Uncle Val

BFC_BFC_BFC said:
He’s approximating based on the facts that are all publicly available (not guessing) and in all likelihood he’s underestimating the financial gain.

I’ve not called him a low-life, but I am realistic enough to understand that his involvement with our Club wasn’t borne out of a sense of altruism, that his investment involved buying shares off Oyston (and was therefore also Oystons investment), that Oyston has previously put huge sums of money into the club to keep it afloat (including rebuilding two new stands), that Oystons (Karl and Owen) oversaw the day to day running of the club (managerial appointments and player recruitment) and that they too played a fundamental role in our ‘lucky’ premier league experience.

Now you (and others) can rewrite history and airbrush the truth all you like. I was happy to do so in the midst of a war with Oyston…. However, if we cannot be honest with ourselves in acknowledging the facts as they were, then to me there’s no point having a discussion.

There’s no need to put Belokon into the same bracket as Oyston…. He didn’t sue fans and in all likelihood I think he would have continued to reinvest the PL money into the Club, had Oyston not done what he did.

As I must have said a dozen times, I don’t bear him any malice, I’m just not under any illusions either. He was part of one of the best periods on our history (as we’re the Oystons)…. He wasn’t responsible for it going sour, that was entirely the Oystons … Karl’s short term business methods, which had served him (and us) so well started to catch up with him, his penny pinching cost us PL survival and Owen’s greed was the ultimate downfall…

However, despite all of that…. Belokon’s willingness to get involved with SISA was sparked not out of any calls for help, but out of a potential option to retrieve his cash….. His subsequent pursuit of Oyston in the courts was about financial recovery (I acknowledge regime changes was an eventual by product) and despite an unexpectedly generous award from the judge, he has walked away with the lot.

We got our Club back, but to me, If we want to hold anyone up in the highest esteem for that, you can thank TAM for his genius in uncovering an angle than led to their demise…..As well as others who took bullets on behalf of the fanbase (Raggy, Afro, Jez etc..).
Click to expand...
We will have to agree to differ. But you folks can stop using words like love-in and saint cos it's just facetious. People like me see a massive difference between Oyston and Belokon, which is not delusional. It's delusional to not see the massive difference, and you're even sounding like an Oyston apologist tbh. You did say though...

"He didn’t sue fans and in all likelihood I think he would have continued to reinvest the PL money into the Club, had Oyston not done what he did."

The outcome was down to the Oystons. He invested, they screwed him over. He went to court. He won. They tried to avoid paying and dragged it out and probably never paid in full. 3 people in the story. Two complete cunts, and 9ne foreign investor who did all the right things and changed our club for the better for ever, but got screwed over. He didn't expect to make a profit in court but I don't begrudge him keeping it given everything he put in and all the shit he went through at the hands of those two arseholes.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I’m struggling to believe that VB hadn’t taken legal advice, and was well aware of what his options were, until he was contacted by SISA.

For me the bottom line is that the interests of VB and the fans were similar but not identical. You could say that we used him, and piggy backed the litigation, more than he used us.

He got the money. We got the club. Win/win.
Click to expand...
You may be ‘struggling to believe it’, but at that stage he certainly wasn’t aware of the legal option that he eventually pursued ….

It’s also possible that he may have had his own reasons for not wanting to progress with legal advice at such an early stage.

It was several months before he engaged his legal team..
voyeur said:
We will have to agree to differ. But you folks can stop using words like love-in and saint cos it's just facetious. People like me see a massive difference between Oyston and Belokon, which is not delusional. It's delusional to not see the massive difference, and you're even sounding like an Oyston apologist tbh. You did say though...

"He didn’t sue fans and in all likelihood I think he would have continued to reinvest the PL money into the Club, had Oyston not done what he did."

The outcome was down to the Oystons. He invested, they screwed him over. He went to court. He won. They tried to avoid paying and dragged it out and probably never paid in full. 3 people in the story. Two complete cunts, and 9ne foreign investor who did all the right things and changed our club for the better for ever, but got screwed over. He didn't expect to make a profit in court but I don't begrudge him keeping it given everything he put in and all the shit he went through at the hands of those two arseholes.
Click to expand...
I’m not an ‘Oyston Apologist’, but I am prepared to acknowledge and give credit to them where it’s due, rather than this constant rewriting of history.

I can acknowledge, for example, that we sang songs openly supporting and mocking other fans regarding Owens rape charge, because he had invested big money in the mid 90’s.

I can acknowledge that the investment with Belekon was funded significantly through Oyston liquidating shares and therefor he also contributed significant finance to the PL promotion.

I can acknowledge that Karl Oyston appointed some decent managers and managed to secure some very good players with a limited budget.

I can also acknowledge that the Oystons are a very unsavoury bunch and we’re well rid.

In addition, I can also form a balanced view of Belokon, based on the factual reality as opposed to myth and legend.

And he was paid off in full…

If you don’t begrudge him keeping the money, then that’s fine. I’m not sure I do either, but I can acknowledge the fact that he did keep it and given what we too had suffered (on an individual and collective basis) he could and arguably should have made a substantial gesture for the fans / community of Blackpool.
 
Last edited:
nameless said:
Nice sentiments and I guess a lot of Latvians will be concerned so good luck to them. Something is definitely overdue to him and i wonder if its possible to get him over for a game and maybe a fans meeting?
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Said pretty much the same thing, earlier in the season. But for Val, we’d have struggled to rid ourselves of the Oystons. It was his input that propelled us to the Prem and his continuing input through the courts, that gave us our club back. He’s a bloody hero in my book and fully deserving of a raucous welcome back to Bloomfield Rd.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
You may be ‘struggling to believe it’, but at that stage he certainly wasn’t aware of the legal option that he eventually pursued ….

It’s also possible that he may have had his own reasons for not wanting to progress with legal advice at such an early stage.

It was several months before he engaged his legal team..

I’m not an ‘Oyston Apologist’, but I am prepared to acknowledge and give credit to them where it’s due, rather than this constant rewriting of history.

I can acknowledge, for example, that we sang songs openly supporting and mocking other fans regarding Owens rape charge, because he had invested big money in the mid 90’s.

I can acknowledge that the investment with Belekon was funded significantly through Oyston liquidating shares and therefor he also contributed significant finance to the PL promotion.

I can acknowledge that Karl Oyston appointed some decent managers and managed to secure some very good players with a limited budget.

I can also acknowledge that the Oystons are a very unsavoury bunch and we’re well rid.

In addition, I can also form a balanced view of Belokon, based on the factual reality as opposed to myth and legend.
Click to expand...
I believe i have a balanced view of all three people too. I remarked numerous times about Karl bringing 8n some good managers, and how we performed remarkably well on a very tight budget. I don't know much about Belokon, but I have seen nothing in his dealings with Blackpool FC that have pissed me off. Theres no myth or legend, more of your emotional language.
 
voyeur said:
I believe i have a balanced view of all three people too. I remarked numerous times about Karl bringing 8n some good managers, and how we performed remarkably well on a very tight budget. I don't know much about Belokon, but I have seen nothing in his dealings with Blackpool FC that have pissed me off. Theres no myth or legend, more of your emotional language.
Click to expand...
There’s been plenty of myth and legend on this thread, much of it written into the folklore that surrounds our struggle with the Oystons.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No it’s not different interpretations, it’s complete factual misrepresentation and distortion of the truth.
Click to expand...
Time to leave it. I disagree with you but this will run and run. We are all entitled to our view of the world and mine is different from yours when it comes to Oyston and Belokon. That won't change.
 
voyeur said:
Time to leave it. I disagree with you but this will run and run. We are all entitled to our view of the world and mine is different from yours when it comes to Oyston and Belokon. That won't change.
Click to expand...
Disagree all you like you’re completely delusional
 
voyeur said:
Blimey, charming. I think it's the other way round and plenty agree.
Click to expand...
You can’t change the facts Voy, no matter how many people agree.

Tango1953 said:
Built with money from grants.
Click to expand...
Another one who is caught in a world of make believe. Try partially funded by grants and you might get closer to reality.

We don’t have to make stuff up about the Oystons, they’re cunts regardless.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
You can’t change the facts Voy, no matter how many people agree.


Another one who is caught in a world of make believe. Try partially funded by grants and you might get closer to reality.

We don’t have to make stuff up about the Oystons, they’re cunts regardless.
Click to expand...
Theres no need to change the facts. You just have a warped view of them in my opinion.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Why Kurt?

The way I see (beyond all of the fairy tales) is that Val has walked of into the sunset with all of the money. And he did that not only with the blessing of Blackpool fans, but with us applauding him on his way…

Like I said above, people are too invested in the alternative reality they’ve created for themselves to admit the truth.
Click to expand...
Better Val walked away with the money than Oyston still owner of BFC. We were never going to see that money invested in the club anyway.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
You can’t change the facts Voy, no matter how many people agree.


Another one who is caught in a world of make believe. Try partially funded by grants and you might get closer to reality.

We don’t have to make stuff up about the Oystons, they’re cunts regardless.
Click to expand...


Who made anything up? I mentioned the grant money, you didn't. I didn't say it was built exclusively with grant money. You seem to be creating arguments with yourself.

BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No it’s not different interpretations, it’s complete factual misrepresentation and distortion of the truth.
Click to expand...
 
This thread makes me realise how lucky we are to have SS In charge/owner …👍..
Can you imagine if bst comedy bid had been accepted…😱….doesn’t even bare thinking about …😎
 
voyeur said:
I already have but you don't listen. We just see things very differently. I don't see much antipathy towards VB from those who were involved, TAM, BST etc.
Click to expand...
There isn’t much antipathy from me either (and by the way, I was working alongside TAM in the early days of BST 😉)

I’ve said it as it was and expressed my view of Belokon’s actions. I never believed he was serious about taking over (in any capacity) - I based that on a number of statements, where he selected ambiguity, rather than being straightforward (as I said, in my view he wanted to keep the fans and media onside). At the time, I recommended that BST strategy Team did not place too many eggs in the Belokon basket and along with another member of the strategy team sought to explore other ‘potential’ options….

What I’ve said on her had been straightforward enough..

1) He ended up walking away from Blackpool with a tidy profit and chose to do nothing for the fans of the club.

2) He was convicted of Money Laundering and there were questions over the source of the money used to invest / buy shares in Blackpool FC

3) He wasn’t the sole investor that resulted in our successful period, in fact it was Owen Oyston who invested the cash that VB paid to purchase his shareholding (ergo VB got shares in the club in return for his investment, Owen Oyston got nothing for his) yet everyone continues to lie to themselves about the reality, because the truth is inconvenient and doesn’t fit neatly into the myth.

4) He was essentially ignoring the attempts of fans to assist and intervene with Oyston and only opened up, when he was alerted to the prospect that we may be able to assist him to get his money back.

5) He did try to sell his shares back to the Oystons.

6) He was willing to settle with Owen Oyston and walk away.

You can choose to interpret those facts any way you like..

I’m conflicted…. Yes, I revelled in him dealing a bloody nose to Oyston and valued his input in ousting them from the Club, but I’m also not naive enough to think he’s something he isn’t, which is why I don’t go along with the “He’s a hero in my eyes” brigade…. because it’s bull shit!
 
If you wanted the Oystons out of the club Belokon was the only one who could do it so it's no surprise that a lot of fans would call him a hero
 
Tango1953 said:
Who made anything up? I mentioned the grant money, you didn't. I didn't say it was built exclusively with grant money. You seem to be creating arguments with yourself.
Click to expand...
Loads of Clubs get grant money for developing their stadiums…. So why is it an issue when we do it?

Like I said that whole bullshit is all about people creating myths… I just can’t be arsed with the hypocrisy of it all. Oyston invested far more into Blackpool than VB ever did… deal with it folks… He’s still and old knob head, but you can’t change reality.

Jesus… we were all chanting “Oyston shagged your wife” to away fans when he was inside…
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Loads of Clubs get grant money for developing their stadiums…. So why is it an issue when we do it?

Like I said that whole bullshit is all about people creating myths… I just can’t be arsed with the hypocrisy of it all. Oyston invested far more into Blackpool than VB ever did… deal with it folks… He’s still and old knob head, but you can’t change reality.

Jesus… we were all chanting “Oyston shagged your wife” to away fans when he was inside…
Click to expand...
he invested the square root of F all till the prem money enabled us to buy sprinklers and a meccano east stand.
 
Hazi said:
Yes. Unless you count BFC generated money as his?
Click to expand...
He spent multiple millions of his own money prior to us ever getting anywhere near the Premier League….

It was his money (from the proceeds of the sale of shares to VB) that funded our successful campaign to get to the Championship in 2007 and he was balls deep already prior to that..
 
Tango1953 said:
Built with money from grants.
Click to expand...

Tango

I'm perfectly aware that the Oystons build the stands with the aid of grants and would have had to return an amount - £4.2m rings a bell ? - if a part of the improvements/expansion had not been completed.

I appreciate that you will have probably made a mistake when copying and pasting but in your response you have quoted me as saying something that I never said.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
Tango

I'm perfectly aware that the Oystons build the stands with the aid of grants and would have had to return an amount - £4.2m rings a bell ? - if a part of the improvements/expansion had not been completed.

I appreciate that you will have probably made a mistake when copying and pasting but in your response you have quoted me as saying something that I never said.
Click to expand...


Apologies, muddled up the quotes. Amended it now.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I’m struggling to believe that VB hadn’t taken legal advice, and was well aware of what his options were, until he was contacted by SISA.

For me the bottom line is that the interests of VB and the fans were similar but not identical. You could say that we used him, and piggy backed the litigation, more than he used us.

He got the money. We got the club. Win/win.
Click to expand...
Well I know 100% that he hadn’t

Stephenson Harwood were the first firm he approached in June 14

The first letter of claim was issued September that year

Not too sure when CC took over but recall being frustrated at the delay ( particularly as I was under threat of being sued at this point ) and the change was the reason
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No I haven’t ‘misremembered’ at all. We discussed it then, we’ve discussed it since and I’m sure other mutuals will confirm.

As you say, SS wrote off his own initiative, but

a) It followed frustration from us as a collective with a lack of intervention and assistance / contact from VB despite us appealing to him.

and

b) After the seeds of an idea that was hatched regarding the minority shareholder issue, which we all discussed prior to the SS contact.

We knew perfectly well at that point that £11M had been removed from the Club and that there might be a possibility that there might have been prejudice to minor shareholders.

VB agreed to the meet, because SS went off piste and suggested that we had an angle to potentially get him his money back and you two were whisked off to Riga as a result…

The meeting there ‘confirmed’ that the idea would likely be a goer and we went from there.

No ‘misremembering’, my memory is perfectly fine…. 😉
Click to expand...
We didn’t know VB was unaware of the decision or where he stood He’d said nothing
SS had approached Latvia for a meet
It was crucial ( and despite everything else something we should applaude ) but I think even he’d agree he didn’t say what you suggest - though I have to say I never saw what he said in those emails
The first meet sowed the seed that developed the strategy It wasn’t in either parties contemplation before and I say that as the person who was in Riga in March and set the agenda for and chaired the June meet in London that formulated what we then did
 
It’s interesting that for all his defensive bluster, BFC still hasn’t been able to respond to the point about Hitler and Stalin.

I don’t want to say it’s because he knows the truth, but the silence is palpable.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
We didn’t know VB was unaware of the decision or where he stood He’d said nothing
SS had approached Latvia for a meet
It was crucial ( and despite everything else something we should applaude ) but I think even he’d agree he didn’t say what you suggest - though I have to say I never saw what he said in those emails
The first meet sowed the seed that developed the strategy It wasn’t in either parties contemplation before and I say that as the person who was in Riga in March and set the agenda for and chaired the June meet in London that formulated what we then did
Click to expand...
We didn’t need to know that VB was unaware of the decision. We’d been discussing options for weeks and at that stage you had floated it as a ‘possibility’ that might exist… we’d even discussed it in relation to other potential shareholders.

Then you said to me… that Steve (without letting anyone know) had contacted VB with the prospect of that possibility (as I said, prior to that he wasn’t responding and everyone was becoming frustrated with the lack of willingness to communicate with us)

You then came back from the meeting in Riga and advised that a) He had seemed completely unaware that there might be an option to take action b) That his understanding of the British legal system was very limited and c) That on the basis of the discussion it seemed that the option we had discussed previously ( ie shareholder prejudice, was probably a goer)…

You certainly didn’t come up with that spur of the moment in that meeting, because we’d discussed it before you went.
 
The invite came on the Friday night ( Steve was in the casino when it came in ) and we went Monday evening
There was no meeting in advance
Steve and I just went !
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Well I know 100% that he hadn’t

Stephenson Harwood were the first firm he approached in June 14

The first letter of claim was issued September that year

Not too sure when CC took over but recall being frustrated at the delay ( particularly as I was under threat of being sued at this point ) and the change was the reason
Click to expand...
And me 😡😡 Especially as I got my letter from the scum saying that they were going to sue me about 2 weeks after that London meeting
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
You’ve clearly got a clearer recollection of what I did than I have 😆
Click to expand...
My recollection is based on the conversations that we had at the time...

There were a number of specific things that stick in my mind...

1. The fact that we were becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of response from VB to requests to intervene and/or engage with SISA

2. You telling me that SS had "Gone Off Piste" and got VB to agree to a meeting

3. That we had discussed the idea of the Unfair Prejudice argument being a potential option (if certain criteria were met)

4. That VB had shown limited interest until the prospect of us helping him out was tabled


I've checked my emails and there's nothing related apart from the briefing from NT about the meeting in Latvia and the subsequent agreed VB statement that came out after. So there's nothing that I can refer to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top