WATR (The Rovers Trust)

[glen9mullan]

8 hours ago, Hasta said:

No. I want to know what the Trust realistically think this could achieve? What's the realistic best case scenario? What are we actually asking the Sports Minister to do?

Whilst it's fair enough supporters trusts trying to stop this happening again in the future, I don't believe anything that happens here can force Venkys to sell.Even in the aims given on the trust website.

 

It's not an anti-trust view. It's just like re-living what BRAG did 4 years ago.

 

 

As someone who presented a strong case to the sports minister 4 years ago, winged with all 3 local MPS I actually share your view.

 

The government won't regulate the FA, they will often raise the flag and support for supporter ownership, but in terms of getting rid of Venkys, I strongly feel this is a case of been there, done that , and it's a waste of time.

No one has found that magic key to forcing Venkys to sell, that magic key will never come from pressure from the likes of MPS or the football authorities. 

As hard as it is to take, they will only up anchor when they get bored, or it it starts to affect their other industries 

[chaddyrovers]

very good on getting the meeting with the sports minister Rovers trust board but I don't what she can really do tbh apart from said she understand your concerns.

The government aren't interested in Football. as long as the football clubs paid the taxes and national insurance on time the Government are happy

Look at how many MP's turned up to the Football debate last time. 30 MP's at most.

The FA will say that Venkys have done everything correct and not broken any of their rules.

Like others have said previously it sounds like the same thing that Glen Mullan, BRFCAG and MP's did 4 years ago

 

[Michael Doherty]

Thanks for the comments about the forthcoming meeting – both the positive and the sceptical. The news post to the Trust website did set out what we want to achieve within the meeting, but there have been relevant questions here about what we want the overall outcome to be, what the Sports Minister can actually do, etc …

I am realistic. Whatever the outcome is, it is likely to be limited, but that does not mean it will be useless. We all do what we can to protect the club we love, don’t we?

Take the last Structured Dialogue Meeting with the club. The Action Group could put its points directly and bluntly to Cheston on the feelings of fans about his role. Others, on the back of effective research, could extract information about the short-term financing situation. That meeting is not going to directly lead to Venky’s leaving; but would we rather that senior staff are put on the spot about the mismanagement of the club, or that they are spared that indignity? Would we rather find out about some of the alarming financing arrangements or not? The meetings are not perfect, but not useless.

And coming back to the point …

Why did Blackburn Rovers hold that meeting? It was because nationally some supporters’ groups had pushed their concerns about engagement with their clubs. They lobbied, asked for meetings, got the support of FSF and Supporters Direct. Collectively they persuaded the Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch, to set up an Expert Working Group on Football Supporter Engagement and Ownership. When it reported and recommended structured dialogue meetings, she was supportive of the proposal and secured the agreement of the PL / EFL. As the supporters’ trust for Blackburn Rovers we cannot afford to turn down the opportunity of meeting with the person who can effect change in football regulation.

So, I don’t know what the eventual outcome of the meeting will be. Our proposals are consistent with the line taken by FSF /SD, and we have the added insight of being at the sharp end of shortcomings in football regulation. We might be able to nudge the debate along a little; it is a long way from perfect but we’ll do what we can.

[Paul]

@Michael Doherty Marvellous post Michael and one which should give fans some faith in the direction the Trust will begin to follow - I hope. 

[arbitro]

Well done in getting some time with the Sports Minister. I think any opportunity to air our plight should be taken and I hope she realises the damage that has been caused not just to our club. We have to keep chipping away and hopefully the longer game will be somebody in power actually takes some action to prevent this type of owner ever being able to buy a football club ever again.

[lraC]

Just now, arbitro said:

Well done in getting some time with the Sports Minister. I think any opportunity to air our plight should be taken and I hope she realises the damage that has been caused not just to our club. We have to keep chipping away and hopefully the longer game will be somebody in power actually takes some action to prevent this type of owner ever being able to buy a football club ever again.

It fills me with pride to see a post like that above from Michael Doherty, the same sort of pride I used to get that sort of pride, from following the team. With people like that, now in place at the trust, we do have a chance. I know for a fact that a copy of a letter has been sent to Tracy Crouch recently. That letter was sent to David Newton, the head of integrity, at the FA. In it are some very serious allegations about the take over and running of our club. I am sure this will be brought up at the meeting and if this alone can be acted upon and brought to the attention of the general public, then the meeting is worthwhile.

Good luck with it guys, you are a credit to your fellow supporters.

[Dunnfc]

It's 30 mins with the sports MP, but it's now an opportunity to look to create a relationship with these types, all of whom will upon hopefully of this meeting start giving BRFC the attention and scrutiny it's been missing. I will speak from experience that these people are very busy, not aware of the ins and outs of the situation at hand but hopefully this is a springboard to go forwards with.

[lraC]

Just now, Dunnfc said:

It's 30 mins with the sports MP, but it's now an opportunity to look to create a relationship with these types, all of whom will upon hopefully of this meeting start giving BRFC the attention and scrutiny it's been missing. I will speak from experience that these people are very busy, not aware of the ins and outs of the situation at hand but hopefully this is a springboard to go forwards with.

It is a massive feather in the cap of the Trust and one that should be respected. My comments above speak for themselves and I think everyone on this board, with Rovers best interests at heart, should send a massive well done to them.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, Dunnfc said:

It's 30 mins with the sports MP, but it's now an opportunity to look to create a relationship with these types, all of whom will upon hopefully of this meeting start giving BRFC the attention and scrutiny it's been missing. I will speak from experience that these people are very busy, not aware of the ins and outs of the situation at hand but hopefully this is a springboard to go forwards with.

Oh such wishful thinking. Politicians have bigger vote grabbing issues at hand than Blackburn rovers. Besides, how much of an understanding will she get after a 20-30 minute chat? Does she know anything about the issues and what has gone on at the club already?

I wager nothing will happen after the meeting takes place. I would advise caution with people getting their hopes up about what will happen here. Venkys aren't going anywhere until ,for whatever reason, they decide to. 

[Dunnfc]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

Oh such wishful thinking. Politicians have bigger vote grabbing issues at hand than Blackburn rovers. Besides, how much of an understanding will she get after a 20-30 minute chat? Does she know anything about the issues and what has gone on at the club already?

I wager nothing will happen after the meeting takes place. I would advise caution with people getting their hopes up about what will happen here. Venkys aren't going anywhere until ,for whatever reason, they decide to. 

From the conversations I've had with her team, they are heavily under the influence from many of these assurances the FA have been providing her. It only took one or two points brought up to actually cast doubt on what she and colleagues had been assured by the FA, allot of it seemingly not correct and the evidence out there providing contrary to many claims. 

No hopes up but it's a step in the right direction. I'd hope after a 30 minute chat shes engaged enough to take away food for thought, pose some questions to herself based on these previous assurances and starts bringing up some of these at her monthly efl meetings. It's a chance to create some regular dialogue with an influential party.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Dunnfc

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, Dunnfc said:

From the conversations I've had with her team, they are heavily under the influence from many of these assurances the FA have been providing her. It only took one or two points brought up to actually cast doubt on what she and colleagues had been assured by the FA, allot of it seemingly not correct and the evidence out there providing contrary to many claims. 

No hopes up but it's a step in the right direction.

I just can't see anyone being held accountable and its all too late for us.

Best of luck to those involved anyway and I will be following the meetings. 

[lraC]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

I just can't see anyone being held accountable and its all too late for us.

Best of luck to those involved anyway and I will be following the meetings. 

Just as a matter of Interest, do you think they should give up with this, it or pursue it? Also have you ever got involved in anything to try to highlight the clubs plight?

Thanks

Edited April 24, 2017 by lraC

[Dunnfc]

Just a shame it's so quick would be good to get BRAG/Glen m/Phil L and co on board

Edited April 24, 2017 by Dunnfc

[Stuart]

@Michael Doherty are there some specific questions you are putting to the sports minister? It would be good to know what vision she has for football club ownership over the next decade or so: will capitalism reign supreme or will there be any balance in terms of mandated part-ownership by fans a la Germany.

Football is our national sport and our football clubs are community centres in their respective towns and cities.

[Glenn]

8 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Would Mods/Admin please delete all posts made over the past couple of days on this thread that not directly related to the thread and the Rovers Trust. This includes some of mine.  It is easy to mistake which thread you are on or at least thats my excuse.

The nonsense taking place now is demeaning to all and the RT must be wondering if they should share info here.

Its not like me to get all serious but jts getting embarassing.

People get upset when we hide content, but I agree this is no place for this discussion and was ruining a thread on a very specific topic, so I've moved the offending posts into their own thread, where people who don't dare who did and didn't protest and why,can easily avoid them.

Now, back to the trust please  

[mhead]

Last proto-Trust Board Meeting is tonight and new Board goes live from Monday May 1st.

So clearly more news next week on our planning and actions. Do I have to create a relegation reaction as well? Probably(not possibly).

[blueboy3333]

http://www.roverstrust.com/2017/05/01/message-new-chair-rovers-trust-john-murray/

15,000 Supporters were singing “Rovers Till I Die” last Saturday. We say: “Rovers Must Not Die"

Amen to that.

[RV Blue]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

http://www.roverstrust.com/2017/05/01/message-new-chair-rovers-trust-john-murray/

15,000 Supporters were singing “Rovers Till I Die” last Saturday. We say: “Rovers Must Not Die"

Amen to that.

Do they not have a proof reader? Just looks unprofessional.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, RV Blue said:

Do they not have a proof reader? Just looks unprofessional.

Criticising presentation when people have put time, effort and probably money into something that is valued by a lot of people seems a bit churlish.

It looks fine to me.

[AllRoverAsia]

I think the website improvement is on the to do list but it looks better than it did and the latest article is good.

On the page I'm seeing at bottom right there is a 2015 article header re 'Glen' which is way out of date etc.

Edited May 1, 2017 by AllRoverAsia

[RV Blue]

Just now, blueboy3333 said:

Criticising presentation when people have put time, effort and probably money into something that is valued by a lot of people seems a bit churlish.

It looks fine to me.

Fair enough to them, just seems strange that they haven't read though their first article as the new board before posting it.

[Paul]

8 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

http://www.roverstrust.com/2017/05/01/message-new-chair-rovers-trust-john-murray/

15,000 Supporters were singing “Rovers Till I Die” last Saturday. We say: “Rovers Must Not Die"

Amen to that.

I'm disappointed by this article. I had understood from the pre-election discussion the intention was to move the Rovers Trust in a new direction. This is same old, same old. 

Yes, it should be proofread. 

[AllRoverAsia]

I am trying to get my head around what changes or improvements people expected to see by or on the same day the new Board took up office. 

 

[Paul]

The article refers to medium term priorities all of which are policy since day one. 

A number of other initiatives or priorities were mentioned during "campaigning," for want of a better word, and I would have included these in this message. 

I'm not expecting overnight change just puzzled as to why new initiatives don't warrant a mention?

[Mike E]

9 minutes ago, Paul said:

The article refers to medium term priorities all of which are policy since day one. 

A number of other initiatives or priorities were mentioned during "campaigning," for want of a better word, and I would have included these in this message. 

I'm not expecting overnight change just puzzled as to why new initiatives don't warrant a mention?

I suspect it is (to a degree) an attempt at continuity for the sake of current membership, to show that what they originally signed up for is still there.

I reckon new initiatives will filter in slowly, or else there's a risk of alienating folk who are still active members by changing too much too soon.