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

[broadsword]

Hmmmm ... fair point. Why would Venky's move the bank account (in the name of Venky's London Limited?) to India in that case then?

Are you saying Venky's aren't the ultimate owners of VLL?

I'm not sure how you would manage the banking arrangements so that it looks like Venky's are bank-rolling the club, when in fact someone else is standing these losses.

Or maybe Venky's are forced into a situation where they have to stand the losses and shadow owners are creaming off the proceeds of transfers fee commissions etc.

I won't pretend to know, but let's just file it under "doesn't make it bloody sense" for now.

[Exiled in Toronto]

There are too many inconsistencies in the other owner theory for me, especially when people label anything that seems to contradict it as a cover. Kean was clearly too close too his agent in this whereas Derek Shaw is being shoe-horned into an increasingly complex theory just to keep it running imo

[Stuart]

  On 13/05/2013 at 17:54, Exiled in Toronto said:

There are too many inconsistencies in the other owner theory for me, especially when people label anything that seems to contradict it as a cover. Kean was clearly too close too his agent in this whereas Derek Shaw is being shoe-horned into an increasingly complex theory just to keep it running imo

Shaw is being shoe-horned? By whom?

He's pretty much got himself into a position where his presence at Ewood is untenable. If he had any pride or dignity - or potential alternative high paying employment - he would have walked by now under constructive dismissal terms. The fact he hasn't left or been dismissed is what causes the theories.

Is there a rational, non-conspiratorial reason why he's still here?

[Exiled in Toronto]

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:10, Stuart said:

Shaw is being shoe-horned? By whom?

He's pretty much got himself into a position where his presence at Ewood is untenable. If he had any pride or dignity - or potential alternative high paying employment - he would have walked by now under constructive dismissal terms. The fact he hasn't left or been dismissed is what causes the theories.

Is there a rational, non-conspiratorial reason why he's still here?

Shoe horned into the two owner theory.

Plenty: he made a case in the meeting for why the cock-up happened; they can't afford to pay him off; they are waiting for the nod from his replacement; he threatened to counter sue over something - all outlandish I know when compared to he actually works for some agents in Brunei who own the club while only ever having taken money out rather than put any inas any and all losses are covered by people who don't own it.

Who knows what the truth is but to suggest there is only one possible explanation is ludicrous.

[broadsword]

Well, the simplest explanation is often the one that is true.

Shame we don't really have a simple explanation for all of the mess that's gone on.

Some people might say that incompetence explains it all, but I feel that's really pushing the envelope of how retarded these people are reputed to be.

[T.J.Newton]

  On 13/05/2013 at 17:10, gumboots said:

I'm quite flattered you bothered to check. And whilst you are right, 59 is not always elderly, (for example I ate out yesterday in a hotel where I felt like a spring chicken as the rest of the clientele were at least 70) on the other hand it's elderly enough to feel that the term mate is not appropriate.

sorry Madam Boots,

honestly though, I had no idea that you was even a women never mind a mature one, just as I've no idea of 99% of other posters age or sex when all im going of is there username(for e.g abbey is a girls name, but I'm pretty sure he's actually just a hermaphrodite troll that dwells under the little railway bridge behind the Manxman)

[Stuart]

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:16, Exiled in Toronto said:

Plenty: he made a case in the meeting for why the cock-up happened.

This was made after he allowed them to be made fools of in court? And pay additional costs.

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:16, Exiled in Toronto said:

they can't afford to pay him off.

Why does someone who commits gross misconduct need 'paying off'?

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:16, Exiled in Toronto said:

they are waiting for the nod from his replacement.

Aye, ok.

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:16, Exiled in Toronto said:

he threatened to counter sue over something.

Such as? If he has a grievance and a good case he should walk. He's been undermined in his position and humiliated in court.

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:16, Exiled in Toronto said:

all outlandish I know when compared to he actually works for some agents in Brunei who own the club while only ever having taken money out rather than put any inas any and all losses are covered by people who don't own it.

Who knows what the truth is but to suggest there is only one possible explanation is ludicrous.

The two-owner theory isn't the only potential alternative reason but the fact he is still here suggests that things aren't 'normal'. The most likely in my opinion is that it was an angle to try to get out of paying Berg his compo and he doesn't mind his name being dragged through the mud. Presumably his salary/bonuses could be recompense enough.

That's bad enough in my opinion (and still conspiratorial, if true) and a good enough reason to want him and his mate out.

Singh can do the paperwork and clear off too.

Think we should be stocking up on these as the next protest statement...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/251264869343

[T.J.Newton]

Very good concise summary Stuart,

Singh do paperwork though, that tickled me, as if he'd personally have the slightest idea how to write an official business letter, document, ect..., though i'm sure he has a little entourage of hired sycophants that do that stuff on his behalf(and NO that wasn't a dig at brag , i'm through with that nonsense)

[Mullionvagrant]

Just floating a name about again Ahsan Ali Syed are we completely sure he is not a silent owner and all the court cases/fallings out with him by Venky's were a smoke screen (he wouldn't have passed due diligence) and Kentaro are acting as a go between for the movement of capital. Never quite excepted the version of events with the purchase.

[Stuart]

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:46, T.J.Newton said:

Very good concise summary Stuart,

Singh do paperwork though, that tickled me, as if he'd personally have the slightest idea how to write an official business letter, document, ect..., though i'm sure he has a little entourage of hired sycophants that do that stuff on his behalf(and NO that wasn't a dig at brag , i'm through with that nonsense)

The old 'I'm not going to have a dig, dig'.

Do you write Peter Kay's material? Action Group? Action...? Group...?

[perthblue02]

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:58, Mullionvagrant said:

Just floating a name about again Ahsan Ali Syed are we completely sure he is not a silent owner and all the court cases/fallings out with him by Venky's were a smoke screen (he wouldn't have passed due diligence) and Kentaro are acting as a go between for the movement of capital. Never quite excepted the version of events with the purchase.

Are you not thinking about the other bloke was it Shah ? who's brother in law was something to do with the Indian cricket league.

Think mentioning Syed just made BRFCS pop up on Interpol's web crawler

[RoverScot]

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:58, Mullionvagrant said:

Just floating a name about again Ahsan Ali Syed are we completely sure he is not a silent owner and all the court cases/fallings out with him by Venky's were a smoke screen (he wouldn't have passed due diligence) and Kentaro are acting as a go between for the movement of capital. Never quite excepted the version of events with the purchase.

No but who introduced the serial fraudster Ahsan Ali Syed as a potential buyer of the club? And Laurence Bassini(aka 'Bankrupt Baz')? And Saurin Shah who later filed a claim against Venkys for 24% of the club?

Venkys were the best of a bad bunch. Which says it all about Jerome Anderson's ability to bring buyers to the table.

[T.J.Newton]

honestly it wasn't meant as a dig, Im sure ive read that Singh has his own team of lawyers and assistants that are always on hand, But as I was writing I realised how a certain person around here would have read it, so I was just being pre-emptive(and sadly yes I tickled myself writing it )

[Mullionvagrant]

  On 13/05/2013 at 19:10, perthblue02 said:

Are you not thinking about the other bloke was it Shah ? who's brother in law was something to do with the Indian cricket league.

Think mentioning Syed just made BRFCS pop up on Interpol's web crawler

yes-sorry i was Saurin Shah. that story has never added up for me...

[perthblue02]

  On 13/05/2013 at 19:10, RoverScot said:

No but who introduced the serial fraudster Ahsan Ali Syed as a potential buyer of the club? And Laurence Bassini(aka 'Bankrupt Baz')? And Saurin Shah who later filed a claim against Venkys for 24% of the club?

Venkys were the best of a bad bunch. Which says it all about Jerome Anderson's ability to bring buyers to the table.

Not 100% but don't think the fat controller brought Shah to the table, he went to Venky's originally didn't he about a partnership venture, and obviously was cast aside when the "fixer" got a whiff of losing out on cash and it's future income stream opportunities.

As for being best of a bad bunch, think it was more of a case of more easy to manipulate not in the best interests of the club

[Mullionvagrant]

  On 13/05/2013 at 19:19, perthblue02 said:

Not 100% but don't think the fat controller brought Shah to the table, he went to Venky's originally didn't he about a partnership venture, and obviously was cast aside when the "fixer" got a whiff of losing out on cash and it's future income stream opportunities

was he cast aside or did he just take a back seat...fit and proper etc..lets suppose his interests were represented through an agency...

[perthblue02]

  On 13/05/2013 at 19:22, Mullionvagrant said:

was he cast aside or did he just take a back seat...fit and proper etc..lets suppose his interests were represented through an agency...

NO Idea can only guess, but despite reports of his wealth seemed to be fairly unknown and no evidence of wealth etc, could have been the reason he went to Venky's . His interest appeared in June 2010 and if he did go to Venky's they may have sought the advice from an agency who they had dealings with previously getting a star name lets say a boxer to advertise openings of one of their venues, perhaps someone at that agency persuaded Venky's of a better option smelling a money making opportunity and they announced their interest at a later date.

EDIT : Shah approached Rothchilds via Chris Nathaniel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Nathaniel who owns NVA Entertainment Group June 2010 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=226975 (contains text from Times on Line article)

Syed's bid August 2010 -http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/blackburn-rovers/7925137/Blackburn-Rovers-the-latest-Premier-League-club-targeted-following-300m-takeover-bid.html

[philipl]

There was a 4th and, actually as things go, respectable bidder who moved into the favourite position for about a week when Ahsan Ali Ayed was excluded and before brothers bling and dim did their charming of all who were open to be charmed.

Apparently, this potential bidder (I never heard whether a bid even made it to the table although plenty of homework had been done) was completely undermined by a pincer action between certain people who had already become part of the team of someone who shall not be mentioned and were operating on the inside and he who shall not be mentioned working the oracle through his arrangement which came through Rothschilds. Of course whether you believe this stuff is wide open and depends on whether you dislike conspiracies or feel it could make a degree of sense. Personally I have no evidence one way or the other but other people might have.

[perthblue02]

  On 13/05/2013 at 19:46, philipl said:

There was a 4th and, actually as things go, respectable bidder who moved into the favourite position for about a week when Ahsan Ali Ayed was excluded and before brothers bling and dim did their charming of all who were open to be charmed.

Apparently, this potential bidder (I never heard whether a bid even made it to the table although plenty of homework had been done) was completely undermined by a pincer action between certain people who had already become part of the team of someone who shall not be mentioned and were operating on the inside and he who shall not be mentioned working the oracle through his arrangement which came through Rothschilds. Of course whether you believe this stuff is wide open and depends on whether you dislike conspiracies or feel it could make a degree of sense. Personally I have no evidence one way or the other but other people might have.

Was this the Australian led consortium?

[Amo]

  On 13/05/2013 at 19:10, RoverScot said:

Venkys were the best of a bad bunch. Which says it all about Jerome Anderson's ability to bring buyers to the table.

I think it says more about Rovers' appeal, actually. The Trust had been trying to dump us for years without success, and Rothschilds weren't getting anywhere. That's when our buddy Jerome came into the frame.

[philipl]

  On 13/05/2013 at 19:51, perthblue02 said:

Was this the Australian led consortium?

yes

It is also worth recording that Saurin Shah enormously impressed JW and the Walker Trust.

He clearly knew what he was about, how to run a football club and he could meet the Walker Trust asking price.

The issue was he could give no reassurances going forwards after purchase. Somehow the loons managed to cross that hurdle and so won the race but clearly Saurin Shah believed they did so by underhand methods to the extent of launching a legal action against the Raos.

[perthblue02]

  On 13/05/2013 at 20:55, philipl said:

yes

It is also worth recording that Saurin Shah enormously impressed JW and the Walker Trust.

He clearly knew what he was about, how to run a football club and he could meet the Walker Trust asking price.

The issue was he could give no reassurances going forwards after purchase. Somehow the loons managed to cross that hurdle and so won the race but clearly Saurin Shah believed they did so by underhand methods to the extent of launching a legal action against the Raos.

Didn't Shah's consortium include a Spanish shipping tycoon?

Don't know if it ever was confirmed who the Aussie consortium was but one of the rumours here was Frank Lowy was involved, head of Football Federation Australia and estimated Personal wealth of over 5 billion (au$),who later in 2010 was linked to Leeds

Oh well, Jerome, his foot soldiers and the walker trust knew best

[chaddyrovers]

wasn't the Current Leicester City owners wanted to buy Blackburn Rovers when Ali Syed, Shah and Venkys were trying to buy the Club???

[Boner]

There's an angle here I don't think has been explored. I've not been 100% convinced by the alternative owner theory, but what's to stop Venkys "outsourcing" management of the club to a 3rd party. Venkys would get the kudos and publicity of owning a premier league team (no relegation) while the 3rd party would act on behalf of the club for all transfers. Siphoning cash out this way, and also making sure any players they represented, or had a stake in were at the front of the queue.

I believe Venkys panicked post relegation after they began to realise they were being taken for a ride. They hired Shebby to represent them in the UK to make sure what they were being told matched up with reality. It didn't, but they didn't have the wherewithal to fire Kean, being reliant as they were on others to run the club. The only thing they could do is have Shebby make his position so untenable that he walked.

Since then we pretty much know the story of the 2 factions in the boardroom squabbling about who runs the club. I believe Venkys are desperate for an exit strategy as they're haemoraging cash but at the same time don't want to lose face - the importance of which I don't think can be underestimated.

[Exiled in Toronto]

  On 13/05/2013 at 18:35, Stuart said:

This was made after he allowed them to be made fools of in court? And pay additional costs. Maybe he's spineless

Why does someone who commits gross misconduct need 'paying off'? Who says it's gross misconduct?

Aye, ok.

Such as? If he has a grievance and a good case he should walk. He's been undermined in his position and humiliated in court. Maybe he likes being on the gravy train, probably better than selling shelves all day

The two-owner theory isn't the only potential alternative reason but the fact he is still here suggests that things aren't 'normal'. The most likely in my opinion is that it was an angle to try to get out of paying Berg his compo and he doesn't mind his name being dragged through the mud. Presumably his salary/bonuses could be recompense enough.

That's bad enough in my opinion (and still conspiratorial, if true) and a good enough reason to want him and his mate out. We all want them out

Singh can do the paperwork and clear off too.

Think we should be stocking up on these as the next protest statement...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/251264869343