[Archived] 9.30Pm Tonight - New Social Media Hashtag

[Proudtobeblue&white]

I see, so it is likely that he came in under a crescendo of noise? That makes sense I guess.

Yep!

[blueboy3333]

I'd like to add to this. I met Matt Derbyshire at a kids party in Clitheroe during the summer. His lad was in the same nursery class as my lad. I had a good chat with him and he is a decent bloke.

Anyway he told me that Warnock to Rovers had been pretty much a done deal but fell through at the last minute as Warnock wanted his own right hand man / coach where as Rovers wanted him to work with existing staff ie Irvine and Kelly.

He also told me that he had been lined up to sign for Rovers by Warnock and he had been extremely excited about returning. He spoke very highly of Warnock and had a good relationship with him at Rotherham.

Coyle had just been appointed and he told me he was on Coyles 'second choice' list. He said there was an outside chance it could happen but was obviously doubtful as Coyle wanted others before him.

He seemed quite down about it which is understandable.

I didn't put anything on the message board at the time as didn't feel it was appropriate. However he has now got a new club in Cyprus. He is also a fan of Rovers and I would hope he wouldn't mind me sharing it to highlight the shambles the club is.

Thanks for sharing. Warnock would probably have been an excellent appointment. Shame it was scuppered because the owners wanted to retain the services of 2 blokes who have already done one. .

[Mike Graham]

FROM A QPR FANS FORUM 2012:

This was in today's Mail:

Rangers on alert

It has not gone unnoticed at Queens Park Rangers, who are desperate for relegation rivals Bolton to face the strongest possible Stoke City side on Sunday, that both opposing managers â Owen Coyle and Tony Pullis â are represented by the same football agent, Dave Sheron, who works for SEM.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1uTTeO0kZ

[perthblue02]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/8835527.Mrs_Desai__Why_John_Williams_left_Blackburn_Rovers/

She said: "Jerome has helped us but I want to be very clear that he does not run the club.

"We will be working with anybody and any agents to make this club successful but we are not controlled by his company. His role will now diminish."

5th of Feb 2011

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mercer]

This 'opening of Pandora's box' could well be the beginning of the end for Rovers.

It was bound to happen at some point.

Where it will leave Rovers, I am not quite sure. What I am pretty certain of is that the impacts will be seismic.

[Claytons Left Boot]

If "they" are still around, then Cheston is but a paid mouthpiece. Who is giving the go ahead?

Reading the solicitors' letter, there is some ambiguity regarding the length of the contract, ie. the length of time JA & Co were to 'advise' Venky's. Initially a term of three years (Venky's thought a maximum of three years) seemingly to be reviewed/continued yearly thereafter.

If the term of the contract has been a topic for the two sets of solicitors, which it has, does that mean, legally, that Crescendo are still able to run us? Can we ever rid ourselves of these parasites?

[chaddyrovers]

I'd like to add to this. I met Matt Derbyshire at a kids party in Clitheroe during the summer. His lad was in the same nursery class as my lad. I had a good chat with him and he is a decent bloke.

Anyway he told me that Warnock to Rovers had been pretty much a done deal but fell through at the last minute as Warnock wanted his own right hand man / coach where as Rovers wanted him to work with existing staff ie Irvine and Kelly.

He also told me that he had been lined up to sign for Rovers by Warnock and he had been extremely excited about returning. He spoke very highly of Warnock and had a good relationship with him at Rotherham.

Coyle had just been appointed and he told me he was on Coyles 'second choice' list. He said there was an outside chance it could happen but was obviously doubtful as Coyle wanted others before him.

He seemed quite down about it which is understandable.

I didn't put anything on the message board at the time as didn't feel it was appropriate. However he has now got a new club in Cyprus. He is also a fan of Rovers and I would hope he wouldn't mind me sharing it to highlight the shambles the club is.

so Warnock deal fell through because he wanted Ronnie Jepson as number 2.

So was the deal for Warnock all set up when Cheston went on Holiday and then Pasha/Silvester/Venkys back tracked on the agreement because of the coaching staff.

Irvine and Kelly both found new jobs since Coyle got the job

[Ricky]

This 'opening of Pandora's box' could well be the beginning of the end for Rovers.

It was bound to happen at some point.

Where it will leave Rovers, I am not quite sure. What I am pretty certain of is that the impacts will be seismic.

I disagree mercer. We are now out of the top flight, out of people's minds and it won't even get picked up by the press. Unfortunately the leaking of a few documents to a few fans will do nothing at all. Nothing will change and the impacts will be fair from seismic.

[Stuart]

I love Garner but I don't think he can come up with anything interesting to say off his own bat. Keeley came across really well last time but to get everyone onside it probably needs someone more familiar to the modern day fanbase.

Peds would be a good one if he's got the minerals although I would think he'll be looking to stay in football in some capacity so probably wouldn't touch it.

Garner would simply be the credibility element. He is Mr Blackburn Rovers as far as I'm concerned so his involvement carries weight.

Someone like Salgado seemed to have a real affinity with the fans and felt the influence of the current regime more than most. But he is Mr Real Madrid so I'm not sure how much we mean to him or that he means to the fans.

A credible alternates needs to be the main message. Most fans now agree that Venkys are bad for this club. A real visible presence from the Ians/Seneca, a genuine robust bid - at a price they deem fair (undisclosed of course) - needs to be publicised. "We are here, we are waiting". Even better if they could pull off a coup like having the backing of another manager that they would bring in, e.g. Graeme Souness. Whether the LMA would allow that even unofficially I'm not sure.

Whatever it takes but instead of the anti-Venkys rhetoric that is falling on deaf ears, in the absence of a megabucks foreign owner, a pro-Seneca movement is required. Banners at the ground, social media campaigns, #SenecaIN #RoversForChange #weareherewearewaiting, local press engagements, a public profile, tied in with the RoversTrust and backed by BRFCAG.

If we are going to kick the chair away then we need our hands untied and a rope to cling to - even if it's only the noose to start with.

Over to you Seneca.

[Mercer]

I disagree mercer. We are now out of the top flight, out of people's minds and it won't even get picked up by the press. Unfortunately the leaking of a few documents to a few fans will do nothing at all. Nothing will change and the impacts will be fair from seismic.

I think circulation will inevitably get wider and dirtier.

It needs just one tabloid to publish on a slow news day.

My big fear is that the club will be made an example of and we will get unmercifully hammered.

[chaddyrovers]

Sign this petition

https://www.change.org/p/martin-glenn-we-want-an-official-f-a-investigation-into-the-running-of-blackburn-rovers-f-c

[perthblue02]

I think circulation will inevitably get wider and dirtier.

It needs just one tabloid to publish on a slow news day.

My big fear is that the club will be made an example of and we will get unmercifully hammered.

But the FA and Football League have been in possession of various documents for at least three years and have not acted, so are in fact tangled in the web of lies and deceit. Would they risk a backlash considering the part they have played protecting their agents , ex employees , former business partners and current board member who has been watching it at close quarters from the start?

[Mercer]

But the FA and Football League have been in possession of various documents for at least three years and have not acted, so are in fact tangled in the web of lies and deceit. Would they risk a backlash considering the part they have played protecting their agents , ex employees and former business partners?

There will be arse covering on an unprecedented scale. When this happens, there is invariably a scapegoat.

[chaddyrovers]

I think circulation will inevitably get wider and dirtier.

It needs just one tabloid to publish on a slow news day.

My big fear is that the club will be made an example of and we will get unmercifully hammered.

Dont the FA and FL have this paperwork already?

[arbitro]

But the FA and Football League have been in possession of various documents for at least three years and have not acted, so are in fact tangled in the web of lies and deceit. Would they risk a backlash considering the part they have played protecting their agents , ex employees and former business partners?

Any journalist worth his salt would implicate the FA in the story due to their lack of action. It appears they were handed these documents on a plate and did nothing.

[Dunnfc]

Any journalist worth his salt would implicate the FA in the story due to their lack of action. It appears they were handed these documents on a plate and did nothing.

Under new owners i wonder if we could sue for a loss of income from any possible perceived negligence by the FA? Isn't that what Sheffield United did over third party owned players i.e Tevez and that Mascherano?

[Ricky]

How to run (NOT) a football club Pune style

Dear Sirs,

Re: Our client: Venkateshwara Hatcheries PVT Ltd

Your client: Kentaro Group

We refer to your letter of 2 December 2011.

Pre-action conduct

First, we note that in the first paragraph of your letter you state that your letter of 15 November 2011 is a pre-action letter for the purposes of the Civil Procedural Rules. We ought to state at this stage that we do not consider that your letter merits such a qualification. Whilst we do not wish to take technical points, the extent to which your letter of 15 November 2011 fails to comply with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (the Practice Direction) is both material and considerable. For example, the letter fails (as a minimum) to comply with sub-paragraphs 2.2(1), 2.2(3), 2.3(1) and 2.3(2) of the guidance at Annex A of the said Practice Direction. All of the breaches referred to above are separate and independent breaches and go directly to your clients conduct.

We note in particular that you do not enclose copies of any of the documents to which reference is made in your letter. We also note in particular that your letter makes no reference to any discount for accelerated payment (if our client were to agree to your clients demand for payment of £500,000.00, which it does not).

In the circumstances set out above, we do not consider that your letter qualifies as a Letter Before Claim pursuant to the said Practice Direction (which is what we presume you mean by a pre-action letter for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules).

Construction

We disagree with your clients construction of the language used in the Agreement dated 2 November 2010 (the Agreement). We disagree that the only commercial interpretation of the phrase a minimum of three years, renewable every year is that the Agreement has a minimum term of three years, renewable thereafter every year. Indeed, you appear, in your own letter, to highlight the weakness of that argument by your use of the word thereafter. If the Agreement had been intended to have the construction which your client contends, then the word thereafter would have been inserted at the end of clause 2 of the Agreement. Our clients case is that the Agreement was envisaged to run for a maximum of three years and was capable of being terminated at the end of each of its first and second years. We accept that the wording is not definitive in favour of the construction contended for by our client; our client is not, and was not at the time of the Agreement fully conversant in English and did not take advice from English lawyers when or before the Agreement was signed. Accordingly, so we are instructed, our client became confused as to the meaning of the word minimum (as opposed to maximum). Indeed, it would appear as though your client has taken advantage of our clients unfamiliarity with the English language, which is particularly noteworthy when it is considered alongside the fact that your client effectively held itself out as being our clients protectors and local experts, a theme to which we shall refer again below. It is apparent that, even on our clients worse case scenario, the Agreement falls to be rectified so that the word minimum is replaced by maximum.

Mitigation

Accordingly, the construction contended for by your client is not accepted. Even if your client were successful in persuading a Court that the Agreement should be construed in the manner contended for in your letter of 15 November 2011, we do not accept that it would not be possible for your client to mitigate its losses. The fact that you say that it is not possible for your client to mitigate its losses rather supports our clients view, which we set out below, to the effect that your client appears to see (and have seen) its role as being one which does not provide any services to our client. If your client had (but for the termination of the Agreement) intended to provide the services which it contracted to provide (the Services), then of course it would be possible for your client to mitigate its losses, because it would not be incurring the costs of providing the Services. In this regard, your letter of 15 November 2011 betrays your clients failure to perform its obligations under the Agreement.

Failure to perform

Indeed, we turn now to your clients failings in this regard. Pursuant to the Agreement, your client agreed:-

To assist and act as a consultant for [our client] in respect of all football related business and matters on a worldwide basis. It was expressly agreed that the services which your client would provide would include, but not be limited to, advice on all football matters such as the appointment of a coach, the trading of players, all advice in respect of TV and commercial rights, and all advice in respect of global branding (including shirt sponsorship).

It is perhaps worth noting at this stage that the background to this Agreement is that your client held itself out as being experts in the football sector (and English football in particular). Our client, as was known to your client, was not experienced in these matters and saw Blackburn Rovers Football Club (Blackburn Rovers) as an investment opportunity. In order to make that investment opportunity work for both itself and Blackburn Rovers, our client would need specialist football expertise, and your client held itself out as being able and willing to provide that expertise, and your client agreed to provide it. The express provisions in clause 1 of the Agreement (which we have summarised above) speak for themselves.

However, we are instructed that, in fact, your client did not provide the Services. Where it purported to do so, it did so badly. Accordingly, in fact it was your client which committed a repudiatory breach of the Agreement (and which our client accepted). Further or alternatively as a matter of law, your client was in breach of contract, thereby entitling our client and/or Blackburn Rovers to damages.

By way of example, we understand that your client has carried out no global branding on behalf of our client, and indeed this is exemplified by the fact that your client failed to secure a shirt sponsor for Blackburn Rovers. We are instructed that, upon your clients advice, offer to pay £1.1m for shirt sponsorship for Blackburn Rovers was rejected (your client advising that a deal worth £4m could be obtained). That ultimately left our client with no financial benefit from shirt sponsorship.

Your client was also expressly engaged to advise upon the appointment of a manager/head coach. Your client in fact advised our client to dispense with the services of Blackburn Roverss football manager, Sam Allardyce, a very experienced manager in English football. Our client was then advised to replace Mr Allardyce with the current manager of Blackburn Rovers, Steve Kean, who we understand is a client of Sports Entertainment & Media Group Limited (SEM).

Your client was also expressly engaged to advise on the trading of players. Before your clients involvement, Blackburn Roverss transfer policy was governed by a 12-page document which regulated the transfer activity of Blackburn Rovers. However, so we are instructed, when your client became involved in transfer policy, it paid no regard to that document and dictated transfer policy on an apparently random and ad-hoc basis. This is reflected in the fact that the players whom your client advised our client to sign for Blackburn Rovers, almost without exception, failed to meet the expectations which your client had set in our clients mind, such players including the likes of Mauro Formica and Ruben Rochina Naixes (Rochina). We note that several of the players and coaching staff recruited on the advice of your client appear to be clients of SEM (including Nick Blackman, John Jensen and Myles Anderson, who has failed notably to make the grade as a professional footballer and who is the son of Jerome Anderson, a director of SEM and of Jerome Anderson Management, a subsidiary company of SEM) .

We are also instructed that, upon your clients advice, our client paid an exorbitant level of agents fees for certain players, including for example in the case of Rochina, whose agent, Manuel Salamanca Ferrer, received £1.65 million.

We are also instructed that several of the players whom your client advised our client to sign for Blackburn Rovers were signed on unjustifiably large salaries and that their contracts (and those of other players) were also (on your clients advice) renewed on terms which were unjustifiably favourable to those players. Furthermore, so we are instructed, several of the players of Blackburn Rovers (for example, Messrs Roberts, Salgado and Nelson) received unjustifiably large salary increases (and trigger benefits) (again on the advice of your client).

Furthermore, we are instructed that your client advised our client to terminate the directorships and involvement in Blackburn Rovers of a number of key individuals (such as John Williams, Tom Finn, Martin Goodman and Andrew Pincher), all of whom had the experience required to manage the financial and administrative affairs of Blackburn Rovers properly.

What is apparent from all of this is that your client, despite having been placed in a position of trust and having held itself out as being in a position to advise our client on various matters in connection with English football (and your client being aware of our clients inexperience in such matters) abused that trust and/or failed to carry out its obligations properly or at all. Indeed, we are instructed that your client has not provide the Services at all to our client for several months.

The result of this has been that our client and/or Blackburn Rovers has suffered losses which are directly attributable to your clients conduct.

We have averted above to SEM. We understand that, shortly after the Agreement was signed, Mr Jerome Anderson spent a month in the offices of Blackburn Rovers and assumed control of all matters. We note that your client and SEM have a common director and share the same registered office. We are also aware that Mr. Anderson has a connection with Crescendo Sports Limited, which advised our client in relation to its acquisition of Blackburn Rovers. We understand also that there are common links between your client and SEM in terms of their respective management teams. These are of course matters which we are investigating fully, and for the time being we would ask you to state what checks and balances were carried out by your client to ensure that there was no conflict of interests and that all of your clients advice to players and individuals who were clients of (and associated with) SEM or Jerome Anderson Management Limited (the SEM Players) could be objectively justified and that all transactions relating to the SEM Players were carried out at arms length.

Summary

In the circumstances, it appears as though your clients threat to commence proceedings against our client is entirely without foundation. Rather, it appears that our client is not only able to defend any claim from your client on either of the two substantive grounds set out above (i.e. the construction of the Agreement and the failure by your client to deliver the Services) but also to claim (or counterclaim) against your client for the losses which our client has suffered by virtue of your clients said breaches of the Agreement (including for repayment of the first payment of £100,000 or a part thereof).

Yours faithfully,

Brabners Chaffe Street LLP

Email: [email protected]

Fax: 0161 836 8801

Apologies for the big quote, but does this letter not point to Kentaro being the bad guys and Venkys being simply clueless. I know Glen posted a very different view on Venkys last night.

[perthblue02]

There will be arse covering on an unprecedented scale. When this happens, there is invariably a scapegoat.

Of course but it will open the can of worms as various journalists are aware of what the FA and the Football League have and if the FA punish Rovers they will have a field day with the FA and Football League. The Fa love their squeaky clean image which will be tarnished with the part they have played.

[arbitro]

Under new owners i wonder if we could sue for a loss of income from any possible perceived negligence by the FA? Isn't that what Sheffield United did over 3 part pwned players i.e Tevez and that Mascherano?

Was it not West Ham who had to pay them compensation?

[chaddyrovers]

Any journalist worth his salt would implicate the FA in the story due to their lack of action. It appears they were handed these documents on a plate and did nothing.

Nick Harris has already done an article this 3 years ago and it went nowhere.

Could MP's force FA to investigate this?

[arbitro]

Nick Harris has already done an article this 3 years ago and it went nowhere.

Could MP's force FA to investigate this?

Did he have the documents which came to light yesterday?

[Dunnfc]

Was it not West Ham who had to pay them compensation?

Correct they did.

[perthblue02]

Nick Harris has already done an article this 3 years ago and it went nowhere.

Could MP's force FA to investigate this?

I think it is fair to say that Nick Harris and others have had to legally hold back and tame down their articles regarding certain agencies and people. Now if the FA would like to bring everything out in the open by punishing Rovers then I would guess it would be open season on the whole corrupt project.

[Waggy76]

Slithered into a nice expensive house on the Fylde coast apparently

If ever a man could slither !

[chaddyrovers]

Did he have the documents which came to light yesterday?

Would have thought so