[Archived] The Trust's Agenda Version 2

[ABBEY]

Please feel free to post it again but tone down the caps please.

Content below for you to copy.

ok enough is enough...what is the agenda behind the scenes ?
is it all about power and not about rovers?
is it about who has the biggest ego?
can we have an official statement on why glen's public offer has ben declined and why no comment on yesterdays article?
does it really want venkys to go?

its pathetic that after fans are coming together that certain people are not men enough to grow a pair of nads and get help in fighting the evil within our club....mg will be reporting all this and the owners will be cocking themselves at the patheticness .



simple question..what makes the trust think they have the guts ,balls or nounce to get this done on ther own ....and what have they done thus far ?

[den]

You'll only make things worse Abbey.

[ABBEY]

Why ? Questions need answering for the good of the survival of rovers . Not trying to make things worse trying the opposite.

I've asked in new thread to keep the other from clutter

[Rover_Shaun]

I thought questions were frowned upon?

[Stuart]

We need to slow down a little, pause for thought. 24 hours maybe.

Glen has presumably posted what he has in public because he feels he was being ignored in private. This has then been firmed up as a "thanks but no thanks" or a perhaps a "thanks but not yet".

I'm only postulating here but if somebody involved has agreed to join a new unified group but "only if Glen is not involved" then things may be very delicately balanced.

However, the implications of this decision need to be considered - and pretty quickly.

The benefits of ignoring Glen's offer to help need to be demonstrated - through actions - pretty quickly. Glen has stuck his neck out big time (on more than one occasion) and at the minute it *looks* like some feudal issues could be arising. Perception is reality guys.

Do not create a martyr out of Glen - and I mean that with the utmost respect. You might end up with a few very angry folk swimming across a dock - which could undermine the greater, shared, goal.

[ABBEY]

So no answer from the trust

One more question following on from yoda's point ...

Will the trust ( when the time comes ) be happy for new owners and them not being a part of things ?

[yoda]

So no answer from the trust

One more question following on from yoda's point ...

Will the trust ( when the time comes ) be happy for new owners and them not being a part of things ?

Are you referring to this ABBEY

"You could be right but the Trust has a different goal to the other groups (or is it the head that has a different goal)

The trust wants a stake in the club for supporter representation, while it would seem the majority of supporters want the Venky's gone (including GM)

Conflict of interests at play ?"

[ABBEY]

So the real question is who and why have decided to go it alone .

Does anyone have the balls to speak the truth for the sake of this fake unity .?

[mhead]

Maybe ABBEY the Trust is right.

Consider that we need a combination of 'Official' action and 'guerilla' action.

Personally, I see 'guerilla' action as that which will work.....then the Trust needs to pick up the pieces and create a 'phoenix' Club.

Lets not see testosterone get in the way of the end-game.

[ABBEY]

So not the unity ? Test tone ? Not at all just trying to get head round the farce

[Boz]

Might I piggy back on this thread to ask a few questions of the trust, RoversTrust that is, in the spirit of seeking clarification on a few points and understanding who is who, what is what?

After briefly looking on the website www.roverstrust.com and a little research.

Is it a Community Benefit Society registered with the FCA under the Co-operative & Community Benefits Society Act 2014? If so what is it's number?

The website seems to refer to BRSIT Limited, company number 8046293, this company is currently owned equally by Wayne Wild, Daniel Grabko & Neil Thornton, the latter being the company secretary and the former both directors. I note that the directors applied six weeks ago for this company to be dissolved, with currently dissolution pending a First Notice in the Gazette. The most recent accounts available (year end 30.6.15) are indicating negative shareholders funds.

Back to Rovers Trust, hopefully clarification on the legal entity please.

I thought that I was a member or a trustee or whatever, as I seem to recall a few years ago sending them £10 (?) and I receive occasional emails, but I have not sent them any funds since. When are your AGMs called? Again from referring to the website, the last AGM seems to have been in 2013, is this so and when might the next AGM be?

Is there a Memorandum & Articles of Association or trust document for Rovers Trust? If so might this be shared on it's website?

Rovers Trust acquired some shares in The Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Limited, is this correct and are the shares held in the entity, Rovers Trust?

These shares which I assume are held in trust confer some rights, one of which is to receive a copy of the company's accounts and attendance at the AGM. I have noted on the website a report of the meeting and a synopsis of the year end accounts. Might the full accounts be shared on the website to enable these to be viewed?

My apologies if all of this information is indeed on the www.roverstrust.com website, I had a brief look at lunchtime but could not find the above.

Thanks in advance.

[J*B]

Might I piggy back on this thread to ask a few questions of the trust, RoversTrust that is, in the spirit of seeking clarification on a few points and understanding who is who, what is what?

After briefly looking on the website www.roverstrust.com and a little research.

Is it a Community Benefit Society registered with the FCA under the Co-operative & Community Benefits Society Act 2014? If so what is it's number?

The website seems to refer to BRSIT Limited, company number 8046293, this company is currently owned equally by Wayne Wild, Daniel Grabko & Neil Thornton, the latter being the company secretary and the former both directors. I note that the directors applied six weeks ago for this company to be dissolved, with currently dissolution pending a First Notice in the Gazette. The most recent accounts available (year end 30.6.15) are indicating negative shareholders funds.

Back to Rovers Trust, hopefully clarification on the legal entity please.

I thought that I was a member or a trustee or whatever, as I seem to recall a few years ago sending them £10 (?) and I receive occasional emails, but I have not sent them any funds since. When are your AGMs called? Again from referring to the website, the last AGM seems to have been in 2013, is this so and when might the next AGM be?

Is there a Memorandum & Articles of Association or trust document for Rovers Trust? If so might this be shared on it's website?

Rovers Trust acquired some shares in The Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Limited, is this correct and are the shares held in the entity, Rovers Trust?

These shares which I assume are held in trust confer some rights, one of which is to receive a copy of the company's accounts and attendance at the AGM. I have noted on the website a report of the meeting and a synopsis of the year end accounts. Might the full accounts be shared on the website to enable these to be viewed?

My apologies if all of this information is indeed on the www.roverstrust.com website, I had a brief look at lunchtime but could not find the above.

Thanks in advance.

..?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

First to ABBEY's question:

Rovers Trust is the sum of its members, it is not the democratically elected Board. The Rovers Trust mission is stated clearly on its website - to bring Blackburn Rovers into community ownership either partially or wholly. That has been the goal from day one, and with community ownership that means proper community ownership as in through a legal entity that by design cannot suck assets out of itself for the benefit of a few owners, but must by law reinvest any earnings back into the community benefit society, which would in this case be its share of ownership of Blackburn Rovers.

So the short answer is, no, Rovers Trust would not be happy with a new owner coming and excluding the Supporters Direct-backed official supporters trust of the club from a significant enough ownership share that would ensure long term community ownership of the club. If Rovers Trust were to take any other stance, it would in fact be going against its own mandate for existing.

Rovers Trust has never been about egos or any one or small group of people trying to become Directors at Blackburn Rovers Football Club. It has always been about protecting the club's long term future now and for future generations of supporters, both locally and on a worldwide stage, as the club is fortunate enough to have a significant international supporter base.

Might I piggy back on this thread to ask a few questions of the trust, RoversTrust that is, in the spirit of seeking clarification on a few points and understanding who is who, what is what?

After briefly looking on the website www.roverstrust.com and a little research.

Is it a Community Benefit Society registered with the FCA under the Co-operative & Community Benefits Society Act 2014? If so what is it's number?

The website seems to refer to BRSIT Limited, company number 8046293, this company is currently owned equally by Wayne Wild, Daniel Grabko & Neil Thornton, the latter being the company secretary and the former both directors. I note that the directors applied six weeks ago for this company to be dissolved, with currently dissolution pending a First Notice in the Gazette. The most recent accounts available (year end 30.6.15) are indicating negative shareholders funds.

Back to Rovers Trust, hopefully clarification on the legal entity please.

I thought that I was a member or a trustee or whatever, as I seem to recall a few years ago sending them £10 (?) and I receive occasional emails, but I have not sent them any funds since. When are your AGMs called? Again from referring to the website, the last AGM seems to have been in 2013, is this so and when might the next AGM be?

Is there a Memorandum & Articles of Association or trust document for Rovers Trust? If so might this be shared on it's website?

Rovers Trust acquired some shares in The Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Limited, is this correct and are the shares held in the entity, Rovers Trust?

These shares which I assume are held in trust confer some rights, one of which is to receive a copy of the company's accounts and attendance at the AGM. I have noted on the website a report of the meeting and a synopsis of the year end accounts. Might the full accounts be shared on the website to enable these to be viewed?

My apologies if all of this information is indeed on the www.roverstrust.com website, I had a brief look at lunchtime but could not find the above.

Thanks in advance.

Boz, I like this. I'll try to be as clear and pedagogic as possible, for all those who think all this corporate admin stuff is ridiculously boring.

Rovers Trust has been a small group of legal entities up to this date, all of which were created around 2012 in order to cover any eventualities that might come up during the process of trying to get a proper supporters trust up and running.

If you'll recall the BRSIT Ltd days (The Investment Trust organisation founded, as you have pointed out, by Wayne, Neil, and myself, a limited company registered in England and Wales with number 8046293), when there was BRSS (Blackburn Rovers Supporters Society, an Industrial & Provident Society, registered with the FCA society number 31553R) that was having a lot of trouble gaining any sort of momentum, but existed with the help of Supporters Direct (Founded by Ozz Jones, now Vice Chairman of Rovers Trust) and in order to unify the two groups it was agreed to merge them, creating the new BRSIT CBS Limited (A then new form of IPS, a Community Benefit Society, registered with the FCA society number 31716R). It is this entity which has been the primary legal entity under which the supporters trust operates, trading as Rovers Trust. There are/were also several other legal entities created at the same time to cover any possible scenarios, and take advantage of any tax planning scenarios in order to keep as much of our members' money in the bank account. This included the following entities:

• BRSIT Community Football League CASC Ltd (Community Interest Company Limited by Guarantee - company number 08257246)
• BRSIT Community Endowment Ltd (Community Interest Company Limited by Guarantee - company number 08548344)
• BRSIT Ltd (Private Company limited by Shares - company number 08046293)

The community endowment was created in order to be the entity used for granting Grass Roots Football Grants to local youth amateur football clubs. The CASC entity was created in the case a small charity entity was ever going to be pursued as an avenue for allowing a tax write off on donations to the organisation, to encourage and promote donations with further ideas tied to this that could be taken advantage of such as donating pre-tax from a wage or salary, for example. These two companies have been dormant their entire existence.

BRSIT Ltd was the entity that had banking facilities already up and running, so it had membership fees, donations, and sales of Rovers Trust merchandise all running through it. We also registered it for VAT in order to reclaim the VAT on our expenses. As turnover was almost exclusively on membership fees and donations, these are VAT exempt of course, so that coupled with reclaiming VAT on expenses was a good idea. This is also the reason BRSIT Ltd has a negative shareholders funds balance. It duly forwarded all the membership fees and donations along to BRSIT CBS Limited, and thus carried all expenses but had no revenue recorded, just payables to the Community Benefit Society.

It was decided to clean this whole structure up as of January 2016, as in consultation with Rovers Trust's accountants, McMillan & Co LPP out of Chorley, it was decided that the disadvantages of having to administrate 4-5 different entities, and everything that goes along with that, outweighed any benefits, most of which could be utilised in any case using just the CBS entity. So the above three entities are currently all under dissolution. Wayne and Neil and I also wanted to get rid of these entities because we didn't want anyone to think we had ulterior motives, which we don't, and of course it doesn't look good with the three of us as owners of a majority of the entities that Rovers trust was trading under. I'd personally been an advocate of getting rid of them since 2013.

As to your membership, if you joined in 2013 and have not paid your membership dues annually since then, your membership will have lapsed. If you want to PM me your information I can take a look and update you on your current status. In any case you will have been kept on as a subscriber to our larger email list, as all former members have been, but you probably don't receive our current members emails.

We usually have our AGM's after our accounts are ready, which will be late Winter, early Spring - much on the same schedule as Blackburn Rovers themselves. We have had them 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. I personally attended the 2013 AGM, but have not been able to make the flight over for the subsequent 3, unfortunately. Attendance from membership has been low.

As a Community Benefit Society we of course have our society rules which are available for all members upon request. If you are a current member, just get in touch and we'll see to it you get a digital copy.

Rovers Trust does own 10 shares in Blackburn Rovers Athletic & Football Ltd, which were graciously donated to the Trust by Stephen Halstead and his family. These shares are indeed held by BRSIT CBS Limited, which means that if you are a current member, they are owned by you as well. The current BRFC accounts given to shareholders are not up on our website, but if any member wants a copy, just get in touch - to be honest though, there isn't anything there you won't see in the accounts you get at Companies House directly.

I hope I was able to answer all of your questions. I am no longer on here as much as I used to be (as I'm sure all can see with a quick look at my profile) - in fact it was Ozz who alerted me to this thread and asked that I come on and address these questions. But my contact info isn't a secret, so feel free to get in touch, anyone, if there are follow-ups you want addressed here on this thread.

PS - Full disclosure - I am going to have the Rovers Trust website update to properly refer to BRSIT CBS Limited

[47er]

There are 2 aims aren't there? To get rid of Venkys and to replace them with at least some degree of community community ownership.

I support both but I strongly feel we need Glen's direct input to help get us there.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Yes 47er, that is correct. As of a couple of weeks ago, Rovers Trust have received the mandate from its members to actively pursue removing Venkys from ownership in addition to trying gain an at least partial ownership of the club.

To be clear, these two are not mutually exclusive (realise you know that, 47er).

[ABBEY]

That bit where it's said ownership or part ownership .,..well it's clear the chicken dippers don't want (part) that even if they are already part owners do... But to me there's someone else after something else .

So to confirm the trust won't be happy even if a jack walker came along and rescued us and left the trust out ?

What's the REAL reason you are not wanting Glen ? I could take a wild guess ? But I won't

[AggyBlue]

So to confirm the trust won't be happy even if a jack walker came along and rescued us and left the trust out ?

That's how I read it.

[AllRoverAsia]

I for one would be most happy if we were a 100% supporter owned Club be that an Uncle Jack approach or a Supporters Trust

[Neal]

Personally I couldn't care less who does't get along with who. Putting ego and arguments aside, why wouldn't people support being a member of the Trust?

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

That bit where it's said ownership or part ownership .,..well it's clear the chicken dippers don't want (part) that even if they are already part owners do... But to me there's someone else after something else .

So to confirm the trust won't be happy even if a jack walker came along and rescued us and left the trust out ?

What's the REAL reason you are not wanting Glen ? I could take a wild guess ? But I won't

You are of course free to believe anything you like. Rovers Trust has always maintained, from the very beginning, publicly and directly, that if it were to become a significant part of the ownership structure of the club, it would seek out the best professionals within the football business industry to fulfil management positions, that including the club's Board of Directors. I think we are all in agreement that this does not include anyone currently on the Rovers Trust Board of Directors, nor has it ever been the ambition of the Rovers Trust Board of Directors. I do seem to recall us answering this question directly when it was brought up here several times in the Rovers Trust thread, and it hasn't changed, ever. There isn't someone else after something else as you cleverly put it.

To confirm, you are absolutely correct that Rovers Trust would not be happy and not endorse another "Jack Walker" coming along and "rescuing" us, while leaving Rovers Trust out of the ownership structure. The idea is that supporter community ownership is the VERY BEST ownership structure a football club can have. It means the club is not only owned in spirit by the town and community of supporters it represents, but also in fact. If there was a white knight that came in and refused to include the official supporters trust of the club, backed by government and Supporter's Direct, then you would just have to question how white that knight actually was, wouldn't you? I daresay that Jack would have embraced the concept had he come along in the current climate rather than when he did over 25 years ago.

Rovers trust realises that now, with only a 0,00000000001% holding in the club, its membership will be limited to those who are active and passionate about the cause it is fighting for. However, it would be expected that if it were successful in accomplishing its mission of obtaining a significant share of the the club, that many, many more supporters would become members in order to have a meaningful say in the way the club was being run. I daresay if RT were to obtain say, a 51% stake in the club, that you yourself would like to be a part of that, would you not? The more members there are, the more the Supporters Trust can represent all passionate supporters of the club. And since it is required to maintain a democratic leadership, members will have a tangible influence on who represents them as owners of the club.

At the moment the current Board has been elected uncontested for 4 years running. The idea is that with a significant ownership stake in the club, there will be a larger, much more engaged membership base, and this will not be the case. It would be refreshing if this were already the case, but alas it is not, and with not much happening on the ownership front for 5 years despite our continuous efforts, it is understandable that membership numbers do not climb to the several thousand, and those who are members are not as engaged as we the Board might like.

To quickly address Glen. I'd like to reiterate that there should not be a confusion between his involvement with Rovers Trust, and his involvement in the WAR campaign. This is what happened at Rovers Trust:

After Simon Barnes resignation as Secretary effective 2014-12-31, the Board appointed Glen as Secretary effective 2015-02-17. On 2016-04-26, the Board requested he step down as Secretary as another Board member was keen on that position, and the Board saw Glen as Secretary as a waste of his drive and his talents in any case. The Board thought it would be a win-win situation for all, and asked him to step down and remain in a co-opted role on the Board, of which he could create the title and duties for (within the realm of the Trust's mandate of course). After careful consideration, Glen decided reluctantly to resign his position as Secretary and at the same time not to take up the Board's offer of a self-made position.

Rovers Trust did not hear from Glen again until 2016-09-01, the morning of the Open Meeting. He wrote to me saying he would like to take up the Board's offer of a role within the Trust, and would like an answer before the evening's open supporters' meeting. I replied very quickly that I would forward his email on to the Board. As you may understand, the Board had other matters to focus on in getting ready for the meeting, and liaising with the other supporters groups, etc. as well as what to do in response to the results of that meeting afterwards. It did indeed take the Board 5 days to get back to Glen, at which time I informed him of our decision to cordially decline his request to rejoin the Board.

In the email I also outlined my personal feelings about my disappointment with how I perceived he was going about his grievances with the situation in such a public manner, calling out individuals he is having issues with, and blaming everyone else for not including him in the new WAR initiative. I made it clear that these were my own personal misgivings and did not necessarily reflect the views of Rovers Trust.

The rest of this post is my own personal thoughts, views and opinions, I would like to make that clear.

Glen and I then had a constructive telephone conversation the same day, and discussed all the issues at length. About an hour or so conversation. We didn't come to agreement, but I think and hope we respected each others views. If I am honest, I think the core separation here is that Glen's idea of what he envisioned a unification of supporters to be did not match up exactly with what the existing supporters groups and communities vision. Glen's is more idealistic, the supporters groups' more pragmatic, as a simplistic description of the situation. Glen's true strength lies in willing to put himself out there and take risks. He is charismatic, and has the ability to get people to believe in what he is doing, while at the same time not caring whose toes he steps on in his singular focus on achieving what he has set out to achieve. I give him full credit for these traits, and feel they can be nothing but beneficial. He can be places and say & do things that an official and professional organisation like Rovers Trust cannot afford to. He works best in that environment, and that is also a key and necessary element to what we all as a supporter base are trying to achieve.

The sole real reason I see that Glen isn't involved in WAR as part if its "collaborative table" or whatever it actually is, or should be called, is because he isn't one of the representatives any of the supporters groups or communities have put forward. He is flying solo at the moment, and he is doing a right good job of it too! I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself, but if I had my way, WAR would be promoting and supporting anything he does that furthers and is in line with its own efforts. It would be an own goal not to. Glen telling WAR what he is planning well ahead of time, WAR also sharing info in advance and commenting and helping to coordinate those actions so they compliment their own plans, etc, so they don't ruin each other's efforts and start playing the blame game all over again...that's what we don't need right now. That said, this should be the case for everyone out there who is doing positive things, like the venkysout.com guy for example.

The whole idea of WAR is collaboration, so I think this should be a no brainer. WAR is not meant to be yet another group acting as an additional layer of bureaucracy under which other supporters and groups need to go through to get something done. That would also be counter-productive. The idea is to encourage action, not surpress it, but at the same time come off as professional and organised as possible, send a consistent message, etc.

It isn't the simplest balance to maintain, especially as we see here on this forum with so many differing views on how to go forward. It is a challenge, plain and simple.

[Kamy100]

Yes 47er, that is correct. As of a couple of weeks ago, Rovers Trust have received the mandate from its members to actively pursue removing Venkys from ownership in addition to trying gain an at least partial ownership of the club.

To be clear, these two are not mutually exclusive (realise you know that, 47er).

Please can I ask if the Trust has the funds in place should Venky's decide to exit? For example if they sell and want say £15 million for the club does the Trust have funds in place to be able to achieve that? Or even funds for a partial ownership (say £3 million)?

[J*B]

Please can I ask if the Trust has the funds in place should Venky's decide to exit? For example if they sell and want say £15 million for the club does the Trust have funds in place to be able to achieve that? Or even funds for a partial ownership (say £3 million)?

No, next question. I doubt they have 50k.

[ABBEY]

im not being a tit or causing trouble before anyone says i am but I still cant get my head around that if a "knight in shining armour " came and didnt offer the trust a place then the trust wouldnt be happy.
Would the Trust be happy if the V's said here you go one of the trust could be on the board?

sorry to keep going on about Glen it seems its down to A.Nother and noone else really that his offer has been rejected.WHY does he or any other person HAVE to be a member of anything...?

FFS WHATEVER THE REASONS FOR NOT HAVING A TOGETHERNESS SURELY HAS GROWN MEN IT CAN BE ADDRESSED OVER A PINT OF THWAITES ,CHRIST EVEN I SHOOK HANDS WITH STEB AND HAD A CHAT AND I RESPECT THE FACT WE COULD . ITS PATHETIC WE CANT COME TOGETHER BUT I CANT HELP FEELING THE TRUST WANT SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT AS WHAT US FANS ACTUALLY WANT ,ITS LIKE THERES POLITICS AND A SECRETIVE UNDERTONE.(IM NOT SAYING THERE IS ITS JUST HOW I VIEW IT COMING ACROSS)

LETS RID THE CLUB OF THE SCUM #VENKYSOUT

[cmb211087]

I have to say, seeing the trust openly admit that they would not like another Jack Walker to own Rovers unless they could be a part of it has completely knocked me for six. So if the Blackburn born Issa brother's sold Euro Garages for billions and decided to invest it all in Rovers, the Trust would be upset about it? Wow

[den]

Jeez, it's not hard to understand. The trust believes that supporters should should have some involvement in the running of a football club.

What is there to get uptight about?