[Archived] Has a date been agreed for supporters consultation meeting

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

Who did he talk too? Mike Cheston was the only director at the time and it wasn't him.

The owners can't be reached by MC himself so how does Coyle from Langho, who was in Houston at the time, manage to reach them directly?

Seriously? Because he has access to phone and an agent.

And if you listened to the podcast I'm sure Cheston says he has direct access to Pune, in the same way Mowbray does.

[Dreams of 1995]

2 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Fact? So Cheston was lying when he said the debt was Venky's?

The rest is just conjecture. Just because they don't want to answer questions doesn't make them corrupt.

You can make a 'solid argument' for anything in the absence of transparency. It doesn't make it true. 

It is. It's loaded against Venky's London, who is the parent company of BRFC Athletic. Why do you think that when our accounts are released, or indeed when anyone with far more experience in finance than myself comment, they all give a debt figure related to Rovers? It is Rovers' debt, pure and simple. The debt might be owed to Venkys but it is still Rovers' debt. If the banks decide to wind up tomorrow then they'd come after the assets of Blackburn Rovers Athletic, they wouldn't take fat Barry's house.

Your last line is plain silly. It's a lack of transparency I am arguing against - evidenced by the fact we have no board and a director-who's-not-a-director-but-paid-to-direct bloke. 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

It is Rovers' debt, pure and simple

It isn't according to Cheston. So, again, are you saying Cheston is purposefully telling lies on record in a public meeting that has been recorded and broadcast on the BBC?

 

[JHRover]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

 

And if you listened to the podcast I'm sure Cheston says he has direct access to Pune, in the same way Mowbray does.

This is one I'm not entirely sure about. Listening to what Cheston has said on this subject it is more along the lines of he has ways of contacting the people in India directly if he needs to, an example being his summer trip out there (strangely I think it was separately to Mowbray) but that really his point of contact on a working day to day basis is the shadow director.

Cheston has said several times that he finds the presence of Pasha to be a positive in the operation of the club as he can speak to Pasha who in turn goes to the owners. I would hope so given the very public job advertisement which was specifically tailored to enable Pasha to get it.

I'd quite like to know exactly what is better about this current arrangement compared to the previous one when Shaw/Myers/Bowyer were here. Since Pasha's increased presence at Ewood we're now on to our 4th manager in 2 years, have had a relegation and a near miss, have a transfer profit of about £30 million. So quite what has improved in the operation of the club by this 'improved communication' I'm not sure. It certainly hasn't improved results or performance.

 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, JHRover said:

This is one I'm not entirely sure about. Listening to what Cheston has said on this subject it is more along the lines of he has ways of contacting the people in India directly if he needs to, an example being his summer trip out there (strangely I think it was separately to Mowbray) but that really his point of contact on a working day to day basis is the shadow director.

Cheston has said several times that he finds the presence of Pasha to be a positive in the operation of the club as he can speak to Pasha who in turn goes to the owners. I would hope so given the very public job advertisement which was specifically tailored to enable Pasha to get it.

I'd quite like to know exactly what is better about this current arrangement compared to the previous one when Shaw/Myers/Bowyer were here. Since Pasha's increased presence at Ewood we're now on to our 4th manager in 2 years, have had a relegation and a near miss, have a transfer profit of about £30 million. So quite what has improved in the operation of the club by this 'improved communication' I'm not sure. It certainly hasn't improved results or performance.

 

There's been no improvement that I can see either. They are just thrashing around in the dark hoping something will work and get us back in the Championship and then the Prem. Mowbray mentioned it for a reason the other night ('bouncing through the Championship'), just like Coyle and Lambert did when they were here. That is obviously their remit.

I'd be shocked if it ever happened because they'll never appoint the right people. We just have to hope Mowbray performs a miracle over the next few years.

[Athlete]

53 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Nope, it was promotion from the Championship. I pointed it out when Coyle was appointed. A blind man on galloping horse can see what the 'policy' is. Unfortunately, because they are idiots they chose Coyle instead of another with promotion to the Prem on his CV (Warnock), probably because Coyle was cheaper and talked his way into the job.

Your opinions aren't based in 'fact', that's the difference. And you can't back then up. End of...

C'mom do you actually believe they chose Coyle

they're not interested in Rovers

they're allowing someone to play with Rovers and whoever that maybe is being conned by bigger charlatans.

So you're opinions are based on facts... Take your head out of the sand venkys couldn't give a flying about BRFC and aren't bothered if we're in league one or the prem 

[Athlete]

54 minutes ago, Biz said:

Someone did get potted. We've seen 3 "chairman" and 7 managers sacked in less than 7 years. We've also seen countless staff, players and different "advisors" move on with pay offs.

Football isn't standard business either, which is precisely why these problems have happened here and elsewhere; rich idiots looking for new trinkets

Again Biz look at the bigger picture I mean someone at a higher level in the organization not at a small arm or off shoot business... 

[Dreams of 1995]

38 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

It isn't according to Cheston. So, again, are you saying Cheston is purposefully telling lies on record in a public meeting that has been recorded and broadcast on the BBC?

 

I'm saying he has worded it cleverly.

Rovers accounts 2016

The name Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic PLC. Page 25 shows our list of creditors.

You will see there is debt owed to our parent company: so whilst the debt is owed to Venkys it is actually Blackburn Rovers Football & Athletic PLC that have that debt, not Venketashawara Hatcheries or whatever company they have chose to operate through.

The debt is ours however which way you word it. It's there in filed company accounts. 

[RoverCanada]

3 hours ago, Hasta said:

The problem with Keans contract was that it meant that he could wheel out the old guard, bring in the likes of Myles and co. and not have to worry about relegation as it was incredibly well paid. We talk about players contracts having relegation clauses. Kean's had none. He was to be well rewarded over 4 years regardless of what happens. If he kept us in the Premier league was obscene.

Remember this was a rookie unknown. Would any Rovers board member at that time have agreed that contract? No. Did Venkys know anything about football? No.  So who prepared the contract and under FA rules for running clubs, was it legal for them to do so.?

You're not going to get any argument from me that the contract was incredibly suspicious in it's lucrativeness, timing, and being entirely undeserved. My point (and forgive me for even making it as it's tired ground) is that, at least going by the terms of the contract, Kean was not monetarily incentivised to get the club relegated. By 2015/16, if he had kept us in the PL that entire time, he'd have been making £2M + various potential bonuses (top half finish, CL or Europa qualification, cup performance etc.). If we were in L1 by 2015/16, his base salary was £250k. The contract sets out that his base salary was roughly halved for every relegation.

The looming part is the £1.6m 'loyalty bonus' that starts in year 3. Such loyalty bonuses are pretty common to reward a manager or player for sticking with a club (imagine a bizarro world where Kean becomes a sought after manager haha...), but I suspect these would also be void if Kean were fired (as he, uh, presumably would be if we were relegated again...). It does make you wonder about his resignation, as he potentially was going to make another £1.6m had he stuck it out into 2013/14.

Now, was Kean for some reason given a contract normally reserved for proven PL managers? Yes.

Quote

Again this is off memory. Did the contract actually refer to the possibility of us being in League one? I recall that it did. Do you think Mark Hughes, Tony Pulis or Ronald Koeman have contracts which talk about league one.  It isn't almost like it needed to be in there because the course the club was about to take meant serious chance of relegation.

The contract does set out a salary for League 1, but to look at it from a different angle, by doing so it reduces the liability to Kean if he were fired after a relegation. Perhaps it's just odd wording, as it may be that other contracts just say "salary cut by 50% in case of any relegation", rather than the pyramid of salary scenarios laid out in Kean's contract.

Suppose Hughes is making £2m, gets relegated, his contract says his salary drops to £1m in the Championship, Stoke sticks with him, but they get relegated again, and his contract only stipulates a salary for the Championship. Stoke wants to fire him but he's got £1m left on his contract rather than, say, £500k if his contract set out a L1 salary.

[Athlete]

49 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

It isn't according to Cheston. So, again, are you saying Cheston is purposefully telling lies on record in a public meeting that has been recorded and broadcast on the BBC?

 

He wasn't telling lies he was choosing his words so to speak 

 

[tomphil]

Cheston has form for telling fibs so how anyone can go along with his word is a bit odd besides the fact that he like most of us will have no idea beyond the balance sheet just how the debt is structured back in India or wherever.

One thing I do reckon is it will be done in such a way it benefits the overall VH balance sheet otherwise it just wouldn't be happening.

[Athlete]

12 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Cheston has form for telling fibs so how anyone can go along with his word is a bit odd besides the fact that he like most of us will have no idea beyond the balance sheet just how the debt is structured back in India or wherever.

One thing I do reckon is it will be done in such a way it benefits the overall VH balance sheet otherwise it just wouldn't be happening.

The words Nail and head spring to mind with your last sentence... 

[tomphil]

5 minutes ago, Athlete said:

The words Nail and head spring to mind with your last sentence... 

No point arguing with those who don't grasp it pal in their eyes if they can't see it happening then it isn't happening end of.

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, RoverCanada said:

You're not going to get any argument from me that the contract was incredibly suspicious in it's lucrativeness, timing, and being entirely undeserved. My point (and forgive me for even making it as it's tired ground) is that, at least going by the terms of the contract, Kean was not monetarily incentivised to get the club relegated. 

Yes I understood what you meant. Im not sure many people  actually think he made more money by getting the club relegated anymore. I'm away at the moment so can't look back at the contract but it still seemed incredibly generous, even for a Premier League contract. It would be good to see another managers contract to compare.

I think the thing I remember was that, once the loyalty bonus kicked in, he would earn as much (if not more) in year 3 , even in league one, than what he did in year one in the premier league. Therefore he could happily take us on the crash course we chose to ride knowing that 'failure' wouldn't really result in loss of earnings.  Is that normal? Maybe. Maybe not.

[47er]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I'm saying he has worded it cleverly.

Rovers accounts 2016

The name Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic PLC. Page 25 shows our list of creditors.

You will see there is debt owed to our parent company: so whilst the debt is owed to Venkys it is actually Blackburn Rovers Football & Athletic PLC that have that debt, not Venketashawara Hatcheries or whatever company they have chose to operate through.

The debt is ours however which way you word it. It's there in filed company accounts. 

i.e. the Club is in debt for that huge amount to the owners and the owners are entitled to try to get it back anyway they choose.That could mean selling Brockhall and selling Ewood Park for any planning-approved purpose, Jack's stands presumably being of scrap value. If Balaji was convinced we would never get back into the big time that could easily be his response.

People are sleep-walking into disaster here with no idea of the fate that could befall us.

More bile from a fantasist I suppose....

 

[JBiz]

2 hours ago, JHRover said:

I'd quite like to know exactly what is better about this current arrangement compared to the previous one when Shaw/Myers/Bowyer were here. Since Pasha's increased presence at Ewood we're now on to our 4th manager in 2 years, have had a relegation and a near miss, have a transfer profit of about £30 million. So quite what has improved in the operation of the club by this 'improved communication' I'm not sure. It certainly hasn't improved results or performance.

 

I think you'd have to compare it to the Hunt, Shaw and Shebby "eras" to really justify his impact, and Ofcourse you'd also have to take into account the sheer weight of issues inherited, for example after Lambert. That's not an attempt to create an excuse for Pasha, but let's not pretend he inherited an operations role at a club going upwards.

I said myself, upon relegation in 2012 and that season, it could take a decade to fix the problems caused by Kean and Shebbys civil war, the tying up of our parachute payments and the dent this had in our fanbase/turnover.

We are still paying for lots of those decisions 5 years later! 

[Gav]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

Cheston has form for telling fibs so how anyone can go along with his word.

Not wanting to get into this debate really and slightly digressing, we talk about Cheston telling porkies, but should we expect anything more from people employed in the beautiful game?

Football has been a breeding ground for liars and thieves for years, why should we expect anything other than more lies and more unscrupulous individuals feathering their own nests at the expense of football club/players/fans.

Football is built upon lies, around transfers, managerial appointments, sackings, takeovers, players diving "Never saw it" waist high tackles "Never saw it". 

Its absolutely rotten to its core, and to expect anything more than to be shafted, robbed and treated like sh1te is expecting way to much.

You'd never put up with being lied to as a customer in a shop buying a new carpet or a sandwich for lunch, but at football its fine, carry on, why?

 

 

 

[JHRover]

41 minutes ago, Biz said:

I think you'd have to compare it to the Hunt, Shaw and Shebby "eras" to really justify his impact, and Ofcourse you'd also have to take into account the sheer weight of issues inherited, for example after Lambert. That's not an attempt to create an excuse for Pasha, but let's not pretend he inherited an operations role at a club going upwards.

I said myself, upon relegation in 2012 and that season, it could take a decade to fix the problems caused by Kean and Shebbys civil war, the tying up of our parachute payments and the dent this had in our fanbase/turnover.

We are still paying for lots of those decisions 5 years later! 

It was seemingly Pasha's decision to fire Gary Bowyer with the club sat in a reasonably secure position in the Championship and then appoint a manager who on the surface was a good appointment but scratch below that and he had clearly been misled/lied to or promised things he was never going to get. These cretins get away with that sort of behaviour with Kean, Bowyer, Coyle and probably now Mowbray but someone like Lambert was never going to put up with it as he could get a job elsewhere instead.

I'm not sure what issues Pasha inherited.

I'm not saying all was well with the world and I'm not saying Derek Shaw was the club's saviour but at least we had stability, a board of more than 1 person, 2 people with footballing experience at the top of the club, and a popular manager who despite accounts on here was actually on course to keep us in the Championship without spending any money. I don't want another Bowyer debate but we hadn't been in the bottom 3 before he was sacked and subsequently have nosedived as a club.

It seems to me that Pasha's 'emergence' as a regular fixture around Ewood has directly coincided with the dismantling of the board, to the extent where we now have one director who has little/no power and certainly no footballing idea, and ends up heaping embarrassment on himself and the club when he has to speak for the owners, have gone through managers like they are going out of fashion, have been relegated, sold most of our playing assets and yet the debt and losses remain staggering, as their recent 'injection' of £6 million proves.

Essentially Pasha has done the same as Shebby Singh, except done it in silence and hasn't had the involvement in players and money to spend. He's delivered a period of chaos, uncertainty, lack of direction, high managerial turnover, high player turnover, whilst taking home a nice wage and letting others take the flak for it.

Sooner he's gone the better.

[Dreams of 1995]

3 minutes ago, JHRover said:

It was seemingly Pasha's decision to fire Gary Bowyer with the club sat in a reasonably secure position in the Championship and then appoint a manager who on the surface was a good appointment but scratch below that and he had clearly been misled/lied to or promised things he was never going to get. These cretins get away with that sort of behaviour with Kean, Bowyer, Coyle and probably now Mowbray but someone like Lambert was never going to put up with it as he could get a job elsewhere instead.

I'm not sure what issues Pasha inherited.

I'm not saying all was well with the world and I'm not saying Derek Shaw was the club's saviour but at least we had stability, a board of more than 1 person, 2 people with footballing experience at the top of the club, and a popular manager who despite accounts on here was actually on course to keep us in the Championship without spending any money. I don't want another Bowyer debate but we hadn't been in the bottom 3 before he was sacked and subsequently have nosedived as a club.

It seems to me that Pasha's 'emergence' as a regular fixture around Ewood has directly coincided with the dismantling of the board, to the extent where we now have one director who has little/no power and certainly no footballing idea, and ends up heaping embarrassment on himself and the club when he has to speak for the owners, have gone through managers like they are going out of fashion, have been relegated, sold most of our playing assets and yet the debt and losses remain staggering, as their recent 'injection' of £6 million proves.

Essentially Pasha has done the same as Shebby Singh, except done it in silence and hasn't had the involvement in players and money to spend. He's delivered a period of chaos, uncertainty, lack of direction, high managerial turnover, high player turnover, whilst taking home a nice wage and letting others take the flak for it.

Sooner he's gone the better.

As ever perfectly summed up. 

 

Quite how people are trying to defend a single jot of Pasha's involvement at the club is beyond any comprehension. He has resided over our demise to the lowest league position in nearly 40 years yet he has the excuse of 'inheriting something already bad'.

The truth couldn't be further from that. GB had stability and you certainly couldn't see him loading players onto the books like Stokes, Brown or Greer. I can say, as certain as one could be with football, that if GB was still in charge we wouldn't be in League 1 now.

Even forgetting our football woes the fact remains that Pasha is doing his dirty business in silence because it is exactly that: dirty.

[JHRover]

6 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

As ever perfectly summed up. 

 

Quite how people are trying to defend a single jot of Pasha's involvement at the club is beyond any comprehension. He has resided over our demise to the lowest league position in nearly 40 years yet he has the excuse of 'inheriting something already bad'.

The truth couldn't be further from that. GB had stability and you certainly couldn't see him loading players onto the books like Stokes, Brown or Greer. I can say, as certain as one could be with football, that if GB was still in charge we wouldn't be in League 1 now.

Even forgetting our football woes the fact remains that Pasha is doing his dirty business in silence because it is exactly that: dirty.

At least with Singh the world could see with horror what he was up to. His performance on national radio and at fans events showed the whole thing up for what it was - a sham - and this then attracted media coverage and widespread derision.

These owners have only ever trusted their inner circle and still do. Only now they've managed to get someone in place on the club payroll on a made up job description who can do the job only this time he isn't allowed to drop them in it like Singh did.

 

[JBiz]

Just now, JHRover said:

It was seemingly Pasha's decision to fire Gary Bowyer with the club sat in a reasonably secure position in the Championship and then appoint a manager who on the surface was a good appointment but scratch below that and he had clearly been misled/lied to or promised things he was never going to get. These cretins get away with that sort of behaviour with Kean, Bowyer, Coyle and probably now Mowbray but someone like Lambert was never going to put up with it as he could get a job elsewhere instead.

I'm not sure what issues Pasha inherited.

I'm not saying all was well with the world and I'm not saying Derek Shaw was the club's saviour but at least we had stability, a board of more than 1 person, 2 people with footballing experience at the top of the club, and a popular manager who despite accounts on here was actually on course to keep us in the Championship without spending any money. I don't want another Bowyer debate but we hadn't been in the bottom 3 before he was sacked and subsequently have nosedived as a club.

It seems to me that Pasha's 'emergence' as a regular fixture around Ewood has directly coincided with the dismantling of the board, to the extent where we now have one director who has little/no power and certainly no footballing idea, and ends up heaping embarrassment on himself and the club when he has to speak for the owners, have gone through managers like they are going out of fashion, have been relegated, sold most of our playing assets and yet the debt and losses remain staggering, as their recent 'injection' of £6 million proves.

Essentially Pasha has done the same as Shebby Singh, except done it in silence and hasn't had the involvement in players and money to spend. He's delivered a period of chaos, uncertainty, lack of direction, high managerial turnover, high player turnover, whilst taking home a nice wage and letting others take the flak for it.

Sooner he's gone the better.

Firstly, I don't think I'd put Kean into that group, on the proviso that he was paid off for resigning - he was never in a position to answer to anyone imo, and only left when the owners brought their own "advisor" (Shebby) in, and made his job untenable.

If we are working under the assumption Pasha was employed when the club sought an advisor (see the job spec from 2015), then I would also assume that he started after that period - thus inheriting the "costs > turnover problem", the disenchantment of fabase and plenty more knock on effects of allowing a sports agency to run the club. The dismantling of a proper board happened in 2010.

We both probably agree on the Bowyer episode, but what I would add to your points is that Shaw was never trusted by the fans, or seemingly the owners, since they took him to court for the Berg scenario. He was never part of a proper "board structure" and even then, the club suffered through the same issue with needing decisions rubberstamped in India.

What this club has never had since day one is a viable board structure. We both know that. The original point made still stands for me though, because at the time we employed Pasha, much of the damage had been done. That's not to suggest that he hasn't made things worse by allowing the Coyle scenario to start, and carry on so long. 

In terms of the summary that "sooner he's gone the better", how does that take into account the next decision by the owners? I mean, obviously I think Pasha is just another in a list of shady characters and chancers, but I guess my point is, wouldn't he simply be replaced by more examples of the same?

The owners are seemingly ignorant to the reasons for or decline, or simply aren't prepared to accept responsibility. With this in mind, perhaps our anger should pass through Shebby, Shaw, Pasha, Cheston et al - because it seems obvious that the way the owners wish to run the club, is the main problem throughout.

[Dreams of 1995]

Yep. And you'd think that if he was truly here to repair the damage caused by the previous lots failures he'd do so with utter transparency and respect for the club and its fans - the contrary to the mistakes made by his predecessors.

Anger lies firmly with the owners from all parties involved from what I can see but also lies with the leeches that choose to prop up that regime

[Athlete]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

It was seemingly Pasha's decision to fire Gary Bowyer with the club sat in a reasonably secure position in the Championship and then appoint a manager who on the surface was a good appointment but scratch below that and he had clearly been misled/lied to or promised things he was never going to get. These cretins get away with that sort of behaviour with Kean, Bowyer, Coyle and probably now Mowbray but someone like Lambert was never going to put up with it as he could get a job elsewhere instead.

I'm not sure what issues Pasha inherited.

I'm not saying all was well with the world and I'm not saying Derek Shaw was the club's saviour but at least we had stability, a board of more than 1 person, 2 people with footballing experience at the top of the club, and a popular manager who despite accounts on here was actually on course to keep us in the Championship without spending any money. I don't want another Bowyer debate but we hadn't been in the bottom 3 before he was sacked and subsequently have nosedived as a club.

It seems to me that Pasha's 'emergence' as a regular fixture around Ewood has directly coincided with the dismantling of the board, to the extent where we now have one director who has little/no power and certainly no footballing idea, and ends up heaping embarrassment on himself and the club when he has to speak for the owners, have gone through managers like they are going out of fashion, have been relegated, sold most of our playing assets and yet the debt and losses remain staggering, as their recent 'injection' of £6 million proves.

Essentially Pasha has done the same as Shebby Singh, except done it in silence and hasn't had the involvement in players and money to spend. He's delivered a period of chaos, uncertainty, lack of direction, high managerial turnover, high player turnover, whilst taking home a nice wage and letting others take the flak for it.

Sooner he's gone the better.

The same Pasha the double agent 

Lets not kid ourselves we all know that if TM isn't the answer the next man in the hot seat will be linked to certain people and not one coming through the game a la Ainsworth or the best man for the job a la Warnock style 

[MCMC1875]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

It was seemingly Pasha's decision to fire Gary Bowyer with the club sat in a reasonably secure position in the Championship and then appoint a manager who on the surface was a good appointment but scratch below that and he had clearly been misled/lied to or promised things he was never going to get. These cretins get away with that sort of behaviour with Kean, Bowyer, Coyle and probably now Mowbray but someone like Lambert was never going to put up with it as he could get a job elsewhere instead.

I'm not sure what issues Pasha inherited.

I'm not saying all was well with the world and I'm not saying Derek Shaw was the club's saviour but at least we had stability, a board of more than 1 person, 2 people with footballing experience at the top of the club, and a popular manager who despite accounts on here was actually on course to keep us in the Championship without spending any money. I don't want another Bowyer debate but we hadn't been in the bottom 3 before he was sacked and subsequently have nosedived as a club.

It seems to me that Pasha's 'emergence' as a regular fixture around Ewood has directly coincided with the dismantling of the board, to the extent where we now have one director who has little/no power and certainly no footballing idea, and ends up heaping embarrassment on himself and the club when he has to speak for the owners, have gone through managers like they are going out of fashion, have been relegated, sold most of our playing assets and yet the debt and losses remain staggering, as their recent 'injection' of £6 million proves.

Essentially Pasha has done the same as Shebby Singh, except done it in silence and hasn't had the involvement in players and money to spend. He's delivered a period of chaos, uncertainty, lack of direction, high managerial turnover, high player turnover, whilst taking home a nice wage and letting others take the flak for it.

Sooner he's gone the better.

The sooner they're all gone the better.

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, Gav said:

Not wanting to get into this debate really and slightly digressing, we talk about Cheston telling porkies, but should we expect anything more from people employed in the beautiful game?

Football has been a breeding ground for liars and thieves for years, why should we expect anything other than more lies and more unscrupulous individuals feathering their own nests at the expense of football club/players/fans.

Football is built upon lies, around transfers, managerial appointments, sackings, takeovers, players diving "Never saw it" waist high tackles "Never saw it". 

Its absolutely rotten to its core, and to expect anything more than to be shafted, robbed and treated like sh1te is expecting way to much.

You'd never put up with being lied to as a customer in a shop buying a new carpet or a sandwich for lunch, but at football its fine, carry on, why?

 

 

 

Yes true and mostly it's just a case of arse covering in the likes of his case rather than setting out to deceive but it's really odd how these so called intelligent people don't think they'll be pulled up on it when there are thousands of pairs of eyes and ears on them let alone recordings and minutes. 

Throwing straight dice in football obviously isn't the same as in the real world.