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

[AllRoverAsia]

Is sergei prone to wear designer sun-glasses when indoors?

[Stuart]

What I'm saying is you constantly berating posters on here will have quite the opposite effect in my opinion, I've been doing it for 3yrs asking for protest and everyone got sick to the back teeth of it.

Remonstrating at the ground is a different matter, but on here is just antagonistic because the audience is so small.

Love the enthusiasm though

I'm wasn't berating posters though. I'm wasn't trying to antagonise them. Ignorant (or deliberate) reactions make it seem that way.

I've been asking simple questions to provoke discussion and better understanding and have had neither, and instead been hit with "expect that from you" and "no surprise there tho".

If I can't question the "I won't walk" camp on here (a place where people should expect to be questioned), when and where can I?

A simple question: Will those who won't walk stay behind? Is this antagonistic? What would it take to turn "#venkysout" or "everyone wants Venkys gone" into a visible protest? What kind of protest would those against boycotts get behind? Is that antagonistic? Not in my opinion. But the reaction is still the same.

What do we do about those people who won't protest? Ignore them and let them get on with their 'personal choices'? Educate them with access to the released documents, or telling them what went on, e.g. Glen's blog?

What happens if after being educated, after seeing the documents, after reading the details, they still don't want to help to make their feeling known? Just let them get on with it? Even if in doing so it undermines the effectiveness of any protests? Those against the protests who post on here are the educated ones! Are they going to shun the flyers being handed to them?

Is it any wonder that dyed-in-the-wool, RTID, Rovers fans have walked away? We can't change things, we aren't even allowed to question those who won't help try, in case it upsets them? Christ, what are we even fighting for? A club that ignores the fans? Fans that ignore the @#/? being taken out of them? We don't deserve better owners because we lap up the crap that the current ones serve. As long as they pay the bills it doesn't matter if we are relegated. Rovers til I die!! True blue!!

I'm really sorry if it offends anyone but if they are not supportive of 18/75 (a minimal effort show of unity in numbers) then they are against them. In in doing so, through their inaction, do not care if Venkys go or stay. Maybe that antagonises people but maybe the comfortable, blissful ignorance that they would rather slide into is worse in the long run.

[cmb211087]

From the We are Rovers about /mission statement from the face book page,

"It is not our objective to embarrass or vilify the Rao family or the Venky's group of companies, but it is necessary to outline some brief context for the strong depth of feeling that has united Rovers supporters’ groups behind the need for ownership change. Whilst some context is necessary, our focus is on the future and on positive outcomes. We want to help the Rao family reach a decision that protects their reputation as business people, which their continuing stewardship of the club is damaging so badly. "

Does that not go against some of the current initiatives of hit them on their own turf and embarrass them and their reputation?

It is the Rovers Trust mark 2 basically. Everytime I have tried to discuss anything upper WAR on here or the WAR twitter account it has been Trust people answering. I think it is Andy Neil who has done an excellent blog summarising his thoughts (and mine exactly) on this whole farce.

https://m.facebook.com/myroversblog/posts/1772108379704685

Must read

[K-Hod]

my thoughts on WAR, might not be popular with some...

https://www.facebook.com/myroversblog/posts/1772108379704685

⚽️ ⚪️🔵

Hard to argue with any of that, in my opinion. The comment re Waybe Wild wanting to unite all the groups, then creating another was absolutely spot on IMO.

[Gav]

Just calling it as I read it Stuart, you carry on, for all the reasons you've stated.

As I said, admire the enthusiasm, I've felt like this for 3yrs now when many felt fighting/protesting wasn't worth it, so I understand the feeling of wanting unity.

From where we were 6/12 months ago this feels like unity to me already and what 4/5 posters on here do in the coming weeks won't impact one bit on that.

[Mike Graham]

my thoughts on WAR, might not be popular with some...

https://www.facebook.com/myroversblog/posts/1772108379704685

⚽️ ⚪️🔵

Well said Andy.

Wake up WAR, and smell the coffee.

[pedebumchin]

The interesting thing for me about 'Glen's substitution' is not that he actually made it happen. More, it's the fact that someone at the club would listen to a well informed and connected fan...

What did they have to gain or lose by appeasing or not appeasing Glen I wonder?

N.b this is in no way a criticism of Glen. He seems to be one of a small number of fans to put in the required time and effort to save the club from whoever actually owns and controls it.

[Stuart]

Just calling it as I read it Stuart, you carry on, for all the reasons you've stated.

As I said, admire the enthusiasm, I've felt like this for 3yrs now when many felt fighting/protesting wasn't worth it, so I understand the feeling of wanting unity.

From where we were 6/12 months ago this feels like unity to me already and what 4/5 posters on here do in the coming weeks won't impact one bit on that.

From tiny acorns, mighty oaks grow.

I appreciate I'm not well thought of on here and that's fine but maybe I have to play villain to tease out the ideas that others can then take forward.

It's the right ideas that are required. There has to be something that everyone can get behind. We aren't there yet but that has to be the aim.

My own view is that we need an alternative positive future, owners-elect who can mount a campaign to buy the club that fans can get behind. I don't mind being in the Championship. Not one jot but not when the club is being strangled by the very people who are have been given the privilege of looking after it.

At some point, if a Seneca-led consortium are the alternative, their approach must change from waiting in the wings as a quiet, respectful 'out' for proud Indians and become a credible public alternative. How much longer do we wait for some secret deal to be done - if that's even in the Raos thoughts - to a serious 'alternative future' for protests to have as their central aim.

When Allardyce was the subject of debate (pre-Venkys), I started an ill-advised thread titled "Sam Out", subtitled "Who in?". The subtlety was lost on many. But here we are again. Getting behind a campaign (even through sheer desperation) to oust Venkys is a difficult sell when the "Who in?" is unanswered.

In the absence of that, and if Seneca can only ever make a deal with an administrator because Venkys won't talk and the price is ludicrous then maybe that's where we need to go. A 10 point deduction would also be better sooner rather than later.

The interesting thing for me about 'Glen's substitution' is not that he actually made it happen. More, it's the fact that someone at the club would listen to a well informed and connected fan...

What did they have to gain or lose by appeasing or not appeasing Glen I wonder?

N.b this is in no way a criticism of Glen. He seems to be one of a small number of fans to put in the required time and effort to save the club from whoever actually owns and controls it.

A manager should not have been listening to ANYONE. I don't believe for one minute Glen's text would have been direct to the bench. It will have gone higher first. If true, and I don't doubt Glen, it exposes the fact that outside influences WERE possible and people could get to the team.

[pedebumchin]

I know. But why would Balaji or Shebby or anyone else have an incentive to listen to Glen? What would they gain or lose by listening or ignoring?

The only think I can think of is they were scared by what he knows? How else could be have influenced this and other decisions?

I think it's clear that Kean was the front man to this debacle at the time, he clearly had more influence than just being a manager but also was clearly listening to other people on team selection, tactics and substitutions.

The picture doesn't quite make sense to me yet.

[booth]

Pune rover not linked to venkys,

But yep slippery MG is of these shores n is a jock

I've got it...

Never see them in the same room at the same time do you?

[glen9mullan]

I've got it...

Never see them in the same room at the same time do you?

Lol the plot thickens

[booth]

Lol the plot thickens

Glen, I don't agree that you should be part of WAR. You should stay the lone wolf, if you were part of a larger group you'd have to ask permission to release information like this, and potentially be knocked back for fear of ruffling too many feathers. Of course that way the unfortunate thing for yourself is that you're making yourself personally liable rather than having the umbrella of a limited company.

But if you couldn't give a monkeys about that, it's important you stay independent if you want to keep doing this.

I personally feel it needs both an organized group and independent whistle blowers in order to win this WAR.

Edit. I see Sergei has made the first comment on your blog.

[glen9mullan]

Glen, I don't agree that you should be part of WAR. You should stay the lone wolf, if you were part of a larger group you'd have to ask permission to release information like this, and potentially be knocked back for fear of ruffling too many feathers. Of course that way the unfortunate thing for yourself is that you're making yourself personally liable rather than having the umbrella of a limited company.

But if you couldn't give a monkeys about that, it's important you stay independent if you want to keep doing this.

I personally feel it needs both an organized group and independent whistle blowers in order to win this WAR.

Edit. I see Sergei has made the first comment on your blog.

I have no interest in joining war now, that Bird has flown.

Im sticking to my blog, until the day comes when we have a democratic voice who wants to take this forwards for the right reasons.

I'm certainly not going to take all the risk, whilst others sit and wait, hoping they will ride in on a white horse at the end.

I love this club and perhaps have been quite emotional this past week. 5 years of going through every emotion possible to find and expose the truth has this affect on you I guess.

I have a couple of family issues too which has not helped me this last few days, so i have been more snappier than usual

[bobsterbrfc]

I have no interest in joining war now, that Bird has flown.

Im sticking to my blog, until the day comes when we have a democratic voice who wants to take this forwards for the right reasons.

I'm certainly not going to take all the risk, whilst others sit and wait, hoping they will ride in on a white horse at the end.

I love this club and perhaps have been quite emotional this past week. 5 years of going through every emotion possible to find and expose the truth has this affect on you I guess.

I have a couple of family issues too which has not helped me this last few days, so i have been more snappier than usual

For what it is worth Glen, and from afar, I also get the impression you are best placed and most effective as a lone wolf.

[Billinge End Blue]

Stuart - if someone wishes to remain in the ground for the full 90 minutes, holding a Venkys Out banner and staring stony-faced into a SKY camera lens, is that not as legitimate a protest as someone nipping down to the concourse on 75 minutes (perhaps to finish their halftime pint)? Is the 18-75 plan for the exiters to leave the stadium (perhaps get an early extra round in the Fox n Hounds?) or take the protest further? As a renewed boycotter, I hope to be handing out the explanatory flyers around Ewood pre-match...(I probably need to read one!!)

Regarding the earlier WAR-bashing, I think it's all a bit unnecessary. The Rovers fan collective (WAR or not) should not be akin to an Allotment society at its AGM and should not indulge in this petty public bickering. It just dissipates our energy and momentum. I know we are justifiably paranoid but this constant questioning of the self-evident motives of other Rovers fans is not just divisive but harmful for our chances of getting our Rovers back.

Regarding the apparent softly softly Venkys approach WAR have documented, it is right for Rovers fans to adopt a number of different tactics, certainly while trying to open up lines of communication, even if doomed to failure. This is exactly what has gone on previously ( admittedly to little effect).

I remember BRISA from many moons ago and I understand the temptation many feel to indulge in these political and personal distractions; Glen's blog itself documents how most groupings tend towards them.

Disclaimer - I've paid in the odd tenner and am an inactive Roverstrust member, for me, it is an insurance for when the worst happens.

[cmb211087]

Stuart - if someone wishes to remain in the ground for the full 90 minutes, holding a Venkys Out banner and staring stony-faced into a SKY camera lens, is that not as legitimate a protest as someone nipping down to the concourse on 75 minutes (perhaps to finish their halftime pint)? Is the 18-75 plan for the exiters to leave the stadium (perhaps get an early extra round in the Fox n Hounds?) or take the protest further? As a renewed boycotter, I hope to be handing out the explanatory flyers around Ewood pre-match...(I probably need to read one!!)

Regarding the earlier WAR-bashing, I think it's all a bit unnecessary. The Rovers fan collective (WAR or not) should not be akin to an Allotment society at its AGM and should not indulge in this petty public bickering. It just dissipates our energy and momentum. I know we are justifiably paranoid but this constant questioning of the self-evident motives of other Rovers fans is not just divisive but harmful for our chances of getting our Rovers back.

Regarding the apparent softly softly Venkys approach WAR have documented, it is right for Rovers fans to adopt a number of different tactics, certainly while trying to open up lines of communication, even if doomed to failure. This is exactly what has gone on previously ( admittedly to little effect).

I remember BRISA from many moons ago and I understand the temptation many feel to indulge in these political and personal distractions; Glen's blog itself documents how most groupings tend towards them.

Disclaimer - I've paid in the odd tenner and am an inactive Roverstrust member, for me, it is an insurance for when the worst happens.

On your last point. You might want to ask them about that. They no longer see the trust as being for that reason.

See the trust agenda thread and you will see exactly what I mean and exactly why a few of us are a bit peeved with the new version of the trust. It isn't the trust of 5 years ago.

[Stuart]

Stuart - if someone wishes to remain in the ground for the full 90 minutes, holding a Venkys Out banner and staring stony-faced into a SKY camera lens, is that not as legitimate a protest as someone nipping down to the concourse on 75 minutes (perhaps to finish their halftime pint)? Is the 18-75 plan for the exiters to leave the stadium (perhaps get an early extra round in the Fox n Hounds?) or take the protest further? As a renewed boycotter, I hope to be handing out the explanatory flyers around Ewood pre-match...(I probably need to read one!!)

The folks we need on board won't be holding any banners. The current standard bearers will be the ones leaving. If I thought they were I'd be delighted.

The ones we are talking about will be ones grumbling because they have to stand or move their legs to let one of the 18/75 to exit their row. "Sit dahn or 'urry up out o' t' road a can't t' match".

Love how I'm seen as divisive for questioning why some fans won't unite though. We are back to blaming the reaction!

OUTY: "Will you join the protests?"

INNY: "I'm not protesting"

OUTY: "Why not?"

INNY: "It won't matter, Venkys won't just go"

OUTY: "But it's about showing to the Sky cameras the number of folks who want change and don't want to have to put up with Venkys running the club into the ground anymore. Any chance you'd join in as a show of fan unity to grow the numbers? It's a really easy one to join. No money, you even don't have to boycott"

INNY: "LOOK I'VE TOLD YOU I'M NOT PREPARED TO DO THAT. WHY CAN'T YOU RESPECT MY DECISION"

OUTY: "Because your decision will hurt the prospect of showing that it's not just a minority of fans that want Venkys gone - like you and I both do"

INNY: *silence*

OUTY: "So will you join in"

INNY: "WHY CAN'T YOU JUST DROP IT?? I'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THE EASY QUESTION SO I CAN NOW IGNORE YOUR MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION AND PRETEND I'VE ANSWERED IT"

OUTY: "Well don't be complaining about Venkys in future then"

PASSIVY: "Stop bullying them. Respect their individual choice, it's not about everyone doing the same thing, it's about, erm, unity, erm, we're all Rovers fans."

OUTY: "Don't you think it's important?"

PASSIV-Y: "Well yes but you are making it worse"

OUTY: "How's that?"

PASSIV-Y: "Well, it's their choice at the end of the day. But we're all Rovers fans"

Rinse, repeat.

[Athlete]

my thoughts on WAR, might not be popular with some...

https://www.facebook.com/myroversblog/posts/1772108379704685

⚽️ ⚪️🔵

Got to agree with that 100 percent

[DE.]

I've paid in the odd tenner and am an inactive Roverstrust member, for me, it is an insurance for when the worst happens.

And that's all it should be. As an organisation it isn't up to the task of removing the owners or making anything meaningful moves to oust them. Too many conflicts of interest there.

The Action Group is the only one of the four supporters groups who has any real experience of making waves, and they seem to be very much off to the side whilst the Trust fronts everything. Glen isn't involved at all. WAR as an initiative is great, but it can't be led by the Trust or Ewood Blues. It won't work.

[eddy11d]

The folks we need on board won't be holding any banners. The current standard bearers will be the ones leaving. If I thought they were I'd be delighted.

The ones we are talking about will be ones grumbling because they have to stand or move their legs to let one of the 18/75 to exit their row. "Sit dahn or 'urry up out o' t' road a can't t' match".

Love how I'm seen as divisive for questioning why some fans won't unite though. We are back to blaming the reaction!

OUTY: "Will you join the protests?"

INNY: "I'm not protesting"

OUTY: "Why not?"

INNY: "It won't matter, Venkys won't just go"

OUTY: "But it's about showing to the Sky cameras the number of folks who want change and don't want to have to put up with Venkys running the club into the ground anymore. Any chance you'd join in as a show of fan unity to grow the numbers? It's a really easy one to join. No money, you even don't have to boycott"

INNY: "LOOK I'VE TOLD YOU I'M NOT PREPARED TO DO THAT. WHY CAN'T YOU RESPECT MY DECISION"

OUTY: "Because your decision will hurt the prospect of showing that it's not just a minority of fans that want Venkys gone - like you and I both do"

INNY: *silence*

OUTY: "So will you join in"

INNY: "WHY CAN'T YOU JUST DROP IT?? I'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THE EASY QUESTION SO I CAN NOW IGNORE YOUR MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION AND PRETEND I'VE ANSWERED IT"

OUTY: "Well don't be complaining about Venkys in future then"

PASSIVY: "Stop bullying them. Respect their individual choice, it's not about everyone doing the same thing, it's about, erm, unity, erm, we're all Rovers fans."

OUTY: "Don't you think it's important?"

PASSIV-Y: "Well yes but you are making it worse"

OUTY: "How's that?"

PASSIV-Y: "Well, it's their choice at the end of the day. But we're all Rovers fans"

Rinse, repeat.

What will 'fan unity' achieve though? Nothing. The fight needs to be taken to India, protesting over here won't achieve anything. Some people think that (rightly or wrongly) keeping us in this division is the best chance we've got of making us a semi-attractive proposition to new owners.

[blueboy3333]

It's been obvious from a few hours after the meeting that WAR is just an opportunistic 'land grab' designed for the benefit of the Rovers Trust. The 'land' in question is the protest movement. This has in turn rubbed Glen M up the wrong way as he obviously sees himself as an integral part of any protest movement, by virtue of the time and effort he has put in to it already. Problem is Glen is no longer part of The Gang Of Four (Great band, awful political off-shoot) so he can't be considered a member of the umbrella organisation. A power-battle ensues. People take sides.

Let's not pretend the above is not being played out on here. So much for unity.

Which begs the question why BRFCS got involved with WAR? The mission statement's released by WAR contradict what most of the 15 or so regular posters on here are advocating i.e. action against the Rao's and no dialogue. WAR actaully want dialogue to 'help the Rao family reach a decision' for them to do one. How has that worked in the last 5 years? Einstein, insanity and doing the same thing over and over again blah-di-blah.

So BRFCS doesn't represent it's posters, but it's posters might not represent the majority of Rovers fanbase. Then again, nodody knows if BRFCS being part of WAR is what the majority of it's members want? An anonymous vote on here would soon sort that out. Can that be done? The Rovers Trust have had a vote, It only seems fair other group's in the 'four' do the same.

The Trust is a great idea and a very valid organisation which will prove invaluable if it all goes belly up at Ewood. But it isn't yet legitimate protest group that people can rally behind, no matter who it rakes in under a new name to give it a new sheen.

Rovers desperately need a protest group. A group that wants Venky's out. A group that will organise and cause as much disruption as possible at matches. A group that will leaflet enough people that there is no doubt amongst our entire fanbase that what has gone on at our club in the last few years is unprecedented. Because it is.

A group that causes enough bother that the FA and Football league are embarrassed to their very core for not stepping in when BRAG first approached them for help, and that the FA explains why in Rovers case it has not upheld it's own values in protecting it's members and the game 'from abuses'. A group that takes the fight to the FA and Football League. Venky's doorstep is fine, the FA's is even better and will garner a lot more publicity.

A group that isn't bothered about ruffling feathers in case it hinders their ultimate objective once Venky's have gone.

It doesn't matter if it's Glen Mullan, Wayne Wild or somebody else, but it needs someone with enough time, knowledge and support to really pee the authorities off.

Playing nice isn't really an option anymore. Laws don't have to be broke, it just needs imagination, some funds and a group people can rally behind.

If that group is WAR then great. Same goes for Glen M. But settling old scores on here is a joke when everyone else is preaching unity.

[MGAndy]

It's been obvious from a few hours after the meeting that WAR is just an opportunistic 'land grab' designed for the benefit of the Rovers Trust. The 'land' in question is the protest movement. This has in turn rubbed Glen M up the wrong way as he obviously sees himself as an integral part of any protest movement, by virtue of the time and effort he has put in to it already. Problem is Glen is no longer part of The Gang Of Four (Great band, awful political off-shoot) so he can't be considered a member of the umbrella organisation. A power-battle ensues. People take sides.

Let's not pretend the above is not being played out on here. So much for unity.

Which begs the question why BRFCS got involved with WAR? The mission statement's released by WAR contradict what most of the 15 or so regular posters on here are advocating i.e. action against the Rao's and no dialogue. WAR actaully want dialogue to 'help the Rao family reach a decision' for them to do one. How has that worked in the last 5 years? Einstein, insanity and doing the same thing over and over again blah-di-blah.

So BRFCS doesn't represent it's posters, but it's posters might not represent the majority of Rovers fanbase. Then again, nodody knows if BRFCS being part of WAR is what the majority of it's members want? An anonymous vote on here would soon sort that out. Can that be done? The Rovers Trust have had a vote, It only seems fair other group's in the 'four' do the same.

The Trust is a great idea and a very valid organisation which will prove invaluable if it all goes belly up at Ewood. But it isn't yet legitimate protest group that people can rally behind, no matter who it rakes in under a new name to give it a new sheen.

Rovers desperately need a protest group. A group that wants Venky's out. A group that will organise and cause as much disruption as possible at matches. A group that will leaflet enough people that there is no doubt amongst our entire fanbase that what has gone on at our club in the last few years is unprecedented. Because it is.

A group that causes enough bother that the FA and Football league are embarrassed to their very core for not stepping in when BRAG first approached them for help, and that the FA explains why in Rovers case it has not upheld it's own values in protecting it's members and the game 'from abuses'. A group that takes the fight to the FA and Football League. Venky's doorstep is fine, the FA's is even better and will garner a lot more publicity.

A group that isn't bothered about ruffling feathers in case it hinders their ultimate objective once Venky's have gone.

It doesn't matter if it's Glen Mullan, Wayne Wild or somebody else, but it needs someone with enough time, knowledge and support to really pee the authorities off.

Playing nice isn't really an option anymore. Laws don't have to be broke, it just needs imagination, some funds and a group people can rally behind.

If that group is WAR then great. Same goes for Glen M. But settling old scores on here is a joke when everyone else is preaching unity.

Whom exactly is representing BRFCS in the WAR umbrella.

I keep hearing 4 groups but I only saw 3 in Blakeys. I haven't read it clarified on here since.

Surely if guys like Glen and Madon choose to represent this MB they become part of WAR.

It surely isn't up to the Trust who represents another group in the unity group....

[Stuart]

What will 'fan unity' achieve though?

A lot more than fans disunity.

It's been obvious from a few hours after the meeting that WAR is just an opportunistic 'land grab' designed for the benefit of the Rovers Trust. The 'land' in question is the protest movement. This has in turn rubbed Glen M up the wrong way as he obviously sees himself as an integral part of any protest movement, by virtue of the time and effort he has put in to it already. Problem is Glen is no longer part of The Gang Of Four (Great band, awful political off-shoot) so he can't be considered a member of the umbrella organisation. A power-battle ensues. People take sides.

Let's not pretend the above is not being played out on here. So much for unity.

Which begs the question why BRFCS got involved with WAR? The mission statement's released by WAR contradict what most of the 15 or so regular posters on here are advocating i.e. action against the Rao's and no dialogue. WAR actaully want dialogue to 'help the Rao family reach a decision' for them to do one. How has that worked in the last 5 years? Einstein, insanity and doing the same thing over and over again blah-di-blah.

So BRFCS doesn't represent it's posters, but it's posters might not represent the majority of Rovers fanbase. Then again, nodody knows if BRFCS being part of WAR is what the majority of it's members want? An anonymous vote on here would soon sort that out. Can that be done? The Rovers Trust have had a vote, It only seems fair other group's in the 'four' do the same.

The Trust is a great idea and a very valid organisation which will prove invaluable if it all goes belly up at Ewood. But it isn't yet legitimate protest group that people can rally behind, no matter who it rakes in under a new name to give it a new sheen.

Rovers desperately need a protest group. A group that wants Venky's out. A group that will organise and cause as much disruption as possible at matches. A group that will leaflet enough people that there is no doubt amongst our entire fanbase that what has gone on at our club in the last few years is unprecedented. Because it is.

A group that causes enough bother that the FA and Football league are embarrassed to their very core for not stepping in when BRAG first approached them for help, and that the FA explains why in Rovers case it has not upheld it's own values in protecting it's members and the game 'from abuses'. A group that takes the fight to the FA and Football League. Venky's doorstep is fine, the FA's is even better and will garner a lot more publicity.

A group that isn't bothered about ruffling feathers in case it hinders their ultimate objective once Venky's have gone.

It doesn't matter if it's Glen Mullan, Wayne Wild or somebody else, but it needs someone with enough time, knowledge and support to really pee the authorities off.

Playing nice isn't really an option anymore. Laws don't have to be broke, it just needs imagination, some funds and a group people can rally behind.

If that group is WAR then great. Same goes for Glen M. But settling old scores on here is a joke when everyone else is preaching unity.

I think that's your best ever post.

[glen9mullan]

It's been obvious from a few hours after the meeting that WAR is just an opportunistic 'land grab' designed for the benefit of the Rovers Trust. The 'land' in question is the protest movement. This has in turn rubbed Glen M up the wrong way as he obviously sees himself as an integral part of any protest movement, by virtue of the time and effort he has put in to it already. Problem is Glen is no longer part of The Gang Of Four (Great band, awful political off-shoot) so he can't be considered a member of the umbrella organisation. A power-battle ensues. People take sides.

Let's not pretend the above is not being played out on here. So much for unity.

Which begs the question why BRFCS got involved with WAR? The mission statement's released by WAR contradict what most of the 15 or so regular posters on here are advocating i.e. action against the Rao's and no dialogue. WAR actaully want dialogue to 'help the Rao family reach a decision' for them to do one. How has that worked in the last 5 years? Einstein, insanity and doing the same thing over and over again blah-di-blah.

So BRFCS doesn't represent it's posters, but it's posters might not represent the majority of Rovers fanbase. Then again, nodody knows if BRFCS being part of WAR is what the majority of it's members want? An anonymous vote on here would soon sort that out. Can that be done? The Rovers Trust have had a vote, It only seems fair other group's in the 'four' do the same.

The Trust is a great idea and a very valid organisation which will prove invaluable if it all goes belly up at Ewood. But it isn't yet legitimate protest group that people can rally behind, no matter who it rakes in under a new name to give it a new sheen.

Rovers desperately need a protest group. A group that wants Venky's out. A group that will organise and cause as much disruption as possible at matches. A group that will leaflet enough people that there is no doubt amongst our entire fanbase that what has gone on at our club in the last few years is unprecedented. Because it is.

A group that causes enough bother that the FA and Football league are embarrassed to their very core for not stepping in when BRAG first approached them for help, and that the FA explains why in Rovers case it has not upheld it's own values in protecting it's members and the game 'from abuses'. A group that takes the fight to the FA and Football League. Venky's doorstep is fine, the FA's is even better and will garner a lot more publicity.

A group that isn't bothered about ruffling feathers in case it hinders their ultimate objective once Venky's have gone.

It doesn't matter if it's Glen Mullan, Wayne Wild or somebody else, but it needs someone with enough time, knowledge and support to really pee the authorities off.

Playing nice isn't really an option anymore. Laws don't have to be broke, it just needs imagination, some funds and a group people can rally behind.

If that group is WAR then great. Same goes for Glen M. But settling old scores on here is a joke when everyone else is preaching unity.

Post of the week imo

[MCMC1875]

It's been obvious from a few hours after the meeting that WAR is just an opportunistic 'land grab' designed for the benefit of the Rovers Trust. The 'land' in question is the protest movement. This has in turn rubbed Glen M up the wrong way as he obviously sees himself as an integral part of any protest movement, by virtue of the time and effort he has put in to it already. Problem is Glen is no longer part of The Gang Of Four (Great band, awful political off-shoot) so he can't be considered a member of the umbrella organisation. A power-battle ensues. People take sides.

Let's not pretend the above is not being played out on here. So much for unity.

Which begs the question why BRFCS got involved with WAR? The mission statement's released by WAR contradict what most of the 15 or so regular posters on here are advocating i.e. action against the Rao's and no dialogue. WAR actaully want dialogue to 'help the Rao family reach a decision' for them to do one. How has that worked in the last 5 years? Einstein, insanity and doing the same thing over and over again blah-di-blah.

So BRFCS doesn't represent it's posters, but it's posters might not represent the majority of Rovers fanbase. Then again, nodody knows if BRFCS being part of WAR is what the majority of it's members want? An anonymous vote on here would soon sort that out. Can that be done? The Rovers Trust have had a vote, It only seems fair other group's in the 'four' do the same.

The Trust is a great idea and a very valid organisation which will prove invaluable if it all goes belly up at Ewood. But it isn't yet legitimate protest group that people can rally behind, no matter who it rakes in under a new name to give it a new sheen.

Rovers desperately need a protest group. A group that wants Venky's out. A group that will organise and cause as much disruption as possible at matches. A group that will leaflet enough people that there is no doubt amongst our entire fanbase that what has gone on at our club in the last few years is unprecedented. Because it is.

A group that causes enough bother that the FA and Football league are embarrassed to their very core for not stepping in when BRAG first approached them for help, and that the FA explains why in Rovers case it has not upheld it's own values in protecting it's members and the game 'from abuses'. A group that takes the fight to the FA and Football League. Venky's doorstep is fine, the FA's is even better and will garner a lot more publicity.

A group that isn't bothered about ruffling feathers in case it hinders their ultimate objective once Venky's have gone.

It doesn't matter if it's Glen Mullan, Wayne Wild or somebody else, but it needs someone with enough time, knowledge and support to really pee the authorities off.

Playing nice isn't really an option anymore. Laws don't have to be broke, it just needs imagination, some funds and a group people can rally behind.

If that group is WAR then great. Same goes for Glen M. But settling old scores on here is a joke when everyone else is preaching unity.

Common sense and a good summary of the current situation. The time for appeasement never was with these profiteers controlling Rovers for the last 6 years. Step forward blueboy.