[Archived] Fans Unite Under ‘We Are Rovers’ Banner

[punerover]

It should be the start.

It doesn't sound like there is much momentum behind this, Mark.

You will know at the wolves game. The 18:75 protest will be a good indication If any idea can get a momentum, regardless of a support group backing it or not. Fail here and each subsequent protest will have less and less impact [if any]. Which is why it is very very essential that people get this right. Unfortunately with the way things are going I can see a media headline which goes "Some blackburn supporters were heard chanting Venky's Out while some decide to leave the game after 75 minutes". So if the objective of the 18:75 protest is to get anything more than such a headline which we get anyways, more people have to participate.

For the sake of inclusiveness, I have broken the protest idea down to 4 points. This should mostly cater to everyone's views.

1. For those attending: Everyone walks out.

2. For those who dont want to give their money to Venkys: Go to the ground but do not enter the stadium

3. For those who think they should attend and chanting is detrimental to the team, encourage the players by all means till 75 minutes and if we are playing poorly or not getting the result, leave at 75. Winning can only be a good thing.

4. If you see a handful of people outside and everyone not leaving, and you see a 10k attendance then I am afraid retreat for now and hopefully fight another day. Its mostly like chasing a lost cause.

[ABBEY]

I recall the day too, and i was there - as i always was. I remember about 8 of us stood at Brockhall protesting, asking the guys at sky to report that there was more of us!!!

I echo your sentiments on Glen, he does and continues to work tirelessly for this football club, and should be applauded for that

brockhall was chuffing cold and I was on little 125 ha

Really pleased to see Ricky has the same opinion as me. I'm 100% certain Ste's remark was not a reference to "voting" - everyone says there hasn't been one - against Glen but was referring to a banned member from BRFCS.

and said member talked a lot of sense.

[Hasta]

Daily contact is kept up between the committee members of each group, where ideas and proposals are discussed.

A meeting was held on Monday, between myself, Wayne and Birdy. As chairmen of the organisations we felt the need to discuss and try and thrash out many things such as communication channels, the press release, the Wolves game, the open floor etc etc. Myself, Wayne, Birdy and now Ste all maintain contact throughout each day.

The question of BRFCS involvement has gone unanswered all the way through this despite being brought up by myself and others. At no point At Blakeys last Thursday or in any subsequent press report or discussion of that meeting was BRFCS mentioned.

Even on Monday Mark confirms that it was himself, Wayne and Birdy discussing. Suddenly Ste is included.

Ste obviously knows some of the others through being on the FF. If I'm being cynical it looks like a way of including Ste by virtue of saying that he represents BRFCS. As Glen says, this sites members never proposed Ste to represent them nor did they know when they joined a forum that it had such a representative.

However if we did nominations and a poll on here now to represent the site, Glen would probably be clearly elected as the person the members want to represent them. Therefore at the moment the majority of the supporters wishes are being ignored by this new umbrella. WAR knows this but are doing their best to keep him at arms length - as Shebby would say "almost by design".

[Ricky]

I don't want to derail this but said member was also banned for a very very valid reason. If they'd let back a banned member who was rightly banned I'm sure the moderation and admin team would have copped a lot of flack for treating people differently

[Hasta]

I don't want to derail this but said member was also banned for a very very valid reason. If they'd let back a banned member who was rightly banned I'm sure the moderation and admin team would have copped a lot of flack for treating people differently

Why don't people spit it out what he was banned for rather than just keep saying very valid reasons. I'm sure it must have been something fairly serious and it would stop mods having to keep repeating the above.

[K-Hod]

Was Ribble Rover an early WAR casualty?

Nope, banned for a creating a duplicate account. (Other account banned).

[Paul]

and said member talked a lot of sense.

ABBEY I don't want to spend hours debating this with anyone. I think the key point is everyone can contribute to WAR and express the ideas we both heard last week. It isn't necessary to be a poster on BRFCS to do so.

[ABBEY]

I never said I was after a debate ON ANYTHING or the merits of posting on here.....DID SAID MEMBER TALK SENSE AT THE MEETING ?

[Stuart]

You will know at the wolves game. The 18:75 protest will be a good indication If any idea can get a momentum, regardless of a support group backing it or not. Fail here and each subsequent protest will have less and less impact [if any]. Which is why it is very very essential that people get this right. Unfortunately with the way things are going I can see a media headline which goes "Some blackburn supporters were heard chanting Venky's Out while some decide to leave the game after 75 minutes". So if the objective of the 18:75 protest is to get anything more than such a headline which we get anyways, more people have to participate.

This is why I am was really trying to under the positions of Parson and chaddy.

For 15 minutes (because I think the walkout is more important) it is about showing solidarity of the fans and to demonstrate the numbers of people who really want change, who want them gone.

This really is a 'bare minimum' protest. But it seems that 'getting behind the lads' for every second of every game is more important.

Which begs the question: why is Ewood always so deathly quiet? Does getting behind the lads mean 'watching intently and applauding a good tackle'?

To me, a poor showing against Wolves will demonstrate that those who really want Venkys out - and who care enough to show it - remains a minority.

[ABBEY]

Nope, banned for a creating a duplicate account. (Other account banned).

Yet mg can have two ,how does that work?

[Paul]

I never said I was after a debate ON ANYTHING or the merits of posting on here.....DID SAID MEMBER TALK SENSE AT THE MEETING ?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

This is what happened for me at the meeting. I was at the very back, I couldn't see the stage or top table. I think I saw the faces of three people who spoke, perhaps as much as 50% of what was said, by anyone, was very difficult to hear at the back.

Until Tom told me the following day I thought two different people with the same Christian name had spoken - one during and one at the end of the meeting. What I heard, which doesn't seem to be all if it, made some sense to me.

[Ste B]

Glen, I don't think Steve is actually talking about you when he's talking about a popular poster. Someone who was banned some time ago for very valid reasons spoke at the open meeting and wanted to be allowed back on the site. I was a mod when he was banned so I can completely understand why he wasn't allowed

Exactly that.

[Mike Graham]

Why don't people spit it out what he was banned for rather than just keep saying very valid reasons. I'm sure it must have been something fairly serious and it would stop mods having to keep repeating the above.

Hasta, given the nature of what the poster posted it is not appropriate that anyone goes into detail on this MB. It is not a case of brushing issues under the carpet but protecting a number of people and the credibility of this MB. It may be difficult for some posters on here but please trust the Mods and Admin on this one.....they were 100% right in their actions.

[Speedie Dived]

However if we did nominations and a poll on here now to represent the site, Glen would probably be clearly elected as the person the members want to represent them. Therefore at the moment the majority of the supporters wishes are being ignored by this new umbrella. WAR knows this but are doing their best to keep him at arms length - as Shebby would say "almost by design".

It's a collaboration of the four biggest supporters groups, with representatives from each group coming under an umbrella. It's a fairly common concept.

Each rep will then get views from their groups and feed into WAR. This is without question the best way to go.

I am happy Ste B is on, never met him but always comes across very well on here.

[DE.]

Hasta, given the nature of what the poster posted it is not appropriate that anyone goes into detail on this MB. It is not a case of brushing issues under the carpet but protecting a number of people and the credibility of this MB. It may be difficult for some posters on here but please trust the Mods and Admin on this one.....they were 100% right in their actions.

Am guessing we're talking about a former poster who knew a lot about athlete fitness? If so I can understand the reasons for keeping the ban, though it is a shame as I'm sure he has contacts and knowledge to share. I assume he can still get it to the groups in other ways if he wishes, though.

[den]

Thanks for your replies Mark. I've always thought of you as being open and honest. I wish everyone well.

What's needed now is less talk, more action. I'm still not convinced there's a will for any real, consistent protest at this end - and I think action from this end, as well as the media drive in India is important. We need constant pressure from wherever we can achieve it.

Having Simon Garner on board will be a big coup, especially if he's prepared to make his voice but heard. Ex pro's speaking out always attracts response, which is what we need. Congrats to whoever organised this one and well done to SG for accepting. It would have been easier for him to decline.

So good luck. Look forward to the first initiative.

[Ivorsemion]

Speaking as an outsider (I have never met any of the committee or any of those who may have been deliberately excluded/ignored), surely it would make much more sense to include everyone who wants to be involved right from the start - regardless of any preconceptions that anyone may have.

If a few weeks down the line people are found to be doing their own thing or being disruptive etc then either have a quiet word or just exclude them.

To me it just sends out a message of elitism and disunity to 'black ball' certain individuals from the word go.

[yoda]

Glen, I don't think Steve is actually talking about you when he's talking about a popular poster. Someone who was banned some time ago for very valid reasons spoke at the open meeting and wanted to be allowed back on the site. I was a mod when he was banned so I can completely understand why he wasn't allowed back.

It's not all about you Glen

I've not really commented much on this but my initial comment was that I didn't think there should be the creation of a new group and that the aim should be to unite all groups and get them working together. That seems to have been achieved and it's something that everyone has wanted for a long time.

I can see why Glen's not involved at the moment as he's no longer involved with the 4 groups involved. If he was still involved in one of the groups he would be.

However, and I know we've not always agreed on his approach, I believe that there will be a place and time where Glen is involved. My belief is that the groups working together need to recognise people outside of those groups who can contribute and make a difference. People like Madon, Glen and Kamy. It would be stupid to ignore what these people can offer.

It is even more stupid to ignore the invaluable contribution the said banned person can bring to the table. He was lead to belive he would be allowed back on the MB in one guise or another and has been rejected. This person has more contacts in the game than all of the other parties put together. Big mistake not including him in the process. I hope he teams up with Glen and others and emarrasses the life out of some who are on an ego trip at the expense of the future well being of Blackburn Rovers

[JBiz]

It is even more stupid to ignore the invaluable contribution the said banned person can bring to the table. He was lead to belive he would be allowed back on the MB in one guise or another and has been rejected. This person has more contacts in the game than all of the other parties put together. Big mistake not including him in the process. I hope he teams up with Glen and others and emarrasses the life out of some who are on an ego trip at the expense of the future well being of Blackburn Rovers

The guy posted graphic porn on a website for all ages. There is no excuse for that level of behaviour.

Swearing and getting angry, personal is one thing. That was a complete other level. Isn't this the same fella who said someone should put their balls on the block and then refused to get involved because he'd "lose everything?"

Why are we making it personal, it's not about Glen, Stuart, ste, Wayne - it's about the club.

https://blueyedboy.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/faction-action-but-will-it-speak-louder-than-the-words/

I think this pretty much nails it.

[47er]

It's a collaboration of the four biggest supporters groups, with representatives from each group coming under an umbrella. It's a fairly common concept.

Each rep will then get views from their groups and feed into WAR. This is without question the best way to go.

I am happy Ste B is on, never met him but always comes across very well on here.

Well, see I'm not. I realise it's embarassing to publicly assess an individual on here as against another but Ste doesn't adequately represent my views. All along, as I recall it, he's been critical of "conspiracies" and insisted that the Raos were merely mugs who have become victims themselves and that no illegality has occurred.

In fact I remember replying to a very recent post along those lines to which I replied(among other things) "yet"

But it's not Ste B and the Fans Forum who have been doing the looking is it? More like "getting behind the lads".

No problem with that set of beliefs and I've argued, mostly civilly I hope with Parson for years on that approach. I've also argued less civilly with Ewood Sparks on the same issues and he's from the same crew.

So why should I now accept that Ste B Is representative of BRFCS?

Unless that's a proven thing, and the only way to prove it is by election, I don't feel represented at the top table at all.

Not by the Trust either which hasn't asked my opinion on whom I want speaking on my behalf.

So, we have a real problem here. The Fans forum has a member but it's self-selected from a small organisation which is also self-selecting! The Trust has recently taken my £10 but has appointed people to this committee without a vote (although I do agree that the office-holders were elected) and BRFCS has simply appointed someone without reference to its membership!

I accept we need to move fast, in reality to capitalise on the jolt that release of Glen's information has given us. and therefore, in my opinion, this should be an INTERIM Steering Commitee till members of any of the organisations have been give their say.

You simply cannot ask supporters to get behind a group which has selected itself. From my point of view I worry that the personnel will be too cautious, too accepting, too willing to compromise. I want W.A.R. to mean WAR and I know just the man to take it up to them.

And if the group won't accomodate him, why should I have any faith in it?

[Doug]

It is even more stupid to ignore the invaluable contribution the said banned person can bring to the table. He was lead to belive he would be allowed back on the MB in one guise or another and has been rejected. This person has more contacts in the game than all of the other parties put together. Big mistake not including him in the process. I hope he teams up with Glen and others and emarrasses the life out of some who are on an ego trip at the expense of the future well being of Blackburn Rovers

He doesn't need to be a member on here to contribute does he?

Anybody can contribute via the channels supplied by the groups as I understand it, same applies to Glen.

The initiative is being coordinated by the groups, not individuals, which seems logical.

[yoda]

The guy posted graphic porn on a website for all ages. There is no excuse for that level of behaviour.

Swearing and getting angry, personal is one thing. That was a complete other level. Isn't this the same fella who said someone should put their balls on the block and then refused to get involved because he'd "lose everything?"

Why are we making it personal, it's not about Glen, Stuart, ste, Wayne - it's about the club.https://blueyedboy.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/faction-action-but-will-it-speak-louder-than-the-words/

I think this pretty much nails it.

If that is your idea of "nailing" it, God help Blackburn Rovers

[JBiz]

You simply cannot ask supporters to get behind a group which has selected itself.

And if the group won't accomodate him, why should I have any faith in it?

Then the club dies whilst we squabble about who should wear a certain hat. Why is it about personalities and not the cause?

Ridiculous. We all have different views about what's gone on at the club, but we all share the same aim - a better Blackburn Rovers.

If people can't get behind that, then we will never achieve anything.

[eddy11d]

Exactly that.

How and why have you decided you're representing this site? You definitely don't represent me. Can we have some kind of vote on this?

[JBiz]

If that is your idea of "nailing" it, God help Blackburn Rovers

And pages upon pages of people squabbling is going to save us?

Nope.

If certain people feel like they should be involved and they aren't - surely they'll take a step back if they think that's for the best?

Turning it into a argument between fans and splintering the support for each cause will achieve nothing.

Just like boycotting has achieved nothing. Hence liking the article - it shares many of my views on this - especially the pathetic way the discussion here has gone.

How and why have you decided you're representing this site? You definitely don't represent me. Can we have some kind of vote on this?

So you can't get behind a fellow fan because he didn't shout Bowyer out at the right time? Now eddy, that's just an example but why doesn't a fellow fan speak for you, when we all want the same thing?