[Archived] Rovers Trust

[Amo]

Tbh what's the use of that post other than to seem "clever"?

It was the elephant in the room.

[47er]

More like a gnat but I accept your opinion is different and can't be proved wrong. However,for mine I honestly don't believe Wayne's name will have any effect on the Trust's future whatsoever.

[Wayne Wild]

To all business owners and key decision makers...

How about donating £100 for 10 employee memberships with Rovers Trust

It would be a great gesture.

[RevidgeBlue]

Ended up with a chupa chups, conker and catapult when everyone emptied their pockets

I thought that was a very funny comment! Sorry Eddie, I'm sure your proposal was far more serious than that.

However the endearing image of Eddie and his loyal band of chums enthusiastically turning out the pockets of their shorts is no different in principle to asking Rovers fans to raid their piggy banks and savings accounts. Only the amounts are larger.

Neither are likely to raise anything like the level of funding we need to operate at this moment in time given the size of our fanbase.

[Paul]

Edited this because the formatting on the phone went to hell!

I've been a touch under the weather the last few days, only just been able to get my brain working sufficiently to debate this one. Eddie raises good points which again provide the opportunity to argue why Trust ownership could / will work. I'm not going to find exact figures for this but those I'm using are in the right general area.

- The Trust will never have enough funding to be an owner in the club unless someone offers them a golden share and for me this then raises two concerns.

The last time the club was sold the asking price was +/- £25m plus £20m debt. The Trust have soft pledges valued at 3m - depending on how one calculates we have funds to purchase between a 12.5 and 6.5% share. For me it seems unlikely the club will be valued at more than this at the next sale. The big problem will be the debt, £50m plus I guess, the Raos will leave behind.

Only when the figures are known can we properly argue this aspect. The pledges are soft ones, this is the Trust's biggest challenge, when the time comes to turn soft pledges into real cash. It will also be a challenge to the pledgers, every Rovers fan, local business and the local community. Why? There is plenty of talk about wanting the club back, its local importance etc. Well talk is cheap. I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion but it is. IF the chance comes to buy this club or a part of it everyone of us will be challenged. If we mean what we say we will find £50 or £50,000, whatever each can afford, a £1 in a bucket because it will be necessary. When the time comes we will have to grasp it. If we don't? Well it will probably go forever.

1 - That I am not entirely sure that everyone involved in the Trust is qualified enough to be offering any sort of advice when it comes to how a football club is run. That isn't meant as an insult, but I would imagine that it is quite a diverse group and, no matter how intelligent they all may be (and I am not doubting that for a second), that doesn't mean that you are informed enough about the world and business of football to be making major decisions, even if it is simply related to appointments.

I can't and wouldn't argue with the foundation of this point but the Trust has never claimed the ability to run the football club. We are clear the club would be run by football professionals. Are we well enough qualified to make those choices? Difficult question. I feel there are enough highly qualified Rovers fans to help make that decision. The Trust would call on many for advice and I believe the help would be at hand.

We couldn't make worse decisions surely? (Joke).

If I felt I might have to make final decisions about how to run the club I'd run a mile!!! Now.

2 - That any owner who would want to offer the Trust a golden share is not really the kind of owner we would want. My great fear from the Trust is that the people running it manage to find a business or individual willing to stump up 20-30m and see this as their big chance. Realistically, no owner who is capable of putting in 100-150m over a 5-10 year period (which is really the sort of money we are talking about) is going to care what a supporters trust thinks about.

Eddie you've said you don't doubt our intelligence. None of those involved with the Trust would prostitute themselves in this way. We are not going to jump into bed with the first flash roller which pulls up outside Ewood.

A question for you. Would you want an owner who was not prepared to involve the fans? That does seem to be the point of your argument. Winning back and retaining the support is going to be crucial to the next owner, whether or not the Trust is involved. The fans voice is beginning to increase in importance. Perhaps Rovers can become a model for such involvement? Ridiculous? No I don't think so. If I stated 20 years ago Rovers would be held up as a model of how to run a PL club you and others would probably have ridiculed me. I doubt I would have said it but until very recently it had become true. Things do change. Why shouldn't Rovers become a model for fan ownership in 20 years time?

I am incredibly worried by that second scenario. It seems very likely to me that the Trust could be won over by a personable businessman who's pockets are not quite deep enough. That the initial investment will seem large, but that they have convinced themselves that they can somehow run this club as a self-sufficient business (see Dan's comments) and that they will, and I don't mean this to be insulting, see it as their chance at becoming involved in a takeover and the running of a football club.

I do take objection to this idea we will sleep with first high roller who arrives in town. We are 14 fans of varying backgrounds, abilities and views. A few of us knew each other, to a greater or lesser extent, before but the one commonality is a love of Rovers. Lots of ideas get bandied around, only when we are in complete agreement do these go ahead. Do you really think we'd risk sleeping with anyone with a few bob to spare?

Again we have never said we would run the club. I haven't read Dan's recent remarks and so I am not commenting on those or arguing either way. This is my personal view.

Under the Walker Trust after all of Jack's loans, of one form or another, had been written off and the WT had withdrawn the £3m or so annual funding Williams and Finn ran the club at a small loss and bank borrowings of £20m+. Seems like heaven. Laterly they took to openly selling players, Warnock, to fund the wage bill. Did we argue with that?

I'm not suggesting we should be a "selling" club but I'll ask one question. Who would turn down £20m of debt, selling a Phil Jones from time to time, and bumping along in the PL?

Now here is the big one. Football is heading for financial oblivion and is largely run by men who have failed us all. If your neighbour won the lottery and ended up with credit card debt would you have sympathy? I wouldn't.

I don't know how much Sky have given the PL, the next deal is worth £5 billion. I do know every £ has been wasted. The clubs have £3.5 billion of debt. Staggering incompetence and a complete failure of fiscal and business management. So when Dan argues the club has to be self-sufficient, that is sustainable, he is 100% correct. In fact this is football so he's 110% correct.

Current football models and finances are unsustainable, the Trust wants a sustainable future for Rovers. Where that will put us in the league structure I don't know. I do know where we are heading today. Clubs such as ours have to be run within their means, which is largely what JW and TF achieved. You and others ask where the money will come from? The same place as before. There is no money pit though there are, we believe, some interesting alternatives out there. The club has operated successfully on PL income before, no reason why it can't again. It's getting there which is the huge problem.

Do though look at Swansea City. Last accounts £13.6m profit and just won the League Cup. It can't be done, can it?Football is about dreams. The Swans dreamed of little more than saving their club. You're too young to know the time when every fan had a realistic dream every season, I'm old enough to remember. We can still dare to dream - even if it costs a tenner!!

I'm not good with twitter but put in #itcanbedone and see what comes up.

I also fear that the club is selling people on the idea that it can achieve so much and that it isn't necessarily fair to be asking for an annual fee of 10 that may just cover the running costs of an organisation that has no contact with the owners, has no realistic potential buyer lined up and really is in no position to change anything in the near future.

I don't understand why you fear this? We are offering people the chance of a say in how the Trust and by extension the club is run. There is no deceit involved, no other offer. We are legally obliged to charge a membership fee, £10 for a vote and to help fund the work isn't much. 4 pints a year.

We all give our time for free plus it's costing us money. For example we have a local sponsorship deal coming up. Those involved have stumped up the cash themselves. I can't see it's unreasonable to ask those who support the Trust to help fund it with £10 per annum. We could be in a position to change things tomorrow or in five years. Who knows. It's better to be prepared than do nothing.

I mean none of this as a personal insult to anyone, so I hope that it isn't being taken that way, but no only do I think the Trust's chance of achieving anything are very slim, I also think that it is far more likely to cause harm than it is to do any good. It is for that reason that I think that it should be questioned more and that those in charge should be held at least reasonably accountable for their public remarks.

None of us would take personal insult in what you write. I agree we should be questioned time and again. I welcome those questions because we need every opportunity to put the message across. Your questions give us the opportunity, it's perhaps a form of support?

I do though take issue with your assertion the Trust is likely to cause more harm than good. I'd like to see this argued and explained together with the alternatives which present themselves?

[RevidgeBlue]

Paul Im a little bit wary of the Swansea example continually being trotted out almost as if their success is due in part to the existence of the Fans Trust.

Firstly the circumstances in which they were allowed to acquire a stake in the Club were vastly different to ours so I'm not sure the Swansea model has any relevance to us at all. Or at least I hope not as it probably means we'll have gone bust.

Secondly the success at Swansea is in my view down to them setting out a marker many years ago about how they wanted to play the game. A footballing philosophy if you will a bit like the old Liverpool boot room. Brendan Rogers then managed to implement that extremely successfully, and Michael Laudrup has carried on and extended that good work. In my view that success would have come anyway and in that sense the existence of the Fans Trust is neither here nor there. I appreciate you might say you're not trying to argue anything different but I do feel that is the impression which is conveyed sometimes.

Thirdly following on from that point, everything is smelling of roses at Swansea at the moment because things are going swimmingly well on the pitch. There will come a time when they start to struggle, perhaps badly like us, and at that point I would imagine the relationship between a Fans Trust who are part owners of a Club and the rest of the Club would not be a particularly positive or harmonious one.

I realise my comments will not dampen your enthusiasm for or commitment toward the Trust one iota nor should they. I also hope you will not take these comments personally as some other Trust members seem to do when I have the audacity to question or criticise their "baby".

Cheers, Simon.

[Paul]

Well no I don't take it personally Simon, though I admit i have my moments very occassionally.

All the points you make are valid and for me this is why Swansea is a model to be studied closely. Would Swansea exist without their Trust? Probably not. Is the Swans Trust responsible for their success? Yes in part but I feel you have pointed out where the larger part of the success comes from. This therefore makes it very important to examine the Swansea model and I hope it is something Rovers Trust will be able to do, right now we have to concentrate on walking!!

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Paul Im a little bit wary of the Swansea example continually being trotted out almost as if their success is due in part to the existence of the Fans Trust.

Firstly the circumstances in which they were allowed to acquire a stake in the Club were vastly different to ours so I'm not sure the Swansea model has any relevance to us at all. Or at least I hope not as it probably means we'll have gone bust.

Secondly the success at Swansea is in my view down to them setting out a marker many years ago about how they wanted to play the game. A footballing philosophy if you will a bit like the old Liverpool boot room. Brendan Rogers then managed to implement that extremely successfully, and Michael Laudrup has carried on and extended that good work. In my view that success would have come anyway and in that sense the existence of the Fans Trust is neither here nor there. I appreciate you might say you're not trying to argue anything different but I do feel that is the impression which is conveyed sometimes.

Thirdly following on from that point, everything is smelling of roses at Swansea at the moment because things are going swimmingly well on the pitch. There will come a time when they start to struggle, perhaps badly like us, and at that point I would imagine the relationship between a Fans Trust who are part owners of a Club and the rest of the Club would not be a particularly positive or harmonious one.

I realise my comments will not dampen your enthusiasm for or commitment toward the Trust one iota nor should they. I also hope you will not take these comments personally as some other Trust members seem to do when I have the audacity to question or criticise their "baby".

Cheers, Simon.

To be fair, Rev, Martinez really is the one that did the grunt work at Swansea and Rogers came in after he left and was able to maintain that momentum. Laudrup appears to be an excellent appointment for them as well.

The reason Swansea is brought up is because it is the perfect example of a club where there is a meaningful minority ownership of a club by a supporters trust who also have a golden share structure, and it has still been able to financially support a series of promotions through the leagues to get to the Premier League and prosper there. That has been a major reservation for those that are adamantly opposed to fan ownership as a concept on this board

You have a great point in that after Swansea was one match from going out of the Football League, and they were in the verge of going bust, their supporters trust was basically the only one willing to take on the club, and they drew a line in the sand and committed to playing their style of football, and set up everything around that. You can only admire the resolve and commitment that required to see through. This example also actually illustrates further that is is possible for an ownership structure that includes a major supporters trust element is a viable and sustainable option, and not just in the lower echelons of the league pyramid.

As stated many times, neither Rovers Trust nor any of its committee members have any ambitions to run the club itself or themselves. We all want Rovers Trust to be Trustees of the club's past and future, to protect it from getting in the position it is now in ever again, and ensure transparency of major policy decisions. The best way to ensure that this can be achieved effectively is to make sure that Rovers Trust becomes a meaningful part of the ownership structure of the club, and that is why we are striving after realisation of that goal, and that is why Swansea are an excellent example of this structure being perfectly capable of coexisting with success of the pitch and financial stability.

[bypass06]

The only reason it worked at Swansea, Is because they didn't have owners like Venky's.

It would be so easy, if we only had to buy a season ticket to get a share in the club.

Now if the above is wrong, Could you please tell me what else the fans had to do.

[Paul]

The only reason it worked at Swansea, Is because they didn't have owners like Venky's.

It would be so easy, if we only had to buy a season ticket to get a share in the club.

Now if the above is wrong, Could you please tell me what else the fans had to do.

From the Swansea City Trust AGM September 2010:

"Membership Subscriptions increased from £8,000 in 2009 to £8,939."

From the Swansea City Trust AGM September 2011:

"A big thank you to the volunteers back in July who had spent four days stuffing and sending out 13,000 Newsletters containing pin badges, raffle tickets, donation forms etc., When the Trust Board made the decision to offer free membership for our 10th Anniversary we estimated 8,000 now it is double that figure, this also includes our existing members who are not season ticket holders. Offsetting free membership we do receive one off donations, regular monthly donations and raffle ticket income which was double from 2010."

http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/AGM-Info.aspx

As far as I can see up to at least 2010 Swansea fans paid to belong to their trust. In 2011 as a celebration of the 10th anniversary membership was free. Quite what the position is now and what the season ticket scheme is I don't know but it is clear for the first 9 years fans paid a membership fee.

When we get to ten years and are back in the PL I'll happily propose free membership as a celebration!

[Eddie]

Paul, you did an excellent job of addressing many of my concerns.

I wasn't suggesting that the Trust would sleep with the first high roller who came into town, but I do have a genuine fear that it might be won over by an idealistic business plan and a good talker. It seems that many involved in the Trust seem to think that Blackburn Rovers can be run as a self sufficient business, in my opinion this is far fetched. Any future owners of Blackburn Rovers need to come into it with the understanding that they are likely to lose money, and quite a lot of it at that. I fear that this self-sufficient idea might lead to the Trust backing a potential buyer who really doesn't have the financial power necessary to properly run the club. If the Trust ever put its full backing behind an owner or potential buyer it would be significant, it would put tremendous pressure on Venkys and it would gain a lot of support from fellow fans.

This puts the Trust in a difficult position, it has to be very careful in its actions, a degree of care that was not seen in the recent twitter mishap. It is apparent that the Trust is now only interested in giving the Venkys an escape option, in part because the Trust has failed to established a direct line of communication with our current owners. In other words, for the Trust to justify its existence it has to back a new owner at some point. The Trust has no direct relationship with the current regime and as it is now taking a reasonably large amount of money off of people, unless it actively seeks to change owners the people are wasting their money. For me this is a problem.

The Swansea comparison also seems to be a massive stretch for me. I understand that it is an example of a supporters trust that can work, but it would be a bit like Dell saying that they could rebrand themselves as an upmarket and high-end computer supplier because Apple managed to do it.

[Stuart]

Eddie, you are worrying about the 'best case scenario'. The potential to be like Swansea is the ideal. We could have a charlatan buyer whether the Trust are involved or not. I'd say the Trust would've more likely to worry a out the intentions of the next owners than Venkys (or even the Walker Trust).

Worst case is what we need to prepare for. If the worst comes to the worst and we are facing liquidation then we need the Trust to be around to avert disaster, and they will need to be ready. It's no use trying to cobble together an organisation at the 11th hour without a sound business plan - even if that's a League 2 (Accrington Stanley-style community based ownership).

The timescale for our doomsday scenario are arguably short. Lets say Venkys keep us hobbling along until the end of next season and we aren't promoted (very possible) then we only have a couple of years Trust subscription (£20) to spend to find out.

If something better happens in the meantime then we can all breathe a sigh of relief and be glad it only cost the cost of a match ticket.

If nothing better comes along, we have a fallback plan.

P.S. The Twitter mishap that made it "apparent that the Trust is now only interested in giving the Venkys an escape option"? Which Trust tweet is this? Because I was only aware of a short reactive rant from one person's personal account. However, unprofessional this may seem, it did not tell me anything about the Trusts formal position.

[Paul]

I'm rubbish on Twitter Stuart and I haven't seen this. To summarise though I feel our position is we would still wish to talk and work with the owners but we have had no response to our communications. However given the farce of the last few days our public standpoint has become tougher in this respect and reflects a little more if how we feel as individuals.

The Trust is not about confrontation but there does come a point when views have to be expressed.

[Eddie]

Eddie, you are worrying about the 'best case scenario'. The potential to be like Swansea is the ideal. We could have a charlatan buyer whether the Trust are involved or not. I'd say the Trust would've more likely to worry a out the intentions of the next owners than Venkys (or even the Walker Trust).

Worst case is what we need to prepare for. If the worst comes to the worst and we are facing liquidation then we need the Trust to be around to avert disaster, and they will need to be ready. It's no use trying to cobble together an organisation at the 11th hour without a sound business plan - even if that's a League 2 (Accrington Stanley-style community based ownership).

The timescale for our doomsday scenario are arguably short. Lets say Venkys keep us hobbling along until the end of next season and we aren't promoted (very possible) then we only have a couple of years Trust subscription (£20) to spend to find out.

If something better happens in the meantime then we can all breathe a sigh of relief and be glad it only cost the cost of a match ticket.

If nothing better comes along, we have a fallback plan.

P.S. The Twitter mishap that made it "apparent that the Trust is now only interested in giving the Venkys an escape option"? Which Trust tweet is this? Because I was only aware of a short reactive rant from one person's personal account. However, unprofessional this may seem, it did not tell me anything about the Trusts formal position.

I didn't mean that the twitter comment made that clear, if it came across that way then it was simply a poorly phrased comment on my part.

I'm worried that so many seem to think that the ideal, which is virtually unattainable, is actually a viable option.

The Trust has no direct line of communication with the current owners and, because of this, unless the ownership is to change the Trust has no reason to exist.

[47er]

Ever heard the adage "its better to to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" Eddie?

If you're trying to put a consortium together again, then good luck but if you are not you shouldn't be critical of those who are trying to do something.

[mark1875]

I was just browsing the 'Introduce Yourself' thread and came across the post below, and thought it's probably more useful here, where it may get spotted and people may wish to help him out.

Hi all

I am Tony I now live on the Wirral, I am 48 and have actively supported Rovers since i was Ten.I remember the good old bad days braziers on the pitch, average crowd between 5 and 8 thousand, and cant afford stamps. So i am a true rovers supporter and always want what is best for them. I would dearly love to become a committee member for rovers trust as they will like it or not have a bigger and bigger say over rovers in the years to come.

As i no longer live in the area i don't have many friends in the area who are trust members so i am hoping a couple of trust members are willing to nominate me please?

I will always act in the best interest of the club and want them to be successful in all that they do.

Ps my Name for nomination is Anthony Webster

Link to the post here

[Eddie]

Ever heard the adage "its better to to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" Eddie?

If you're trying to put a consortium together again, then good luck but if you are not you shouldn't be critical of those who are trying to do something.

The two things are totally unrelated and I really don't understand how your Tennyson quote is at all related to discussing the financing and future of the trust.

[47er]

ITS ALL ABOUT DOING SOMETHING EDDIE!

[Paul]

I was just browsing the 'Introduce Yourself' thread and came across the post below, and thought it's probably more useful here, where it may get spotted and people may wish to help him out.

Hi all

I am Tony I now live on the Wirral, I am 48 and have actively supported Rovers since i was Ten.I remember the good old bad days braziers on the pitch, average crowd between 5 and 8 thousand, and cant afford stamps. So i am a true rovers supporter and always want what is best for them. I would dearly love to become a committee member for rovers trust as they will like it or not have a bigger and bigger say over rovers in the years to come.

As i no longer live in the area i don't have many friends in the area who are trust members so i am hoping a couple of trust members are willing to nominate me please?

I will always act in the best interest of the club and want them to be successful in all that they do.

Ps my Name for nomination is Anthony Webster

Link to the post here

Thanks Mark, we have been in touch with Tony for sometime.

[Eddie]

Is it? Why?

Not all action is good action.

[Paul]

Don't forget Ian Battersby is on 5 Live after 8.00pm tonight.

[Mike E]

Is it? Why?

Not all action is good action.

Any action to remove Venkys (even if it means non-league) is good action. Even just part-ownership is a large leap from the current mis-management.

[SouthAussieRover]

Hi Ozz. The membership pack arrived today thanks

[47er]

Is it? Why?

Not all action is good action.

Inaction and carping at those who are trying to take action is worse though.

[Baz]

"Real Rovers fans". Strewth.

Rev, I used to agree that sticking with Venkys provided the most security in the absence of a wealthy alternative but I'm now beyond that point. What did it was the assertion that the £25m injected into the club is mortgaged against the same value in the parachute payments.

In that basis, they are not protecting the club but saddling it with the debt the will kill it.

I want one bit of evidence that Venkys have put any of their OWN money into the club. Hard facts or anecdotal - but transfer activity does not count as I've picked up that we are actually in a nett gain position, purely on transfers.

A really important point Stuart.

Shebby guaranteed fans in the LET before the season Rovers were debt-free, then at KGH said he couldnt comment on finances.

If we are, as has been rumoured, losing £2m a month then I really do wonder what position we will be in when Venkys finally admit defeat and exit. The fact that they can shift money in and out of the club from various businesses really worries me, as at he very last moment they could saddle the club with enormous debts and then stick us in administration and walk away.