline. Daft Maradona idea. Needed boss. Rushed it. Starting to make sense.

Of course.

Nixon has cracked it but it shows Shaw up as a plank and man of straw unless he covered his backside as he was covering others' backsides for them.

That disciplinary hearing could well be a circular fiting squad.

No wonder the Raos said they couldn't deal with rogue Shaw....

[darrenrover]

Missed me off that list and I'll even correct it for you to devraient not seront as you need a conditional of devoir not a future of être and it should be quitter too! Pedantic in French too. Could even be devrait if you think of Venkys as singular rather than plural.

Ha, thanks Gumboots and apologies. It was 4am but I guess you got the gist!

Are you in agreement?

[tomphil]

Not illegal but in specific contravention with FIFA and FA regulations leading to the immediate suspension of licenses of any and all organisations involved.

I know it would be illegal if they were running the club but if it was just a contract worded that they were number one consultants on all things at the club ( basically running it but not officialy ) could they not get away with it like that ? I don't know, it's just something that was on twitter a while ago by a journo, not one of the usuals.

[rovers11]

Bizarre beyond words. So Venkys own the club but don't have the power to run it?!

Draw your own conclusions as to who's running it then.

[philipl]

I know it would be illegal if they were running the club but if it was just a contract worded that they were number one consultants on all things at the club ( basically running it but not officialy ) could they not get away with it like that ? I don't know, it's just something that was on twitter a while ago by a journo, not one of the usuals.

I have read the FA Rules.

Even your construct is totally forbidden.

If it were not outlawed, why have they gone to such extreme lengths to hide it?

Hugo Fernandez has found out the hard way apparently. ...

[gumboots]

Ha, thanks Gumboots and apologies. It was 4am but I guess you got the gist!

Are you in agreement?

Mais bien sur with a circumflex on the u but my iPad won't do it.

[philipl]

The Hugo reference is in answer to Rover 11 's post

[tomphil]

I have read the FA Rules.

Even your construct is totally forbidden.

If it were not outlawed, why have they gone to such extreme lengths to hide it?

Hugo Fernandez has found out the hard way apparently. ...

Ok cheers. I'll file it back in the folder marked 1001 (and rising) conspiracy theories

[rovers11]

I know it would be illegal if they were running the club but if it was just a contract worded that they were number one consultants on all things at the club ( basically running it but not officialy ) could they not get away with it like that ? I don't know, it's just something that was on twitter a while ago by a journo, not one of the usuals.

You're getting very close to the truth there. Still not allowed though.

[den]

Bizarre beyond words. So Venkys own the club but don't have the power to run it?!

Draw your own conclusions as to who's running it then.

They have the power.

[rovers11]

They have the power.

Their lawyers have said they don't.

[jim mk2]

Agre

The first, I think you're being ridiculously naive. Do you honestly believe that in a billion pound industry, where straight corruption and 'bent legal' may be rife, that what you suggest should be the sole governance of new owners?

If that is the case, I'm truly lost for words.

The FA have only one criteria for taking over a football club - the ability to pay. Their "fit and proper persons" test is not worth the paper it is written on, witness the Shinantra (sp?) fiasco at Man City and the Pompey tragedy. There is nothing for the FA to investigate at Rovers because there has been no wrongdoing on Venky's part.