[Archived] Who `owns` Blackburn Rovers?

[rovers11]

After yesterdays revelations in court, a can of worms have been opened.

Venkys, themselves, arr claiming they don't have the power to make decisions at the club but are trying to wrestle power back and appoint a competent board.

The question has to be then who is running the club and `owns` blackburn? I have my suspicions that Venkys are a front for certain shall not be named people.

[den]

After yesterdays revelations in court, a can of worms have been opened.

Venkys, themselves, arr claiming they don't have the power to make decisions at the club but are trying to wrestle power back and appoint a competent board.

The question has to be then who is running the club and `owns` blackburn? I have my suspicions that Venkys are a front for certain shall not be named people.

They're claiming in court that they don't have the power, but the judge has dismissed it.

[DE.]

Kamy made an interesting point on twitter than Venky's may have given power of attorney to other people at the club, and for this reason at present they can't make the decisions they want to make.

I think, regardless of the truth, this court case is the first piece of clear evidence that suggests all is not as it seems regarding the balance of power at the club. In some ways it's a shame we didn't go to court for some reason whilst Kean was here (under similar circumstances), as that really would have been explosive.

[rovers11]

They're claiming in court that they don't have the power, but the judge has dismissed it.

He's dismissed it because of lack of evidence at this stage. If it goes to a full trial then all the details and evidence will come out.

Ask yourself this question, why would Venkys not have sacked someone who has defied ordered and cost them over £2m? Why would they have put out a statement claiming Shaw was not being investigated by the club when he is?

Smells a fishy to me.

He's dismissed it because of lack of evidence at this stage. If it goes to a full trial then all the details and evidence will come out.

Ask yourself this question, why would Venkys not have sacked someone who has defied orders and cost them over £2m? Why would they have put out a statement claiming Shaw was not being investigated by the club when he is?

Smells a fishy to me.

[PAFELL]

After yesterdays revelations in court, a can of worms have been opened.

Venkys, themselves, arr claiming they don't have the power to make decisions at the club but are trying to wrestle power back and appoint a competent board.

The question has to be then who is running the club and `owns` blackburn? I have my suspicions that Venkys are a front for certain shall not be named people.

Judge said different. Venkys believed they could not remove shaw. But According to shaws contract, they can. The question should be why have they not done so. There could be something or somebody preventing them doing it. But not Shaws contract

[rovers11]

Judge said different. Venkys believed they could not remove shaw. But According to shaws contract, they can. The question should be why have they not done so. There could be something or somebody preventing them doing it. But not Shaws contract

Yes, exactly. There must be something or someone preventing. That bit is yet to come put. If venkys had the power then Shaw would be out by now.

[den]

Ask yourself this question, why would Venkys not have sacked someone who has defied ordered and cost them over £2m? Why would they have put out a statement claiming Shaw was not being investigated by the club when he is?

Smells a fishy to me.

Venky's invited Shaw over to Pune. That sounds like they wanted an explanation of how or why the contract was altered. That doesn't sound like they were trying to sack him at that point. Articles in the LT since said that Shaw would be put through a disciplinary hearing upon Singh's return to England. The author of the Independent article also confirmed that Venky's had been advised by their own HR, that they needed to follow that procedure.

[47er]

Judge said different. Venkys believed they could not remove shaw. But According to shaws contract, they can. The question should be why have they not done so. There could be something or somebody preventing them doing it. But not Shaws contract

No---another contract the judge hasn't seen?

[philipl]

They had every opportunity to sack or discipline Shaw in Pune. All the relevant paperwork was already in their hands.

Instead a robust denial and reaffirmation of Shaw was posted on the club website.

I suspect that with 17 players on monster contracts, if the powerlessness in the face if the rogue shelving man argument held with Berg, the Raos could have sorted out all those Shebby and tantric special contracts this summer.

As it is, the outlook is unendingly grim.

[47er]

Venky's invited Shaw over to Pune. That sounds like they wanted an explanation of how or why the contract was altered. That doesn't sound like they were trying to sack him at that point. Articles in the LT since said that Shaw would be put through a disciplinary hearing upon Singh's return to England. The author of the Independent article also confirmed that Venky's had been advised by their own HR, that they needed to follow that procedure.

Mrs Desai said specifically in the letter that if Berg got what he was after, then she would hold Shaw responsible.

[PAFELL]

No---another contract the judge hasn't seen?

If one existed, Venky's would have provided it as evidence to support their position with regards to the Berg situation. But they have not. A contract saying they do not have the power to remove Shaw and that he acted against their wishes with regards to bergs contract - would possible, swing the case in their favour. But as they have not produced this, suggests none exists.

[DE.]

Desai already admitted Shaw has "cheated" her, how you can continue to employee somebody with that mindset is beyond me. Unless you can't sack them because it's not within your remit to do so.

[PAFELL]

Desai already admitted Shaw has "cheated" her, how you can continue to employee somebody with that mindset is beyond me. Unless you can't sack them because it's not within your remit to do so.

Which is maybe why Venkys want a trial. Using bergs contract as a means to bring everything to a head - in court.

[DE.]

The problem is, that trial then brings to light that Venky's have mismanaged the club to the level that it's taking up time in UK courts to deal with malpractice. Surely the last thing they want is to be investigated at a legal level? Or maybe they do. It's very strange and likely unprecedented so it's difficult to draw an obvious conclusion beyond stating that the owners do not have the power they should have.

[T.J.Newton]

sorry, moved post to a more relevant thread.

[RoverScot]

The answer is Venkys.

The better question is who is in control of Blackburn Rovers?

[rovers11]

The answer is Venkys.

The better question is who is in control of Blackburn Rovers?

Yes it is hence the `owns`. They own the club in name but do they have the power of an `owner`

[PAFELL]

Yes it is hence the `owns`. They own the club in name but do they have the power of an `owner`

Which could also explain why they never answer, when somebody makes enquiries about buying the club off them.

[47er]

If one existed, Venky's would have provided it as evidence to support their position with regards to the Berg situation. But they have not. A contract saying they do not have the power to remove Shaw and that he acted against their wishes with regards to bergs contract - would possible, swing the case in their favour. But as they have not produced this, suggests none exists.

Would they really? Wouldn't this get them into trouble elsewhere? Which is worse, having to cough up a couple of million or having to admit that you are not running the club you bought?

Laughable or not Venkys passed the fit and proper owners test, not somebody else.

[RoverScot]

Yes it is hence the `owns`. They own the club in name but do they have the power of an `owner`

They do have the power of owners but have no idea what is going on at the club because the management structure is itself completely out of its depth.

They haven't got rid of their 'Kean' problem which is over-promoted people personally liked by Mrs Desai being able to keep their job in the face of complete incompetence just by being deferential to her ego. This has been exploited for three years by all sorts of people whose identities will hopefully be revealed very soon.

[Fife Rover]

Would they really? Wouldn't this get them into trouble elsewhere? Which is worse, having to cough up a couple of million or having to admit that you are not running the club you bought?

Laughable or not Venkys passed the fit and proper owners test, not somebody else.

Which just shows what an utter farce the "fit and proper" test is (as if we didn't ALL know this already). It seems to me the PL and the FA are the ones that really need investigating.

Meanwhile all football fans (ONA "the mugs") just keep on coughing up to make them all rich. Not me though!!

[The Prof.]

Desai already admitted Shaw has "cheated" her, how you can continue to employee somebody with that mindset is beyond me. Unless you can't sack them because it's not within your remit to do so.

If this is the case the there is a possible breach of the substance of the contract and this in itself could end the contract per se.

[philipl]

If this is the case the there is a possible breach of the substance of the contract and this in itself could end the contract per se.

Exactly

The QC spouted a total stream of @#/?.

[DannyKeg]

It looks (to me) that Venkys are the owners and do want to terminate Shaw's contract, but in order to avoid another compensation case for unfair dismissal, they need to follow the correct HR, UK employment law procedure and hold a disciplinary tribunal with him, after which they can sack him without compensation. Perhaps it's just as simple as that ?

[john.leigh]

Hope this link works http://readability.com/m?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbloom.bg%2FZsvXC4

MUST read article, credit goes to Andrew (Perth Blue) for finding this.

A chilling piece which maybe, just maybe, is one of the final pieces in the jigsaw.

It is not impossible to believe that Rovers could be involved in this type of scenario.

The Italian Sella di Monteluce (named in here) has previously been linked to Rovers by Glen Mullan