[Archived] Rovers Trust

[Glenn]

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.

I think that's mostly two sides of the same coin. I see several ways this could go

1. Venky's continue their improvement as owners and we end up with everyone's dream, passionate and well funded owners who do make ill advised call from bad advice.

2. Venky's decide that owning a football club isn't for them and sell for it's real value to somebody else (be that another owner, or an investment group). I'll assume for now they trust isn't in a position to do this alone

3. Venky's sack it off, let us head towards administration and sell for a nominal amount the trust could currently afford.

Now, in number 1, several club owners have sold nominal amount to trusts (I believe Bradford is one of them), with fans and owners working together to move the club forward. Currently unlikely, but not impossible.

For no. 2, this is something this is also a plan in place for (I believe). Wayne covered this in part at the weekend and I believe he said the trust have already spoken to other parties about "golden share" initiatives should this arise.

3 is definitely worse case scenario. I really don't want to consider it, but deep down I'm glad somebody IS considering it.I certainly don't believe (as others have in the past) that this option should be forced or even encouraged. I didn't want it when the protesters wanted it and I still don't want it now (sorry Abbey), not until there is a cast iron "better offer" on the table. To me, this isn't currently "a price worth paying".

If the trust can raise enough money to move into the second bracket alone, then that's a great problem to face, but for now, we don't.

I do however agree that getting the fan base united is essential and I think it's happening slowly, almost everyone is starting to play nicely together now and I still hold some hope that personal differences can be but aside to bridge the last big rift. If not, I'm sure we need to get the power struggle over with quickly, but it's looking like it won't come to that.

[Plastics]

Venky's selling us would likely be catastrophic. The only people offering the right money for us would not be people who had our best interests at heart and I don't believe Venky's would care what happened to the club if they got to the stage where they felt they could not deal with matters any more.

[ABBEY]

I think that's mostly two sides of the same coin. I see several ways this could go

1. Venky's continue their improvement as owners and we end up with everyone's dream, passionate and well funded owners who do make ill advised call from bad advice.

2. Venky's decide that owning a football club isn't for them and sell for it's real value to somebody else (be that another owner, or an investment group). I'll assume for now they trust isn't in a position to do this alone

3. Venky's sack it off, let us head towards administration and sell for a nominal amount the trust could currently afford.

Now, in number 1, several club owners have sold nominal amount to trusts (I believe Bradford is one of them), with fans and owners working together to move the club forward. Currently unlikely, but not impossible.

For no. 2, this is something this is also a plan in place for (I believe). Wayne covered this in part at the weekend and I believe he said the trust have already spoken to other parties about "golden share" initiatives should this arise.

3 is definitely worse case scenario. I really don't want to consider it, but deep down I'm glad somebody IS considering it.I certainly don't believe (as others have in the past) that this option should be forced or even encouraged. I didn't want it when the protesters wanted it and I still don't want it now (sorry Abbey), not until there is a cast iron "better offer" on the table. To me, this isn't currently "a price worth paying".

If the trust can raise enough money to move into the second bracket alone, then that's a great problem to face, but for now, we don't.

I do however agree that getting the fan base united is essential and I think it's happening slowly, almost everyone is starting to play nicely together now and I still hold some hope that personal differences can be but aside to bridge the last big rift. If not, I'm sure we need to get the power struggle over with quickly, but it's looking like it won't come to that.

What have done?

[Glenn]

I was apologising for saying there were circumstances where Venky's not going was a better option. I just knew that thought would make your blood boil :)

[Paul]

Fantastic. Real questions we can debate for as long as we wish. First I am on the Trust Steering Group so I clearly believe in the concept. I will try to answer any points to the best of my ability and understanding. I think it helpful to explain how we work as a group; as Rovers Trust has evolved we have have been very fortunate to gather committed supporters from very diverse backgrounds with equally diverse skills, a group like Rovers Trust needs such diversity. Each Steering Group member has specific responsibilities - mine is rather grandly titled Supporters Direct Liason, in other words I communicate with Supporters Direct! This means anything from getting clarity on our electoral process through to fringe meetings at the Labour Party Conference and a drinks evening at the Cooperative Congress 212 in Manchester - to be honest I hadn't even conceived of such things a year ago! We have financial people, PR and creative people etc. The point is we each have a skill and we each trust the individual with that skill. On top of that we run around doing lots of very boring stuff like getting hold of a 500GB hard drive at the last moment to record the Launch on video or five days of proof reading the website with EwoodDawn and discussing the finer details of how to use "thank you" and "that" ........

If people have very specific questions which I can't answer, financial technicalities for example, I won't duck these but I might refer you to someone else or suggest you email a specific person for a detailed response. That isn't about hiding, it's about knowing your own limits and believing in your colleagues.

Finally, like Glenn and a few others, I've been kicking around with this since the BRISA days. We couldn't get the support then and look how the fans needed it 5-6 years later. In Rovers Trust I believe I've found the opportunity to help achieve what I believe in - giving the club back to the fans and the broader community. Football has been taken away from me, I want it back. The Trust will be here for when the fans need it - six months, six years, I don't know.

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.

Yes certainly one idea is to ensure there is a football club if everything implodes at some point. The first action would be to achieve survival and to build from there. Survival is not the target or desire but if, to use your phrase the club implodes, by necessity that would be the first step. This doesn't mean the Trust would be unambitious or satisfied with mere survival but if the club was in the position described survival and stability would be the first target.

Swansea City with 20% fan ownership announced a profit of £14.6 million after their first season in the PL on October 15th of this year.

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?

The Trust is interested in full or partial ownership. The popular assumption is the Trust wants 100% ownership end of story. This is incorrect we are interested in exploring every possibility, 20%, 51%, 100%, golden share or any other possibility. Rovers Trust are ready and willing to discuss all serious ownership possibilities.

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

I get your sentiment Abbey but in many respects it IS down to the fans. Imagine a situation where the Trust has 5,000 paid up members of whom 500 have pledged say £5 million. Most serious owners would want to talk to such an organisation. Being a Trust member doesn't make anyone a better fan, but it does give you a vote in the potential future running of the club. Clearly the right people with "spare money" are very welcome but so is every fan. The option with Jubilee Credit gives every fan an opportunity to save towards £1000 for a share - families and friends can group together to buy a share. Workmates can have a group, no different from a Lottery syndicate - though there are no roll overs!

The key point is this - £10 membership gets you one vote, £1000 share gets you one vote. Everyone will be equal.

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.

The pledge money is about buying a full or part share in the club, not the day to day running. Any fan who pledges and buys a share for £1000 becomes a shareholder. Shareholders do not have responsibility for tax bills or day to day running costs. The Trust has never said it wants to run the club, we have always said this would be left to professional football people. Financial and football people would make decisions about player purchases - just as happens at every other club.

Jeez if I thought I'd be helping to run Rovers I'd be more worried about it than the collective membership of BRFCS!!

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.

PAFELL makes some good points. We will try to answer every question, much of this on our website but I fully accept the questions will have to be answered time and again in every media form to get the message across.

We do need to be prepared, the Trust is. We are fully legally constituted. Everything is in place, contrast that with the Pompey situation and look where their Trust has got to. If Venkys sell do we want another leap into the unknown or do we want some influence?

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.

Perhaps a buyer would have to be seriously deranged NOT to listen to the fan base?

Venky's selling us would likely be catastrophic. The only people offering the right money for us would not be people who had our best interests at heart and I don't believe Venky's would care what happened to the club if they got to the stage where they felt they could not deal with matters any more.

Exactly, take a look back at some of the potential suitors who have been knocking on the door in recent years. The Walker Trust should have the club's best interest at heart and look where we ended up. I hate to think what would happen if Venkys sold up. The Trust could offer an alternative.

[PAFELL]

I think that's mostly two sides of the same coin. I see several ways this could go

1. Venky's continue their improvement as owners and we end up with everyone's dream, passionate and well funded owners who do make ill advised call from bad advice.

2. Venky's decide that owning a football club isn't for them and sell for it's real value to somebody else (be that another owner, or an investment group). I'll assume for now they trust isn't in a position to do this alone

3. Venky's sack it off, let us head towards administration and sell for a nominal amount the trust could currently afford.

Now, in number 1, several club owners have sold nominal amount to trusts (I believe Bradford is one of them), with fans and owners working together to move the club forward. Currently unlikely, but not impossible.

For no. 2, this is something this is also a plan in place for (I believe). Wayne covered this in part at the weekend and I believe he said the trust have already spoken to other parties about "golden share" initiatives should this arise.

3 is definitely worse case scenario. I really don't want to consider it, but deep down I'm glad somebody IS considering it.I certainly don't believe (as others have in the past) that this option should be forced or even encouraged. I didn't want it when the protesters wanted it and I still don't want it now (sorry Abbey), not until there is a cast iron "better offer" on the table. To me, this isn't currently "a price worth paying".

If the trust can raise enough money to move into the second bracket alone, then that's a great problem to face, but for now, we don't.

I do however agree that getting the fan base united is essential and I think it's happening slowly, almost everyone is starting to play nicely together now and I still hold some hope that personal differences can be but aside to bridge the last big rift. If not, I'm sure we need to get the power struggle over with quickly, but it's looking like it won't come to that.

Sadly I think some won't be interested in any unity, at the moment.

[ABBEY]

Why?

[roversmum]

fringe meetings at the Labour Party Conference

?

[EwoodDawn]

Supporters Direct invited representatives from all its supporters' trusts to a discussion at the Labour Party Conference last month on "Rights and Responsibilites: is it time for football fans to take a seat at the table?"

[Paul]

Just a very quick one guys. Delighted to announce Rovers Trust are Leon Best's player sponsor for the rest of the season.

Paid for from funds raised at our recent highly successful Sports Dinner. Thanks to all who helped raise the cash to allow us to do this.

More later. Must dash for KO.

COYB

[ABBEY]

Sadly I think some won't be interested in any unity, at the moment.

Why

[PAFELL]

Why

Simply because it looks like some groups are going their OWN way.

[mark1875]

Simply because it looks like some groups are going their OWN way.

I agree with the above statement, all groups should be going the CLUBS way and trying to work WITH the clubs current administration, and not working against the people running it!

I agree that whilst everyone is pulling together and trying to help push for promotion and supporting the club, new launches of 15 self appointed people with a membership base of 200/300 trying to turn on the owners and issuing press releases slamming the process of appointing of a new manager (which the rovers trust did last month), claiming financial meltdown (when the accounts and summer spending prove otherwise) is a detrimental cause.

Read the last 3 news articles on the BRFC Action Group website, the minutes and supporter liaison article on there are those of a group working WITH the club as oppose to their own way! something the club endorses, its the best way to move forward, with the club to make things better, i'm sure you agree.

Whilst most support the positive changes at the club, and support their attempts to communicate and move forward, some have their OWN agendas.

P.S Does this mean you don't support the trust Peter?

[SAS]

But bRAG did aleverything against the club last year?

I think you just both need to merge like what was discussed back in jan feb at manxman.

Supporters I speak to aren't interested in either due to this..

[PAFELL]

I agree with the above statement, all groups should be going the CLUBS way and trying to work WITH the clubs current administration, and not working against the people running it!

I agree that whilst everyone is pulling together and trying to help push for promotion and supporting the club, new launches of 15 self appointed people with a membership base of 200/300 trying to turn on the owners and issuing press releases slamming the process of appointing of a new manager (which the rovers trust did last month), claiming financial meltdown (when the accounts and summer spending prove otherwise) is a detrimental cause.

Read the last 3 news articles on the BRFC Action Group website, the minutes and supporter liaison article on there are those of a group working WITH the club as oppose to their own way! something the club endorses, its the best way to move forward, with the club to make things better, i'm sure you agree.

Whilst most support the positive changes at the club, and support their attempts to communicate and move forward, some have their OWN agendas.

P.S Does this mean you don't support the trust Peter?

The majority of supporters want venkys out of the club - not working with them. If your stance has changed with regards to this, then you are opposed to the majority of supporters.

Yes there is a need for dialogue with the club, but not close relations with the current owners.

Yes I am happy to support the trust. The concept of fans having a share of the club is a very good idea.

[Speedie Dived]

I agree with the above statement, all groups should be going the CLUBS way and trying to work WITH the clubs current administration, and not working against the people running it!

I agree that whilst everyone is pulling together and trying to help push for promotion and supporting the club, new launches of 15 self appointed people with a membership base of 200/300 trying to turn on the owners and issuing press releases slamming the process of appointing of a new manager (which the rovers trust did last month), claiming financial meltdown (when the accounts and summer spending prove otherwise) is a detrimental cause.

Read the last 3 news articles on the BRFC Action Group website, the minutes and supporter liaison article on there are those of a group working WITH the club as oppose to their own way! something the club endorses, its the best way to move forward, with the club to make things better, i'm sure you agree.

Whilst most support the positive changes at the club, and support their attempts to communicate and move forward, some have their OWN agendas.

P.S Does this mean you don't support the trust Peter?

Staggered by some points in this post.

The trust are working towards their own agenda, they want rid of Venkys, as BRAG did last year. This position has clearly changed and sadly credibility has been lost with it.

You talk of positive changes? Kean quitting aside, I don't see any.

The management process was clearly a shambles, we appointed a manager who is not allowed to bring in his own staff and was one of the cheapest options available.

I am not a member of either group, but one comes across as a professional outfit with clear goals....... The other does not.

[Paul]

I agree that whilst everyone is pulling together and trying to help push for promotion and supporting the club, new launches of 15 self appointed people with a membership base of 200/300 trying to turn on the owners and issuing press releases slamming the process of appointing of a new manager (which the rovers trust did last month), claiming financial meltdown (when the accounts and summer spending prove otherwise) is a detrimental cause.

Mark I hope you won't object to me selecting a part of your post to clarify the point you make with regard to self-appointed people. I feel it will benefit the supporters to understand the process required by Supporters Direct in the formation of a trust.

By necessity the birth of an organisation requires a group of like-minded individuals coming together to form that organisation. This is how Rovers Trust has come about; BRSIT and BRST, two bodies of supporters with common ideals, merged to create Rovers Trust.

For all football trusts to become legally constituted Supporters Direct, a government formed organisation, require a three stage process:

• an initial open meeting to gain a mandate from the attendees to form a trust - Blakeys meeting
  
• a formal launch event to announce the legal formation of the Trust - Cathedral event
  
• an AGM and formal elections*
  

* Rovers Trust is currently putting in place the electoral process and planning the AGM

This process is required by Supporters Direct and must take place in the order outlined above. The Steering Group are not at liberty to step outside this process which has been used in the formation of over 130 football trusts, not to mention a number of trusts formed by supporters from other sports. Apologies for reiterating this important point, Rovers Trust is though very aware we should take every opportunity to explain and underline the process to the supporter base.

Personally I very much look forward to standing for election. At that point my actions, and those of the other Steering Group members, will be judged. If we are found wanting obviously we will be replaced by the membership. This helps to add focus to our actions and we obviously hope to be viewed as successful.

[Parsonblue]

The majority of supporters want venkys out of the club - not working with them. If your stance has changed with regards to this, then you are opposed to the majority of supporters.

Yes there is a need for dialogue with the club, but not close relations with the current owners.

Yes I am happy to support the trust. The concept of fans having a share of the club is a very good idea.

Sadly there is no viable alternative to Venkys at the moment. Are the Supporters Trust going to buy 51% of the club? At the moment they can't get people to a launch meeting in any great numbers. The majority of fans might want Venkys out of the club but the majority don't believe the Supporters Trust is a viable alternative. At the moment working the with present owners to try to improve things is the only realistic alternative.

[Speedie Dived]

Sadly there is no viable alternative to Venkys at the moment. Are the Supporters Trust going to buy 51% of the club? At the moment they can't get people to a launch meeting in any great numbers. The majority of fans might want Venkys out of the club but the majority don't believe the Supporters Trust is a viable alternative. At the moment working the with present owners to try to improve things is the only realistic alternative.

Several people have suggested two parties have been in contact with the club recently.

In their literature the trust talk about several options of ownership, not just a 100% buyout.

[PAFELL]

Sadly there is no viable alternative to Venkys at the moment. Are the Supporters Trust going to buy 51% of the club? At the moment they can't get people to a launch meeting in any great numbers. The majority of fans might want Venkys out of the club but the majority don't believe the Supporters Trust is a viable alternative. At the moment working the with present owners to try to improve things is the only realistic alternative.

That is correct, there is no alternative to venkys at the moment. I think and I stand to be corrected on this. One aim of the trust is to able to obtain a 20% stake of the club for the community. Like all things that a few people getting together start. It takes time getting others to get involved. But that is down to the Trust to explain what they are wanting, the aims etc. I believe at the beginning folk were disappointed that only a few turned up from protests - numbers increased in time. The more venkys and Kean, screwed up the more the numbers increased.

But in the first place, to form a trust that are all sorts of legal hoops to jump through first. Which is time consuming.

If somebody had suggested on here, a few months ago working with venkys, they would have been vilified. There are many on here who will never accept venkys - folk are still boycotting matches, because of venkys. So the idea of now working with them, s somethng I suggest they would be horrified by. One way of beating an enemy s topease them. Appears venkys have done just that.

[Wendal]

I agree with the above statement, all groups should be going the CLUBS way and trying to work WITH the clubs current administration, and not working against the people running it!

I agree that whilst everyone is pulling together and trying to help push for promotion and supporting the club, new launches of 15 self appointed people with a membership base of 200/300 trying to turn on the owners and issuing press releases slamming the process of appointing of a new manager (which the rovers trust did last month), claiming financial meltdown (when the accounts and summer spending prove otherwise) is a detrimental cause.

Read the last 3 news articles on the BRFC Action Group website, the minutes and supporter liaison article on there are those of a group working WITH the club as oppose to their own way! something the club endorses, its the best way to move forward, with the club to make things better, i'm sure you agree.

Whilst most support the positive changes at the club, and support their attempts to communicate and move forward, some have their OWN agendas.

P.S Does this mean you don't support the trust Peter?

This post is a quite staggering example of hypocrisy, insecurity and delusion.

[Parsonblue]

That is correct, there is no alternative to venkys at the moment. I think and I stand to be corrected on this. One aim of the trust is to able to obtain a 20% stake of the club for the community. Like all things that a few people getting together start. It takes time getting others to get involved. But that is down to the Trust to explain what they are wanting, the aims etc. I believe at the beginning folk were disappointed that only a few turned up from protests - numbers increased in time. The more venkys and Kean, screwed up the more the numbers increased.

But in the first place, to form a trust that are all sorts of legal hoops to jump through first. Which is time consuming.

If somebody had suggested on here, a few months ago working with venkys, they would have been vilified. There are many on here who will never accept venkys - folk are still boycotting matches, because of venkys. So the idea of now working with them, s somethng I suggest they would be horrified by. One way of beating an enemy s topease them. Appears venkys have done just that.

20% buys you what? Whoever owns the other 80% makes the decisions no matter what those owning 20% may think or say. Working with the present owners is the only viable alternative at the moment and from what has been said at the Action Group meetings with Shebby and, I believe the recent Fans Forum meeting, the owners have no interest in selling any part of the club to the Trust and therefore see no need to speak to them. When Venkys do sell I suspect it will be to another foreign owner. Unless the Trust can come up with serious money they are not a player in this game and won't be taken seriously.

[glen9mullan]

That is correct, there is no alternative to venkys at the moment. I think and I stand to be corrected on this. One aim of the trust is to able to obtain a 20% stake of the club for the community. Like all things that a few people getting together start. It takes time getting others to get involved. But that is down to the Trust to explain what they are wanting, the aims etc. I believe at the beginning folk were disappointed that only a few turned up from protests - numbers increased in time. The more venkys and Kean, screwed up the more the numbers increased.

But in the first place, to form a trust that are all sorts of legal hoops to jump through first. Which is time consuming.

If somebody had suggested on here, a few months ago working with venkys, they would have been vilified. There are many on here who will never accept venkys - folk are still boycotting matches, because of venkys. So the idea of now working with them, s somethng I suggest they would be horrified by. One way of beating an enemy s topease them. Appears venkys have done just that.

I think you will be quite staggered how many actually just want a well run club and have little interest on who owns it. We have spent months doing Market research and if we have learnt anything , its the internet is a small world.

Some supporters want Venkys gone regardless of what they do, Some just want them to run the club properly, Some want new owners, so couldnt care less who owns the club.

I have found over the last 15 months that the majority of supporters I have spoken to, (and this is in its thousands in person) are just interested in what happens between the four stands of ewood when 22 players are on the pitch. If the team is winning games and performing well, that is their only interest. On forum boards many supporters will debate daily the in's and out's, but in reality this represents only a small number of the supporter base.

We have never changed our stance, Our mission statement has always been the same, we want like every other supporter a well run club. Throughout last season we made it quite clear to the club that the way forward is open communication around a table which can be shared with the whole supporter base. No-one wanted to protest, but supporters were left with little choice as the door was firmly shut at the club in terms of getting answers.

We are now getting more communication and reporting it back, this by no means endorses or makes any statement on the current ownership. Much of our communication now goes directly to india by their request. Its a long road back for the club, but its a road which they are now on.

The launch next Thursday of the first supporter walkin centre in the UK, Will give even more supporters an opportunity to have their issues dealt with more eifficently and quickly

http://www.brfcactio...centre-to-open/

The opening of the centre has been done by the group working very hard with Blackburn Rovers Community Trust for the last few months. This is not being funded by either the trust or the club , but indeed the committee. It will also be run by volunteers who will recieve no payment, for a centre which will be open 6 days a week. We are committed and dedicated to a open and transparent club run ethically and will continue to keep the club on their toes to ensure this is always the case, regardless of who owns it

[PAFELL]

20% buys you what? Whoever owns the other 80% makes the decisions no matter what those owning 20% may think or say. Working with the present owners is the only viable alternative at the moment and from what has been said at the Action Group meetings with Shebby and, I believe the recent Fans Forum meeting, the owners have no interest in selling any part of the club to the Trust and therefore see no need to speak to them. When Venkys do sell I suspect it will be to another foreign owner. Unless the Trust can come up with serious money they are not a player in this game and won't be taken seriously.

I think the only example we have in the UK is swansea. Fans there appear to be happy with the arrangement. The fans, with 20% stake, still have a say in things, maybe a minor say. Or at the minimum are represented at board level.

But yes, I agree, there are no signs as yet of venkys wanting to sell etc. But I believe one idea of the trust, is to be prepared if they do.

Some have changed their stance from wanting venkys out, to now wanting to work with them. Yet the majority of the supporters still want venkys out. Unless I have misunderstood, the action group appear to be operating contary to the desires of the majority of supporters. Maybe the change is simply because of shebby singh. But what would happen if shebby singh was removed by venkys, once his appeasement task is over with? We would be left with venkys still.

[glen9mullan]

I think the only example we have in the UK is swansea. Fans there appear to be happy with the arrangement. The fans, with 20% stake, still have a say in things, maybe a minor say. Or at the minimum are represented at board level.

But yes, I agree, there are no signs as yet of venkys wanting to sell etc. But I believe one idea of the trust, is to be prepared if they do.

Some have changed their stance from wanting venkys out, to now wanting to work with them. Yet the majority of the supporters still want venkys out. Unless I have misunderstood, the action group appear to be operating contary to the desires of the majority of supporters. Maybe the change is simply because of shebby singh. But what would happen if shebby singh was removed by venkys, once his appeasement task is over with? We would be left with venkys still.

Its these sweeping statement "MAJORITY" Which got the Action Group so much critism. Market research shows otherwise!!

As previously stated the Action Groups stance is a well run club, if Venkys went tomorrow, the group would still be here ensuring that any new ownership also runs the club well.

Whilst Shebby Singh being here is of no consequence, the group interacts with the whole board of directors, all departments across the club and the owners.

We take directive from our membership base, and have never changed from doing so