[Archived] Rovers Trust

[ABBEY]

CHEERS

[Glenn]

I'll try and get listeners numbers later too

[yoda]

must still be counting Yoda,

Round about a hundred Abbey

Like I said, dead in the water

[Tom]

Problem is a lot more people may back the idea just not fancied leaving the house, this seems to happen quite often.

The first trust meeting at blakeys was a poor turn out, the first couple of Brag open meetings at uncle jacks and the Manxman were poor turnouts and even the sit ins and protest marches were poor turnouts when you take into account BRFCAG has thousands of members.

In fact as far as i can see the Shebby meeting was the only public event surrounding fans of the club that I can think of as being really well attended recently.

A lot of the time people don't like having to make an effort (and ill include myself here) even when they agree with something, I recall Glen and Abbey (I think it was those two but not 100% - apologies if I have that wrong) fuming on here after a defeat that only a handful of people stayed behind after a game yet clearly thousands agreed with the principle.

The obstacle of getting awareness out there isn't an easy one to overcome but it's one that ultimately has to be tackled

[Paul]

Like I said, dead in the water

It's worth mentioning Saturday's meeting is part of a three stage process required by Supporters Direct in the formation of a trust. The key stages / events are:

1. Initial public meeting seeking a mandate from the attendees to form a trust - the Blakey's meeting
   
2. Official public launch of the legally constituted trust - the Cathedral
   
3. An AGM at which the Steering Group stand down and the membership vote in a new committee - to be arranged
   

Between one and two a fledgling trust must work through a legal procedure to become properly constituted. Between two and three a trust is required to put in place the mechanism for an AGM and full election - both have specific requirements from Supporters Direct, much as one would expect from a government instigated and backed supporters organisation.

[Sparky Marky]

Like I said, dead in the water

Hmmm...this seems to be the case.

[Ozz]

Approx 100 people attended the launch at the Cathedral on Saturday. Below is a link to the presentation which made up the main part of the event. The subsequent Q and A session was extremely good, despite tricky acoustics in an unusual venue. Thanks to all who gave up their spare time to attend.

http://www.roverstru...PDF-Version.pdf

Couple of photos from the day.

[PAFELL]

I take it that the idea is keep a version of Blackburn Rovers alive if everything implodes in next 18 months? By that I mean a club that still exists and functions in the lower leagues, as I just cannot see any viability for such ownership for a club in Premier League or Championship.

Swansea are in the premership, so it proves it can be done. Raising funds for complete ownership I think maybe difficult. But 20% share is more likely imo.

[PAFELL]

Like I said, dead in the water

I don't think you can judge something on numbers attending alone. Many who support the idea may not have been able to make it for various reasons. Others are being updated by email and other methods. So there could be many factors for folk not attending. I could not attend and I support the idea.

Bare in mind that rovers have supporters throughout the world - not just in the Blackburn area. Who due to costs of travel, accommodation, time off work etc may not be able to attend.

I cannot understand why folk would not want to support the idea of fans trying to get at least a 20% (or more if possible), share of the club. We have all voiced our distaste of venkys running of the club. So a group of fans have got together to try to provide a possible alternative. Many on here have said it is very unlikely we will get another Jack Walker type person to invest in Rovers. Which, if venkys leave, puts the club at risk of another venky type owners comng along. So an alternative of a rovers fans community owning part of the club is a good idea.

It is ok chanting 'VENKYS OUT" - yet without a clue of who you want to takeover. It is not as though we have a list of suitors. So the roverstrust are trying to put themselves in the position of being in the position of taking over venkys, if they decide to sell the club. It may take ages to get the funds, but as they saying goes, rome was not built in a day.

ironically the only choices at the moment are Venkys or the roverstrust - if the latter can raise the funds.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

I NEVER thought I would say this but......God help this club if Venky's ever sell up!

We would be reduced to the financial clout of Accy Stanley at very best.

[SouthAussieRover]

ironically the only choices at the moment are Venkys or the roverstrust - if the latter can raise the funds.

The latter will never happen.

Unless another Jack comes along.

[TBTF]

I don't think you can judge something on numbers attending alone. Many who support the idea may not have been able to make it for various reasons. Others are being updated by email and other methods. So there could be many factors for folk not attending. I could not attend and I support the idea.

Bare in mind that rovers have supporters throughout the world - not just in the Blackburn area. Who due to costs of travel, accommodation, time off work etc may not be able to attend.

I cannot understand why folk would not want to support the idea of fans trying to get at least a 20% (or more if possible), share of the club. We have all voiced our distaste of venkys running of the club. So a group of fans have got together to try to provide a possible alternative. Many on here have said it is very unlikely we will get another Jack Walker type person to invest in Rovers. Which, if venkys leave, puts the club at risk of another venky type owners comng along. So an alternative of a rovers fans community owning part of the club is a good idea.

It is ok chanting 'VENKYS OUT" - yet without a clue of who you want to takeover. It is not as though we have a list of suitors. So the roverstrust are trying to put themselves in the position of being in the position of taking over venkys, if they decide to sell the club. It may take ages to get the funds, but as they saying goes, rome was not built in a day.

ironically the only choices at the moment are Venkys or the roverstrust - if the latter can raise the funds.

I think the 2 Ian's was a serious and very capable proposition wasn't it??.The Seneca set up headed by 2 very big Rovers fans gave me real hope that (maybe in conjunction with the Trust) might be the answer .To be fair i don't think the Trust have ever come out and said they could take on the whole thing on their own have they? They merely seek a proportion which gives them a say or have i missed a chunk?

But to my mind the real money men with the professional back up would be the Ians/Seneca.Does anyone know if they are still in the frame given how quiet it has been on that front?

[PAFELL]

I think the 2 Ian's was a serious and very capable proposition wasn't it??.The Seneca set up headed by 2 very big Rovers fans gave me real hope that (maybe in conjunction with the Trust) might be the answer .To be fair i don't think the Trust have ever come out and said they could take on the whole thing on their own have they? They merely seek a proportion which gives them a say or have i missed a chunk?

But to my mind the real money men with the professional back up would be the Ians/Seneca.Does anyone know if they are still in the frame given how quiet it has been on that front?

I suppose it all depends on what money is raised before consideration could be given to either a percentage or full ownership. In my view the two Ian's and 20% fan ownership would be ideal. But at the moment I suggest that all the trust can concentrate on is raising the funds, in case venkys sell up. Because you never know, somebody may come along who is willing to own 80% of the club, with fans owning the rest (20%).

I think at the beginning brist had desires to own the whole club - which I do not believe it is feesible (though again that depends on the funds raised and the price required at the time). So I also was not willing to support it.

I also still have mis givings about Wayne Wilds involvement. But as an idea it is good. I am not going to dismiss an idea just because of one individual.

The roverstrust has a long way to go. But what and how they have started is good.

[PAFELL]

The latter will never happen.

Unless another Jack comes along.

On what ground can you say that. Are Swansea, pompey supporters any better than Rovers supporters? I do not think so? Pompey maybe the cheaper of the two, due to the circumstances they are in. But Swansea is the best example we have at the moment. That club has got into the premiership with fans owning 20% of the club. So nobody can say it cannot be done, because it has been done before. So for it to happen to Rovers, is down to the Rovers supporters.

[ABBEY]

It's not down to fans it's down to people with spare money. You make it sound like if you don't join your not a fan. Pa

[bypass06]

Blackburn Rovers fans launch trust with sights set on buying club

http://www.lancashir...g_club/?ref=twt

Interesting comment from Tombo.

[PAFELL]

It's not down to fans it's down to people with spare money. You make it sound like if you don't join your not a fan. Pa

No I would not say that. It does not matter to me where a person is from, with or without money, attends matches or not. If they say they support rovers, so be it, they are fans.

Of course not everybody could afford the £1000. But the £10.00 membership is affordable, which goes into the pot. Not sure, but I think they have a scheme where you can save it up !£1000) in installments. But if we want venkys out, which I believe most of us do, we need an alternative, in case they do go. If not, we could end up with another venky type owner again.

Therefore the roverstrust becomes an option.

[Parsonblue]

On what ground can you say that. Are Swansea, pompey supporters any better than Rovers supporters? I do not think so? Pompey maybe the cheaper of the two, due to the circumstances they are in. But Swansea is the best example we have at the moment. That club has got into the premiership with fans owning 20% of the club. So nobody can say it cannot be done, because it has been done before. So for it to happen to Rovers, is down to the Rovers supporters.

If supporters don't think it's the right thing to do they are not going to stump up money for it. Personally, I don't think it is the right way forward and will not be joining. Does that mean I don't support my club as much as Pompey or Swansea supporters? Personally, I'm happy enough attending matches and will leave the politics and in-fighting to others.

[ABBEY]

What happens when the pledge money runs out or we want a player or tax bills not paid . Who is responsible? Too many things to go tits up for me.

[he6rt6gr6m]

I cannot understand why folk would not want to support the idea of fans trying to get at least a 20% (or more if possible), share of the club. We have all voiced our distaste of venkys running of the club. So a group of fans have got together to try to provide a possible alternative. Many on here have said it is very unlikely we will get another Jack Walker type person to invest in Rovers. Which, if venkys leave, puts the club at risk of another venky type owners comng along. So an alternative of a rovers fans community owning part of the club is a good idea.

It astounds me that certain individuals seem cynical about something that is a straight forward idea.

Who wouldn't jump at the chance to own a share of their favourite football club if the chance came, and if you're lucky enough to have a grand sat in the bank or forthcoming down the line, place it into something as important as Blackburn Rovers?

As a child, that was something I always wanted - a share of Blackburn Rovers, Juventus and World Championship Wrestling were actually on my Christmas list one year!

[Tom]

I think you were lucky not to get a share in wcw

[PAFELL]

If supporters don't think it's the right thing to do they are not going to stump up money for it. Personally, I don't think it is the right way forward and will not be joining. Does that mean I don't support my club as much as Pompey or Swansea supporters? Personally, I'm happy enough attending matches and will leave the politics and in-fighting to others.

Of course it does not mean that, neither did I indicate in anyway that it meant that. I mentioned those clubs and fans, simply because, in Swansea's case, they have 20% ownership. I therefore suggested if they can gainn a stake in their, so can Rovers supporters.

If folk do not want to get involved - that is also there choice.

Would your position change, if venkys said they were selling the club? That is not a dig by the way, just curious.

I do not think the roverstrust idea is either political or a reason for in-fighting. It is just a group of supporters who have got together, come up with an idea, as a possible alternative, in case venkys chose to sell up.

What happens when the pledge money runs out or we want a player or tax bills not paid . Who is responsible? Too many things to go tits up for me.

Like you I have many questions and I await the same answers. I think all we can do at the moment is look at the swansea model and learn from them. I would be interested in knowing how they deal with such situations.

Those are questions the roverstrust have to answer. But as it has happened at one club, means to me it is possible to do it.

[PAFELL]

It astounds me that certain individuals seem cynical about something that is a straight forward idea.

Who wouldn't jump at the chance to own a share of their favourite football club if the chance came, and if you're lucky enough to have a grand sat in the bank or forthcoming down the line, place it into something as important as Blackburn Rovers?

As a child, that was something I always wanted - a share of Blackburn Rovers, Juventus and World Championship Wrestling were actually on my Christmas list one year!

To be honest, I am not prepared to give any supporter a dig for not wanting to get involved. Neither will I say they are not a supporter because they choose not to get involved.

Rather I would prefer it, if the questions & concerns of every supporter, no matter how minor the question or who the person is who asks, or how many times the same questions are repeated. That each supporter is treated with respect and given the answer they seek. If somebody is a critic of the idea, then instead of being astounded, deal with the issue they raise. Because that issue is important to them.

I think we can all agree on three things.

1/ Venkys are not good for Rovers.

2/ If venkys sell up, we do not want simular folk like venkys owning the club.

3/ We don't seem to have a Jack Walker type person waiting and wanting and able to takeover the club.

Which means that in my view we need to be prepared for an alternative. At this moment in time, there is not another one.

[Glenn]

First off, a disclaimer, I'm not part of the trust steering committee, so I certainly don't post on their behalf and what follows is what I've picked up from their literature an the olaunch (so I may be wrong), but what has won me over personally in recent weeks is their open approach to multiple differing scenarios.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the idea of 100% fan ownership and could only really get behind that as an absolute last resort (if Rovers not existing was the only real alternative) which is why I originally distanced myself from the group for so long (despite it having an number of ex-BRISA folks involved who I'd happy give my proxy vote to for any Rovers related decision). However, one thing that is obvious if you ask the right questions and read the right stuff (and something I personally don't think they make enough off) is one of the propositions they are preparing for is partial fan ownership leading to fans representation on the board. This was one of the original aims of BRISA that I was wholeheartedly behind as not only do I think it's much more sensible option, but a much more likely one. Now whether that's Venkys deciding to sell a nominal protected shareholding to or one day us having different owners who like the proposal, it doesn't matter. But a properly elected, fan rep on the board, somebody I trust to represent both my interests and the interests of other fans at board level, I think would be fantastic and is a much more attainable goal.

It's a shame this potential pathway doesn't get as much public discussion as the 100% ownership model, which is a real shame as I think it's a much better and much more likely way forward.

BTW If anyone from the trust wants to correct me on anything in that if I'm wrong, I won't be offended. Even better if you want to expand on it (I'm dying to start talking about the Bradford City model and golden shares, but seeing the grief h6 got for making a minor technical mistake when transcribing Dan's technical explanations into 180 characters on the fly, I'll leave it for the experts ).

[Beta Ray Bill]

The only way that the Trust can get 20% let alone 100% is if the club has all but folded or someone buys the entire kaboodle and donates it.

If it's the former, then 20% of nothing won't amount to much and at best will see us scrapping a survival year in, year out.

If it's the latter, then the buyer would have to be seriously deranged to allow any fanbase as fragmented as ours anywhere near trying to influence its management.

I really can't see any viable way this works that doesn't follow a total implosion. I'd rather that not happen.