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

[Madon]

I have pretty much just copied the whole of the original post on this thread to put on www.venkysout.com , hope that's ok?

[Paul]

Ste and Glenn have dedicated at least two decades to this message board, many other tasks and attended hundreds of games home and away in England and Europe.

If by now people think they don't have an idea of how fans feel, react and want I can't think who would. Under any other circumstances people would look at them both as the good guys.

Why on earth start calling Ste for putting himself forward to help out?

[eddy11d]

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?

I can't get behind a fan that has decided he's speaking on behalf of hundreds/thousands without them even knowing (until Kammy reviled it), nevermind asking. I don't know anything about Ste B's views on anything to be honest. The reason I said 'you definitely don't represent me' was because no matter what his views are, I'll never support anyone that has decided he's representing a group of people without their consent. If we do have a vote, I definitely won't be voting for him.

[47er]

To J Biz---Sigh-----it isn't about personalities, it's about the views they hold and their ability to carry the supporters with them and also about what they've achieved.

I wouldn't support you either if you had been "selected"on the basis that you don't believe in much other than cheering the lads on and that you've been debunking the conspiracy theorists for years.

Yet to acknowledge your error as well.

Now, you might disagree with all that and have a similar negative view about me. But I want the chance to express my democratic opinion.

As you say, this is too important to mess up.

[bob fleming]

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?

No, don't bother. It's clear the fans as a whole are never going to get anywhere or agree on anything. Round and round we'll go weeing in the wind, having a vote here, having a vote there. We should have an elected fans representation by May 2019 - unless "Dave" * misses the vote then we'll need to start again.

"My mates not on the panel" - "That wasn't my idea" - "I don't like that" - "He once said in 2003 that...." - "Well if such and such said and she said he said and they said and I'll scratch your eyes out...." etc etc

Just fecking riot if you want to - it'll be a lot easier. Maybe put a Boardroom window through - if you can find one - that'll have them running for the hills.

Oh, actually, just join in with any protests if you want to, or come up with your own even and put it on here. Madon has been fantastic to date by the way.

(* Fictional Dave.)

[Ste B]

I can't get behind a fan that has decided he's speaking on behalf of hundreds/thousands without them even knowing (until Kammy reviled it), nevermind asking. I don't know anything about Ste B's views on anything to be honest. The reason I said 'you definitely don't represent me' was because no matter what his views are, I'll never support anyone that has decided he's representing a group of people without their consent. If we do have a vote, I definitely won't be voting for him.

I've never actually claimed to be representing anybody - at this stage it was about getting the site involved in the joint protest group after the site was asked. I'm not actually sure I wanted to get involved TBQH, but had the site not done we would have got criticism the other way.

[ABBEY]

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.

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?

and I'm patronising

[47er]

I've never actually claimed to be representing anybody - at this stage it was about getting the site involved in the joint protest group after the site was asked. I'm not actually sure I wanted to get involved TBQH, but had the site not done we would have got criticism the other way.

Fair enough, you had to answer the call, no time for messing about. But that should be on an INTERIM committee in place till there is time to set up a proper one.

That's my opinion, I'm not going to bang on about anymore. It's up to you Ste B to represent the views of BRFCS and if we want to elect a member to that committee that's how it should be.

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

No, don't bother. It's clear the fans as a whole are never going to get anywhere or agree on anything. Round and round we'll go weeing in the wind, having a vote here, having a vote there. We should have an elected fans representation by May 2019 - unless "Dave" * misses the vote then we'll need to start again.

"My mates not on the panel" - "That wasn't my idea" - "I don't like that" - "He once said in 2003 that...." - "Well if such and such said and she said he said and they said and I'll scratch your eyes out...." etc etc

Just fecking riot if you want to - it'll be a lot easier. Maybe put a Boardroom window through - if you can find one - that'll have them running for the hills.

Oh, actually, just join in with any protests if you want to, or come up with your own even and put it on here. Madon has been fantastic to date by the way.

(* Fictional Dave.)

I second that, top work that has gone a bit under the radar imo.

[blueboy3333]

AS Blackburn Ender said, he doesn't believe there's been any illegality, or can see no evidence of it. If that is Ste B's position too then it looks like WAR won't be focused on finding a 'smoking gun'. Glen M seems to be approaching things very differently. Both approaches are equally valid and will probably complement each other in a Good Cop/Bad Cop, Cagney & Lacey, Magnet & Steele type way.

WAR see Glen as a maverick, Glen wants to work on his own according to a quote on the latest installment of his 'memoirs':-

'I have also made much greater progress on finding the truth by not being tied to a group as I can act more on my instinct, rather than what is dictated by vote'

Seems both parties are happy to be on the same page.

[eddy11d]

I've never actually claimed to be representing anybody - at this stage it was about getting the site involved in the joint protest group after the site was asked. I'm not actually sure I wanted to get involved TBQH, but had the site not done we would have got criticism the other way.

How do you know the site even wants to be involved in WAR? You've been to meetings (that we didn't even know existed) under the banner of 'BRFCS' - if that's not representing the members of this site, I don't know what is. The majority of the members are clearly upset by Glen's exclusion, yet this site seems to have been complicit in the excluding of him. Like Kammy said, I can't support WAR until everyone that wants to be involved can get involved.

[Ste B]

Fair enough, you had to answer the call, no time for messing about. But that should be on an INTERIM committee in place till there is time to set up a proper one.

That's my opinion, I'm not going to bang on about anymore. It's up to you Ste B to represent the views of BRFCS and if we want to elect a member to that committee that's how it should be.

I will do my best to to both. I

The meeting last week was all about moving forwards and trying to put things in the past. Even Abbey and myself were civil to each other. The whole focus should be on getting venkys out.

How do you know the site even wants to be involved in WAR? You've been to meetings (that we didn't even know existed) under the banner of 'BRFCS' - if that's not representing the members of this site, I don't know what is. The majority of the members are clearly upset by Glen's exclusion, yet this site seems to have been complicit in the excluding of him. Like Kammy said, I can't support WAR until everyone that wants to be involved can get involved.

The only meeting I have attended was the open meeting last week.

[eddy11d]

I will do my best to to both. I

The meeting last week was all about moving forwards and trying to put things in the past. Even Abbey and myself were civil to each other. The whole focus should be on getting venkys out.

The only meeting I have attended was the open meeting last week.

Forget a meeting then (I'm sure someone on here said you did attend one with the other group's leaders), maybe he just said you've been in daily contact with the leaders of the other groups.

[ABBEY]

I will do my best to to both. I

The meeting last week was all about moving forwards and trying to put things in the past. Even Abbey and myself were civil to each other. The whole focus should be on getting venkys out.

The only meeting I have attended was the open meeting last week.

we were indeed and like I've said I built some bridges.

Whose views will represented for us ? Mine ? Chaddy? Glen & Glenn? Vinjay? Parsons? Too many different birdies mates giving it large that the ones in the ground are better fans boycotters

[J*B]

Straight forward answer - Yes.

The BRFC Action Group itself has never stopped trying to open doors in this field and will continue to do so. We now have four organisations working together and many resources can be called upon and pooled together to aid this. I'll use an example, the night before the open floor meeting, when we had a planning meeting, and the chairman of one of the groups put me on the telephone to somebody i had been trying to contact for months without success. Just like that, a coming together of the groups proving instantly that working together is more beneficial than bickering.

In which case how can WAR be absolutely positive that you are not wasting time following a lead which Glen has already exhausted/found to be incorrect - without him being on board? Or potentially even more seriously - how can you be absolutely certain that WAR isn't getting involved in an already sensitive subject being investigated by the other fans group which has been put together including Kamy and Glen?

In a hypothetical world WAR could potentially ruin an investigation already in process by Kamy/Glen... is it therefore not worth these two groups merging under one banner, as BRAG/Rovers Trust/Ewood Blues/BRFCS have?

[lsp82]

Having read through the thread over the last few days it has become clear to me that what is needed is for all the great work and ideas to be put into a multi pronged attack with all supporters and groups helping with. Firstly 1875 protests at Ewood WAR and birdy and others focusing on protest ideas and set up. Second pune Madon kamy WAR and anyone else with contacts working together on this. Thirdly programme fanzine getting the message out to all fans. WAR Madon and anyone else with expertise. Fourthly documents smoking gun etc. Glen and anyone else. This is how we should all be working together but it seems that we would rather have a pissing contest than see how we can keep up the pressure.

[Ste B]

we were indeed and like I've said I built some bridges.

Whose views will represented for us ? Mine ? Chaddy? Glen & Glenn? Vinjay? Parsons? Too many different birdies mates giving it large that the ones in the ground are better fans boycotters

We heard a lot of that at the meeting as well - there were still rumblings around throughout.

There are a lot of members of this messageboard who have a hell of a lot they can add to these groups - Likes of Madon / Neal to name but two.

[den]

Time to move forwards guys.

We could and would, argue for ever about who is involved, who should be involved, what actions should be taken etc. My ideas wouldn't be someone else's ideas.

However, at least we've got a group of people prepared to put themselves forwards and the best thing to do would be to get behind them in the hope that enough pressure can be put on the owners to at least affect change. Give it your all, on ALL fronts.

I would have hoped Glen would be involved in this, but I can only guess at why he isn't. To me, that's a real shame. Maybe a way could be found even at this point where he would have full involvement? Think about that guys. Failing that, I would hope that Glen still has the determination to continue what he's done so far. It's understandable why he's so upset.

Like I said, time to move forwards.

[K-Hod]

We do need to move forwards, this squabbling needs to end.

That being said, I still think the likes of Glen, Kamy, Neal and more recently Madon (who has done some absolutely sterling work by the way), should be able to help as much as they can as they have proven to be extremely valuable resources and a credit to the cause and themselves.

[Mike Graham]

Ste and Glenn have dedicated at least two decades to this message board, many other tasks and attended hundreds of games home and away in England and Europe.

If by now people think they don't have an idea of how fans feel, react and want I can't think who would. Under any other circumstances people would look at them both as the good guys.

Why on earth start calling Ste for putting himself forward to help out?

Agreed.

Ste is co-owner of this site, why shouldn't he participate. This site is not a membership organisation, it is made up of "activists" with different views.

We need leadership now and hopefully WAR will provide it. My only gripe, and the reason I do have some issues with WAR is that they need to accommodate the very person who ensured that the issue of the Venkys has come to the public attention again and we have a rekindling of the campaign. WAR need to take this on board.

[47er]

Ste and Glenn have dedicated at least two decades to this message board, many other tasks and attended hundreds of games home and away in England and Europe.

If by now people think they don't have an idea of how fans feel, react and want I can't think who would. Under any other circumstances people would look at them both as the good guys.

Why on earth start calling Ste for putting himself forward to help out?

It's not really about Ste or Glenn, it's about Glen's exclusion. But they haven't worked their nuts off for 5 years and learned what Glen has learned have they, or lost their job because of it, or spent thousands of their own money, or made the contacts Glen has? He is, in my view,uniquely qualified to be a member of that committee.

But apparently, he's had a fall-out with another prominent member on the committee and his offer to help has been rejected. So who is bringing personality into it?

The official line, from Blackburn Ender , is that Glen is not a member of any of the four groups comprising the committee, therefore he can't be considered. But he is a member of BRFCS isn't he? Aren't we all?

So why can't we nominate him or elect him? That's no disrespect to Glenn or Ste who are clearly Rovers to their bootstraps

But a far simpler solution is to do what should have been done in the first place, accept his offer of help, add one more to the Committee

and get on with it.

[Dreams of 1995]

Shall we forget about this Glen fiasco. He has, they have. Move on. We have bigger fish to fry.

Judging by the latest verbal diarrhoea to splurt out of the great opinion column printed in the Accy Obs it is only falling into both the hands of the owners and the hands of the "been there through worst" brigade to be arguing over such trivialities. Let's focus our energies elsewhere.

And jbizzle I value you as a poster but it pains me to see you say you agree with the dross in that blog. It's clear for all to see that he spouts such controversial hogwash to boost readership. He's become single handedly one of the most divisive figures in the BRFC fan base and, for the large part, seems more than happy to be doing so. Let's not allow your discontent to allow you to fall into the category of morbid apathetic do-gooders that he's trying to create. If there's any man that has done more for division over the past three weeks than Mike Cheston it is the (weary) 'Blue-eyed Boy' and his terrible blog.

[DE.]

I don't see a problem with Ste or Glenn representing BRFCS - who else would? - but BRFCS is certainly the odd one out in terms of the four power groups. Each of the other three has some kind of remit which tends to pull like minded individuals together. This is just an internet site whose members sign up via a forum, where the only criteria is a valid e-mail address. Members often have wildly different views on the club.

I'm not saying BRFCS shouldn't be a part of the discussion, it's good that the site is involved and by extension the members will assumedly be updated as to what's going on. It's just hard to quantify exactly what BRFCS is or what it represents.

[perthblue02]

I'm still a little confused

there is no committee of representatives of each group and individuals but a decision as been taken by no-one (as it currently stands) to exclude someone from being part of a committee that does not exist, Am i missing something?

[glen9mullan]

http://roversrevisited2.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/thank-you-and-good-luck.html?m=1