[Archived] Rovers Trust

[K-Hod]

TBH, I've no interest in pledging money to something that funds the lavish lifestyles of players who don't give a sh1t about the club or the fans.

I'd give anything to swap places with any of them and play for Rovers.

[yoda]

not anti Venkys after what they have done...I absolutly detest them for what they have done to our club.

TBH, I've no interest in pledging money to something that funds the lavish lifestyles of players who don't give a sh1t about the club or the fans.

I'd give anything to swap places with any of them and play for Rovers.

DITO

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

not anti Venkys after what they have done...I absolutly detest them for what they have done to our club.

Spot on!..the view of the vast majority of fans I would have thought.

[he6rt6gr6m]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="47er" data-cid="1349522" data-time="1355735844"><p>

<br />

<br />

I applaud ANY group trying to do something For Gods Sake.<br />

<br />

I spit in the general direction of those who criticise them while doing NOTHING.<br />

<br />

Have not yet pledged and see no hurry about it but will. If nothing comes of it, at least they will have tried. You?</p></blockquote>

I'm completely confident that if the opportunity came for the Trust to buy a stake, there would be a flurry of pledgers to make sure we succeeded. You are certainly not alone in that.

Also, the Jubilee Credit Union can help make it affordable.

[Wayne Wild]

TBH, I've no interest in pledging money to something that funds the lavish lifestyles of players who don't give a sh1t about the club or the fans.

I'd give anything to swap places with any of them and play for Rovers.

????

So buying a season ticket whereby 92.4% went on players wages is ok but joining a membership at £10 per annum is putting money in the players pockets ?

The pledging of money is to buy shares in the club that you support - NOT fund wages.

[Wayne Wild]

Not aiming any shots at you or the Trust Wayne but I have had at least one conversation at a match with an individual who I can't seem to remember having any great attachment to Rovers pre the Walker money years telling me "Your opinion is worthless if you don't go home and away week in week out any more"

I don't know his name nor do I particularly care but was told by companions he was "a big noise with the trust" and various descriptions of not-dissimilar incidents elsewhere certainly ring a bell

This is difficult to answer when it doesnt detail the person. However, we are a 15 strong Steering Group who have formed a Trust aiming to have 1000s of members. It is not about 1 individual who may have been incorrect statements previously.

It seems that the focus sometimes wants to be aimed at personal details rather than the "BIG Picture"

I do understand your frustrations but please do not base our whole concept on one individuals incorrect comments. There are no "big noises" within the Trust.

We will soon be announcing decocratic and open elections for all posts and anyone can stand for election.

The full process will be overseen by an independant election panel consisting of local prominent people.

[PAFELL]

I envisage I will never be in a financial position whereby I am able to pledge money to a football club, even one which occupies most of my daily thoughts, excites and disappoints me, dictates my moods, rules my calendar, that would be better spent on my family

Does that mean I can not be considered a fan or supporter? no I don't go to every single home game or very many away games but for year upon year upon year I was there for more games than most

Gradually my career often meant I had to be at other games not involving Rovers, marriage moved me away from Lancashire, family came along...now I'm back in Lancashire and go as often as I can, try to encourage my youngster to go...but does my non-attendance at some games or reluctance to commit personal funds render me a non-supporter?

Nope

Completely and utterly agree.

Unless you have some serious wealth behind you (which the majority of Rovers fans don't) then you simply are not in a position to pledge a significant amount of money to a football club when you have a wife/husband/child whose needs are infinitely more important.

This is why the Trust will never work in reality; Rovers fans as a whole simply do not have the amount of money required to buy/support/sustain a professional football club.

Nice idea, but never realistically going to work.

Many may not be able to pledge £1000. But can £10

This is difficult to answer when it doesnt detail the person. However, we are a 15 strong Steering Group who have formed a Trust aiming to have 1000s of members. It is not about 1 individual who may have been incorrect statements previously.

It seems that the focus sometimes wants to be aimed at personal details rather than the "BIG Picture"

I do understand your frustrations but please do not base our whole concept on one individuals incorrect comments. There are no "big noises" within the Trust.

We will soon be announcing decocratic and open elections for all posts and anyone can stand for election.

The full process will be overseen by an independant election panel consisting of local prominent people.

What would happen if - whoever was the clubs owner - said ok the trust can buy a 10% stake in the club. But this would cost you 2million. But all you had was 1 million. How would the other million be funded?

[T.J.Newton]

I applaud ANY group trying to do something For Gods Sake.

I spit in the general direction of those who criticise them while doing NOTHING.

Have not yet pledged and see no hurry about it but will. If nothing comes of it, at least they will have tried. You?

That's an awful lot of people your spitting at then, the point of my post was there is a big difference between criticising and questioning but people like yourself and the groups members don't seem to see that, you just get on the defensive, most people are merely questioning(yes there are some gobs####s, but its a web forum you always get a few).

The number 1 question being(that I've never heard a straight answer to)-Say the trust gained a substantial share in the club or managed to somehow buy it outright, What then? (and sorry but-'we need to get there first' or something along those lines isn't a good enough answer for me).

Also who would run the club on a day to day basis? who would finance the day to day running costs, player wages and transfers?(because tv money and sponsorship money cant be relied on).

[Wayne Wild]

That's an awful lot of people your spitting at then, the point of my post was there is a big difference between criticising and questioning but people like yourself and the groups members don't seem to see that, you just get on the defensive, most people are merely questioning(yes there are some gobs####s, but its a web forum you always get a few).

The number 1 question being(that I've never heard a straight answer to)-Say the trust gained a substantial share in the club or managed to somehow buy it outright, What then? (and sorry but-'we need to get there first' or something along those lines isn't a good enough answer for me).

Also who would run the club on a day to day basis? who would finance the day to day running costs, player wages and transfers?(because tv money and sponsorship money cant be relied on).

Very valid questions. The question about buying outright is a little irrelevant at this point in time. It is highly unlikely we can raise enough funds to buy the full share equity even if the owners sell to us. However, lets pretend that we do ! We have always maintained that the funds raised to buy the club are for share purchase only. The club would have to survive and run under its own income streams, the days of wealthy benefactors are over. There is no reason why the club cannot be run as a break even model. The club would be run by a board of directors employed to oversee an experienced football management team. However if we were ever successful in owning the club there are many benefits of a community owned football club. Most clubs and businesses have to operate within their income and we would be no different. Rovers did this Pre-Venkys almost under this model by trading a player every year or so to balance the books. I appreciate the answer needs to be a lot more detailed than this and this answer probably creates more questions than answers but primarily the answer is the model is a break even concept and a greater emphasis would have to be taken on income generation.

The more likely initial outcome is a share of the ownership. Obviously we would be a small shareholder with the emphasis on having a seat on the board to influence decisions. See the Swansea model. With 20% ownership the fans have board representation and the club operates under its own devices and income, the share owners don't continue to feed income into the club.

[T.J.Newton]

Very valid questions. The question about buying outright is a little irrelevant at this point in time. It is highly unlikely we can raise enough funds to buy the full share equity even if the owners sell to us. However, lets pretend that we do ! We have always maintained that the funds raised to buy the club are for share purchase only. The club would have to survive and run under its own income streams, the days of wealthy benefactors are over. There is no reason why the club cannot be run as a break even model. The club would be run by a board of directors employed to oversee an experienced football management team. However if we were ever successful in owning the club there are many benefits of a community owned football club. Most clubs and businesses have to operate within their income and we would be no different. Rovers did this Pre-Venkys almost under this model by trading a player every year or so to balance the books. I appreciate the answer needs to be a lot more detailed than this and this answer probably creates more questions than answers but primarily the answer is the model is a break even concept and a greater emphasis would have to be taken on income generation. The more likely initial outcome is a share of the ownership. Obviously we would be a small shareholder with the emphasis on having a seat on the board to influence decisions. See the Swansea model. With 20% ownership the fans have board representation and the club operates under its own devices and income, the share owners don't continue to fees income into the club.

hi,

thanks for response, I know its now become a bit of a clichéd thing to say but I imagine Swansea must have good owners that respect and take the fans(shareholders) opinions seriously, We have the Venkys!

As for the club running of its own steam if bought outright, although its possible in theory i cant see it being likely(not with the wages even the most average lower division players demand these days), it seemed in the final couple of years under the Walker trust the club was really struggling once the trust put the club up for sale and stopped injecting funds to help with balancing the books and player transfers.

Good luck with your endeavours though and if the current owners where ever to open serious discussions with you over the trusts proposals i would then seriously look into becoming a member and investing my little bit.

p.s. As for that other lot though 'BRAG', well the least said about them the better(they may have started out with the best of intentions, but now!)

[Wayne Wild]

Good luck with your endeavours though and if the current owners where ever to open serious discussions with you over the trusts proposals i would then seriously look into becoming a member and investing my little bit.

I will hold you to that ! I'm sure that should we get into a position whereby we are taking directly to the owners in respect of raising money to buy shares then I'm sure we will be very busy.

If you would like to become an annual member initially then please visit www.roverstrust.com

[he6rt6gr6m]

You get people from the trust saying the club is a shambles and then in the next breath they are saying they want to work with the club. Comments from he6rt6gr6m saying "Good to see so many happy to give the Venky's their trust and money so willingly though. Even after the past two years". - What the hell is that supposed to mean ? I find it so patronizing Am I supposed to feel guilty or something for spending money on the club I love and support ?

It's not meant to be patronising or offensive. I personally just cannot justify feeding my own money to something that's failing rather than look at an alternative. It's certainly not a dig at anyone! I'd never tell someone how to spend their money.

They stabbed me in the back as a fan of this football club, and I cannot forgive them for that. That doesn't mean to say that I wouldn't welcome their decision to sell part of the club to the fans and give us all the chance to get things back on track. In fact, it would be a step in the right direction. Boycotting was something I did to show my dismay, and to be honest, I found myself a lot less stressed on a Saturday afternoon than usual because of stepping away from Ewood Park. The money I save from that now goes towards a nest-egg to pledge to the Trust because it is something I truly believe in and am happy to be a part of.

I admire that the love you have for the club hasn't diminished over the past 2 years. So many have just given up or were close to, myself included.

It's almost as if it were a dying family member - your love never diminishes, but you can see them getting weaker and weaker, fading away. You'd do anything to save that family member. I'd do anything to save this football club.

[he6rt6gr6m]

As for the club running of its own steam if bought outright, although its possible in theory i cant see it being likely(not with the wages even the most average lower division players demand these days), it seemed in the final couple of years under the Walker trust the club was really struggling once the trust put the club up for sale and stopped injecting funds to help with balancing the books and player transfers.

My hope here is that someday, the FA, PL, FL will all see this and introduce wage caps, etc. and football can go back to being a sport, rather than a vehicle to make people rich. Obviously, that's out of our control, but I still don't doubt we can make this work as a self-sufficient model. It was done up until Venky's took over.

[Wayne Wild]

As for the club running of its own steam if bought outright, although its possible in theory i cant see it being likely(not with the wages even the most average lower division players demand these days), it seemed in the final couple of years under the Walker trust the club was really struggling once the trust put the club up for sale and stopped injecting funds to help with balancing the books and player transfers.

As a more indepth answer to your post, may I direct you to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

An extract...

"In the Championship, clubs have agreed to introduce a breakeven approach based on the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Whilst in League 1 and League 2, clubs will implement the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) that has been in use in the latter division since 2004/05. The SCMP broadly limits spending on total player wages to a proportion of each club's turnover.

How will it work?

The Championship

Financial Fair Play in the Championship will see the introduction of a breakeven model based on UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. It will require clubs to stay within pre-defined limits on losses and shareholder equity investment that will reduce significantly over the next five seasons.

The new system will require clubs to provide annual accounts to The Football League by December 1 every year, covering the previous season/financial year. Using this information a 'Fair Play Result' will be determined for each club that will equate to the club's profit/loss for the year, excluding investment in specific areas of club infrastructure or losses in certain extraordinary circumstances."

It is clear the wind of change is coming. Clubs will not be able to bankroll their way to success using wealthy owners. This more than ever gives more power to any Supporters Trusts who run or part run clubs. They are not disadvantaged against wealthier owners. However, its all based on income. As BRFC receipts are lowering weekly due to supporter apathy and disillusionment the greater problem mushrooms.

[Ozz]

And the sooner we get our house in order at Ewood, the better prepared we will be for this.

[Parsonblue]

Personally, all I can see the Financial Fair Play system doing is ensuring that the Premier League becomes a private club for the "Big City" clubs who can generate revenue through commercial activities and large gates. Under this system Jack would have been powerless to get the Rovers into the Premier League. I think the introduction of Financial Fair Play simply panders to the big clubs once again. You only have to look at Accrington Stanley and see how a club struggles when trying to break even. They aren't in a position to strengthen the team on a permanent basis and live on endless loan players coming and going. The crowds fall away - Stanley are now getting just over 1,000 at home games - with the result that there is even less money to spend on strengthening team. As Wayne correctly pointed out with falling attendances at Ewood this system is going to have a major impact on the Rovers and, personally, I don't think it will be for the better.

[T.J.Newton]

I agree with Parson, unless the premier league agree to similar rules then its only going to cause a massive gulf between the premier and the championship league teams and clubs that get promoted into the prem league would find themselves embarrassingly out of there depth.

[Neil Weaver]

Indeed, 'Fair Play' couldn't be further from the truth, it's just a way of getting good PR. it should be renamed to something like Financial Monopoly.

[Amo]

Why would the PL do anything to upset the balance of power?

Discussion over.

[Ozz]

The thing is, sooner or later, and hopefully sooner, the mass football watching public will surely get so sick of "Modern Football" (IE Premier League), with their massive salaries, odious agents and all powerful misbehaving players that it will be rejected by them. There is even now an ever increasing phrase being used in the sport-Against Modern Football-and whilst the top flight continues to serve only themselves whilst simultaneously sticking two fingers up to the rest of the world this feeling can only grow.

By bringing in Supporters Trusts, introducing wage caps, and generally taking a more Social/Socialist outlook on how to operate the professional game we can hope to appeal to the greater population, who in turn by sheer weight of numbers can bring pressure on the top flight clubs, the FA and the Government to make changes that will allow a fair and even playing field for all the clubs.

It's no use saying Oh well its turkeys voting for Christmas, someone has to make the first move. There is a right way to do things in life, and if it means hardship in the short or even medium term I beleive we should take the decison to do it the right way, and not the easy.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Parson, Hardly, Neil, and Topman all make a very good point about FFP. It won't change the status quo. The big city clubs will always be able to attract the higher gates, more lucrative sponsorship deals, and higher commercial hospitality revenues. In turn, they will always be able to attract the very best players, and offer them the higher wages.

But how is that different from at any other time in the history of football, with a few outliying exceptions, such as our achievement in 94/95?

FFP was never meant to level the playing field. It isn't meant to be a sort of socialisation of football. It is meant to be a financial regulatory measure to ensure that clubs operate using sustainable business models, to stop the startling increase in administrations that has been infecting the game over the last 15-20 years since the Premier League's inception. Anything else is purely marketing spin or wishful thinking. The FL simply recognises that at this rate, in another 20 years there won't be enough clubs left to run three tiers of professional football any longer!

FFP's goal is not to give Blackburn Rovers equal financial footing with Manchester United. It is meant to ensure that Blackburn Rovers are held to financial regulations that will see it continue to exist in the long term under a sustainable business model, in much the same way as most other industries are regulated to ensure their continued existence.

You have examples like Chelsea & Man City - two big city clubs that not only have large gates and expensive tickets, but also enjoy the backing of financial juggernaut benefactor owners. If those owners were gone tomorrow, those clubs would still have higher revenues than Rovers, and they could still offer higher salaries, and attract better players more easily. But the gap would lessen, not continue to exponentially widen every season.

Let's also take a step back and realise something. The PL is not implementing FFP itself. This is a Football League only initiative, and only the Championship is mirroring the UEFA FFP implementation. Whilst PL clubs who are playing in Europe will have to comply with UEFA FFP, the other 14-15 clubs don't, as long as their only ambition is to stay in the league. It will be interesting to see what this "lower echelon" of PL clubs do here, because it is a merry dance.

There is also the question of those clubs promoted into the PL from the Championship. The FL will have no authority to carry out the financial sanctions against these clubs without the PL's help, and it isn't in the interests of the PL to do so. So you could end up with situations where there is a big gamble to get to the PL, and as long as you stay in, you don't have to worry about having violated FFP. But then when you are relegated back into the Football League, you will get hammered with backlogged fines, probably at that point loaded with accrued interest and late penalties, etc.

It is all a theoretical mess, and how it will actually work in practice remains to be seen.

The biggest thing I take out of it right now, though, is that it SHOULD be a good thing, for several reasons:

1. It should narrow the gap financially between clubs in the same divisions.

2. It will make investment much less attractive to potential owners who are out to make a quick buck, foreign or domestic.

3. It makes for the prospect of community and supporter-owned clubs much more realistic and viable.

4. It should apply the brakes to the out-of-control explosion in player wages and transfer fees, and in turn ticket prices

That is just a summary of my thoughts when I read through this.

[Stuart]

It's interesting the number of ex-PL teams now plying their trade in the Championship. I think I counted 18 or 19 - and that's ignoring those in League 1.

I wonder if the sheer number of potentially disillusioned fans has grown having experienced the PL and have little chance of getting back there. With the chances diminishing, year on year, as more recent ex-PL teams have the most money and access to bigger parachute payments.

[3rdpillar]

There are disillusioned fans, many 1000s of them in our case. However recognise there were also 1000's who like it or not and admit it or not, they were only at Ewood to see Premier League Football and Premier League teams, the TOP TEAMS at that. The sucess that is SKY SPORTS and the glorious way it protrays the TOP TEAMS, simply brain washes ( for lack of a better term ), your average jo.

Football to many after years of SKY is PREMIER LEAGUE and nothing else ....

So we aint getting Ewood remotely full any day soon.. When we do get back , the returning fans really will be there to see their Heros ( Rooney et al )....

The Club has a lot of work on to get a loyal fanbase back .......a hell of a lot of work.. As do any 'group' that wish to get involved with the current owners or future.

The organised 'stay away' protests will continue to hurt our club for many years to come........they were more damaginbg than the organisers could ever have imagined

[ABBEY]

They stayed on our last relegation though.

[den]

The organised 'stay away' protests will continue to hurt our club for many years to come........they were more damaginbg than the organisers could ever have imagined

Eh - I must have missed them. What organised stay away protests?