[Archived] Rovers Trust

[J*B]

I still can't grasp why abbey can't publically post these concerns.

[Blackburn Ender]

J*B

Becaue they contained untruths about a fellow Rovers fan and had no basis in fact.

Just because you've heard a rumour, doesn't mean you can make that public particularly if it is negative to a person or organisation.

ITV have just agreed to pay £125,000 to Lord McAlpine on top of the £185,000 the BBC has already paid him for spreading unsubstantiated rumours. Thousands of Twitter followers, who perhaps imagined the same laws don't apply to Twitter or social media or internet forums, are also learning this the hard way.

The same goes for Mark's post above. Criticism is fine - good, bad or indifferent - and there is no secrecy.

But, if inaccuracies in an article or opinion piece are pointed out, it's up to the editor of the publication or website concerned to decide whether to remove or rectify those errors (as I believe applies in your case), not Rovers Trust or anyone associated with it.

Like the Rovers Trust website, brfcs or any other public forum, If you stick to the facts you can write what you want all day long.

At the end of the day, as others have rightly pointed out, we are all Rovers fans and should concentrate on doing the best we can for our club and not picking fights with other supporters.

Neil

[ABBEY]

It may not have been quite true but the rumour was very close to the truth!!!

EVERYTHING on here is 75% rumour.

As for my other question I dare not ask !

[mark1875]

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.

I have now discussed this with the people who did the piece and told them if the original article is not put back up i want the whole lot taking down and under no circumstances should a censored piece remain out there.

They have now restored it back to the original article

[Tom]

Mark

My view is everyone has their own take on whether the trust will work and I have certainly aired my concerns publicly since its inception.

I do think the article on vital was slightly badly timed though as you say you can't say whether the action group will back the trust till the ballot is done and then do an interview which reads as you personally don't think it's worthwhile. This can be read as trying to influence the ballot seeing as you are in a trusted position and highly respected in BRFCAG. While that may not be the case I personally think its a little ill judged especially as Glen stated a few days back that he wouldn't publically air his views on it as to not prejudice the ballot.

As for me I still haven't signed up to BRST, I'm hoping to pop down tomorrow to see what it's all about just as I would with any upstart group concerning the club and hope to be more informed to make a decision going forward

I'm still a bit ignorant on it as I liked the idea of the supporters trust but never though BRSIT was a viable option and now I'm not sure what the combined efforts really equate to at this moment

[Amo]

I've heard the Trust have naked occult rituals every full moon where they sacrifice the blood of a young virgin.

Would an official spokesman live to refute these allegations, please?

[Paul]

.......upstart group......

I do hope this is a typo Tom.

[Tom]

I do hope this is a typo Tom.

Just poorly worded Paul

What I mean is any group coming up with options I would look at properly

Hope that's a bit clearer

[he6rt6gr6m]

I've heard the Trust have naked occult rituals every full moon where they sacrifice the blood of a young virgin.

Would an official spokesman live to refute these allegations, please?

Now that would be telling.

[Reedy You're A Star]

I've heard the Trust have naked occult rituals every full moon where they sacrifice the blood of a young virgin.

So that's where Vinjay really went

[bypass06]

Comments on here seem to be against it.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/blackburn/10068118._/?

[Roost]

Comments on here seem to be against it.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/blackburn/10068118._/?

....and judging by the tepid response this thread has had (60 replies to date, and a good number about Abbeys issue)if this site is representative of Rovers fans, tomorrow could be a washout.

[mark1875]

J*B

Becaue they contained untruths about a fellow Rovers fan and had no basis in fact.

Neil

Care to elaborate? what exactly is untrue?

Mark

My view is everyone has their own take on whether the trust will work and I have certainly aired my concerns publicly since its inception.

I do think the article on vital was slightly badly timed though as you say you can't say whether the action group will back the trust till the ballot is done and then do an interview which reads as you personally don't think it's worthwhile. This can be read as trying to influence the ballot seeing as you are in a trusted position and highly respected in BRFCAG. While that may not be the case I personally think its a little ill judged especially as Glen stated a few days back that he wouldn't publically air his views on it as to not prejudice the ballot.

As for me I still haven't signed up to BRST, I'm hoping to pop down tomorrow to see what it's all about just as I would with any upstart group concerning the club and hope to be more informed to make a decision going forward

I'm still a bit ignorant on it as I liked the idea of the supporters trust but never though BRSIT was a viable option and now I'm not sure what the combined efforts really equate to at this moment

Unfortunately i did not decide the timing of the interview. Vital requested the secretary of the Rovers Trust to do an interview ahead of their launch, for some unknown reason he declined to do this interview and promote their launch. I was then contacted and asked if I would do one, of course i accepted and i answered the questions as honest as i could, simple as that.

As for my personal opinion.....it would be fine i suppose if it was pro-trust? but because it isn't then it deserves the site to be contacted and threatened? Pathetic.

[Tom]

I don't agree with the contacting of the site at all and similarly I think had it been pro trust it may have been met with cynicism as well for the reasons I said in the last post

[AndyNeil]

The point I tried to make on Twitter was that the article was unbalanced...as a neutral(?) website they should have mentioned that they contacted the Rovers Trust but that nobody was a available for comment. That way it wouldn't have come across as an anti Rovers Trust article. I also have to say the timing of the article was terrible...some might say its to much of a coincidence that it was published the day before the launch of the Rovers Trust.

[Ricky]

Just reading this thread makes me over the bloody moon that we're owned by venkys, it really does. The thought of some of you lot in positions of power within the club scares the kean out of me. I don't care which groups you belong to just take the time to read some of the nonsense on this thread, read the way you are talking about your fellow fans! It's sickening!!

[mark1875]

The point I tried to make on Twitter was that the article was unbalanced...as a neutral(?) website they should have mentioned that they contacted the Rovers Trust but that nobody was a available for comment. That way it wouldn't have come across as an anti Rovers Trust article. I also have to say the timing of the article was terrible...some might say its to much of a coincidence that it was published the day before the launch of the Rovers Trust.

People may well believe its a coincidence however the truth is that they asked Rovers Trust to go on and discuss their launch in the lead it up to the event, however for some reason their secretary declined, so they decided to invite someone else to do an interview instead. It is that simple.

I answer every question put to me in all interviews, I always have and I always will do, i don't believe in refusal to answer questions openly, if i have to apologise for that, so be it but that's just the way i am.

[Paul]

People may well believe its a coincidence however the truth is that they asked Rovers Trust to go on and discuss their launch in the lead it up to the event, however for some reason their secretary declined, so they decided to invite someone else to do an interview instead. It is that simple.

Mark could I ask you to speak to Mike Delap about this. Mike, who I have never met, contacted our secretary on Tuesday asking if the Trust would be interested in taking part in an event VB are planning. I don't want to go into specifics for fear of spoiling Mike's plans.

After some discussion amongst the group the Trust replied positively but would like to delay till after Saturday, today, as everyone is / was very busy this week. We replied on Wednesday.

[RoversTrust]

Today is the day. We hope to see many of you down at Blackburn Cathedral for what will be a historic day. 10am, the event begins!

http://www.facebook.com/events/401805716556433/

[Parsonblue]

Just reading this thread makes me over the bloody moon that we're owned by venkys, it really does. The thought of some of you lot in positions of power within the club scares the kean out of me. I don't care which groups you belong to just take the time to read some of the nonsense on this thread, read the way you are talking about your fellow fans! It's sickening!!

I couldn't agree more Ricky. It's why so many supporters won't have anything to do with any of these groups!

[Speedie Dived]

Guess we are ignoring Glenn's plea not to fallout on here?

[Baz]

Have other commitments on Saturday mornings, but wanted to add my support to those who have worked very hard to organise the trust so far and the meeting thismorning.

[Mercer]

IMO, Rovers Trust is not a viable financial option as circumstances presently stand regarding our club.

Even if things changed regarding our club's circumstances, I, personally, would have grave misgivings over this lot - already, I have a sense that there is politicking which reinforces my opinions about the people involved. Unfortunately, in all walks of life, a whiff of power becomes too intoxicating for some.

I will keep my money in my pocket thank you.

[AggyBlue]

IMO, Rovers Trust is not a viable financial option as circumstances presently stand regarding our club.

Even if things changed regarding our club's circumstances, I, personally, would have grave misgivings over this lot - already, I have a sense that there is politicking which reinforces my opinions about the people involved. Unfortunately, in all walks of life, a whiff of power becomes too intoxicating for some.

I will keep my money in my pocket thank you.

Couldn't agree more.

[ABBEY]

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.

will be brfcs be broadcasting the action groups meetings on the brfcs radio?

again not kean stirring , a genuine question.