Supporters Consultation Meeting - Thursday 21st June

[OldEwoodBlue]

Sorry Chaddy

These meetings are about Finance and Governance of the club.

Mowbray shouldn’t even be there let alone giving a toss about what he had to say. Save it for the Telegraph.

 

I don’t usually mind your messiah worshiping but this is not the correct thread for it.

 

We all like TM but as usual the club uses him as a distraction to take up half these meetings on irrelevant “on the grass” issues.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Franky

[Mike E]

Not saying you’re wrong Chads, but I know Bowyer first put the club’s historical achievements on show again.

[DeeCee]

Just now, Franky said:

Sorry Chaddy

These meetings are about Finance and Governance of the club.

Mowbray shouldn’t even be there let alone giving a toss about what he had to say. Save it for the Telegraph.

 

I don’t usually mind your messiah worshiping but this is not the correct thread for it.

Harsh ?

[OldEwoodBlue]

Just now, DeeCee said:

Harsh ?

but true ?

[47er]

4 hours ago, Mike E said:

How we don’t have a statue of Bob Crompton, I simply don’t know.

Rovers captain, twice manager (and successful), brilliant moustache, England captain, regarded as the single best player in the world at the time (as a DEFENDER), brilliant moustache, local boy and spent his full playing career here, died after a Rovers vs Burnley match, brilliant moustache.

’Mr. Blackburn Rovers’ in every sense!

 

Read that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Crompton

Great call Mike. There must be many Rovers fans who have never heard of him and that should not be.

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, Franky said:

Sorry Chaddy

These meetings are about Finance and Governance of the club.

Mowbray shouldn’t even be there let alone giving a toss about what he had to say. Save it for the Telegraph.

 

I don’t usually mind your messiah worshiping but this is not the correct thread for it.

 

We all like TM but as usual the club uses him as a distraction to take up half these meetings on irrelevant “on the grass” issues.

Well I understand what these meeting are for but IMO, the manager should be there and given his views on the matters Mowbray has done since attending these meetings. 

What issues did Mowbray distract from? was all of the agenda discuss? where you there adding your opinion to the meeting?

[blueboy3333]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

They are passion Rovers fans but have other commitments but do about 2 away games each season. Its a great shame. 

It's a great shame they aren't more committed to the club. To say they are passionate Rovers fans is a joke if they live locally but only manage 2 games a season. 

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Well I understand what these meeting are for but IMO, the manager should be there and given his views on the matters Mowbray has done since attending these meetings. 

What issues did Mowbray distract from? was all of the agenda discuss? where you there adding your opinion to the meeting?

The manager shouldn't be there. The idea behind these meetings was for owners, owners representatives or board members to be available to answer questions from supporters on the governance of the club. The rule was introduced due to concerns about a number of owners buying clubs then running them from behind a veil of secrecy and supporters facing a wall of silence.

We all like listening to Mowbray but there's plenty of opportunities for that. These meetings are special occasions twice per annum when supporters were to be able to go higher than the manager.

I notice the owners eyes and ears and club employee Pasha still hasn't found time in his busy schedule to attend the meeting, even though his presence would be more useful than anyone else bar the owners themselves. How many is that he's missed?

Lets not let Mowbray's excellent work on the grass detract from what the point of these meetings is and ignore that Mowbray's good work is providing them with an effective shield to hide behind.

Edited November 23, 2018 by JHRover

[chaddyrovers]

7 hours ago, JHRover said:

The manager shouldn't be there. The idea behind these meetings was for owners, owners representatives or board members to be available to answer questions from supporters on the governance of the club. The rule was introduced due to concerns about a number of owners buying clubs then running them from behind a veil of secrecy and supporters facing a wall of silence.

We all like listening to Mowbray but there's plenty of opportunities for that. These meetings are special occasions twice per annum when supporters were to be able to go higher than the manager.

I notice the owners eyes and ears and club employee Pasha still hasn't found time in his busy schedule to attend the meeting, even though his presence would be more useful than anyone else bar the owners themselves. How many is that he's missed?

Lets not let Mowbray's excellent work on the grass detract from what the point of these meetings is and ignore that Mowbray's good work is providing them with an effective shield to hide behind.

Like I said before I am very aware why the meetings was set up for. 

IMO, Mowbray should be there. He plays a vital role within the club. 

Is Pasha even around with Mowbray and Waggott have direct line to Mrs D and Balaji? 

[Mattyblue]

No he shouldn’t, because it takes away attention from off field matters that get less chance of an airing than signings, tactics etc and gets the execs off the hook for half the meeting as the reps hang on Mowbray’s every word.

I could listen to Mogga all day, love the bloke. But there should be separate Q&As with managers and players, indeed I went to one a few years back with Allardyce in the Premier Suite.

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

No he shouldn’t, because it takes away attention from off field matters that get less chance of an airing than signings, tactics etc and gets the execs off the hook for half the meeting as the reps hang on Mowbray’s every word.

I could listen to Mogga all day, love the bloke. But there should be separate Q&As with managers and players, indeed I went to one a few years back with Allardyce in the Premier Suite.

Thats your opinion Matty. I have a different one. 

All of the agenda was discussed. Not heard anyone from who attend complaining that Waggott or Cheston didnt answers any of the questions. So what the problem? What attention was taking away if all questions were answered? 

 

[Mattyblue]

Half the time, half the questions, an agenda with more questions for the Execs would have been collated with more time, obviously.

End of the day, I’m not particularly arsed as the meetings are just box ticking, another Fans Forum session with some different people in the room. Waggott doesn’t seem interested in listening to the ideas of fans, so bugger it, give the whole meeting to Mowbray and drop the pretence that the fans are being ‘consulted’ on anything.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Mattyblue

[Hasta]

22 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

Interesting fact that was quoted by Steve Waggott last night about the 5,500 tickets sold for the PNE game this weekend:

Nearly 2500 of those fans have not bought a single ticket for a home match this season ( and are not ST holders).  

 

 

How can the club know this?

What do you reckon the average number of tickets per order is?  3 maybe?

They don't know how many in my party do or do not attend at home. Likewise they don't know if non-attendees have regular home fans going with them who they bought tickets for.

Whilst I don't doubt there is a large number of people going today who don't attend at home, I don't see how the club can accurately put a figure on it.

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Hasta

[Mattyblue]

I do imagine plenty of non Ewood attendees will be there today. But it’s a good point. I rang up for an extra ticket when they were on open sale and they didn’t ask who it was for, could have been for a season ticket holder for all they know...

[JHRover]

I presume they're basing it on how many were bought during restricted sale and how many were bought on open sale and weren't registered against a customer number.

Again though referring to the take up for PNE away at 3pm on a Saturday is always going to be misleading. Probably the most popular away trip of the season and for many Rovers fans it will be easier to get to Deepdale than it will Ewood.

Better off looking at the proportion of season ticket holders at places like Hull, Derby and Middlesbrough in a few weeks. Likely to be much higher.

[Mike E]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Thats your opinion Matty. I have a different one. 

All of the agenda was discussed. Not heard anyone from who attend complaining that Waggott or Cheston didnt answers any of the questions. So what the problem? What attention was taking away if all questions were answered? 

Because after 45-60m, the compere wants Mowbray to get 30m chat. It’s irrelevant.

The meeting is supposed to be 30m of questioning relevant top brass, not the manager.

Just because ‘the questions were answered’ doesn’t mean they were adequately answered. If TM can play his part in holding his bosses to account then fine, but he hasn’t yet done that in 3 meetings.

[JacknOry]

We will hear all about Dack, the type of players TM wants, contracts and everything else through the LT throughout the season. While yes, it is always great listening to TM talk, onfield topics are not really what these meetings are designed for. So have to agree that TM should not be there and that the club uses their managers as a shield.

 

[Stuart]

19 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Half the time, half the questions, an agenda with more questions for the Execs would have been collated with more time, obviously.

End of the day, I’m not particularly arsed as the meetings are just box ticking, another Fans Forum session with some different people in the room. Waggott doesn’t seem interested in listening to the ideas of fans, so bugger it, give the whole meeting to Mowbray and drop the pretence that the fans are being ‘consulted’ on anything.

Pretty much.

Despite these many meetings since this as introduced, any big decisions have been made outside of these meetings and imposed on fans. TV camera move, DE closure, BBE upper closure, Jack Walker Lower eviction, ST prices, etc.

They have the opportunity to raise these things and do not - it’s an incredible snub really.

Some will say that they have no right to any say, and that is true, but it makes a mockery of the meetings even being held then, and simply backs up the ‘box ticking’ argument. Fans are ‘emotional shareholders’ in the club and the club needs to treat these meetings as such.

Should the manager be there? Not if it is a distraction from the matters at hand. Not if it becomes a tub thumping session about how fans should back the club “through thick and thin”. This isn’t the 80s, the world has changed. People demand answers more than ever before, people want to feel they are being listened to. When the issue of attendances comes up, it needs to be linked with innovative thinking for a club with a large number of clubs on their doorstep - competing for the floating fans. Bashing the faithful and telling them to go forth and multiply to create more faithful is a very long term strategy - or a very short term one.

[tomphil]

Whilst it does detract from some of the main issues that want raising and i'm sure some at the club welcome his presence as a distraction from that maybe Mowbray wants to attend these things or sees it as his duty to do so ?

We know the managers under Venkys are expected to have a hands on role and almost run everything then report back to them almost like a 'line' manager in their other businesses and it's taken years to get away from that a bit and them to realise that isn't how football at high level works.  Just think it might simply be down to the all in it together approach from the staff on the ground these days, the shadow man/men will always be that they'll never be held accountable.

Waggot to be fair doesn't seem to shy away from anything although that is his job after all.

[perthblue02]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

Because after 45-60m, the compere wants Mowbray to get 30m chat. It’s irrelevant.

The meeting is supposed to be 30m of questioning relevant top brass, not the manager.

Just because ‘the questions were answered’ doesn’t mean they were adequately answered. If TM can play his part in holding his bosses to account then fine, but he hasn’t yet done that in 3 meetings.

Waggot is also missing a $$ opportunity , Don't let TM attend  the consultation evenings , instead   an evening with Tony Mowbray, pie and peas supper 15 quid a pop , twice a season  

Edit : +3 quid surcharge if paying on the night

Edited November 24, 2018 by perthblue02

[Miller11]

On 23/11/2018 at 12:58, JHRover said:

Yeah that's right. But those plans could be revisited and amended. We admittedly don't need to increase capacity to that level, but a new Riverside could be built with a capacity of say 5000 which would keep capacity similar or slightly higher than it is at present. The aim of the project isn't really to create additional capacity which is unlikely to be needed, but to improve the stadium, the facilities on offer, increase our internal space for something like a hotel or offices which can generate extra revenue for the club on non-matchdays. The facilities on the Riverside are among the worst in the Championship these days even though it is 'only' 30 years since it was done. Can't think of many other stands with uncovered seats, uncovered concourse, only 2 sets of toilets and food kiosks, and obstructed views. Just not really fit for 21st century standard although I suspect a lot of those who sit in there are quite comfortable with it.

I reckon it could be done to keep it in harmony with the rest of the ground. Single tier, floodlights in the roof, no obstructed views, internal concourse with modern toilets and food kiosks and then internal space behind for boxes/hotel rooms/office space etc. Build it nearer to the pitch without a walkway at the front and close the gaps to the BBE and DE and I think it would massively upgrade the look, facilities and enclose the atmosphere.

Interesting that Waggott referenced talking to the council about it, so it seems it has passed first base of merely thinking about it and some conversations have been had.

It's ok saying we should wait until we get to the Premier League before doing it but then we'd end up with a building site down that side whilst in the Prem. Makes sense to get it done and dusted now whilst we've the surplus capacity to enable it.

Ultimately we're quite lucky with Ewood in the Riverside should be the easiest stand to build. No houses or businesses behind it, plenty of space behind.

There is, or certainly was, a model showing Jacks reimagined view of the Riverside in the Ewood boardroom. Plans were approved but shelved due to relegation.

With regards to the walkway at the front of the Riverside, there is presently nothing we can do about it. This is the grounds access point for emergency vehicles. There has to be room for fire engines to do their stuff in case of an emergency. They’d have to do something to ensure this access still remained as part of any renovation. I don’t recall what this looks like on the plans from the late 90s.

Personally I love the Riverside how it is, and I think I can safely say most of the other fans who sit in there feel the same. The obstructed view is not a factor, just a slight head movement required, and I’d take an obstructed side on view over a behind the goal view all day long. Nothing wrong with the toilets, and there is also the concourse and food/drink outlets in the rear of the stand. 

[tomphil]

3 hours ago, Miller11 said:

There is, or certainly was, a model showing Jacks reimagined view of the Riverside in the Ewood boardroom. Plans were approved but shelved due to relegation.

With regards to the walkway at the front of the Riverside, there is presently nothing we can do about it. This is the grounds access point for emergency vehicles. There has to be room for fire engines to do their stuff in case of an emergency. They’d have to do something to ensure this access still remained as part of any renovation. I don’t recall what this looks like on the plans from the late 90s.

Personally I love the Riverside how it is, and I think I can safely say most of the other fans who sit in there feel the same. The obstructed view is not a factor, just a slight head movement required, and I’d take an obstructed side on view over a behind the goal view all day long. Nothing wrong with the toilets, and there is also the concourse and food/drink outlets in the rear of the stand. 

Fair points although what sets Ewood apart from other grounds in terms of having to have a road in in front of one of the stands ?  Not exactly common is this another peculiar Blackburn Council requirement like not allowing Jack to build a train stop near Ewood ?

It's nearly as odd as being the only local club who moves kick offs to accommodate as many away fans as possible ?

[Miller11]

7 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Fair points although what sets Ewood apart from other grounds in terms of having to have a road in in front of one of the stands ?  Not exactly common is this another peculiar Blackburn Council requirement like not allowing Jack to build a train stop near Ewood ?

It's nearly as odd as being the only local club who moves kick offs to accommodate as many away fans as possible ?

I’ve got no real understanding of the ins and outs of it, just going off what I was told by someone at the club a number of years ago. I’d guess that the gaps between the corners in the other parts of the ground are too small to allow emergency vehicles the requisite access. 

[tomphil]

We've got to remember the riverside was built within the old Ewood so that probably carried some weight back then. The plans Jack had to rebuild that stand moved to towards the pitch just like the JW, they probably would've made provision for emergency access in the corner but I thik you could get a vehicle in between the JW/BBE through the gates no bother.

[Mattyblue]

I thought the BBEnd/JWalker corner was the emergency vehicle entrance?