Venkys - Welcome or Not?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

“ Where will we be with Venkies ? “ In this league forever unless we get relegated again. Just like the Flying Dutchman compelled to sail around Cape Horn forever.

[arbitro]

The best analogy I have seen about their reign and people being grateful is that it's like being run over by a negligent driver of a car, being on a life support machine through your injuries and then being grateful to the driver who put you there because he is paying for the electricity to keep you alive.

Any yet the 'if it wasn't for Venkys where would we be' line is still trotted out.

Unbelievable.

[lraC]

Until someone shows me otherwise, I will never deviate from this being one big con job, that has backfired.

We all know there were people involved at the very beginning, who were effectively running the club. Signing players who were only good enough to carry Christmas hampers, or who came and went without ever making an appearance, was the order of the day. Likewise with the first manager appointed, who as we all know had very close links with these people.

Even the appointment of Coyle seemed to lead back to that very stable and how knows, who is still lurking in the corridors.

It has proved to be a very expensive mistake, but again is all of the money being  put in, actually being put in by the owners, or by a third party? In addition to that, if the brown envelope story, paid to the player liaison office is true and the same paid to Givet's tailor is true, then who knows what comes back out again, to people of this ilk.

[47er]

33 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

The fact that a no mark club like Brentford are there comfortably shows that we would more likely than not still be there now had the chicken molesters not darkened our door.

 

Yeah dead right. Brentford----the perfect response to anyone who thinks you can't prosper in the Premier League unless your owners also own a nation and your stadium holds mega thousands. Even the likes of Burnley, Watford, Bournemouth etc have done better than we have.

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

Do you think that had they taken over any other business they would have ripped up the blueprint,  sacked extremely competent people and taken that business on a downward trajectory that has cost them millions?

Weren't they involved with a film studio that went wrong ?

[arbitro]

25 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Weren't they involved with a film studio that went wrong ?

My recollection is that it was only one of them involved, the one who likes mixing with celebrities. 

[lraC]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

My recollection is that it was only one of them involved, the one who likes mixing with celebrities. 

The one and only Balaji, who allegedly had some serious issues with regards to torturing his employees. It was probably nothing though and he might have just had a bit more bad advice.

Blackburn Rovers' boss in assault probe | Lancashire Telegraph

B. Balaji Rao - Movies, Biography, News, Age & Photos | BookMyShow

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by lraC
Adding extra

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

We were eighth in the Premier League when they showeup and had £20m debt throughgood management. Jacks legacy was intact when they came - to say anything else is nonsense. 

People very easily forget the slow rot that was setting in and the lack of investment that was coming from the Trust. They wanted rid as soon as possible, it's why we landed with Venkys. 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

The Trust has to take its fair share of the blame for what we've been through for reasons we've gone over many times. Not least their willingness to sell what Jack had built up to anyone who'd pay whatever their motivation or suitability.

However, before Venkys took over we were a stable EPL club with no reason at all to think we couldn't stay there.

 

 

We would have stayed there for a bit, but like all clubs of our size we would have eventually had a bad run and gone down. That's the way it works. Name a club of our size that has maintained an uninterrupted position in the Premier League for 20+ years.

A couple of bad transfers, a couple of bad injuries, a run of bad luck and bad form and you're gone. It would have taken longer, but it would have happened. 

Now, what is undoubtedly the case is that we would have been in a better position to bounce back and it is less likely that we would have found ourselves stuck down in here - and relegation League One would have been inconceivable. 

It was a mess. It was a nightmare. But we're actually a fairly stable ship at this point and we've got to move on.

[roversfan99]

Why is this myth peddled that they invest as much as they can under FFP?

The main 2 people defending Venkys today seem to be (as far as I know, apologies if not) people located away from Lancashire. They might not appreciate as much that the ground is not well maintained, that the pitch needed relaying and they refused to fund it and that there was a plan to downgrade the training facilities that thankfully was scuppered.

None of that is FFP related yet funding hasn't been provided.

Even regarding on the pitch matters, they are handicapping us. Our income is restricted due to allowing a CEO to continue despite constantly poor attendance figures. They override decisions on potential key sales massively hindering scope for reinvestment.

[arbitro]

19 minutes ago, Eddie said:

People very easily forget the slow rot that was setting in and the lack of investment that was coming from the Trust. They wanted rid as soon as possible, it's why we landed with Venkys. 

That really has nothing to do with Venkys total mismanagement of Rovers. In fact buying a stable Premier League club for around £40m (iirc) was an absolute bargain. They royally screwed up pretty much from day one and still are. It's only recently they tried to sell the STC for housing and wanted to move the STC to the Academy until there was a realisation that we could lose our Cat One status. Then they set up a new company to buy the STC.

[arbitro]

21 minutes ago, Eddie said:

We would have stayed there for a bit, but like all clubs of our size we would have eventually had a bad run and gone down. That's the way it works. Name a club of our size that has maintained an uninterrupted position in the Premier League for 20+ years.

A couple of bad transfers, a couple of bad injuries, a run of bad luck and bad form and you're gone. It would have taken longer, but it would have happened. 

Now, what is undoubtedly the case is that we would have been in a better position to bounce back and it is less likely that we would have found ourselves stuck down in here - and relegation League One would have been inconceivable. 

It was a mess. It was a nightmare. But we're actually a fairly stable ship at this point and we've got to move on.

Conjecture. 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

It still is a mess under the skin..dont fool yourself Eddie.One bad decision away from disaster for this Club with the people in charge.

Edited April 13, 2023 by SIMON GARNERS 194

[Eddie]

46 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Conjecture. 

You're on a messageboard, it's virtually all conjecture. 

Do you feel like you're speaking exclusively in facts?

[arbitro]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You're on a messageboard, it's virtually all conjecture. 

Do you feel like you're speaking exclusively in facts?

There are many damning facts associated with the last twelve years. Two relegations, countless useless managers and executives, millions squandered, a shrinking supporter base and many, many more facts that prove they have been a disaster.

You comment about not staying in the Premier League was conjecture to try and justify your point of view. The facts don't lie.

[MarkBRFC]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Why is this myth peddled that they invest as much as they can under FFP?

The main 2 people defending Venkys today seem to be (as far as I know, apologies if not) people located away from Lancashire. They might not appreciate as much that the ground is not well maintained, that the pitch needed relaying and they refused to fund it and that there was a plan to downgrade the training facilities that thankfully was scuppered.

None of that is FFP related yet funding hasn't been provided.

Even regarding on the pitch matters, they are handicapping us. Our income is restricted due to allowing a CEO to continue despite constantly poor attendance figures. They override decisions on potential key sales massively hindering scope for reinvestment.

This seems to be the case a lot I feel.

Those most vocal in support of venkys either live hundreds of miles away or have no connection to the town of Blackburn its self.

[Mattyblue]

Though as a counter to that, away from this board the owners aren’t particularly unpopular these days from what I can see…

[philipl]

The FFP ceiling argument is supported by the fact we had 6 months under a transfer ban just before Waggott was appointed.

And I think we all appreciate the prioritisation of allocation of non-FFP counting funds to the Cat A Academy.

[roversfan99]

19 minutes ago, philipl said:

The FFP ceiling argument is supported by the fact we had 6 months under a transfer ban just before Waggott was appointed.

And I think we all appreciate the prioritisation of allocation of non-FFP counting funds to the Cat A Academy.

What does that even mean? We needed a new pitch and surely with a bit of pride, we want the stadium not to be falling apart.

If they genuinely spent as much as they possibly could, FFP allowing, then both of the above (not even included the attempted downgrading at Brockhall) would be sorted.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

There are many damning facts associated with the last twelve years. Two relegations, countless useless managers and executives, millions squandered, a shrinking supporter base and many, many more facts that prove they have been a disaster.

You comment about not staying in the Premier League was conjecture to try and justify your point of view. The facts don't lie.

I was just expressing my opinion, same as you are. There's plenty of conjecture in your comments.

[SuperBrfc]

My personal view is that there has always been more to it than meets the eye. I don't mean something malicious, but more a case of others in the background advising, who may also be calling the shots at times.

We only need to look at the list of managerial appointments before JDT for some of us to reach that viewpoint, as they all seemingly lead back to the same place. Also, consider the following:

1) The Brunei rat was able to say and do as he pleased, results didn't matter one bit, he was not for sacking. At the height of the protests he was given a new contract. Why? In the end, he ended up walking of his own accord. Why could they seemingly not sack him?

2) Shelfy caused them all sorts of issues with the Berg incident. They had to fork out £2m due to what had gone on with the contract situation. The legal advice they received was that they were well within their rights to dismiss him immediately. If you are the boss and somebody acts without your authority and costs you £2m, that person is toast! They didn't sack him. He, astonishingly, stayed on for another 3 years and left of his own accord in 2016. Again, why was he allowed to carry on?

3) When having a look around online, I spotted some old social media posts from one of the agency (yes, that agency) stooges bigging up Gallagher as being the best thing sliced bread. Is it a coincidence that Gallagher turns up here, firstly on loan under Coyle, then on a permanent for £5m under Mowbray? Looking at those names for a second, excluding Gally. All are from the same stable.

4) Mr Paperwork, who had the responsibility of getting O'Brien's paperwork submitted on time, was appointed way back in 2012. I would like to know who recommended or advised his appointment at the time. Will he be getting the sack for what happened on deadline day? I think we know the answer to that one.

Imo, either the owners are kind people, who don't like confrontation and like to give people second (or many, in some cases) chances to get things right, or they do whatever their advisor/s suggest is the right thing to do.

Yes, things haven't been as chaotic as they once were, and they have quietly got on with it over the last few years. However, for me, there is still something not quite right. I look at some of the people within the club and their agency connections. People who have been at the club for the majority of the Venky period, and who have remained in place despite plenty of ins and outs. That is what gets my radar going and has me believing the problem hasn't gone away yet.

Appointing JDT and Broughton appears to be a change in direction, but then you look at the O'Brien cock up, which I only blame one person for, and it brings up the same concerns that I have always had since these lot turned up.

Rovers won't recover fully until this lot sell up, but as that doesn't seem likely to happen for a while yet, let's start off by getting Silvester and Waggott out.

 

[47er]

9 hours ago, Eddie said:

People very easily forget the slow rot that was setting in and the lack of investment that was coming from the Trust. They wanted rid as soon as possible, it's why we landed with Venkys. 

People also forget that the person the Trust chose to evaluate the best bid was also working for the other side!

 

[Upside Down]

8 hours ago, SuperBrfc said:

My personal view is that there has always been more to it than meets the eye. I don't mean something malicious, but more a case of others in the background advising, who may also be calling the shots at times.

We only need to look at the list of managerial appointments before JDT for some of us to reach that viewpoint, as they all seemingly lead back to the same place. Also, consider the following:

1) The Brunei rat was able to say and do as he pleased, results didn't matter one bit, he was not for sacking. At the height of the protests he was given a new contract. Why? In the end, he ended up walking of his own accord. Why could they seemingly not sack him?

2) Shelfy caused them all sorts of issues with the Berg incident. They had to fork out £2m due to what had gone on with the contract situation. The legal advice they received was that they were well within their rights to dismiss him immediately. If you are the boss and somebody acts without your authority and costs you £2m, that person is toast! They didn't sack him. He, astonishingly, stayed on for another 3 years and left of his own accord in 2016. Again, why was he allowed to carry on?

3) When having a look around online, I spotted some old social media posts from one of the agency (yes, that agency) stooges bigging up Gallagher as being the best thing sliced bread. Is it a coincidence that Gallagher turns up here, firstly on loan under Coyle, then on a permanent for £5m under Mowbray? Looking at those names for a second, excluding Gally. All are from the same stable.

4) Mr Paperwork, who had the responsibility of getting O'Brien's paperwork submitted on time, was appointed way back in 2012. I would like to know who recommended or advised his appointment at the time. Will he be getting the sack for what happened on deadline day? I think we know the answer to that one.

Imo, either the owners are kind people, who don't like confrontation and like to give people second (or many, in some cases) chances to get things right, or they do whatever their advisor/s suggest is the right thing to do.

Yes, things haven't been as chaotic as they once were, and they have quietly got on with it over the last few years. However, for me, there is still something not quite right. I look at some of the people within the club and their agency connections. People who have been at the club for the majority of the Venky period, and who have remained in place despite plenty of ins and outs. That is what gets my radar going and has me believing the problem hasn't gone away yet.

Appointing JDT and Broughton appears to be a change in direction, but then you look at the O'Brien cock up, which I only blame one person for, and it brings up the same concerns that I have always had since these lot turned up.

Rovers won't recover fully until this lot sell up, but as that doesn't seem likely to happen for a while yet, let's start off by getting Silvester and Waggott out.

 

Someone has closed the bog lid but there is still a large grogan sitting there.

[philipl]

5 hours ago, 47er said:

People also forget that the person the Trust chose to evaluate the best bid was also working for the other side!

 

Extremely bad practise but only happened after years of not finding a buyer acceptable to the Trust under the terms the Trustees had to work to and after that individual had all but forced himself on them.

Similarly now, the Venkys have their own internal rules of decision making and standards by which they would consider a potential offer for the club.

We might not agree the standards these two owners set (and reputedly Jack set some barriers for the Trustees which today most would regard as problematic) but that is the privilege of owners.

Big but

Those standards have protected Rovers from fates far worse than Venkys and I would argue with now considerable conviction that nobody would have issue with 3 of the 4  decision makers who make decisions by unanimity in the Venkys ownership.

However

The advisers to the Venkys which Venkys decided to be advised by included some of the worst people imaginable.

 

I was as passionately against what was happening in the period 2010 to 2017 as anyone on this chat board and unlike many put time and effort into trying to do something about it.

I have learnt in life that the best thing is to learn, not to carry grudges, not to live in a what might have been world and to try to evaluate the situation as it is in the real world today.

 

That is why I am asking everyone to look at the situation today and as it has been since the appointment of Tony Mowbray some six years ago.

Not perfect but I would take Rovers' current ownership situation over that of 90% of the othe 91 clubs in the PL/EFL.

 

 

[47er]

3 hours ago, philipl said:

Extremely bad practise but only happened after years of not finding a buyer acceptable to the Trust under the terms the Trustees had to work to and after that individual had all but forced himself on them.

Similarly now, the Venkys have their own internal rules of decision making and standards by which they would consider a potential offer for the club.

We might not agree the standards these two owners set (and reputedly Jack set some barriers for the Trustees which today most would regard as problematic) but that is the privilege of owners.

Big but

Those standards have protected Rovers from fates far worse than Venkys and I would argue with now considerable conviction that nobody would have issue with 3 of the 4  decision makers who make decisions by unanimity in the Venkys ownership.

However

The advisers to the Venkys which Venkys decided to be advised by included some of the worst people imaginable.

 

I was as passionately against what was happening in the period 2010 to 2017 as anyone on this chat board and unlike many put time and effort into trying to do something about it.

I have learnt in life that the best thing is to learn, not to carry grudges, not to live in a what might have been world and to try to evaluate the situation as it is in the real world today.

 

That is why I am asking everyone to look at the situation today and as it has been since the appointment of Tony Mowbray some six years ago.

Not perfect but I would take Rovers' current ownership situation over that of 90% of the othe 91 clubs in the PL/EFL.

 

 

Why don't they have any pride in the state of the stadium, or the pitch for that matter? Why do multi-billionaires resent buying a few cans of Walpamur's best?