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

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, OJRovers said:

Plenty on here hailing the Bowyer Years.

 

I think the general consensus is that he was a good man and a decent manager, who ,while doing a steady job, largely under-achieved with, what was in hindsight, a quality squad. 

[Neal]

They know Mowbray is liked by the fan base, he's just being used as a shield to deflect the serious issues at the club... "Just tell em you understand their frustrations Tony (which he can't possibly understand having only been here less than a year) and they'll be happy and we can go about our normal self preserving business".  

 

After everything that's happened, I can't possibly begin or want to understand anyone who can feel satisfied with any other answer than "yes, they are looking to sell the club". The rest is all bullshit and noise, i won't be bullshited anymore. They all had a hand in destroying this football club, lot of em can @#/? off. If you think you can believe or trust anything the venky mouthpiece Mike Cheston has to say then you are extremely naive and haven't learned anything (still) from the past 7-8 years.  

[JBiz]

Just now, Neal said:

They know Mowbray is liked by the fan base, he's just being used as a shield to deflect the serious issues at the club... "Just tell em you understand their frustrations Tony (which he can't possibly understand having only been here less than a year) and they'll be happy and we can go about our normal self preserving business".  

 

After everything that's happened, I can't possibly begin or want to understand anyone who can feel satisfied with any other answer than "yes, they are looking to sell the club". The rest is all bullshit and noise, i won't be bullshited anymore. They all had a hand in destroying this football club, lot of em can @#/? off. If you think you can believe or trust anything the venky mouthpiece Mike Cheston has to say then you are extremely naive and haven't learned anything (still) from the past 7-8 years.  

What if the answer is No?

Perennial banging my head against an immovable object? 

This isn't a politician we can vote out, a monarch that can be ousted or a chairman that can be petitioned.

The club is theirs. Their trinket to play with. You either disengage from that completely if you can't accept it, or you try and work something out of the husk. I have nothing but respect for those still prepared to engage with the club after all the crap that's gone on.

 

[Leonard Venkhater]

Just now, Neal said:

They know Mowbray is liked by the fan base, he's just being used as a shield to deflect the serious issues at the club... "Just tell em you understand their frustrations Tony (which he can't possibly understand having only been here less than a year) and they'll be happy and we can go about our normal self preserving business".  

 

After everything that's happened, I can't possibly begin or want to understand anyone who can feel satisfied with any other answer than "yes, they are looking to sell the club". The rest is all bullshit and noise, i won't be bullshited anymore. They all had a hand in destroying this football club, lot of em can @#/? off. If you think you can believe or trust anything the venky mouthpiece Mike Cheston has to say then you are extremely naive and haven't learned anything (still) from the past 7-8 years.  

Several of the people I met last night share your analysis.

Watching Cheston squirm was little compensation for the clear sense that my own attendance was helping to bolster an illusion i.e. that this was an honest consultation exercise.

The previous meeting at least proved that Radio Lancashire edited out the most controversial bits and , thus,confirmed where they stand.Let's see if our local station airs the awkward prevarication at some of last night's questioning!

I am not even sure if this tick box exercise conforms to the F.A. requirements. The people present can't answer the questions.

Suhail Pasha's serial non attendance is a complete insult.

[Doaksie]

1 hour ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Suhail Pasha's serial non attendance is a complete insult.

Coupled with the laughing selfie in front of dissenting supporters, it certainly paints a very vivid picture of arrogance, and disdain for OUR club. From an employee of the club - it stinks. 

He (and indeed his employers) only need ask themselves WHY fans would give them a hard time. I know they arrogantly think they are blameless in all this, but just why are we so vitriolic towards them??

[perthblue02]

5 hours 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. 

This may not still be the case and as I understood it , previously anybody who acted in a way or issued instructions that a board acted on, or issued instructions that could be described in a directors remit  was still regarded as a director in company law and as such falls under the responsibilities ,rules , regulations of a director.

If that is the case then the invisible shadow director of many aliases falls under that, wonder what roles and responsibilities his work visa covers .

 

[AllRoverAsia]

We appear to be completely rooted.

[perthblue02]

5 hours 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.  

How can he be employed at the club as a consultant, that was not the job that was advertised if I remember rightly , and I presume not the basis of gaining a  work visa, maybe he does not need a visa and instead his mate from Barnet got him one of those magic Italian passports . Pash Suhailintio

 

[davulsukur]

Always disheartening to hear that Venkys are here for the foreseeable. 

Mowbray’s words will always be welcomed by the fans but being honest, they will mean nothing should he not get us promoted. He seems to realise that though.

Overall, it’s a pretty much a futile meeting if the owners aren’t going to show up. Although, chances of them doing it are slim to none. 

[JAL]

13 hours ago, Parsonblue said:

Corrected it for you JAL.  Let just agree to disagree.

Can you tell us what Travis strengths are, what he does very well, for us to check his trade out next time around parsons.  

As Rovers looked anything but competent tradesmen last time out at home to Bury FC with Travis being one of these.

[chaddyrovers]

12 hours ago, Gav said:

The group you attend with would probably find being locked in a dark room anywhere in Ewood a worthwhile event to be frank, but that doesn't help the wider fan base get answers to the important questions.

Just to remind you and Chaddy, these meetings come from commitments made by the EFL as part of the Government’s Expert Working Group on Supporter Ownership and Engagement which made a series of recommendations in 2016.

These are not intended as Q&A sessions with the bleedin manager!

These are sessions where fans should be demanding answers, and if those answers are not forthcoming should be taking steps along with the EFL to obtain those answers. Local MP's, The FA or members of the working group should be attending to see what a sham these have already become.

 

The FA or FL aren't interested in Blackburn Rovers or about what gone on in the past 7 years as no official rules have been broken. 

Rovers just about fulfil the requirement by have Cheston. 

I believe all question were answered and the EFL have no rights to demands answers from Rovers as each club is private busniess

11 hours 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.

Cheston were there so requirement was filled 

I don't like our current board structure but Venkys don't believe in it and they make their decisions in India 

9 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

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.

 

Cheston was there so requirement was filled. 

don't see the FA or EFL doing owt. not done it for 7 years

Would be interesting to see how other clubs approach these meetings

[chaddyrovers]

here is the BBC radio Lancashire programme about yesterday performance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05j152c

[Hasta]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

The FA or FL aren't interested in Blackburn Rovers or about what gone on in the past 7 years as no official rules have been broken. 

 

The video on the Sporf Facebook site today with the interview with Nick Harris clearly suggests otherwise.

[tomphil]

But they bottled it due to conflict of interest on their own side outweighing their concern about Rovers. Would love to know how all that was smoothed over / covered up !

Fair play to Nick Harris he keeps dropping bits out as time goes on, mostly what we know but the rest of the world doesn't.

And we STILL have an ex Kentaro man in the shadows !

[Neal]

5 hours ago, Biz said:

What if the answer is No?

Perennial banging my head against an immovable object? 

This isn't a politician we can vote out, a monarch that can be ousted or a chairman that can be petitioned.

The club is theirs. Their trinket to play with. You either disengage from that completely if you can't accept it, or you try and work something out of the husk. I have nothing but respect for those still prepared to engage with the club after all the crap that's gone on.

 

 

As long as the answer is no then they can @#/? off IMO... Like 0000's of others I've disengaged completely.... NAPM. I won't be part of their game any longer.

 

Just my stance.

 

[Athlete]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

The FA or FL aren't interested in Blackburn Rovers or about what gone on in the past 7 years as no official rules have been broken. 

Rovers just about fulfil the requirement by have Cheston. 

I believe all question were answered and the EFL have no rights to demands answers from Rovers as each club is private busniess

Cheston were there so requirement was filled 

I don't like our current board structure but Venkys don't believe in it and they make their decisions in India 

Cheston was there so requirement was filled. 

don't see the FA or EFL doing owt. not done it for 7 years

Would be interesting to see how other clubs approach these meetings

The requirements were not full filled.

A q and a with the manager isnt what it was meant to be

 If the club said that it was Wednesday and actually it was only Tuesday you'd swear blind it was Wednesday.. Wake up man 

 

[Athlete]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

The video on the Sporf Facebook site today with the interview with Nick Harris clearly suggests otherwise.

The chadster and parsons of this world don't want to believe it 

[Gav]

Really enjoyed going to Shrewsbury away, even got designs on Oldham and Wigan.

But sh1te like this really grinds my gears, makes me want to sod off back into the wilderness because i struggle to seperate supporting the club from being shafted in the rear by incompetency, lies and deceit. 

Really tough to remain positive.

 

 

 

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Neal said:

 

As long as the answer is no then they can @#/? off IMO... Like 0000's of others I've disengaged completely.... NAPM. I won't be part of their game any longer.

 

Just my stance.

 

They or Blackburn Rovers? I agree that venkys can **** off but the difference in stance is still sticking by the club. For me that's a no brainer.

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, Athlete said:

The requirements were not full filled.

A q and a with the manager isnt what it was meant to be

 If the club said that it was Wednesday and actually it was only Tuesday you'd swear blind it was Wednesday.. Wake up man 

 

How about you give it a rest for once and stop with the insults

2 hours ago, Athlete said:

The chadster and parsons of this world don't want to believe it 

Watched it..proves nothing. 

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

How about you give it a rest for once and stop with the insults

Watched it..proves nothing. 

FFS Chaddy.

Does the leaked John Williams letter not prove it?

Kentaro were controlling transfers at the club.

The question Nick is asking (and also giving the probable answer) is why didn't the FA do anything?

[AllRoverAsia]

Player recruitment via social media and streams? Is that right?

TM should give Souness a call.

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, Hasta said:

FFS Chaddy.

Does the leaked John Williams letter not prove it?

Kentaro were controlling transfers at the club.

The question Nick is asking (and also giving the probable answer) is why didn't the FA do anything?

Just like Wolves situation with Mendes this or Kentaro role with city when Sven was manager there. 

The FA were also in with Kentaro at the time. Media contract..

Ppl have met with FA, EFL and Government and nothing has happened to date. The FA must think no wrong doing has happened. 

 

[47er]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

The FA must think no wrong doing has happened.

Or is it just possible they are too lazy and/or gutless to do anything about it?

[Hasta]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Just like Wolves situation with Mendes this or Kentaro role with city when Sven was manager there. 

The FA were also in with Kentaro at the time. Media contract..

Ppl have met with FA, EFL and Government and nothing has happened to date. The FA must think no wrong doing has happened. 

The FA didn't want to act because they were earning $$$$$$$ from Kentaro.

Read the last paragraph of JW leaked letter again and either he is lying.or something illegal is happening.

To suggest there was no wrong doing because the FA didn't take action after all we know is just , well, stupid to be honest. I can't think of any other word to use.

(Safety warning - people may have forgotten how much the leaked letters make your blood boil - the board warned the idiots very clearly of the path we were on. Even back then they were told footballing decisions being made in Pune and not by the board in Blackburn would not work. Fast forward to Thursday night and Cheston confirms that it is still happening.)