[Archived] Venkys: "after we took over"

[OJRovers]

See Letter-one-part-one

http://www.brfcactiongroup.co.uk/

Reading through the leaked letters, one of the statements seemed to jump out from the 2nd paragraph of letter one:

She says that "in none of the contracts of employment - at least those made after we took over the Club - the notice period is more than one year. In fact, after we took over, we wanted to reduce it to six months for future contracts, but I was told by Derek Shaw that we should give at least one year notice period."

Derek Shaw only joined the club last summer, however previous to this Steve Kean was given a new contract in Dec-11, this doesn't tie in with what she is saying about "after we took over".

Why didn't she ask to limit Kean's pay-off to 6 months? Or were they not in conrol at that point?

The 3rd paragraph it is implied that Allardyce and Kean were on contracts pre-dating the Venkys "taking over", i.e. before she was able to attempt to reduce the pay-off to 6 months.

Is this the real reason why they are issuing so many threats to get these taken down?

[DE.]

Interesting. Other contracts would have been signed before Shaw came into the fold, too. Perhaps they meant Agnew and put Shaw by mistake?

[LeChuck]

I guess the one supporting piece you need for this theory is the value of Steve Kean's off in relation to his contract. Do we know it wasn't six months?

[PLJPB]

See Letter-one-part-one

Reading through the leaked letters, one of the statements seemed to jump out from the 2nd paragraph of letter one:

She says that "in none of the contracts of employment - at least those made after we took over the Club - the notice period is more than one year. In fact, after we took over, we wanted to reduce it to six months for future contracts, but I was told by Derek Shaw that we should give at least one year notice period."

Derek Shaw only joined the club last summer, however previous to this Steve Kean was given a new contract in Dec-11, this doesn't tie in with what she is saying about "after we took over".

Why didn't she ask to limit Kean's pay-off to 6 months? Or were they not in conrol at that point?

The 3rd paragraph it is implied that Allardyce and Kean were on contracts pre-dating the Venkys "taking over", i.e. before she was able to attempt to reduce the pay-off to 6 months.

Is this the real reason why they are issuing so many threats to get these taken down?

I read this the same way. It seems to suggest they were not in control until at least After Shaw being appointed. Maybe control was taken on relegation from the Premier League?

[47er]

That's a very good spot. If you are reading it correctly It might answer the question we have been asking from a very early period of Venky's ownership---"why didnt they sack Kean when it was obvious he was useless and the fans hated him?"

If they were not in control then they couldn't could they?

[philipl]

Good spot.

My personal opinion is that I doubt they were in control until last summer and indeed it is unlikely they had paid all the monies involved in the agreement to acquire the club from the Walker Trust.

[Derby Blue]

I read this the same way. It seems to suggest they were not in control until at least After Shaw being appointed. Maybe control was taken on relegation from the Premier League?

Which is when they started pumping money in for signings!!??

[47er]

The wrong signings sadly! But that's another story!

[West Yorks Rover]

That's a very good spot. If you are reading it correctly It might answer the question we have been asking from a very early period of Venky's ownership---"why didnt they sack Kean when it was obvious he was useless and the fans hated him?"

If they were not in control then they couldn't could they?

I stopped going to games, immediately after Desai said in January 2011 that Kean was unsackable, I Knew something was'nt right and suspected

the club was corrupt from the top down, because I thought what she really wanted to say was " I could'nt sack him even if I wanted to " . It was the way she said it, just did'nt sit right with me.

[John]

You would be stupid to underestimate the influence of one particular agency in the running of our club up until a certain period - this was validated to me in a conversation with an ex board member.

I am sure the Action Group and others have plenty more of this type of information from people who used to, or still are, working at the club.

However, it doesn't mean someone else owned us, they could have just been pulling all the strings (with the legal entity being the public face).

[West Yorks Rover]

You would be stupid to underestimate the influence of one particular agency in the running of our club up until a certain period - this was validated to me in a conversation with an ex board member.

I am sure the Action Group and others have plenty more of this type of information from people who used to, or still are, working at the club.

However, it doesn't mean someone else owned us, they could have just been pulling all the strings (with the legal entity being the public face).

Yeah well one things for sure, Kean was'nt there for his managerial talents,

[darrenrover]

Yeah well one things for sure, Kean was'nt there for his managerial talents,

Just his good looks and natural charm!

[perthblue02]

Maybe after passing the buy us lunch and your in test with the games governing bodies, they assigned the administration of the club over to other's which may have been a pre takeover agreement. Venky's are the owners on paper and a.n.others control the administration i.e transfers. Maybe that agreement as now finished, but a.n.others still have / had people in various positions in the club to tie up lose ends perhaps like moving out players who arrived under dubious circumstances, and re distributing the remaining wealth whilst keeping the turnover of players

Why bother with the hassle of owning a club if you could not legally do so, get somebody else to own it whilst you control the money making side of things like the player conveyor belt and maybe own the players themselves in some form.

So idiot patsy's or willing partners, hopefully time will tell

Edit: of course for the above made up scenario to succeed you would have to have the perfect storm in place because of the very strict rules governing the game, could work if there was a reason why the FA would not want to publically investigate a company or individuals involved which might call their own dealings in to question

[G Somerset Rover]

Good spot. Would certainly tie in with what many of us have suspected, which is, that up until a certain point in time we were more or less co-owned. Or at the very least, Venky's hands were tied.

My worry is though that they are still listening to this particular agency.

[RoverScot]

Wasn't Kean's payoff supposed to be £300,000? Which was roughly 6 months of his salary. Some contracts will be pre November 2010 so would be before they 'took over.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2213963/Nick-Harris-Steve-Kean-turned-14-9m-Blackburn-deal.html

'Pay reductions for relegations were factored in, hence his 2012-13 basic pay of £600,000 a year'

'But speculation is rife that Kean jumped ship because he feared he was about to be sacked, and if that happened his payout under the terms of his contract would have been as low as £300,000'

The 1 year payoff was recent advice which then somehow turned into a three year payoff - which is the bigger story as to how this was changed. This is part of the overall 'running from Pune whilst not knowing who is making contracts and conducting transfers' theme.

I am not disproving the 'own now, pay later in instalments plus added expert transfer advice' theory of how Venkys had the 'cash' to buy the club.

[T4E]

She could quite easily just be referring to Shaw's feedback on contracts created since he's been around.

[Amo]

.

[Ewoodbhappy]

See Letter-one-part-one

http://www.brfcactiongroup.co.uk/

Reading through the leaked letters, one of the statements seemed to jump out from the 2nd paragraph of letter one:

She says that "in none of the contracts of employment - at least those made after we took over the Club - the notice period is more than one year. In fact, after we took over, we wanted to reduce it to six months for future contracts, but I was told by Derek Shaw that we should give at least one year notice period."

Derek Shaw only joined the club last summer, however previous to this Steve Kean was given a new contract in Dec-11, this doesn't tie in with what she is saying about "after we took over".

Why didn't she ask to limit Kean's pay-off to 6 months? Or were they not in conrol at that point?

The 3rd paragraph it is implied that Allardyce and Kean were on contracts pre-dating the Venkys "taking over", i.e. before she was able to attempt to reduce the pay-off to 6 months.

Is this the real reason why they are issuing so many threats to get these taken down?

Very interesting perspective.

That would tie in with a certain agents crap footballer son getting a surprising deal on the gravy train.

[T.J.Newton]

Although I'm not at all denying the theory of venkys not initially running or fully owning the club I think your really clutching at straws with the lines your picking out from that article, by "after we took over" she clearly to me just means when they took over and bought the club from the walker trust.

[Ben-2000]

Is she not just on about Allardyce's sacking? As obviously they had nothing to do with hiring him.

[Boner]

How could Venky's be clued up enough on football contracts to come in with a fixed plan on 6/12 month termination fees, yet be moronic enough to not know relegation existed?

*conspiracy theory redacted*

[47er]

Although I'm not at all denying the theory of venkys not initially running or fully owning the club I think your really clutching at straws with the lines your picking out from that article, by "after we took over" she clearly to me just means when they took over and bought the club from the walker trust.

I guess we all see things how we want to see them.

[RoyRover]

That's a very good spot. If you are reading it correctly It might answer the question we have been asking from a very early period of Venky's ownership---"why didnt they sack Kean when it was obvious he was useless and the fans hated him?"

If they were not in control then they couldn't could they?

This is a very good point. One that has been mentioned several times before, but now we have a bit of proof that may point toward this being the case. Namely that Venky's weren't running the show. They were just a front for people who weren't allowed to own a football club. They may have said that they fully supported Kean because they were told to say so. We were all suspicious when that old witch said that Kean was unsackable. We always wondered why Kean seemed so at ease in his job, despite the new lows we hit week after week with him in charge. This would all add up.

[PAFELL]

See Letter-one-part-one

http://www.brfcactiongroup.co.uk/

Reading through the leaked letters, one of the statements seemed to jump out from the 2nd paragraph of letter one:

She says that "in none of the contracts of employment - at least those made after we took over the Club - the notice period is more than one year. In fact, after we took over, we wanted to reduce it to six months for future contracts, but I was told by Derek Shaw that we should give at least one year notice period."

Derek Shaw only joined the club last summer, however previous to this Steve Kean was given a new contract in Dec-11, this doesn't tie in with what she is saying about "after we took over".

Why didn't she ask to limit Kean's pay-off to 6 months? Or were they not in conrol at that point?

The 3rd paragraph it is implied that Allardyce and Kean were on contracts pre-dating the Venkys "taking over", i.e. before she was able to attempt to reduce the pay-off to 6 months.

Is this the real reason why they are issuing so many threats to get these taken down?

Both were at the club before venkys bought the club. so the contracts would pre-date the takeover.

Although I'm not at all denying the theory of venkys not initially running or fully owning the club I think your really clutching at straws with the lines your picking out from that article, by "after we took over" she clearly to me just means when they took over and bought the club from the walker trust.

That is how I read it. Sam was already at the club and he brought in Kean - why the latter is a mystery.

[PLJPB]

OJRovers, on 24 Apr 2013 - 12:44, said:

Reading through the leaked letters, one of the statements seemed to jump out from the 2nd paragraph of letter one:

She says that "in none of the contracts of employment - at least those made after we took over the Club - the notice period is more than one year. In fact, after we took over, we wanted to reduce it to six months for future contracts, but I was told by Derek Shaw that we should give at least one year notice period."

This is the key part to me. This doesn't read like an 18 month gap after taking over when she spoke to Derek Shaw. Either Shaw was already advising them behind the scenes from day one or she is talking about a conversation in Summer 2012.

Either way, she spoke to Shaw very soon after they took over the club. So they either took in over in November 2010 or in summer 2012.