Rovers Trust

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

Agree with much of this, though the event was sent to 3000 people and it was not how many were watching.

AGMs can be a bit of washout going through formalities and many have low attendances.

I think the Trust did well to get a Eustace and Gestede to attend , which you'd of hoped more than what appeared the 25 or so people included 70% of the trust board  attended. These guys don't get paid for running the trust and have put lots of time and effort into organising this event, the attendance should of been much better given the headline guest alone, and reaching out to the masses has to be top of the agenda for the next 12 months to get at least a more visual impact of numbers that care.

It would of been nice to see a slide of the make up of the board, who is who, their role and in particular the new elected board members. There was no bio, no pictures or statements of why they would be a good board member. Given the board didn't have a full electorate these were pretty much passed off, which shows anyone can join the board if they want to, though hopefully at some stage their will be more candidates than positions.

I'd of liked to hear what the answers from the club actually were in regards to some of the questions posed.

In particular why it was one pay day for the early bird? What was the exact response and why do they feel there is a need to raise the price after this? 

I didn't think there was any clear answers to questions like above, bar data not supporting many concerns.

The crowd and revenue is an interesting debate, as the numbers were pooled with the away attendance, creating somewhat of a smokescreen given we have been playing the likes of Leeds.  I'd like to see this numbers deciphered far more to what the actual home attendance is, which is data the club has at the touch of the button. Also they should also be able to share the category. If not WHY? 

The clubs narrative of improvement curves needs challenging, its why we still have incompetence at senior level, its why we get inexperienced Head of operations appointed etc. The club cannot thrive purely on away support.

24% not renewing was the most damning of all statistics, in any business this is a catastrophe. New season tickets (potentially many kids) again mask the steep decline under the current administration and owners. 

Keep plodding away guys, its a thankless task at times. 

I think the next event needs to be the club board at King George's Hall in an open meeting so that the fans can pose in an open forum the many questions which continue to go unanswered.

And does anyone know which button to press…

[MarkBRFC]

9 hours ago, J*B said:

It was a shame to see so few people in the room but great to hear there was 3,000 people watching the live stream, which sounds like an incredible number.

 

Not quite, there was 39 people viewing when I logged on for a bit.

The whole Eustace/Gestede bit irritated me though so I turned it off and put the footy on.

[Mike Graham]

1 hour ago, glen9mullan said:

Agree with much of this, though the event was sent to 3000 people and it was not how many were watching.

AGMs can be a bit of washout going through formalities and many have low attendances.

I think the Trust did well to get a Eustace and Gestede to attend , which you'd of hoped more than what appeared the 25 or so people included 70% of the trust board  attended. These guys don't get paid for running the trust and have put lots of time and effort into organising this event, the attendance should of been much better given the headline guest alone, and reaching out to the masses has to be top of the agenda for the next 12 months to get at least a more visual impact of numbers that care.

It would of been nice to see a slide of the make up of the board, who is who, their role and in particular the new elected board members. There was no bio, no pictures or statements of why they would be a good board member. Given the board didn't have a full electorate these were pretty much passed off, which shows anyone can join the board if they want to, though hopefully at some stage their will be more candidates than positions.

I'd of liked to hear what the answers from the club actually were in regards to some of the questions posed.

In particular why it was one pay day for the early bird? What was the exact response and why do they feel there is a need to raise the price after this? 

I didn't think there was any clear answers to questions like above, bar data not supporting many concerns.

The crowd and revenue is an interesting debate, as the numbers were pooled with the away attendance, creating somewhat of a smokescreen given we have been playing the likes of Leeds.  I'd like to see this numbers deciphered far more to what the actual home attendance is, which is data the club has at the touch of the button. Also they should also be able to share the category. If not WHY? 

The clubs narrative of improvement curves needs challenging, its why we still have incompetence at senior level, its why we get inexperienced Head of operations appointed etc. The club cannot thrive purely on away support.

24% not renewing was the most damning of all statistics, in any business this is a catastrophe. New season tickets (potentially many kids) again mask the steep decline under the current administration and owners. 

Keep plodding away guys, its a thankless task at times. 

I think the next event needs to be the club board at King George's Hall in an open meeting so that the fans can pose in an open forum the many questions which continue to go unanswered.

Glen, some excellent points as always. The invite was sent to 3,000 email addresses and at best I believe we had 165 viewing.  We had 45 saying they were going to physically attend, clearly some decided to enjoy the sun with a beer in their gardens.

The make up of the present Board is on the website.  The process we went through this time was to ask members if they wished to stand.  Those who responded were asked, via the Trust Secretary, a number of questions relating to what skills they can bring to the Board and whether they had a commitment to contribute to the Board on a voluntary basis.

The Trust has not been keeping to our Rules in recent years and we now have a Compliance Lead on the Board who ensured we followed a full and proper process.; it is difficult to criticise others if we do not follow our own Rules.  We had 8 existing Board members plus the Secretary; the maximum number of elected positions is 14 and it was only by chance that we had 6 (excellent) nominees. If we had more then an election would have taken place.

[Mike Graham]

9 hours ago, tomphil said:

You're all falling for Waggots latest deflection tactic nd it's name is Rudy Gestede the human shield.

I don’t think so.  The feedback from WATR members to date has been excellent. 

[Rover8T4]

I take my hat off to anyone who fights for the cause to bring this club back to life. Reality is we could have the full fan base in there and it wouldn't make a difference. There is no heart and soul for Rovers at boardroom level anymore, It hurts, but it's the truth. Local press to scared to ask the right questions that need to be asked, Everything just comes across as scripted. It's the perfect time to ask about finances with the income generated and if we have a good enough budget to strengthen the squad to avoid the drop. 

Edited June 27 by Rover8T4

[Salgados Hair]

Am I correct in thinking this guy is on the board of WATR now?

[MarkBRFC]

The comment from Gestede about recruitment and budgets said everything to me.

Acting like we're sat in the March international break.

[MarkBRFC]

4 minutes ago, Salgados Hair said:

Am I correct in thinking this guy is on the board of WATR now?

Yep he is, an absolute whopper of a bloke.

[Forever Blue]

Did anyone from WATR ask about transfer budgets or the funding issue being resolved? That’s the biggest issue facing the club and has been for the last 12 months. 

[tomphil]

25 minutes ago, Mike Graham said:

I don’t think so.  The feedback from WATR members to date has been excellent. 

Has anybody asked him what is job actually is and what he is actually going to bring to the club for i presume a nice salary ?

We've had Paul Senior who brought nothing, we've had Gregg Broughton and we know that story. So what do you and the senior members of the WATR expect from this appointment beyond the old he's an ex player/nice guy/give the guy a chance etc ?

Will he still be here in a year or two years time max ?

[K-Hod]

17 minutes ago, Salgados Hair said:

Am I correct in thinking this guy is on the board of WATR now?

If he is, given this and other comments, that’s incredibly disappointing to hear tbh.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

12 hours ago, RoversClitheroe said:

The lack of questions around Wharton cash and stuff has really frustrated me.

This lot are getting away with murder...we dont stand a chance with such an apathetic fanbase.

[Mike Graham]

31 minutes ago, Salgados Hair said:

Am I correct in thinking this guy is on the board of WATR now?

We do not comment on individual Board members.  We never have and never will.  All new Board members bring skills and expertise to our Board and they are all welcomed onboard for that.

Not every supporter has the same opinion on how the Club is run and how the owners operate.  We need to be a ‘broad church’  - brfcs is not representative of the fan base.

[Moptop1]

14 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

This lot are getting away with murder...we dont stand a chance with such an apathetic fanbase.

It’s ok, once we don’t have a club to support, this will all be over.

People can then complain and it will all be too late. 

What a total shit show.

[Bethnal]

1 minute ago, Mike Graham said:

We need to be a ‘broad church’  - brfcs is not representative of the fan base.

That’s a particularly telling statement, Mike. In what way is it not representative of the fanbase? And as a couple of follow-ups; what’s the ambition of that statement? Where do you think that kind of approach is going to get you/the trust you currently chair?

[Mattyblue]

What is you personal view of the ownership and leadership on the ground of Blackburn Rovers, Mike?

[Upside Down]

41 minutes ago, Salgados Hair said:

Am I correct in thinking this guy is on the board of WATR now?

He always posts shit like that. He's either a deliberate agent of the club or an absolute brainless moron.

 

[ABBEY]

absolute no1 venky shagger that one ..loon and pity the board if he's a member.

[wilsdenrover]

34 minutes ago, Mike Graham said:

We do not comment on individual Board members.  We never have and never will.  All new Board members bring skills and expertise to our Board and they are all welcomed onboard for that.

Not every supporter has the same opinion on how the Club is run and how the owners operate.  We need to be a ‘broad church’  - brfcs is not representative of the fan base.

Whilst noting your first sentence…

If he truly believes what he’s put in that tweet, surely (based on the stated aims of the Trust on ‘your’ website’) he would  think the Trust isn’t needed.

If he doesn’t believe what he’s put in the tweet (ie he’s trying to wind people up) is he really a suitable person to be on ‘your’ board?

[glen9mullan]

The Trust anyone can pay and join , have equal voting rights and by the same token have an equal opportunity to join the board. All opinions differ (if we all thought the same nothing would ever change) . In a democratic organisation no one should be excluded because their opinions differ, and with the appointments the trust have stayed true to democracy which is a good thing.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

No real questions raised about our so-called absent owners, their continued mismanagement of the club,their lack of direction and ambition?

Vetted questions...whats that all about?

[K-Hod]

I still think it’s a big worry that someone that is on record as saying our owners are the best in the country, is on the board of an organisation helping the club.

Appreciate everyone has a different view, but their reason we’ve declined so much since they took over, for goodness’ sake.

[oldjamfan1]

2 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I still think it’s a big worry that someone that is on record as saying our owners are the best in the country, is on the board of an organisation helping the club.

Appreciate everyone has a different view, but their reason we’ve declined so much since they took over, for goodness’ sake.

 

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Whilst noting your first sentence…

If he truly believes what he’s put in that tweet, surely (based on the stated aims of the Trust on ‘your’ website’) he would  think the Trust isn’t needed.

If he doesn’t believe what he’s put in the tweet (ie he’s trying to wind people up) is he really a suitable person to be on ‘your’ board?

Be assured, there are enough WATR Board members who don't  think that Venkys are good owners to counter any 'unusual' opinions that may surface in Board meetings. 

[Forever Blue]

I though Rudy ‘head of comms’ Gestede refusing to answer a question about transfers/budgets was quite telling!

[K-Hod]

16 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

 

Be assured, there are enough WATR Board members who don't  think that Venkys are good owners to counter any 'unusual' opinions that may surface in Board meetings. 

The worry for me is, that he’s a decision maker, so it stands to reason his voice is a bit louder. 

Just from the homepage-

Our aims are clear, they are to:

Secure the assets of our Club and promote our unique heritage

Preserve the long term health of our Club

Regenerate a new support base and mitigate against lost fans

These things literally only need to happen because of Venky’s and their shite ownership, now there’s someone on the board that thinks they’re the best owners in the land? Make it make sense, please….