[Archived] BRFC Action Group Open Floor Meeting with Shebby Singh

[OJRovers]

Is the meeting going to be covered in the LT?

[mark1875]

Is the meeting going to be covered in the LT?

It is yeah they are sending a couple of reporters down.

[PMT]

Apologies if this has been answered before but who will be accompanying Shebby Singh to the meeting?

[Paul]

Mark the thing I don't understand is this. Baz and I both attended the last open meeting and heard all that was said until we had to leave early.

I was impressed by the points Glen made and his answers to the meeting's questions.

Some of the remarks BRAG may not want in the public domain and I have deliberately not commented publically on those points - though I would dearly like to. My reason for not commenting is simply I don't wish to cause Glen problems by repeating his remarks.

However there is nothing to stop me remarking on public statements from an OPEN meeting. If BRAG is happy to comment at a public meeting why not make these comments on your website.

Anyone could have been present at that meeting and it could have created difficulties for BRAG if the remarks had been widely publicised. As it is it seems the 50-60 people present all seem to have chosen to be silent.

[mark1875]

However there is nothing to stop me remarking on public statements from an OPEN meeting. If BRAG is happy to comment at a public meeting why not make these comments on your website.

What was said at the open floor meeting was as accurate as it is, we relayed back pretty much what we told/gave the authorities in every meeting we attended, or at least the majority of it.

If we post it on our website, it will touch nerves and attract a lot of attention and cause the group and those of us who claim it, issues.

If you attend the open meeting, listen to what we said, then decide to discuss it on this message board, it will be you who attracts the unwanted attention as it will be you who claims it.

We never told anyone to take a vow of silence, we just reported back what we told the premier league, the football association and the government.

In addition to this we have also spoken to people whom these allegations are made against and have asked them directly questions regarding those allegations since.

[Tom10K]

Apologies if this has been answered before but who will be accompanying Shebby Singh to the meeting?

His bodyguard maybe?

http://www.mmail.com.my/story/shebby%E2%80%99s-intense-affair-blackburn

I'd love to know what the more executive role they hint at is, what could be bigger than advising the globe on Blackburn Rovers?

[47er]

My goodness, people have different opinions? Alert the media!!

They have made what they do about the club everyone's business, or were you too busy approving tit for tat death threats to notice?

That's a disgusting distortion on what I wrote. Sad that you should stoop to those depths.

[Paul]

What was said at the open floor meeting was as accurate as it is, we relayed back pretty much what we told/gave the authorities in every meeting we attended, or at least the majority of it.

If we post it on our website, it will touch nerves and attract a lot of attention and cause the group and those of us who claim it, issues.

If you attend the open meeting, listen to what we said, then decide to discuss it on this message board, it will be you who attracts the unwanted attention as it will be you who claims it.

We never told anyone to take a vow of silence, we just reported back what we told the premier league, the football association and the government.

Yes I understand BRAG's reasons and I'm not criticising this. It doesn't though take in to account anyone could have been there and if I were to post "Glen Mullan stated xyz" it would be me reporting what he said. It would not be me making claims regarding the comments. I believe what Glen said but I don't have to prove it's true.

I do understand the reasoning but still find it difficult that BRAG feels able to make important remarks at an open meeting without publishing this further.

I know I can attend the meetings if I want more information and that is fine by me. I just think these things should have a wider audience.

As an aside have you considered minuting your discussions with Shebby or whoever and submitting them to the club for agreement? I think this is how the FF works.

[Steve Moss]

I can understand that it can be frustrating for people, however we do try to be as honest with supporters as we possibly can, all supporters, however a public message board, is not always the best place to be honest. I speak openly, and i know Glen does to all supporters who we come into contact with and we hold regular meetings where we do not hold back in speaking in depth about our progress.

I support what you and Glen are trying to do, but this seems short-sided and contradictory.

Absolute honesty is the best policy when it comes to your dealings with the public. Lies will destroy your credibility and half-truths are even worse. If the information is good, get it out there. If the information is bad, get it out there faster.

If you've made a mistake, its best that you are the one bringing it to the public's attention as opposed to someone else playing gotcha politics.

If you will say it to the man on the street, face to face, you should be able to say it on a public message board. Keeping people in the dark, whether its good, bad or indifferent, does not build trust and certainly doesn't build unity. Instead it creates dividing lines, which results in tension, which results in conflict.

In short, my advice is to play poker with your cards face up. Yes the club will be seeing you come a mile away. But the observers on the sidelines won't doubt your credibility or motives and you'll have a lot easier time influencing public opinion or getting a fair hearing as the public won't be trying to guess at any hidden agendas.

As an aside have you considered minuting your discussions with Shebby or whoever and submitting them to the club for agreement? I think this is how the FF works.

Why go to the bother of minutes? Why not simply tape it?

[Miker]

I have to say that BRFC Action Group’s meeting with the Premier League and FA were one of the more sensible things they have done because that’s where the pressure needs to be, not just for BRFC, but for all football clubs.

I don’t see the point in taking credit for bringing Shebby to the people when he has clearly been eager to meet and talk with anyone and has already taken questions from fans on the BBC Radio Lancashire interview and at least those questions and answers were recorded and released to the public.

I do wonder what secret information has been disclosed in these public meetings that Paul talks about. If the information being disclosed is anything like the information spread about via email and PM last year then I’m not surprised it’s being kept under wraps. I’m still waiting to see evidence of ANY of the claims made in those messages, especially the most extreme ones because all evidence available so far points against it.

[Paul]

Why go to the bother of minutes? Why not simply tape it?

Not sure I'd be happy to attend a meeting recorded in that way. There does have to be an allowance for on/off record comments. JW always used to preface such remarks with "if you repeat this I'll deny it"

[Paul]

I do wonder what secret information has been disclosed in these public meetings that Paul talks about. If the information being disclosed is anything like the information spread about via email and PM last year then I’m not surprised it’s being kept under wraps. I’m still waiting to see evidence of ANY of the claims made in those messages, especially the most extreme ones because all evidence available so far points against it.

That is my problem. I heard things said which I wouldn't repeat for fear of landing GM and BRAG in trouble - its my only reason. I don't know if I should or should not repeat some of the remarks.

Equally I agree with Miker none, or at the very least only a fraction, of last year's claims have been proved true in the public domain. I've heard two of them said to be true and confirmed by the football authorities but that's all.

This remains the big issue for me with all of the rumours and counter rumours from many individuals and organisations. I do believe, and this is not a criticism, if BRAG, and they have to be named as they make the claims, have 400 pages of evidence against various bodies or individuals it should be in the public domain or with a competent journalist.

The hard truth is none of the supporters' bodies have achieved or proved anything which they are prepared to publically put their names to. The reasons I've heard to date don't hold water.

[Roost]

That is my problem. I heard things said which I wouldn't repeat for fear of landing GM and BRAG in trouble - its my only reason. I don't know if I should or should not repeat some of the remarks.

Equally I agree with Miker none, or at the very least only a fraction, of last year's claims have been proved true in the public domain. I've heard two of them said to be true and confirmed by the football authorities but that's all.

This remains the big issue for me with all of the rumours and counter rumours from many individuals and organisations. I do believe, and this is not a criticism, if BRAG, and they have to be named as they make the claims, have 400 pages of evidence against various bodies or individuals it should be in the public domain or with a competent journalist.

The hard truth is none of the supporters' bodies have achieved or proved anything which they are prepared to publically put their names to. The reasons I've heard to date don't hold water.

Its been widely quoted that at least two very prominent journalists have done their utmost to unearth a story about BRFC / Venkys / Kean / SEM / Kentaro which was worthy of column inches, and have found no substance.

To me, that doesn't say that there has never been wrongdoing, they just haven't found it.

But there is a difference between evidence of illegalities and evidence of stupidity, and I think that most of the rumours are based on the owners naivety and how they have been manipulated during and after the take over process. This is now well trodden ground and although shows gross stupidity on behalf of the owners it isnt against the law.

If however, there is a 'dossier' of evidence in existence, then the people with that evidence have a duty to make it public - anonymously if necessary - so that whatever wrongdoing can be addressed and the perpetrators brought to account.

[bradeagle]

His bodyguard maybe?

http://www.mmail.com.my/story/shebby%E2%80%99s-intense-affair-blackburn

I'd love to know what the more executive role they hint at is, what could be bigger than advising the globe on Blackburn Rovers?

That bit made me laugh saying wow you are the second malaysian to make it big in Europe. The first being the bloke who is assistant u-19s coach at bayern. Bet he is on a fortune!

[John]

Be interested to know what he has to say about potentially being manager of BRFC at some point in the future……

[47er]

Its been widely quoted that at least two very prominent journalists have done their utmost to unearth a story about BRFC / Venkys / Kean / SEM / Kentaro which was worthy of column inches, and have found no substance.

If however, there is a 'dossier' of evidence in existence, then the people with that evidence have a duty to make it public - anonymously if necessary - so that whatever wrongdoing can be addressed and the perpetrators brought to account.

No they don't have a duty to make public what they know. They have a duty to make it known to the relevant regulatory authorities.

How they choose to use it to help the Club is up to them.

[Glenn]

I'm Desperately not trying to be drawn into this, as i feel ultimately nobody gains from conversations like this, but to clarify a few points.

The club doesn't write the FF minutes. John 'only2garners' Wareing of this Parrish writes them. We do get the club's approval before publishing and on occasion they've asked us to reword things slightly (be it for accuracy, commercial or legal reasons) or delay them (again normally for commercial reasons) but it 's generally trivial stuff (I.e. 'the club will be' to 'the club hopes to'). We do reserve the right to put out what we want, it happened in Pune, we've drafted stuff in the past that's been ready for release should issue not be resolved etc, but I don't think anyone has ever taken issues with the changes requested in the minutes. But the club most certainly do NOT write the minutes (I'm amazed you let them write yours!)

As for 'not representing you' in Pune. We were damned if we do, dammed if we don't. We got grief for saying that the people who went represented the widest possible fan base (we had some pro-protest people and some Rovers Fans) as we got a barrage of 'how dare you say you represent me, I didn't vote for you', so we tempered it down to saying we could only represent our own individual views, but given the exceptionally varying demographic that makes up the FF (which avoids them turning into a single issue group) polar opposite view were represented. Sure, it would have been great to have some representation from the action group as now is (back the you were still a nameless protest group), but if the invites to join the FF hadn't been turned down (ironically, the reason at first was you'd only talk to the club on your terms, not theirs) then the action group could have been better represented.

The FF now has representatives on it from most of the major supporters groups and I do genuinely find it a real shame that the action group and Vital are now the two most obvious omissions when it comes to having representation there.

I've tried to stay out if this, as generally I applaud what the Action group is trying to do and I don't want to hinder that (and I often read back my replies and think they sound overly critical and that's not my intention) but really, your constant attempts to promote the action group by criticising those trying to achieve similar things in different ways is probably losing you much more support than it gains you. It's not a competition, we're all after the same result, we just see different ways of getting it.

[Roost]

No they don't have a duty to make public what they know. They have a duty to make it known to the relevant regulatory authorities.

How they choose to use it to help the Club is up to them.

...and if they find nothing?

[47er]

...and if they find nothing?

Doh! Then I guess nothing happens!

[Tom]

No they don't have a duty to make public what they know. They have a duty to make it known to the relevant regulatory authorities.

How they choose to use it to help the Club is up to them.

Not a duty no but the action group have long championed full transparency and clarity which for me would be getting anything known out into the open although that itself causes issues which is why I always found that line of thought slightly odd.

[Roost]

Doh! Then I guess nothing happens!

Thats right, well worked out.

[Paul]

If however, there is a 'dossier' of evidence in existence, then the people with that evidence have a duty to make it public - anonymously if necessary - so that whatever wrongdoing can be addressed and the perpetrators brought to account.

BRAG have stated a 400 (four hundred) page dossier was presented to either the FA or PL, possibly both as I forget right now.

but really, your constant attempts to promote the action group by criticising those trying to achieve similar things in different ways is probably losing you much more support than it gains you. It's not a competition, we're all after the same result, we just see different ways of getting it.

Precisely

Not a duty no but the action group have long championed full transparency and clarity which for me would be getting anything known out into the open although that itself causes issues which is why I always found that line of thought slightly odd.

Fully agree

[K-Hod]

Not a duty no but the action group have long championed full transparency and clarity which for me would be getting anything known out into the open although that itself causes issues which is why I always found that line of thought slightly odd.

This. No doubt we'll get another reminder of 'join the action group, it's free and you can find out everything'....

[47er]

Thats right, well worked out.

Thanks! And you would do what differently?

[47er]

No answer------as I thought.