POLL - Should the BRFCS Forum formally endorse the aims of ‘The Coalition’?

[Herbie6590]

What is the objective of this poll?

We have been asked to provide more formal & visible support to the coalition as ‘BRFCS’ (as opposed simply to making individual contributions) and so we have decided to poll YOU, the Forum members, in order to confirm that doing so, would represent the majority view of respondents. 

We are therefore inviting all BRFCS members to vote on whether you would like to support the manifesto of the Blackburn Rovers Fans Coalition. The aims and objectives have been laid out by Glen Mullan below. 

Please note that whilst BRFCS members are free to individually support or oppose the coalition, BRFCS itself is owned by Northern Horde Limited, which has no corporate involvement in shaping the coalition’s goals, objectives, or messaging.

This vote is purely to gauge the stance of the BRFCS community as individuals. Your voice matters, and we encourage everyone to participate.

 

What is the Background of ‘The Coalition’? (provided by Glen Mullan)

For a long time, the stigma around groups, has been a prickly subject within the supporter base. What constitutes a group? How does it represent my views? It does not represent my views and so on.

 ‘The Coalition’ is not a group, it’s a banner which has been formed to allow any Supporter/Stakeholder an equal opportunity to be part of creating greater unity amongst the supporter base, by working together without prejudice in an inclusive environment where every opinion matters. No matter where a supporter sits on the spectrum regarding their current thoughts on Blackburn Rovers, the one thing which binds all of us together is our love for the club.

Credibility and accountability are two critical ingredients when launching any campaign, whilst finding common ground has always been the hardest thing to achieve.

 No single group can claim to represent the entire supporter base, whilst a singular group approach to the concerns surrounding our club can always be batted off as a “minority”. Its fair to say every group has its members and supporters but also has its critics. The critical element can and will always be used as a foothold by the club to dismiss legitimate concerns of the supporter base, as we saw with our own eyes during the recent interviews carried out by Suhail Pasha, Steve Waggott and Rudy Gestede.

We’ve heard the terms used by Pasha that it’s just one group, Rudy Gestede stated its not the core supporters (still not sure what this even means), whilst Steve Waggott has claimed an open-door policy where he’s met not only all groups but individual supporters regularly indicating that the latest rise of discontent is a minority and without mandate.

Each group has its own mandate, objectives, or purpose, whilst some people just don’t want to be part of any group at all, and % wise there’s probably more non-aligned supporters than those considering themselves part of a group which democratically represents their views.

Rovers have absent owners, where the opportunity to engage through diplomacy has for 15 years continued to be impossible, despite efforts of many to try and bring them to the table for discussions. The reasoning behind this like so many things is unclear. Is it more so that those between the owners and the supporter base continue to drive a wedge to prevent meaningful dialogue?

This leaves us being dependent on the club employees passing on supporter concerns which if we are being honest is unlikely if part of the problem is the function of the said employees, or we must communicate by other means. That other means has become the media, and over the years the media has covered our story, without really capturing the consensus of why supporters are upset.

This is where credibility comes in, the media don’t really want to cover the story if there is not a “person or entity” willing to put their name to it. One group may get the odd press release published but as quickly as it’s published it’s extinguished as a minority.  

If we use WATR as an example, their last published accounts would indicate they have 344 members (based on subscriptions paid). This is a public record and readily available to both the club and the media. Its easy to downplay, as those numbers clearly show that WATR does not represent the supporter base in any meaningful dialogue.

However, under a coalition banner, which neither prejudices nor replaces a group mandate, if you put e.g. WATR, BRFCS, BRFCAG, Proud Rovers etc. as a collective endorsement, it creates a far more powerful message and becomes impossible for the club to dismiss through fancy PR.  Remembering the club has millions to discredit and deeper pockets than the supporter groups, unless someone is willing to personally fund a campaign. 

‘The Coalition’ banner is also a protective blanket for those involved as it’s a panel open to all regardless of affiliation, direct actions are formed by the panel with no action taken without a majority vote implemented, under the coalition, no one legal entity or party becomes exposed.

It does not prevent any group or individual carrying on with their current works or campaigns under their own banners, whilst it allows those entities to own their own complementary initiatives and hold accountability of such, when not a ‘Coalition’ driven initiative.

 Accountability is one if not the most important ingredients to supporter action. Lots of people want action, until they are asked to put their name to it. Putting your head above the parapet in isolation can get very expensive if you get it wrong, in terms of legal bills, personal losses, for example the loss of your job, or your home. Working as collective mitigates personal loss, working in isolation increases the risk.

 At present several BRFCS members are on the steering panel of the Coalition and their input & work to date has been first class, aiding significant traction in bringing our club’s issues to the forefront of the national media. The coalition’s work to date, has landed directly on the owner’s desk, whilst huge questions are now being asked of the club.

This traction would not have been possible without the many hands and groups which have thrown their weight behind the latest campaign. It would never have got past first base, if it had been led by one person or one group.

 An invitation to all supporter groups to come together as one, has been rolled out throughout the last few weeks. Every group bar three, have either endorsed the Coalition or have joined the coalition’s steering group. (Please remember, its not a group, it’s a think tank of minds to implement collective initiatives with equal ownership).

 

What is the coalition’s objectives/mandate? (provided by Glen Mullan)

I’ve been asked this since we have grown from just 2 people to it being 25 people on a steering panel.

This really is your coalition; the mandate and objectives are there to be set by those wanting to get involved. The direction and shaping of the future is everyone’s responsibility within the coalition, It would be easier if I gave my own vision but this is not the democratic way, the panel is not here to replace current group’s mandates and objectives, its here to create strength in numbers so that supporters voices can be heard in mass rather than in minority. Removing stigmas will be critical on this journey.

 

Have your say in our poll now.

[Mercer]

Really is a no brainer.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

A rather strange poll imo,after all we have witnessed can there possibly be any doubts?

[Herbie6590]

10 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

A rather strange poll imo,after all we have witnessed can there possibly be any doubts?

The purpose of the poll is to confirm objectively what many of us currently can only surmise thus removing any accusations of it being “just one group”, “undemocratic”, “not representative” etc & so on…👍

[dingles staying down 4ever]

5 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

A rather strange poll imo,after all we have witnessed can there possibly be any doubts?

I dont think it is odd. I know people on here think it is a forgone conclusion that the majority of the fanbase think that the club is rotten to the core but you need to ask yourselves why the protests aren't gaining traction. 

I think it is right that before the website throws its weight behind the coalition then it needs a mandate for its members.

IMO all supporters have differing opinions. Chaddy takes a battering on here at times warrented other times not but it is good that we are not the same.

It is good that it is not assumed that the members on here are of the same opinion.

[Wheelton Blue]

Is the poll anonymous?

 

[Upside Down]

A fan representative group canvassing it's membership for their opinion?

What a novel idea.

And yes @We Are The Rovers, that is a dig at you. It's not difficult, sort it out for fuck sake.

[chaddyrovers]

5 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

 

And yes @We Are The Rovers, that is a dig at you. It's not difficult, sort it out for fuck sake.

Didn't you received last week an email from WATR asking for your opinion? 

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Didn't you received last week an email from WATR asking for your opinion? 

I think WATR are now behind it, so that E Mail you have mentioned may have decided their stance.

[Herbie6590]

45 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

Is the poll anonymous?

 

I tried to find a way to make it so…

[Upside Down]

32 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Didn't you received last week an email from WATR asking for your opinion? 

No.

[chaddyrovers]

32 minutes ago, lraC said:

I think WATR are now behind it, so that E Mail you have mentioned may have decided their stance.

The email was received on the 18th April. I haven't reply yet. 

So no I dont think anything as been decide

[mhead]

Before people attack WATR, notice they have 344 paying members and this would be higher if they could improve their systems of reminders, checks when Debit cards expire etc etc.

I have voted(of course YES).... whilst the WATR email and sections far too big and cumbersome.

My check-back  on 26/04/25 will be on how many on  brfcs have voted....cos this vote is admirably simple!

[lraC]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

The email was received on the 18th April. I haven't reply yet. 

So no I dont think anything as been decide

I did hear yesterday that the Trust were backing it, so maybe they will take vote isn’t the deciding factor. Im not 100% certain though.

[Leonard Venkhater]

To quote Muhammad Ali, "What's my name?!"

[...]

4 hours ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

A rather strange poll imo,after all we have witnessed can there possibly be any doubts?

Evidence that it's not a small minority and one 'little group' of people. Presumably this has also been cast across the other groups out there

[Uddersfelt Blue]

Surely a forum is just a place for discussion rather than a group with aims and objectives? There will inevitably be differing views on what is happening to Rovers but if the majority of members are for the proposal then fair enough. 

[J*B]

5 minutes ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

Surely a forum is just a place for discussion rather than a group with aims and objectives? There will inevitably be differing views on what is happening to Rovers but if the majority of members are for the proposal then fair enough. 

Thats kind of exactly the point. BRFCS isn’t a group, it’s a resource for Rovers fans to have discussion. And at the time of writing, 97.65% of its members back the aims of the coalition. 

[Herbie6590]

5 minutes ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

Surely a forum is just a place for discussion rather than a group with aims and objectives? There will inevitably be differing views on what is happening to Rovers but if the majority of members are for the proposal then fair enough. 

Precisely…so if the coalition wants to be able to say “BRFCS are behind us…” then having the poll demonstrates the extent to which it might be a majority viewpoint. 

It’s a criticism I’ve levelled at WATR for a while, as they were seemingly carrying out a mandate without explicit affirmation from their members. 

[Exiled in Toronto Mk2]

8 minutes ago, J*B said:

Thats kind of exactly the point. BRFCS isn’t a group, it’s a resource for Rovers fans to have discussion. And at the time of writing, 97.65% of its members back the aims of the coalition. 

Do you mean 97.65% of the many thousands of registered users of this site or 97.65% of those who have voted, which is a tiny percentage of those many thousands? 

 

[J*B]

23 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

Do you mean 97.65% of the many thousands of registered users of this site or 97.65% of those who have voted, which is a tiny percentage of those many thousands? 

 

The latter. I obviously know the number of regular users and if everyone votes, it will be (to my knowledge) the largest poll of Rovers fans. 

[Roverthechimp]

Whilst I have voted yes to BRFCS backing the aims of the coalition IN PRINCIPLE, it is very hard to say that BRFCS is backing the aims of the coalition without actually being told what those are...??

Fair comment that Glen M acknowledges that it cannot be "his vision" but at present the information above fails to give any indication of what the coalitions aims are (unless it is very simply to give blanket support to each and every group regardless of their agenda). Am I implicitly give approval to any action decided by any group or is the coalition already a defined allegiance of existing groups?)

Apologies if i have missed the bloody obvious - would like this to actually achieve traction but fear that it lacks clarity in who and what are being backed and the aims (although i would hope the vision is to remove our current owners and the pisstake appointments at board and operational level)

[OsloRover]

What are the Coalition’s aims exactly? The text explains why a coalition is beneficial, but you can’t expect people to endorse an organization without knowing its agenda.

Apologies if this is obvious to anyone local, but some of us live far away.

[glen9mullan]

I will try and answer some questions without speaking for everyone regarding what the coalition is and it's potential aims. This is just my understanding at this stage.

Why the coalition?

I was approached to join the coalition initially as a person but later endorsed it from a BRFC Action Group perspective.

Why? 

The Coalition is an umbrella to allow groups and individuals to work closely together rather than in isolation to combat the growing issues which have evolved at Blackburn Rovers. It's also a panel that allows non group individuals to get involved without committing to one groups mandate.

Why no mandate? What am I endorsing?

Some groups have a constitution and governed mandate with differing members views, different objectives and in the main are catered around a club where things are going well.  It's important that all groups don't feel compromised by being within a coalition panel, and their participation is without prejudice, whilst mutual respect is adhered to. (We've enough politics at the club, we could do without them in the supporter base)

The coalitions current stance of those involved taking a majority and not individual view.

1. Would like the Raos to put the club up for sale.

2. Require the removal of Key decision makers at Ewood Park who are failing the club, it's supporters and in essence the owners.

3. Seek to find new owners and develop a strategy to make the proposition of buying Rovers attractive.

4. Would like a democratic inclusive voice implemented for supporters, which is open to all and balloted to the whole supporter base. This panel must be changed after each term (not decided what that term is, 2 season 3 season etc). A voice formed on integrity and not perks which binds togetherness.

5. Seeks the truth and transparency to remove the Exclusive nature of the flow of information. 

6. Will hold the club to account publicly and with transparency with public opinion of supporters at the forefront of any engagement or action.

7. Will work with one another within the coalition to aid the rebuild of the club and will consider  supporting initiatives of said coalition members when presented with a democratic choice. 

8. Will not publicly damage or get drawn into cross group infighting and will seek disagreements to be discussed via private consultation. A supporter base divided only creates a stronger foundation to those currently holding the keys at Ewood.

[glen9mullan]

What's been achieved to date.

1. Most groups , equally matched in numbers from independents have joined the panel.

2. We've opted for a public campaign via media initially as per our statement to ask the Execs to stay away. The impact of such from my experience has rocked Ewood more than one singular action ever achieved by the BRFC Action Group in all the years of the previous supporter uprising 

3. We have needed to be quite undercover with road maps being developed which leads to different eventualities from each action. The club right now don't know if, when or how we'll protest, and have acted to date on red heron information tit bits we've thrown which we knew they'd bite on. This was evident when they spent a quarter season budget on the Middlesbrough game expecting a full scale riot and organised protest. To date the coalition has called no protest, however have been agile enough to speak to the necessary authorities to give the option if decide to. We've called only for a positive environment, which the club have taken as an act of war.

4. We've managed to get the world media to not only cover our story again , but have had the club make an unprecedented statement on the back of ours and put all three mentioned in front of the cameras (they are taking this serious)

5. We've generated showdown talks with India and the board and we ain't even got warmed up yet. Our latest intel is the legs ain't only started to come off the table, the table is likely to fall soon with casualties as early as the end of next week 😉.

6. We've totally blown their be part of the story campaign out the water as our timing was critical to de rail their PR, season tickets sales are currently in tatters.

7. Results are not the driver and we cannot let short term results detract from 15 years. This is about 15 years and enough is enough 

8. We've started to get influential people on board with Wayne Hemingway MBE pledging his 100% support whilst developing a coalition badge for us.

9. Ex players have agreed to meet to discuss the campaign and see if it's something they can either get behind by offering support or indeed get involved.

10. Other non footballing influential supporters have offered in principle support and we are in discussions with these.

We've only been going a month and as things develop a more rigorous mandate will be developed by those on the panel.

I'm mindful the above is my interpretation and this needs to remain democratic