[Archived] Rovers Trust

[Stuart]

Interesting podcast logo.

Is BRFCS an official backer, or even partner, of the Rovers Trust?

[Ricky]

I'm pretty sure it was a BRFCS podcast Stuart.

[Paul]

Interesting podcast logo.

Is BRFCS an official backer, or even partner, of the Rovers Trust?

BRFCS is a supporter of the Trust and carries are logo on the front page. The podcast on our website is just a link through to the BRFCS podcast with Ozz and Wayne.

That's all

[cn174]

The People's Game in Full Cry

"it is considered very important in Germany that people who do not have very much money are able to come to the stadium"

"We want to have our whole society as part of our football, in our stadiums"

http://m.guardian.co...lubs-bundesliga

Borussia Dortmund £9.00 entrance

Average Bundesliga attendance across all clubs 45,000

By law fan ownership must be 50% plus one vote

If the DFB could have their way, they'd reduce that fan ownership as soon as they could. They don't like it - it stops them making decisions that are bad for football but good for themselves!!

[Stuart]

BRFCS is a supporter of the Trust and carries are logo on the front page. The podcast on our website is just a link through to the BRFCS podcast with Ozz and Wayne.

That's all

Thanks.

[Wayne Wild]

There are some fantastic news stories and information on how supporter trusts work and the success stories.

Please visit http://www.supporters-direct.org/ to gather more information.

[Paul]

I thought this one on Pompey was especially interesting this week

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YBZgH1dJREY

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

I hadn't previously warmed to the idea of the Trust for the reasons of lack of financial muscle. However:

If we stay in the Championship for 2-3 more seasons and the financial fair play rules come in, could Rovers being owned and potentially supported more greatly by the fans, actually be more financially advantageous than Venkys continuing to own the club?

If there are more fans coming through the gate and aspects such as a paying sponsor(should be a given for a football club but nevermind Venkys) and the rest of the commercial side being run with more care - could this be better way of running the club than if its run by the current owners through sporadic subsidy that they wouldn't be able to continue to make?

This is a point I have been trying to make for awhile - I finally decided it was better to let people discover this on their own. This could potentially be a very valid point, as FFP is phased in completely over the next five seasons.

There are question marks over the ability of the Football League to enforce the sanctions on clubs being promoted to the Premier League, as they would have no legal authority over them there, and it could be hard to get the PL to cooperate. But if they then get relegated again, they could be in for a serious backlash if they ignored the sanctions upon promotion.

Maximising non-footballing turnover is key for clubs to operate on an at least break even basis, as is investment in and nurturing of their youth system. These are items that the Trust have highlighted as being priorities on a long term basis. It means having an excellent working relationship with the local and regional business communities, and engaging with local and regional governments to maximise the funding available from that sector as well by demonstrating the club is not just a football club, but an asset to the community. If you can nail these sectors, the match day turnover follows with it, because people feel connected to the club and will come back to the club. Then of course you have to have the main attraction to match all this hard work, a successful football team

[Parsonblue]

So basically Dan, what you are saying is that for the purposes of the Trust it will be better to spend a few seasons in the Championship? I really can't believe anybody thinks that being outside of the top flight is a good thing. When we slipped out of the top flight in 1965-66 we were owned by local businessmen. The community didn't rally once it was clear that they hadn't got the necessary cash - and you needed an awful lost less then - to get back into the top division. Crowds fell away and supporters got in their cars and found First Division football in Manchester and Liverpool or simply found other things to do. It was a quarter of a century before they were lured back and that was by Jack and his ability to fund the club at a level that brought top flight football back to Blackburn. People follow football clubs because of what is on the pitch not because of community projects. As for nuturing a youth system the Rovers have always done that but, once again, the modern Academy structure requires large sums of money if you want Level 1 status.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

No way am I saying that at all ParsonBlue!!!

Of course it is of the highest importance that we go straight back up, so we can avoid the financial fall out that is inevitable if we don't.

Rovers Trust wants to be part of a vibrant, successful, and financially secure club, and sincerely hopes it doesn't have to repeat the classic survival scenario in which many such trusts have found themselves in. At the same time you have to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best.

All I am saying is that in the case that we do end up staying in this division longer than the parachute payments last, turnover solutions need to be found to make up in part for the lost TV money, and that is not an easy task under FFP, especially for a club of our size.

Also, even in the event we go back up straight away and do well in the PL again, the Championship's FFP is modelled after UEFA's FFP, which Rovers will have to comply with to be allowed to compete in Europe. This is even harder, because compared to the really big clubs, our turnover is extremely reliant on TV money, with match day revenues only contributing 10% and failing commercial revenues barely more than that...

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

PS - I fully understand that the community projects aren't even on the radar for most football fans. But the fact is, these can be direct sources of general funding that is available to clubs that do participate in them, and apply for general funding from various gov't agencies. There is real money there, so community projects and involvement should not be dismissed because fans don't care about it. Fans don't care about who is on the ad boards or who the shirt sponsor is for the most part, but that doesn't make it any less important as part of a synergistic business plan, does it?

[Wayne Wild]

FFP is still not very clear and a lot of the penalties and how they will be implemented still has to be defined.

It's a tricky situation for all clubs however.

[Paul]

Since about 11.00pm Friday night I've read post after post complaining about our current ownership and management. If it matters to you, if you're concerned sign up for Trust membership. We realise there are still many questions, many fans who want to know more and we are working on this and much more.

For the moment the more members we have the stronger we become. £10 is all it will cost you to show support to what we want to achieve and the future of the club. You may have doubts but every fan who signs up adds weight to the call for change.

http://www.roverstru...istration-page/ for the Registration Page

[K-Hod]

Since about 11.00pm Friday night I've read post after post complaining about our current ownership and management. If it matters to you, if you're concerned sign up for Trust membership. We realise there are still many questions, many fans who want to know more and we are working on this and much more.

For the moment the more members we have the stronger we become. £10 is all it will cost you to show support to what we want to achieve and the future of the club. You may have doubts but every fan who signs up adds weight to the call for change.

http://www.roverstru...istration-page/ for the Registration Page

To be fair,just because people aren't happy with the current ownership, doesn't necessarily mean they'll throw all their weight behind the supporter's trust. For me, there's still many unanswered questions with this whole set up.

[Paul]

To be fair,just because people aren't happy with the current ownership, doesn't necessarily mean they'll throw all their weight behind the supporter's trust. For me, there's still many unanswered questions with this whole set up.

Very happy to acknowledge that and to answer as best I can the questions. Getting the message across is difficult and we are aware plain straightforward responses are needed.

[ABBEY]

Since about 11.00pm Friday night I've read post after post complaining about our current ownership and management. If it matters to you, if you're concerned sign up for Trust membership. We realise there are still many questions, many fans who want to know more and we are working on this and much more.

For the moment the more members we have the stronger we become. £10 is all it will cost you to show support to what we want to achieve and the future of the club. You may have doubts but every fan who signs up adds weight to the call for change.

[url=http://www.roverstrust.com/registration-page/]http://www.

] for the Registration Page

So if you want venkys out and don't sign up then your opinion is worthless and worth nothing ?

[Wayne Wild]

So if you want venkys out and don't sign up then your opinion is worthless and worth nothing ?

That's obviously not what Paul is saying. Supporters can have a voice through many channels and various fan groups. We are offering a method that is via a Supporters Trust backed by an official government body, Supporters Direct.

We are gathering members daily and obviously the more members we have the louder and stronger the voice.

In fighting and irresponsible criticism does to help anyone.

We are offering a process and hope you join, however your opinion is as welcome via any medium or group you individually choose.

[Stuart]

So if you want venkys out and don't sign up then your opinion is worthless and worth nothing ?

To be fair Abs, the Rovers Trust is the other side of the coin to BRFCAG.

Two groups trying to do something.

I guess it's the old adage "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem"?

I'm very divided as how best to approach this myself. I was at some traffic lights the other day behind a car with a car sticker "BRSIT Supporter". Made me think about how much has gone on during the last couple of years. BRAG was re-born as BRFCAG (albeit only as a public perception, if you subscribe to Glen's explanation); BRST and BRSIT have given birth to a Rovers Trust baby - which seems to be finding its feet very quickly. I'm not yet sure although I sense a groundswell towards it as many who want to be convinced of its merits.

If Venkys can convince people they do want to support Henning (in the transfer market too, btw) and that the money is not all being wrapped around Rovers' neck as debt then there is still a way back for them.

If not then, if we do want to have a League club to support in our home town, we will definitely need an organisation like the Trust to be there to pick up the pieces.

Paul, if I was to support the Trust with my £10 per year, what would that be signing me up for? Am I on the hook for pledging money financially to the club for the future running of the club? Or is it just a club membership?

[Parsonblue]

Since about 11.00pm Friday night I've read post after post complaining about our current ownership and management. If it matters to you, if you're concerned sign up for Trust membership. We realise there are still many questions, many fans who want to know more and we are working on this and much more.

For the moment the more members we have the stronger we become. £10 is all it will cost you to show support to what we want to achieve and the future of the club. You may have doubts but every fan who signs up adds weight to the call for change.

http://www.roverstru...istration-page/ for the Registration Page

Paul you are, without doubt, the most eloquent advocate that the Trust could possibly have. Your answers on here have be concise and informative. However, although the Rovers matter to me more than I can put into words, I simply do not believe that the Trust is the way forward from what I have read thus far. Do I have an alternative - No. However, that doesn't mean to say that I will rush to join something that I strong doubts about. My concerns are that I don't think the Trust will raise enough money for a total buy-out and even if they did the day to day running costs would be too great to sustain. If they buy a share of the club from Venky's nothing changes. Venky's would be the major shareholder and would have the votes to overrule any ideas that the Trust came up with that they didn't agree with. That may be a defeatest attitude on my part - and I sure many would accuse me of that - but ultimately until I can be convinced otherwise on those issues I won't join up.

[K-Hod]

Paul you are, without doubt, the most eloquent advocate that the Trust could possibly have. Your answers on here have be concise and informative. However, although the Rovers matter to me more than I can put into words, I simply do not believe that the Trust is the way forward from what I have read thus far. Do I have an alternative - No. However, that doesn't mean to say that I will rush to join something that I strong doubts about. My concerns are that I don't think the Trust will raise enough money for a total buy-out and even if they did the day to day running costs would be too great to sustain. If they buy a share of the club from Venky's nothing changes. Venky's would be the major shareholder and would have the votes to overrule any ideas that the Trust came up with that they didn't agree with. That may be a defeatest attitude on my part - and I sure many would accuse me of that - but ultimately until I can be convinced otherwise on those issues I won't join up.

Good post. Pretty much sums up my own views, and I imagine the views of a few others.

[Wayne Wild]

Stuart to answer you as directly as possible.

The £10 per annum membership is purely that, an annual membership that also gives you a vote in all trust issues including the forthcoming committee elections.

If we get to the point of turning the £1000 per share pledges into share membership then the shareholders still only hold 1 vote, the exact same right as a £10 per annum member.

We are recruiting members daily. A strong trust needs to have a strong membership base, a bigger membership gives a louder and stronger voice. We are backed by Supporters Direct the government body set up to help supporters own a share in their club.

Our aim is to have a share ownership of the club, however large or small. This will give us a voice at the top table. A majority shareholder can still over rule us of course, but it wouldn't be sensible for any owners to continually ignore your supporter/shareholder base if they brought ideas or concerns to the table.

All questions are welcome and we will try to answer them as directly, clearly and quickly as possible.

[Wayne Wild]

Paul you are, without doubt, the most eloquent advocate that the Trust could possibly have. Your answers on here have be concise and informative. However, although the Rovers matter to me more than I can put into words, I simply do not believe that the Trust is the way forward from what I have read thus far. Do I have an alternative - No. However, that doesn't mean to say that I will rush to join something that I strong doubts about. My concerns are that I don't think the Trust will raise enough money for a total buy-out and even if they did the day to day running costs would be too great to sustain. If they buy a share of the club from Venky's nothing changes. Venky's would be the major shareholder and would have the votes to overrule any ideas that the Trust came up with that they didn't agree with. That may be a defeatest attitude on my part - and I sure many would accuse me of that - but ultimately until I can be convinced otherwise on those issues I won't join up.

You are absolutely correct in that as a minor shareholder we could be overruled by the majority but it wouldn't be a good idea for any owner to continually overrule or ignore ideas or concerns from a supporter/shareholder group !

To have a real effect you have to have a seat at the top table.

Will the current or any future owners sell a share to a supporters group, I don't know.

But without at least trying the answer is a DEFINITE no !

There are some real successes of Supporter Trusts working, and none better illustrates this than at Swansea where they are doing very very well and supporters own 20% of the club.

[Stuart]

Paul, I've just read through a very well considered reply you made to a post of mine earlier last month. Apologies for not seeing this sooner - I guess the page turns must have caught me out! I only spotted it because Glenn blogged it and it's now a sticky at the bottom of the page.

You suggested that I "live in hope for money to be thrown at the club". That's probably a fair and unfair assessment. I believe that in order for us to, first, get back to the PL and then to remain there will require an awful lot of money. Money that we don't have and that, in my humble opinion, is beyond the means of the Trust to raise.

You also look to FC United as a benchmark for a Community focussed club. That's all well and good but I don't want my club to start again in non-League Football - just so that it can be a part of the Community. We already had that - and we were very fortunate indeed.

I guess as time goes on the non-League option may look more likely but until the fingers is pressed on the Administrator Button, it's not something that is favourable for anyone.

The Bundesliga is an interesting point, and one I would love to see over here. But that fact that it is a requirement for ALL clubs to have 51% fan ownership means it is more of a level playing field - although it still doesn't really answer the question as to where the money comes from for the likes of Bayern? Presumably their 49% ownership is made up of people with money to spend? Or can their fans really afford to put in money to pay the wages for the likes of Michael Ballack, Philipp Lahm and Franck Ribery to name a few?

The Trust will be fantastic if and when the Club is in dire need of purchase from an administrator but this isn't where we WANT to be. Could you see the Trust being able to afford to run, let alone purchase Ewood Park? FC United ground share with Bury FC, and as much respect as I have for them, I would hate for us to have to go cap in hand to Stanley to enable us play matches.

For me, the ability to keep us at least in the Championship and able to afford to stay at Ewood Park has to be the bear minimum, doesn't it?

[Wayne Wild]

Paul, I've just read through a very well considered reply you made to a post of mine earlier last month. Apologies for not seeing this sooner - I guess the page turns must have caught me out! I only spotted it because Glenn blogged it and it's now a sticky at the bottom of the page.

You suggested that I "live in hope for money to be thrown at the club". That's probably a fair and unfair assessment. I believe that in order for us to, first, get back to the PL and then to remain there will require an awful lot of money. Money that we don't have and that, in my humble opinion, is beyond the means of the Trust to raise.

You also look to FC United as a benchmark for a Community focussed club. That's all well and good but I don't want my club to start again in non-League Football - just so that it can be a part of the Community. We already had that - and we were very fortunate indeed.

I guess as time goes on the non-League option may look more likely but until the fingers is pressed on the Administrator Button, it's not something that is favourable for anyone.

The Bundesliga is an interesting point, and one I would love to see over here. But that fact that it is a requirement for ALL clubs to have 51% fan ownership means it is more of a level playing field - although it still doesn't really answer the question as to where the money comes from for the likes of Bayern? Presumably their 49% ownership is made up of people with money to spend? Or can their fans really afford to put in money to pay the wages for the likes of Michael Ballack, Philipp Lahm and Franck Ribery to name a few?

The Trust will be fantastic if and when the Club is in dire need of purchase from an administrator but this isn't where we WANT to be. Could you see the Trust being able to afford to run, let alone purchase Ewood Park? FC United ground share with Bury FC, and as much respect as I have for them, I would hate for us to have to go cap in hand to Stanley to enable us play matches.

For me, the ability to keep us at least in the Championship and able to afford to stay at Ewood Park has to be the bear minimum, doesn't it?

Stuart - your comments about full ownership are very valid in terms of affordability. However it is important that you consider our aims. Firstly is to have a "share" in the ownership, however large or small.

A Supporters Trust can be an effective body in whatever shape the club is in. If the club is successful then the trust can help and share in its success. Could you imagine how fantastic it would be if you were a member of the Trust who were shareholders in the club and we won a trophy ! Likewise we are there should there be problems. Most trusts are formed from clubs in financial difficulty and then have to form and become legal entities, we already have that in place.

Paul mentioned FC United as an example, not as a benchmark. Swansea for me are the benchmark. 20% fans ownership and a thriving Premiership team.

[Stuart]

Stuart - your comments about full ownership are very valid in terms of affordability. However it is important that you consider our aims. Firstly is to have a "share" in the ownership, however large or small.

A Supporters Trust can be an effective body in whatever shape the club is in. If the club is successful then the trust can help and share in its success. Could you imagine how fantastic it would be if you were a member of the Trust who were shareholders in the club and we won a trophy ! Likewise we are there should there be problems. Most trusts are formed from clubs in financial difficulty and then have to form and become legal entities, we already have that in place.

Paul mentioned FC United as an example, not as a benchmark. Swansea for me are the benchmark. 20% fans ownership and a thriving Premiership team.

Our posts have overlapped so apologies if they next bit seems like repetition...

Stuart to answer you as directly as possible.

The £10 per annum membership is purely that, an annual membership that also gives you a vote in all trust issues including the forthcoming committee elections.

If we get to the point of turning the £1000 per share pledges into share membership then the shareholders still only hold 1 vote, the exact same right as a £10 per annum member.

We are recruiting members daily. A strong trust needs to have a strong membership base, a bigger membership gives a louder and stronger voice. We are backed by Supporters Direct the government body set up to help supporters own a share in their club.

Our aim is to have a share ownership of the club, however large or small. This will give us a voice at the top table. A majority shareholder can still over rule us of course, but it wouldn't be sensible for any owners to continually ignore your supporter/shareholder base if they brought ideas or concerns to the table.

All questions are welcome and we will try to answer them as directly, clearly and quickly as possible.

Thanks Wayne.

If a supporter buys a £10 share, why would another supporter put £1000 (in effect buying 100 shares) if they didn't have a bigger say in matters? They would just cancel their pledge and buy a £10 membership, wouldn't they? This would virtually ensure a low owner income.

If all clubs were run in the same way, it may be easier to see the merits but we are only really going to ever be an FC Rovers of Blackburn under this model, aren't we?

Bringing those two points together, does the Trust model allow for another Jack Walker to buy 95% of the shares, and keeping a fan shareholding? (As unlikely as that seems - even though I've typed it!)

Swansea seem to be a closer fit to what I would want to the Trust to achieve but their aims require working with the owners and not buying them out. Would Venkys talk to the Trust about this? And, with the greatest of respect, with your personal involvement, given the WEC sponsorship withdrawal - would the club be willing to deal with you on this possibility?

The only way I can see us having a Swansea-type arrangement is if Venkys sell to another interested party who have the contacts or the resources to own the club - together with the foresight to see the merits of giving the fans a formal voice (e.g. a seat on the board). You seem to have cut ties with the two Ians (question?) - I would previously have seen these guys as people who could help us achieve this.

Here are Swansea's aims, how closely do they fit with the Trust? (And I accept I should have been at Blackburn Catherdral asking these questions but, like many others, wasn't able to):

• To maintain a professional Football League club in Swansea
  
• To bring the football club closer to it's local community
  
• To have an elected supporters representative on the Board of Swansea City Football Club
  
• To raise sufficient funds to buy a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above
  

I'm not backbiting either, hopefully you've read enough of my posts to appreciate this.

Cheers.