[Archived] Meeting With The Club.

[tomphil]

He seems ready with a slick deflective answer before the question has finished being asked. Reminds me of coco himself in that respect and yes he's more Paul Hunt that Derek Shaw in the way he comes across. It's an odd one I don't know whether it's good he's not ducking anything and seems to have rolled his sleeves up and got stuck in or worried he's just here to placate and window dress for the real button pushers again.

[Reedy You're A Star]

He's a bullshitter, brown nose and experienced manipulator from what I've seen so far. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but after all the Agnews and Shebbys that have been foisted on us over the years, I'm going to be hard pressed to change my mind. Personally, I think he will approach Agnew levels of snake-iness by time he finally departs us ,with tail between legs and bank account filled up.

[Paul]

11 hours ago, Dunnfc said:

Les Reed isn't a director though, he's a director of football, so more appropriately a manager of football. He has no jurisdiction or empowerment to run the company etc and isn't involved in doing so. Ralph Krueger is chairman/CEO and serves under the Liebherr owners.

Completely different to the Senior scenario whereby Pauls claiming responsibility to make decisions on XYZ whilst Cheston works on ABC, difference being Michael Anthony Cheston is a registered director of the club and lawfully is allowed to do so, Paul Mackenzie Senior is not.

The first question which may have seemed trivial asked on that audio actually sounds like someone was trying to ask or distinguish this in a roundabout way by listing the directors published on the last accounts and filings with Companies House.

Could you explain the decisions Senior is not legally allowed to make but you're implying he does take? I haven't listened to the full audio so it would be interesting to know the detail of the claims he is making which you say are illegal. The bits I have heard, video clips on here, only talk about decisions on transfers and day to day activity.

I'm aware of the legal responsibilities of a director but those responsibilities don't prevent others from taking decisions provided the board of directors takes responsibility for the actions of the employee.

 

[AllRoverAsia]

The Ewood setup cannot be compared with normal UK operations. I can follow what Dunnfc is saying and mostly agree.

A discussion of the status of PS and MC is pointless as both are mere servants mere pawns.

I could not care less which of them appears as a 'real' Director. Neither has real power. Both are controlled by Pasha who in turn....

[Dunnfc]

4 hours ago, Paul said:

Could you explain the decisions Senior is not legally allowed to make but you're implying he does take? I haven't listened to the full audio so it would be interesting to know the detail of the claims he is making which you say are illegal. The bits I have heard, video clips on here, only talk about decisions on transfers and day to day activity.

I'm aware of the legal responsibilities of a director but those responsibilities don't prevent others from taking decisions provided the board of directors takes responsibility for the actions of the employee.

 

Senior claims Paul and to be fair you might know better than me on this.

He's now responsible for all recruitment, commercial and sponsorship activity etc. Mike just finance and IT and together they make joint decisions.

Well that's not really correct; Senior can manage those and set things up for those but must report in to Mike, BUT the only one able to sign of a player contract or a commercial contract is Mike Cheston. He's the only director and his co signatory under this set up would be the secretary Ian Sylvestor.

So if Senior is going round with Mike claiming all these responsibilities being dived up between them and being on a level par and that there is no single point of responsibility then that is indeed not a correct statement to make.

Remember the Berg fiasco over who had legal status to sign certain things off?

Very much Seperetly the ACV on Ewood is that August 17 or 18 expiry Paul?

[Hasta]

21 hours ago, RV Blue said:

You don't speak to many Rovers fans, do you? Most of the ones that still go to games, rightly or wrongly, have similar opinions to those on the LT boards. They can't all be plants can they?

No 'Most" don't in my opinion.

 

I still attend an many of the people I speak to think the club is an absolute basket case. . 

[Hasta]

23 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Isnt Suhail job delivering the message from the owners to the Rovers board? 

 

 

Honestly, we have no idea what his job is Chaddy.  We can believe what Senior / Cheston tell us but the past 6 years have shown that the club can lie and deny what is then found to be true  (JA approving transfers).

If Suhail's job is cost cutting further and identifying how else money can be clawed back from the assets of Blackburn Rovers, do you think Cheston/Senior would either A ) know this  or B )  tell us. 

What his job entails is another of the plethora of questions that we will never be assured of the answers. For example, if Cheston interviewed the original candidates for the job last summer then went on holiday, who interviewed Coyle? Presuming the answer is Suhail then was his job appointing key footballing personnel at this time? Big calls for a man who is simply delivering the message from the owners to the board.

 

On a side note, are we really expected to believe that Venkys have brought in Pasha to pass messages back and forward? Seriously they are paying this guy a decent salary to pass their message on to Cheston and Senior and then pass messages back to Venkys. You don't think he will have been given any other brief or remit from Venkys or anyone else other than delivering messages? Come on FFS.

[Dunnfc]

Some guy of twitter apparently answering any questions tonight on twitter, got a few myself to ask as you know! - 

 

[Dunnfc]

Good Questions Mr. Slayer have you added him on twitter? I have so happy to ask those questions if needed?

[JHRover]

Having been away for a couple of weeks I finally got round to listening to the Radio Lancashire recording that is online. For starters the recording is 54 minutes long, I was led to believe the session was to be 90 minutes long, so straight away it is clear a sizable chunk of the session was erased from what will be the only official documentation of the meeting for future reference. I'd have preferred a verbatim transcript of all questions and all answers, rather than segments deleted to 'save time'.

Presumably this recording is going to be used as the minutes of the meeting to satisfy the League that the 'open' meeting has taken place in compliance with their new regulations, which in turn were only introduced to keep the government off their backs for a while longer. An audio recording of a meeting which has been trimmed down to 54 minutes in length is not an acceptable way of documenting these important meetings. A full transcript or set of minutes needs to be produced.

I'm not really any more clear about any aspect of the club after listening to an hour of Senior and Cheston talking. Nothing new really. Seniors promise to keep all 4 stands open next season was probably about as interesting as it got.

For starters, that 'statement' from the owners is nothing short of an insult. Is it even a statement from the owners? The headline on the website says it is a statement 'on behalf' of the owners, suggesting someone else has written it on their instructions, yet the statement refers to 'we' as though Mrs Desai and Balaji have typed it up as they've been making dinner. Terms like 'there's no hiding from the fact' and 'take plenty from it' are not things I would expect them to come out with. Either way, its clear that they are producing these statements to comply with the rules, nothing more. Because they can't be bothered turning up to these meetings they have to be seen to be doing something proactive instead to satisfy the League. If these pesky bi-annual sessions hadn't been enshrined in new legislation we wouldn't be getting anything.

I actually felt a tinge of sympathy for Cheston. He's been made into the fall guy by the owners. He came here as a financial director and then found himself as the last man standing and being expected to run the whole club. He's having to handle the pressure of these sessions because his cowardly bosses don't have the balls to turn up and be held accountable for their actions and don't want their inner circle to be exposed to the fans fury. I believe that Cheston is probably a decent bloke who has found himself in a rotten situation at this club that he probably didn't expect when he came. In terms of the Coyle appointment it appears he was undermined from somewhere and the deal was done when his back was turned, but he should have never had any say in the managerial selection process to begin with. It seems they've finally realised he should stick to finances and have pushed him sideways with Senior's arrival. He'd probably be best getting out of this asap and finding a Finance job at another football club.

Senior did what he was brought in to do, handle the fans so Pasha doesn't have to. The verdict is still out on him. He says all the right things, he's got the speeches and dress code down to perfection and to be fair in his 3 months has removed Coyle, brought in Mowbray and sorted out the season ticket situation so he's done okay so far. The big test will be the summer though. It seems to me that someone in India suddenly reached January and realised the predicament we found ourselves in and realised something needed to change. Hence Senior's out of the blue appearance, period of 'assessment' and then removal of Coyle. What were they doing between August and January though? Just sitting back and doing nothing?

A few little snippets of info about the mysterious Suhail emerged. Both Cheston and Senior are obviously under strict instructions to keep info about him to the bare minimum. We've now had it confirmed that he takes a wage from the club as a 'management consultant' 

What was Rob Coar there for? Did he speak a single word? He admitted at the last meeting that he has no involvement in the running of the club so what was the logic behind putting him on the top table? Just filling a space to comply with the rules?

Mowbray was excellent. It was very good listening to his 20 minute speech at the end as he spoke with real passion and excitement about football. 

I am pleased that we seem to be following the model of many other football clubs in the country and are putting season tickets on sale at a much earlier stage than in previous years. Baby steps but in the right direction at least. I've never understood the merit in leaving it until May or June to sell them rather than several months earlier.

[Paul]

21 hours ago, Dunnfc said:

Senior claims Paul and to be fair you might know better than me on this.

He's now responsible for all recruitment, commercial and sponsorship activity etc. Mike just finance and IT and together they make joint decisions.

Well that's not really correct; Senior can manage those and set things up for those but must report in to Mike, BUT the only one able to sign of a player contract or a commercial contract is Mike Cheston. He's the only director and his co signatory under this set up would be the secretary Ian Sylvestor.

So if Senior is going round with Mike claiming all these responsibilities being dived up between them and being on a level par and that there is no single point of responsibility then that is indeed not a correct statement to make.

Remember the Berg fiasco over who had legal status to sign certain things off?

Very much Seperetly the ACV on Ewood is that August 17 or 18 expiry Paul?

I don't feel those responsibilities require one to be a company director. In my working life at different times I've been responsible for recruitment, IT, finance and commercial activity, albeit in much smaller companies. Yes I've reported on these to a director but I made the decisions. I feel you may have misunderstood the role and/or reponsibilities of a company director.

Regarding the ACV expiry date. As I recall an ACV runs for five years and, I presume, should be renewed prior to the end of this period. I've previously tried to find information on the renewal process but haven't been able to do so. All I've done is a web search - there are local officials who would be able to advise. I've checked the dates and while I thought the expiry date is August 2018 - I well remember receiving the BwD CC letter in August - the BwD website shows the date of decision as September 30th 2013. So the answer to your question is September 2018.

Although I wrote the application it is Rovers Trust which is the Nominating Community Interest Group and I imagine will be the party who must make any renewal. Dan Grabko and I checked in recent months that the Trust have all relevant documents.

Obtaining the ACV involved about 6 months work. I cannot over emphasise the importance of a correctly written document with accurate use of language, I constantly read and re-read my submission. Tracing and validating the relevant details is time consuming. Once completed it was checked by Supporters Direct. While it's four years since I last looked at this I think I could pick it up quite easily. If help was required I'd be happy to do this.

 

 

 

 

[JBiz]

9 hours ago, JHRover said:

I actually felt a tinge of sympathy for Cheston. 

Mowbray was excellent. It was very good listening to his 20 minute speech at the end as he spoke with real passion and excitement about football. 

 

Often known as "the best poster" and the full version was a good example of this, the campaigns at anything other than Venkys - or Pasha/Senior/Cheston are just not going to do anything but split supporters- these guys are merely fall guys for absentee owners. I'm also tempted to ask why you didn't receive the obligatory "would they have to @#/? in your shoe" retort!!

The TM interviews are the only thing keeping a flicker of hope alive for me at current. Even after the Brighton game, always passionate, honest and I think the club deserves a smidgeon of credit for getting him in, whilst not forgetting all the other abject errors, such as the past 6 years, and more recently hiring then sticking with Owen "I couldn't give a @#/?" Coyle.

[den]

EFL article....  "we are in an infinitely better place?  

Really?

 

So, is football's fit and proper persons test for club owners and directors doing its job?

Harvey said: "It is purely an objective test. It tests against a set of conditions that ask if you are an appropriate person to own, be a director or be a relevant person at a club. That is as far as it goes. It offers no view on skill or ability. It offers no view on judgement.

"There is always something to be reviewed and we have a responsibility to ensure people are running clubs in their best long term interests. 

"But it is very difficult, unless you get into areas of subjectivity, to start engaging on how someone is going to perform.

"We also have to be careful that we don't categorise people as good owners or bad owners because fans' views move, usually because of success on the pitch or ticket prices."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39472727

 

[tomphil]

There's been no change in fans views in 7 years and no success on the pitch just a complete downward spiral punctuated by a couple of seasons at best of treading water.

Therefore Venkys absolutely 100% can be categorized as bad/awful/disastrous owners who need grabbing by the balls and shaking by the authorities or telling in no uncertain terms to take their debt and clear off asap for the betterment nah survival of the club.

Then again the FA are now making percentages as well from lending the club money so they'll never jeopardise their earner.

[JHRover]

FA and Football League bandwagon rolls on. The lot of them make me absolutely sick to the pit of my stomach.

Interesting that they're only now taking an interest in the David Moyes storm once the media boys have grasped the story and are applying pressure. All they are interested in doing is satisfying their sponsors and the government that they are taking issues seriously and are acting appropriately.

Talk of 'rebranding' 125 years+ of Football League history into the 'EFL' paints a picture of their horrendous management of our national game. 

These people are paid absolute fortunes to sit in offices all day long dreaming up initiatives to prove to the media/government that they are acting when really they aren't. The money keeps on flowing in through sponsorship. Hooray they've struck a deal with a Thai Energy drink maker for the League Cup. £££s all around. 

Nothing we can do about Venkys/SISU/Duchatelet. Not our fault, not our problem, nothing we can do about it. Let those clubs go down the drain. Meanwhile what politically correct issues do the government want us to tackle this year? 

[Stuart]

There are 68 teams in the two tiers below League 2. There are a further 72 teams in the tier below that. Plus another couple of hundred in the three pyramids below that.

As long as there is so much demand to replace teams that the EFL lose then nothing will change. Evolution, survival of the fittest, the FA and EFL have no problem with a new owner taking a PL team and turning it into a non-league team. It's "subjective". What an easy excuse. How is it subjective? You could ask every fan from the 92 league clubs to name the top 10 worst run clubs and Rovers would feature in every list.

Instead, they have objective measures which they use to implement FFP and take action when owners have really messed up and put the club into administration. The outcome of those objective measures? TO PUNISH THE CLUB. If you punish the club (who already have terrible owners) with massive fines or points deductions or transfer embargoes then all you are doing is punishing the fans. The owners are untouchable and unaffected. And all this after the authorities meting out these punishments have sat back and watched as the owners have destroyed the club first. It's completely immoral.

Fit and proper is dead, we need Bundesliga-style ownership rules which prevent future Venkys.

[MCMC1875]

On 3/30/2017 at 11:34 PM, MCMC1875 said:

I couldn't make it due to work commitments. From word of mouth reports:

Tony Mowbray: top bloke

Give away statement from TM: " we'll see what loans we can get" ie NO CASH AVAILABLE!!!

Staged managed and pre-scripted event as expected although I hear the fans got their points across, even if they weren't reported.

#RadioLancsOut 

As they say in advertising speak: "Other audio recordings are available".

I ask these questions of BBC Radio Lancashire, a publicly funded body and Blackburn Rovers FC:

1) Why did the BBC take part using Andy Bayes in stage managing the meeting with Blackburn Rovers FC to the point where its arguable that the objectives weren't met?

2) Why was the time limited to an unsatisfactory 90 minutes?

3) Why was the meeting padded out with presentations?

4) Why where supporters pre-submitted questions grouped?

5) Why were the audio 'minutes' edited?

6) Why are there no written minutes?

7) Why has Mike Cheston not given answers to questions that he undertook to answer post meeting?

 

[Mike E]

Extended q4:

Why were supporters' pre-submitted questions grouped in such a manner that intricate specifics were lost in order to dilute club accountability?

[den]

20 minutes ago, MCMC1875 said:

I ask these questions of BBC Radio Lancashire, a publicly funded body and Blackburn Rovers FC:

1) Why did the BBC take part using Andy Bayes in stage managing the meeting with Blackburn Rovers FC to the point where its arguable the objectives weren't met?

2) Why was the time limited to an unsatisfactory 90 minutes?

3) Why was the meeting padded out with presentations?

4) Why where supporters pre-submitted questions grouped?

5) Why were the audio 'minutes' edited?

6) Why are there no written minutes?

7) Why has Cheston not given answers to questions that he undertook to answer post meeting?

 

MCMC..... I'm not quite sure who you asked, or when you've asked these questions. 

[MCMC1875]

Just now, den said:

MCMC..... I'm not quite sure who you asked, or when you've asked these questions. 

den, I've made an open post to get the questions out there and keep the subject fresh before too much time passes.

[den]

Just now, MCMC1875 said:

den, I've made an open post to get the questions out there and keep the subject fresh before too much time passes.

OK, you know we're all on your side with trying to get honest answers from the club. They won't play ball though and continually refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever.

not sure who's going to reply to you though.

[AllRoverAsia]

Perhaps the questions should be emailed to Paul Senior as he's DoF and Operations.

A test for him... I've a feeling he would respond.

[JHRover]

What happened in the 35 minutes+ of the meeting that isn't covered by the BBC recording?

The meeting was supposed to be 90 minutes long and the recording only lasts for about 55 minutes.

What was the purpose in having Robert Coar on the panel when he seemingly contributed nothing and has admitted himself that he has no involvement in the day to day running of the club?

[DE.]

Just now, JHRover said:

What was the purpose in having Robert Coar on the panel when he seemingly contributed nothing and has admitted himself that he has no involvement in the day to day running of the club?

Careful JH, ask too many questions about Coar and he'll 'see you in court'. 

[MCMC1875]

7 minutes ago, den said:

OK, you know we're all on your side with trying to get honest answers from the club. They won't play ball though and continually refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever.

not sure who's going to reply to you though.

I'm hoping that someone with closer links to BBC Lancs and BRFC than me will pick this up.