Nick Harris exposing what everyone knows

[yankfan]

Good read and a load of disgusting yet unsurprising documents to cover up the corruption and incompetence 

https://sportingintelligence832.substack.com/p/revealed-the-blackburn-files-from

 

[RevidgeBlue]

37 minutes ago, yankfan said:

Good read and a load of disgusting yet unsurprising documents to cover up the corruption and incompetence 

https://sportingintelligence832.substack.com/p/revealed-the-blackburn-files-from

 

What's the point of all this nearly 15 years on?

A lot of innuendo from Harris without actually revealing anything we didnt already know or anything particularly significant.

[Upside Down]

43 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What's the point of all this nearly 15 years on?

A lot of innuendo from Harris without actually revealing anything we didnt already know or anything particularly significant.

What a completely ridiculous comment.

I suppose we shouldn't discuss any events that happened in the past because we already know what happened.

[RevidgeBlue]

29 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

What a completely ridiculous comment.

I suppose we shouldn't discuss any events that happened in the past because we already know what happened.

It's not ridiculous at all.

What we need is an up to date Expose' of some genuine significance which might make a difference.

 Not a tired old rehash of ancient events which, rightly or wrongly were examined and passed off by the relevant Authorities as "nothing to see here" at the time.

[Ossydave]

5 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What's the point of all this nearly 15 years on?

A lot of innuendo from Harris without actually revealing anything we didnt already know or anything particularly significant.

Not everyone within our fans base is your age, nor have they followed the club as long as you have.

Do you really think a 19 year old rovers fan was keeping tabs on things like this at the time, when they were at primary school? 

A huge chunk of our fan base are the younger generation, increasing awareness to them is important. They'll be aware of the most recent shit show obviously, but the Venky rats regime goes back much further.

[...]

Doesn't matter when it's from.

It's out there. 

[davulsukur]

9 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What's the point of all this nearly 15 years on?

A lot of innuendo from Harris without actually revealing anything we didnt already know or anything particularly significant.

I think a lot of people (Rovers fans as well), have dismissed a lot of stuff that we know happened as speculation/rumour. Now a load of supporting documents have been released, it puts the evidence out there for all to see.

[MarkBRFC]

Problem is 15 years later I don't think anyone really cares anymore.

Its just a huge shrug of the shoulders all round.

[davulsukur]

17 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

Problem is 15 years later I don't think anyone really cares anymore.

Its just a huge shrug of the shoulders all round.

Yeah, I don't disagree but it at least confirms that it wasn't rumours/scaremongering as a lot of people said at the time.

Not many cared at the time either, sadly.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

The Club has been swept under the Carpet so to speak by the Football authorities.

Nothing to see hear..they pay the Bills.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, davulsukur said:

I think a lot of people (Rovers fans as well), have dismissed a lot of stuff that we know happened as speculation/rumour. Now a load of supporting documents have been released, it puts the evidence out there for all to see.

But what of any significance or interest was uncovered by Harris in the first place other than the fact that he received numerous Solicitors' letters from the Club at the time?

What went on was examined from all sides and deemed rightly or wrongly not to be actionable. It might be the only time ever I agreed with anything Jack Straw said, but, he was right when he said "It's not an offence to run a Club badly".

In fact overall if you look at the link to Harris's previous article he's broadly supportive of the owners and concludes they were well meaning but naive and badly advised in the early years and continued to be supportive for many years thereafter.

Imo Harris and anyone else would be better served concentrating on the period from around the time they stopped funding to the Club, we had the Court case in India, and Waggott made the infamous interview about how it was the Club's turn to start giving the owners something back,  and made the ridiculous white lie about purchasing a new team bus.

The over-riding problem remains I suppose that as long as you're not doing anything illegal - it's still not an offence to run a Club badly.

As long as all bills are paid etc it's not an offence to asset strip the Club, starve it of the funding required to thrive and leave it to gradually wither and die on the vine as is happening currently.

The only people that can ultimately effect change are other shareholders (not applicable in this case) or the fanbase. 

Harris or others can serve a purpose by highlighting current or recent events which are highly unsatisfactory if not technically illegal and it might just galvanise the fanbase into a little more dissent.

Edited 7 hours ago by RevidgeBlue

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

But what of any significance or interest was uncovered by Harris in the first place other than the fact that he received numerous Solicitors' letters from the Club at the time?

What went on was examined from all sides and deemed rightly or wrongly not to be actionable. It might be the only time ever I agreed with anything Jack Straw said, but, he was right when he said "It's not an offence to run a Club badly".

In fact overall if you look at the link to Harris's previous article he's broadly supportive of the owners and concludes they were well meaning but naive and badly advised in the early years and continued to be supportive for many years thereafter.

Imo Harris and anyone else would be better served concentrating on the period from around the time they stopped funding to the Club, we had the Court case in India, and Waggott made the infamous interview about how it was the Club's turn to start giving the owners something back,  and made the ridiculous white lie about purchasing a new team bus.

The over-riding problem remains I suppose that as long as you're not doing anything illegal - it's still not an offence to run a Club badly.

As long as all bills are paid etc it's not an offence to asset strip the Club, starve it of the funding required to thrive and leave it to gradually wither and die on the vine as is happening currently.

The only people that can ultimately effect change are other shareholders (not applicable in this case) or the fanbase. 

Harris or others can serve a purpose by highlighting current or recent events which are highly unsatisfactory if not technically illegal and it might just galvanise the fanbase into a little more dissent.

Why does it always divert away from the owners and to Waggott?

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

Why does it always divert away from the owners and to Waggott?

Not diverting away from the owners at all.

All the Anderson/Shebby Singh chaos predated Waggott. The fact we were appallingly run was never in doubt. The question was whether anything illegal or sufficiently in breach of FA guidelines had occurred.

Rightly or wrongly the Authorities must have decided at the time it hadn't.

Why do you always leap to Waggott’s defence?

[roversfan99]

21 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not diverting away from the owners at all.

All the Anderson/Shebby Singh chaos predated Waggott. The fact we were appallingly run was never in doubt. The question was whether anything illegal or sufficiently in breach of FA guidelines had occurred.

Rightly or wrongly the Authorities must have decided at the time it hadn't.

Why do you always leap to Waggott’s defence?

Its not leaping to Waggott's defence. But historically you have regularly diverted blame away from the owners.

[bob fleming]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Rightly or wrongly the Authorities must have decided at the time it hadn't.

Or was it simply a timely relegation? FA working with Kentaro don't forget, all potentially very embarrassing.

"Oh and do yourselves a favour Blackburn Rovers, under your current board room structure, don't hurry back to the Premier League. Neither of us need it."

[Hasta]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not diverting away from the owners at all.

All the Anderson/Shebby Singh chaos predated Waggott. The fact we were appallingly run was never in doubt. The question was whether anything illegal or sufficiently in breach of FA guidelines had occurred.

Rightly or wrongly the Authorities must have decided at the time it hadn't.

Why do you always leap to Waggott’s defence?

The JW letter clearly confirmed that JA was controlling footballing matters and therefore it was in breach of guidelines. Allardyce and Dunn’s comments in the last week just seem to confirm it from their perspectives.

My guess is it was too much trouble for the FA to get involved with people they were associated with as it would have caused them numerous knock-on issues. 
 

 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

21 minutes ago, Hasta said:

The JW letter clearly confirmed that JA was controlling footballing matters and therefore it was in breach of guidelines.

It doesn't matter what I think all these years later but I can't see that that matters as long as Venky's had the final say on anything if push came to shove.

It's not that different to employing a Board of Directors to run the Club on your behalf and just letting them get on with it.

[Leonard Venkhater]

28 minutes ago, Hasta said:

The JW letter clearly confirmed that JA was controlling footballing matters and therefore it was in breach of guidelines. Allardyce and Dunn’s comments in the last week just seem to confirm it from their perspectives.

My guess is it was too much trouble for the FA to get involved with people they were associated with as it would have caused them numerous knock-on issues. 
 

 

 

Too much trouble? They were compromised by their own relationship with Kentaro....

[Jimmy612]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

The JW letter clearly confirmed that JA was controlling footballing matters and therefore it was in breach of guidelines. Allardyce and Dunn’s comments in the last week just seem to confirm it from their perspectives.

My guess is it was too much trouble for the FA to get involved with people they were associated with as it would have caused them numerous knock-on issues. 
 

 

 

Was it in breach?  I genuinely don't know, but was there any difference between what Venkys did with Kentaro, and what Fosun International (Wolves) did with super agent, Jorge Mendes. I believe he operated in an advisory role, although in that case, it was more successful. 

My instinct is Kentaro (and indirectly SEM/Anderson) knew exactly how far they could go in their 'consultancy' capacity, and probably stayed on the right side of legal. Venkys were horrendously naive, ostracised good football people who genuinely cared for BRFC, and got themselves very quickly in to a hot, toxic mess.  Ultimately though, they signed off on everything Kentaro recommended.

If JA (or Kentaro) were invited by Venkys to control football matters on their behalf, is that illegal?  They didn't seemingly have any ownership stakes...

By the way, this all unfolded at least 13 years ago.  The Rao's have had plenty of time to recover the situation and run the club in an acceptable way.  Whether they were badly advised, stupid, naive, spooked or whatever else, they've had a hell of a long time to right any wrongs. Personally, I don't think they have ever got close to repairing the damage.

EDIT: I asked AI whether there was any difference between Rovers and Wolves...

Yes, there is a significant difference. The Blackburn/Kentaro situation involved explicit contractual agreements giving an agency material influence over club operations and transfers, which breached specific Football Association (FA) and Premier League rules at the time. The Wolves/Jorge Mendes situation was determined by the English Football League (EFL) and FA to be a consultancy and a close working relationship, but without Mendes holding an official role or contractual power to influence club policies, thus complying with regulations.

In essence, the Blackburn case involved a formal, legally binding agreement that gave an agent control, which is explicitly banned, while the Wolves case involved a close but informal working relationship that, while raising concerns from rival clubs, was deemed to fall within the bounds of the rules.

Edited 59 minutes ago by Jimmy612

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It doesn't matter what I think all these years later but I can't see that that matters as long as Venky's had the final say on anything if push came to shove.

It's not that different to employing a Board of Directors to run the Club on your behalf and just letting them get on with it.

“Finally, our football secretary has, this morning, been instructed by SEM to issue a mandate to a third party without any reference or approval from the board. We are not familiar with the player concerned nor is he one that has been mentioned to us by the manager. Could you please, therefore, clarify the role of SEM in our transfer policy”

Venkys aren’t having the final say. The agency there are instructing the Blackburn Rovers board to issue the transfer mandate to a third party on SEM’s say so. (They can’t do it themselves because, well, it’s against regulations and they don’t have the authority).

So that is against regulations. 

[Waggy76]

4 hours ago, bob fleming said:

Or was it simply a timely relegation? FA working with Kentaro don't forget, all potentially very embarrassing.

"Oh and do yourselves a favour Blackburn Rovers, under your current board room structure, don't hurry back to the Premier League. Neither of us need it."

The relegation was deliberate imo, maybe they had to relegate us to avoid a can of worms opening up. 

It is possible, they have never seriously tried to get to the club back up!!