[Archived] Berg at the High Court

[Ozz]

The story is just crazy in the extreme

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/10359541._/?

Absolutely astonishing stuff.

[tomphil]

Can we come up with a name for the 'mystery owner' of Rovers.

My suggestion is ' The Shadow '

The Tantric Slug

[Neil Weaver]

Amongst all the (unrealistic in my humble view) calls for BRAG etc to reveal what they have uncovered, I suspect we might just owe owd Henning lots of thanks for his role in revealing what's happening at the club. I think he might just have known what he was doing.

[OJRovers]

Anyone fancy lodging a complaint to the Government about the conduct of the Directors and the running of the company?

https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company

Conditions for a complaint are:

You can complain to the Insolvency Service if you have reasonable grounds to suspect a company of:

• causing significant harm to customers, suppliers etc
• breaking the law, eg fraud
• serious misconduct
• having a significant irregularity in its affairs

I would say that what was disclosed in court yesterady was 'serious irregularity' - as confirmed in so many words by the senior judge.

Also Directors have a legal obligation to:

You can be disqualified from being a director of a company if an insolvency practitioner or a member of the public reports your conduct as being ‘unfit’.

Surely there's a case for DS to have acted not in the company's interest if he is going to be a witness for the prosecution AGAINST the club in court??

[BlueMonday]

The Tantric Slug

Swiss Tony?

[Rover_Shaun]

I see the BBC are running with Gary Bowyer's "The crowd were immense" wishy washy smoke blowing flim-flam and not touching the Berg court case?

[philipl]

Anyone fancy lodging a complaint to the Government about the conduct of the Directors and the running of the company?

https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company

Conditions for a complaint are:

You can complain to the Insolvency Service if you have reasonable grounds to suspect a company of:

• causing significant harm to customers, suppliers etc
• breaking the law, eg fraud
• serious misconduct
• having a significant irregularity in its affairs

I would say that what was disclosed in court yesterady was 'serious irregularity' - as confirmed in so many words by the senior judge.

Also Directors have a legal obligation to:

You can be disqualified from being a director of a company if an insolvency practitioner or a member of the public reports your conduct as being ‘unfit’.

Surely there's a case for DS to have acted not in the company's interest if he is going to be a witness for the prosecution AGAINST the club in court??

In the event of the club slipping into administration, the current Directors are burnt crispy toast.

[Mike Graham]

The report in the LT is yet another example what horrible and incompetent barstewards the Venkys are. What a "defence" to take to Court.....it is a non-existent defence.

[CapeTownRover]

how does Venkys have the right to challenge this decision? surely this is an internal matter, and as such, should be held in that way. If shaw or anybody else had signed a 3 year contract, when it should have been 1, then Venkys should not be allowed to challenge this, even if they are not happy that somebody had changed the details around it. Fact is, that this contract was signed, sealed and should now be delivered to Berg. Those documents are legally binding, and im surprised that the Judge has allowed them to state their case.

Venkys should pay up, but then take the culprit who signed the 3 year deal to task over it. I cannot see how this will change anything, or should change anything based on the fact that this is a matter which the club should handle.

[Jock]

So the Rao's family defence is 'we employed an idiot to draw up the contract ' But theyre happy with their Idiot staying in the position, but they dont want to pay for their Idiots mistake?

Is that Wan-kytash still confused?

[AggyBlue]

how does Venkys have the right to challenge this decision? surely this is an internal matter, and as such, should be held in that way. If shaw or anybody else had signed a 3 year contract, when it should have been 1, then Venkys should not be allowed to challenge this, even if they are not happy that somebody had changed the details around it. Fact is, that this contract was signed, sealed and should now be delivered to Berg. Those documents are legally binding, and im surprised that the Judge has allowed them to state their case.

Venkys should pay up, but then take the culprit who signed the 3 year deal to task over it. I cannot see how this will change anything, or should change anything based on the fact that this is a matter which the club should handle.

You're quite right, Venky's shouldn't stand a chance and the Judge said as much but let's be thankful he's let them continue with the case. Who knows what other little nasties might be exposed in court.

[broadsword]

You're quite right, Venky's shouldn't stand a chance and the Judge said as much but let's be thankful he's let them continue with the case. Who knows what other little nasties might be exposed in court.

Have now got the delightful image of Agnew, Anderson, Singh, Shaw et al as little weevils on their backs in the courtroom, legs going ten to the dozen.

[J*B]

As a complete conspiracy theory:

What's stopping Venkys from meeting Shaw in Pune, and an agreement being put in place that Shaw would say he changed the contract, and try and save Venkys some money? Lets face is, DS is probably not very likely to get another job in football after Rovers. If Shaw had changed the contract surely he wouldn have been out the same day? They've disposed of so many people willy nilly, why would he still be here?

If he has changed the contract, then I can only see A) something sinister going on in the background or they can't afford to pay him off. And really they could sack him for gross misconduct and not even have to pay him off, making pointless.

[Gav]

The report in the LT is yet another example what horrible and incompetent barstewards the Venkys are. What a "defence" to take to Court.....it is a non-existent defence.

They're clearly thick as 2 short planks, lets hope they get jailed.

[arealbrfcfan]

Of course! In theory, the club would issue a statement on the website dismissing the whole thing just to cover all bases

As a complete conspiracy theory:

What's stopping Venkys from meeting Shaw in Pune, and an agreement being put in place that Shaw would say he changed the contract, and try and save Venkys some money? Lets face is, DS is probably not very likely to get another job in football after Rovers. If Shaw had changed the contract surely he wouldn have been out the same day? They've disposed of so many people willy nilly, why would he still be here?

If he has changed the contract, then I can only see A) something sinister going on in the background or they can't afford to pay him off. And really they could sack him for gross misconduct and not even have to pay him off, making pointless.

[RevidgeBlue]

As a complete conspiracy theory:

What's stopping Venkys from meeting Shaw in Pune, and an agreement being put in place that Shaw would say he changed the contract, and try and save Venkys some money? Lets face is, DS is probably not very likely to get another job in football after Rovers. If Shaw had changed the contract surely he wouldn have been out the same day? They've disposed of so many people willy nilly, why would he still be here?

If he has changed the contract, then I can only see A) something sinister going on in the background or they can't afford to pay him off. And really they could sack him for gross misconduct and not even have to pay him off, making pointless.

That doesn't sound that very far fetched at all. What a disgraceful state of affairs, no matter whether Shaw has done this off his own back as alleged in Court, or is just colluding in some sort of half baked defence.

I would save equal contempt for our new Solicitors for attempting to come up with a flimsy defence which will no doubt end up costing us a shedload in legal fees. The best advice would have just been to pay up and minimise legal costs, not drag the matter out through various further hearings after which we'll no doubt have to end up paying both side's costs.

The only thing I still don't see though is that this matter points to us having other owners in the form of the usual suspect(S). I read the judge's comments "shareholders" as meaning Shaw (+ Singh/Agnew?) and "majority shareholders" as meaning the Rao's. In any event it appears the "majority shareholders" have the final say when the "shareholders" step out of line.

Finally anyone else notice Singh can't get back into the UK because his visa has run out? You really couldn't make it up. Just need Sid James, Hattie Jacques and Kenneth Williams and the crew in now.

[PAFELL]

That doesn't sound that very far fetched at all. What a disgraceful state of affairs, no matter whether Shaw has done this off his own back as alleged in Court, or is just colluding in some sort of half baked defence.

I would save equal contempt for our new Solicitors for attempting to come up with a flimsy defence which will no doubt end up costing us a shedload in legal fees. The best advice would have just been to pay up and minimise legal costs, not drag the matter out through various further hearings after which we'll no doubt have to end up paying both side's costs.

The only thing I still don't see though is that this matter points to us having other owners in the form of the usual suspect(S). I read the judge's comments "shareholders" as meaning Shaw (+ Singh/Agnew?) and "majority shareholders" as meaning the Rao's. In any event it appears the "majority shareholders" have the final say when the "shareholders" step out of line.

Finally anyone else notice Singh can't get back into the UK because his visa has run out? You really couldn't make it up. Just need Sid James, Hattie Jacques and Kenneth Williams and the crew in now.

He was also upon his return to hold a disciplinary meeting against Shaw. A hearing, where your enemy is the judge, prosecutor and jury.

[DE.]

If Shaw is still employed by the time the case comes to court again then there is literally no point in Venky's legal team turning up - not that there's much point even if Shaw is sacked, mind.

[glen9mullan]

Keep your eyes peeled on

Www.brfcactiongroup.co.uk

[T.J.Newton]

As a complete conspiracy theory:

What's stopping Venkys from meeting Shaw in Pune, and an agreement being put in place that Shaw would say he changed the contract, and try and save Venkys some money? Lets face is, DS is probably not very likely to get another job in football after Rovers. If Shaw had changed the contract surely he wouldn have been out the same day? They've disposed of so many people willy nilly, why would he still be here?

If he has changed the contract, then I can only see A) something sinister going on in the background or they can't afford to pay him off. And really they could sack him for gross misconduct and not even have to pay him off, making pointless.

That crossed my mind and I wouldn't put it past them.

[T.J.Newton]

Keep your eyes peeled on

Www.brfcactiongroup.co.uk

for something related to this topic?

[chaddyrovers]

http://www.brfcactiongroup.co.uk/owner-tells-managing-director-you-have-failed-in-your-duty/

[ABBEY]

They're clearly thick as 2 short planks, lets hope they get jailed.

We want venkys jailed

We want venkys jailed

We want Shagnew hung

We want Shagnew hung

[chaddyrovers]

Glen,

have you see the replies from Derek Shaw and Ian Slivester to Mrs D???

wat did they say?

[J*B]

I love how she's put her name in capitals in the second letter. If your that annoyed sort it out yourself and stop paying any of these incompetent fools.