[Archived] Rovers Trust/Action Group/Ians

[Paul]

That's harsh criticism of Rovers Trust. The Trust is, and has to be, a democratic organisation. If it wasn't there are plenty of fans who would complain it was undemocratic.

[AllRoverAsia]

6 hours ago, Ozz said:

Be careful what you wish for.

You'll be there to keep them in check 

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

The reasons for having an election are several, @Stuart. The most important are listed here:

1. Rovers Trust is the official supporters trust of Blackburn Rovers as recognised by Supporters Direct, which requires its organisations to be led by democratically elected committees/boards.
2. Rovers Trust is a registered Community Benefit Society with the Financial Conduct Authority, and is bound by its society rules to have an election at least once every two years. This is the first contested election since Rovers Trust's inception.
3. As 3 of the elected board members have chosen not to stand for another term, an election is required to replace them, as society rules call for a minimum of 3 elected board members at any one time.

You are quite right that there is nothing stopping anyone standing for election to not continue to help the Trust even if they are not elected, and even if they are not co-opted onto the Board. YOU CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO BE A BOARD MEMBER TO CONTRIBUTE, BRING IDEAS, OR BE ACTIVE IN THE ROVERS TRUST!!! (excuse the capitals, but it seems everyone believes if you aren't on the board you must sit on your hands). I agree with you, it is a very juvenile mentality. I hope above all else that those standing who do not end up on the Board don't just then melt away and do nothing to help the Trust move forward. What a waste that would be!

@Paul - I agree that having a live "leaderboard" is a bit strange in an election situation, but it was done in the interests of transparency. We had one for the first contested election. And in order to avoid criticism or claims of non-impartiality, or tampering with results, we've decided to do it this way again.

[47er]

6 hours ago, Parsonblue said:

Excellent idea 47er. 

Had to laugh PB! Nice one!

But it was prefaced with "it you want to do nothing" and that's what you will do. The weekly fix as opposed to the bigger picture.

 

[Parsonblue]

Just now, 47er said:

Had to laugh PB! Nice one!

But it was prefaced with "it you want to do nothing" and that's what you will do. The weekly fix as opposed to the bigger picture.

 

Serious questions 47er, which in fairness, I don't think anyone can answer.

How do you force someone to sell something that they own and don't want to sell?  Secondly, if they opt to sell who will buy it with the present debt?  Thirdly, why would the owners simply cancel the debt when they are sitting on three large plots of land - Ewood and the two at Brockhall - which if they sit on long enough they may well find ways of selling to developers?

I understand plan A - get rid of the present owners.  However, I haven't seen a plan B for the future that looks anymore credible than the present lot. 

 

[MCMC1875]

8 hours ago, Stuart said:

'Tis all a bit daft really, isn't it. And very very British:

"Right we are struggling to get numbers, resource, let alone momentum behind this project"

"Well, there's 7 people who really want to help"

"Jolly good. We only want 4 helpers in this committee though"

"But how do we decide which 3 to fob off?"

"Democratically, of course! We'll have a vote and the three lowest won't get to help. Or they might. If we co-opt them later"

"But shouldn't we just be getting on with it and worrying about more important (and more pressing) things like renewing the ACV on Ewood Park?"

"All in good time, old bean. We have a procedure to follow. We should have a committee confirmed in about 6 weeks, then we can form a sub-committee to co-opt a working part to arrange a meeting with the senior committee. We'll have this nailed down and ready to roll out in 3 months. With a fair wind."

"Sporty"

"I thought so"

.

[Athlete]

22 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

Serious questions 47er, which in fairness, I don't think anyone can answer.

How do you force someone to sell something that they own and don't want to sell?  Secondly, if they opt to sell who will buy it with the present debt?  Thirdly, why would the owners simply cancel the debt when they are sitting on three large plots of land - Ewood and the two at Brockhall - which if they sit on long enough they may well find ways of selling to developers?

I understand plan A - get rid of the present owners.  However, I haven't seen a plan B for the future that looks anymore credible than the present lot. 

 

Parsonblue if what's doing the rounds is correct the club won't last beyond next Christmas administration will be forced on the club when staff don't get paid 

Anyway just keep supporting the players.. Let's be honest it did a fat lot of good yesterday.. I've never come off Ewood so underwhelmed and gutted before 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Athlete said:

Parsonblue if what's doing the rounds is correct the club won't last beyond next Christmas administration will be forced on the club when staff don't get paid 

Anyway just keep supporting the players.. Let's be honest it did a fat lot of good yesterday.. I've never come off Ewood so underwhelmed and gutted before 

More rumours yet again. We heard these things before they have all been wrong before.

It would be interesting to see where these kind of things come from? And who told you?

[47er]

Dear me Chaddy! Nobody tosses out more rumours than you and no proof is ever provided.

Nothing wrong with rumours, it's a message-board after all but you of all people cannot require proof.

[chaddyrovers]

Never mention proof did I? 

You did 47er. 

So suggestion you calm down. 

I posted transfer rumours. Not these sort of rumours that Athlete has. 

[chor808]

43 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

Serious questions 47er, which in fairness, I don't think anyone can answer.

How do you force someone to sell something that they own and don't want to sell?  Secondly, if they opt to sell who will buy it with the present debt?  Thirdly, why would the owners simply cancel the debt when they are sitting on three large plots of land - Ewood and the two at Brockhall - which if they sit on long enough they may well find ways of selling to developers?

I understand plan A - get rid of the present owners.  However, I haven't seen a plan B for the future that looks anymore credible than the present lot. 

 

There has to be a point where they see there is zero chance of getting any money back, that time has passed in reality I've no idea if they understand the club is pretty much worthless now and only investment would make it worth anything again, no chance of that.

I expect we would only see a plan B once we are in adminstration, no one would come forward at this point and show there hand and only a crazy rovers loving billionaire would put bid in for us now and there are none about.

[Stuart]

Paul, Dan, you are both missing the point. If 7 people have put their names forward then give them all a name badge and let's get the show on the road.

My spoof was aimed more a Britishness than the RT per se.

Only here do we stop skilled, proactive people getting things done in order to create a job for an unskilled, bureaucrat with clipboard and a checklist.

[Athlete]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

More rumours yet again. We heard these things before they have all been wrong before.

It would be interesting to see where these kind of things come from? And who told you?

I for one hope we end up in administration it'll be the only way we'll get rid of the owners and their friends 

Then somehow we'll rebuild 

[perthblue02]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

More rumours yet again. We heard these things before they have all been wrong before.

It would be interesting to see where these kind of things come from? And who told you?

Whats the point of telling you , you will just ignore it after Senior launches a new load with his colgate smile and you will swallow it hook line and sinker without any question.

[Athlete]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

More rumours yet again. We heard these things before they have all been wrong before.

It would be interesting to see where these kind of things come from? And who told you?

Grow up.. It's a message board and a lot of stuff on here is rumoured.. None more so than some of the stuff you post especially the tabloid rumours 

[Dunnfc]

8 hours ago, 47er said:

If you don't want to do anything just buy a season ticket and cheer the lads on.

Are they supporters or just spectators though? 

[47er]

I'm extremely calm Chaddy as evidenced by the "dear me" so don't be so transparently provocative.

You are clearly asking for proof whether you used the word or not.

Parson, this is a bigger reason to leave the MB than any you have given!

So bloody irritating!

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Athlete said:

I for one hope we end up in administration it'll be the only way we'll get rid of the owners and their friends 

Then somehow we'll rebuild 

Dont see Venkys ever putting the club in administration. Cos they lose control and thats the one thing they always want. 

Just now, perthblue02 said:

Whats the point of telling you , you will just ignore it after Senior launches a new load with his colgate smile and you will swallow it hook line and sinker without any question.

Its a rumour nothing more. 

Who mention Senior? I didnt. 

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, 47er said:

I'm extremely calm Chaddy as evidenced by the "dear me" so don't be so transparently provocative.

You are clearly asking for proof whether you used the word or not.

Parson, this is a bigger reason to leave the MB than any you have given!

So bloody irritating!

You are irritating as anyone keep posting things I ever asked for. 

Never asked for Proof tho? As they isnt any. Just rumours from people

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Dunnfc said:

Are they supporters or just spectators though? 

Really? 

Is this what it is really coming to now. 

Calling season ticket holders not supporters but spectators. 

No wonder there is such a big divided between all the fans from all point of view. 

I'm going log off for a few days before I say something that I will regret and possibly get ban from. Very responsible from me in all fairness. 

[Dunnfc]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Really? 

Is this what it is really coming to now. 

Calling season ticket holders not supporters but spectators. 

No wonder there is such a big divided between all the fans from all point of view. 

I'm going log off for a few days before I say something that I will regret and possibly get ban from. Very responsible from me in all fairness. 

But some are just spectators for 90 mins a week.

so many people like yourself have turned up to Ewood and that's been it, what about fighting for your club.

plenty of things to compliment watching rovers, get involved in the trust, get involved for the benefit of the club on many operations as discussed by the WMC lot.

even do your own things independently. 

[47er]

1 hour ago, Parsonblue said:

Serious questions 47er, which in fairness, I don't think anyone can answer.

How do you force someone to sell something that they own and don't want to sell?  Secondly, if they opt to sell who will buy it with the present debt?  Thirdly, why would the owners simply cancel the debt when they are sitting on three large plots of land - Ewood and the two at Brockhall - which if they sit on long enough they may well find ways of selling to developers?

I understand plan A - get rid of the present owners.  However, I haven't seen a plan B for the future that looks anymore credible than the present lot. 

 

Well, you've given me an out by saying no-one can answer it! But I will do my best to offer my thoughts on it.

First of all, we must accept that at some point a crunch will come. Venkys have not so much put money in as allowed debt to mount and borrowed to pay the interest. That cannot go on forever and therefore, if you accept that they will never actually cough up, then they will leave at the point where there are no or insufficient assets to sell and no more cuts that can be made. I suspect they would declare their British Company insolvent and creditors here would get virtually nothing back. How the Indian Banks would deal with that we can't say because we don't know the terms of the loans.

At that point we would go into administration I imagine.

At that point Rovers could be attractive to buyers and obviously I'm hoping a fan-Friendly consortium would step in. Ian Battersby has implied as much in very general terms.

We should be encouraged by seeing several clubs come back from the dead or from a near-death experience thanks to the devotion of their fans. Wimbledon is an example that should give us great heart. If they can do it, so can we. Very few clubs have died and never returned, certainly none of the size of Rovers. It would be pretty amazing wouldn't it if Accrington Stanley can recover and we couldn't?

So,for me, not something to fear and far better than the slow death we are currently enduring.

You seem prepared to go on like we are forever, I can't wait for it to end.

I can't give you a list of intending buyers, I have no inside info but I cannot believe a club with the history will be allowed to go under.

Relegation, admin-------prefer them all to what we have now.

Fresh start, drain the swamp!

 

[47er]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Really? 

Is this what it is really coming to now. 

Calling season ticket holders not supporters but spectators. 

No wonder there is such a big divided between all the fans from all point of view. 

I'm going log off for a few days before I say something that I will regret and possibly get ban from. Very responsible from me in all fairness. 

Calm down Chaddy! 

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Why does everyone seem to forget that a deal for majority ownership that included a real and substantial capital investment was put together by a locally based consortium led by Battersby's investment firm that Rovers Trust did in fact help flesh out and facilitate, but that the Venkys didn't even have the decency to decline politely but instead most insultingly publicly denied the very existence of?

That was this very season. The, "who would be interested in buying us?" dismissive rhetoric isn't valid. There are people that have shown interest in just that only a short few months ago.

Administration most likely wouldn't decrease the amount of capital needed by such a group to come in, but it would allow more of that capital to go to righting and rebuilding the club rather than to the blood sucking leeches that current own 99.99% of the shares of our club!!

[Stuart]

12 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

You are irritating as anyone keep posting things I ever asked for. 

Never asked for Proof tho? As they isnt any. Just rumours from people