[Archived] Who `owns` Blackburn Rovers?

[philipl]

They can fire Shaw for cause immediately.

They have told the High Court Judge they don't control the club despite the filings at Companies House showing they do control the club.

I would say that stinks of hidden shareholdings.

[den]

They have told the High Court Judge they don't control the club despite the filings at Companies House showing they do control the club.

I would say that stinks of hidden shareholdings.

They told the judge that Shaw was controlling the club, from Ewood, against their wishes. That's different isn't it Philip - and of course the judge didn't accept that argument. He said that they could have quite easily suspended Shaw?

[G Somerset Rover]

They told the judge that Shaw was controlling the club, from Ewood, against their wishes. That's different isn't it Philip - and of course the judge didn't accept that argument. He said that they could have quite easily suspended Shaw?

So why haven't they Den?

[ABBEY]

will berg have signed a NDA thing or can he now help tell the truth?

[OJRovers]

They told the judge that Shaw was controlling the club, from Ewood, against their wishes. That's different isn't it Philip - and of course the judge didn't accept that argument. He said that they could have quite easily suspended Shaw?

Who is controlling shaw/agnew?

[philipl]

The lawyers who advised the Rovers QC are the same ones who write letters on behalf of he who cannot be named. .

[den]

So why haven't they Den?

DannyKeg just offered a possible explanation.

But come on SR, what kind of response is "why haven't they den"? All we're getting on here are suggestions based on - from what I can see - very little that adds up to some kind of actual proof. I wish Venky's were part of something illegal here, then we might have the chance to get rid of them.

You, someone, anyone, point me in the direction of the slightest bit of evidence that Venky's aren't our sole owners? I don't expect anyone to say on here what that evidence actually is, but I'll simply accept the word of someone who's been involved in digging into the mess, that they know for sure that Venky's aren't our only owners.

[Exiled in Toronto]

The court document posted elsewhere states clearly that we are owned by Venky's and are controlled by the family threesome. So they are now happy adding perjury to their list of crimes, all of which have been for no conceivable benefit for them personally or for their business reputation.

[den]

Just had a quick read through that judgement and what stands out to me is that there has been no evidence submitted to verify that Desai informed Shaw that a 12 month contract should be negotiated. I guess Shaw is standing his ground on that point. He believes that he had the authority to negotiate that contract.

So while everyone is asking why Shaw hasn't been sacked - and are using it as evidence of hidden owners - well maybe Venky's don't have a legal case to sack him. Maybe Singh has stood back on this disciplinary case because Venky's are worrying that there is no evidence that he didn't have the authority to negotiate the contract.

[philipl]

A look at Venkys London Limited reveals we are officially owned and directed by four 25% shareholders in a family foursome....

[EgyptianPete]

will berg have signed a NDA thing or can he now help tell the truth?

Well seeing as hes got 2+ million off us i think he should

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

A cool two Million for 57 days employment...the mind flurkin boggles!!!

[Glosrover]

The lawyers who advised the Rovers QC are the same ones who write letters on behalf of he who cannot be named. .

that is only really relevant if it was the original lawyers.

In the first instance the lawyers for Blackburn admitted liability for the contract terms and the club were therefore bound to pay. The payment would have 'just happened' under that admission and therefore have been relatively un-newsworthy.

The can of worms was only really opened when the 'new' lawyers (on instruction from the Raos) applied to have that admission withdrawn and the application put before a judge. I cant see that if the new lawyers advising the QC were also acting for a party with something to hide (he that cant be named), they would have either taken the brief, or deployed such a ludicrous application to the court.

All the stuff that was investigated in relation to the application in public domain couldn't possibly assist anyone with ownership issues or direct beneficial interest issues to hide.

The judgement itself is a good interesting read,

I was curious about point 4 - it explicitly mentions Shaw, Silk and Sylvester as being de facto directors (or Company Secretary in the latter case) with executive powers, and that this was 'common ground' ie undisputed between the parties in the case. However 2 other board members are named, including Mr Agnew, but the inference is that these 2 do not have executive powers (or perhaps that this is not 'common ground' ie is contested). It would be an unusual governance arrangement to have an operations director on the board but as a non-execuctive, (is it possible that he is either barred from being a Director, or is there as a proxy for someone).

[JAL]

A look at Venkys London Limited reveals we are officially owned and directed by four 25% shareholders in a family foursome....

Do the court papers not claim its just three people.

[arbitro]

A look at Venkys London Limited reveals we are officially owned and directed by four 25% shareholders in a family foursome....

That confirms it then. The Raos are from Burnley

[OJRovers]

Do the court papers not claim its just three people.

Yes I thought that was inconsistent with the actual shareholdings

[BiggusLaddus]

The brothers dim and Mr and Mrs D.

[philipl]

No idea how on earth KPMG can fail not to qualify this year's accounts for inadequate management control.

The Court depositions cannot account for the Rovers Board of Directors nor for the Director Shareholder of the parent company.

That is before KPMG consider depositions on oath that there are no controls, that the owners are piwerless to dispose of a rogue managing director and other gems.

[Paul]

That's how I see it as well - unless someone can put forward some real evidence to the opposite. As far as I can tell, we haven't seen one single piece of evidence that Venky's don't own the club. If I'm wrong here, then someone point it out. Lots of circumstantial s, but not much else.

Exactly den. Which is why despite all the bluster etc. we have yet to see anything concrete in the media or action from the authorities. No one has a smoking gun, if they did it would have been fired months ago.

Stupidity, greed, opportunism, incompetence, ignorance and arrogance come into play from several different parties but that's where it begins and ends.

[bypass06]

Shaw keen to stay but his future is in doubt

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/blackburn_rovers/news/10388132.Shaw_keen_to_stay_but_his_future_is_in_doubt/

[PAFELL]

Shaw keen to stay but his future is in doubt

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/blackburn_rovers/news/10388132.Shaw_keen_to_stay_but_his_future_is_in_doubt/

What idiot is recommending Singh for a position on the board. I wouldn't trust him with beer slops in my bar.

That's how I see it as well - unless someone can put forward some real evidence to the opposite. As far as I can tell, we haven't seen one single piece of evidence that Venky's don't own the club. If I'm wrong here, then someone point it out. Lots of circumstantial s, but not much else.

I have shared that opinion for awhile. Although I won't completely rule it out. There is no evidence. You would have thought by now news of who the person is, would have leaked out by now. (putting aside he who cannot be named)

There also does not seem to be a smoking gun - as this would have been used by now.

It appears that once the prem / FA approve a person or group to be fit to own a club - they won't get involved in issues.

[JAL]

Yes I thought that was inconsistent with the actual shareholdings

Plus didnt one of the four names named on the original Venkys London limited have a spelling mistake which made a he, sound like a she, or vice versa.

[Roost]

Lifted from Glosrovers post above.....

It would be an unusual governance arrangement to have an operations director on the board but as a non-execuctive, (is it possible that he is either barred from being a Director, or is there as a proxy for someone).

Could that be the arrangement? He who can't be named has his own eyes and ears on the board?

Also, why did he who can't be named keep referring to Blackburn Rovers as 'we'??

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

''It is understood that one idea recommended to Venky’s is that they should
appoint either SINGH or one of the owners’ family to the board in the first step
towards resolving the problems they are currently facing.''

Oh Jesus wept here we go again!

[jw_]

''It is understood that one idea recommended to Venky’s is that they should

appoint either SINGH or one of the owners’ family to the board in the first step

towards resolving the problems they are currently facing.''

Oh Jesus wept here we go again!

Begs the question ,which halfwitted imbecile recommended that idiot Singh for the board, Im almost speechless, somebody tell me it's not true.