WATR (The Rovers Trust)

[JBiz]

1 hour ago, Upside Down said:

So what about when they haven't al la venkys ?

I’m obviously not making the point that Venkys et al should be able to own us, Jack Walker was the complete opposite!

[Upside Down]

28 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I’m obviously not making the point that Venkys et al should be able to own us, Jack Walker was the complete opposite!

His outright ownership of OUR club has led to the predicament we're in now. 

This is an issue for many clubs in England. Private ownership of community assets should not be allowed.

[RevidgeBlue]

5 hours ago, Upside Down said:

His outright ownership of OUR club has led to the predicament we're in now. 

Absolute rubbish.

There were no Governance issues whatsoever attached to Jack's ownership or indeed that of his family whilst they owned us, just that the family didn't want to be lumbered with us so funding dried up which was not idea,l but entirely their prerogative, and they then ended up selling with hindsight to the wrong people.

But at the time they sold, given  Venky's massive wealth it probably looked a relatively safe bet.

To flip it on it's head, if Jack had never owned us, we'd probably have remained in the hands of well meaning but in relative terms skint local businessmen, we'd probably have never had any success to speak of, and there's no guarantee that said local businessmen wouldn't have made a complete horlicks of running us either.

[Upside Down]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Absolute rubbish.

There were no Governance issues whatsoever attached to Jack's ownership or indeed that of his family whilst they owned us, just that the family didn't want to be lumbered with us so funding dried up which was not idea,l but entirely their prerogative, and they then ended up selling with hindsight to the wrong people.

But at the time they sold, given  Venky's massive wealth it probably looked a relatively safe bet.

To flip it on it's head, if Jack had never owned us, we'd probably have remained in the hands of well meaning but in relative terms skint local businessmen, we'd probably have never had any success to speak of, and there's no guarantee that said local businessmen wouldn't have made a complete horlicks of running us either.

This completely misses the point of what I'm saying. If anything it backs up the point I'm making, that private ownership of our culture and heritage is a bad thing and shouldn't be permitted.

Jack Walker could easily have made a complete bollocks of things and his not signing Zidane because we had Tim Sherwood was and still is embarrassing. 

The fact that he had 99% ownership of the club is what has led to the current situation. If anyone is to have a majority controlling share then it should be the fans.

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

This completely misses the point of what I'm saying. If anything it backs up the point I'm making, that private ownership of our culture and heritage is a bad thing and shouldn't be permitted.

Jack Walker could easily have made a complete bollocks of things and his not signing Zidane because we had Tim Sherwood was and still is embarrassing. 

The fact that he had 99% ownership of the club is what has led to the current situation. If anyone is to have a majority controlling share then it should be the fans.

There's no guarantee anyone wouldn't make a complete horlicks of running the Club, whether they be fans or not.

[Upside Down]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

There's no guarantee anyone wouldn't make a complete horlicks of running the Club, whether they be fans or not.

But at least then the fans have a say in it. 

It's us, the fans, that make football special, nobody else.

[Mattyblue]

But then you have to have been content to know that everything that happened between 1991 and 2010, wouldn’t have, including the Ewood we now have, the training ground, the academy. If you hand on heart are, fair enough, not sure I am.

Venky’s are the outlier in 150 years of history, if the idiotic Walkers had sold up to anyway half normal owners we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
 

Edited Friday at 06:09 by Mattyblue

[A Northern Horde...]

7 hours ago, Upside Down said:

His outright ownership of OUR club has led to the predicament we're in now. 

This is an issue for many clubs in England. Private ownership of community assets should not be allowed.

Stupid comment,give your Head a Wobble!

Our current  predicament is purely down to Venkys mismanagement.

Private Owners are capable of being THE best owners as Jack demonstrated. 

[Upside Down]

10 minutes ago, A Northern Horde... said:

Stupid comment,give your Head a Wobble!

Our current  predicament is purely down to Venkys mismanagement.

Private Owners are capable of being THE best owners as Jack demonstrated. 

They're also capable of the exact opposite as venkys have shown, as have many many others.

[chaddyrovers]

Football clubs are private businesses at the end of the day. 

I wouldn't swap Uncle Jack's time as Rovers owner for owt, transform the club, town and community. Build us Ewood Park, training ground, academy, etc..

Uncle Jack wasn't the problem one jot. He ran the club professionally and investment in the club exactly how we want our Rovers but in the modern era

[K-Hod]

Uncle Jack was different to all the modern club owners- he was a Blackburn lad, buying his local club, with money he earned from a local firm, making them successful with said money.

What a fella.

[Upside Down]

3 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

But then you have to have been content to know that everything that happened between 1991 and 2010, wouldn’t have, including the Ewood we now have, the training ground, the academy. If you hand on heart are, fair enough, not sure I am.

Venky’s are the outlier in 150 years of history, if the idiotic Walkers had sold up to anyway half normal owners we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
 

I'm not saying that Walker shouldn't have been allowed to invest. He just shouldn't have been allowed to own the club outright the way he did. 

That was passed on to the Walker Trust who sold it to the first bidder and we're in the situation we're in now. 

I'm saying there should be an ownership model much more similar to what they have in Europe where the fans/members own the majority controlling share. It's certainly no silver bullet for any and all problems but it's a damn sight better than what we have in this country. For better or worse, under that kind of model the fans bear some responsibility and control over what happens at their own club. 

Even if Walker couldn't have bought the club outright I don't think that would have stopped him from pumping in the money he did. I don't think anyone in their right minds would have objected to the vision he had. One thing I do know, is that if he could only have purchased 49% of the club we wouldn't now be 15 years deep into a never ending nightmare where a foreign conglomerate owns our local culture and shows little to no regard for it allowing it to slowly rot away in obscurity.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not against folk investing into football clubs. Why wouldn't they want to get involved, this is the greatest religion on earth. What I'm saying is that the fans, i.e. me and you alongside everyone else on this message board, should have the majority share and the final say. This is our heritage and culture, not theirs. Jack Walker was a one in a billion outlier. He was the exception.

[Parsonblue]

43 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I'm not saying that Walker shouldn't have been allowed to invest. He just shouldn't have been allowed to own the club outright the way he did. 

That was passed on to the Walker Trust who sold it to the first bidder and we're in the situation we're in now. 

I'm saying there should be an ownership model much more similar to what they have in Europe where the fans/members own the majority controlling share. It's certainly no silver bullet for any and all problems but it's a damn sight better than what we have in this country. For better or worse, under that kind of model the fans bear some responsibility and control over what happens at their own club. 

Even if Walker couldn't have bought the club outright I don't think that would have stopped him from pumping in the money he did. I don't think anyone in their right minds would have objected to the vision he had. One thing I do know, is that if he could only have purchased 49% of the club we wouldn't now be 15 years deep into a never ending nightmare where a foreign conglomerate owns our local culture and shows little to no regard for it allowing it to slowly rot away in obscurity.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not against folk investing into football clubs. Why wouldn't they want to get involved, this is the greatest religion on earth. What I'm saying is that the fans, i.e. me and you alongside everyone else on this message board, should have the majority share and the final say. This is our heritage and culture, not theirs. Jack Walker was a one in a billion outlier. He was the exception.

Football has become a global business over the past couple of decades.  No company is going to invest in any club unless they have the final say on how THEIR money is going to be spent.  We've moved more and more to an American model where clubs simply become part of a business portfolio.  If Jack had only been able to own 49% of the club he probably wouldn't have bothered to get involved and we wouldn't have experienced those brilliant years.  I don't remember anyone complaining about ownership when Jack was running things.   Those who hold the purse strings will always dictate on what happens.  Even if the fans owned 51%, if those with the 49% have the money then they will dictate what happens.

[RoversClitheroe]

@glen9mullan now is the time to turn the screws in.

We're set to lose all our assets in the playing squad.

We lose that we're absolutely stuffed

[Forever Blue]

Now that @Miller11 and @glen9mullan are co-chairs of WATR, what is the plan going forward?

Is it back to trying to engage with the club/owners?

Is it ‘Venky’s Out’ or is it just ‘Pasha Out’ ???

Edited Saturday at 04:19 by Forever Blue

[glen9mullan]

17 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

Now that @Miller11 and @glen9mullan are co-chairs of WATR, what is the plan going forward?

Is it back to trying to engage with the club/owners?

Is it ‘Venky’s Out’ or is it just ‘Pasha Out’ ???

We had our first post AGM meeting last Sunday, which was pretty much electing chair and a welcome to the new board members.

I'm under no illusion, we've a mammoth task on here. 

I'm attending the FF for first time Monday as an Action group representative, and Duncan will be there on behalf of WATR.

As a member of the Coalition for the AG. This week I was engaged with the local MP who shared the agenda for the items to go to vote in Parliament for the independent regulator. This is comms the coalition have been having regularly over the last 6 weeks. With my new role within WATR, I also engaged with @oldjamfan1on these motions who has been working with the FSF regarding input into this bill.

In terms of the direction of the WATR, Duncan and I did catch this week following the first meeting and determining the roles and responsibilities of our fellow board members is high on the agenda as we look to implement a clear strategy internally to allow us all to be the best version of ourselves,  whilst everyone involved brings their unique skill sets to create a credible entity which focuses on delivering on its members driven mandate, which is being reviewed and will require member consultation.