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

[perthblue02]

Kean spent his entire time as manager talking to the owners through the press. 500 letters a day, 1pc of fans against him, best squad he'd ever had, success being measured in squad value rather than results. If he were a hidden owner and unsackeable, why would he need to say those things Aggy? Unanswered questions don't mean anything other than we don't know the answer. Having said that, if someone knows for absolute certain that Venky's aren't the real owners of BRFC, then without wanting to know how they know, I'll take their word for it. Simple as that.

Of course he did , and for probably the same reason that Agnew asked at least two people whose possible influence amongst Rovers supporters could be argued to be influential (if these people want to confirm this on this messageboard, that's their prerogative, I will not name) privately to lay off Kean and put the spotlight on Venky's.

Pretty obvious why really get everybody looking and pointing fingers one way and blame them for every decision even the ones they were not making ,and not looking at what's going on in the shadows.

Why would the company that own the club on paper put up with this? because possibly they have/had no influence over the administration of the club due to pre takeover agreements or arrangements . Why don't they sell? If decisions and agreements were in place that were not 100% legal in that particular field and transactions have taken place that would not look good against your company name , would you want somebody going over your books in due diligence?

Owning a club is not profitable , but running the club is especially if you control the transfers and contracts, plus if you fancy betting on transfers , there's a hell of a lot of money to be made with inside info. Owning players and moving them on is also very profitable.

I personally think that we will see more decisions made by Venky's themselves in the future as the "administrators" make a withdrawal once their friends have helped them cleanse the crime scene of their activities. Either that or we will be sold somebody who doesn't care about due diligence, then we should be more worried as to their intentions.

[Guest Norbert]

At the moment, it is like Tom Jones' private life. We all 'know' he has/had been banging 100's of women despite being married for years, but we don't have the catagorical proof (well there have been one or two mistresses confirmed).

Perhaps Jimmy Savile's private life and the fact we 'knew' what he got up to may be a slightly more accurate, as the confimation has only just broke out after his death.

That is unless this BRAG encyclopedia contains the vital evidence that is more than anecdotes.

[philipl]

This is as far as I can go with my speculation; others can undoubtedly do better.

If since November 2010 there has been, for sometime, not all the time, ownership and control of Rovers which was not the same as the official story, do you think the perpetrators will have left a trail of evidence just lying there for a bunch of lads from Blackburn to pick up? (hint there is no shortage of Indian analysts who cannot explain where Venky's cash came from in 2010 but equally spotted cash movements of remarkably familiar amounts last summer which are every bit as inexplicable)

If the perpetrators of whatever may or may not have happened are very close to the movers and shakers at FIFA and the FA, would you expect the FA to be falling over themselves to investigate Rovers or be using every conceivable piece of weasle bs to duck and weave and avoid investigating whilst doing everything they can to appear to be very very serious about it? (hint marketing deals in Brazil, Argentina and with the FA and FIFA)

If the "perpetrators" seriously expected to "get away with whatever it might be" wouldn't you expect the whole thing to be complex beyond comprehension, smothered in layers of fug and have an idiot fall guy somewhere in the picture? (hint where are we today? Isn't it EXACTLY what a mastermind would have planned for)

There are reasons to think there remains a chance that light might yet be shone on the awful situation at Rovers:

- unless the fall out is itself all part of the clever fug, two of the three parties behind whatever master plan may or may not have first been conceived have apparently fallen out and are headed for the Courts against each other, whilst one of these two parties is mysteriously going bust. This could be all part of the designer bs, but it might not be...

- the original plan for making money and bending rules creatively didn't work from day one because one football authority turned out to be a lot more clued up than had been bargained for so there had to be some work arounds to get the money where it was "supposed" to be which has apparently left a bit of a trail.

- However, whenever I look at Rovers with a jaundiced eye I can see how the original plan breaks rules which they might reasonably have expected to get away with but with the best will in the world that "business model" on its own was never going to be worth the while of the possible perpetrators to have taken the risks they may or may not have at Rovers

- Indeed one of the three parties possibly involved apparently freelanced some cash and got caught doing it. Unfortunately the act of catching was itself manifestly illegal so there are hardly any circumstances (none of which exist at the moment) where this one smoking gun (which I understand to be in the hands of several members of the press) can be produced. However, if this story is true, the apparent fact that somebody got cocky and clumsy when fancying his dancing technique might mean the other possible naughty boys are feeling unhappy about needing to work around this problem as well causing an all round case of the jittery phone calls.

- Venky's could genuinely be out of control so far as EVERYBODY is concerned; not just for Rovers, but also for the football authorities and the shadowy characters alike. In which case the Rao family are not only a disaster waiting to happen for our club and supporters but also for the Mr Bigs out there if they exist. The recent farces around shelving Shaw were unlikely to have been in the script quite in the way they have played out.

- just running the numbers, the only reason, a let's say criminal type of enterprise would sink the sort of money somebody has pumped into Rovers over the past two years (we are talking £80m cash including £40m under the terms of the sale contract) and not give a damn about relegation(s- nearly) is that they are playing an altogether bigger game. The only altogether bigger game on the planet is illegal betting where a little known fact is India is actually a bigger headache than all the usual east Asian suspects. I am not saying this is happening, just making a couple of linked observations which in turn begs the question about match fixing...

- there are innumerable gigabytes of computer files from the British Virgin Islands now in the Guardian's and HMRC's hands and at least eight investigative hacks know an awful lot even if they might be a long way from smoking guns and publishable stories

- last but not least there are the inevitable unreliable little guys doing the running to make things happen who might be talking too much at times and have other social problems.

[BlueMonday]

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.

Its getting impossible to explain WITHOUT conspiracy theories. With every twist and turn, reasonable explanation goes out of the window.

Its also getting more ridiculous by the day that the 'Authorities' feel there is nothing going on.

[BlueMonday]

a cut of their own money, now that would be dumb. Not like we are taking about money laundering rupees for sterling is it!

That's if its their own money they are spending.

[BlueMonday]

Would the fact that Venkys were happy that SEM were trying to mandate transfers on behalf of BRFC without any sign-off by the Board be evidence?

Plus the admission in court that they don't "control" Shaw?

Those 2 issues alone are worth investigation.

The FA's stance becomes more ridiculous every day.

[47er]

I don't have an immovable position on how The Raos have run the club 47er. I'm open to anything that has, if not proof or evidence, at least some substance to it. The only thing that I see, that has any kind of backing, is that the owners, from day one said that they could run the club successfully via £5m/transfer window, academy players and a few loans. From then on, they have used agents to supply the players and put their all into employing a coach rather than a manager. They believed they could run the club on the cheap and to run it their way, they didn't need Williams, Finn or any other highly paid employee.

Now. There are two scenarios here, the one I've just put forward backed by what the Venky's said from day one - and the other scenario of hidden owners, backed by nothing but suspicion.

I don't know the truth, but does anyone really know?

Yes Den, i think they do.

You've glossed over the evidence I and others cited though. Not proof but evidence of more than incompetance.

[Paul]

Last Saturday a fellow MBer phoned me about 6.30pm. I was sat on my shed roof at the time, it needed repairing. As we chatted it struck me I had firstly forgotten Rovers were playing and second had no idea what the result was. This would have been about four hours after the game ended.

Over the last couple of years my views have swung from one direction to another. Today this is where I sit, not on the shed roof, the view may change but it's largely how I feel.

Revidge and den make the points well. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence, plenty of rumour, numerous theories etc. but no real evidence. Just to take one small piece discussed of late, Shaw. Venkys stated in court he "is out of control"," well they would, wouldn't they. It's a view, a belief not a fact. No untruth has been told but an opinion has been stated, it isn't a fact.

For me there is clearly plenty of circumstantial evidence which is unproved and would not stand up in court which, rightly, prevents BRAG and media people publishing the information. Much as I would love to see the whole BRAG dossier available for all to read if I was in Glen's shoes I wouldn't publish. These guys have gone a long way but expecting them to put their personal future in jeopardy is ridiculous.

I would guess there has been activity which at best bends football regulations almost to the point of snapping. Those are football issues. Other suggestions involve activity which appears to break criminal law. So why has nothing occurred?

In regard to football the answer is simple, not enough influential people care and those who do care have the power to decide if action should be taken or not. It's at least a year since I commented the PL/FA will not investigate simply because the brand damage is too great. Other owners who represented potential threats to the brand have been "persuaded" to sell, Rovers conveniently got relegated. We are not a PL problem so nothing will happen.

If criminal activity has taken place, and there has been plenty of public speculation, one would hope the police have sniffed around a bit? Have they? Not as far as I'm aware and with the club leaking like a sieve I'm sure we would know.

In all probability the Venkys were advised buy the club, run it in a particular way, spend "x" amount each year and bring in young talent which would mature and be worth multiple times the initial transfer fee. Do this and you'll develop a young and exciting team, because of the young, talented players which would be supplied. Sell on one or two each year to cover costs and make a nice profit. A perfect scenario for people who don't understand football.

Duped? Probably. Conned? Probably. Taken for a ride at the first opportunity? Probably. Bending football regulations? Very probable. Illegal? Unlikely.

I'm hoping the sun shines on the second or third Saturday of next August. I'll enjoy a warm stroll down LBR with my lad, I hope.

[Stuart]

Paul, I think you and I have different views as to what a statement made to a court is. For me if a statement is entered to a court, it is "the truth" (i.e. a point of fact). If it is subsequently found to not be "the truth" then it is a lie.

However, once it has been submitted to the court and recorded, any suggestion that it is not "the truth" now has to be proven.

Therefore by the same logic you, Rev and others have used. Blackburn Rovers and Shaw are "out of control" until PROVEN otherwise. This is not speculation but as a result of the facts presented.

[Paul]

Paul, I think you and I have different views as to what a statement made to a court is. For me if a statement is entered to a court, it is "the truth" (i.e. a point of fact). If it is subsequently found to not be "the truth" then it is a lie.

However, once it has been submitted to the court and recorded, any suggestion that it is not "the truth" now has to be proven.

Therefore by the same logic you, Rev and others have used. Blackburn Rovers and Shaw are "out of control" until PROVEN otherwise. This is not speculation but as a result of the facts presented.

I don't think so Stuart but let me explain. If I stand in court under oath and make a statement it is either true or I'm guilty of perjury. I'm sure we would agree on this.

However my recollection, or reading of the media, is the Venkys legal representative described the club as out of control and in chaos. This was not said under oath, it's a legal opinion as part of the legal argument presented by the defence. Prosecuting and defending advocates express opinions based on the evidence to sway the judge or jury opinion in making their decision. As far as I'm aware no one from Venkys took the stand under oath and stated "Derek Shaw is out of control." I'm not aware Venkys even attended or were in the country at the time.

I may be completely wrong but it's how I have seen this and why I disagree with the view it's an established legal fact.

Just to extend this a bit. A prosecutor can stand in court and say "The evidence shows this man murdered his wife". It isn't a fact it's a prosecution opinion based on the evidence. The statement is only true if the jury / judge agrees the evidence proves it.

[PAFELL]

If we go with the hypothesis that Venky's don't actually own the club, then obviously they can't sell it.

Thinking further along these lines - how could the club ever be sold without the 'real' owners getting found out?

This is obviously just speculating, I don't necessarily believe that they don't own the club. But you would have to be a fool to not smell something incredibly fishy at Ewood by this stage. We appear to be stuck in an extremely disconcerting state of limbo. Endless kean ups but heads never roll, unless it's someone trying to point out what's wrong...

At the moment it feels like this is going to go on forever unless the FA or the government gets involved, and I am certainly not holding my breath. The one person who seemingly has the power to expose any wrong-doing is Jack Straw.

I sincerely hope he does.

Yet they were considered to be fit and proper owners. If venkys don't own the club, yet put themselves forward for the fit and proper ownership test. Would that not be fraud in itself? IF they are not the owners.

[Stuart]

I don't think so Stuart but let me explain. If I stand in court under oath and make a statement it is either true or I'm guilty of perjury. I'm sure we would agree on this.

However my recollection, or reading of the media, is the Venkys legal representative described the club as out of control and in chaos. This was not said under oath, it's a legal opinion as part of the legal argument presented by the defence. Prosecuting and defending advocates express opinions based on the evidence to sway the judge or jury opinion in making their decision. As far as I'm aware no one from Venkys took the stand under oath and stated "Derek Shaw is out of control." I'm not aware Venkys even attended or were in the country at the time.

I may be completely wrong but it's how I have seen this and why I disagree with the view it's an established legal fact.

Just to extend this a bit. A prosecutor can stand in court and say "The evidence shows this man murdered his wife". It isn't a fact it's a prosecution opinion based on the evidence. The statement is only true if the jury / judge agrees the evidence proves it.

I have to infer then that, if a person wins a case in a civil court, and it was subsequently found that they had lied, then there are no repercussions in the civil court system - even having dishonestly won a judgement.

A very good liar can win and there are no potential consequences?

Wow. The law really is an ass.

[Paul]

I have to infer then that, if a person wins a case in a civil court, and it was subsequently found that they had lied, then there are no repercussions in the civil court system - even having dishonestly won a judgement.

A very good liar can win and there are no potential consequences?

Wow. The law really is an ass.

I don't know the answer but I guess the position is this. Person lies in civil court and wins the case, subsequently evidence emerges of this. Presumably the person who suffered or lost because of the lieing can sue a second time? I don't know but surely this would have to be the case/

The discussion though is about who made the statement. Legal people don't, as a general rule, lie in court. They make statements to win the argument based on their interpretation of the evidence. If we consider this lieing there is a big problem. If Venkys legal team state Shaw is out of control it remains a legal opinion and not a statement of fact.

Possibly I'm being pedantic but I think there is a significant difference. If I was prosecuted for murder, to continue my simple example, and the prosecution states based on the evidence "Paul murdered this man", my defence states the opposite (obviously), if I'm found not guilty it makes the prosecution statement wrong or untrue but it does NOT make it a lie. The evidence is judged by the jury to prove me innocent of the allegation. it does not make the prosecution liars.

[47er]

So either Shaw was out of control or he wasn't, but Venkys said he was! The latter scenario presumably set up to attempt to prevent a bigger pay-out for Berg.

Either way that shows them to be unfit owners doesn't it?

[Leonard Venkhater]

I am sure someone on here will be able to define the status of the "out of control" quote. Was it just something said by the legal team or a written statement from Cruella?

The problem with evidence under oath may be be one reason for Shabby's unfortunate visa issue and why none of the owners turned up-even to save themselves a couple of million?

At risk of seeming like Benny of Crossroads, I clearly need to catch up on the ownership hypotheses...I was at the point where there is one declared group owner and one (secret)agent.

Reading this thread, there is a theory of three owners? In this theory, is the third owner the agency usually bracketed with that of "Hans Christian", another agency...or the Mac- Corleone's......, Mephistopheles?

[Paul]

Yes. Venkys looked to minimise the financial loss. Their legal team presents the case in a manner to gain the judge's sympathy to their argument. Clearly it makes them incompetent or unfit, but we don't need a judge to tell us. We all know this.

I am sure someone on here will be able to define the status of the "out of control" quote. Was it just something said by the legal team or a written statement from Cruella?

Lancashire Telegraph 30th April;

Rovers’ own lawyers claimed during the case that the club were ‘out of control’ and that Shaw was continuing to act without the authority of owners Venky’s..

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/10388132.Derek_Shaw_keen_to_stay_at_Blackburn_Rovers___but_his_future_is_in_doubt/

and numerous other sources.

[47er]

So, incompetent or unfit? I'd say "unfit" without question. Only incompetent if Shaw truly out of control but you believe they were attempting to reduce the pay-out. So, by your own terms, unfit.

[broadsword]

i'M GOING TO END UP BIPOLAR WITH ALL OF THIS NONSENSE. fIRST, IT'S ALL GOING TO COME OUT, AND vENKY'S WILL GO; NEXT THEY'RE HERE FOREVER AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE.

iT SEEMS AN ENDLESS CYCLE OF FERVENT HOPE AND CRUSHING DISAPPOINTMENT. iT'S BLOODY INTOLERABLE.

oooops, caps lock.

[Stuart]

Staggering really, Paul. So once again Venkys get the benefit of the doubt because it was the legal team - *cough* their legal team - who made the statement and not them?

Maybe Venkys' legal team were "out of control"?

[ABBEY]

i'M GOING TO END UP BIPOLAR WITH ALL OF THIS NONSENSE. fIRST, IT'S ALL GOING TO COME OUT, AND vENKY'S WILL GO; NEXT THEY'RE HERE FOREVER AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE.

iT SEEMS AN ENDLESS CYCLE OF FERVENT HOPE AND CRUSHING DISAPPOINTMENT. iT'S BLOODY INTOLERABLE.

oooops, caps lock.

GOOD LAD

[DE.]

Bloody loves the caps, does Abbey

As for Venky's - there's no adequate rational explanation as to why Shaw remains employed. Absolutely none.

[ABBEY]

He spoiled it tho with the diddy V.

[den]

Bloody loves the caps, does Abbey

As for Venky's - there's no adequate rational explanation as to why Shaw remains employed. Absolutely none.

There is, it's just that you and me don't know it. Because of that people fill in the spaces themselves.

Btw, I didn't think people really/actually believed that Shaw is out of control.

[DE.]

There is, it's just that you and me don't know it. Because of that people fill in the spaces themselves.

Btw, I didn't think people really/actually believed that Shaw is out of control.

Shaw has clearly been blamed for doing something he wasn't meant to do by Venky's. Whether they truly believed him to be out of control or not is irrelevant. Likely he's just grossly incompetent, but even knowing that, why wouldn't you sack him? What possible explanation can there be to keep on an employee who shows such poor ability to do his job? And please don't cite naivety or anything of that ilk - Venky's have shown they can be adequately ruthless if required.

[Leonard Venkhater]

Some light relief!

The famous Blackburn Rovers were so proud and so brave,

When you saw us on the Ten 0'Clock News.

Now Uncle Jack, he must be spinning in his grave

And you know I got the chicken train blues!

The stench of corruption, well it's filling my nose

And the FA don't even ask why,

But it sticks like dung

Of the backhander, the bung

From here to the Kingdom of Brunei