[Archived] New Podcast - Episode 86 - Houses in Croatia are quite small

[Guest]

Croatia beat Greece 4-1 in the first leg of their World Cup qualifier playoff. Kalinić got on the scoresheet. They play the second leg in Athens on Sunday.

Forza Hrvatska!

[Leonard Venkhater]

8 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

The point I was (clumsily ?) making was that if a team is winning on the pitch consistently, do the fans (any fans ?) give a tinker’s about hearing from the owners ? 

But they are not lol...and never have been in seven long years!

[Stuart]

2 hours ago, MCMC1875 said:

2 relegations.

£100m+ debt piled up.

15,000 fans lost.

After 7 years of decline under Venkys, this club has yet to turn the corner.

In a nutshell.

[Mike E]

Dear me, there are some awfully naive views in that podcast.

Comparing the Raos and Abramovich is like comparing Oyston and Uncle Jack!

As for the Trust's 'treatment' of Cheston, I thought we were relatively sympathetic! We were embarrassed for him that he was put up there alone, without backing, and forced to answer questions that he was simply unable to through instruction, ignorance, incompetence or any combination of those.

[lraC]

6 hours ago, Mike E said:

Dear me, there are some awfully naive views in that podcast.

Comparing the Raos and Abramovich is like comparing Oyston and Uncle Jack!

As for the Trust's 'treatment' of Cheston, I thought we were relatively sympathetic! We were embarrassed for him that he was put up there alone, without backing, and forced to answer questions that he was simply unable to through instruction, ignorance, incompetence or any combination of those.

I am scared of listening to this podcast, as I want to keep my blood pressure within the tolerances my Doctor is happy with.

From reading some of the posts, I find it incredible that people are suggesting we are in safe hands with Venkys and that fans, don't want to hear from the owners, when we are consistently winning on the pitch!

May I remind people that we are £120 million in debt and if people are thinking that is nothing, to Venkys, they could bust the club tomorrow and we will then see nothing on the pitch, let alone a consistently FAILING one. I haven't done the figures, but if anyone can be bothered to work it out, then win ratio under Venkys will be pathetic. I would reckon under 30% which over a 7 year period, is probably, the worst in the clubs history. Looking at this season in isolation, in the third tier, we will need to gain promotion, if the club has any chance of survival and right now, it is looking unlikely. I do not blame anyone other than Venkys for this, so no we are not in safe hands, we are in the hands of the devil.

[Neal]

6 hours ago, Mike E said:

Dear me, there are some awfully naive views in that podcast.

Comparing the Raos and Abramovich is like comparing Oyston and Uncle Jack!

 

7 years on and nothing learned for some. 

[Herbie6590]

13 hours ago, mhead said:

I thought the Alan Myers podcast let him off the hook and was bland. This one is just wrong and defies gravity....7 years of incompetent 'management' and spiral of decline.

The interview with Alan was never set up to forensically examine him a la Paxman. It was a last minute tactical response to a change in circumstances at short notice.

When we do pods we trade on goodwill, I don’t think it fair to invite someone on then try to hijack them. If it’s what people want on the pod then by all means arrange one, record it, edit it & publish it. 

It’s all about opinions of course.

[Herbie6590]

10 hours ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

But they are not lol...and never have been in seven long years!

No, but Chelsea are & that was the Abramovich point.

[Herbie6590]

41 minutes ago, lraC said:

I am scared of listening to this podcast, as I want to keep my blood pressure within the tolerances my Doctor is happy with.

From reading some of the posts, I find it incredible that people are suggesting we are in safe hands with Venkys and that fans, don't want to hear from the owners, when we are consistently winning on the pitch!

May I remind people that we are £120 million in debt and if people are thinking that is nothing, to Venkys, they could bust the club tomorrow and we will then see nothing on the pitch, let alone a consistently FAILING one. I haven't done the figures, but if anyone can be bothered to work it out, then win ratio under Venkys will be pathetic. I would reckon under 30% which over a 7 year period, is probably, the worst in the clubs history. Looking at this season in isolation, in the third tier, we will need to gain promotion, if the club has any chance of survival and right now, it is looking unlikely. I do not blame anyone other than Venkys for this, so no we are not in safe hands, we are in the hands of the devil.

If you listen & can find a quote saying we are in safe hands with Venky’s let me know

[Dreams of 1995]

People take real umbrage when somebody who they consider "one of their own" (a fellow fan, in our case) leaps to the defence of someone that they believed has wronged them. In our case fans of Rovers believe Mike Cheston is another part of the problem rather than a symptom. When they hear a fan-led information source seemingly run a panel that sympathises with part of that problem then it's almost like a betrayal has happened.

Quite frankly you have a right to hold an opinion. How you come to the opinion that the Trust treat Cheston in a way in which displeased you I don't know. The Trust were pretty relaxed when it came to the questioning of Cheston and it was, in fact, other supporters' groups that pursued him. Moreover most feel that, even the ones that did push Cheston, didn't push hard enough and that he deserved a more thorough round of questioning as to his involvement, or his knowledge at least, of the happenings at this club.

It is for the final point that I aim my own criticism at this weeks podcast contributors. In that you chose this time as a time to defend a man, something you surely knew would be controversial, but couldn't be bothered to inform yourselves of the truth, either out of ignorance or blatant disingenuity.

[Leonard Venkhater]

57 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

People take real umbrage when somebody who they consider "one of their own" (a fellow fan, in our case) leaps to the defence of someone that they believed has wronged them. In our case fans of Rovers believe Mike Cheston is another part of the problem rather than a symptom. When they hear a fan-led information source seemingly run a panel that sympathises with part of that problem then it's almost like a betrayal has happened.

Quite frankly you have a right to hold an opinion. How you come to the opinion that the Trust treat Cheston in a way in which displeased you I don't know. The Trust were pretty relaxed when it came to the questioning of Cheston and it was, in fact, other supporters' groups that pursued him. Moreover most feel that, even the ones that did push Cheston, didn't push hard enough and that he deserved a more thorough round of questioning as to his involvement, or his knowledge at least, of the happenings at this club.

It is for the final point that I aim my own criticism at this weeks podcast contributors. In that you chose this time as a time to defend a man, something you surely knew would be controversial, but couldn't be bothered to inform yourselves of the truth, either out of ignorance or blatant disingenuity.

Very well put.

I think the final point is particularly important. If you get the a platform to do a BRFCS podcast, you owe it to everyone to get informed before you criticise The Trust, who volunteer so much of  their time to make a difference.

This is a bit ironic because I would have liked The Trust to take a more challenging approach to this sham of a meeting!

[Dreams of 1995]

8 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Very well put.

I think the final point is particularly important. If you get the a platform to do a BRFCS podcast, you owe it to everyone to get informed before you criticise The Trust, who volunteer so much of  their time to make a difference.

This is a bit ironic because I would have liked The Trust to take a more challenging approach to this sham of a meeting!

It felt as if some have an axe grind with the Trust, for whatever reason. It's clear to see on Twitter and on here that there's hardly an amicable relationship between some prominent Rovers commentators and the Trust & Action group. What that is borne out of I don't know but, certainly, whenever any action is decided upon by its members it is met with criticism from said people.

I feel as if the Trust has the potential to have an impact on Rovers long after Venkys have gone. Fan representation at football clubs is the ideal way forward to keep our game ours. I'd much rather those that disagreed with how the Trust operated enough to comment on it spend their time advising the Trust how to better represent them. The Trust shouldn't just be a vehicle to protest Venkys but much more than that.

I understand that representing fans, or playing a role in the Trust, doesn't appeal to everyone. My point is that this argument some take up with them/BRAG constantly is doing nothing to help the situation. The Trust is there for the fans. If you feel strongly enough to comment then join and push your own agenda. It's a fan led group with, so far as I know, elections. There'd be nothing stopping a change in direction.

[blueboy3333]

1 hour ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

done it Very well put.

I think the final point is particularly important. If you get the a platform to do a BRFCS podcast, you owe it to everyone to get informed before you criticise The Trust, who volunteer so much of  their time to make a difference.

This is a bit ironic because I would have liked The Trust to take a more challenging approach to this sham of a meeting!

...and if you're leader of the Trust don't offer childish criticism of a podcast on a fans forum, maybe instead arrange to do your own podcast. Then don't get precious when you get criticism back and come out with nonsense like 'no clubs ever get promoted with bad owners' (paraphrase) when two have done it in the last 12 months. It makes the Trust look unprofessional and ill-informed.

[Leonard Venkhater]

5 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

...and if you're leader of the Trust don't offer childish criticism of a podcast on a fans forum, maybe instead arrange to do your own podcast. Then don't get precious when you get criticism back and come out with nonsense like 'no clubs ever get promoted with bad owners' (paraphrase) when two have done it in the last 12 months. It makes the Trust look unprofessional and ill-informed.

 But I am not leader of The Trust. I am not even a board member. The remarks about The Trust and Cheston were just plain wrong!

[blueboy3333]

9 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

 But I am not leader of The Trust. I am not even a board member. The remarks about The Trust and Cheston were just plain wrong!

I know you're not but you were quick to jump in when Mhead and I were having a discussion.

What specifically has been said that is 'plain wrong'? I ask because I wasn't there.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Suhail Slayer said:

Careful Lenny.... BlueBoy thinks he is the "cock" of BRFCS. 

I am surprised, given all his spare time, that he doesn't use it to work constructively with fellow supporters instead of criticising them.

 

Hilarious. I do often wonder why I wouldn't want to work with a 'cock' like you.

[Mike E]

55 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

I know you're not but you were quick to jump in when Mhead and I were having a discussion.

What specifically has been said that is 'plain wrong'? I ask because I wasn't there.

Taking the point about bad owners, you said 2 clubs got promoted in the last 12months with bad owners. Correct, but I would also like to ask how many clubs with bad owners have been relegated?

I would also add in that the badly owned promoted clubs you mention were relegated three and two leagues respectively before promotion occurred (though I admit I'm fiddly on the Bolton timing as it may be one relegation if the 'poor ownership' began in the Championship).

It may happen to us ofc, but the fact is we'd be more likely to succeed if we had sensible owners.

[Parsonblue]

Very enjoyable podcast which underlines that there are many different opinions about everything to do with Blackburn Rovers.

[Leonard Venkhater]

3 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

I know you're not but you were quick to jump in when Mhead and I were having a discussion.

What specifically has been said that is 'plain wrong'? I ask because I wasn't there.

OK, Blueboy, seeing that you asked...re consultation meeting...

"i didn't go because I was miles away, but( re Trust) my main concern that their(The Trust's) main priorities now seem to be all asquiff(?) ..they are obsessed with harassing Mike Cheston for whatever reason...because they don't seem to like him..they're also obsessed with this other Indian guy ..whether he is in the building or on the premises...the way they are going about it with their tactics at forums such as this...is completely wrong.."

If the guy on the podcast -"Michaell"? -had not been "miles away", he might have been aware that the challenges to Cheston and the questions re Suhail came from other groups NOT The Rovers Trust. 

I don't think it is ok to sit on a high horse and pontificate, badmouthing an organisation like The Trust, when his messages are wildly inaccurate and potentially damaging. One day, we may really need The Trust, so why undermine it by proclaiming inaccuracies from the rooftops?

On a different note, I actually felt that the questions raised by other groups e.g. EWMC group with Cheston were completely appropriate and the awkwardness was due to his piss poor presentation combined with his refusal to engage in meaningful consultation.

The questions around Suhail's role at the club were also entirely appropriate for such a meeting, even though they were pursued by groups other than The Trust.

So..( to the guys on the podcast).have a go at The Trust, if you must, but at least take responsibility for speaking the truth. Better still, get involved and make an active contribution to it.

 

 

[Leonard Venkhater]

45 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

Very enjoyable podcast which underlines that there are many different opinions about everything to do with Blackburn Rovers.

...and about Donald Trump!

[Ozz]

The questions raised by The Rovers Trust were, barring a couple,  sent in from the membership. We asked the members for their questions in advance of the meeting and were forwarded to Rovers in line with the deadline. I asked Cheston who makes all the decisions on manager recruitment. 

If there was any hounding of Cheston by The Trust, as was at the request of our membership. 

[blueboy3333]

42 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

OK, Blueboy, seeing that you asked...re consultation meeting...

"i didn't go because I was miles away, but( re Trust) my main concern that their(The Trust's) main priorities now seem to be all asquiff(?) ..they are obsessed with harassing Mike Cheston for whatever reason...because they don't seem to like him..they're also obsessed with this other Indian guy ..whether he is in the building or on the premises...the way they are going about it with their tactics at forums such as this...is completely wrong.."

If the guy on the podcast -"Michaell"? -had not been "miles away", he might have been aware that the challenges to Cheston and the questions re Suhail came from other groups NOT The Rovers Trust. 

I don't think it is ok to sit on a high horse and pontificate, badmouthing an organisation like The Trust, when his messages are wildly inaccurate and potentially damaging. One day, we may really need The Trust, so why undermine it by proclaiming inaccuracies from the rooftops?

On a different note, I actually felt that the questions raised by other groups e.g. EWMC group with Cheston were completely appropriate and the awkwardness was due to his piss poor presentation combined with his refusal to engage in meaningful consultation.

The questions around Suhail's role at the club were also entirely appropriate for such a meeting, even though they were pursued by groups other than The Trust.

So..( to the guys on the podcast).have a go at The Trust, if you must, but at least take responsibility for speaking the truth. Better still, get involved and make an active contribution to it.

 

 

Thanks LV, thanks for the reply, and don't misunderstand my question. I was asking because I wasn't there, not because I was being a snark.

I agree about the badmouthing, and more importantly that stuff works both ways. If that Michael chap was attributing blame where he shouldn't have been then he's right to be called out about it. it's even worse that he wasn't there but still thought it wise to carry on mouthing off on a podcast that would be available to people who were there. I think he may be/used to be some kind of councillor/politician but he certainly wasn't on top of his brief that day!

By the same token, it's the height of ignorance to post on a forum you don't really contribute to just so you can slag off the efforts of people who are trying to make this an interesting MB.  The Alan Myers podcast was decent enough, he was never going to say anything to incriminate himself or anyone else. He's a journalist/PR man after all. It's like pinning all your hopes on John Williams to come out and spill the beans. It won't happen until it benefits/doesn't harm them. Jack Walker is the only bloke you could ever rely on to have the best interests of the club at heart as he was a fan who put his money where his mouth was. All this 'he's one of our own' when someone who used to play for us posts something on twitter or gives an interview etc etc is just bollocks in my humble opinion.

As for Cheston and Suhail....Suhail is a legitimate target for questions and answers. He is the Venky's emissary on earth, a minister without portfolio (or visa apparently!) a smirking shadow in the background. The only way to get to him is through Cheston, but Cheston isn't responsible for him so how does Suhail become accountable? It's an impossible situation. Same with Venky's.

Cheston is just a lackey IMO, the man paid to front it all twice a year and do his job behind the scenes. He doesn't even have the power to sack the manager if I have that right? So I agree that taking out frustrations on him and making him a scapegoat is utterly pointless. That doesn't mean he shouldn't answer questions but to keep asking him to justify his comments on why Coyle was the 'standout candidate' whatever that phrase was is just redundant. He's told everyone anyway, he let it slip that the key qualification was someone they didn't have to pay compensation for. In that regard Coyle was the 'stand out candidate' simply because he would have been far and away the cheapest.

So in a nutshell it's frustrating. Blackpool had legitimate targets for their fury who were always present at the ground (getting the game abandoned etc). The fans then stopped going because Oystons were suing them and money paid to the club was effectively being used to sue the supporter's own mates. That's not happened here as far as I know? It's a totally different situation to Blackpool (apart from the commonality of reviled owners) so IMO it needs a different approach to NAPM. It's needs a unified approach surely?

Why don't the boycotters start going to the games again, get people onside (not by being an arse on a forum), get more like minded people to join in, get people interested again, stand together on the BBE or DE, make the protests colourful again. Sitting a home doesn't impact Venky's in any way. Protesting at the ground at least keeps the issue alive. I'd get behind that and I'm sure others would too who still go or have stopped. What's the alternative? If I can get behind the team AND chant Venky's Out for 90 minutes then it's well worth the entrance fee.

Just my opinion, like....

 

 

 

 

[Neal]

2 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

Why don't the boycotters start going to the games again, get people onside (not by being an arse on a forum), get more like minded people to join in, get people interested again, stand together on the BBE or DE, make the protests colourful again. Sitting a home doesn't impact Venky's in any way. Protesting at the ground at least keeps the issue alive. I'd get behind that and I'm sure others would too who still go or have stopped. What's the alternative? If I can get behind the team AND chant Venky's Out for 90 minutes then it's well worth the entrance fee.

Just my opinion, like....

 

 

 

 

On your first point here, for many, it's not just a form of protest, it's a matter of principle, that point has been made to you by various fans on numerous occassions. 

 

The types of protests you've desribed have been done and not supported but if you feel it can be executed better then attend an EWMC meeting and get involved. 

[lraC]

22 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

If you listen & can find a quote saying we are in safe hands with Venky’s let me know

I already said, I won't listen. My post is as a result of the reaction to it.

[philipl]

Very well put together podcast and an enjoyable listen.

Glad it has stirred up debate.

Criticising the Trust is very sensitive ground because the Trust are volunteers who are passionate for the best for the club. But that shouldn't make them immune to sensible sensitive criticism.

Well done lads.