[Archived] Rovers Trust/Action Group/Ians

[Billinge End Blue]

Crikey!

Remember this is WAR - WE Are Rovers...It's not or shouldn't be about individuals or even any specific grouping of Rovers supporters.

The politics of these group dynamics are incredibly off-putting to me; fair play to those who aspire to, have endured or enjoy it but it should always be remembered Blackburn Rovers FC and its future is what it all boils down to.

[Miller11]

7 hours ago, Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan) said:

As a current Board member I think it is important to impress upon all the nominees that Rovers Trust members should receive specific outlines of specifics actions a nominee plans on taking in order to achieve the very abstract and diffuse rhetoric of "modernisation," "momentum," and "being more inclusive."

I applaud new energy, different insights, and dedication & commitment. That's what the 3 of us (myself, Neil and Wayne) want to come out as a result of stepping aside.

As a member who will be voting this coming week, I would like to raise this question with all 5 of you. What specifically are you planning to do to achieve your three pronged campaign promise?

I also do have a concern, as Duncan Miller was an original co-opted Board Member. He was also an original member of the Blackburn Rovers Supporters Society (BRSS), which was Rovers Trust's predecessor, but never got off the ground. He was given the role of Membership Officer by the Rovers Trust Board but was unable to meet those obligations, and one day just stopped responding to email or phones calls, and basically nobody knew what had become of him. The Board had to hunt him down to retrieve membership pack materials that had become sorely overdue. I not writing this to slag him off or single him out, but it puts into question whether he will stay the course this time around? (Maybe 3rd time's a charm?)

I want to feel comfortable that the people that have come forward and stood for election appreciate the commitment, time, effort, and own personal resources required. I want to know that if I vote for someone, they will not just turn their backs when the going gets tough, or they "don't have the time," or "have personal issues," or the criticism levels become uncomfortable, or whatever other excuse there could be.

I hope that everyone who is standing understands that in order to significantly change the remit or stance of the Community Benefit Society, they need the mandate of the members of that society, and must take appropriate action according to the society's rules to obtain that mandate before ratifying any such change. Such as going from trying to communicate and help the current ownership to calling for them to leave, as the current Board has done.

I hope they have a plan for successful succession of fundamental key functions, such as IT, Accounting/Finance, Regulatory Administration, Social media management, Membership Administration, and Governing Body Liaising in the event that those fulfilling those functions now as co-opted Board members decide they no longer wish to after the election.

I hope that they are running in order help continue and realise the vision of the founders to make Rovers Trust an indispensable and obvious partner in any new ownership structure of Blackburn Rovers going forward when the day finally comes that a change of ownership does mercifully occur.

I hope they are prepared to continue the community benefit work that has been a part of the Trust's mandate as a registered CBS from day one.

I hope they are going to be be fiscally responsible with the society's limited financial resources and have a plan for helping to grow them.

I feel that through their actions of the last 5-6 years, those current board members still up for (re-)election have shown their appreciation of the above points, and would be invaluable assets to have to anyone new elected in, and my own personal feeling is that I do hope that at least one of the current Board members wins one of the elected seats.

I hope to and plan on using at least one of my votes on the new nominees, maybe more. All credit to all 5 of you for stepping up - let's not forget that.

My post is mainly in response to my own personal trepidation at not being directly involved after this election, and the countless hours and thousands of pounds of my own personal money I've put in to help it get where it is today. It is no more or less than any of the other current Board members have done either, all making lots of sacrifices in our personal and professional lives for the sake of the Trust. We just want it to not only continue, but to thrive and become even better. I just want the best for Blackburn Rovers, and for Rovers Trust.

In response Dan...

Your post isn't entirely accurate as I wasn't co-opted on to the board, I was voted on in the initial election. You are absolutely right in that the initial Trust lacked momentum... when the idea was first conceived Venky's had yet to darken our door and if anyone thinks there is a lack of interest now, believe me, it was a million times less back then. We did get it off the ground though and got the IPS (as it was back then) registered and the merge with the investment Trust was the right one for the trust, the fan base and the future of the club in my opinion. Of course you are quite welcome to your own opinions and perceptions, but for the record the reason I have chosen to stand is that I don't want to see the trust disappear. With 3 people stepping down from prominent roles and hardly a flood of people stepping up to take their place, I felt compelled to throw my name into the hat. I've always been a big believer in the Trust movement, and that will never change. It's absolutely vital in my view that this important vehicle keeps going for the benefit of the fans, the club and the community. 

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

9 hours ago, Suhail Slayer said:

You will have heard often because it is widely believed that Wayne wants a place on the Rovers board.

Most commonly believed by the many supporters who attended the meeting at King Georges Hall.

Where Wayne sat at the top table talking a lot in the limelight 

However since then has done nothing

The other groups at that table have followed with Actions.

None of which were publicaly supported by Wayne.

Nowhere to be seen or heard since that night. 

He was going to India in Feb but hasn't done and more importantly hasn't communicated why etc.

 

Suddenly last week he climbs into bed with Danny Davis

statement could have said " a spokesman for WEC said..."

not surprising it said Wayne Wild said..

following his own agenda

not backing his fellow supporters since KGH

My dream job is Rovers FD. What's wrong with that if it were true? Does that mean that I am the Finance Officer for the Trust just to further my own personal agenda?? I know for a fact that Wayne would not take a directors position at the club now even if it was offered under the current ownership, so it is just bunch of hogwash gossip.

Wayne is a born and bred Blackburnian who loves the club through and through, and would do just about anything for it.

The India trip is a prime example - He worked harder than anyone else would have done to line up all the current MP's, Jack Straw, etc - who all agreed to go on the condition a meeting could be arranged there with the owners.

They never responded from any enquiries from any source - they'll probably deny they ever got any, just as they denied they ever received a bid for a controlling stake before the season, even though they did.

As Chairman of the Trust, it would be hugely irresponsible to make that trip without a meeting - the cost benefit is a negative value. A lot of time and energy was put into trying to make it happen, so it was far more frustrating for those involved in that process than it was for anyone else.

But of course people don't think about that so they have a very easy time making off hand criticisms about "doing nothing" and "agendas." You're very entitled to your opinion, of course, as is everyone, but just have it noted here that it is a very uninformed one.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

5 hours ago, Miller11 said:

In response Dan...

Your post isn't entirely accurate as I wasn't co-opted on to the board, I was voted on in the initial election. You are absolutely right in that the initial Trust lacked momentum... when the idea was first conceived Venky's had yet to darken our door and if anyone thinks there is a lack of interest now, believe me, it was a million times less back then. We did get it off the ground though and got the IPS (as it was back then) registered and the merge with the investment Trust was the right one for the trust, the fan base and the future of the club in my opinion. Of course you are quite welcome to your own opinions and perceptions, but for the record the reason I have chosen to stand is that I don't want to see the trust disappear. With 3 people stepping down from prominent roles and hardly a flood of people stepping up to take their place, I felt compelled to throw my name into the hat. I've always been a big believer in the Trust movement, and that will never change. It's absolutely vital in my view that this important vehicle keeps going for the benefit of the fans, the club and the community. 

I know and I get it Duncan. It is a hard slog, especially when the club itself isn't in an "immediate crisis" mode. That's what my post was all about.

You're right, I mis-wrote - you were an elected member of the original Board. But to me, that makes it even a bit more disappointing. You have no obligation to explain why you walked away without telling anyone, but the fact remains that the rest of us had to pick up the slack and take on extra duties in your sudden absence.

I'm glad you did put your name in the hat. I hope you are ready to take it on should you be duly elected!

[Ozz]

24 minutes ago, Suhail Slayer said:

uninformed yes

because no communication from him since KGH to the fans

 

my opinion yes

because he created this public perception of himself and continues to

 

so he does seek a board position albeit after they left which is likely to be facilitated by others rather than he. What a leech

 

I rest my case

 

Who put 10p in you?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

2 hours ago, Suhail Slayer said:

uninformed yes

because no communication from him since KGH to the fans

 

my opinion yes

because he created this public perception of himself and continues to

 

so he does seek a board position albeit after they left which is likely to be facilitated by others rather than he. What a leech

 

I rest my case

 

Hmmm...??? 

[Meadows2]

10 hours ago, Miller11 said:

In response Dan...

 With 3 people stepping down from prominent roles and hardly a flood of people stepping up to take their place, I felt compelled to throw my name into the hat. I've always been a big believer in the Trust movement, and that will never change. It's absolutely vital in my view that this important vehicle keeps going for the benefit of the fans, the club and the community. 

That alone is worth applauding, not sure of the discrediting post earlier as i'm just a fan who doesn't know the ins and outs of it all but keep up the fight Miller11

[Meadows2]

3 hours ago, Suhail Slayer said:

Dan

who exactly is attending the bi annual meeting for the Trust?

last time you got 5 invites but nobody was interested enough or couldn't be assed to attend.

Is that true???? Surely not!!???

Mhead is your people going, did they go last year...

[Leonard Venkhater]

I have had to withdraw my own nomination for family reasons.

I am not sure if that makes my opinion more or less valid, but I think this handover process has just set off on the wrong foot. 

Obviously a message board is no place to resolve disagreement. For what it is worth I can see two lots of emotions. From the existing, outgoing members, a genuine concern about handing their "baby" ( no Venkatesh pun intended) to the unknown and "apparently" untested. Maybe, there is also a strain of "please help, but FFS don't succeed, where we were not able to." I don't know, but this is not uncommon, where people are seeking help for something in which they have invested a lot of personal energy

As regards the new nominees, in a message board context perhaps people are communicating passion and determination, as impatience and frustration. Personally, I have always believed in the principle of under claiming, while over achieving. Obviously, this is not the wisest approach before an election!

Call me Mary Poppins, if you like, but my experience is that the best, most sustainable change results from a blend of the existing, committed people with the new and equally committed. However, such an accommodation requires trust and a message board context won't help there, particularly, if others pitch in on one side or the other,

Certainly, dialogue is more than advisable, or each group is likely merely to confirm their existing" fantasy" about the other group without checking things out. What is obvious is that both groups contain people, who are passionately concerned about the future of Blackburn Rovers.

My experience in the Ewood WMC meetings has almost conquered my sense of despair about the situation after the Blakey's WAR meeting. I feel privileged to work alongside a number of people with such passion and commitment. In effect, the activity in and from these meetings is WAR in practice.

I do hope that nominees from the Ewood meetings can make it onto the Trust because they will bring energy, passion and skills to go with the knowledge and experience of the remaining members of the board. If an accommodation cannot be made here, it will be a tragic waste at a crucial time.

Obviously,I am not standing, but I am still offering to contribute to specific tasks required by the Trust, that emerges.

[Ozz]

IMPORTANT UPDATE

There has been an IT related issue with the online polling system, which means it cannot go live tomorrow as planned. The poll is not going to go live until Wednesday of this week now at the earliest. The Trust will confirm the opening date ASAP.  

 

[Neal]

On 26/03/2017 at 2:57 AM, Miller11 said:

In response Dan...

Your post isn't entirely accurate as I wasn't co-opted on to the board, I was voted on in the initial election. You are absolutely right in that the initial Trust lacked momentum... when the idea was first conceived Venky's had yet to darken our door and if anyone thinks there is a lack of interest now, believe me, it was a million times less back then. We did get it off the ground though and got the IPS (as it was back then) registered and the merge with the investment Trust was the right one for the trust, the fan base and the future of the club in my opinion. Of course you are quite welcome to your own opinions and perceptions, but for the record the reason I have chosen to stand is that I don't want to see the trust disappear. With 3 people stepping down from prominent roles and hardly a flood of people stepping up to take their place, I felt compelled to throw my name into the hat. I've always been a big believer in the Trust movement, and that will never change. It's absolutely vital in my view that this important vehicle keeps going for the benefit of the fans, the club and the community. 

 

Having met Duncan, he's definately the type of supporter I would like to see involved with the trust. Personally I have rubbed shoulders with trust members at Bpool and keep regular contact with them, they are cut from the same cloth as Duncan as are the other Ewood WMC nominees. 

 

In my view... Whilst its important the trust maintains a professional image (which it has) it is equally important in our current situation that it's willing to get itself a little more dirty and present itself a little less corporate... The new nominees would certainly help with that. 

 

Is is totally IMPERATIVE that those willing to stand have no personal agenda whatsoever and have interest in doing it for status... Having met the new nominees I believe they are true to this. Duncan and a few others did ask me to stand but I think there more respected fans out there for this role as I know that supporters like myself divide opinion... Thats exactly what we don't want but what we do need is fans like Duncan willing to get their hands dirty and do it for no personal gain... Which i believe the new trust nominees will. 

 

No disrespect to the previous regime but change was needed and it seemed like they agreed. As a big supporter of supporter trusts and their potential to bring clubs back into the hands of the supporters the new regime will have my full support. 

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, Suhail Slayer said:

Should I put 10p in Ozz ? (from the fight fund)

Hahaha.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Gotta give ti to you, Suhail, that was actually funny

[AndyNeil]

I was actually thinking of re-joining the Rovers Trust and standing for the position of treasurer, however if all the nominees are from the EWMC pool of people I doubt very much I'd get voted on...mates of mates, group struggles and politics alive and well in the background.

Some things don't change eh!  

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

ANDY! I'd have voted for you for sure - you are exactly the kind of guy who should be doing it. Stand by and keep contact with the new board after the election, you would be a good candidate for a co-opted board position as treasurer.

[J*B]

Just now, AndyNeil said:

I was actually thinking of re-joining the Rovers Trust and standing for the position of treasurer, however if all the nominees are from the EWMC pool of people I doubt very much I'd get voted on...mates of mates, group struggles and politics alive and well in the background.

Some things don't change eh!  

I disagree - i'm sure people are capable of voting for whoever would offer the best service to the trust. I definitely believe people can work together even if they don't get on, as long as the common goal is the same and everything is put to a vote.

However, if you do stand, it may be worth adopting a different attitude. The above post comes across very negatively and hypocritical, especially the section about politics - it sounds like you are being political yourself, although I appreciate text usually isn't the best format for expressing opinion.

[AndyNeil]

Just now, J*B said:

I disagree - i'm sure people are capable of voting for whoever would offer the best service to the trust. I definitely believe people can work together even if they don't get on, as long as the common goal is the same and everything is put to a vote.

However, if you do stand, it may be worth adopting a different attitude. The above post comes across very negatively and hypocritical, especially the section about politics - it sounds like you are being political yourself, although I appreciate text usually isn't the best format for expressing opinion.

If someone has to "adapt a different attitude" in order to be elected then you would have to question their motive for doing so in the first place... I was told by someone who attends the EWMC meetings that they could only nominate someone to stand for the Rovers Trust from within said group.

[J*B]

Just now, AndyNeil said:

If someone has to "adapt a different attitude" in order to be elected then you would have to question their motive for doing so in the first place... I was told by someone who attends the EWMC meetings that they could only nominate someone to stand for the Rovers Trust from within said group.

Not necessarily, you don't behave the same in a meeting with a client as you do down the pub with your mates, do you? Your views may be the same, but you adopt different ways of approaching them. Thats all it takes, really. A bit of respect between people and to be adult enough to go about things the right way. I attend WMC meetings when possible - theres people there that I don't get on with, but i'm happy to work with them - I just wouldn't socialise with them.

If you read that back RE voting from the WMC meetings, you'll see it sounds ridiculous. The vote is private, so its impossible for someone to 'only nominate' a certain person. They can literally pick anyone they want, nobody will ever know. Although I expect its pretty obvious that people who attend WMC meetings would be encouraging votes to go specific ways. 

[AndyNeil]

Just now, J*B said:

Not necessarily, you don't behave the same in a meeting with a client as you do down the pub with your mates, do you? Your views may be the same, but you adopt different ways of approaching them. 

If you read that back RE voting from the WMC meetings, you'll see it sounds ridiculous. The vote is private, so its impossible for someone to 'only nominate' a certain person. They can literally pick anyone they want, nobody will ever know. Although I expect its pretty obvious that people who attend WMC meetings would be encouraging votes to go specific ways

Maybe I should have been clearer, however I'm sure that you understood the original point but chose to ignore it and try to make me look daft.  Should I adopt a different attitude to Rovers 'online' as I should 'in person' in order to gain votes for an organisation which if we are being brutally honest about, a LOT of Rovers fan either don't know about, don't care about or choose not to get involved for various reasons?

I asked someone who attends the EWMC meetings if they would nominate me for the previously mentioned position and was told 'we have been told we can only nominate people from within the group' - not to be confused for who they vote for.  I suppose the question would be, how far encouraging goes?

[J*B]

Just now, AndyNeil said:

Maybe I should have been clearer, however I'm sure that you understood the original point but chose to ignore it and try to make me look daft.  Should I adopt a different attitude to Rovers 'online' as I should 'in person' in order to gain votes for an organisation which if we are being brutally honest about, a LOT of Rovers fan either don't know about, don't care about or choose not to get involved for various reasons?

I asked someone who attends the EWMC meetings if they would nominate me for the previously mentioned position and was told 'we have been told we can only nominate people from within the group' - not to be confused for who they vote for.  I suppose the question would be, how far encouraging goes?

I didn't and i'm definitely not trying to make you look daft. I'm way past petty disagreements with other fans. I believe that fans who disagree on Rovers can work together under the Trust, on the basis that its a majority vote. As I said, I attend WMC meetings when possible and have worked on things I didn't necessarily agree with where the right routes, because thats what has been voted as the correct thing to do. Your post earlier, I found came across as political and confrontational - which is exactly what the trust doesn't need. Although, as I said earlier, I appreciate its very easy to get the wrong end of the stick when reading text.

Nobody can 'only nominate people from within the group', that is literally impossible unless theres guns to peoples head. But yes, I am sure people are being actively encouraged to vote for specific people - whether that be from WMC, within groups of friends, current Trust members. Its natural, it happens in all walks of life.

[AndyNeil]

Just now, J*B said:

Nobody can 'only nominate people from within the group', that is literally impossible unless theres guns to peoples head. But yes, I am sure people are being actively encouraged to vote for specific people - whether that be from WMC, within groups of friends, current Trust members. Its natural, it happens in all walks of life.

which is kind of what I said at the beginning.. each little group trying to make a power grab for the Rovers Trust.  The professional approach is the approach the Rovers Trust should be taking however for whatever reason it didn't work under Wayne Wild, et al.

Too many groups doing their own little thing with not enough active people supporting these groups due to a whole myriad of reasons.  The internet were you get 500 LIKES for something isn't the real world - the real world is were 20 people turn up for the Rovers Trust AGM.  Little groups of people doing deals between themselves here and there won't affect change.

This might sound harsh but believe me it really isn't meant to be - if the group of people hoping to run the Rovers Trust come from the same group that don't even understand PayPal will charge you a fee for sales on eBay, I would very much worry for the future of the Rovers Trust.

[J*B]

Just now, AndyNeil said:

which is kind of what I said at the beginning.. each little group trying to make a power grab for the Rovers Trust.  The professional approach is the approach the Rovers Trust should be taking however for whatever reason it didn't work under Wayne Wild, et al.

Too many groups doing their own little thing with not enough active people supporting these groups due to a whole myriad of reasons.  The internet were you get 500 LIKES for something isn't the real world - the real world is were 20 people turn up for the Rovers Trust AGM.  Little groups of people doing deals between themselves here and there won't affect change.

This might sound harsh but believe me it really isn't meant to be - if the group of people hoping to run the Rovers Trust come from the same group that don't even understand PayPal will charge you a fee for sales on eBay, I would very much worry for the future of the Rovers Trust.

Thats natural really though. Anyone who puts themselves forward should be taken on board by the trust, as i'm sure they'll offer something and the trust needs all the help it can get. The main thing that needs fixing, however, is people working together. If theres an election and fans are just chucked in together expecting to get on it'll all go wrong. Rovers fans are fractured, theres little groups everywhere with their own agendas. Until everyone can work together it's pointless.

On the last point - if a group works together, not everyone needs to know PayPal takes a fee for eBay sales. You just need one person to know and be responsible for it. Its very simple, it just relies on people getting on - which fans are totally incapable of doing.

[AndyNeil]

53 minutes ago, Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan) said:

ANDY! I'd have voted for you for sure - you are exactly the kind of guy who should be doing it. Stand by and keep contact with the new board after the election, you would be a good candidate for a co-opted board position as treasurer.

I have re-joined the Rovers Trust today. Hopefully somebody from the SM team will reply to the Twitter message sent...

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Excellent!

[Mike E]

1 hour ago, AndyNeil said:

I was actually thinking of re-joining the Rovers Trust and standing for the position of treasurer, however if all the nominees are from the EWMC pool of people I doubt very much I'd get voted on...mates of mates, group struggles and politics alive and well in the background.

Some things don't change eh!  

Not sure what you're talking about here. You are spoken of pretty well whenever your name has arisen at meetings I've been at.

'As an accountant, he'd be an ideal treasurer.' Not my words but spoken in meetings.

I think the main issue is the 'old guard' not welcoming new blood and fresh ideas as they worry it'll be more successful and reflect badly on them. What SHOULD happen is the welcoming of new ideas to move forward, which is all I take from those at meetings. The only negativity I've seen is from those most recently in situ on the RT.

Wish everyone would grow up and realise that Rovers are more important than how big your knobs are.