[Archived] Rovers Trust

[AggyBlue]

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.

I totally agree PB.

Anything less than a major shareholding is pointless, with a major shareholding I don't think the trust could sustain the club at the present level let alone move it forward.

Therefore, I'm out.

[Wayne Wild]

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

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.

The £10 membership is to allow ALL members to have the same voice as well as more wealthier shareholders.

We still require the £1000 shares otherwise there is NO shareholding. Shareholders would always keep the value of the shares so its not money "spent". If we could get a large enough shareholding then we would offer the Rovers Rewards Scheme at 5% return per annum which in effect gives shareholders their money back over 20 years whilst still retaining the value of the shares.

The current focus is on raising membership, discussions on shares is only valid when/if we get meaningful discussions with the owners.

We DO WANT TO WORK WITH the owners, that has always been the message. Whether that message has been passed to them were not convinced. However following recent meetings with BRFC senior management we are very hopeful that the real message will be passed onto them.

If you read through our aims on the website you will see that the directly mirror that of Swansea.

WEC Group did not withdraw sponsorship, the agreement came to its contracted end despite negative rumours to the contrary. We have spent hundreds of thousands with the club over the past few years so I would suggest that they would very much welcome discussions with me.

If you read previous posts you will see that I have NOT cut ties with the two Ian's. We have resolved our differences and now have a healthy relationship again.

I totally agree PB.

Anything less than a major shareholding is pointless, with a major shareholding I don't think the trust could sustain the club at the present level let alone move it forward.

Therefore, I'm out.

Please read again my previous posts. Having a minority share is not pointless. Swansea supporters own 20% of a vibrant and successful Premiership Club. Having a group with no legal entity or share ownership makes it that much more difficult to have a direct effect on the big decisions.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

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 encapsulate my views exactly. We've seen from past experience that dealing with Venky's is like trying to plait sawdust. I'm sure you're not a defeatist regarding Rovers.

[AggyBlue]

Please read again my previous posts. Having a minority share is not pointless. Swansea supporters own 20% of a vibrant and successful Premiership Club. Having a group with no legal entity or share ownership makes it that much more difficult to have a direct effect on the big decisions.

Having a minor shareholding as part of a consortium that bought out Venky's would be worthwhile IMO but not with Venky's as major shareholders.

[Stuart]

The £10 membership is to allow ALL members to have the same voice as well as more wealthier shareholders.

We still require the £1000 shares otherwise there is NO shareholding. Shareholders would always keep the value of the shares so its not money "spent". If we could get a large enough shareholding then we would offer the Rovers Rewards Scheme at 5% return per annum which in effect gives shareholders their money back over 20 years whilst still retaining the value of the shares.

The current focus is on raising membership, discussions on shares is only valid when/if we get meaningful discussions with the owners.

Thanks, that does clarifiy things for me.

We DO WANT TO WORK WITH the owners, that has always been the message. Whether that message has been passed to them were not convinced. However following recent meetings with BRFC senior management we are very hopeful that the real message will be passed onto them.

If you read through our aims on the website you will see that the directly mirror that of Swansea.

WEC Group did not withdraw sponsorship, the agreement came to its contracted end despite negative rumours to the contrary. We have spent hundreds of thousands with the club over the past few years so I would suggest that they would very much welcome discussions with me.

I was under the impression - probably mistakenly - that it was the club's decision to no longer deal with WEC as sponsor due to their perceived relationship with the protests. Are you saying there is no ill feeling between yourself and any of the club heirarchy? I appreciate the WEC sponsorship is nothing to do with the Trust (nor is it really any of my business - except as a Rovers fan, due to the reduction in income to the club) but it is pertinent to a lot of folk due to your involvement in both organisations (WEC and the Trust).

If the Swansea route is the main one you are going down - and it sounds like it is - then I'm a lot happier. Obviously it requires the club to play ball. The only way we can really help then is for every Rovers fan (current or absentee) to get a £10 membership and create a compelling case to the club - i.e. that there is a will from the fans to make this happen. Once we have that,BRFCAG and the Fans Forum, who have Singh and the club's ear, can help to force this through.

But if it's a half-hearted effort from the fans then I fear it won't be taken seriously.

If you read previous posts you will see that I have NOT cut ties with the two Ian's. We have resolved our differences and now have a healthy relationship again.

Very pleased to hear it. I hope they can help us out in the not too distant future!

[TBTF]

The £10 membership is to allow ALL members to have the same voice as well as more wealthier shareholders.

We still require the £1000 shares otherwise there is NO shareholding. Shareholders would always keep the value of the shares so its not money "spent". If we could get a large enough shareholding then we would offer the Rovers Rewards Scheme at 5% return per annum which in effect gives shareholders their money back over 20 years whilst still retaining the value of the shares.

The current focus is on raising membership, discussions on shares is only valid when/if we get meaningful discussions with the owners.

We DO WANT TO WORK WITH the owners, that has always been the message. Whether that message has been passed to them were not convinced. However following recent meetings with BRFC senior management we are very hopeful that the real message will be passed onto them.

If you read through our aims on the website you will see that the directly mirror that of Swansea.

WEC Group did not withdraw sponsorship, the agreement came to its contracted end despite negative rumours to the contrary. We have spent hundreds of thousands with the club over the past few years so I would suggest that they would very much welcome discussions with me.

If you read previous posts you will see that I have NOT cut ties with the two Ian's. We have resolved our differences and now have a healthy relationship again.

Please read again my previous posts. Having a minority share is not pointless. Swansea supporters own 20% of a vibrant and successful Premiership Club. Having a group with no legal entity or share ownership makes it that much more difficult to have a direct effect on the big decisions.

It is heartening to hear that the Trust and the 2 Ian's are not at odds as was previously thought.It looks more and more like the answer to this debacle lies with a combination of the Ian's coming in with cash and then including the Trust to be part of that which i did read some time ago on his interview with Rovertaken (its on the Rovertaken website) was what the Ian's had in mind.

I don't think there are any more games in Town for our basket case of a Club and genuine Rovers affection by proper businessmen in conjunction with the Trust has to now be something in my opinion we all need to row in with because the more divisions we have the less chance there is of Venkys actually believing they have a way out.

A consolidated approach by the Ian's & the Trust looks like the only option to me.

Is there any support for that on here?? If so we need to make some noise before this thing slips into a coma!!

[Wayne Wild]

Thanks, that does clarifiy things for me.

I was under the impression - probably mistakenly - that it was the club's decision to no longer deal with WEC as sponsor due to their perceived relationship with the protests. Are you saying there is no ill feeling between yourself and any of the club heirarchy? I appreciate the WEC sponsorship is nothing to do with the Trust (nor is it really any of my business - except as a Rovers fan, due to the reduction in income to the club) but it is pertinent to a lot of folk due to your involvement in both organisations (WEC and the Trust).

I have a healthy and good relationship with the commercial department as well as direct communications with the MD. WEC Group still hold a table for 4 in the Premier Suite. WEC group recently held our annual awards event in the Premier Suite with over 200 guests and employees attending, again spending a considerable amount with the club.

[Stuart]

I have a healthy and good relationship with the commercial department as well as direct communications with the MD. WEC Group still hold a table for 4 in the Premier Suite. WEC group recently held our annual awards event in the Premier Suite with over 200 guests and employees attending, again spending a considerable amount with the club.

Nicely dodged!

[Ozz]

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

Cheers.

Once every club in the top four divisions has a healthy and motivated supporters trust then there should be enough momentum to make fan involvement in the running of clubs obligatory. There is IMO am increasing disquiet against 'modern football' and how its run. Successful Trusts are not new and are all over the country now, and offer the only real alternative to the off shore international ownership model that turns so many supporters off. It's only a matter of time before we see the tide change and we need a well organised, well supported trust at Blackburn Rovers.

[CRIPTRON]

How many members do you now have?

[yoda]

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.

The bold bit, you are baseing that view point on your business experience, it does not apply with the Venkys in situ, it is their baby and no way will they allow anyone else to rock the craddle

[Amo]

How many members do you now have?

Including Trusty the mascot - five.

[PAFELL]

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.

Do you think your view would change if it was not venkys who owned the other 80%?

[Wayne Wild]

Tweet from David Conn, writer and columnist of The Guardian

@david_conn: Nobody could see Swansea City at these heights in 2001 when near-bust, sold for £1, at the Vetch. Fans' trust in from the start, great story

[Roost]

Tweet from David Conn, writer and columnist of The Guardian

@david_conn: Nobody could see Swansea City at these heights in 2001 when near-bust, sold for £1, at the Vetch. Fans' trust in from the start, great story

Just read that - I would trade 11 years of hardship to be where Swansea are now.

[TBTF]

Just read that - I would trade 11 years of hardship to be where Swansea are now.

All academic after the Shebby show-they dont want anybody interfering with their .......10 year plan!!!!! FFS !!!!

[St_Jimmy_77]

Tweet from David Conn, writer and columnist of The Guardian

@david_conn: Nobody could see Swansea City at these heights in 2001 when near-bust, sold for £1, at the Vetch. Fans' trust in from the start, great story

This is a great example of what can be achieved. Also why I signed up to the Trust when launched. I was actually part of the steering group before my health took priority.

[Roost]

All academic after the Shebby show-they dont want anybody interfering with their .......10 year plan!!!!! FFS !!!!

God help us

[Wayne Wild]

The guys who represent the Rovers Trust tried hard tonight to get the point across to SS that we are not the enemy and the owners should interact directly with us. Supporters Direct mandate is to help fans of sports clubs own a share in their club. This is to help the long term strategy and direction, not to oust owners. I'm not sure he understood the points but we will continue to try and get the message across.

[47er]

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.

I honestly don't think anyone expects supporters to own 20% of the club in concert with Venkys do they?

I've always assumed that the Trust would come into fruition post-Venkys. Who would want to work with them even if they agreed to?

[St_Jimmy_77]

The guys who represent the Rovers Trust tried hard tonight to get the point across to SS that we are not the enemy and the owners should interact directly with us. Supporters Direct mandate is to help fans of sports clubs own a share in their club. This is to help the long term strategy and direction, not to oust owners. I'm not sure he understood the points but we will continue to try and get the message across.

I believe Simon left Shebby his Rovers Trust card with Shebby and I at the end of the evening spoke to him (Shebby) and he did say he will contact you. I sincerely hope he does so he can relay the benefits of what the trust has to offer to the owners now and in the future.

[Wayne Wild]

When the question was asked to SS about his or the owners lack of interaction with Rovers Trust he replied by asking why the trust wasn’t started previous to the last 2 years. Until he sits down and asks the correct questions to understand the history and aims of the trust he will never know the answer so I will try to explain in a summary of the birth and position of RT.

During January 2010, before Venkys bought the club, I was contacted by Duncan Miller and Anthony Corry who had concerns about the future of BRFC due to the club being up for sale and being touted around potential foreign owners. The 3 of us with 2/3 other people, no longer active, formed Blackburn Rovers Supporters Trust. WEC Group was stand sponsors so I felt I could be of help as a link between supporters and the clubs management. We held meetings and discussions with Supporters Direct who helped us through the set up and officially backed the idea. It was a slow and frustrating process. There was general apathy from general supporters who didn’t understand what a trust was and didn’t feel there was any potential problems. Due to personal and work commitments I unfortunately had to bow out of the group but I still gave them my 100% support.

Venkys purchased the club in November 2010 and we all gave them our support. The rest is history but clearly there were issues with the running of the club, the manager and the communication with supporters. I did an interview with the Lancashire Telegraph in November 2011 expressing my dissatisfaction with the communication and offering an olive branch. I was contacted by Rovers supporters and prominent MPs and businessmen from around the world offering their support. I was also sent a business plan that involved community ownership of the club in a detailed 24 page report prepared by Dan Grabko, an American living in Sweden who had become a Rovers supporter. I immediately loved it. A group of us then formed BRSIT. We became very active immediately and through a new website, social media and printed media we became quickly popular to a point of raising £3m in pledges to buy shares.

BRST continued in its formation and were looking to do their official launch earlier this year. It was apparent that both trusts and very similar ambitions, BRSIT was more focussed on finances and BRST on community projects. It was very evident that if the two groups merged there would be a stronger entity with less confusion to supporters, hence Rovers Trust was born.

There is now a steering group of 15 hard working members from all backgrounds helped to form the Rovers Trust. The official launch was held at Blackburn Cathedral and we are actively seeking members to join at a cost of £10 per annum. The more members we have the louder and stronger voice the supporters will have at the top table of decision making. Our ultimate aim is to own a share of BRFC, however small or large. This is the mandate of the support of Supporters Direct. We will continue to hold discussions with all stakeholders within this process that includes the owners, management and supporters of BRFC until we succeed.

We cannot predict the future but we can have a fully functioning official Trust that is ready to either share in the success of the club or to help to protect its history and future should the club fall on difficult times.

Most trusts are formed when clubs hit severe financial difficulty, Rovers Trust was formed with the forethought of community benefits and love from the supporters for its football club.

For more detailed information or to join please visit www.roverstrust.co.uk

[booth]

All academic after the Shebby show-they dont want anybody interfering with their .......10 year plan destruction!!!!! FFS !!!!

[CRIPTRON]

The guys who represent the Rovers Trust tried hard tonight to get the point across to SS that we are not the enemy and the owners should interact directly with us.

Is this prior to an individual who holds an executive role in the Rovers Trust resorting to supporter politics and embarrassing himself, the supporters, the Rovers Trust and the Fans Forum all in one moment? Utterly cringeworthy.

The actions of the trust Secretary, Simon Barnes on Wednesday, in suggesting live on air that the Fans Forum aren't happy with their relationship with Shebby has resulted in the Fans Forum chairman and vice chairman having to issue both public and private apologies and backtrack on his statement, all in aid of what? so that he could try and convince Mr Singh who he should and should not talk to?

To be honest after witnessing Mr Barnes' attitude on social network over the last 12 months, in particular his attacks on supporters who don't attend all our away matches where he continually questioned their depth of support, combined with his own individual self-promotion meant his outburst on Wednesday came as no surprise, however please please for the sake of us all, do not let him have a platform such as this to spout his tripe from anymore.

The Fans Forum work hard in what they do, last thing they need is people spouting their personal agendas and using them as cannon fodder to do so because that is not fair on them, nor is it fair on the other groups who work hard for their supporters.

Most of the words to describe him and his actions which have been used on twitter, fit the bill perfectly, so for the sake of us all - please keep him off the airwaves from now on!

I was just glad it was the end of the program, or else he would have embarrassed us all further.

[ABBEY]

is that the one from bristol city?