Venky’s & Waggott Out Protest Ideas

[Andy]

34 minutes ago, simongarnerisgod said:

it`s all lies

It's either all lies, or none of them genuinely have any idea what they're doing.

Or, actually, both.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Has any other Football Clubs Board members found the need to parade themselves on TV like that?

This Club is in the gutter,embarrassing.

[wilsdenrover]

5 hours ago, DutchRover said:

Been a reader but never a poster here for a while, finally decided to join as a member. I applaud the actions taken by Glen et al, the fact that Waggott, Suhail and Gestede felt the need to go on such a press push yesterday shows the plan to pressure on them is working.

Frankly some of the excuses they gave were embarrassing, they bank entirely on fans not understanding how FFP works or looking at the registered accounts which as others have highlighted disprove Suhail's statements on the funding. 

Suhail did effectively confirm that the owners aren't interested in funding anything above daily running costs. When asked in the Lancs interview if now "barriers are lifted" on funding we will see transfers like Brereton or Gallagher again he just said no the owners don't want that but are committed to funding value transfers.

Likewise as someone posted in the other thread, Gestede's 5 targets are notably the positions where we are not renewing current players on higher wages.

The "we're close to renewing contracts" boxes them in, because I just cannot see them doing anything until the end of the season when they will go cap in hand and ask Venkys to keep the lights on for another year.

Frankly, the major positive from yesterday is their phrasing that the owners have "not asked us to look for a buyer"; they did not deny willingness to sell as they have done in the past. They also sketched out in surprising detail what they wanted to hear from a prospective buyer, implying that they would expect the debt to be paid of (c.300 million according to Waggott) alongside the value of the club. Others with more knowledge can comment on such matters but it is a small light.

Keep up the good work. 

 

Monies advanced to the club  = £134 million

Monies invested by way of share issues = £86 million.

I’m not convinced that adds up to £300 million (and shares aren’t a debt…)
 

 

[LWX]

I was able to watch about 5 seconds of the interview.

[booth]

On 01/04/2025 at 22:47, JHRover said:

One minute in. Waggott has managed to make himself the victim of this situation by referring to abuse and personal threats and boasted of his approach to communication and his 'open door' policy.

Last I checked he had shut down shareholder and supporter consultation meetings under the guise of Covid whereas prior to 2020 these were a valuable route to supporters asking direct questions of management. 

Recycled from the Steve Kean "how to hide my own ineptitude with vulnerability" handbook.

[RevidgeBlue]

I was busy Tuesday evening and couldn't bring myself to watch it yesterday, just listened and what a depressing half hour it was.

(Tin hat on) never having heard from Suhail before I didn't know what to expect. He came across rather better than I was expecting. The other two though Christ - anyone who thinks Waggott isn't a major problem needs their bumps feeling. There's a saying I favour about politicians - "How do you know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving" and Waggott falls firmly into this category. He's been lying for so long that I don't think he has any grasp of what's true and what's not anymore.

Waggott and Gestede did a fair job of digging their own grave, however whilst it was satisfying watching them squirm a bit, a really independent and diligent  interviewer could have completely buried them and planted a couple of flowers on top for good measure.

Apologies if Im repeating points made elsewhere but key points I took:

Suhail confirmed beyond doubt that there is no longer any impediment to owners funding the Club. Interviewer should have pressed him further on why, if that was the case,  have they not been doing so. The obvious answer is they simply don't want to.

Interestingly unlike in the past, there didn't seem to be any real resistance to the notion of the Club being sold. No- one is ever going to offer to pay off their debt though irrespective of whether you class the current debt as £200m or £300m so until they accept that, nothing will ever occur on that front.

Waggott should have been pulled firmly up on his ludicrous claim that it's becoming more common for managers to move mid season. The interviewer should have asked him to specify when was the last time a manager moved at that stage of the season from a side in the play off positions to one in the relegation places. Also he should have been asked why, if it is now so commonplace for managers to move mid season, we put out such a vitriolic statement when he was allowed to speak to Derby, especially when we agreed to a rease clause in the first place! (They're so busy lying they can't even remember what they've said in the past and keep their story straight)

Gestede should have been pulled up on his comment that once Eustace decided he'd like to speak to Derby, there was "nothing we could do". Should have been asked to specify if we made any attempt at all to keep him by offering him a new deal or agreeing to address his concerns on players contracts.

Only we could describe a summer when we're set to lose at least ten players as "exciting". There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to destabilise the promising position Eustace got us into this season in favour of going on another never ending "journey" to nowhere and fictional "player development" which Gestede unfortunately seems fully invested in.

The other worrying thing is how completely they seem to have gone all in on VI. The interviewer should have pressed Waggott much harder on what exactly were the KPI's that supposedly made him the outstanding candidate for the job after his recent failures. Having lauded him as something akin to the second coming in this interview you wonder if they're ever going to be brave enough to admit their mistake and pot him if as we all suspect he continues to tank.(We're not a sacking Club)

Overall all though complete kudos to Glen and all involved for achieving so much in so short a space of time. As others have said it was slightly distasteful seeing these 3 charlatans lined up in the famous old Board Room like they were going to be shot for duties that they should gladly carry out from time to time as part of their normal role anyway.

They clearly didn't enjoy it though so the pressure needs to be maintained and ramped up!

[Upside Down]

30 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I was busy Tuesday evening and couldn't bring myself to watch it yesterday, just listened and what a depressing half hour it was.

(Tin hat on) never having heard from Suhail before I didn't know what to expect. He came across rather better than I was expecting. The other two though Christ - anyone who thinks Waggott isn't a major problem needs their bumps feeling. There's a saying I favour about politicians - "How do you know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving" and Waggott falls firmly into this category. He's been lying for so long that I don't think he has any grasp of what's true and what's not anymore.

Waggott and Gestede did a fair job of digging their own grave, however whilst it was satisfying watching them squirm a bit, a really independent and diligent  interviewer could have completely buried them and planted a couple of flowers on top for good measure.

Apologies if Im repeating points made elsewhere but key points I took:

Suhail confirmed beyond doubt that there is no longer any impediment to owners funding the Club. Interviewer should have pressed him further on why, if that was the case,  have they not been doing so. The obvious answer is they simply don't want to.

Interestingly unlike in the past, there didn't seem to be any real resistance to the notion of the Club being sold. No- one is ever going to offer to pay off their debt though irrespective of whether you class the current debt as £200m or £300m so until they accept that, nothing will ever occur on that front.

Waggott should have been pulled firmly up on his ludicrous claim that it's becoming more common for managers to move mid season. The interviewer should have asked him to specify when was the last time a manager moved at that stage of the season from a side in the play off positions to one in the relegation places. Also he should have been asked why, if it is now so commonplace for managers to move mid season, we put out such a vitriolic statement when he was allowed to speak to Derby, especially when we agreed to a rease clause in the first place! (They're so busy lying they can't even remember what they've said in the past and keep their story straight)

Gestede should have been pulled up on his comment that once Eustace decided he'd like to speak to Derby, there was "nothing we could do". Should have been asked to specify if we made any attempt at all to keep him by offering him a new deal or agreeing to address his concerns on players contracts.

Only we could describe a summer when we're set to lose at least ten players as "exciting". There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to destabilise the promising position Eustace got us into this season in favour of going on another never ending "journey" to nowhere and fictional "player development" which Gestede unfortunately seems fully invested in.

The other worrying thing is how completely they seem to have gone all in on VI. The interviewer should have pressed Waggott much harder on what exactly were the KPI's that supposedly made him the outstanding candidate for the job after his recent failures. Having lauded him as something akin to the second coming in this interview you wonder if they're ever going to be brave enough to admit their mistake and pot him if as we all suspect he continues to tank.(We're not a sacking Club)

Overall all though complete kudos to Glen and all involved for achieving so much in so short a space of time. As others have said it was slightly distasteful seeing these 3 charlatans lined up in the famous old Board Room like they were going to be shot for duties that they should gladly carry out from time to time as part of their normal role anyway.

They clearly didn't enjoy it though so the pressure needs to be maintained and ramped up!

For fuck sake will you please get up to speed with this. He was lying, just like every other time.

The end of year accounts for both BRFC and VLL state that the exact opposite is true. Go and read them.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

45 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

For fuck sake will you please get up to speed with this. He was lying, just like every other time.

The end of year accounts for both BRFC and VLL state that the exact opposite is true. Go and read them.

 

I am fully aware of the qualification in the accounts thank you very much. You are obviously the one that doesnt understand it.

The qualification in the accounts is just auditors who are passing the accounts covering their arses. The qualification goes onto state that as money has been remitted previously a precedent has been set and  on that basis they believe that the accounts can be signed off.

Both Pasha and Waggott have said repeatedly there is no impediment to funding. Its probably the only thing Waggott's been honest about in years.  In his wisdom he probably said that thinking it sounds better to say they "can" send money over as opposed to "the Court won't let them"

I actually think it's far worse that "they can but simply don't want to" than if it were a case of "they'd like to but are prevented from doing so" but Waggott's obviously too thick to realise that.

[lraC]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I was busy Tuesday evening and couldn't bring myself to watch it yesterday, just listened and what a depressing half hour it was.

(Tin hat on) never having heard from Suhail before I didn't know what to expect. He came across rather better than I was expecting. The other two though Christ - anyone who thinks Waggott isn't a major problem needs their bumps feeling. There's a saying I favour about politicians - "How do you know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving" and Waggott falls firmly into this category. He's been lying for so long that I don't think he has any grasp of what's true and what's not anymore.

Waggott and Gestede did a fair job of digging their own grave, however whilst it was satisfying watching them squirm a bit, a really independent and diligent  interviewer could have completely buried them and planted a couple of flowers on top for good measure.

Apologies if Im repeating points made elsewhere but key points I took:

Suhail confirmed beyond doubt that there is no longer any impediment to owners funding the Club. Interviewer should have pressed him further on why, if that was the case,  have they not been doing so. The obvious answer is they simply don't want to.

Interestingly unlike in the past, there didn't seem to be any real resistance to the notion of the Club being sold. No- one is ever going to offer to pay off their debt though irrespective of whether you class the current debt as £200m or £300m so until they accept that, nothing will ever occur on that front.

Waggott should have been pulled firmly up on his ludicrous claim that it's becoming more common for managers to move mid season. The interviewer should have asked him to specify when was the last time a manager moved at that stage of the season from a side in the play off positions to one in the relegation places. Also he should have been asked why, if it is now so commonplace for managers to move mid season, we put out such a vitriolic statement when he was allowed to speak to Derby, especially when we agreed to a rease clause in the first place! (They're so busy lying they can't even remember what they've said in the past and keep their story straight)

Gestede should have been pulled up on his comment that once Eustace decided he'd like to speak to Derby, there was "nothing we could do". Should have been asked to specify if we made any attempt at all to keep him by offering him a new deal or agreeing to address his concerns on players contracts.

Only we could describe a summer when we're set to lose at least ten players as "exciting". There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to destabilise the promising position Eustace got us into this season in favour of going on another never ending "journey" to nowhere and fictional "player development" which Gestede unfortunately seems fully invested in.

The other worrying thing is how completely they seem to have gone all in on VI. The interviewer should have pressed Waggott much harder on what exactly were the KPI's that supposedly made him the outstanding candidate for the job after his recent failures. Having lauded him as something akin to the second coming in this interview you wonder if they're ever going to be brave enough to admit their mistake and pot him if as we all suspect he continues to tank.(We're not a sacking Club)

Overall all though complete kudos to Glen and all involved for achieving so much in so short a space of time. As others have said it was slightly distasteful seeing these 3 charlatans lined up in the famous old Board Room like they were going to be shot for duties that they should gladly carry out from time to time as part of their normal role anyway.

They clearly didn't enjoy it though so the pressure needs to be maintained and ramped up!

Some good points in there and hopefully, someone will pose these questions that you have raised.

There are that many issues, that it is unlikely that these will be addressed in the pre match meeting that the trust have with Waggott on Friday.

I have first hand experience of meetings with him and his tactic, will be to waffle on, avoid the issues and run out of time.

I suspect that is the reason he chose Friday and not a more convenient time, when there would be no reason to rush anything. 

[47er]

A few questions for Waggot---he clearly implied that if there were to be a sale of the club, the owners would be looking to get

their £200 M+  back. Of course they won't get it back or anything like it. I notice  that he didn't say there had been no offers

for the club, he said there had been no "concrete" offers for the club which means anything he wants it to mean.

I suspect any offers were declined before they could become "concrete". What a bunch of liars they are.

So do they prefer to keep hold of the club and continue to put money in, or better expressed, start putting money in again?

Or does this 3000 minutes stuff foreshadow that they intend to rest even more heavily on our own youngsters?

Are they really so dumb that they they think we can sell a Wharton every year?

Or that the supporters could live with that even if it were possible?

How do they expect us to avoid falling down the leagues with this "plan".

We'll end up in a local league playing in a field.

Surely they will give up?

[Upside Down]

58 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I am fully aware of the qualification in the accounts thank you very much. You are obviously the one that doesnt understand it.

The qualification in the accounts is just auditors who are passing the accounts covering their arses. The qualification goes onto state that as money has been remitted previously a precedent has been set and  on that basis they believe that the accounts can be signed off.

Both Pasha and Waggott have said repeatedly there is no impediment to funding. Its probably the only thing Waggott's been honest about in years.  In his wisdom he probably said that thinking it sounds better to say they "can" send money over as opposed to "the Court won't let them"

I actually think it's far worse that "they can but simply don't want to" than if it were a case of "they'd like to but are prevented from doing so" but Waggott's obviously too thick to realise that.

They still need to get the No Objection Certificate prior to sending funds. That is the impediment.

Yes there has been a precedent set by the previous occasions of them being able to send funds provided certain conditions are met, the big one being the bank guarantee.

Don't you see that both things are true? There is restrictions to them sending funds and they are also no longer funding the club unless absolutely necessary.

I'm not surprised that you're continuing to double down on your incorrect interpretation though, you were claiming that they no longer needed the no objection certificate even though numerous people had tried to educate you on this. It's just like how for years you claimed the owners were nothing to do with all our problems and it was all Waggot or Mowbray or the egg. Just admit you got it wrong.

[roverblue]

18 minutes ago, 47er said:

A few questions for Waggot---he clearly implied that if there were to be a sale of the club, the owners would be looking to get

their £200 M+  back. Of course they won't get it back or anything like it. I notice  that he didn't say there had been no offers

for the club, he said there had been no "concrete" offers for the club which means anything he wants it to mean.

I suspect any offers were declined before they could become "concrete". What a bunch of liars they are.

So do they prefer to keep hold of the club and continue to put money in, or better expressed, start putting money in again?

Or does this 3000 minutes stuff foreshadow that they intend to rest even more heavily on our own youngsters?

Are they really so dumb that they they think we can sell a Wharton every year?

Or that the supporters could live with that even if it were possible?

How do they expect us to avoid falling down the leagues with this "plan".

We'll end up in a local league playing in a field.

Surely they will give up?

I don't think they intend to invest anything anymore, we are now 'self sufficient' and have been for the last 18 months.

The only problem is we don't have anything asset wise worth £22m a year.

I think it definitely means more academy lads, very few cash signings, slashing of the wage bill and likely relegation.

The focus is more about running rovers as a business, that was clear from Suhail.

The league position or promotion likely doesn't even feature in his thinking.

It's all about reducing costs so that Venkys don't have to put their hand in their pocket.

[roverblue]

"If you asked our fans at the start of this season what they expected regarding the players in the squad that we had, most of the fans would have said we'll get relegated," Pasha added.

This sums him up, they knew full well the investment was pathetic and the squad a mess but got lucky with Eustace.

[RevidgeBlue]

41 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

They still need to get the No Objection Certificate prior to sending funds. That is the impediment.

Yes there has been a precedent set by the previous occasions of them being able to send funds provided certain conditions are met, the big one being the bank guarantee.

Don't you see that both things are true? There is restrictions to them sending funds and they are also no longer funding the club unless absolutely necessary.

I'm not surprised that you're continuing to double down on your incorrect interpretation though, you were claiming that they no longer needed the no objection certificate even though numerous people had tried to educate you on this. It's just like how for years you claimed the owners were nothing to do with all our problems and it was all Waggot or Mowbray or the egg. Just admit you got it wrong.

I'm not arguing with you about it, Suhail said in the interview that there were now no problems sending money over due to the "interim measures" they'd taken which I presume was the judgment obtained and reproduced on here which stated that a "guarantee" had to be provided if money was sent.

Despite claims that this entails them having to pay double I suspect it means nothing of

[RevidgeBlue]

the sort and that Wilesden probably cracked it when he said it might mean a lien being placed over other funds for an equivalent amount which could I suppose theoretically impact their liquidity, but still, they could send funds if they wanted to, they just don't want to.

Save any bitching for the 3 stooges, not me.

[Upside Down]

10 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I'm not arguing with you about it, Suhail said in the interview that there were now no problems sending money over due to the "interim measures" they'd taken which I presume was the judgment obtained and reproduced on here which stated that a "guarantee" had to be provided if money was sent.

Despite claims that this entails them having to pay double I suspect it means nothing of

If Suhail said it then it must be true....

 

Either way, we need rid of the lot of them, anyone who doesn't think that needs to get their head examined ASAP.

Edited April 3 by Upside Down

[JHRover]

There is a difference between the owners being permitted to send monies that ensure the club meets its outgoings, wages, tax obligations, without which there is a very real prospect of the club going bust/into administration, and the owners being permitted to send additional unnecessary monies for non-essential things such as new players. 

It is understandable why they would get the permission of the Court to send the former, as it is essential funding without which all manner of potential problems develop including unpaid tax and wages and probable redundancies. Lots of problems and questions for people to deal with.

A different matter altogether when the money being transferred is a few million to allow someone to go and buy a few new players and in doing so increase costs. 

So whilst technically they may be correct - there is no problem with the owners transferring funds to cover liabilities and stop the club going bust - it may also be correct that there is a problem with them getting permission to send funds over to splash out in the transfer window or make improvements/increases to costs.

[den]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

A few questions for Waggot---he clearly implied that if there were to be a sale of the club, the owners would be looking to get

their £200 M+  back. Of course they won't get it back or anything like it. I notice  that he didn't say there had been no offers

for the club, he said there had been no "concrete" offers for the club which means anything he wants it to mean.

I suspect any offers were declined before they could become "concrete". What a bunch of liars they are.

So do they prefer to keep hold of the club and continue to put money in, or better expressed, start putting money in again?

Or does this 3000 minutes stuff foreshadow that they intend to rest even more heavily on our own youngsters?

Are they really so dumb that they they think we can sell a Wharton every year?

Or that the supporters could live with that even if it were possible?

How do they expect us to avoid falling down the leagues with this "plan".

We'll end up in a local league playing in a field.

Surely they will give up?

I’m sure you remember when they first took over - and after the ridiculous claims they were going to sign the best players in the world had fallen to the wayside, they then claimed that they could sustain a mid table PL club by investing £5m/year and bringing through youth players. I’m sure that was how the club was sold to them and despite the very odd gamble such as Rhodes and Brereton, that’s still their fundamental thinking. Now we’re in the lower leagues and losing money hand over fist, even the £5m has disappeared.

Theyre not going to change now IMO.

[DutchRover]

25 minutes ago, den said:

I’m sure you remember when they first took over - and after the ridiculous claims they were going to sign the best players in the world had fallen to the wayside, they then claimed that they could sustain a mid table PL club by investing £5m/year and bringing through youth players. I’m sure that was how the club was sold to them and despite the very odd gamble such as Rhodes and Brereton, that’s still their fundamental thinking. Now we’re in the lower leagues and losing money hand over fist, even the £5m has disappeared.

Theyre not going to change now IMO.

100% they will not change and Suhail basically confirmed as much in the Lancs interview. He ducked the question when asked if we would sign big ticket players anymore, they tried to talk up a budget of 4.5 million this year, which is less than we paid just for Gallagher. No interest in funding us anything above running costs and minimal transfers.

We deserve owners who will at least try to improve the team not just keep us on life-support as we drop down the leagues. Especially as we finally have an FFP window within which to spend.

 

Edited April 3 by DutchRover

[47er]

1 hour ago, roverblue said:

but got lucky with Eustace.

and how many laughed at Eustace for taking on an impossible job? Derby certain to go down etc

How he's turned that around even after early failures should convince even the thickest fan what a gem we have lost.

He certainly hasn't been replaced by the current manager. They hardly mentioned him did they?

What a great job the 3 stooges have done.

[47er]

36 minutes ago, den said:

I’m sure you remember when they first took over - and after the ridiculous claims they were going to sign the best players in the world had fallen to the wayside, they then claimed that they could sustain a mid table PL club by investing £5m/year and bringing through youth players. I’m sure that was how the club was sold to them and despite the very odd gamble such as Rhodes and Brereton, that’s still their fundamental thinking. Now we’re in the lower leagues and losing money hand over fist, even the £5m has disappeared.

Theyre not going to change now IMO.

True Den. Not just relying on youth players though---they were going to lease players!

They've kept both of those promises just not in the Premier League!

[Tom]

I loved Rory’s video, i was tempted to go back to twitter just to tell him as much but im not doing that.

I love how intentional or not it invoked the tone of the Jack Walker poem ‘it’s not about x, it’s about y’ 

[KentExile]

John Park not being replaced in the immediate future as our first 2 choices turned us down

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/25060225.blackburn-backroom-role-revealed-chief-scout-latest/

I am sure we would all sour on a prospective new job role as soon as we found out the the remuneration was a bag of Haribo and a half empty can of pop

 

"We interviewed a few individuals. One was successful. So we made him an offer and then he decided to stay in his club because he had a better offer and the role was, it's a bigger club than us," Gestede told The Lancashire Telegraph.

"He decided to stay there and the number two decided to pull out the application because he had something else. But at the end of the day, he didn't sign for the other club.

"So it's, we don't want to rush the decision on bringing someone. We had a clear target and it didn't happen. So we had to change the way we wanted to do.

"So we brought two video analysts and one senior scout to the club. We've also got someone joining us as a lead scout (Cairney).

"In the future, it could happen. We're quite happy with the person in the position now. So it's not something urgent.

"But if we start to grow the department, yes, but if someone within the department is doing very well, why not promote the person."

Edited April 3 by KentExile

[den]

Amateurs 

[TugaysMarlboro]

How can he be happy with a person in a position, when three sentences earlier he explains why 2 people turned down said vacant position.

I know English isn't his first language, but there's no way he can hide behind that absolute claptrap. Makes Waggott look competent