Fans Forum / Roverstore

[only2garners]

On 30/05/2021 at 18:10, Crimpshrine said:

The question may have been asked but the meeting minutes are sent to Waggott for approval before being published. I suspect that any real details are redacted unless they fit the current narrative.

Look at the actual wording:

so he (SW) felt that they(the owners) deserved to make key decisions like the manager’s role. The position had been discussed and it had been decided that Tony Mowbray would be staying.

He mentions the 'manager's role' as a decision for the owners ( ie the specifics of what a manager's job is at the club  ) but he does not state that the discussions about 'the position' of manager invovled the owners.  I suspect the discussions took place between Waggott and Mowbray. If the owners had spcifically told Waggott that they wanted Mowbray to stay it would have been in the minutes.

The way the Forum works is that I take the minutes as Secretary and then submit them to the club for approval - that's the way consultation works and it wouldn't work if I just wrote them and published them, any more than if the club wrote them.

I've been doing this for years now and the amount of changes the club makes to my drafts have been minimal and usually additions for greater clarity, occasionally removing a small detail that they wanted to keep confidential. I can only remember two occasions when I went back to them and we negotiated further and they were both not under the current management team. The club changed the May minutes to add one word to my draft - on item 9 the word full was added before embargo. Otherwise what you see is what I wrote.

Crimpshine - you're overthinking my ability or desire to be devious - it was clear at the meeting that the decision on the manager's position had been made by the owners.

Of course with any set of minutes they are a summary of the conversation and not a verbatim record - there was plenty of discussion around most of the points.

Finally most of the discussion above has been about the answers given - don't shoot the messengers. 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, only2garners said:

it was clear at the meeting that the decision on the manager's position had been made by the owners.

In fairness, the wording of the minutes doesn't make that clear at all. 

So, who was involved in the discussion to keep him? Just the owners? Or did Pasha and Waggott have input too?

Also what was the reasoning behind letting Mowbray continue?

Edited June 1, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[tomphil]

Who challenged Waggot when he made the comments on the manager ?

Anybody ask in what context it was or just accept the 'yeah we've spoken about it briefly and they didn't ask for him  to be removed' type answer.

Therefore other than taking his word for it how do we know it's even been mentioned ?

He's the manages pal he's there to shield him so he isn't go to say anything to them unless prompted. So he leaves it to them, they leave advice and what to do to him and the net result is fook all.

Now a proper set up would surely be recommending the owners gave serious consideration to change. That's not happening here so we just get fobbed off and say thank you very much.

[arbitro]

3 hours ago, only2garners said:

The way the Forum works is that I take the minutes as Secretary and then submit them to the club for approval - that's the way consultation works and it wouldn't work if I just wrote them and published them, any more than if the club wrote them.

I've been doing this for years now and the amount of changes the club makes to my drafts have been minimal and usually additions for greater clarity, occasionally removing a small detail that they wanted to keep confidential. I can only remember two occasions when I went back to them and we negotiated further and they were both not under the current management team. The club changed the May minutes to add one word to my draft - on item 9 the word full was added before embargo. Otherwise what you see is what I wrote.

Crimpshine - you're overthinking my ability or desire to be devious - it was clear at the meeting that the decision on the manager's position had been made by the owners.

Of course with any set of minutes they are a summary of the conversation and not a verbatim record - there was plenty of discussion around most of the points.

Finally most of the discussion above has been about the answers given - don't shoot the messengers. 

I fail to see how, if it's discussed in a fans forum anything can be confidential. Sitting on such a forum should not entitle anybody to confidential information. If it is discussed during the meeting then it should be minuted for the wider fan base to read.

Edited June 1, 2021 by arbitro

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

I fail to see how, if it's discussed in a fans forum anything can be confidential. Sitting on such a forum should entitle anybody to confidential information. If it is discussed during the meeting then it should be minuted for the wider fan base to read.

I also dont get this at all.

[chaddyrovers]

Very surprised that Rovers didn't have the club shop or Rovers bar open on Bank Holiday yesterday. Bit of a own goal for me. 

[Crimpshrine]

3 hours ago, only2garners said:

Crimpshine - you're overthinking my ability or desire to be devious - it was clear at the meeting that the decision on the manager's position had been made by the owners.

Hi O2G - I wasn't questioning your role at all. I appreciate it's voluntary and writing meeting minutes is tedious work - so thanks, keep it up.

I was just wondering if Mr Waggott had a substantial input into the minutes after the initial draft. If not then that's my question answered. Cheers.

It would be interesting to get a little more detail on the discussions though - who was involved, was serious consideration given to changing the manager ? What was the overriding factor in the final decision? Will he definitely be leaving at the end of his contract ? 

 

[only2garners]

 

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

I fail to see how, if it's discussed in a fans forum anything can be confidential. Sitting on such a forum should not entitle anybody to confidential information. If it is discussed during the meeting then it should be minuted for the wider fan base to read.

Well it's not confidential then is it, if it's published in the minutes. If that was the case then all that would happen is that they wouldn't tell us anything that they wanted kept confidential. As it stands now it sometimes makes sense to have an off the record chat about something to get a feel for the fans' views before they make a final decision on something.

Hearing things that I couldn't put in the minutes was much more prevalent in John Williams's time. He could spend lots os time in a meeting and then say don't put that in the minutes. When he set up the Forum he would also not allow any discussion about on the field matters but that was changed after he left, although I can't remember who it was that changed it - it was before Waggott.

On the bit I mentioned about the replacement for iFollow it was simply stated in January when we were discussing it's future that it would be replaced for next season, they couldn't say anything more at that time and they therefore wanted that info not to be in the minutes.

The Fans Consultation meeting is designed to be the session that everything is on the record. They haven't had them this season as they didn't think it was practicable to do them on Zoom with so many people, but they will be back as soon as they can. We hope that our next Forum in July will be face to face too.

34 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I was just wondering if Mr Waggott had a substantial input into the minutes after the initial draft. If not then that's my question answered. Cheers.

Well yes he does in that he reads them and makes any changes he thinks appropriate. It's just that I have enough understanding with him that the vast majority of what I write he doesn't change.

For others asking for more info about the discussion there was plenty of robust debate about the team's performances this last season and the manager's position from a number of Forum members. Maybe I could have put a bit more of that in the minutes but I'm conscious that I don't want them to be pages and pages long.

[arbitro]

19 minutes ago, only2garners said:

 

Well it's not confidential then is it, if it's published in the minutes. If that was the case then all that would happen is that they wouldn't tell us anything that they wanted kept confidential. As it stands now it sometimes makes sense to have an off the record chat about something to get a feel for the fans' views before they make a final decision on something.

Hearing things that I couldn't put in the minutes was much more prevalent in John Williams's time. He could spend lots os time in a meeting and then say don't put that in the minutes. When he set up the Forum he would also not allow any discussion about on the field matters but that was changed after he left, although I can't remember who it was that changed it - it was before Waggott.

On the bit I mentioned about the replacement for iFollow it was simply stated in January when we were discussing it's future that it would be replaced for next season, they couldn't say anything more at that time and they therefore wanted that info not to be in the minutes.

The Fans Consultation meeting is designed to be the session that everything is on the record. They haven't had them this season as they didn't think it was practicable to do them on Zoom with so many people, but they will be back as soon as they can. We hope that our next Forum in July will be face to face too.

Well yes he does in that he reads them and makes any changes he thinks appropriate. It's just that I have enough understanding with him that the vast majority of what I write he doesn't change.

For others asking for more info about the discussion there was plenty of robust debate about the team's performances this last season and the manager's position from a number of Forum members. Maybe I could have put a bit more of that in the minutes but I'm conscious that I don't want them to be pages and pages long.

I think you are missing my point which is not a criticism of any of the fans in attendance. Confidential to me means in confidence and nobody else should know. How can Waggott, Cheston or any other from Rovers management guarantee confidentiality from the dozen or so attendees? If this leaks out what then? In my view it's amateurish to give out confidential information to a forum where secrecy cannot be guaranteed.

[only2garners]

39 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I think you are missing my point which is not a criticism of any of the fans in attendance. Confidential to me means in confidence and nobody else should know. How can Waggott, Cheston or any other from Rovers management guarantee confidentiality from the dozen or so attendees? If this leaks out what then? In my view it's amateurish to give out confidential information to a forum where secrecy cannot be guaranteed.

Partly I think that we don't really get any seriously confidential information.

But also it's partly because everyone on the Forum accepts that they don't talk publicly about anything they hear at Forum meetings unless and until it appears in the minutes or elsewhere publicly.

There have been a couple of times when someone has revealed something that was said at a meeting that they shouldn't have but by and large the system works well.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 hours ago, only2garners said:

For others asking for more info about the discussion there was plenty of robust debate about the team's performances this last season and the manager's position from a number of Forum members. Maybe I could have put a bit more of that in the minutes but I'm conscious that I don't want them to be pages and pages long.

That simply doesn't wash John. If there was more robust criticism of the footballing side (which I doubt) it needs to be recorded in the minutes as a matter of record in case things deteriorate even further (if that's possible) so you can refer to it at a later date if needed.

[MarkBRFC]

More importantly, as I myself and several others have asked, who is this bloke that joined the forum at the back end of last year that keeps repeating how positive it would be that the training centre relocated to BwD, and did you all (rest of the fans forum) shut him straight down when he released this ridiculous opinion?

[JHRover]

I've heard some rubbish in my time but the suggestion that the training ground for Rovers needs to be or should be within the boundaries of BwD I think tops the lot.

Of course if we didn't have a training ground to start with it would make sense to look as close to home as possible for a site to build one but this conveniently ignores the brilliant facility we have not 20 minutes from Blackburn which is set in beautiful countryside easily accessible from the M6 and A59. 

I too find it strange how Waggott made a comment about how it might be better being in BwD and then lo and behold someone I've never heard of before is turning up at fans forum meetings arguing it would be better if it was.

It's one of the more daft suggestions I've ever heard. Brockhall is absolutely perfect as a location for a private training ground where professional players would want to work. 

[K-Hod]

1 hour ago, MarkBRFC said:

More importantly, as I myself and several others have asked, who is this bloke that joined the forum at the back end of last year that keeps repeating how positive it would be that the training centre relocated to BwD, and did you all (rest of the fans forum) shut him straight down when he released this ridiculous opinion?

I might be wrong, but I think he works for the LT. In the meeting I attended (before the most recent one), he asked about doing it when the Brockhall thing was being discussed, rather than saying ‘we need to move our training ground within the limits of BWD’.

[Stuart]

48 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I might be wrong, but I think he works for the LT. In the meeting I attended (before the most recent one), he asked about doing it when the Brockhall thing was being discussed, rather than saying ‘we need to move our training ground within the limits of BWD’.

Lol. We need the LT back within the limits of BwD before they can pontificate about anything!

[tomphil]

Probably one of the clowns who runs several accounts on the LT and is pro everything the manager & club do and say.

[Stuart]

5 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Probably one of the clowns who runs several accounts on the LT and is pro everything the manager & club do and say.

The perfect FF member. I’m sure Steve is delighted.

[RoversClitheroe]

11 hours ago, Stuart said:

The perfect FF member. I’m sure Steve is delighted.

Almost as though he's intentionally in there to be Uber positive? 

[K-Hod]

Sorry, just been corrected- Amer Mushtaq doesn’t work for the LT!

[tomphil]

16 hours ago, JHRover said:

I've heard some rubbish in my time but the suggestion that the training ground for Rovers needs to be or should be within the boundaries of BwD I think tops the lot.

Of course if we didn't have a training ground to start with it would make sense to look as close to home as possible for a site to build one but this conveniently ignores the brilliant facility we have not 20 minutes from Blackburn which is set in beautiful countryside easily accessible from the M6 and A59. 

I too find it strange how Waggott made a comment about how it might be better being in BwD and then lo and behold someone I've never heard of before is turning up at fans forum meetings arguing it would be better if it was.

It's one of the more daft suggestions I've ever heard. Brockhall is absolutely perfect as a location for a private training ground where professional players would want to work. 

Absolutely no need for moving it whatsoever other than middlemen spotting a few quid. Using the assumption a cheap block of land can be found easily within the borough of BBwD. Then playing on the rocketing value of Brockhall land and telling the owners the profit will pay for everything and put a few quid into the club.

Chancing of the highest order by a few suits and i said this would happen once the other scheme fell through. Wheels slowly being put in motion to sell the whole lot and totally relocate.

Also from Vs point of view it stealthily removes another of Jacks main legacies, very much Venky Rovers then.

Mowbray will be back soon saying what a good idea it is moving within the historic Blackburn boundaries. And how cutting travelling time from training ground to Ewood will improve development of players.

This will never go away whilst Coventrio remain.

[JHRover]

I've long suspected the people down at Rovers, mainly Mowbray and Waggott but also the others underneath them, are uncomfortable with the beast that is Blackburn Rovers in its current format.

Former PL mainstay, successful club, PL ground, reputation, facilities, yet managed and overseen by a group of people very much not up to that level.

This club remains a PL outfit in all but name and management. Awkward for the management incapable and probably not interested in

Mowbray and Waggott have shown no real desire to harness the club and its assets and put them to good use, instead it is always about trying to dumb down, reduce, dilute and make excuses.

So no suprises that possession of an elite facility in the lush surroundings of Brockhall is awkward for them. Both for what it represents - the pinnacle of Jack Walkers legacy still to this day setting us well ahead of rival clubs - and for the value it contains for raising cash and getting hands on it.

Waggott will also know that the only justification for leaving Brockhall and moving to a new site (other than admitting it is financial) is some concoction about how it would be better or advantageous for it to be nearer to Blackburn and withiin BwD. Anyone with any understanding of the area would know that this is nonsense but unfortunately many people will believe it.

[Stuart]

4 hours ago, K-Hod said:

Sorry, just been corrected- Amer Mushtaq doesn’t work for the LT!

Who?

The guy on the FF is credited as Mushtaq Khan. Do we know if he’s a Blackburner?

[Stuart]

39 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I've long suspected the people down at Rovers, mainly Mowbray and Waggott but also the others underneath them, are uncomfortable with the beast that is Blackburn Rovers in its current format.

Former PL mainstay, successful club, PL ground, reputation, facilities, yet managed and overseen by a group of people very much not up to that level.

This club remains a PL outfit in all but name and management. Awkward for the management incapable and probably not interested in

Mowbray and Waggott have shown no real desire to harness the club and its assets and put them to good use, instead it is always about trying to dumb down, reduce, dilute and make excuses.

So no suprises that possession of an elite facility in the lush surroundings of Brockhall is awkward for them. Both for what it represents - the pinnacle of Jack Walkers legacy still to this day setting us well ahead of rival clubs - and for the value it contains for raising cash and getting hands on it.

Waggott will also know that the only justification for leaving Brockhall and moving to a new site (other than admitting it is financial) is some concoction about how it would be better or advantageous for it to be nearer to Blackburn and withiin BwD. Anyone with any understanding of the area would know that this is nonsense but unfortunately many people will believe it.

The money tied up in Brockhall is what will save this club when all of the chancers and vultures and scavengers and the rats have made their coin.

If it is cashed in now so that a small group of people can get rich at the expense of the club then we are heading into oblivion.

[A Northern Horde...]

On 01/06/2021 at 13:56, chaddyrovers said:

Very surprised that Rovers didn't have the club shop or Rovers bar open on Bank Holiday yesterday. Bit of a own goal for me. 

Club is totally dysfunctional...no forward thinking.

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

The money tied up in Brockhall is what will save this club when all of the chancers and vultures and scavengers and the rats have made their coin.

If it is cashed in now so that a small group of people can get rich at the expense of the club then we are heading into oblivion.

Nail on head it provides that infracstructure and security for a very last resort, that's why it shouldn't be touched. Even if they mothballed some of it.

Too many are only too happy to sail along with Venkys writing the cheques without a thought to the future. It's all too easy, stale and comfortable for people down there and a lot of fans.

Taken for granted is the better description but it will not last forever. That's why the backing they give and have given needs every last drop squeezing out of it. Every penny needs investing wisely and EVERY asset protecting.

This management regime did that for about 18 months then have been floundering around wasting a lot of it since then.  That's obviously going to continue for now but one day they'll be gone and one day no cheques might be being signed.

That's when you need something to fall back on.

Edited June 2, 2021 by tomphil