Rovers Trust

[K-Hod]

2 hours ago, Mike Graham said:

Kenny.  WATR would not dream of making such personal comments about individual owners of this message board.  
 

We have an elected Board and they hold a wide cross section of opinion.  My role is to try and get the Board to a consensus on a way forward, it can be challenging given the different views.

Fair enough, Mike.

But, as I said before, the man thinks Venky’s are some of the best owners in football and the only reason WATR has had to exist, is because of those owners.

[Herbie6590]

3 hours ago, Mike E said:

.

Remember that WATR represent a wider scope of fans than is on BRFCS.

Measured how Mike? Genuine question BTW.

[ABBEY]

3 hours ago, Mike E said:

Regardless of your view on them, yes. If you want to have the influence of being a member, you need to be a member.

I do think survey idea posted above should be a more regular occurrence in terms of gauging views.

Remember that WATR represent a wider scope of fans than is on BRFCS.

why would I want to be part of a group of venky sympathisers? maggot needs telling he's scum , venkys need go and needs telling this .

and telling people to stfu is pretty disgusting.  

[Moptop1]

They may not see it like that and that’s why the club need telling what the fans really think of how the club is run, by crooks.

Turn up the heat a bit. They will then start to get concerned, that the fans will do something. Keep them on their toes more.

There are ways of putting pressure on without being confrontational. They need to hear, that more natives are becoming less patient with them.

[Mike E]

5 hours ago, ABBEY said:

why would I want to be part of a group of venky sympathisers? maggot needs telling he's scum , venkys need go and needs telling this .

and telling people to stfu is pretty disgusting.  

Are they a group of Venky Sympathisers? Based on what? One complete arse newly elected to their board?

You don’t have to, of course not. But if you want them to change their member-led stance (whatever you believe it is), then your only option is to become a member and offer that voice. Or even stand for election so that other candidates have to fight for their positions.

FWIW, every board member I’ve known of from 2010 (until this Gary Smith bloke) wants Venkys out passionately.

But as ever with a democratically voted upon organisation, the board’s individual views matter much less than the views of their membership.

I only tell people to stfu when they won’t do what they claim others should do. For example, I know that YOU (independently of WATR) have done plenty of protesting etc, so you HAVE put your money where your mouth is. My stfu remark is to those types of people who demand the volunteers of WATR (all with significant and professional jobs and families, giving up their free time) organise a pitch-storming protest who wouldn’t themselves dream of even telling Waggott what they think of him in an email, let alone committing the crime of pitch encroachment to do so.

Those people SHOULD in fact put up or shut the fuck up.

Edited July 28 by Mike E

[Mike E]

5 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

Measured how Mike? Genuine question BTW.

A good one too. No measure, purely my reading of membership emails/questions from my time as membership officer vs my modding of this forum.

When we last did a proper consultation meeting, representatives of this forum asked more direct and pressing questions than myself or John (then Chair) did in representing our members.

Though I must say I personally preferred the questions asked by BRFCS members.

I’d say that (again, my reading of the room) the WATR membership doesn’t approve of Venkys ownership any more than the average BRFCS member, BUT the general consensus of WATR membership is to try and influence things for the positive before going full nuclear.

Until getting my new job, I would personally support going full nuclear. With my new role I would impartially observe from the sidelines with a wry smile on my face when Venkys finally leave.

Edited July 28 by Mike E
Some fucking appalling grammar.

[RoversClitheroe]

9 hours ago, Hasta said:

Let’s have a look at your twitter posters shall we Mike and see if they hold widely differing views from on here. It seems to me they may have an issue with the forum but all want the owners out.

 

SalfordRover has retweeted he wants Venkys out.

Sonny has said “Get these bastards out of our club I beg”

MatthewShaw retwteets Linz that Rovers is “a shit show” and “dying”. Also retweets roverschat that we have suffered “14 years of neglect and decay”

Eoin has previously stated Venkys have fucked up the club. Was very anti-Venkys even as far back as 2012. Says everything is pointless until the senior management / owners change.

In February Sam Lord says “Venkys need to fuck off now and so does Waggot”

Umair also after the Maguire fiasco was Venkys out, posting the “enough is enough” badge.

So all of your examples of “differing opinion” all want Venkys to leave.
Still, you get some more Stone Roses played before matchday and give the next digital day your blessing.

 

 

 

As stated, WATR should do questionnaires to get a direction as to what the members think.

[RevidgeBlue]

So let me get this right - "WATR" - (a slogan shamefully nicked off another individual who previously tried to engage with the Club BTW) who purport to represent the views of the fanbase as a whole, actually have a paid up membership of sub 500?

[Herbie6590]

9 hours ago, Mike E said:

A good one too. No measure, purely my reading of membership emails/questions from my time as membership officer vs my modding of this forum.

When we last did a proper consultation meeting, representatives of this forum asked more direct and pressing questions than myself or John (then Chair) did in representing our members.

Though I must say I personally preferred the questions asked by BRFCS members.

I’d say that (again, my reading of the room) the WATR membership doesn’t approve of Venkys ownership any more than the average BRFCS member, BUT the general consensus of WATR membership is to try and influence things for the positive before going full nuclear.

Until getting my new job, I would personally support going full nuclear. With my new role I would impartially observe from the sidelines with a wry smile on my face when Venkys finally leave.

Thanks Mike - I was meaning more about the demographics, especially age & gender. I suspect the membership of WATR & BRFCS are quite similar but I thought you’d uncovered a way of demonstrating it 😉I’ve seen this “WATR are more representative” line peddled a few times.

interestingly, if you were a polling company, to get a statistically significant sample size of Rovers fans to a confidence level of 95% you wouldn’t need to poll that many people. If you assume a home crowd of 15,000, then a poll of just 375 would give you that (with a 5%  margin of error).

I would therefore argue that with over a thousand active forum accounts, BRFCS is actually quite representative. Although I do accept that folks who sign up to the Forum are motivated supporters as opposed to being randomly selected.

But the same observation can be made of WATR.

 

[ABBEY]

9 hours ago, Mike E said:

Are they a group of Venky Sympathisers? Based on what? One complete arse newly elected to their board?

You don’t have to, of course not. But if you want them to change their member-led stance (whatever you believe it is), then your only option is to become a member and offer that voice. Or even stand for election so that other candidates have to fight for their positions.

FWIW, every board member I’ve known of from 2010 (until this Gary Smith bloke) wants Venkys out passionately.

But as ever with a democratically voted upon organisation, the board’s individual views matter much less than the views of their membership.

I only tell people to stfu when they won’t do what they claim others should do. For example, I know that YOU (independently of WATR) have done plenty of protesting etc, so you HAVE put your money where your mouth is. My stfu remark is to those types of people who demand the volunteers of WATR (all with significant and professional jobs and families, giving up their free time) organise a pitch-storming protest who wouldn’t themselves dream of even telling Waggott what they think of him in an email, let alone committing the crime of pitch encroachment to do so.

Those people SHOULD in fact put up or shut the fuck up.

every one wants venkyscum out bar someone called gary , never heard of him personally. 

however there are posts on here by watr saying don't call maggot names and they don't want venkys gone.

as for standing I've to be careful these days as last lot of protesting caused me to be put on blood pressure meds and warnings of the quack.

[Mike Graham]

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

Thanks Mike - I was meaning more about the demographics, especially age & gender. I suspect the membership of WATR & BRFCS are quite similar but I thought you’d uncovered a way of demonstrating it 😉I’ve seen this “WATR are more representative” line peddled a few times.

interestingly, if you were a polling company, to get a statistically significant sample size of Rovers fans to a confidence level of 95% you wouldn’t need to poll that many people. If you assume a home crowd of 15,000, then a poll of just 375 would give you that (with a 5%  margin of error).

I would therefore argue that with over a thousand active forum accounts, BRFCS is actually quite representative. Although I do accept that folks who sign up to the Forum are motivated supporters as opposed to being randomly selected.

But the same observation can be made of WATR.

 

Ian,  I believe comparing brfcs with WATR is a bit like comparing apples with pears.

 

WATR is a Community Benefit Society and has to act within legislation; it is made up of paying members and is managed by an elected board of Directors.  Brfcs is a private company with owners and individual messageboard posters of who some (I can only identify 4 but it must be more) are members of WATR.

Whete this “WATR are more representative” comes from I don’t  know.  Our membership has never been as high as we would wish but we are changing that as explained yesterday with our new website, better communication etc.  WATR does not have a messageboard nor does not seek to compete with brfcs.  Both have different roles but are able to compliment each other on occasions.

Edited July 29 by Mike Graham

[Mike E]

I spoke to previous Chair, John Murray, at his home last night and we discussed quite a few of the points raised re: election, ‘Save our club’ etc and I think he’d be okay with me adding some responses here on his behalf:

- When taking over RT in 2018, it was a case of resurrecting the Trust. At the time the board had three members, two of whom wanted out. At the point JM left, there were 8 board members.

- JM is the last person to be elected by votes. Over the last 6 years the Board has consisted of those elected unopposed, plus co-opted board members.

- Despite Wayne W’s considerable hard work, the Trust had also at that point lost around 700 members.

- JM received 100+ member emails per year and visited a number of people who pledged monies, with whom he regularly touched base to ensure this remained the case.

- JM also kept (and continues to keep) a file on what to do in event the Club goes into Admin, with his personal UK and International contacts. This was kept largely a secret, mind.

-  The "Critical Friend" concept was deeply held, and a general rule in all relationships with Club. After all your best friends are the ones who can and will tell you the hard truths.

- JM insisted to Steve W that any MoU meetings had to have Sohail P as in attendance as Owner Representative, and not just the Management. Alas, he has attended none as yet.

- JM still working away a lot so whether he resigned or was pushed out does not apply. He believes Mike G has done very well to get 14 on the Trust Board, a solid achievement.

- The new Regulator and the National swell of opinion is part of his legacy (alongside Andy Y and others), particularly as much of the wording for Tracey C’s announcement/proposal of the Football Independent Regulator legislation was lifted directly from Trust Member and Trust Board Member testimony.

- There is still a lot of work for the Trust to do, however. Eg: state of ground; stopping PL plundering youth from lower Leagues; at least getting Raos to engage and/or look at diluting their share of Club etc etc

[glen9mullan]

My memory of the history of the trust.

Duncan Miller tried extremely hard long before the hard days to get a trust off the ground, (a modern day visionary really, as if we knew then what we know now, the support he needed would of been forthcoming.) I recall a meeting where Mark Ashworth , James Fallon and Duncan were doing the paperwork to get the supporters direct on board and get that important piece of paper to form a trust after probably 2 years of effort.

Then Venkys started the dismantling , which saw Dan Grabko propose a business plan to form an entity/trust unbeknown that only one trust can exists. Wayne brought the business plan to me, where I gave it an evaluation. The concept was good but the delivery was more if we was real madrid. Wayne and I both put a lot of time in rewriting this with Dan, to create an entity with the sole purpose of being there to take up the reigns if Venkys put the club into administration. We reached out to some significant investors but also allowed every fan an opportunity to own a stake in a new ownership model. We gained MP and influential local businesses buy in, but with another trust existing unless the two entities merge, with that piece of paper bring the key thing needed, neither trust could progress.

The trust set up an elected board made up of the two entities. I opted to be a member but not at that time get involved in running the trust as the lack of traction had already sent me down the path to form the democratically elected Action Group , which was free and had 10 fold the membership. It also had some huge influential supporters from Mps to knights of the realm to businessman fir example Wayne Hemingway was a patron as was Lord Patel amongst others. The Action group always existed to hold those in charge accountable, whereas the trust was the back up plan.  Interestingly the trust met up with Battersby ect but could not form an mutual agreement.

There was frustration from the action group that publicly the trust was remaining quiet, though privately the trust did fund some of the protest movement from personal donations (not from trust funds).

It was the action group who formed the picture of what had occurred at rovers releasing the smoking gun proving the club had broken the rules. The action group were the group who went to the FA, Premier League, Football league and importantly Parliament, which instigated the independent regulator and fan lead review. The trust were NOT involved in any of this, though have provided input into the fan lead review amongst other supporter organisations since.

It was around this time I was elected onto the FSA national Council to drive further pressure into the heart of the national games authorities.

Once the corruption was removed from the club I opted to stand down from the Action Group, I'd done my time and was asked to become the secretary of the Rovers trust. I took on this role, and the trust remit remained the same. On the pitch and around the club things were starting to improve though we had dropped to league one , anger was replaced with optimism on the back of the clubs promotion back to the championship. I stood down from the Trust, for personal reasons as my position had become untenable due to me leaving WEC where I was a company director, to become a company director elsewhere. It was important that personal relationship strains didn't affect the trusts path to succeeding.  What happened after then I don't know bar a full change of guard and significant membership drop.

What the trust aims are now, I'm still unsure as I don't recall a mandate change during my time .

What I do know its a lot of effort for free, which at times has you thinking "why do I bother"

I can also say a pressure group is something the trust has never been or claimed to be, which somewhat has always been a handicap. The trust is bound by governance and rules as set out by supporters direct and by its own mandate.  

 

JWs statement on the TV last year that its never as good at it currently was , will haunt many a supporter for years to come. Ad it was not representative of the majority of supporters, but because it was done in an official capacity as the Chairman of the trust , it was a positive move for a change of the guard once more.

Like the fans forum, all who put their time in , do so because they ate passionate supporters. It's easy to criticse from afar, but believe me the effort it takes to drive these things is mammoth and they should be applauded for trying their best within the remits they have 

[Upside Down]

I appreciate the sacrifices made by folk like @glen9mullan @Mike Graham @Miller11 and all the others I am missing out.

This is work that needs to be done and any of those criticising from the sidelines should get involved and invoke the change they want to see. Obviously not everyone is in the position to be able to do the same things as those mentioned above for various reasons. I am doing what little I can from my position as I believe this is important.

That being said, I think we're at a point now where any meeting that is not attended by Suhail is completely pointless as Waggott is merely repeating what he's been told to when it comes to the court case etc. If Suhail is not present then the Trust members should be walking out and publicly stating the club's unwillingness to co-operate with the Supporters Trust.

I would also like to see a referendum of some sort carried out by the Trust with it's members in regard to a vote of "no confidence" in the owners and the club senior management. Naturally the time for this should be after the 20th August court hearing. 

 

For those interested, I have posted the incomplete version of the timeline of the last few years over in the HMRC thread.

[Herbie6590]

14 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I appreciate the sacrifices made by folk like @glen9mullan @Mike Graham @Miller11 and all the others I am missing out.

This is work that needs to be done and any of those criticising from the sidelines should get involved and invoke the change they want to see. Obviously not everyone is in the position to be able to do the same things as those mentioned above for various reasons. I am doing what little I can from my position as I believe this is important.

That being said, I think we're at a point now where any meeting that is not attended by Suhail is completely pointless as Waggott is merely repeating what he's been told to when it comes to the court case etc. If Suhail is not present then the Trust members should be walking out and publicly stating the club's unwillingness to co-operate with the Supporters Trust.

I would also like to see a referendum of some sort carried out by the Trust with it's members in regard to a vote of "no confidence" in the owners and the club senior management. Naturally the time for this should be after the 20th August court hearing. 

 

For those interested, I have posted the incomplete version of the timeline of the last few years over in the HMRC thread.

Spot on…no Suhail, no point. Waggott is & always has been Venky’s bullet-proof vest. He’s carried out his instructions from Pune admirably. Our issue is with the owners & Suhail is their eyes & ears. 

[lraC]

On 31/07/2024 at 20:04, glen9mullan said:

My memory of the history of the trust.

Duncan Miller tried extremely hard long before the hard days to get a trust off the ground, (a modern day visionary really, as if we knew then what we know now, the support he needed would of been forthcoming.) I recall a meeting where Mark Ashworth , James Fallon and Duncan were doing the paperwork to get the supporters direct on board and get that important piece of paper to form a trust after probably 2 years of effort.

Then Venkys started the dismantling , which saw Dan Grabko propose a business plan to form an entity/trust unbeknown that only one trust can exists. Wayne brought the business plan to me, where I gave it an evaluation. The concept was good but the delivery was more if we was real madrid. Wayne and I both put a lot of time in rewriting this with Dan, to create an entity with the sole purpose of being there to take up the reigns if Venkys put the club into administration. We reached out to some significant investors but also allowed every fan an opportunity to own a stake in a new ownership model. We gained MP and influential local businesses buy in, but with another trust existing unless the two entities merge, with that piece of paper bring the key thing needed, neither trust could progress.

The trust set up an elected board made up of the two entities. I opted to be a member but not at that time get involved in running the trust as the lack of traction had already sent me down the path to form the democratically elected Action Group , which was free and had 10 fold the membership. It also had some huge influential supporters from Mps to knights of the realm to businessman fir example Wayne Hemingway was a patron as was Lord Patel amongst others. The Action group always existed to hold those in charge accountable, whereas the trust was the back up plan.  Interestingly the trust met up with Battersby ect but could not form an mutual agreement.

There was frustration from the action group that publicly the trust was remaining quiet, though privately the trust did fund some of the protest movement from personal donations (not from trust funds).

It was the action group who formed the picture of what had occurred at rovers releasing the smoking gun proving the club had broken the rules. The action group were the group who went to the FA, Premier League, Football league and importantly Parliament, which instigated the independent regulator and fan lead review. The trust were NOT involved in any of this, though have provided input into the fan lead review amongst other supporter organisations since.

It was around this time I was elected onto the FSA national Council to drive further pressure into the heart of the national games authorities.

Once the corruption was removed from the club I opted to stand down from the Action Group, I'd done my time and was asked to become the secretary of the Rovers trust. I took on this role, and the trust remit remained the same. On the pitch and around the club things were starting to improve though we had dropped to league one , anger was replaced with optimism on the back of the clubs promotion back to the championship. I stood down from the Trust, for personal reasons as my position had become untenable due to me leaving WEC where I was a company director, to become a company director elsewhere. It was important that personal relationship strains didn't affect the trusts path to succeeding.  What happened after then I don't know bar a full change of guard and significant membership drop.

What the trust aims are now, I'm still unsure as I don't recall a mandate change during my time .

What I do know its a lot of effort for free, which at times has you thinking "why do I bother"

I can also say a pressure group is something the trust has never been or claimed to be, which somewhat has always been a handicap. The trust is bound by governance and rules as set out by supporters direct and by its own mandate.  

 

JWs statement on the TV last year that its never as good at it currently was , will haunt many a supporter for years to come. Ad it was not representative of the majority of supporters, but because it was done in an official capacity as the Chairman of the trust , it was a positive move for a change of the guard once more.

Like the fans forum, all who put their time in , do so because they ate passionate supporters. It's easy to criticse from afar, but believe me the effort it takes to drive these things is mammoth and they should be applauded for trying their best within the remits they have 

What ever happened to Dan?

[glen9mullan]

4 hours ago, lraC said:

What ever happened to Dan?

Got involved in motorsports 

[Forever Blue]

17 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

Spot on…no Suhail, no point. Waggott is & always has been Venky’s bullet-proof vest. He’s carried out his instructions from Pune admirably. Our issue is with the owners & Suhail is their eyes & ears. 

You’re saying Waggott doesn’t make any  decisions unilaterally that impact the club or its supporters? 

[Herbie6590]

2 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

You’re saying Waggott doesn’t make any  decisions unilaterally that impact the club or its supporters? 

I think he takes his orders from Pune/Suhail & carries them out accordingly within what I suspect are fairly tight constraints. e.g. I have heard tale that any prospective purchase of £5k or more needed sign off from India so I understand he doesn’t have that much of substance upon which he can unilaterally decide, certainly not like you would expect of a CEO of a “more traditionally run” business. 
Now, whether he pushes back robustly to his bosses to challenge their constraints or just goes along with what they demand is a different argument.
The £300k salary & associated benefits is quite the lever to ensuring compliant behaviour IMO.

 

edit: for clarity - I should also add, if Waggott were removed, I firmly believe our position would remain largely unchanged as the successor would be recruited to follow orders similarly hence that observation 🤷‍♂️

[Gav]

18 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

I think he takes his orders from Pune/Suhail & carries them out accordingly within what I suspect are fairly tight constraints. e.g. I have heard tale that any prospective purchase of £5k or more needed sign off from India so I understand he doesn’t have that much of substance upon which he can unilaterally decide, certainly not like you would expect of a CEO of a “more traditionally run” business. 
Now, whether he pushes back robustly to his bosses to challenge their constraints or just goes along with what they demand is a different argument.
The £300k salary & associated benefits is quite the lever to ensuring compliant behaviour IMO.

 

edit: for clarity - I should also add, if Waggott were removed, I firmly believe our position would remain largely unchanged as the successor would be recruited to follow orders similarly hence that observation 🤷‍♂️

Absolutely spot on Herbie.

Like it or not, Waggott is the best CEO we've had since this lot bought the club and forced John Williams out. He has no mandate to increase attendances, he has no mandate to grow the club, he's given financial targets knowing his bosses will write cheques each year to keep the lights on, thats it.

The owners encourage mediocrity, employ mediocrity and get mediocrity.

Venkys out - Nothing else matters.

Ps - Just a word on Mike who seems to be getting a kicking for dedicating his time to try and bring about change. Top guy, I know him personally, he has 1 agenda, Blackburn Rovers and its future.

Edited August 2 by Gav

[Mike Graham]

17 minutes ago, Gav said:

Absolutely spot on Herbie.

Like it or not, Waggott is the best CEO we've had since this lot bought the club and forced John Williams out. He has no mandate to increase attendances, he has no mandate to grow the club, he's given financial targets knowing his bosses will write cheques each year to keep the lights on, thats it.

The owners encourage mediocrity, employ mediocrity and get mediocrity.

Venkys out - Nothing else matters.

Ps - Just a word on Mike who seems to be getting a kicking for dedicating his time to try and bring about change. Top guy, I know him personally, he has 1 agenda, Blackburn Rovers and its future.

Gav, your £20 and a bottle of fizz await 😉

[arbitro]

22 minutes ago, Gav said:

Absolutely spot on Herbie.

Like it or not, Waggott is the best CEO we've had since this lot bought the club and forced John Williams out. He has no mandate to increase attendances, he has no mandate to grow the club, he's given financial targets knowing his bosses will write cheques each year to keep the lights on, thats it.

The owners encourage mediocrity, employ mediocrity and get mediocrity.

Venkys out - Nothing else matters.

Ps - Just a word on Mike who seems to be getting a kicking for dedicating his time to try and bring about change. Top guy, I know him personally, he has 1 agenda, Blackburn Rovers and its future.

I agree about Mike and anybody who volunteers their time to trying to make our club better. Some of the criticism (and I include the Fans Forum too) has been OTT and unjustified. I'm all for constructive criticism and opinion but it's not nice when it borders on vitriol.

I don't agree about Waggott though who is a self serving individual. He is good for the Punekars but not the fans and the club in general.The only person who tried to advise the owners correctly since John Williams et al was sacked for doing just that.

[Mattyblue]

I think that’s Gav’s point. Has he been a good CEO for Blackburn Rovers, its fanbase? It’s infrastructure? It’s future? No, he’s been bloody appalling.

But a good CEO for the owners? (Owners that also don’t care about Blackburn Rovers, its fanbase, it’s infrastructure, it’s future) Without doubt, kept the club ticking over with minimum of fuss for them.

Edited August 2 by Mattyblue

[Boz]

I asked, in response by a fans forum member request to pose questions to be asked at the most recent Fans Forum, whether the position of Suhail Pasha might be enquired. 

Specifically whether a Director, better still SW  the Chief Executive Officer, might comment as to whether they consider Pasha to be acting as a ‘Shadow Director’? Following on from this, how do they consider this to sit alongside their position as a director sitting on the Board of Directors and receiving instructions? 

I have read the minutes, but cannot see anything mentioned; was my question asked and responded to, or ignored? 
Thank you.

[OldEwoodBlue]

As the Ewood sands of responsibility shift again, I will remind everyone to forget what you see in the smoke and mirrors.

There is one person running the show at Ewood.

He was involved before Venkys.

He was a "fixer" working with Kentaro.

He credits himself with fixing the sale of Rovers to Venkys.

He hired Waggott, he hired Senior, he hired Shebby, he hired Anderson. Hired may be the wrong word with Anderson as they were all together in the same filthy piss pot.

He worked from the shadows until outted for not having a work permit.

He now works in the shadows behind a hired puppet.

Operations and management consultant.

Now Chief Operating Officer.

Time to finally drag him out into the open.