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

[Mike E]

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 love this post!!!

[funny-old-game]

[quote name="blueboy3333"

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.

Can any of the supporters group take a legal challenge against the FA's failing in their duties regarding the above?

[Boz]

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.

Churchillian, great :-)

[philipl]

I did notice that word PhilipL.

Bloomberg among the less predictable news organisations holding a file on what has been going on...

[MCMC1875]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-qqIE8bGaU

'If they (the fans) are not there, we (Venkys) are not there'

On removing Steve Kean: 'It's not so easy to put somebody in and out, in and out...'

:lol:

[Tom]

Honest question - was the name and logo designed before or after the meeting?

The whole thing feels like a Rovers Trust exercise somehow - not that that's inherently a bad thing

[MCMC1875]

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.

So Enders, what do you advocate??

[Mike E]

Honest question - was the name and logo designed before or after the meeting?

The whole thing feels like a Rovers Trust exercise somehow - not that that's inherently a bad thing

Deffo feels like a Rovers Trust thing. I was considering renewing my membership but after the way Glen has been ostracised I certainly won't. No Rovers supporters group should be playing silly buggers with fellow fans.

[MCMC1875]

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.

Bit complex that, Stu lad.

[glen9mullan]

Deffo feels like a Rovers Trust thing. I was considering renewing my membership but after the way Glen has been ostracised I certainly won't. No Rovers supporters group should be playing silly buggers with fellow fans.

I have posted on Trust thread, which I do think is a valid point and needs to be taken on board. Jumping out the woodwork every 12 months is not progress.

[OJRovers]

Re: the betting angle, who's on the other side to those bets?

I read a book about Indian betting in cricket. That works on ball by ball changing odds. I.e in-play gambling. Anything suspicious along those lines?

[Billinge End Blue]

So Enders, what do you advocate??

Loose lips sink ships, careless talk....etc.

Talking about WAR, I don't believe it is good for absolutely nothing...

It's a good chant and rallying cry at the very least.

We Are Rovers! We hate Venkys!

[yoda]

Loose lips sink ships, careless talk....etc.

Talking about WAR, I don't believe it is good for absolutely nothing...

It's a good chant and rallying cry at the very least.

We Are Rovers! We hate Venkys!

Yep, no Edwin Star fans in the WAR set up obviously

[Leonard Venkhater]

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"

Blimey, Stu, I think I did this for O'level. Are you Beckett in disguise?

[Madon]

Is it me or has the 'Advert In India' thread disappeared?

[ABBEY]

its gone?????

[had.e.nuff]

After reading all the post for a few days I like a few others on here am starting to realize that unless all the squabbling and point scoring does not stop and everybody just agrees to disagree and get on with the task in hand of getting rid of the Venkey nothing is ever going to happen.

[Leonard Venkhater]

After reading all the post for a few days I like a few others on here am starting to realize that unless all the squabbling and point scoring does not stop and everybody just agrees to disagree and get on with the task in hand of getting rid of the Venkey nothing is ever going to happen.

Agreed....

.Love this.......

[yoda]

Is it me or has the 'Advert In India' thread disappeared?

its gone?????

The Venky's have hacked the MB and think they can keep the dosh

Venky's you bar stewards

get the @#/? out of here

NOW

[47er]

I'm going to keep paying my £10 a year towards the Rovers Trust and I'll honour my pledge when the time comes.

I am a bit disappointed though that there seems to be no activity on any continuing basis. Quite honestly the most frequent message I get is the one that tells me my annual membership has been taken out! Then nothing....for months!

I do accept that the Trust needs to be there and ready to rumble on the day we go into administration or worse though and that its vision of involvement in the club at senior level is one that all supporters should get behind, I mean all supporters nation-wide not just Rovers.

However the latest moves do appear to be opportunistic, jumping on the anger that release of documents has created.

To then come out with that mission statement that we need to act peacefully and treat the Raos with respect seems at odds with that.

And to adopt the acronym "WAR" seems at odds with the mission statement!

So, not the Trust's finest hour imo. It still needs to convince supporters of the need for a Trust in the first place, (many die-hard supporters don't even empathise with that) before it attempts to take over leadership of a protest movement the Trust hasn't really identified with thus far.

[Dreams of 1995]

I don't quite understand why there is such negative emotions surrounding the trust now. Ok it was a bad idea to exclude Glen, for whatever reasons, but does that suddenly mean they are playing by a different set of rules? They have always said, unequivocally, their goal is to obtain shares in Blackburn Rovers to ensure supporters have a say in how the club runs. Up until recently they didn't have a mandate to call for Venky's to sell the club. It is only the past few weeks that they have decided to call on the owners to leave and, subsequently, have set up a campaign group, plan protests and continue to push for dialogue - only now that dialogue isn't to advise them on how to better run the club but to advise them to leave.

If Rovers Trust obtain a decent proportion of shares then everyone would be paying the 10 pound, attending all the meetings etc. As it stands they only own 10 shares which in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. Therefore nobody takes much notice of them as a group and their meetings have been poorly attended and membership shrunk. Wayne Wild & co have also gone unchallenged in elections each year because seemingly no one wants to run it. This is again something I suspect would change if the time comes where Rovers Trust own a significant amount of shares.

Can somebody just clear up where this "new agenda" situation has come from? For me, and I've not taken a whole lot of notice in the Trust I have to say, their agenda has always and will always be to hold shares and ultimately have some sort of supporter representation at board level.

[Ricky]

Unless I've read it wrong though didn't Glen initially exclude himself and refuse the position the trust offered him. It was only later, and on the day of the open meeting, that he then decide he did want to be part of the trust again.

[Speedie Dived]

Unless I've read it wrong though didn't Glen initially exclude himself and refuse the position the trust offered him. It was only later, and on the day of the open meeting, that he then decide he did want to be part of the trust again.

Correct. And said he wouldn't kick up a stink he if he was not included.

Did we get an explanation of 'text gate'?

[Stuart]

I'm going to keep paying my £10 a year towards the Rovers Trust and I'll honour my pledge when the time comes.

I am a bit disappointed though that there seems to be no activity on any continuing basis. Quite honestly the most frequent message I get is the one that tells me my annual membership has been taken out! Then nothing....for months!

I do accept that the Trust needs to be there and ready to rumble on the day we go into administration or worse though and that its vision of involvement in the club at senior level is one that all supporters should get behind, I mean all supporters nation-wide not just Rovers.

However the latest moves do appear to be opportunistic, jumping on the anger that release of documents has created.

To then come out with that mission statement that we need to act peacefully and treat the Raos with respect seems at odds with that.

And to adopt the acronym "WAR" seems at odds with the mission statement!

So, not the Trust's finest hour imo. It still needs to convince supporters of the need for a Trust in the first place, (many die-hard supporters don't even empathise with that) before it attempts to take over leadership of a protest movement the Trust hasn't really identified with thus far.

I don't understand this either. I thought the idea was that representatives from WAR were to travel to India, create media hype around a meeting invitation that they know Venkys are almost certainly not going to attend, in order to either shame them into attending or embarrass them if they don't.

If their 'mission' is to be respectful and not to embarrass them then how are they going to do this? The mandate from fans at the meeting was lined up for someone like Glen, whether quickly or alongside the Wolves game to begin Operation VenkyShame. Yet now the opposite seems to be happening. The whole issue is that the Raos will not engage with fans so a strategy of trying to engage seems out of date.

Unless there has been some communication in between the meeting and the mission.

[Speedie Dived]

Oh dear!

So you think it would be a good idea to annoy the people that you are trying to unite and break the law in the same movement?