[Archived] Has a date been agreed for supporters consultation meeting

[Dreams of 1995]

I don't buy the argument that Cheston won't leave as he isn't in a position to do so like Williams et al. Surely having a resignation for professional reasons is far better on the CV than being the financial director for a company in as much disarray as Rovers? He's shown himself happy to work in mediocrity, a value for which I certainly wouldn't look for in any employee. There's not a single jot of professionalism in how the club is run and, as he is the only director that is active, the responsibility ultimately falls with him.

The quote that TM hopes the club can be turned around is laughable; there's still a complete lack of transparency within the club, no board, no fan-club relationship worth speaking about and they continue to make decisions year in year out that are incompetent at best, criminal at worst.

I'll agree the clubs fortunes can be changed the moment I hear the words: "we know we have done wrong" coming directly from the mouths of our illustrious, invisible 'owners'. I'll even get on board with the idea of Venkys owning us when there's a board that extends beyond some unqualified goofball numbers man and the slimy Coar, who rather strikes me as a man that is rotten to the very core.

[DE.]

Just now, JHRover said:

The recommendation made by the Government Expert Working Group in November 2015 was: 'Senior representatives from the clubs - either club owners, directors and/or senior executive management - should represent the club at these meetings'

 

No mention of the manager/head coach/coaching staff. Notice also plural representatives, owners, directors.

They tried to satisfy that aspect by hurling Robert Coar onto the top table but now they aren't even trying and just put Cheston and the manager there.

That's all they need to do, though, because the people who go are satisfied with that. Apparently the owners are decent people, two teams of auditors found nothing wrong with the running of the club and Cheston is a top, hard working bloke who deserves our support. Good thing we had this meeting or we may not have discovered these facts.

[JacknOry]

Glad to hear that TM expects to be sacked if we do not get promoted. He understands the expectation of him and with the resources, wage bill and the players we have got - that he has no excuses should he fail to get us up. he has always been a good talker (despite some odd remarks of late) but unfortunately, talking a good job does not get you promoted and its what happens on the pitch that does.

[mhead]

Forgive me....I have not had time to read the thread thru. But the first half of the Meeting was just 'squirmworthy'-one underqualified guy left on his own to answer multi-questions for absentee Owners and their two paid representatives(Babu and Pasha). One guy badly answering questions whilst our manager must have had a million of thoughts. This kind of Consultative meeting must not be allowed to continue. I am sure the Rovers Trust will agree to write to the Sports Minister(plus FA/EFL) on this.

Sure the Manager was brilliant and almost brought me to tears on two occasions with his 'on the ball' thoughts about the Rovers and their loyal fans. However this is not the purpose of the meeting....its about Representatives of the Club being transparent to their Supporters Groups. I bet Bumley do not have just one Director at their meetings.

On reflection its a terrible parable of the destruction of the Club in such a short time.

[Crimpshrine]

49 minutes ago, JHRover said:

The recommendation made by the Government Expert Working Group in November 2015 was: 'Senior representatives from the clubs - either club owners, directors and/or senior executive management - should represent the club at these meetings'

 

No mention of the manager/head coach/coaching staff. Notice also plural representatives, owners, directors.

They tried to satisfy that aspect by hurling Robert Coar onto the top table but now they aren't even trying and just put Cheston and the manager there.

I remember discussing this before the last meeting of this type. I believe the owners just about fulfilled their obligations last time by the fact that Coar and Senior attended.

This time the Club has not conducted the meeting as specified in the regulations and I don't believe last night's meeting meets the requirements. Perhaps the authorities could enforce another meeting ( though they will probably just issue a warning ). Maybe the Rovers Trust could raise an official enquiry ?

It sounds like the meeting was a fairly positive Q&A with the manager but that is nothing like the purpose of these events. The whole point is to talk about non-footballing matters and how the club is run commercially. That's why a board member and an owner or official representative ( with answers from the owners ) must attend.

 

[47er]

39 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

Glad to hear that TM expects to be sacked if we do not get promoted. He understands the expectation of him and with the resources, wage bill and the players we have got - that he has no excuses should he fail to get us up. he has always been a good talker (despite some odd remarks of late) but unfortunately, talking a good job does not get you promoted and its what happens on the pitch that does.

What's to be glad about? We don't get promoted,he gets sacked, what then? Another loser?

Results on the pitch are the province of fans of normal clubs, we have more to worry about.

[MCMC1875]

Radio Lancs should be nowhere near this event.

They are serving the club by managing the event to waste time and deflect the real subject matter in favour of Q and A's on football.

[tomphil]

He'll be safe in the knowledge he'll walk away with a nice pay off if sacked after he got a new contract on his one meeting with the owners in summer. He ain't daft, then we'd end up with Freedman or someone as we work our way through certain advisors ex client lists.

[lraC]

Just now, MCMC1875 said:

Radio Lancs should be nowhere near this event.

They are serving the club by wasting time and deflecting the real subject matter.

I think the bigger problem is the pre selected questions. It was on the agenda that the question about Coyles appointment would be discussed and of course was immediately curtailed with a no comment. The owners won't come, Pasha won't come, but they decide on the answers that Cheston is allowed to give. What's the point?

[Leonard Venkhater]

14 minutes ago, mhead said:

Forgive me....I have not had time to read the thread thru. But the first half of the Meeting was just 'squirmworthy'-one underqualified guy left on his own to answer multi-questions for absentee Owners and their two paid representatives(Babu and Pasha). One guy badly answering questions whilst our manager must have had a million of thoughts. This kind of Consultative meeting must not be allowed to continue. I am sure the Rovers Trust will agree to write to the Sports Minister(plus FA/EFL) on this.

Sure the Manager was brilliant and almost brought me to tears on two occasions with his 'on the ball' thoughts about the Rovers and their loyal fans. However this is not the purpose of the meeting....its about Representatives of the Club being transparent to their Supporters Groups. I bet Bumley do not have just one Director at their meetings.

On reflection its a terrible parable of the destruction of the Club in such a short time.

I thought Cheston was a bumbling shambles. In the end I had to watch through my fingers.

Cringeworthy is not the word!

Mowbray did come  across well, but his slot had the function of enabling Cheston to shelter from any more difficult questions that he was refusing to answer.

As Henry Winter put it after Brentford, cowardly Venky's (and Suhail ) continue to hide, sending a cardboard cut out to refuse to answer the real questions.

[OJRovers]

1 hour ago, JacknOry said:

Glad to hear that TM expects to be sacked if we do not get promoted. He understands the expectation of him and with the resources, wage bill and the players we have got - that he has no excuses should he fail to get us up. he has always been a good talker (despite some odd remarks of late) but unfortunately, talking a good job does not get you promoted and its what happens on the pitch that does.

Yes I was pleased with that. There's been far too much acceptance of mediocity at the club since we were relegated. Massive playing budgets, yet mid-table "stability" is seen as a succecss.

Mowbray has the biggest budget in the league by a mile, anything other than promotion would be a huge failure.

The proof will be if we are off the promotion chase at Christmas. Will the owners act decisively? History tells us, a resounding NO.

Hope he succeeds though, he's the most honest manager we've had since Venkys took over, which is what the fans want.

The less said about Cheston the better. Sounded like he didn't even try to say to Venkys/Pasha that Coyle would be a bad idea. "Outstanding Candidate" was a bare-face LIE.

[Bigdoggsteel]

25 minutes ago, OJRovers said:

Yes I was pleased with that. There's been far too much acceptance of mediocity at the club since we were relegated. Massive playing budgets, yet mid-table "stability" is seen as a succecss.

Mowbray has the biggest budget in the league by a mile, anything other than promotion would be a huge failure.

The proof will be if we are off the promotion chase at Christmas. Will the owners act decisively? History tells us, a resounding NO.

Hope he succeeds though, he's the most honest manager we've had since Venkys took over, which is what the fans want.

The less said about Cheston the better. Sounded like he didn't even try to say to Venkys/Pasha that Coyle would be a bad idea. "Outstanding Candidate" was a bare-face LIE.

I have not heard anyone say that is a success, unless we end up back doing it in the Premiership 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Another meeting,another successful charade of treating the fans as Mushrooms...kept in the dark and fed on shyte.

Suhail Pasha as ever conspicuous by his usual absence.

As you were.

[BenRTID]

16 hours ago, Mike E said:

Only thing I would add to Madon's excellent updates (saved me a job of trying to sum the night up) is that Dave Beresford (Safety bloke) said the Burnley incidents have been dealt with by courts.

Don't know if that's stadium ban or prison or whatever.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-41442817

[Doaksie]

54 minutes ago, tomphil said:

He'll be safe in the knowledge he'll walk away with a nice pay off if sacked after he got a new contract on his one meeting with the owners in summer. He ain't daft, then we'd end up with Freedman or someone as we work our way through certain advisors ex client lists.

Freedman is a very good shout (to turn up here). Failing promotion, he would certainly be worth a nibble at, presumably, 33/1 (A price I now know as an Indian take-away). Not a very nice thought, but then again, when have our opinions ever mattered in the slightest throughout this charade.

[JHRover]

Noticeable that Cheston appears to have changed track on our shadow director's non-attendance at the meetings.

In the past he kept references to the shadow director down to the minimum and even claimed that Pasha had been 'unable' to attend as though other commitments had got in the way and that he would come to the next one.

No such charade any more, straight out with it that the shadow director has been asked to come but doesn't want to.

If the rules around these meetings were of any use then I'm sure the League could be asking why a club employee who is admittedly the only link and regular point of contact with the owners is continuing to dodge attendance at these meetings. Alas no such steps will be seen.

Also laughable that Cheston said that Pasha isn't named on the club website 'because he isn't a director'. On that basis Lee, Stanners, Root, Jeffries, all the coaching staff, Silvestre, Lyndsey Talbot, Greg Coar, Rob Gill, Sharon Metcalf and Gary Robinson should all be removed from the 'Who's Who' section on the website because none of those people are directors. Also none of them, with all due respect, are as influential, important or powerful as the shadow director who has a direct line to his friends in India and who can answer a lot of questions fans have.

Stop insulting people's intelligence and just be honest

[JHRover]

2 minutes ago, Doaksie said:

Freedman is a very good shout (to turn up here). Failing promotion, he would certainly be worth a nibble at, presumably, 33/1 (A price I now know as an Indian take-away). Not a very nice thought, but then again, when have our opinions ever mattered in the slightest throughout this charade.

Karl Robinson's another to watch out for. Been linked every time there's been a vacancy here. He must have some influential friends as he's there or thereabouts in the betting every time.

[MCMC1875]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

I think the bigger problem is the pre selected questions. It was on the agenda that the question about Coyles appointment would be discussed and of course was immediately curtailed with a no comment. The owners won't come, Pasha won't come, but they decide on the answers that Cheston is allowed to give. What's the point?

Every meeting is a sham.

[Dreams of 1995]

There is a man officially being paid to do a job in an unofficial capacity that refuses to do the official responsibilities his unofficial role stipulates. Only at Rovers.

He is as close to a managing director as we have but "isn't" and as such can't be held responsible. Why employ - and pay - a man to fulfil the responsibilities of a managing director but not officially recognise him?!?!?!?!?!

It's an exercise to ensure he cannot be held responsible for any decisions he may make. It's simple arse covering. 

[AggyBlue]

 

28 minutes ago, JHRover said:

 

Also laughable that Cheston said that Pasha isn't named on the club website 'because he isn't a director'.

I can't remember him saying that. He did say Pasha was employed by the club as a consultant and attending fans meetings wasn't in his remit.

I don't know if a consultant warrants being listed on the website. There are about 250 staff employed by the club, all can't be listed.  

[Leonard Venkhater]

1 hour ago, MCMC1875 said:

Radio Lancs should be nowhere near this event.

They are serving the club by managing the event to waste time and deflect the real subject matter in favour of Q and A's on football.

"Turn off Radio Lancashire

 And burn the Venkygraph!"

[tomphil]

20 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

There is a man officially being paid to do a job in an unofficial capacity that refuses to do the official responsibilities his unofficial role stipulates. Only at Rovers.

He is as close to a managing director as we have but "isn't" and as such can't be held responsible. Why employ - and pay - a man to fulfil the responsibilities of a managing director but not officially recognise him?!?!?!?!?!

It's an exercise to ensure he cannot be held responsible for any decisions he may make. It's simple arse covering. 

Everything upstairs at Ewood is designed to pass the buck and deflect the real attention, if Pascha was named then the buck would stop with him and he'd be in the headlights therefore gaff after gaff it would be demanded his head roll. Fat Barry and ex Kentaro friends won't want that and neither will he so he hides and that's one of the more plausible explanations.

A middleman that hides, a director who can only direct what he's told to do so can't be held accountable and the rest hide in India and wherever. 

[JHRover]

13 minutes ago, AggyBlue said:

 

I can't remember him saying that. He did say Pasha was employed by the club as a consultant and attending fans meetings wasn't in his remit.

I don't know if a consultant warrants being listed on the website. There are about 250 staff employed by the club, all can't be listed.  

Somebody on the front row asked him as part of a different question why Pasha isn't even named on the club website. Cheston's response was that he isn't a director so doesn't need to be. I'd suggest someone of his clear importance to the operation as the representative and point of contact with the owners who sits in the directors box at games should be mentioned on the club website. Not really the same as security guards, shop assistants and bar staff.

He is on the club payroll and his job was advertised by Cheston in a blaze of publicity as an important component of improving the operation of the club.

Again, with due respect, if the head of community, head of retail and head of ticketing are worthy of being named on the club website I think this bloke is.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, Doaksie said:

Freedman is a very good shout (to turn up here). Failing promotion, he would certainly be worth a nibble at, presumably, 33/1 (A price I now know as an Indian take-away). Not a very nice thought, but then again, when have our opinions ever mattered in the slightest throughout this charade.

Nixon would be back Rovers loving duty again 

[OJRovers]

3 hours ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

I have not heard anyone say that is a success, unless we end up back doing it in the Premiership 

Plenty on here hailing the Bowyer Years.