[Archived] Rovers Trust

[47er]

In the group membership section it will say Pune 9 - if next to it, it doesn't say Pune 9 Member then you'll be glad to know you aren't

Thank God for that! Yeah---make sense when you think about it!

[Eddie]

Yes, he absolutely should. That said, it is up to him to explain it.

This is a tweet from Simon's personal Twitter account. It would be best if you Tweet him for his reasons / views in relation to this. This is absolutely not Trust policy and is not representative of Trust opinion. We have never discussed such action or anything similar.Rovers Trust is not looking to disrupt the day to day running of the football club in any shape or form.

In response to both of those comments, that simply doesn't fly with me. You're trying to be involved in some ownership of the club, you have to be held to the same level of scrutiny as everyone else. His twitter account is public, on it he promotes the trust and his involvement in the organisation and that sort of unprofessionalism is extremely worrying. If any other potential buyer, current owner or person in management were to release a statement like that then the Trust would be up in arms about it.

When I say "top flight Club" I mean a Club in the top 2 divisions at least.

My objection to the Trust taking over the running of the Club is quite simple. There won't be any money to pay the bills.

Would you mind me asking how far you got with the pledges towards the initial target of 10m? Even if that was achieved many estimates put our current losses at 2-3m per month. How could we survive that being run by a supporters trust?.

As thenodrog pointed out on another thread earlier today, unfortunately we're between a rock and a hard place at the moment. Venky's aren't ideal owners but at the moment we need their financial support. Unless alternative owners with very deep pockets who don't mind writing off a shedload of money initially can be identified.

Agreed, it's great to see the supporters organising, but there is realistically no way that even 20-30,000 sign-ups would be enough to keep this club running for very long.

[Ozz]

Look at it this way. Any Rovers fan can see right now we are in an unholy mess. This is all down to Venkys. The Trust are a govt backed model organisation, set up to encourage supporter ownership in the club. You have to agree that if we the fans were able to influence the decision making at Ewood, and I don't mean picking the team, appointing the manager etc, but having a say in the overall strategy and direction the club move forward in, then this can only be of benefit to Rovers.

So you can do nothing, or the very least -AND most you could do is pay £10 a year, to become a Trust member which will allow the Trust to gain the momentum towards acheiving its goals. You DONT have to do any more than sign up and pay the tenner-There are plenty of people who WILL do the Donkey Work and are indeed already doing so.

So do nothing, or risk a measly tenner a year to allow us to provide the alternative to this seemingly never ending nightmare at OUR club.

Join here http://www.roverstrust.com/registration-page/

[Eddie]

Look at it this way. Any Rovers fan can see right now we are in an unholy mess. This is all down to Venkys. The Trust are a govt backed model organisation, set up to encourage supporter ownership in the club. You have to agree that if we the fans were able to influence the decision making at Ewood, and I don't mean picking the team, appointing the manager etc, but having a say in the overall strategy and direction the club move forward in, then this can only be of benefit to Rovers.

So you can do nothing, or the very least -AND most you could do is pay £10 a year, to become a Trust member which will allow the Trust to gain the momentum towards acheiving its goals. You DONT have to do any more than sign up and pay the tenner-There are plenty of people who WILL do the Donkey Work and are indeed already doing so.

So do nothing, or risk a measly tenner a year to allow us to provide the alternative to this seemingly never ending nightmare at OUR club.

Join here http://www.roverstrust.com/registration-page/

My concern would be, as the twitter incident has revealed, maybe the people willing to do the donkey work aren't always that ones you would want being involved in the running of a football club.

[Blackburn Ender]

Yes we have 47er. And I think it's fair to say they know where we live, so to speak!

Eddie, not sure what you are alluding to, but no-one in the Trust is using it as a mouthpiece.

We have to have people who are willing to do media interviews, put their name to public statements, etc, and we are fortunate that several people on the steering group are good at this, willing to give their time to it and articulate the messages about the Trust to a wider audience.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

In response to both of those comments, that simply doesn't fly with me. You're trying to be involved in some ownership of the club, you have to be held to the same level of scrutiny as everyone else. His twitter account is public, on it he promotes the trust and his involvement in the organisation and that sort of unprofessionalism is extremely worrying. If any other potential buyer, current owner or person in management were to release a statement like that then the Trust would be up in arms about it.

Agreed, it's great to see the supporters organising, but there is realistically no way that even 20-30,000 sign-ups would be enough to keep this club running for very long.

Absolutely agree - it is embarrassing.

As to the second, 30,000 would mean £300,000, and that amounts to only 3 days of operations at the current approximate monthly loss the club is assumed to be bleeding at the moment. Rovers Trust never envisaged running the club at a £3m monthly loss and it never has had the goal of raising the money required to obtain an ownership stake in the club or operate and support it via membership fees.

[Sparky Marky]

Seems to me that the Trust is just a suited and booted version of BRAG. Silly comments from trust members without conferring with his mates....sounds familiar.

[Eddie]

Absolutely agree - it is embarrassing.

As to the second, 30,000 would mean £300,000, and that amounts to only 3 days of operations at the current approximate monthly loss the club is assumed to be bleeding at the moment. Rovers Trust never envisaged running the club at a £3m monthly loss and it never has had the goal of raising the money required to obtain an ownership stake in the club or operate and support it via membership fees.

But then what is the working model for the trust? Realistically it is impossible to envisage a situation in which it could support a club above League Two status.

That means that it is only there as a fans group that could interact with the club and potentially get some sort of official consultation position with new owners, at which point I have to ask, what will happen to all of the money?

I'm all in favour of everyone doing what they can to improve the situation, I just don't really understand what the plan is going forward.

Yes we have 47er. And I think it's fair to say they know where we live, so to speak!

Eddie, not sure what you are alluding to, but no-one in the Trust is using it as a mouthpiece.

We have to have people who are willing to do media interviews, put their name to public statements, etc, and we are fortunate that several people on the steering group are good at this, willing to give their time to it and articulate the messages about the Trust to a wider audience.

I'm am talking about the comment of the secretary via a twitter account that only receives the attention and credibility that it does because of his connects to the Trust. At that point he is officially representing the Trust, there can be no personal opinions emerging from an organisation such as this, certainly not ones that are so controversial and unprofessional.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

But then what is the working model for the trust? Realistically it is impossible to envisage a situation in which it could support a club above League Two status.

That means that it is only there as a fans group that could interact with the club and potentially get some sort of official consultation position with new owners, at which point I have to ask, what will happen to all of the money?

I'm all in favour of everyone doing what they can to improve the situation, I just don't really understand what the plan is going forward.

Eddie, the idea of owning the club means that you are allowed to use all of the income it generates itself to operate it. You don't have to come up with it yourself.

If the club weren't going to court and paying off multiple managers every few months, if the club hadn't alienated every local sponsor imaginable, rejected quality offers for shirt, stand, and ad board sponsorships, turned off the business community to use of the commercial and hospitality facilities during match days, destroyed its relationship with half of its attending local fan base to the extent that they have completely disappeared, and disregarded completely the relationships it should be maintaining with local and regional government, shown lack of vision and long-term planning with ridiculous and rash player trading activities and dubious and extremely expensive player and manager contracts, then it wouldn't be in the situation it finds itself in, and I daresay would still comfortably be in Premier League, continuing to reap those financial rewards. If these things had been handled as a well run business, there would be little to no losses for any owner, including a supporters trust, to cover or subsidise. That is the whole point. The ultimate goal is to be a meaningful part of the ownership structure of the club, whether than means as the majority share holder or as a large minority shareholder remains to be seen. The whole reason for having that goal is so that the club is not allowed to decline into the sorry state it has fallen to in a fantastically catastrophic short period of time.

[Sparky Marky]

Eddie, the idea of owning the club means that you are allowed to use all of the income it generates itself to operate it. You don't have to come up with it yourself.

If the club weren't going to court and paying off multiple managers every few months, if the club hadn't alienated every local sponsor imaginable, rejected quality offers for shirt, stand, and ad board sponsorships, turned off the business community to use of the commercial and hospitality facilities during match days, destroyed its relationship with half of its attending local fan base to the extent that they have completely disappeared, and disregarded completely the relationships it should be maintaining with local and regional government, shown lack of vision and long-term planning with ridiculous and rash player trading activities and dubious and extremely expensive player and manager contracts, then it wouldn't be in the situation it finds itself in, and I daresay would still comfortably be in Premier League, continuing to reap those financial rewards. If these things had been handled as a well run business, there would be little to no losses for any owner, including a supporters trust, to cover or subsidise. That is the whole point. The ultimate goal is to be a meaningful part of the ownership structure of the club, whether than means as the majority share holder or as a large minority shareholder remains to be seen. The whole reason for having that goal is so that the club is not allowed to decline into the sorry state it has fallen to in a fantastically catastrophic short period of time.

Wasn't the walker trust pumping in millions every now and then to keep us afloat even when John Williams was in charge.? Who would come up with a nice bundle of cash evry now and then?

[Eddie]

Obviously the overheads could be cut, but realistically there are only a handful of football clubs in England that don't operate at a loss and it is highly unlikely that we would be able to to move to that stage. Even when the ship was in good working order under the Walker Trust and John Williams the club only managed to be reasonably financially self sufficient by selling players. Most supporters are against that idea and, even more importantly, that relies on us being incredibly successful in the transfer market.

Any model for how this club is going to be run has to be built on the idea that it will lose at least some money every month. That is where the biggest question mark surrounding the Trust lies.

[RevidgeBlue]

Absolutely agree - it is embarrassing.

As to the second, 30,000 would mean £300,000, and that amounts to only 3 days of operations at the current approximate monthly loss the club is assumed to be bleeding at the moment. Rovers Trust never envisaged running the club at a £3m monthly loss and it never has had the goal of raising the money required to obtain an ownership stake in the club or operate and support it via membership fees

Eh? Now I really am confused. I could have sworn Blackburn Ender said the goal was full or part ownership in the Club.

[Ricky]

Eddie, I disagree about the majority of people involved not being the people you would want involved. There is only one person who seems to be embarrassing the trust by his actions, a fact that Dan seems to have recognised. The other guys involved all seem very professional and I am happy to see them involved.

[Majiball]

Eddie, the idea of owning the club means that you are allowed to use all of the income it generates itself to operate it. You don't have to come up with it yourself.

If the club weren't going to court and paying off multiple managers every few months, if the club hadn't alienated every local sponsor imaginable, rejected quality offers for shirt, stand, and ad board sponsorships, turned off the business community to use of the commercial and hospitality facilities during match days, destroyed its relationship with half of its attending local fan base to the extent that they have completely disappeared, and disregarded completely the relationships it should be maintaining with local and regional government, shown lack of vision and long-term planning with ridiculous and rash player trading activities and dubious and extremely expensive player and manager contracts, then it wouldn't be in the situation it finds itself in, and I daresay would still comfortably be in Premier League, continuing to reap those financial rewards. If these things had been handled as a well run business, there would be little to no losses for any owner, including a supporters trust, to cover or subsidise. That is the whole point. The ultimate goal is to be a meaningful part of the ownership structure of the club, whether than means as the majority share holder or as a large minority shareholder remains to be seen. The whole reason for having that goal is so that the club is not allowed to decline into the sorry state it has fallen to in a fantastically catastrophic short period of time.

Trouble is though you need to get to that stage first IE finances within realistic realms. That's going to take time and sponsors etc will probably only cover 1 months losses as you can't just walk in and cancel players contracts. I like the idea and the concept but as a minority and with a serious partner (he'll need money) it could be quite good. If not you'll have to work rather quickly and rather naughtly to get that wage bill down. Could the trust as majority support and fund the club, you can say you'd generate funds but unless you can shift out players on stupid money, you'll still need to raise the funds to cover the 2-3M loss every month. The income rovers are currently earning won't last long so yes you'll be able to use it, but it won't last the season and if players are still here come the close of the window, surely then we'd be in trouble??? If it was easy Pompey would be sound but yet players have hung on as they won't get better elsewhere Just look at Tal ben haim (sp). For me for the trust to function and take rovers forward as you state administartion will be needed first so we can be at a financial level where things could progress. But that in itself would most likely mean another relegation and it's a long road back from league 1.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Wasn't the walker trust pumping in millions every now and then to keep us afloat even when John Williams was in charge.? Who would come up with a nice bundle of cash evry now and then?

Yes, between £1-3m a year. And that is a problem, no argument there. This addresses your doubts as well, Eddie.

Nobody said it was an easy task, and I am not claiming help won't be needed. What I am saying is that very few football clubs are being run as a business at the moment. I am saying that there are ways to come up with the funds to support losses on occasion without dipping back into the supporters' pockets. These would be a combination of government grants, unrelated utility, merchandise, and service turnover that could be generated through corporate revenue sharing partnerships and membership benefit programmes, etc, plus of course smart activity in the transfer market.

Also, I am not saying "trust me, we can do it." I am just saying that while a task like this is formidable, it is doable with enough commitment and creativity.

In any case, this argument presupposes that Rovers Trust would have sole ownership of the club. This would only most likely happen in the worst case scenario and it is a matter of saving the club's very existence. Much more likely is the partial ownership alternative, at which point you work with the other owners to come up with funding to support the club when in need, and share the burden.

Eh? Now I really am confused. I could have sworn Blackburn Ender said the goal was full or part ownership in the Club.

Via membership fees. The community Share issue is the vehicle by which the funding would be obtained to buy into the club. Of course that is our goal.

Trouble is though you need to get to that stage first IE finances within realistic realms. That's going to take time and sponsors etc will probably only cover 1 months losses as you can't just walk in and cancel players contracts. I like the idea and the concept but as a minority and with a serious partner (he'll need money) it could be quite good. If not you'll have to work rather quickly and rather naughtly to get that wage bill down. Could the trust as majority support and fund the club, you can say you'd generate funds but unless you can shift out players on stupid money, you'll still need to raise the funds to cover the 2-3M loss every month. The income rovers are currently earning won't last long so yes you'll be able to use it, but it won't last the season and if players are still here come the close of the window, surely then we'd be in trouble??? If it was easy Pompey would be sound but yet players have hung on as they won't get better elsewhere Just look at Tal ben haim (sp). For me for the trust to function and take rovers forward as you state administartion will be needed first so we can be at a financial level where things could progress. But that in itself would most likely mean another relegation and it's a long road back from league 1.

Cannot disagree with you at all Majiball, even though I wish it weren't so. That was my point with the comment about the Trust working with partners in all but the worst case scenario above.

[Eddie]

Eddie, I disagree about the majority of people involved not being the people you would want involved. There is only one person who seems to be embarrassing the trust by his actions, a fact that Dan seems to have recognised. The other guys involved all seem very professional and I am happy to see them involved.

I'm not saying the majority, but when you're running something it only takes one or two to go off message and ruin it for the rest. You can be tarred with a bad brush, it's hard to have the good ones cover up for the bad.

It is now clear that there are relatively high ranking members with the Trust who can't be relied on to use common sense.

[RevidgeBlue]

Eddie, the idea of owning the club means that you are allowed to use all of the income it generates itself to operate it. You don't have to come up with it yourself.

If the club weren't going to court and paying off multiple managers every few months, if the club hadn't alienated every local sponsor imaginable, rejected quality offers for shirt, stand, and ad board sponsorships, turned off the business community to use of the commercial and hospitality facilities during match days, destroyed its relationship with half of its attending local fan base to the extent that they have completely disappeared, and disregarded completely the relationships it should be maintaining with local and regional government, shown lack of vision and long-term planning with ridiculous and rash player trading activities and dubious and extremely expensive player and manager contracts, then it wouldn't be in the situation it finds itself in, and I daresay would still comfortably be in Premier League, continuing to reap those financial rewards. If these things had been handled as a well run business, there would be little to no losses for any owner, including a supporters trust, to cover or subsidise. That is the whole point. The ultimate goal is to be a meaningful part of the ownership structure of the club, whether than means as the majority share holder or as a large minority shareholder remains to be seen. The whole reason for having that goal is so that the club is not allowed to decline into the sorry state it has fallen to in a fantastically catastrophic short period of time.

Sorry, but the notion that the Trust or anyone else could just go in and slash overheads and suddenly have us running at a break even level or a profit is just pie in the sky stuff. at least if you want us to remain competitive on the football pitch.

As Eddie has said even under the relatively austere conditions in the latter days of the Trust and the capable stewardship of Williams/Finn/Goodman we generally posted a large loss. The exception to that would have been if players were sold which you can't always rely on and which is generally counterproductive and/or we achieved a significantly higher League placing which meant more TV place money.

Which of course now we don't receive.

[Majiball]

I'm not saying the majority, but when you're running something it only takes one or two to go off message and ruin it for the rest. You can be tarred with a bad brush, it's hard to have the good ones cover up for the bad.

It is now clear that there are relatively high ranking members with the Trust who can't be relied on to use common sense.

It's not about how you fall, everyone falls. It's how you rise afterwards that matters.

Lets see if they carry-on or it's just a one off blip.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Sorry, but the notion that the Trust or anyone else could just go in and slash overheads and suddenly have us running at a break even level or a profit is just pie in the sky stuff. at least if you want us to remain competitive on the football pitch.

As Eddie has said even under the relatively austere conditions in the latter days of the Trust and the capable stewardship of Williams/Finn/Goodman we generally posted a large loss. The exception to that would have been if players were sold which you can't always rely on and which is generally counterproductive and/or we achieved a significantly higher League placing which meant more TV place money.

Which of course now we don't receive.

I don't disagree with you on this Rev, but I wasn't really claiming you could. See my response above.

[47er]

I'm not saying the majority, but when you're running something it only takes one or two to go off message and ruin it for the rest. You can be tarred with a bad brush, it's hard to have the good ones cover up for the bad.

It is now clear that there are relatively high ranking members with the Trust who can't be relied on to use common sense.

As opposed to our owners and their lackeys who have no common sense at all. C'mn Eddie, which do you prefer?

[Majiball]

Sorry, but the notion that the Trust or anyone else could just go in and slash overheads and suddenly have us running at a break even level or a profit is just pie in the sky stuff. at least if you want us to remain competitive on the football pitch.

As Eddie has said even under the relatively austere conditions in the latter days of the Trust and the capable stewardship of Williams/Finn/Goodman we generally posted a large loss. The exception to that would have been if players were sold which you can't always rely on and which is generally counterproductive and/or we achieved a significantly higher League placing which meant more TV place money.

Which of course now we don't receive.

You'd need a fire sale, Olsson, Rhodes, Best (maybe), Hanley, Kean, Henley, Dann have all got to command some sort of fee? Get rid take what you can to get it under control and to give you breathing space. Wouldn't be nice on the pitch but in that scenario IE no-one else but the trust willing? You'd take it. Just because we made a loss under the walker trust had no bearing on the rovers trusts intentions, I can solve that problem instantly don't allow the budget to be broken just because your manager fancies a dinner with a potential player. Losing 1-2M off a premier league wage bill is one player roughly, so I don't see the point in that line of arguement.

[RevidgeBlue]

Via membership fees. The community Share issue is the vehicle by which the funding would be obtained to buy into the club. Of course that is our goal.

Membership fees, £10p.a.? What on earth are you talking about? Let's be honest, the £10p.a. membership fee does not benefit the Club in any way shape or form. It merely allows the Trust to operate and meet running costs. I have no problem whatsoever with that. I know Paul and Glenn (administrator) and only2 garners and have the utmost respect for them and to me if they're involved with the Trust it's a good sign that they're a respectable organisation. As a credible and respectable mouthpiece for the fans the Trust can perform a valuable service. But any thoughts of ownership or part ownership are completely unrealistic without heavy hitting partners. Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending the £10 p.a. will make a significant difference to the Club at the level we're at.

As for the 1k pledges to enable the Trust to buy an initial stake in the Club, I think it's a truly remarkable effort in a fanbase the size of ours to get 3m worth of pledges from supporters. I really do By the same token the fact the figure is only 3m indicates to me why the idea is a nice idea in theory but completely unrealistic in practice.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Membership fees, £10p.a.? What on earth are you talking about? Let's be honest, the £10p.a. membership fee does not benefit the Club in any way shape or form. It merely allows the Trust to operate and meet running costs. I have no problem whatsoever with that. I know Paul and Glenn (administrator) and only2 garners and have the utmost respect for them and to me if they're involved with the Trust it's a good sign that they're a respectable organisation. As a credible and respectable mouthpiece for the fans the Trust can perform a valuable service. But any thoughts of ownership or part ownership are completely unrealistic without heavy hitting partners. Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending the £10 p.a. will make a significant difference to the Club at the level we're at.

As for the 1k pledges to enable the Trust to buy an initial stake in the Club, I think it's a truly remarkable effort in a fanbase the size of ours to get 3m worth of pledges from supporters. I really do By the same token the fact the figure is only 3m indicates to me why the idea is a nice idea in theory but completely unrealistic in practice.

Sorry Rev, I think we completely talked past each other there. I was saying that we don't have any notions that we can support the club or buy into it using membership fees, we are in full agreement - I am not trying to insult anyone's intelligence.

[Ricky]

I read it as the way Dan wrote it, that you couldn't do it through membership fees. Guess you're reading it as you want to read it rev.

[stuwilky]

Post 701 is where it went wrong. Rev seems to think that Dan said the opposite of what he actually put.