Appeal to EFL

[Mercer]

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Cos it been reported we are. Did you miss that bit? 

Plenty has been reported by 3 different journalists. What more do you want? A minute to minute account with details of everything. 

Of course I will keep believing in my club I support and stakeholder. 

I'll bet you £50 this is all futile nonsense and nothing will come of it.

Loser pays £50 to charity of winner's choice.

Just what have you got to lose given your certainty over the issue?

[jim mk2]

Is stakeholder the latest buzzword?

Stakeholder suggests some sort of financial interest. And I thought we were all fans

Is Chaddy launching a management buyout at Ewood? 

[glen9mullan]

We took a law suit out over Berg, spent a fortune and lost. We then subsequently ended up in the Employement tribunal courts with Shaw, and ended up paying him out a kings Ransom as we lost again.

Rovers under Venkys have spent more on Lawyers and pay offs that we afford ourselves in transfer windows.

Our success rate of winning 1 ???? None, lost everyone including when Action group took club to county court too.

Its remarkable how people still getting sucked in, GB has admitted in his own words we got it wrong internally.

Edited February 19, 2023 by glen9mullan

[Mattyblue]

‘Stakeholder’, where you learnt this? New boss at work? 

😁

Edited February 19, 2023 by Mattyblue

[wilsdenrover]

On 18/02/2023 at 09:23, rigger said:

Beware the Ides of March.

Bit soon to be worried about Reading at home 

[Atko's Engine]

32 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

Its remarkable how people still getting sucked in, GB has admitted in his own words we got it wrong internally.

Yeah, but isn't it being reported that the internal errors re were more to do with the Brierley transfer than O'Brien's?

It sounds like (speculatively) we have been less incompetent with O'Brien than with Brierley.  Time will tell I guess, hopefully. 

[Mashed Potatoes]

35 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

We took a law suit out over Berg, spent a fortune and lost. We then subsequently ended up in the Employement tribunal courts with Shaw, and ended up paying him out a kings Ransom as we lost again.

Rovers under Venkys have spent more on Lawyers and pay offs that we afford ourselves in transfer windows.

Our success rate of winning 1 ???? None, lost everyone including when Action group took club to county court too.

Its remarkable how people still getting sucked in, GB has admitted in his own words we got it wrong internally.

I thought it was Berg/the LMA who took out the law suit against the club ?

[toogs]

This was in 4000 holes, purchased yesterday before the Swansea game and a good read - I can recommend.  
 

Clearly transfer deadlines were more lenient in days gone by….

 

[glen9mullan]

1 hour ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I thought it was Berg/the LMA who took out the law suit against the club ?

We chose to to take it to court when told we had to pay up. 

Have the full transcript/decision somewhere including full internal email trail

[Mashed Potatoes]

8 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

We chose to to take it to court when told we had to pay up. 

Have the full transcript/decision somewhere including full internal email trail

You may be right, but told by whom ? Normally the party wanting to be paid is the one that has to take the case to court. Having said that, our "case" was ridiculous since, as I recall, the club's argument was that despite Shaw being the club's chief executive he was acting ultra vires when he agreed the relevant clause in Berg's contract which entitled him to be paid.

[glen9mullan]

12 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

You may be right, but told by whom ? Normally the party wanting to be paid is the one that has to take the case to court. Having said that, our "case" was ridiculous since, as I recall, the club's argument was that despite Shaw being the club's chief executive he was acting ultra vires when he agreed the relevant clause in Berg's contract which entitled him to be paid.

We agreed to pay it, then appealed to the courts to retract such agreement. Its as embarrassing today as it was back then, as following this we then went through a further tribunal with Shaw  (i actually attended this one) we ended up settling out of court.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/blackburn-ordered-to-pay-henning-berg-after-case-is-thrown-out-of-the-high-court-8594720.html

 

https://employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/content/berg-v-blackburn-rovers-football-club-athletic-plc-2013-ewhc-1070-ch.fffeef86f1274dfc98e3398b29367772.htm

Edited February 19, 2023 by glen9mullan

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, Mercer said:

I'll bet you £50 this is all futile nonsense and nothing will come of it.

Loser pays £50 to charity of winner's choice.

Just what have you got to lose given your certainty over the issue?

No offence but I getting abit fed up with you trying every time to do bets, like I have always said I ain't interested in betting with you or anyone on here. Please keep this mind for future reference 

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

No offence but I getting abit fed up with you trying every time to do bets, like I have always said I ain't interested in betting with you or anyone on here. Please keep this mind for future reference 

Probably as much chance of him doing that as there is of him stopping predicting Rovers to win every match by a landslide. I'm pretty sure he does both things to wind people up, as he has been asked many times to stop, so you might be best just not rising to it.

[ageoftherover]

2 hours ago, toogs said:

This was in 4000 holes, purchased yesterday before the Swansea game and a good read - I can recommend.  
 

Clearly transfer deadlines were more lenient in days gone by….

 

A simpler time.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Is stakeholder the latest buzzword?

Stakeholder suggests some sort of financial interest.

I first heard "stakeholder" used in a non-financial context when I was assigned to work on a task within a project a few years ago. One of my colleagues was listed as the task "stakeholder". In this context, they were just creating the task as something that needed to be done. It's management jargon that makes people feel important so that the company "values" them without having to give them a pay rise.

[jim mk2]

48 minutes ago, goozburger said:

I first heard "stakeholder" used in a non-financial context when I was assigned to work on a task within a project a few years ago. One of my colleagues was listed as the task "stakeholder". In this context, they were just creating the task as something that needed to be done. It's management jargon that makes people feel important so that the company "values" them without having to give them a pay rise.

So it’s management speak and misuse of a word, otherwise known as bollocks. Thanks for clarifying. It will be called out every time it’s posted from now on

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

1 hour ago, goozburger said:

I first heard "stakeholder" used in a non-financial context when I was assigned to work on a task within a project a few years ago. One of my colleagues was listed as the task "stakeholder". In this context, they were just creating the task as something that needed to be done. It's management jargon that makes people feel important so that the company "values" them without having to give them a pay rise.

I first heard it on Buffy the Vampire Slayer 🤣

[bluebruce]

3 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

So it’s management speak and misuse of a word, otherwise known as bollocks. Thanks for clarifying. It will be called out every time it’s posted from now on

It's everybody affected by the dealings of a business. In the broadest use it can mean pretty much anyone, including society at large, governments etc. And in that sense it can become a bit meaningless. But it can be used more specifically and there is a whole school of thought around it, so your summation probably isn't quite right. It can be used in a legitimate context. For BRFC, the external stakeholders would essentially be fans when used on this board, or the local area, council, the league etc if used more widely. Like almost any word, it can mean different things in different contexts.

Some people are definitely misusing the term here, but encouraging companies to consider stakeholders is probably a beneficial thing for society. Even if most of the time it probably doesn't make a company act any differently. Reminding customers and other groups that they have a 'stake' in what happens in a sense (not a financial one for customers or fans, other than spending money with the company for goods or services) can be empowering for them too and encourage them to put appropriate pressure on companies.

Fully expecting to catch flak here from people who have finished expanding their vocabulary years ago and don't want to hear any new words or new uses of words, as though this isn't how language evolved for millennia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory

[joey_big_nose]

17 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

It's everybody affected by the dealings of a business. In the broadest use it can mean pretty much anyone, including society at large, governments etc. And in that sense it can become a bit meaningless. But it can be used more specifically and there is a whole school of thought around it, so your summation probably isn't quite right. It can be used in a legitimate context. For BRFC, the external stakeholders would essentially be fans when used on this board, or the local area, council, the league etc if used more widely. Like almost any word, it can mean different things in different contexts.

Some people are definitely misusing the term here, but encouraging companies to consider stakeholders is probably a beneficial thing for society. Even if most of the time it probably doesn't make a company act any differently. Reminding customers and other groups that they have a 'stake' in what happens in a sense (not a financial one for customers or fans, other than spending money with the company for goods or services) can be empowering for them too and encourage them to put appropriate pressure on companies.

Fully expecting to catch flak here from people who have finished expanding their vocabulary years ago and don't want to hear any new words or new uses of words, as though this isn't how language evolved for millennia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory

I salute you're bravery in facing the luddites!

Stakeholder is a totally normal everyday word that's used all the time by lots and lots of people. Any organisation will have stakeholders. I think probably if we pull up the BRFCS terms of reference or whatever the foundational documents are the term "stakeholder" will feature somewhere. 

[Upside Down]

The problem with football in England and many other countries is that the fans are not stakeholders.

[jim mk2]

Perhaps the BRFCS owners / administrators could tell us if there is a reference to stakeholders? It’s possible but it’s unlikely.  I thought we as messageboard users were “members” or is that too old fashioned and “Luddite”?

I honestly doubt if anyone who posts on here regard themselves as stakeholders in the same way as the vast majority of folk who attend matches do not see themselves as anything other than fans or supporters.

Language evolves but this smacks of American management/ corporate bullshit to me and I’m looking forward to the next away match already. “Shit ground, no stakeholders” 

Yeah right

[ageoftherover]

1 hour ago, Upside Down said:

The problem with football in England and many other countries is that the fans are not stakeholders.

I'd gop a step further and say that most of the world's problems stem from entities not being beholden to the correct stakeholders.

[AllRoverAsia]

3 hours ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

I first heard it on Buffy the Vampire Slayer 🤣

The victims of Vlad the Impaler were all stakeholders too, similar in some ways to the fate of a Rovers fan.

[AllRoverAsia]

7 hours ago, toogs said:

This was in 4000 holes, purchased yesterday before the Swansea game and a good read - I can recommend.  
 

Clearly transfer deadlines were more lenient in days gone by….

 

Great story, and better than the Rovers fax machine not working.

I find it really intriguing as to why a chip shop in Blackpool would have need of a fax machine, although if my memory is accurate the early fax paper used was probably ok for wrapping up fish and chips.

 

[AllRoverAsia]

4 hours ago, bluebruce said:

It's everybody affected by the dealings of a business. In the broadest use it can mean pretty much anyone, including society at large, governments etc. And in that sense it can become a bit meaningless. But it can be used more specifically and there is a whole school of thought around it, so your summation probably isn't quite right. It can be used in a legitimate context. For BRFC, the external stakeholders would essentially be fans when used on this board, or the local area, council, the league etc if used more widely. Like almost any word, it can mean different things in different contexts.

Some people are definitely misusing the term here, but encouraging companies to consider stakeholders is probably a beneficial thing for society. Even if most of the time it probably doesn't make a company act any differently. Reminding customers and other groups that they have a 'stake' in what happens in a sense (not a financial one for customers or fans, other than spending money with the company for goods or services) can be empowering for them too and encourage them to put appropriate pressure on companies.

Fully expecting to catch flak here from people who have finished expanding their vocabulary years ago and don't want to hear any new words or new uses of words, as though this isn't how language evolved for millennia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory

You were doing ok until the final paragraph.