[Archived] The Trust's Agenda Version 2

[McClarky]

Unfortunately there are far more Venkys around than Jack Walkers and on that basis I support the trust in saying that some element if fan ownership and representation is vital for the future of the club.

[Baz]

Baz - Rovers Trust has roughly 12k in the bank at the moment. Absolutely that is a possible scenario. They are the members' funds after all!

Neal, 47er and darren - These are exactly my personal views as well.

Mercerman and Aggy - I see exactly where your coming from, but I hope you can see my point as well. I am talking about the long game here. What happens when those benevolent owners pass on or sell at some point? Supporters-based community ownership in perpetuity is how I personally see the way forward to safeguarding of this club for another 135 years. We've all seen how quickly the first 135 years has been nearly wiped from the face of the Earth in 6 years time at this point, right? Also thoroughly agree with a shrewd and efficient management team, don't think anyone can argue with that!

Glen - Yes, if you boil it down to the quintessential essence, I guess, of what Rovers Trust would hope to happen if the WAR campaign succeeded. Is there a subtle point you are trying to make with the question? WAR is about coming together to save the club from Venky's terrible ownership. I've already stated my personal views on this a couple of times in the last few days.

John - I understand and respect that viewpoint. I understand that quite a lot of supporters don't want to deal with any of this at all and just want to go out on a Saturday and enjoy themselves and support the team on the pitch. It is only when they are presented with a real threat that their club could cease to exist that they feel the need to get involved. It is just my personal view that in order ensure that you and others like you can do that, supporter-based community ownership should be an integral element of the club structure.

I think its worthwhile those leading the trust having a conversation about using a significant amount of the 12k to help fund the WAR campaign. Understand that some would be good to keep in reserve.

I think it would be a great way to help fund adverts in India.

Can I ask that the leaders of the trust have said conversation, and if they agree, to ballot the members - if a large % agree then (say 75%) then I think thats a decent mandate to proceed.

[glen9mullan]

Baz - Rovers Trust has roughly 12k in the bank at the moment. Absolutely that is a possible scenario. They are the members' funds after all!

Neal, 47er and darren - These are exactly my personal views as well.

Mercerman and Aggy - I see exactly where your coming from, but I hope you can see my point as well. I am talking about the long game here. What happens when those benevolent owners pass on or sell at some point? Supporters-based community ownership in perpetuity is how I personally see the way forward to safeguarding of this club for another 135 years. We've all seen how quickly the first 135 years has been nearly wiped from the face of the Earth in 6 years time at this point, right? Also thoroughly agree with a shrewd and efficient management team, don't think anyone can argue with that!

Glen - Yes, if you boil it down to the quintessential essence, I guess, of what Rovers Trust would hope to happen if the WAR campaign succeeded. Is there a subtle point you are trying to make with the question? WAR is about coming together to save the club from Venky's terrible ownership. I've already stated my personal views on this a couple of times in the last few days.

John - I understand and respect that viewpoint. I understand that quite a lot of supporters don't want to deal with any of this at all and just want to go out on a Saturday and enjoy themselves and support the team on the pitch. It is only when they are presented with a real threat that their club could cease to exist that they feel the need to get involved. It is just my personal view that in order ensure that you and others like you can do that, supporter-based community ownership should be an integral element of the club structure.

If the core aim of the trust board has not worked for the last four years i.e no communication with India , no acknowledgement the Rovers Trust exist , so in essence zero progress, is it not time to change the board and actually have one that can put meaningful time into it?

In 13 months as secretary I couldnt get the group to meet once, whilst the last AGM only one person attended.

The Trust changed their stance a couple of weeks ago , in terms of now saying they want Venkys to sell

However despite the mandate change, wouldnt you agree under the current stewardship the trust has progressed no further in the last 5 years.

Any movement is about who is driving it, obviously you are over in Sweden and deal more with the finance element, so principly its difficult for you to drive.

However getting people behind a brand is one thing, but if its a rudderless ship its actually run more poorly than the club itself.

For example , my trust subscription has once again failed to come out of my account, whilst I do not recall being balloted at all?

I really think a full internal reality check is needed here.

One thing I would add, During my days at the BRFCAG , They met weekly and continue to do so , of the two organisations their structure and hands on approach is light years ahead of the Trust. Given I have held prominent roles in both, i'd say i'm as good as positioned as anyone to make that observation

[Neal]

If the core aim of the trust board has not worked for the last four years i.e no communication with India , no acknowledgement the Rovers Trust exist , so in essence zero progress, is it not time to change the board and actually have one that can put meaningful time into it?

In 13 months as secretary I couldnt get the group to meet once, whilst the last AGM only one person attended.

The Trust changed their stance a couple of weeks ago , in terms of now saying they want Venkys to sell

However despite the mandate change, wouldnt you agree under the current stewardship the trust has progressed no further in the last 5 years.

Any movement is about who is driving it, obviously you are over in Sweden and deal more with the finance element, so principly its difficult for you to drive.

However getting people behind a brand is one thing, but if its a rudderless ship its actually run more poorly than the club itself.

For example , my trust subscription has once again failed to come out of my account, whilst I do not recall being balloted at all?

I really think a full internal reality check is needed here.

One thing I would add, During my days at the BRFCAG , They met weekly and continue to do so , of the two organisations their structure and hands on approach is light years ahead of the Trust. Given I have held prominent roles in both, i'd say i'm as good as positioned as anyone to make that observation

Agreed Glen, I'm a trust member and I would like to see my membership is worth something by seeing the trust as an active organisation, it has felt dormant for some time.

[USABlue]

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

Seeing it that way does, as Abbey says, make one wonder about egos being stroked rather than a genuine wish for the the club to succeed. i suppose I can understand a bit of why, just does not make sense.

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Glen & Neal -

I do appreciate your views. It must be frustrating as the former secretary, and also from the outside looking in, especially as a paying member. To be fair, however, you could substitute any supporters group associated with the club and not change any of your core statements. As far as I know, no group has had any success doing anything to further the now unified ultimate goal, regardless of the frequency of their official meeting intervals. I can say that during the past 5 years, there has not gone a week in which I have not exchanged correspondence with a fellow board member on ongoing activities or issues, or spent less than several hours in my duties as Finance Officer. As you very well know, it has been a case of banging heads against a concrete wall for everyone, yourself included - i.e. a lot of energy, pain, and anguish with pretty much only a bloodied forehead to show for it. Due to the nature of Rovers Trust's more corporate and professional approach, we've had to pick and choose our battles and do our best looking at ways a bit outside of the box to continue to do good things for the club and community While making inroads towards our goal of safeguarding the club's future for the supporters and the community.

Also, let's not sell Rovers Trust short either. It would be a bit narrow and unfair to say Rovers Trust hasn't accomplished things significantly improving the situation from a supporters standpoint. Ownership of shares of the club. Obtaining an Asset of Community Value status for Ewood Park. Grass Roots Football Grants to several local youth amateur football clubs. Supporting the EFL campaign to gain government funding for (re)development of football pitches in the community. Instigating and working with the club on the Kits for Kenya campaign, which was actually started by an email sent to Rovers Trust from one if its members serving in the military down there as part of relief efforts. Working in the backround with interested parties on feasibility studies on the finances of the club under potential new ownership. Obviously we as an organization could not crow about these types of activities, could we? I am sure I have missed a couple of other important items as I write this off the top of my head.

You've not been balloted because an uncontested election doesn't have ballots. I think you can see where I am going with this right? You are a member.

Baz -

Obviously reserves need to be kept, but I have no problem bringing this to the rest of the Board. Suggest you send a quick mail to [email protected] to that affect.

USABlue -

Just want to reiterate Rovers Trust stance on this "White Knight" ownership issue. Making supporter-based community a significant element of the club's ownership structure in perpetuity is the only way to safeguard the club's future on the long term. Out of every 100 potential owners, there is probably 1 Jack Walker, 30 mediocre disinterested owners with no passion for the club, but at leasat respekt the facit that it is a football club, and 69 Venky's type owners, with zero interest in the football clubs or its supporters and community, and only see a marketing tool, or a tax write off, or an opulent society plaything. IF the club was lucky enough to land that 1 Jack Walker type owner, how long do the good days last? How long until the next ownership Russian roulette sees the club land another Venky's? There are no egos or ulterior motives. Again, no one is suggesting that any new ownership structure include Rovers Trust in it for free. But a discount would be nice ;-)

[Stuart]

Due to the nature of Rovers Trust's more corporate and professional approach, we've had to pick and choose our battles and do our best looking at ways a bit outside of the box to continue to do good things for the club and community While making inroads towards our goal of safeguarding the club's future for the supporters and the community.

The problem is, from the outside looking in, that this approach is trying to be superimposed onto the WAR group. Thereby diluting the potential effectiveness of group - which need many arms - and therefore protests. Yes, the Rovers Trust may see itself as a future board member and must act accordingly but that is the political wing. There also needs to be an element of non-diplomatic protest.

Is the fight being taken to India, to 'hit them in their own back yard'? Or is this now about asking for another meeting?

Out of every 100 potential owners, there is probably 1 Jack Walker, 30 mediocre disinterested owners with no passion for the club, but at leasat respekt the facit that it is a football club, and 69 Venky's type owners, with zero interest in the football clubs or its supporters and community, and only see a marketing tool, or a tax write off, or an opulent society plaything.

Disagree. You make it sound like it's Jack Walker or nothing. By your logic you've just besmirched every one of the 92 league clubs. There are other decent owners out there.

But our problem is not just disinterested owners, they can be managed, it's that our disinterested owners remain just interested enough to take control over all decisions by remote, thousands of miles away in India - and keep getting them wrong!! All the 99% of other clubs see fit to put a board in place to manage their interests.

If I thought there was a chance of Venkys waking up one morning and saying 'do you know what, we should put a proper board in place and get them to manage our interests for us, oh and we'll invite those nice, courteous Rovers Trust people in too' then, yes, let's keep them in the background repaying the loan fees.

But that isn't the reality. The reality is a board in name only, a manager who won't walk and won't be replaced - is he even under any pressure? They will never talk and they will never listen. It's time to embarrass them as much as possible. Creating 'We Are RoversTrust' is not going to do that.

[cmb211087]

Dan, have your paying members been informed that the trust is to no longer be used primarily as an emergency last resort to save Blackburn Rovers and is instead to be used for what you have described in this topic?

I would assume so but having spoken to a few of your members and seen some post on here on other threads about them being members due to the last resort bit, they have not got a clue, having not once had it told to them (until I showed them your posts).

[ABBEY]

Stuart , I think the nail has been hit . I get the feeling that the Pune odi will not be used for protesting but for a chance of trying snuggle up .

[Billinge End Blue]

Dan, have your paying members been informed that the trust is to no longer be used primarily as an emergency last resort to save Blackburn Rovers and is instead to be used for what you have described in this topic?

I would assume so but having spoken to a few of your members and seen some post on here on other threads about them being members due to the last resort bit, they have not got a clue, having not once had it told to them (until I showed them your posts).

cmb - I think you asked me if I was aware of the Roverstrust's 'new' agenda iro of Venkys following the establishment of WAR as opposed to it being an insurance policy?

It has always been mooted that they would try and seek supporter representation at Board level in the aspirational (if highly unlikely) event that they were unable to buy BRFC out right (hence the cash pledge that was sought from fans). The importance of this was always going to increase as Rovers predicament deteriorated, debt increased and the club's value (not worth, we know that is immeasurable to us) fell.

It is almost inevitable that the Raos give Rovers fans short shrift yet again. But the Roverstrust needs to remain on visible stand by (less waiting in the wings now) for wherever the club's ownership moves next. I'm sure they won't act as a fig leaf for some other dodgy chancers or be used as a vehicle to rehabilitate the current shower (as if that could ever happen now).

[Al]

I'm not sure who the trust think they are to believe that they can demand a seat on the board if a "White Knight" purchaser comes along. They are after all just a few supporters just like the rest of us. It would be churlish to try to scupper a purchase for their own ends or more likely the ends of an individual member. They certainly do not have the remit to do that. It would be disastrous if a would be purchaser was put off by this and not at all what the members paid their fees for.

[Stuart]

Stuart , I think the nail has been hit . I get the feeling that the Pune odi will not be used for protesting but for a chance of trying snuggle up .

10 days ago, I thought I heard the Rovers Trust speaking to a packed Blakeys about action. Try had come around to the triangular shaped centre ground between them, the Action Group and Ewood Blues.

10 days on and the feeling is more that the Rovers Trust have slept on it and are retreating to their corner of a slightly smaller triangle and are looking to orchestrate WAR to operate in the same the Trust.

[glen9mullan]

10 days ago, I thought I heard the Rovers Trust speaking to a packed Blakeys about action. Try had come around to the triangular shaped centre ground between them, the Action Group and Ewood Blues.

10 days on and the feeling is more that the Rovers Trust have slept on it and are retreating to their corner of a slightly smaller triangle and are looking to orchestrate WAR to operate in the same the Trust.

Hence why I said there was too much focus on groups and not enough focus on the here and now.

Groups can continue to do their thing but don't need to be part of an alliance to do so.

Im still of the opinion that meeting should of been about putting together a panel of people , rather than groups to take this to another level, without having different group mandates as a stumbling block.

All those groups will continue on their own paths and didnt need to be an alliance to do so.

We missed a big opportunity to actually have a panel working for all supporters. Not all supporters want fan ownership, not all supporters want protest, not all supporteers want a Seneca buy out, and not all supporters want Venkys out.

Groups cannot change their identity for what those groups end goal is, but this new approach is now pushing ALL supporters down the fan ownership route if they like it or not, which means imo its doomed for failure.

Personally, I want owners who can afford to run a football club, i do not want to be in a position , where we drive the current owners out, to put ourselves in a position 100 times worse than the one we are currently in.

[47er]

The problem is, from the outside looking in, that this approach is trying to be superimposed onto the WAR group. Thereby diluting the potential effectiveness of group - which need many arms - and therefore protests. Yes, the Rovers Trust may see itself as a future board member and must act accordingly but that is the political wing. There also needs to be an element of non-diplomatic protest.

Is the fight being taken to India, to 'hit them in their own back yard'? Or is this now about asking for another meeting?

Disagree. You make it sound like it's Jack Walker or nothing. By your logic you've just besmirched every one of the 92 league clubs. There are other decent owners out there.

But our problem is not just disinterested owners, they can be managed, it's that our disinterested owners remain just interested enough to take control over all decisions by remote, thousands of miles away in India - and keep getting them wrong!! All the 99% of other clubs see fit to put a board in place to manage their interests.

If I thought there was a chance of Venkys waking up one morning and saying 'do you know what, we should put a proper board in place and get them to manage our interests for us, oh and we'll invite those nice, courteous Rovers Trust people in too' then, yes, let's keep them in the background repaying the loan fees.

But that isn't the reality. The reality is a board in name only, a manager who won't walk and won't be replaced - is he even under any pressure? They will never talk and they will never listen. It's time to embarrass them as much as possible. Creating 'We Are RoversTrust' is not going to do that.

I don't think you are being entirely fair or logical Stuart in one regard. After all we had Jack Walker and look where are we now.

Dan is perfectly correct. If we had another Jack, (and the odds are so against it happening twice in my lifetime)there are no guarantees that the legacy will be maintalned. Jack died thinking he had provided for Rovers long-term and it started to unwind within a decade after his death.

It should be impossible for owners to destroy a club as ours is being destroyed. The only solution for the long-term is community ownership in whole or in part.

[Mike E]

Anyone from from the Rovers Trust or WAR want to follow up my contact to them about distribution of whistles, sent more than a week ago now?

Or am I as irrelevant as Glen apparently is? The Trust is advertised as 'professional', I would like to see that in action please.

[Stuart]

I don't think you are being entirely fair or logical Stuart in one regard. After all we had Jack Walker and look where are we now.

Dan is perfectly correct. If we had another Jack, (and the odds are so against it happening twice in my lifetime)there are no guarantees that the legacy will be maintalned. Jack died thinking he had provided for Rovers long-term and it started to unwind within a decade after his death.

It should be impossible for owners to destroy a club as ours is being destroyed. The only solution for the long-term is community ownership in whole or in part.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Or if you understood mine.

Jack invested his own cash to make the club successful. He did create a legacy and the shysters burned it.

My point is that there are decent owners who want the best for their respective clubs. We do not have that, but equally such an owner doesn't not have to be the modern day Jack Walker.

The only way that community ownership works at this level is if everyone is doing the same (a la the German model). Community run clubs currently are lower league entities. That's likely where we will end up without new owners here.

[DE.]

Hence why I said there was too much focus on groups and not enough focus on the here and now.

Groups can continue to do their thing but don't need to be part of an alliance to do so.

Im still of the opinion that meeting should of been about putting together a panel of people , rather than groups to take this to another level, without having different group mandates as a stumbling block.

All those groups will continue on their own paths and didnt need to be an alliance to do so.

We missed a big opportunity to actually have a panel working for all supporters. Not all supporters want fan ownership, not all supporters want protest, not all supporteers want a Seneca buy out, and not all supporters want Venkys out.

Groups cannot change their identity for what those groups end goal is, but this new approach is now pushing ALL supporters down the fan ownership route if they like it or not, which means imo its doomed for failure.

Personally, I want owners who can afford to run a football club, i do not want to be in a position , where we drive the current owners out, to put ourselves in a position 100 times worse than the one we are currently in.

I can't help but agree. The line now being given is that WAR essentially just means various groups pooling their resources together for some combined actions - that's great, but did it need to come under a named umbrella with a logo? That gives the impression of another group being formed, which we keep being told is not really the case. It could have just been announced that the groups are pooling their resources together for some initiatives to remove the owners, and that Simon Garner is happy to help promote these as and when required.

The creation of WAR as... whatever it is, I'm not really sure... just seems to have caused confusion both from within and outside the groups.

[Amo]

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

[Athlete]

I'm not sure who the trust think they are to believe that they can demand a seat on the board if a "White Knight" purchaser comes along. They are after all just a few supporters just like the rest of us. It would be churlish to try to scupper a purchase for their own ends or more likely the ends of an individual member. They certainly do not have the remit to do that. It would be disastrous if a would be purchaser was put off by this and not at all what the members paid their fees for.

Agree Al if I was purchasing any club there is no way I'd invite or allow anyone from a fans trust on the board not many UK wise do

TBH I'm getting a bit fed up of fan against fan people with agendas etc , somehow we need these shysters and the co- conspirators out how I don't really know...Remember when no one actually knew who owned Leeds when Bates remained in charge

[47er]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Or if you understood mine.

Jack invested his own cash to make the club successful. He did create a legacy and the shysters burned it.

My point is that there are decent owners who want the best for their respective clubs. We do not have that, but equally such an owner doesn't not have to be the modern day Jack Walker.

The only way that community ownership works at this level is if everyone is doing the same (a la the German model). Community run clubs currently are lower league entities. That's likely where we will end up without new owners here.

"He did create a legacy and the shysters burned it".

Exactly my point Stuart. The legacy that was supposed to be long-term lasted about 10 years only. An insurance policy is essential and that's why we need an effective Rovere Trust.

[jw_]

I can't help but agree. The line now being given is that WAR essentially just means various groups pooling their resources together for some combined actions - that's great, but did it need to come under a named umbrella with a logo? That gives the impression of another group being formed, which we keep being told is not really the case. It could have just been announced that the groups are pooling their resources together for some initiatives to remove the owners, and that Simon Garner is happy to help promote these as and when required.

The creation of WAR as... whatever it is, I'm not really sure... just seems to have caused confusion both from within and outside the groups.

Great post ! and the Trust's mission statement has left me cold, not sure what they expect to gain with such a wishy washy attitude.

Re the bit in bold they sure have confused me.

[Lancaster Rover]

I have been a trust member from the get go but the way they have acted during these recent events has made me consider my membership as I do not have faith in those running it to be open and transparent about their intentions. The way the new group has steam rolled everything else and ultimately gone about doing the same work leads me to the conclusion that we're all just paying for Waybe Wikd to get a seat in the board at some point.

[K-Hod]

It does seem as though there has been a hell of a lot of confusion since this meeting the other week. Basically the complete opposite of how it should have been. I don't want to speak too out of turn, but it does seem like Wayne Wild is very keen for some power and an eventual seat on the board at Rovers. (I can't even say power in this context without thinking of the quote from Scarface...). I know he posted on here at some point, so I'm sure if there were matters to clear up, he would do.

It all comes back to the need of the club being more important than the needs of individuals, ultimately. Which is the crux of the matter, for me.

[Leonard Venkhater]

It does seem as though there has been a hell of a lot of confusion since this meeting the other week. Basically the complete opposite of how it should have been. I don't want to speak too out of turn, but it does seem like Wayne Wild is very keen for some power and an eventual seat on the board at Rovers. (I can't even say power in this context without thinking of the quote from Scarface...). I know he posted on here at some point, so I'm sure if there were matters to clear up, he would do.

It all comes back to the need of the club being more important than the needs of individuals, ultimately. Which is the crux of the matter, for me.

We really can't afford this suspicion, mistrust etc at this crucial time.Our guns must be on the real enemies!

Where is the planning taking place for protests? Are things being planned for the Rotherham game?

I have offered and am still offering to join any planning group, if one exists...

[Reedy You're A Star]

If this is true about Ewood, it should ramp up the anger amongst the fans again, to give the stalling protest movement a kick start ahead of the Wolves game! Intentionally or not.

If it's true, what can we, as fans, do to stop them? Personally, I can't (and won't, until they leave) go inside Ewood often these days. I don't have contacts in football or the media or whatever else. I'm just an ordinary fan. But I want to do SOMETHING!

I implore anyone who, like me, has little to no influence on anything Rovers, to do something, anything. Spam your Facebook and Twitter with anything VenkysOut, tell your friends and neighbours, people on the bus, people at work , anyone and everyone what is going on? Give them the documents, tell them to do the same. Contribute to the various fund raising efforts to hit the @#/?s in India. If nothing else, it takes 30 seconds to record and send an I Am Boycotting video to Madon. Don't think about your street cred or how you migh look. You'll be on for 5 seconds then gone. People will only notice the hot chicks anyway!

It feels different this time. There is real danger for our club and I feel if we get the Wolves game wrong, no one outside of Blackburn will take us seriously again and it's all but game over, bar a real smoking gun, or the sale of Ewood and / or Brockhall. By which time it's already too late!