[Archived] Fans Forum meeting, plus new website

[AggyBlue]

Maybe it was a poorly worded question, but nonetheless Cheston's semantics are still an affront to every Rovers fan.

I agree.

You have to be precise with your questions to pin these crooks down.

[Paul]

Given the fuss about "consulting" with the fans re moving the FS the minutes make no mention of consultation just that the club would be writing to fans to outline the options.

[JHRover]

He wasn't telling lies. There was no bid, discussions didn't get that far. It was a poorly worded question.

Really? Cheston was asked at the Fans Forum last week about the Seneca proposal and Cheston's words were that 'he knew nothing other than the media stories' and 'any bid had not come to him'.

The Seneca statement yesterday said that 'we have since held conversations with a board director and the Venkys advisor in the UK seeking information from them which would allow us to progress towards a due diligence process'

Those two statements are incompatible. Whether the process got to the bid stage or not, Cheston said he knew nothing other than what had been reported in the media, Seneca have said they held several conversations with both the 'board director' (Cheston) and advisor (Pasha) about obtaining information to progress their plans. How can they both be correct? If Seneca are correct then Cheston should have said to the Forum that confidential conversations had taken place between him and the proposed investors, or that at least Seneca had approached him to try and gain information. Yet he suggests they didn't do that and that he's had no contact with anyone and all he knows is what was printed in the papers.

Of course I'm assuming that 'a board director' in the statement refers to Cheston, as other than silent inactive Coar he is the only candidate that it could be. Likewise the 'advisor' referred to is presumably Pasha unless there's another faceless, voiceless person running the club from the shadows.

[tomphil]

Is Myers still there ? Could he have been the one they spoke to in order to gain access to Venkys latest stool pigeon ?

[A cup of beans]

http://www.rovers.co.uk/fans/fansforum/

Am I wrong to suspect the pre meeting stuff is often left there, at the pre, particularly if controversial?

"Come to meet us, and we'll decide on the content." ???

[47er]

Members of the Fans Forum are not elected and do not represent the fans. We know that because they've told is, even when they went to Pune!

So what they talk about and how they compile their minutes is of no relevance or interest to me.

Given the views of Ewood Spark and, recently Hitchen(?) brings to mind Oliver Cromwell's observation when he inspected his troops:

"I don't know what effect they have on the enemy but by God they terrify me".

[Glenn]

Members of the Fans Forum are not elected and do not represent the fans. We know that because they've told is, even when they went to Pune!

So what they talk about and how they compile their minutes is of no relevance or interest to me.

Given the views of Ewood Spark and, recently Hitchen(?) brings to mind Oliver Cromwell's observation when he inspected his troops:

"I don't know what effect they have on the enemy but by God they terrify me".

I've not been involved with the FF time, but I can say they're got a pretty diverse group in there and for pretty much every point raised there is always somebody willing play devil's advocate and speak up on behalf of groups of fans they don't personally agree with.

My main concern now isn't whether all views are represented, it's whether there is anyone still around to listen.

[AggyBlue]

Interesting point:

JW asked what MC could tell the forum about the proposed financial bid from Seneca...

Really? Cheston was asked at the Fans Forum last week about the Seneca proposal ...

Make your mind up. Which question did they ask?

[AndyNeil]

So what they talk about and how they compile their minutes is of no relevance or interest to me.

I find that difficult to believe given the amount of times you stick the boot in

The pre-meeting is whereby the people on the forum what questions will be raised, no more no less.

Still no news from the forum I see about who was defending the club and hanging Savio out to dry - it seems as if a collective silence and that it will go away. Pretty poor for an organisation I've defended previously, sometimes to my own detriment.

[MCMC1875]

I find that difficult to believe given the amount of times you stick the boot in

The pre-meeting is whereby the people on the forum what questions will be raised, no more no less.

Still no news from the forum I see about who was defending the club and hanging Savio out to dry - it seems as if a collective silence and that it will go away. Pretty poor for an organisation I've defended previously, sometimes to my own detriment.

.

[Ste B]

Still no news from the forum I see about who was defending the club and hanging Savio out to dry - it seems as if a collective silence and that it will go away. Pretty poor for an organisation I've defended previously, sometimes to my own detriment.

To be fair, 1) it was all over twitter at the time and 2) If we were to, then we would be hanging that person out to dry.

[Ben-2000]

I find that difficult to believe given the amount of times you stick the boot in

The pre-meeting is whereby the people on the forum what questions will be raised, no more no less.

Still no news from the forum I see about who was defending the club and hanging Savio out to dry - it seems as if a collective silence and that it will go away. Pretty poor for an organisation I've defended previously, sometimes to my own detriment.

I wish I knew!

[LDRover]

To be fair, 1) it was all over twitter at the time and 2) If we were to, then we would be hanging that person out to dry.

I'd like to think that said person has at least apologised to Savio in private. It was a real sh1thouse action.

[Paul]

Disappointed to read this in the latest minutes:

"g) Smoking Area in Jack Walker Stand.

LT stated that a new smoking area would be available for the new season for the Darwen end area of the Jack Walker Lower stand."

I've been forced to sit in this stand against my wishes. Now I'm potentially going to be exposed to other people smoking.

I'm not aware of any other public buildings which still offer a smoking area - if there is I think these are now fully segregated. Can we have more detail on why the club feel there is a need to introduce a smoking area?

[gumboots]

Is it legal? I'm never clear about the exact rules because obviously unless there is a roof that's closed a football stadium could be classed as outdoors at any time. I think I'd be demanding an upgrade if they change the conditions of where you've bought your seat. The owners box is generally empty!

[Tom]

I would imagine they mean similar to the Blackburn end and a cordoned off area outside the exit where people can go at half time

[Paul]

Gumboots like you I don't what is legal but I think I'm clear on what has become generally accepted.

Tom if it's outside the ground I'm OK with that. I'm not aware of what happens in the BBE.

It seems family members who smoke won't be able to as this is DE end of the JWL only!! Seems daft to me. If one section of smokers get an area why don't others?

[tomphil]

Other areas of the ground they go outside the turnstiles to smoke where buckets are provided for the dog ends. That's when they aren't smoking in the bogs.

[JBiz]

Other areas of the ground they go outside the turnstiles to smoke where buckets are provided for the dog ends. That's when they aren't smoking in the bogs.

I think that was quite a good move personally, smoking happens in the toilets of every away game I've ever been to since it was band on the terrace.

Admitting there is a problem and finding a solution works great for me, when none smokers have no choice but to use those fogged up smokey toilets, it's not fair! Especially kids.

[gumboots]

Being female it's never been a problem at Ewood, and the toilets were generally smoke free in the family stand

[JHRover]

So a possible plan to reduce the programme from 70 odd pages to 40 odd pages and reduce the price from £3 to £2.

Another embarrassment for this football club. Why is it is that almost every other Championship/Premier League club has the ability to produce a substantial sized programme packed with interesting information worth reading, whilst at Rovers what is already one of the worst programmes in the league is possibly going to be reduced further?

I think the club appear to have missed the point. Concerns were raised by people on the fans forum that the programme in recent years has been of a poor standard, the club's response to that is to drastically reduce its size and the amount of time spent on putting it together, thus ensuring an even poorer product.

I don't like comparing us to Burnley, but their programme is far bigger and better than ours and has won awards in recent years for the quality of its content and design.

It seems other clubs recognise that the club programme says a lot about a club and is an opportunity to make money, whereas the current management at Rovers see it as in irritating distraction that they could do without and are looking at ways to scale back their input. If the media staff at Rovers can't or won't produce a decent programme then they should outsource it to someone who could do a decent job.

The reason the programme has ended up being a loss making venture is because for several years in a row it has been by some distance one of the worst in the division for the amount and quality of its content. Perhaps they should start taking a leaf out of other clubs books, many of whom produce programmes of 100 pages or more.

[sambo]

Remember we used to have a great programme when I was younger and would buy one.

Seem to recall winning the prestigious 'programme of the year' one time - while back now though!

[tomphil]

When you look at old programmes particularly the ones from the 80's they always seem decent. I'm sure they didn't often sell many then when average gates were sometimes five thousand and the economy was in turmoil so it must have been loss making but it was about having something decent for those who wanted to buy it.

Owned and run by people now who just see it as a franchise the club will become more tacky by the season the longer the downgrade continues. It'll be a laminated team sheet before long with a few adverts on it and the fixtures on the back.

[JHRover]

It really does stagger me that the club claim the programme last season took the 'media team' 5 man days to prepare. How?

Even if the 'team' only consists of 2 people, that suggests that it takes them 5 days each, 10 days in total, 7-8 hours each day. Are the club really suggesting that last season's programme took at least 80 working hours to produce each edition?

I'm fairly sure that if I dedicated 2 working weeks to trying to design and write a programme that I would be able to come up with something better than what we've had in recent years. That's not me trying to belittle anyone's capabilities but I refuse to accept it takes a 'team' of media people 5 working days to type up the programme that we've had the last few seasons.

When you look at old programmes particularly the ones from the 80's they always seem decent. I'm sure they didn't often sell many then when average gates were sometimes five thousand and the economy was in turmoil so it must have been loss making but it was about having something decent for those who wanted to buy it.

Owned and run by people now who just see it as a franchise the club will become more tacky by the season the longer the downgrade continues. It'll be a laminated team sheet before long with a few adverts on it and the fixtures on the back.

The club programme is another one of those things that the club should take pride in. Its a way to paint your club in a positive light, look professional, and give off the right impression to people who buy it. Away fans will come to Ewood and buy a programme, I want those people to go home thinking Blackburn Rovers are a professional club who are proud of their standing in the game and make the effort, knocking programmes down to 40 odd pages and £2 a head will undoubtedly give people the impression of an amateur set up that couldn't care less and cant be bothered.

[arbitro]

It really does stagger me that the club claim the programme last season took the 'media team' 5 man days to prepare. How?

Even if the 'team' only consists of 2 people, that suggests that it takes them 5 days each, 10 days in total, 7-8 hours each day. Are the club really suggesting that last season's programme took at least 80 working hours to produce each edition?

I'm fairly sure that if I dedicated 2 working weeks to trying to design and write a programme that I would be able to come up with something better than what we've had in recent years. That's not me trying to belittle anyone's capabilities but I refuse to accept it takes a 'team' of media people 5 working days to type up the programme that we've had the last few seasons.

The club programme is another one of those things that the club should take pride in. Its a way to paint your club in a positive light, look professional, and give off the right impression to people who buy it. Away fans will come to Ewood and buy a programme, I want those people to go home thinking Blackburn Rovers are a professional club who are proud of their standing in the game and make the effort, knocking programmes down to 40 odd pages and £2 a head will undoubtedly give people the impression of an amateur set up that couldn't care less and cant be bothered.

On the plus side though they are looking at the possibility of stocking umbrellas in the club shop.