[Archived] Rovers Trust

[PAFELL]

Don't understand the "every fan is equal" view. Some fans will always put more money, time and effort into supporting a team. Therefore they should naturally be considered more of a fan that those that don't.

Could you explain whose aim has changed? Theirs or yours?

So what Shebby is saying that despite relegating us, destroying the club from top to bottom and make us a national laughing stock he is ok to talk as long as he feels comfortable and not told any home truths?

Costs some supporters to see one match what it does for local folk to see all home matches.

[Speedie Dived]

Costs some supporters to see one match what it does for local folk to see all home matches.

Exactly, baring a Barcelona style, one membership one vote scheme, it's just hogwash to suggest every supporter is the same. Personally think it's a line people use to hide behind than something that actually means anything.

[Stuart]

mark1875, can I just say I appreciate everything you have done with the Action Group (along with your colleagues) and that your posts on here (the vast majority at least) paint you as a very level headed bloke who cares deeply and single-mindedly about the club. For this reason I've often back yours and Glen's posts on here.

With that firmly in mind I think you may need to swallow a massive lump of pride and help to convince others to do the same and back the Rovers Trust.

Providing their mission is a percentage ownership - giving the fans a say in the really important decisions (e.g. sale of the club) - then it really is something that every supporter should be able to get behind.

I would urge the Action Group to make the first move, be prepared to make concessions and be a uniting force behind the fan base - for the long term good of the club.

[PAFELL]

Exactly, baring a Barcelona style, one membership one vote scheme, it's just hogwash to suggest every supporter is the same. Personally think it's a line people use to hide behind than something that actually means anything.

You misunderstand. all supporters are the same. It does not matter if you attend matches or not. There may be a number of reasons why a person cannot get to matches.

[Mercer]

I don't really follow any of these groups and I am not interested at all.

IMO and experience, these sort of groups always have a small number of individuals who are in it for their own self interests and the rest tend to get swept along only to be dumped when they have served their purpose.

IMO, it is a bit of an unedifying spectacle what we are witnessing and none of these groups represent either me, any supporters I personally know or, I suspect, the vast majority of Rovers' supporters.

Best way to get your message across is to vote with your feet and wallet at Ewood and I think that is being done by thousands and Pune seem to understand that message !

[Ricky]

So it was "Kean Out, Venkys Out......... Unless Shebby starts speaking to us and then we'll not push for Venkys Out anymore"

I must have missed the second part of the chant.

[St_Jimmy_77]

Here's a novel idea. Why don't you all just let each group focus on their own stuff instead of all "he said this, he said that". It's becoming very tedious reading through the same things nearly 8 months later. I know who I support, I have pledged that support. Now I just go to games and hopefully have a good time with my friends in the hope that three points come our way. That's what football should be about, not all these groups arguing the t*ss over the Internet. I'm sure there are more fans out there who feel the same. Just swallow your pride and move on. If you can't agree to accept each others intentions, move on. That's the best thing for each and everyone of us, whether a member of the group or not.

[K-Hod]

You've got to laugh at their "One Vision" claim - obviously it's one vision as long as it's their vision as they seem to have spent the night arguing the toss with other groups. No wonder the vast majority of fans will have nothing to do with all of these groups. It's more like a battle of the egos than a united fanbase. One group against Venkys then for Venkys. Another group wanting us to give them a grand in the hope of getting rid of Venkys or is that working with Venkys - I'm still not quite clear which it is. Fortunately, the majority of fans are just happy to go and watch their team and not get involved in this nonsense.

Nail on head.

[T.J.Newton]

Match day programme sellers(that wear trackie bottoms) OUT!!!

Hey! this protesting lark is fun afterall.

[pk1875]

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.

Just been catching up on all this thread and wondered about your post above, and an earlier one.This is in no way an attempt to drag this thread further down, but a genuine question, You say the majority of fans want Venkys out of the club and that anyone who is prepared to work with the Venkys are opposed to the majority of fans, how do you then claim to support the Trust who do want to work with Venky's?

[T.J.Newton]

'PK1875' serious question, are you actually G Mullen under a different name?

[Paul]

Just been catching up on all this thread and wondered about your post above, and an earlier one.This is in no way an attempt to drag this thread further down, but a genuine question, You say the majority of fans want Venkys out of the club and that anyone who is prepared to work with the Venkys are opposed to the majority of fans, how do you then claim to support the Trust who do want to work with

For the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion the statement highlighted needs correcting.

Rovers Trust objective is to acquire a part or full shareholding in the club, consequent to this The Trust would have a seat or seats on the board.

The Trust wishes to achieve fan representation at board level and this can achieved through part or full ownership of the club. This is an entirely different objective to "wanting to work with Venkys."

[Parsonblue]

For the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion the statement highlighted needs correcting.

Rovers Trust objective is to acquire a part or full shareholding in the club, consequent to this The Trust would have a seat or seats on the board.

The Trust wishes to achieve fan representation at board level and this can achieved through part or full ownership of the club. This is an entirely different objective to "wanting to work with Venkys."

Paul, a serious question and in no way intended as anything else. If the Trust embark on part ownership the majority of the ownership will still be Venky's. How do you avoid working with them? If it is to work surely you would have to work closely with whoever owns the majority shareholding.

[Baz]

Paul, a serious question and in no way intended as anything else. If the Trust embark on part ownership the majority of the ownership will still be Venky's. How do you avoid working with them? If it is to work surely you would have to work closely with whoever owns the majority shareholding.

If it was part ownership with venkys then they would work with them, equally the same applies to any other subsequent owners, or the trust doing a full buy out. The point being they wouldnt like to say they would exclusively work with Venkys.

[mark1875]

The Trust wishes to achieve fan representation at board level and this can achieved through part or full ownership of the club. This is an entirely different objective to "wanting to work with Venkys."

"Rovers Trust is always on the look out for ways to support the club and, in the autumn held its first Sporting Dinner at Ewood Park. This is the Trust’s first official commercial partnership with Blackburn Rovers and is a clear sign of the willingness of both parties to work together"

The above taken from your own website from 2 days ago, surely "the willingness of both parties to work together" in the current form means Rovers Trust and Venkys'

Just trying to seek clarity on this one Paul.

[Hasta]

. The communication at the club is different from that of last season. Last season it was made very clear to Paul Hunt that if supporters concerns were listened to around a table then protests could be taken from the stands but that communication had to be transparent and open ........

Just reading through this (mainly because I'm working on very early starts away this weekend ) and am wondering if the club know you are referring to the organised protests in the stands after games. Otherwise should we lose another few games on the trot the serious dissent will start again during games and it will be aimed fully at the owners this time. Despite the fact that people are telling us communication is better, Keans departure has only given them limited grace. In most fans eyes the downward spiral is still continuing - a fact that may be highlighted more than ever in just over 24 hours.

[pk1875]

'PK1875' serious question, are you actually G Mullen under a different name?

Lol most definitely not, I have an awful lot of respect for Glen, and sing from the same hymn sheet but, I like other members of the group are very much their own person.

[Paul]

"Rovers Trust is always on the look out for ways to support the club and, in the autumn held its first Sporting Dinner at Ewood Park. This is the Trust’s first official commercial partnership with Blackburn Rovers and is a clear sign of the willingness of both parties to work together"

The above taken from your own website from 2 days ago, surely "the willingness of both parties to work together" in the current form means Rovers Trust and Venkys'

Just trying to seek clarity on this one Paul.

The Fans Forum, BRAG, etc. work with the football club on a whole range of issues including, for example, the policing of Sunday's game. Rovers Trust through gaining a seat on the club board would work within the club at board level and have the opportunity to influence the club management. So taking the the Burnley game as an example through the Trust supporters would have influence at boardroom level on this issue. I hope this is a reasonable example of working with or in fact as part of the club management at board level.

With regard to the club owners there are many examples where shareholders hold differing views and look to influence change in the business at shareholder level. It is not unusual for shareholders to have differing views regarding the direction a company should take. Recent examples in the news would include Aviva, Barclays and UBS with shareholders extremely vocal in their opposition to what they perceive as reward for failure. Rupert Murdoch has been in the news recently as he faces up to shareholder pressure.

For me there are two distinct bodies, the club where one wishes to work and bring influence on a daily basis, the other is the shareholders, currently Venkys, where one would be looking to bring a different type of influence to bear. Rovers Trust seek to have fan influence at this level and it is only achieved by being a shareholder. I hope the distinction is clear.

[ABBEY]

Who would represent you on the board? A utd season ticket holder or a committee member who got threw out at Bristol for threatening fans? ( is the second point true or a rumour)

[Biddy]

Some agenda Abbey?

[ABBEY]

What ? I've no agenda whatsoever pal ? Questions not allowed ?

[Paul]

Paul, a serious question and in no way intended as anything else. If the Trust embark on part ownership the majority of the ownership will still be Venky's. How do you avoid working with them? If it is to work surely you would have to work closely with whoever owns the majority shareholding.

I've been think this one through Parson while I replied to Mark's point above. Both posts are my personal view as I try to answer supporters' questions. I think you're both asking the same question though coming from different directions? Baz has also made the point regarding the Trust's stated willingness to be in discussion with any potential owner or future owner.

Is my distinction between working at board level on a day to day basis and shareholder influence the answer to your question? I think it is. None of us know what the future brings and we could see a situation where several bodies hold shares in the club, at that point shareholder influence increases in importance in deciding the club's future direction. The Trust doesn't seek confrontation but influence on behalf of the support and as a shareholder there would be two different opportunities to bring influence to bear.

I'd just add here in the past I have been a company director and minor shareholder, it wasn't as grand as it sounds!. On a daily basis I was responsible for product development and sales - sometimes great, sometimes a real grind. On a longer term I, along with two colleagues, reported back to our owner's main board and tried to influence their decisions on investing in the company's future. This is where I draw my distinction from

[Biddy]

What ? I've no agenda whatsoever pal ? Questions not allowed ?

It's just fairly unsubtle yet you claim to have no vested interest.

[Ricky]

Abbey, you've just made a scene on the other thread and demanded that someone back up a statement with facts and then a minute later you make unsubstantiated allegations on this thread!

You can't have it both ways.

[ABBEY]

The first point ... Am I wrong?

The 2nd is a question if its true , not accusing anyone just merly asking . No doubt it will get deleted again.