[Archived] Agnew/Shaw versus Currie/Battersby

[darrenrover]

Glen, I would say at no point have I mentioned Anderson, you have.

I would also like to point you yet again to the thread, at no point is ownership mentioned, just the structure and hierarchy of the club.

I don't think it is prudent to debate heresay, moreover less wise to form opinions and create direction based on it.

As per my opinion on management of the club, as any business, without structure, guidance, monitoring and up to date direction from above, it will only finish at the bottom of the hill.

You should know that from Steve Hartley's direction at WEC! He does know the score.

[glen9mullan]

Glen, I would say at no point have I mentioned Anderson, you have.

I would also like to point you yet again to the thread, at no point is ownership mentioned, just the structure and hierarchy of the club.

I don't think it is prudent to debate heresay, moreover less wise to form opinions and create direction based on it.

As per my opinion on management of the club, as any business, without structure, guidance, monitoring and up to date direction from above, it will only finish at the bottom of the hill.

You should know that from Steve Hartley's direction at WEC! He does know the score.

I agree you have not mentioned Anderson, but the fact that its Andersons man in there which has removed 2 previous board of directors, and the two you are putting at the forefront of everyones minds relationship with Anderson is a lot closer to hear Anderson speak, than it is to hear Battersby speak then I'm quite right to be sceptical.

Especially as one JA has spent a bit of time at Ewood in last couple of days too

Our club was well run, and through Andersons intervention it no longer is, the whole structure from top to bottom is a mess.

This is a long road back, and we eventually need people in at the club who not only know what they are doing, but are allowed not to only make suggestions, but are allowed to make decisions.

As a group we will continue to campaign for a cleansed club, and somewhere down the line we may meet with Battersby and he can put our fears to rest and perhaps he would have our support. However until that day comes, I remain sceptical.

So I cant really address the IB, IC situation without reference to Anderson

Hartleys approach at WEC is totally different , he has built his enterprise by becoming a one stop shop, by buying out companies so he does not have to source any work out of his companies. His companies porfolio allows him to be involved in different types of contracts, from small production processes, to large projects. If he see;s a gap in the market, or a profitable small company, he buys it.

[darrenrover]

Glen you're entitled to your opinion as am I. Personally I'd rather base mine on fact rather than fiction or heresay. Each to their own I guess!

IB played golf with Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney once, so they must either be signing for us or be in league with the devil. FFS get real!!

Back to the thread,

[glen9mullan]

Glen you're entitled to your opinion as am I. Personally I'd rather base mine on fact rather than fiction or heresay. Each to their own I guess!

IB played golf with Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney once, so they must either be signing for us or be in league with the devil. FFS get real!!

Back to the thread,

Mine is based on fact, straight from the horses mouth, so unless you are Battersby or Currie or indeed Anderson, I prefer to stick to the facts, If you can find one article which shows Anderson faciliatated and was in the same room of the above mentioned in the infamous meeting in Pune, you are a good one, because no such article exist. Very strange don't you think I knew then? Long before any podcast or LET article

[darrenrover]

Glen you're not making sense, what did you know as fact regarding what meeting? Who's the horses mouth?

It goes without saying that I am none of the 3 people mentioned but do base my opinions on what I see or hear directly and not on what someone may tell me third hand with a couple of twists attached for good measure. Those comments should be listened to but not taken as fact IMO.

For the record I know Dereck (Arthur Daily/Delboy) Shaw reasonably well and Agnew passively. They are not in the same bloody league as the one that we have come from or the one we aspire to be in but perhaps I'm wrong...... Hence the reason for the thread.

[glen9mullan]

Glen you're not making sense, what did you know as fact regarding what meeting? Who's the horses mouth?

It goes without saying that I am none of the 3 people mentioned but do base my opinions on what I see or hear directly and not on what someone may tell me third hand with a couple of twists attached for good measure. Those comments should be listened to but not taken as fact IMO.

For the record I know Dereck (Arthur Daily/Delboy) Shaw reasonably well and Agnew passively. They are not in the same bloody league as the one that we have come from or the one we aspire to be in but perhaps I'm wrong...... Hence the reason for the thread.

Anderson = Horses mouth, direct to me,

The second part of your post, I totally agree

[darrenrover]

Fair enough Glen but if he tried to sell you a car would you ask the AA to give it the once over before you bought it, or take his word that it was a good motor?

Don't get dazzled by the headlights by talking to him. He may be a donkey but no horse.

I don't know what he told you but certainly don't question the 2 Ians integrity as a consequence.

[philipl]

Glen.

There was an awful lot of what Anderson says I think everyone including you has every right to be sceptical about. That includes whatever fanciful spin he is putting on Battersby and Currie.

[OJRovers]

From the podcast the story IB gave was that he and IC went to Pune to meet Mrs D to convince her to run the club properly.

If JA was sat in the meeting, then I think we can assume IB/IC didn't say the sort of things that most of us would've wanted them to say.

What number podcast was it?

[PAFELL]

Anderson = Horses mouth, direct to me,

The second part of your post, I totally agree

What makes you think Anderson is telling you a truthful version of events?

Does he have a better track record of speaking the truth in comparrison to anybody else?

Is it the same Anderson who went on sky with his tearful act?

Did he speak the truth on sky about his own son for example?

Is it the same Anderson you said had his lawyer send you letters?

I do not believe you have any reason to believe Andersons version of events over IB etc.

If as you did awhile ago question why IB spoke to Anderson. Maybe all of us on here should question you on the same.

Why are you even having talks, dialogue with somebody who many believe - whether true or not, is another subject - has played a major role in ruining the club.

I thought you were involved with the action group, not an appeasement group.

[Boz]

Wow I knew if I waited long enough I'd find a post from Pafell which I agree with.

All great points and perhaps Glen might comment?

In my fairly limited knowledge of the trough which is football, many of those feeding do so alongside each other.

Given a choice between placing my faith in IC/IB or any others who have had things to say about BRFC since JW/TF left, especially JA or any other related agencies, I know whose mast I shall be nailing my flag to.

Plus besides all the people mentioned who might have a round of golf together, you could also add 5 a side footy tournaments.

[jw_]

What makes you think Anderson is telling you a truthful version of events?

Does he have a better track record of speaking the truth in comparrison to anybody else?

Is it the same Anderson who went on sky with his tearful act?

Did he speak the truth on sky about his own son for example?

Is it the same Anderson you said had his lawyer send you letters?

I do not believe you have any reason to believe Andersons version of events over IB etc.

If as you did awhile ago question why IB spoke to Anderson. Maybe all of us on here should question you on the same.

Why are you even having talks, dialogue with somebody who many believe - whether true or not, is another subject - has played a major role in ruining the club.

I thought you were involved with the action group, not an appeasement group.

An excellent post by Pafell and expresses my thoughts perfectly.I'm sorry to say this Glenn but you do appear to be putting your head on the block more and more these days. You were completely taken in by S Singh and made to look silly when he backtracked,now you are risking the same outcome with Anderson. I can only hope you really do know what you are doing but I for one now have my doubts but will appologise unresevedly if proved wrong.

[PAFELL]

An excellent post by Pafell and expresses my thoughts perfectly.I'm sorry to say this Glenn but you do appear to be putting your head on the block more and more these days. You were completely taken in by S Singh and made to look silly when he backtracked,now you are risking the same outcome with Anderson. I can only hope you really do know what you are doing but I for one now have my doubts but will appologise unresevedly if proved wrong.

I suggest the jury is still out with regards to Shebby Singh. But the action group were totally daft putting him on public display. He was bound to say the wrong thing because of his poor use of English for one reason. But with regards to Anderson. Even fergy once said of him, He couldn't pick his nose.

[thenodrog]

I think it's safest to assume since Jack died that everyone in the frame is lining up to feather their own nests. Control of a Prem club as it was last year, with an income in excess of 60m pa would present massive money making opportunities. I would like to think that B&C being locals would have a stronger conscience, stronger responsibility to the club and much more moral fibre.

[jw_]

I suggest the jury is still out with regards to Shebby Singh. But the action group were totally daft putting him on public display. He was bound to say the wrong thing because of his poor use of English for one reason. But with regards to Anderson. Even fergy once said of him, He couldn't pick his nose.

I don't think the jury is or should be "out" on Singh, he does more backflips than an Olympic diver,eg (see Talksport thread) .I don't buy the poor use of English excuse either, he says something one day then does a complete flip the next thats nothing to do with English,that's deceit.

[thenodrog]

After hearing him speak at KGH I can assure you that although Shebby Singh has an accent he has a much better command of the English language than most of the Blackburn End..... and all of the Darwen End lower.

[glen9mullan]

What makes you think Anderson is telling you a truthful version of events?

Does he have a better track record of speaking the truth in comparrison to anybody else?

Is it the same Anderson who went on sky with his tearful act?

Did he speak the truth on sky about his own son for example?

Is it the same Anderson you said had his lawyer send you letters?

I do not believe you have any reason to believe Andersons version of events over IB etc.

If as you did awhile ago question why IB spoke to Anderson. Maybe all of us on here should question you on the same.

Why are you even having talks, dialogue with somebody who many believe - whether true or not, is another subject - has played a major role in ruining the club.

I thought you were involved with the action group, not an appeasement group.

1. The version of events that Jerome Anderson spoke about in an open and frank conversation is the exact version of events which was I was told in November 2011 by 2 senior parties involved at Rovers.

2. From December 2011 before any talk of a Seneca bid we have tried to make various contact with IB

3, No one has said JA Is telling the truth or indeed telling lies, but of the line of questioning which was put to JA these was not top of the Agenda and he would gain nothing in telling any lies about it in fairness, as its not part of the bigger picture in what has happened at our club

Your narrow mindness of things surprises me, Jerome Anderson is one party we have tried to make contact with for 12 months, to put across many questions. When you are trying to make sense of the last couple of years and you are in contact with the footballing authorities, then its always a good idea to speak to anyone who has had involvement with the club. What are you trying to tell me, Don't speak to the person or ask the questions of the person many people blame for the decline of Rovers?

I requested Anderson phoned me, and after a long chase he finally did, The questions put to Jerome which most were covered by Nick Harris were asked , and I have spent the last few weeks anaylising his answers against the stuff which we have in the form of statements from others.

This is and has been a long drawn out affair, which has had to go back to before Venkys even bought the club, back to the days before Anderson when Chris Nathaniel was involved. If by being thorough to esnure we do not make any false allegations you feel we are doing something wrong, then please do conduct these enquiries yourself.

Instead of hampering them, but then again this is what you do best by all accounts?

[glen9mullan]

An excellent post by Pafell and expresses my thoughts perfectly.I'm sorry to say this Glenn but you do appear to be putting your head on the block more and more these days. You were completely taken in by S Singh and made to look silly when he backtracked,now you are risking the same outcome with Anderson. I can only hope you really do know what you are doing but I for one now have my doubts but will appologise unresevedly if proved wrong.

My opinion of Shebby has not changed, and I fully understand most people's sceptism especially after the KGH event when he appolgised for offending, although did not retract the statements he made. On Anderson I certainly have not backed the guy, or indeed been taken in by his words. As you would appreciate the IB meeting was very very low on the line of questioning put to JA.

This is not a case of being taken in, this is a just a completelt different approach to things

I suggest the jury is still out with regards to Shebby Singh. But the action group were totally daft putting him on public display. He was bound to say the wrong thing because of his poor use of English for one reason. But with regards to Anderson. Even fergy once said of him, He couldn't pick his nose.

So what would you suggest? Dont give supporters a platform to put their concerns across?

We do not regret one little bit, having Shebby Singh take questions for 2 hours to hundreds of supporters, why should only a select few be given this platform?

Actions will no doubt be the ultimate judge of Shebby Singh, to date he has made these statements, vetoed many Kean signings and had rovers record signing , signed off. These Actions IMO show he has far more power than that of the Manager who previously had the power to have people removed from the club

[PAFELL]

1. The version of events that Jerome Anderson spoke about in an open and frank conversation is the exact version of events which was I was told in November 2011 by 2 senior parties involved at Rovers.

2. From December 2011 before any talk of a Seneca bid we have tried to make various contact with IB

3, No one has said JA Is telling the truth or indeed telling lies, but of the line of questioning which was put to JA these was not top of the Agenda and he would gain nothing in telling any lies about it in fairness, as its not part of the bigger picture in what has happened at our club

Your narrow mindness of things surprises me, Jerome Anderson is one party we have tried to make contact with for 12 months, to put across many questions. When you are trying to make sense of the last couple of years and you are in contact with the footballing authorities, then its always a good idea to speak to anyone who has had involvement with the club. What are you trying to tell me, Don't speak to the person or ask the questions of the person many people blame for the decline of Rovers?

I requested Anderson phoned me, and after a long chase he finally did, The questions put to Jerome which most were covered by Nick Harris were asked , and I have spent the last few weeks anaylising his answers against the stuff which we have in the form of statements from others.

This is and has been a long drawn out affair, which has had to go back to before Venkys even bought the club, back to the days before Anderson when Chris Nathaniel was involved. If by being thorough to esnure we do not make any false allegations you feel we are doing something wrong, then please do conduct these enquiries yourself.

Instead of hampering them, but then again this is what you do best by all accounts?

I ask a few questions and you reply with abuse. So now I am hampering things. Really, how?

When I posted, others agreed with what I posted. Strangly you have not given them abuse and made allegations against them.

[John]

PAFELL – I think it might have something to do with the fact you question every single thing the Action Group does…..

Zzzzzzzzzzz

[clitheroerover]

I do worry about the IB/IC potential arrangement particularly due to IB's long standing relationship with Hendry and what the impact of that may be.

[PAFELL]

PAFELL – I think it might have something to do with the fact you question every single thing the Action Group does…..

Zzzzzzzzzzz

They put themselves in the public domain. If something does not sit right, then I question. But it does not mean that it gives Glen the right to make false allegations against me.

This time questions I raised others wanted the answers as well. They were not intended as digs. But has has chosen to take them that way.

[AndyNeil]

as somebody mentioned earlier in the thread (it might have been Glen), everybody knows everybody in football ..... so in my humble opinion a club our size isn't going to find an owner who doesn't have links to people in the game whose motives are questionable - after all, people are involved in the game to make money from it.

As local businessmen, you'd like to think that the two Ian's (if they were to make a successful purchase of the club - which they haven't indicated, or indicated for a while - if they have) would have a greater feeling/understanding of the fanbase and what makes the club and fans tick. However until they do (if they do at all) then it looks like we are stuck with Venkys as there doesn't seem to be a queue of serious people/business'/consortium lining up to buy the club.

I can't ever see the onwership of Jack Walker (the period he was alive) ever being repeated. Like it or not, people buy a football club to either A, make money - B, raise their profile - C, both ..... that is of course unless there is a community funded buy-out which without wishing to go over old ground, isn't going to happen.

[PAFELL]

as somebody mentioned earlier in the thread (it might have been Glen), everybody knows everybody in football ..... so in my humble opinion a club our size isn't going to find an owner who doesn't have links to people in the game whose motives are questionable - after all, people are involved in the game to make money from it.

As local businessmen, you'd like to think that the two Ian's (if they were to make a successful purchase of the club - which they haven't indicated, or indicated for a while - if they have) would have a greater feeling/understanding of the fanbase and what makes the club and fans tick. However until they do (if they do at all) then it looks like we are stuck with Venkys as there doesn't seem to be a queue of serious people/business'/consortium lining up to buy the club.

I can't ever see the onwership of Jack Walker (the period he was alive) ever being repeated. Like it or not, people buy a football club to either A, make money - B, raise their profile - C, both ..... that is of course unless there is a community funded buy-out which without wishing to go over old ground, isn't going to happen.

I cannot disagree with anything in this.

[Mercer]

I do worry about the IB/IC potential arrangement particularly due to IB's long standing relationship with Hendry and what the impact of that may be.

+1