WATR (The Rovers Trust)

[Forever Blue]

On 27/07/2024 at 21:13, Forever Blue said:

So to clarify, as it stands, WATR are not calling for Venkys to sell up?

 

On 27/07/2024 at 21:16, Miller11 said:

To clarify, no we are not. However, that shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of the way the club is being run. Nor should it be presumed we wouldn’t welcome new owners.

@glen9mullan

[glen9mullan]

6 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

 

@glen9mullan

And the board? Suhail? Had the members voted on this?

Do the Trust support the organised protest for the removal of Suhail , Waggott and for Venkys to.sell the club , which has been communicated by me to both the club and on the message board I'd done this?

Edited August 4 by glen9mullan

[Forever Blue]

1 minute ago, glen9mullan said:

And the board? Suhail? Had the members voted on this?

No idea. 
 

Any idea why Suhail has suddenly started engaging with supporters groups?

[J*B]

If The Trust have met Suhail then as a member I want to know exactly what was discussed please. Speaking to Suhail is essentially speaking to Venkys, it’s arguably the biggest breakthrough of recent times and with a club-threatening court case just over 2 weeks away it’s at a huge moment.

As a side note, when was this going to be spoken about? Would it have been spoken about if Glen hadn’t posted it? How many of these meetings have there been?

[glen9mullan]

5 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

No idea. 
 

Any idea why Suhail has suddenly started engaging with supporters groups?

All I know is I've told waggott and India that organised protest are coming and these will be communicated in advance, liaising with both the police and Council. Anything not communicated which could be illegal is not part of an organised element and I've distanced myself from anything which breaks the law 

[tomphil]

Why a 'secret' meeting ?

What is the point in that other than to either cover something up or try and pacify a few egos.

[Miller11]

Yes, there was a meeting with Suhail on Friday. Obviously there will be a full report of what we discussed and the agreed outcomes from it. I’m expecting to be giving up a lot (more) of my free (and not so free) time to answering questions and carrying out our agreed follow up actions as a result of it, no problem with that, but it wasn’t possible yesterday or today due to other demands on my time. We had planned to update the wider fanbase tomorrow. One of the actions I’ve taken is to contact representatives of all fan groups to brief them fully on what we discussed, obviously this includes the BRFCS ownership.

@J*BYour inference that we wouldn’t have discussed this had Glen not brought it up is pretty wide of the mark. Glen is aware of the meeting due to the fact I discussed it on the phone with him yesterday.

[chaddyrovers]

6 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Yes, there was a meeting with Suhail on Friday. Obviously there will be a full report of what we discussed and the agreed outcomes from it. I’m expecting to be giving up a lot (more) of my free (and not so free) time to answering questions and carrying out our agreed follow up actions as a result of it, no problem with that, but it wasn’t possible yesterday or today due to other demands on my time. We had planned to update the wider fanbase tomorrow. One of the actions I’ve taken is to contact representatives of all fan groups to brief them fully on what we discussed, obviously this includes the BRFCS ownership.

@J*BYour inference that we wouldn’t have discussed this had Glen not brought it up is pretty wide of the mark. Glen is aware of the meeting due to the fact I discussed it on the phone with him yesterday.

Thanks for your comments Miller and I look forward to hearing about the Suhail Meeting more in the future 

[glen9mullan]

3 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

Yes, there was a meeting with Suhail on Friday. Obviously there will be a full report of what we discussed and the agreed outcomes from it. I’m expecting to be giving up a lot (more) of my free (and not so free) time to answering questions and carrying out our agreed follow up actions as a result of it, no problem with that, but it wasn’t possible yesterday or today due to other demands on my time. We had planned to update the wider fanbase tomorrow. One of the actions I’ve taken is to contact representatives of all fan groups to brief them fully on what we discussed, obviously this includes the BRFCS ownership.

@J*BYour inference that we wouldn’t have discussed this had Glen not brought it up is pretty wide of the mark. Glen is aware of the meeting due to the fact I discussed it on the phone with him yesterday.

Duncan as we discussed Yesterday and you know my stance as my belief in you.

This should of been communicated it was happening and its happened. Minutes can come later.

The trust does not control the supporter base, however it has a duty to be transparent and like the club things not to come out via other channels. 

Will the trust be endorsing protests? 

Remember none of these post are personal, it's asking questions of an entity not the people or efforts they put in

[Mike Graham]

The meeting took place with the full knowledge of our Board.  It took place on Friday and was arranged at our request and was at short notice.

We had always planned to put out a communication on Monday, Glen was aware of a forthcoming communication. That communication also has to be approved by our Board. 

[glen9mullan]

Just now, Mike Graham said:

The meeting took place with the full knowledge of our Board.  It took place on Friday and was arranged at our request and was at short notice.

We had always planned to put out a communication on Monday, Glen was aware of a forthcoming communication. That communication also has to be approved by our Board. 

I'm sorry Mike, there is zero excuse to not inform it was/has happened. Reports, minutes, agreed facts is something completely different.. A Democratic voice is transparency 

I've asked many questions on this thread and every one of them have been completely ignored. 

At this time I.do not believe the trust represents my views , as I can't get s clear answer.whst the trust views are.

[damo100]

20 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

I'm sorry Mike, there is zero excuse to not inform it was/has happened. Reports, minutes, agreed facts is something completely different.. A Democratic voice is transparency 

I've asked many questions on this thread and every one of them have been completely ignored. 

At this time I.do not believe the trust represents my views , as I can't get s clear answer.whst the trust views are.

Welcome back Glen.

Great to hear common sense make a return. 

 

[oldjamfan1]

The Trust is not answerable to posts on BRFCS.

Full stop.

Sometimes we can’t do right for doing wrong. 
 

 

 

 

[damo100]

4 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

The Trust is not answerable to posts on BRFCS.

Full stop.

Sometimes we can’t do right for doing wrong. 
 

 

 

 

Not really the point here is it?

[Mike E]

Look, I’ll criticise WATR whenever it’s warranted but I don’t think it is here.

A meeting on Friday evening, hastily arranged Friday afternoon?

Those involved have lives outside of the Trust and waiting til Monday would’ve been absolutely fine.

Seriously, why do people hold corporate expectations against volunteers? Get a life.

[glen9mullan]

53 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

The Trust is not answerable to posts on BRFCS.

Full stop.

Sometimes we can’t do right for doing wrong. 
 

 

 

 

In that case, make your statement clear you represent the circa 300-400 members only ,

Be clear what the trusts purpose is and your stance, so we can make an informed decision if we want to be members or not.

Right now as I ve said numerous times , I.do not know what the Trust end game is.

Also many members are BRFCS, so by definition you are answerable. What a very strange statement to make 

As a former secretary of the trust, to not understand this is worrying .

Edited August 4 by glen9mullan

[glen9mullan]

7 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Look, I’ll criticise WATR whenever it’s warranted but I don’t think it is here.

A meeting on Friday evening, hastily arranged Friday afternoon?

Those involved have lives outside of the Trust and waiting til Monday would’ve been absolutely fine.

Seriously, why do people hold corporate expectations against volunteers? Get a life.

Its not that though Mike and as I said earlier it's not a personal attack on the people. I'm questioning why the entity continues to have meetings which no one sees minutes.

This is just another meeting with the club that is not reported as many others.

The fans forum were crucified last week, unfairly.

Sadly if your head goes above the parapet you are gonna face questions (I have learnt to live with it)

 

[Leonard Venkhater]

3 hours ago, glen9mullan said:

Duncan as we discussed Yesterday and you know my stance as my belief in you.

This should of been communicated it was happening and its happened. Minutes can come later.

The trust does not control the supporter base, however it has a duty to be transparent and like the club things not to come out via other channels. 

Will the trust be endorsing protests? 

Remember none of these post are personal, it's asking questions of an entity not the people or efforts they put in

For me this is about walking a strategic tightrope.

I do think the Trust needs to be very careful about openly endorsing the protests.

However, the business of being a critical friend is not without its own dangers for those fans, who give up their time and energy. Waggott et al will obviously have their own agenda to utilise the Trust to garner "credibility" with the fanbase...

Hence, the Sinn Fein/IRA analogy lol...

[Mike E]

53 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

Its not that though Mike and as I said earlier it's not a personal attack on the people. I'm questioning why the entity continues to have meetings which no one sees minutes.

This is just another meeting with the club that is not reported as many others.

The fans forum were crucified last week, unfairly.

Sadly if your head goes above the parapet you are gonna face questions (I have learnt to live with it)

 

I do get it, but come on. I think it’s perfectly acceptable for something that happened on a Friday night to wait til Monday.

Anything else puts demand on a person’s time that shouldn’t be there (it was arranged Friday seemingly because of how busy Trust Board members were over the weekend).

If they’d even put out a cursory tweet to say a meeting had been arranged, that just invites speculation all weekend (and we’ve learned the impact of that nonsense all week).

Reporting something Monday morning that happened on Friday night is fine, and expecting anything more is unreasonable imo.

Whose weekend would’ve been measurably better for the meeting being reported a bit quicker?

Edited August 4 by Mike E

[wilsdenrover]

28 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

For me this is about walking a strategic tightrope.

I do think the Trust needs to be very careful about openly endorsing the protests.

However, the business of being a critical friend is not without its own dangers for those fans, who give up their time and energy. Waggott et al will obviously have their own agenda to utilise the Trust to garner "credibility" with the fanbase...

Hence, the Sinn Fein/IRA analogy lol...

[lraC]

13 minutes ago, Mike E said:

I do get it, but come on. I think it’s perfectly acceptable for something that happened on a Friday night to wait til Monday.

Anything else puts demand on a person’s time that shouldn’t be there (it was arranged Friday seemingly because of how busy Trust Board members were over the weekend).

If they’d even put out a cursory tweet to say a meeting had been arranged, that just invites speculation all weekend (and we’ve learned the impact of that nonsense all week).

Reporting something Monday morning that happened on Friday night is fine, and expecting anything more is unreasonable imo.

Whose weekend would’ve been measurably better for the meeting being reported a bit quicker?

I did know about the meeting, in advance, but not being a member of my the trust, or any other official group, did not want to betray any trust and post it.

In my view, a simple statement to say a meeting with Suhail, was arranged and the details would be made public in 72 hours, would have stopped all of this negative feedback. 

[J*B]

RE my post earlier:

I've since spoken to Duncan. Getting access to Suhail is as close to communication with Venkys as we've had in a long, long time. It is very good news for the Rovers fan base. I don't care who's speaking to him as long as genuine issues are being raised and the key answers are reported back and not hidden from fans. 

I wasn't aware it was on Friday or if there was any earlier meetings, thus my post. If I was in charge I would have put out some sort of statement along the lines of "On Friday, We Are The Rovers held a meeting with Suhail Pasha and Steve Waggott. Minutes of the minute will be released in due course and no further communication will come from the Trust until that point." to avoid exactly this scenario. But ultimately i'm not on the board, so what do I know. Saying that, there's no use being an after timer and like I say as long as the important messages are getting relayed, this is a significant positive step. 

I look forward to hearing more tomorrow. 

[Andy]

Do the Trust have a Communications Manager / person?

If not, they should consider getting one.

It is very good news that they've spoken with Pasha, but (as has been said), just a very brief holding message could have saved this bit of drama.

[roverblue]

Sick of all this cloak and dagger nonsense, we are all Blackburn fans so just be transparent.

[OldEwoodBlue]

9 hours ago, glen9mullan said:

In that case, make your statement clear you represent the circa 300-400 members only ,

Be clear what the trusts purpose is and your stance, so we can make an informed decision if we want to be members or not.

Right now as I ve said numerous times , I.do not know what the Trust end game is.

Also many members are BRFCS, so by definition you are answerable. What a very strange statement to make 

As a former secretary of the trust, to not understand this is worrying .

You are (probably purposely) being slightly awkward here pal.

I am not a Trust member but its very clear they only represent their 400 members.

As I presently understand it, their end game is working together with the owners on fan engagement and to form a shadow board. They decided to ditch their Venkys out stance years ago (I imagine by democratic process with their paid up members). Fair enough isn't it.

As I choose not to be a member, I don't expect them to tell me their business, although I appreciate that they do.

They could simply inform their members by Trust communication methods and not mention it on here. We would be worse off.

Your initial point is fair criticism (if you are a member). They could have posted, "finally had a hastily arranged meet with Suhail, full update to follow in coming days".

It is fair to say, most people would still not know now, if you had not forced it from them. But as Mike says, nobodies weekend has been enriched as a result, either way. We still await the flesh of the meeting and hopefully the Trust will post it more widely than their members.

If you want to get involved again with the Trust board, why don't you just approach them quietly and offer your services 😘

Either way, we are all on the same team here and should appeciate the time volunteered by leaders of all fans groups, including WATR, BRFCS, FF, etc, etc. You know this better than anyone. Play fairly Mr Mullan.

Edited August 5 by OldEwoodBlue