[Archived] Rovers Trust

[ABBEY]

But rugby and US sports are not worldwide sports and it would need FIFA to introduce it worldwide . If they don't everyone would play elsewhere and there would be no sky silver and more clubs would fold ?

[yoda]

.

The solution is of course wage caps which are common in rugby league and rugby union and in US sport but have never been implemented in football owing to the vested interests of the Champions League clubs. Until football grasps the wage cap nettle players will continue to be paid ludicrous wages, mid to smaller sized clubs will struggle to compete and football inequality will continue to make the Premeir League uncompetitive and a pointless exercise for all those outside the elite.

But rugby and US sports are not worldwide sports and it would need FIFA to introduce it worldwide . If they don't everyone would play elsewhere and there would be no sky silver and more clubs would fold ?

How about this for a short term try

http://www.brfcs.com/mb/index.php/topic/28029-the-new-tv-deal/

[Roost]

Andy, yes Rovers Trust is the lot who want to buy the club!! But it's about much, much more than that. Rovers Trust is working to put the club into community ownership and to put Rovers where they have always belonged, and must again be, at the centre of the town. This is about the town, the club, the community not just ownership.

Trusts exist in all levels of football from Runcorn Linnets in the north-west counties league to Swansea in the PL. At the heart of each trust is a simple message, by the fans, for the fans because without supporters the clubs and the game would not exist.

This really is the chance to have your voice heard. If you can't get to the cathedral meeting visit the website www.roverstrust.co.uk and sign up. For £10 a year each trust member will have an equal vote in how our club should be run if it is held in community ownership.

Paul, is this new initiative connected in any way to the BRSIT campaign?

Its an important question.

Edit - have now spent time reading the website, and found what I need. Thanks

[ABBEY]

Ask Paul anything and if its awkward and he doesn't like it he will remove the question , communist style. Yes my question was awkward and it's been answered secretly by pm but ....

[Roost]

Ask Paul anything and if its awkward and he doesn't like it he will remove the question , communist style. Yes my question was awkward and it's been answered secretly by pm but ....

What did you ask?

[ABBEY]

NOT ALLOWED TO SAY PAUL WILL TELL ME OFF .

PM YOU .

[Roost]

Wow.

[mark1875]

Ask Paul anything and if its awkward and he doesn't like it he will remove the question , communist style. Yes my question was awkward and it's been answered secretly by pm but ....

Seriously?

Are you claiming that if a supporter posts a question about the Rovers Trust in the public domain (on this very website), and they don't like it, or find it awkward to answer, then they will arrange for it to be deleted out of the public domain (off this very website)?

That is unbelievable if true Abbey?

[ABBEY]

YUP

[Glenn]

Some times I really get the feeling that people are trying to play out some kind of turf battle on BRFCS and I want no part of it.

Abbey, you asked a question of a rovers fan who to the best of my knowledge ISN'T a member on here (certainly not an active one and more technicals you shoul be asking it of the company he represents) that Paul saw fit to remove and answer in private. Perhaps not the way I'd have played it, but we have a rule of assuming good faith with anyone we entrust with mod rights.

Now, what puzzles me Abbs is you're a good guy and it's a fair question with a pretty legitimate answer, but why keep bringing it up on here, when the person you asked is rather active on twitter? It's almost like you're trying to drag us into a fight rather than looking for an answer, we'll I'm having no part of it, I stand by my commitment to help bring the fans together and avoid getting me or the site involved in any more pointless feuds. I've bit my lip dozens of times over fairly serious matters these last few weeks in the name if fan unity, so I'm not getting dragged back in over something as petty and inconsequential as this.

I imagine both Paul and the person you questioned will be at Blackburn Cathedral on Saturday, so I suggest you pop along and ask them, rather than repeatedly bringing it up here, where nobody can answer you fully!

[ABBEY]

I'm not doing anything involving "turf wars" glen. I asked a question in good faith and Paul deleted it and handed out a bollucking and said I was acting for someone else , you know me I don't act for anyone. If you want details of what was said to me I will message you tommorow . Why do I bring it up ? Simple it keaned me off and still does. It soldo happened on same day as non mods edited a post of mine.

[glen9mullan]

I'm not doing anything involving "turf wars" glen. I asked a question in good faith and Paul deleted it and handed out a bollucking and said I was acting for someone else , you know me I don't act for anyone. If you want details of what was said to me I will message you tommorow . Why do I bring it up ? Simple it keaned me off and still does. It soldo happened on same day as non mods edited a post of mine.

Don't ask questions mate, we got grilled at a collaboration meetimg because one of our committee asked a question on behalf of a shareholder asking how they had obtained his personal details, after he had asked the committee member to ask on the thread as he was not member.

The grilling lasted half an hour in front of an MP and other supporter groups, what followed was the trust demanding their money back on the advert they had taken out in our membership packs, stating our groups decision not to endorse them was the most important reason why. We explained at the time of them taking the advert out that it would not be an endorsement by us and we would have to ballot the members. We was told as a committee it should be our decison. We countered and said as a democratic committee, it was not a mundane decision and we would ballot our members as previously stated.

No timescale on when the packs went out was offered or implied, we stated that once the cost of the packs had been raised, they would be produced and sent out.

After a lot of dialogue, inconvenience and additional cost to our group inccurred their advert is still on our packs and will be out with the members over the next week or so

So asking questions is not allowed.

[glen9mullan]

Don't ask questions mate, we got grilled at a collaboration meetimg because one of our committee asked a question on behalf of a shareholder asking how they had obtained his personal details, after he had asked the committee member to ask on the thread as he was not member.

The grilling lasted half an hour in front of an MP and other supporter groups, what followed was the trust demanding their money back on the advert they had taken out in our membership packs, stating our groups decision not to endorse them was the most important reason why. We explained at the time of them taking the advert out that it would not be an endorsement by us and we would have to ballot the members. We was told as a committee it should be our decison. We countered and said as a democratic committee, it was not a mundane decision and we would ballot our members as previously stated.

No timescale on when the packs went out was offered or implied, we stated that once the cost of the packs had been raised, they would be produced and sent out.

After a lot of dialogue their advert is still on our packs and will be out with the members over the next week or so

So asking questions is not allowed.

Don't ask questions mate, we got grilled at a collaboration meetimg because one of our committee asked a question on behalf of a shareholder asking how they had obtained his personal details, after he had asked the committee member to ask on the thread as he was not member.

The grilling lasted half an hour in front of an MP and other supporter groups, what followed was the trust demanding their money back on the advert they had taken out in our membership packs, stating our groups decision not to endorse them was the most important reason why. We explained at the time of them taking the advert out that it would not be an endorsement by us and we would have to ballot the members. We was told as a committee it should be our decison. We countered and said as a democratic committee, it was not a mundane decision and we would ballot our members as previously stated.

No timescale on when the packs went out was offered or implied, we stated that once the cost of the packs had been raised, they would be produced and sent out.

After a lot of dialogue , inconveniance , and cost to our group inccurred their advert is still on our packs and will be out with the members over the next week or so

So asking questions is not allowed.

[yoda]

Don't ask questions mate, we got grilled at a collaboration meetimg because one of our committee asked a question on behalf of a shareholder asking how they had obtained his personal details, after he had asked the committee member to ask on the thread as he was not member.

The grilling lasted half an hour in front of an MP and other supporter groups, what followed was the trust demanding their money back on the advert they had taken out in our membership packs, stating our groups decision not to endorse them was the most important reason why. We explained at the time of them taking the advert out that it would not be an endorsement by us and we would have to ballot the members. We was told as a committee it should be our decison. We countered and said as a democratic committee, it was not a mundane decision and we would ballot our members as previously stated.

No timescale on when the packs went out was offered or implied, we stated that once the cost of the packs had been raised, they would be produced and sent out.

After a lot of dialogue their advert is still on our packs and will be out with the members over the next week or so

So asking questions is not allowed.

Is this what the Rovers has come down to?

no wonder people are staying away

[glen9mullan]

Is this what the Rovers has come down to?

no wonder people are staying away

Sadly mate it appears so

[ABBEY]

I won't be asking anything anymore , ain't worth the hassle.

[Glenn]

As I said, I don't want this playing out on here. We've been through this scenario before with BRFCAG vs the FF and all it did was polarise fans, Recently I believed everyone had ended hostilities, I was trying to keep may part of that bargain.

My advice (not that I ever expect anyone to listen) is if you want to win some if the support back you've lost, cut down the political showboating and learn that attack isn't always the best for of defence. The situation you list is the perfect example, one your members asked you to look into where the trust got his contact details from, to me the initial way to progress that is to use your previous relationship with the trust ask them for a response and publish it. Raising it at Sir Bills meeting to me isn't really the way, BUT unless I'm very much mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong and I haven't fact checked this with the yourselves) your initial inquiry about this was made through a public thread on this forum. Doing it that way seemed to some that it was point scoring rather than an attempt to represent your members.

It's ill thought out incidents like this that result in some people seeing your actions as aggressive and why some think you value self-promotion more than you should.

Similarly, the recent habit of retweeting (albeit from your personal accounts) people having a go at the trust comes across as crass and bitter.

Now, I'm sure people perceptions are wrong and I still desperately want all the groups to work, so please consider this as advice, not a lambasting and of course both yourself, the trust, the ff, anyone, are still welcome to promote their rovers-related causes here. I just think that if everyone is serious about the fans (and fan groups) coming together and working as one, then helping you understanding why some don't feel that's happening (and why I don't want BRFCS being complicit in that) is a good thing.

[Parsonblue]

Unfortunately Glenn, the fanbase is not united and the varying arguments between BRFCAG, FF and now the TRUST are the reasons why myself and the friends who I attend matches with won't have anything to do with any of these groups. The prospect of handing hard earned money over to any of these groups is not something I would ever contemplate when you see the way in which the arguments have been played out this season, particularly at many away matches.

[ABBEY]

check pm Glenn.

[Mike E]

Just to wade in a little, all 3 groups have shown themselves up several times recently (in various ways) and it's bound to have a negative effect on people becoming members.

Me? I'm a Rovers fan, plain and simple. The groups all appear to be either in it for themselves, want a power trip or just want to be better than another group. Politicising fandom is a turn-off for me, as I'm sure it is for many. If you want more members or whatever, don't do anything on a community forum that is for discussion, comment and opinion.

Recruitment should be by the free social media, rather than putting poor Glenn through the wringer. And that means taking any and all rows off here too, imo.

[Paul]

I'm not doing anything involving "turf wars" glen. I asked a question in good faith and Paul deleted it and handed out a bollucking and said I was acting for someone else , you know me I don't act for anyone. If you want details of what was said to me I will message you tommorow . Why do I bring it up ? Simple it keaned me off and still does. It soldo happened on same day as non mods edited a post of mine.

I had no intention of getting involved in this discussion Abbs but I think you're being rather harsh and unfair to me to suggest I handed out any sort of bollucking. I've just re read the PMs we exchanged. This is what happened:

You began a thread asking if others had heard a rumour about an individual.

Yes I hid the thread

I immediately PMd you to explain

After some discussion with you I went back to the third party and got agreement to tell you the exact position which I did

I asked you to trust me on this and said I was sure your contact believed what he told you but I knew it was incorrect

I explained the information you asked about came from a private meeting. I believe private is private. I could be wrong, perhaps the meeting wasn't private, but I would never discuss publicly anything I believed to be private.

With hindsight I should have done nothing and let things take their natural course even though I knew the likely outcome. At the time, and knowing the circumstances, I felt it was the correct action. I apologised privately for upsetting you and now I'm doing so publicly.

You know I'm straight forward. Sometimes I act too quickly, I know this. I always say things as I see them. I believe this is the only way to conduct oneself. It does not make me universally popular but it's what I believe in.

Again sorry to have upset you.

[ABBEY]

Read the messages again,maybe I was a tad harsh with the bollucking bit.Felt like it tho and I apologise.

My point still stands though that something like i asked about SHOULD be public knowledge and definitly voids the transparency policy the trust sprouts.I have another question as well but wont ask it on here as I would imagine it would open another can of worms and earache.

[K-Hod]

Wayne Wild's anti Ian Currie and Ian Battersby sentiments on twitter (when they were looking to put together a takeover) were enough to make me lose faith in anything he put his name to.

[mark1875]

Right well now i have to believe what Abbey has been saying regarding trying to silence criticism.

I did an article with another website this week, in which i stated my reasons for not being behind the trust, and gave examples of better options should the opportunity of a sale arise, within 12 hours, the Rovers Trust had contacted the site in question with anger and ensured that my personal opinion on why the trust won't work and how we need to look at more viable options was removed from the piece immediately.

Looks like any Blackburn Rovers Supporter who has an opinion on the Rovers Trust, which they do not like, then they will go all out to silence you. I am actually no wondering how long this post will last.

Open and Transparent??? give me a break, absolutely stunned.

[Baz]

Right well now i have to believe what Abbey has been saying regarding trying to silence criticism.

I did an article with another website this week, in which i stated my reasons for not being behind the trust, and gave examples of better options should the opportunity of a sale arise, within 12 hours, the Rovers Trust had contacted the site in question with anger and ensured that my personal opinion on why the trust won't work and how we need to look at more viable options was removed from the piece immediately.

Looks like any Blackburn Rovers Supporter who has an opinion on the Rovers Trust, which they do not like, then they will go all out to silence you. I am actually no wondering how long this post will last.

Open and Transparent??? give me a break, absolutely stunned.

Have you any proof of this?

Maybe you should state your opinions on here about why you dont think the trust will work, help move the discussion to be on those grounds.