[Archived] Investigate or we'll publish Blackburn Rovers findings, warns Mullan

[DE.]

At this point it's very difficult to explain what's going on at the club without forming some kind of conspiracy theory. Something is not right, and hasn't been for a long time.

[47er]

So-called "conspiracy theorists" not so out-landish as some thought eh?

[Leonard Venkhater]

  On 09/05/2013 at 11:58, DE. said:

At this point it's very difficult to explain what's going on at the club without forming some kind of conspiracy theory. Something is not right, and hasn't been for a long time.

I take your point... but it is quite ok to form a hypothesis..e.g "The hidden owner is an agent and has Shagnew as his...er proxy"..Then look for information to deny or support it. As long as an" investigator" is willing to drop a hypothesis, when he sees evidence to deny it, I can't see any problem.

In the meantime, I am testing out the even more bizarre( ridiculous) hypothesis: "A well known circus agent wormed one of his most inexperienced clowns into the safety manager's job of a professional, high wire trapeze act" ....you can guess the rest. ..

[Mullionvagrant]

  On 09/05/2013 at 13:00, Leonard Venkhater said:

I take your point... but it is quite ok to form a hypothesis..e.g "The hidden owner is an agent and has Shagnew as his...er proxy"..Then look for information to deny or support it. As long as an" investigator" is willing to drop a hypothesis, when he sees evidence to deny it, I can't see any problem.

In the meantime, I am testing out the even more bizarre( ridiculous) hypothesis: "A well known circus agent wormed one of his most inexperienced clowns into the safety manager's job of a professional, high wire trapeze act" ....you can guess the rest. ..

I think a statement/clear evidence put on record by Venky's saying they are categorically the only owners would clear this up in seconds or for that matter anybody else suggested, saying they are not or have ever been co-owners/owners or representatives of.

[tomphil]

  On 09/05/2013 at 14:49, Mullionvagrant said:

I think a statement/clear evidence put on record by Venky's saying they are categorically the only owners would clear this up in seconds or for that matter anybody else suggested, saying they are not or have ever been co-owners/owners or representatives of.

That's another good point as throughout all this time of theories and accusations flying around for over 2 years, some of them very severe and some alleging corruption or illegal activity, no one has come out to categorically deny stuff. No attempt at all to put the record straight despite various parties knowing all to well what they are being accussed of on various public forums, a lot of them on other clubs forums and national newspaper websites. Very strange.

[Glosrover]

  On 09/05/2013 at 14:49, Mullionvagrant said:

I think a statement/clear evidence put on record by Venky's saying they are categorically the only owners would clear this up in seconds or for that matter anybody else suggested, saying they are not or have ever been co-owners/owners or representatives of.

only owners of what though ?

here's a left field theory for you.

At the purchase of a club from the CripsyTrust for an agreed £40m, Twinkys chicken ltd secure a guaranteed bank loan to cover the debt, say £20m underpinned by the future Sky revenue and season ticket sales plus the value of the real estate asset. They are the owners for the purposes of the league tests, their sources of finance are irrelevant to this really but their credit is good and they talk a good story.

An anonymous third party consortium of maybe a well-known sports agency, a selection of their employees and business associates (we'll call them the dragons) put in say £20m in return for 49% of the 'non-real estate' assets ( also known as players ). The purchase goes ahead.

In year 1 - a player say Smith/Jones /Williams is sold for £16M, profit is distributed per beneficial ownership

in year 2 - a player say Bambi/Samba/ Conga is sold for £15M tho' maybe only a net profit of £12M distributed per benficial ownership this time.

at end of year 2

The consortium already has over 13M (49% of £28m)of its stake back plus sundry guaranteed fees relating to negotiation of incoming /outgoing transfers and loans for persons (which they own 49% of) - and a direct fee percentage form those players - which might be another £3M each year.

In year 3 the consortium has 'only' £1M exposure of its initial stake, but has a relatively sizeable saleable non real estate asset, and future guaranteed fee earning potential for incoming and outgoing transfers and loans, plus the margin taken on these by the team manager (who is in the consortium).

Twinkys- pay the bank interest and cover operating losses from direct revenues, plus their share of transfer profits (so in year 3 they have made say £12M from transfers) and maybe a couple of shares in the consortium ?

They still have player and real estate assets, are reducing direct operating costs by reduced wages (at the request of the bank) and get lots of publicity, ( there is no such thing as bad publicity right?) .

When bank A (lets call them Brinkleys) get jumpy and ask too many questions, a 'local' re-financing (in the Inja Bank) ensures that there are liquid funds are available to cover any operating losses - the bank debt is secure because the collateral for the loan is the real estate. The Twinkys run the business with other folks money and have occasional snow-related japes with the locals.

Who loses in this hypothetical model?

[tomphil]

  On 09/05/2013 at 16:27, Glosrover said:

only owners of what though ?

here's a left field theory for you.

At the purchase of a club from the CripsyTrust for an agreed £40m, Twinkys chicken ltd secure a guaranteed bank loan to cover the debt, say £20m underpinned by the future Sky revenue and season ticket sales plus the value of the real estate asset. They are the owners for the purposes of the league tests, their sources of finance are irrelevant to this really but their credit is good and they talk a good story.

An anonymous third party consortium of maybe a well-known sports agency, a selection of their employees and business associates (we'll call them the dragons) put in say £20m in return for 49% of the 'non-real estate' assets ( also known as players ). The purchase goes ahead.

In year 1 - a player say Smith/Jones /Williams is sold for £16M, profit is distributed per beneficial ownership

in year 2 - a player say Bambi/Samba/ Conga is sold for £15M tho' maybe only a net profit of £12M distributed per benficial ownership this time.

at end of year 2

The consortium already has over 13M (49% of £28m)of its stake back plus sundry guaranteed fees relating to negotiation of incoming /outgoing transfers and loans for persons (which they own 49% of) - and a direct fee percentage form those players - which might be another £3M each year.

In year 3 the consortium has 'only' £1M exposure of its initial stake, but has a relatively sizeable saleable non real estate asset, and future guaranteed fee earning potential for incoming and outgoing transfers and loans, plus the margin taken on these by the team manager (who is in the consortium).

Twinkys- pay the bank interest and cover operating losses from direct revenues, plus their share of transfer profits (so in year 3 they have made say £12M from transfers) and maybe a couple of shares in the consortium ?

They still have player and real estate assets, are reducing direct operating costs by reduced wages (at the request of the bank) and get lots of publicity, ( there is no such thing as bad publicity right?) .

When bank A (lets call them Brinkleys) get jumpy and ask too many questions, a 'local' re-financing (in the Inja Bank) ensures that there are liquid funds are available to cover any operating losses - the bank debt is secure because the collateral for the loan is the real estate. The Twinkys run the business with other folks money and have occasional snow-related japes with the locals.

Who loses in this hypothetical model?

I would say that is a near perfect hypothetical summary. Probably a few larger clubs are hypotheticaly run and owned in a similar way.

[Roverall]

Remember the 'Glasgow Gangsters' story?

Read it again.

By Christ if it doesn't seem plausible now from the hints we've been getting from Glen.

[Glosrover]

Allegedly - and not forgetting that any resemblance to persons living, dead or currently unemployed is purely coincidental

[Leonard Venkhater]

  On 09/05/2013 at 16:46, Randy_Synge said:

Remember the 'Glasgow Gangsters' story?

Read it again.

By Christ if it doesn't seem plausible now from the hints we've been getting from Glen.

Could you tell me where I can read this story?

[West Yorks Rover]

  On 09/05/2013 at 16:46, Randy_Synge said:

Remember the 'Glasgow Gangsters' story?

Read it again.

By Christ if it doesn't seem plausible now from the hints we've been getting from Glen.

I always thought the Glasgow story sounded plausable when i first read it in the LT comments

Money laundering is big business !

Obviously not saying it would ever happen at BRFC that would be plain ridiculous.

I just hope no one on here is going to suggest that any of the well known soccer pundits

would ever get involved in this kind of scam.

[Exiled in Toronto]

  On 09/05/2013 at 16:27, Glosrover said:

only owners of what though ?

here's a left field theory for you.

At the purchase of a club from the CripsyTrust for an agreed £40m, Twinkys chicken ltd secure a guaranteed bank loan to cover the debt, say £20m underpinned by the future Sky revenue and season ticket sales plus the value of the real estate asset. They are the owners for the purposes of the league tests, their sources of finance are irrelevant to this really but their credit is good and they talk a good story.

An anonymous third party consortium of maybe a well-known sports agency, a selection of their employees and business associates (we'll call them the dragons) put in say £20m in return for 49% of the 'non-real estate' assets ( also known as players ). The purchase goes ahead.

In year 1 - a player say Smith/Jones /Williams is sold for £16M, profit is distributed per beneficial ownership

in year 2 - a player say Bambi/Samba/ Conga is sold for £15M tho' maybe only a net profit of £12M distributed per benficial ownership this time.

at end of year 2

The consortium already has over 13M (49% of £28m)of its stake back plus sundry guaranteed fees relating to negotiation of incoming /outgoing transfers and loans for persons (which they own 49% of) - and a direct fee percentage form those players - which might be another £3M each year.

In year 3 the consortium has 'only' £1M exposure of its initial stake, but has a relatively sizeable saleable non real estate asset, and future guaranteed fee earning potential for incoming and outgoing transfers and loans, plus the margin taken on these by the team manager (who is in the consortium).

Twinkys- pay the bank interest and cover operating losses from direct revenues, plus their share of transfer profits (so in year 3 they have made say £12M from transfers) and maybe a couple of shares in the consortium ?

They still have player and real estate assets, are reducing direct operating costs by reduced wages (at the request of the bank) and get lots of publicity, ( there is no such thing as bad publicity right?) .

When bank A (lets call them Brinkleys) get jumpy and ask too many questions, a 'local' re-financing (in the Inja Bank) ensures that there are liquid funds are available to cover any operating losses - the bank debt is secure because the collateral for the loan is the real estate. The Twinkys run the business with other folks money and have occasional snow-related japes with the locals.

Who loses in this hypothetical model?

Where in this scenario fits in paying 14 million for the combined services of Dann and Rhodes, top dollar prices unlikely to be matched in resale value, and signing clapped out has-beens or never-weres on 35k a week each, aka money down the drain?

[Glosrover]

  On 09/05/2013 at 18:38, Exiled in Toronto said:

Where in this scenario fits in paying 14 million for the combined services of Dann and Rhodes, top dollar prices unlikely to be matched in resale value, and signing clapped out has-beens or never-weres on 35k a week each, aka money down the drain?

hey - its all just a bit of fun really, but since you asked,

Dann deal was described as the never never of all never-never deals, fee strung out over years and years, published fee massaged by adding in wages to assuage the Brum fans - costs sunk as operating costs, funded by bank

Rhodes - hmmm. maybe just a speculative punt with a decent shout of coming off, 8M split 2 ways, not huge for either party and looked at right now, you'd say that re-sale would more than recoup the fee and the wages.

Journeyman pros on frees ? signing on fee in lieu of transfer fee, with cut to the agent, plus agent introduction and negotiation fee ? who wins there I wonder, sweetener for the player to come into the charade is length of contract ans security. wages are operating costs, funded by overdraft and or future player sales. Wages down the drain maybe dont matter, the real earner is getting the player to the gravy train in the first place, and selling on any that come good.

[tomphil]

Agents have also been known to take a cut of wages on a % basis. Where it ends up who knows but if anyone wanted to bleed money out there are plenty of ways and means. It goes on all over the place, the club/bank carry the debt and ready cash goes in pockets. Hypotheticaly someone somewhere could take a small cut of every wage going out of the building and say if an organisation had 60 odd staff all on various large weekly pay packets then an average of £500 per week off each one would be £30k per week going somewhere. Interesting but of course all hypothetical but not beyond possibility.

[47er]

Google "Blackburn Rovers conspiracy theories" or similar and youll find pages of the stuff, including the Glasgow gangsters one.

Also www.regoftherovers.co.uk is worth a look. He frequently comments under LT articles and claims to have some inside knowledge.

[bob fleming]

  On 09/05/2013 at 18:38, Exiled in Toronto said:

Where in this scenario fits in paying 14 million for the combined services of Dann and Rhodes, top dollar prices unlikely to be matched in resale value, and signing clapped out has-beens or never-weres on 35k a week each, aka money down the drain?

If you we're going to screw us over what would you do EiT? Chuck in the occasional signing to keep people sweet? It looks better that way after all doesnt it. Perhaps make that signing with next seasons parachute payments?

Money down the drain indeed. Not their bloody money I'd wager.

[John]

As the recent court case showed, we've got cash flow problems.

Once the parachute money dries up, lets see how 'the spending' looks then.

[RevidgeBlue]

  On 09/05/2013 at 22:14, 47er said:

Google "Blackburn Rovers conspiracy theories" or similar and youll find pages of the stuff, including the Glasgow gangsters one.

Also www.regoftherovers.co.uk is worth a look. He frequently comments under LT articles and claims to have some inside knowledge.

He's an absolute nutcase if most of his postings are anything to go by.

[Rover_Shaun]

Seems that Derek Shaw has survived. Bold as brass on radio giving his twopennorth on David Moyes

[47er]

  On 10/05/2013 at 07:00, RevidgeBlue said:

He's an absolute nutcase if most of his postings are anything to go by.

Have not read many of those but his website is quite sane.

  On 10/05/2013 at 07:22, Blue and White Army said:

Seems that Derek Shaw has survived. Bold as brass on radio giving his twopennorth on David Moyes

If Mrs Desai can accuse (in writing)Shaw of "cheating" her and he continues as an employee then people are bound to reach the obvious conclusion that, like Kean, Shaw is unsackable.

[pk1875]

  On 10/05/2013 at 07:30, 47er said:

Have not read many of those but his website is quite sane.

If Mrs Desai can accuse (in writing)Shaw of "cheating" her and he continues as an employee then people are bound to reach the obvious conclusion that, like Kean, Shaw is unsackable.

Desai did accuse of of cheating in writing, the clubs legal team said in a court of law he was out of control, people will naturally draw their own conclusions.

[Cowan]

I'm not entirely sure what is going on, but I have a feeling it will end with nothing positive coming out way.

[OJRovers]

What links the 'unsackables':

Kean

Agnew

Shaw

[RevidgeBlue]

  On 10/05/2013 at 08:03, OJRovers said:

What links the 'unsackables':

Kean

Agnew

Shaw

Nothing and people are searching for conspiracy theories that aren't there?

[philipl]

  On 10/05/2013 at 08:13, RevidgeBlue said:

Nothing and people are searching for conspiracy theories that aren't there?

Yes and the tooth fairy exists.