The meeting took place with the full knowledge of our Board. It took place on Friday and was arranged at our request and was at short notice. We had always planned to put out a communication on Monday, Glen was aware of a forthcoming communication. That communication also has to be approved by our Board.

Gav, your £20 and a bottle of fizz await 😉

Ian, I believe comparing brfcs with WATR is a bit like comparing apples with pears. WATR is a Community Benefit Society and has to act within legislation; it is made up of paying members and is managed by an elected board of Directors. Brfcs is a private company with owners and individual messageboard posters of who some (I can only identify 4 but it must be more) are members of WATR. Whete this “WATR are more representative” comes from I don’t know. Our membership has never been as high as we would wish but we are changing that as explained yesterday with our new website, better communication etc. WATR does not have a messageboard nor does not seek to compete with brfcs. Both have different roles but are able to compliment each other on occasions.

I said it in jest; my warped sense of humour. We don’t get biscuits by the way however we may raise it as a formal complaint at our next MoU meeting. Either that or I will take my own Hobnobs and charge the Club for scoffing them. £10 sounds about right 😉

First para: I explained the context. There are a wide variety of views. Second para: No, we do not have a campaign ready.

Chocolate Hobnobs - I guess most of you know that already

True

Kenny. WATR would not dream of making such personal comments about individual owners of this message board. We have an elected Board and they hold a wide cross section of opinion. My role is to try and get the Board to a consensus on a way forward, it can be challenging given the different views.

WATR will be taking stock of our position after the 20th August court case and our MoU meeting at the end of August. Members already have the opportunity to feed back; with most Newsletters (we aim for at least 10 per year) we ask for feedback and we have recently done so with our Twitter feed (eg our last Newsletter. Members know how to contact us and indeed many do; being totally honest the feedback is very much in support of engagement. I am an occasional visitor on here however various WATR Board members do read posts and we are aware of opinion. However you must realise the views of individual posters on here are not the only source of feedback. For us to change our position feedback must be member led. 12 months ago WATR had a poor website and no way of reminding members when subs were due; our membership system was creaky to say the least. The website has been updated. Our communications (2 way) have improved and our membership system is being brought up to date. Our membership has also increased circa 30% in the last few months and we get positive feedback. I am not publishing the Twitter screen shots below for effect but they do illustrate that individual posters on brfcs are not the sole arbiters of opinion on our Club. (Before anyone has a go they are not my views - indeed I have kept my personal views out of this post). Back to my initial paragraph. Our Board will meet to discuss the 20th and subsequent MoU meeting very soon after those events. The Board, not me, will decide on our response. Given the watershed moments upon us it could well be the case we decide to consult with members on our stance towards the owners.

There is a FF meeting next Tuesday evening. There is also a meeting of the new WATR Board that night as well. For information WATR are in discussion with the Club about the date of our next MoU meeting. What is pleasing is that we now have a full compliment of elected Board members (14 plus a Secretary); the roles and responsibilities of each Board member have been drawn up and will be agreed or otherwise nest Tuesday, these will then be shared in the next membership newsletter. I am not being controversial here but in answer to the comment from IraC that we should take ideas from this messageboard is not quite how we operate, however we do of course pick up a number of issues from here. We are a membership based organisation and ultimately they decide albeit the Board are elected to deal with the day to day tasks. We do get a lot of direct member feedback and I respond to this on a regular basis; it would be true to say that the feedback is almost universally supportive of engagement with the Club. Our approach is that of the ‘critical friend’. For information (not aimed at Josh) non of the Board members are paid, we don’t take out expenses and we often finish up subsidising activities. We are all committed to Rovers and ensuring the Club survives when ownership and senior management changes as it ultimately will; the one consistent will be the Trust, as WATR, will be around when change happens. It takes up a lot of our time but we do it because we all love Blackburn Rovers. I am not going to directly answer a comment on another thread suggesting we are ‘super fans’ apart to say non of us are so called ‘super fans’ (I definitely am not) but what we are is committed fans who are prepared to make a difference; we are doers, not talkers. Being doers brings criticism and we will never please each and every supporter, nor do we aim to do so.

I didn’t. I immediately raised it with the Club.

Both Duncan and I believe the supporter consultation meetings should return. We have a WATR Board meeting next week with the new Board of 14 (plus Secretary) and will reach a formal WATR view and therefore put this to the Club.

The ‘news’ that Rovers will charge ST holders to watch the u21’s is not true. The policy that ST holders enter free of charge will continue.

Tony. This is news to WATR. Nothing discussed, nothing agreed.

We do not comment on individual Board members. We never have and never will. All new Board members bring skills and expertise to our Board and they are all welcomed onboard for that. Not every supporter has the same opinion on how the Club is run and how the owners operate. We need to be a ‘broad church’ - brfcs is not representative of the fan base.