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

[philipl]

Let's go along with the "aw shucks, they didn't mean to tell the Courts Dezza had gone rogue or accuse him in writing of cheating or Agnew just had a laudenum filled moment of madness when he wrote 20 pages to the Judge of why Shaw is kean..." yes I know but let's play along with the disingenuous.

Then the contempt the Venky's have shown to the British Courts is of the highest order and renders them beyond unfit to be owners.

The contempt is only exceeded by the contempt shown to you load of suckers still going to Ewood.

[T.J.Newton]

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

Who else respectable would want the job under this bunch(without demanding an extortionate salary)? then add to that the money it would cost to sack him and there lies the most reasonable answer(or you can toe the 'conspiracy' line, your choice:).

My take on the court case is also quite simple, Shaw was just being used as a fall guy in a fantasy story dreamed up between the venkys, their associates and their legal team to try and reduce the Bergs compo(this is how international corporate entities tend to deal with being taken to court#lielielie)

[OJRovers]

" Venky’s are also said to have lined up an individual to advise them on global marketing for the club." From the LT

Brilliant

[den]

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.

Irrelevant? That is being used as further (not that we've seen any) evidence that we have hidden owners. Isn't that what this whole BRAG thing is about? Yes, there might have been dodgy dealings via agents and plenty of lies throughout the entire Venky reign, but who the real owners are is surely the crux of most of the accusations.

[AggyBlue]

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"?

The statements must have represented their clients thought/opinions

[philipl]

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

So Brunei has got out now.

It cannot carry on like this without the dam holding the fetid lake of sewage breaking at some point.

[lraC]

I have an idea, which may be a bad one, but if the fear of publishing the BRAG findings is due to legal threats and the fear of being sued, then why not write a fictional novel? The usual disclaimer at the beginning about the coincidence and that the book is pure fiction could be used. The main charachters and even the name of the town and the football club can be changed.

That will at least get the message out and if for example the main reason for all of this is third party ownership, or investing in players, this will come out loud and clear. Not too sure what everyone thinks of this, but at least it will then be in the public domain.

[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 stinks like dung

Of the backhander, the bung

From here to the Kingdom of Brunei

Soorry...typo..3rd line from end should have read "STINKS" Corrected now

[AggyBlue]

I have an idea, which may be a bad one, but if the fear of publishing the BRAG findings is due to legal threats and the fear of being sued, then why not write a fictional novel? The usual disclaimer at the beginning about the coincidence and that the book is pure fiction could be used. The main charachters and even the name of the town and the football club can be changed.

That will at least get the message out and if for example the main reason for all of this is third party ownership, or investing in players, this will come out loud and clear. Not too sure what everyone thinks of this, but at least it will then be in the public domain.

.

.

.

If you can't get the dossier published write a novel. Fictional football club, fictional characters etc

We'd all buy it just to play the guessing game

.

[Exiled in Toronto]

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.

You make a lucid and compelling case - I can't for the life of me imagine why this story hasn't broken....

[lraC]

Sorry Aggy, I hadn't read that. It's a good idea, I would say and it will at least ,mean it all come out!!

[47er]

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.

Mrs D did! She wrote to him accusing him of "cheating" her. That letter was not meant to become general knowledge

[DE.]

Irrelevant? That is being used as further (not that we've seen any) evidence that we have hidden owners. Isn't that what this whole BRAG thing is about? Yes, there might have been dodgy dealings via agents and plenty of lies throughout the entire Venky reign, but who the real owners are is surely the crux of most of the accusations.

Whilst I do believe there are greater powers at work den, I'm not totally convinced that anybody other than Venky's officially owns the club. This does not, of course, mean that another entity cannot be running things from beneath the surface. if this company's name is not physically on any contracts or official documentation they're pretty much bulletproof and this is the most likely reason there is no smoking gun. How can a company or group become officially complicit in something if their name is not on anything legally binding?

I still see no reason why Shaw is at the club beyond another power of some kind stopping Venky's from removing him. The same obstruction that kept Kean in the job and probably keeps Aggers in a job too. Unfortunately, if you try to scratch the surface if that arrangement you are persuaded to leave or fired - see JW, Finn, Hunt, etc. The worst thing is that none of these people would have any proof or knowledge of the behind-the-scenes goings on and so would have nothing to say upon their release even if they hadn't signed an NDA.

IMO that's where we are at, and it's why very little evidence beyond circumstantial has arisen. It is of course just my opinion though and I accept it could be entirely wrong.

[onlyonejackwalker]

Whether Shaw is out of control I do not know. I can however say with total confidence that 'cash is king' Derek is totally unsuited for the position and the responsibility he holds. Rumours in Preston that he and Appleton have bought a pub business together.

[whittle blue]

I have an idea, which may be a bad one, but if the fear of publishing the BRAG findings is due to legal threats and the fear of being sued, then why not write a fictional novel? The usual disclaimer at the beginning about the coincidence and that the book is pure fiction could be used. The main charachters and even the name of the town and the football club can be changed.

That will at least get the message out and if for example the main reason for all of this is third party ownership, or investing in players, this will come out loud and clear. Not too sure what everyone thinks of this, but at least it will then be in the public domain.

Excellent idea IraC. Have thought along similar lines myself.

Someone else also suggested a fictional account (Sorry can't remember who or where it was).

[Majiball]

So Anders jeromeson takes over whitefreeze meow's ex winners of the headsquare competition Sasanach vilest league and decimates them.

[ABBEY]

Whether Shaw is out of control I do not know. I can however say with total confidence that 'cash is king' Derek is totally unsuited for the position and the responsibility he holds. Rumours in Preston that he and Appleton have bought a pub business together.

does scabby minge know?

[Steve Moss]

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.

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.

I'm an Arizona lawyer, so take my statement with a grain of salt when it comes to the UK.

Attorneys are forbidden from misrepresenting facts to both the tribunal or opposing counsel. Any facts presented must be submitted in good faith based on a reasonable investigation considering the circumstances (i.e. if appointed minutes before the hearing you can take your client's word for it, but if you've had weeks to investigate you'd better be right). It is for this reason that courts frequently accept the avowal of counsel without actually placing the attorney under oath. As officers of the court they are subject to something equivalent (Rule 11 and other ethical rules and rules of professional responsibility) of being under oath at all times, as a practical result and even if they didn't place their hands on the bible during the court appearance.

That said, two opposing lawyers are free (and likely will) come up with two different but reasonable interpretations of the facts, and conclusions as to what the facts ultimately mean, which could result in different legal results (such as a person being convicted of murder or acquitted due to self-defense) so long as those positions are also based in good faith. Keep in mind, however, a lawyer can still defend a client believed to be guilty by requiring the opposition (the state or otherwise) to meet their burden of proof. The lawyer, however, cannot say "my client is innocent" but could say "my client is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" so word choice matters.

So if Venkys' lawyers said it, in court, then to me it means they thought it was true. And the court will likely accept it as true, and opposing counsel would run with it as a judicial admission if they thought it helped their client's case.

Whether it is the same in the UK I haven't a clue.

Mrs D did! She wrote to him accusing him of "cheating" her. That letter was not meant to become general knowledge

Which supports Venkys' attorneys' factual statement as to the status of the club.

[Proudtobeblue&white]

In the employment tribunal, evidence in chief is all by written statement - counsel in this case made assertions, seemingly not contradicted. Of course Ma Loon, Shabby S et al didn't provide any evidence at all, but Counsel obviously got his information from someone on behalf of the club.

[den]

So if Venkys' lawyers said it, in court, then to me it means they thought it was true. And the court will likely accept it as true, and opposing counsel would run with it as a judicial admission if they thought it helped their client's case.Whether it is the same in the UK I haven't a clue.Which supports Venkys' attorneys' factual statement as to the status of the club.

Then when Venky's solicitors said Shaw had no authority to put the clause in Berg's contract, the court accepted that as well? They didn't though Steve. The court thought Venky's entire argument was ludicrous, denied them the full hearing that Venky's wanted and told them to pay up in full.

[RevidgeBlue]

Then when Venky's solicitors said Shaw had no authority to put the clause in Berg's contract, the court accepted that as well? They didn't though Steve. The court thought Venky's entire argument was ludicrous, denied them the full hearing that Venky's wanted and told them to pay up in full.

Correct den. It seems to me the entire "Shaw had no authority" line was an extremely flimsy line dreamt up by Venky's new solicitors with the blessing of all parties at our end to try and avoid or delay paying Berg.

The only viable defence to Berg's claim imo would have been that Shaw, or a member of administrative staff at Rovers had sent out a contract with the wrong compensation amount in to Berg by mistake, and that Berg knew all along what the correct compensation amount should be. Normally you would expect the main heads of agreement in Berg's contract to be set out in supporting correspondence which would have negated or supported his claim accordingly depending upon what had been agreed between the parties.

[RevidgeBlue]

I'm an Arizona lawyer, so take my statement with a grain of salt when it comes to the UK.

Attorneys are forbidden from misrepresenting facts to both the tribunal or opposing counsel. Any facts presented must be submitted in good faith based on a reasonable investigation considering the circumstances (i.e. if appointed minutes before the hearing you can take your client's word for it, but if you've had weeks to investigate you'd better be right). It is for this reason that courts frequently accept the avowal of counsel without actually placing the attorney under oath. As officers of the court they are subject to something equivalent (Rule 11 and other ethical rules and rules of professional responsibility) of being under oath at all times, as a practical result and even if they didn't place their hands on the bible during the court appearance.

That said, two opposing lawyers are free (and likely will) come up with two different but reasonable interpretations of the facts, and conclusions as to what the facts ultimately mean, which could result in different legal results (such as a person being convicted of murder or acquitted due to self-defense) so long as those positions are also based in good faith. Keep in mind, however, a lawyer can still defend a client believed to be guilty by requiring the opposition (the state or otherwise) to meet their burden of proof. The lawyer, however, cannot say "my client is innocent" but could say "my client is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" so word choice matters.

So if Venkys' lawyers said it, in court, then to me it means they thought it was true. And the court will likely accept it as true, and opposing counsel would run with it as a judicial admission if they thought it helped their client's case.

Whether it is the same in the UK I haven't a clue.Which supports Venkys' attorneys' factual statement as to the status of the club.

I think it's fair to say steve that solicitors/barristers over here do not tend to act as amateur detectives. If a client gives you instructions you're entitled to accept those at face value You should then advise your client on the strength of their case based on those instruction and the likely chances of success.

What you can't do is deliberately mislead the Court. Therefore you can't present statements to the Court as being the truth if you know for a fact they are not. i.e. if the client says "The situation is actually x but can we tell the Court it's Y" On the other hand you're not obliged to go to the n th degree to prove that the instructions your own client are giving you are false.

Imo Venky's should have been advised that the "Shaw had no authority" line was a non defence with zero chance of success which would be more or less laughed out of Court Which it was.

[47er]

So Den and Rev, are you still trying to argue that Venkys are merely incompetent?

[Glenn]

I haven't had chance to catch up with the tread, but a chance conversation this evening leads me to believe it's been discussed that in conjunction with the comments in the Kentaro accounts that Kentaro and SEM had a "partnership"?

When this sorry mess first kicked off, I called in some favours and got an analysis of any company involving JA (at the time, he was viewed by many, rightly or wrongly, as the most likely cause of anything unsavoury) and whilst there was no smoking gun in there, I do still have part of it pinned to the notice board behind this PC.

Unless I'm mistaken (and apologies if I am, I'm not an accountant and passing this on in good faith) ...

• Kentaro AG own a controlling interest in Kentaro LTD
• Kentaro LTD own a controlling interest in Sports Holdings LTD
• Sports Holdings LTD own a significant (possibly not controlling) stake in Manmark SA (now dissolved) and The Sports Entertainment and Media Group (SEM to you and me)
• The Sports Entertainment & Media Group own a significant stake (possibly not controlling) in Templar Sports (Formerly "JA Financial Planning") and Jerome Anderson Management LTD

So, I believe it's a little more than a partnership, the way it was explained to me was that Kentaro very much own SEM.

[philipl]

To Glen, not Glenn.

Any of those company names familiar?

Any of them emptying their bank accounts just before Rovers were purchased?