Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

An Open Letter to the Desai Family...


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bringdunnback said:

It is poorly written in language and structure. Only my opinion of course, but I say that as someone who writes for a living.

More importantly, the objective is not clear either nor does it offer any form of solution.

Letters as such only serve to undermine their cause.

 

 

 

 

Obviously it is a matter of opinion (as you say) but I think your first sentence is pretty harsh, to be honest. I do think you make a fair point in your second paragraph though. The Trust perhaps should be directly offering to help Venkys engage with supporters.

I have volunteered to help The Trust going forward and I did get sight of the first draft of this letter and made some suggested changes, many of which were taken on board. This isn't necessarily aimed at you bringdunnback but its too easy sometimes to simply criticise from the sidelines when it is basically one or two people constantly trying to be all things in relation to the Trust. They need our support.

The Trust is about to attempt to re-energise itself and reconnect with the broader Rovers fan base and so I would encourage as many Rovers fans as possible to join in and subscribe - the annual cost is the same as watching just one game on the EFL iFollow channel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bringdunnback said:

It is poorly written in language and structure. Only my opinion of course, but I say that as someone who writes for a living.

More importantly, the objective is not clear either nor does it offer any form of solution.

Letters as such only serve to undermine their cause.

 

I would concur with oldjamfan in that your first sentence is incredibly harsh. Nay, I'll go further, incredibly untrue. This is a letter which aims to open a line of communication with Venkys. In that respect the language and structure isn't poor. It is clear, considerate, concise and correct. It isn't emotional and only deals with facts.

If you do write as a living then I am sure you could do better. Although I would argue that writing for a living is considerably different to opening lines of communication / correspondence relating to negotiation. Part of my day job is drafting such letters and I think the critique on writing and structure is based on bodies of writing that have a different purpose to this open letter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldjamfan1 said:

Obviously it is a matter of opinion (as you say) but I think your first sentence is pretty harsh, to be honest. I do think you make a fair point in your second paragraph though. The Trust perhaps should be directly offering to help Venkys engage with supporters.

I have volunteered to help The Trust going forward and I did get sight of the first draft of this letter and made some suggested changes, many of which were taken on board. This isn't necessarily aimed at you bringdunnback but its too easy sometimes to simply criticise from the sidelines when it is basically one or two people constantly trying to be all things in relation to the Trust. They need our support.

The Trust is about to attempt to re-energise itself and reconnect with the broader Rovers fan base and so I would encourage as many Rovers fans as possible to join in and subscribe - the annual cost is the same as watching just one game on the EFL iFollow channel.

 

Duly noted regarding "its too easy sometimes to simply criticise from the sidelines."

I would wholly agree and accept that my first point was harsh.

I do genuinely hope this works. The objective of the letter seems to send the message that we, the fans, need better and consistent communication from Venky's. Let's see if they respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bringdunnback said:

It is poorly written in language and structure. Only my opinion of course, but I say that as someone who writes for a living.

More importantly, the objective is not clear either nor does it offer any form of solution.

Letters as such only serve to undermine their cause.

 

 

 

 

Agree with all of the above. A good idea in principle but bland, poorly written, largely irrelevant to Rovers specific situation, lacking any overall point and failing to offer any solutions.

It needed doing but far far better than that. 

That said, if it does enable you to get an audience with the owners, I take all the above back and issue my humble apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

So the LT is immediately running with this (fairly vanilla) statement, yet wouldn’t touch the Brockhall letter with a barge pole... interesting.

I thought that as well, almost as though the paper are deliberately running with a fairly bland and toothless commentary on the last ten years and one which almost completely ignores the current issues on purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I thought that as well, almost as though the paper are deliberately running with a fairly bland and toothless commentary on the last ten years and one which almost completely ignores the current issues on purpose.

It gives the current crew a free pass - sound familiar 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Agree with all of the above. A good idea in principle but bland, poorly written, largely irrelevant to Rovers specific situation, lacking any overall point and failing to offer any solutions.

It needed doing but far far better than that. 

That said, if it does enable you to get an audience with the owners, I take all the above back and issue my humble apologies.

+1

It made me think of Life Of Brian...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Roverthechimp said:

It gives the current crew a free pass - sound familiar 🤔

Yes. I understand the Trust do have a problem in voicing opposition in that I understand that their ultimate aim is a seat on the Board.

They do have to nail their colours to the mast though, are they committed to a seat on the Board for appearances sake and to the exclusion of all else, I.e. a seat on the Board even if it be alongside the present incumbents or are they genuinely committed to change and wanting the Club to improve?

The silence from the Trust on the Brockhall issue was absolutely deafening and I genuinely feel this latest contribution along the lines of "The last ten years haven't been good enough but never mind,  just crack on as before lads and we'll maintain a watching brief" is pretty unhelpful in the overall scheme of things.

Edit: For the sake of clarification by "present incumbents" I mean Waggot/Cheston/Mowbray/Venus etc

Edited by RevidgeBlue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 14/05/2021 at 16:57, RevidgeBlue said:

Yes. I understand the Trust do have a problem in voicing opposition in that I understand that their ultimate aim is a seat on the Board.

They do have to nail their colours to the mast though, are they committed to a seat on the Board for appearances sake and to the exclusion of all else, I.e. a seat on the Board even if it be alongside the present incumbents or are they genuinely committed to change and wanting the Club to improve?

The silence from the Trust on the Brockhall issue was absolutely deafening and I genuinely feel this latest contribution along the lines of "The last ten years haven't been good enough but never mind,  just crack on as before lads and we'll maintain a watching brief" is pretty unhelpful in the overall scheme of things.

Edit: For the sake of clarification by "present incumbents" I mean Waggot/Cheston/Mowbray/Venus etc

In fairness, the Trust had a Zoom meeting with Steve Waggott which was fed back in the form of a newsletter several weeks ago.

In the meeting itself (albeit not publicly) it got heated enough that Waggott knew exactly what we Trust board members all personally thought; that the Brockhall scheme had no basis and was complete rubbish.

However, in between the meeting and the related newsletter, RB’s fantastic open letter said everything that we simply weren't allowed to without directly consulting over 2000 members and subscribers.

We also engaged with Brockhall residents (at their request) to put them in touch with knowledgeable people to assist in pushing back against the plans. This was within a couple days of the story breaking on here and around a week before the zoom meeting.

In truth, we have to operate publicly in a way that we know has the backing of the majority of our members, or else we couldn't claim to be representative. However, where members privately request our help, we do what we can (all completely voluntarily).

We felt that the above was more useful to the cause as only the Brockhall residents could realistically challenge the plans.

Given that wider public opinion was largely divided on this issue, we couldn't commit to outright criticism in public.

This open letter came about because opposition to the ESL is unanimous, and therefore something we can confidently use (without consulting members) to try and open dialogue with the owners.

Edited by Mike E
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom
8 hours ago, Stuart said:

It’s like 2013 all over again.

We continue to have a divided fanbase without enough people in any of the factions to make any real “noise” in any particular direction. There are barely enough people altogether but we shoot ourselves in the foot by having different groups doing and saying different things.

We have action groups, a Trust organisation, and a fans forum all with their own agendas.

Meanwhile, BRFCS, the place where all of these fan groups converge and speak to each other (but don’t), doesn’t want the hassle of being part of a coordination effort but stays on the fence and plays courtyard. Opportunity missed.

The upshot is that we stay divided and the different groups stay separate, with separate, inconsistent aims and we rumble on - losing a thousand fans per season.

Steve Waggott is happy to meet with all of these groups separately too, playing into his hands, divided and conquered.

Is there anything, anything, that all fans actually unite on, or even have a majority view of?

Venkys? Split

Mowbray? A relative majority wanting change but have given up

Waggott? Investing in a new pitch isn’t he? No? Oh well, FFP… or something.

Presumably, all we really agree on are the name, Blackburn Rovers, the location, Ewood Park (I think), and blue-and-white halves.

We are a fanbase lost.

Agreed. Personally view any and all efforts to improve the club in a positive way and support them all.

That includes the protests over the last decade, the Trust marketing prospectus, the open letters, the ACV efforts, the effort to stop Brockhall being downgraded, the idea to expand bus routes etc.

How anyone can not support some of these purely because of errant commas utterly baffles me. Doing something, however small, in the first place takes more intestinal fortitude than dismissing something relatively concrete over some bloody grammar (and I say that as a former teacher married to a teacher).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike E said:

How anyone can not support some of these purely because of errant commas utterly baffles me. Doing something, however small, in the first place takes more intestinal fortitude than dismissing something relatively concrete over some bloody grammar (and I say that as a former teacher married to a teacher).

Personally I think the letter is poorly written. Not because of grammar or formatting but because there is no clear message in it.

It neither calls for change nor backs the manager.

It talks about being confused (is that an attempt at rapport?) by a convoluted decision making process but does not add clarity or simplicity.

It squeezes in Brockhall between the pandemic and the super league, trivialising it as an issue.

It says the Trust are concerned and confused by the things happening at Rovers but then says they will maintain their support of wider football matters, with the 50+1 model - something no owner would vote for and would have to be imposed by the government. Are these two things linked?

It says it is not protesting but wants the club to engage fans at a local level. Why would this letter do that?

In trying so hard to find a tone that is respectful and culturally submissive, the message has become cryptic and unclear, and English is my first language.

The removal of CEO and manager is necessary for any progress (under their tenure) and they need to accommodate this and then address it. If they don’t so then they do not value this club. If that’s the case then why are they still here - this is the elephant in the room IMHO.

Ultimately, open letters are not aimed at the recipient but are really aimed at getting other people onside. Has this letter done that? I’m not sure it has.

What is the alternative? I’m not sure of that either, particularly when the owners don’t even acknowledge that we exist, but my gut feeling is that it needs Pasha to abandon his current allegiances in the UK and to recognise that it is the fans who have the long-term interests of this club at heart. If Venkys don’t care about Rovers then we are a dead club walking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Desai Family,

I hope this letter finds you well and the current world situation is not impacting you or your loved ones. I sincerely do.

I write as a rovers supporter of 30years plus in a quite probably vain way, but written in the hope that it will find it's way to you. Rumours abound that you are disillusioned and confused in regards football and your club, Blackburn Rovers. Given the relative time, emotion and money I have invested in Rovers I wanted to write to offer some advise concerning how to alleviate your concerns, issues running our shared passion. I humbly hope that after you read/consider these proposals you will see that it is possible to remove the issues at Rovers.

1) Wipe out our debt to you. You as a family will feel so much better for having come true on your initial promises.

2) Sell our club to anyone who gives a dam. Your tenure has been great, I've loved every minute of it, but given our current status and the promised ones, we'll it's clear your ability to protect our legacy, isn't up to scratch.

basically what I am saying in the most polite and respectful manner, is your issues are caused by owning us and 20m a year is a lot of money. It's time to pass the gauntlet on and no one would begrudge you after a decade protecting rovers. You have done your duty, in the darkest of days.

The root cause of all the problems is you owning us, so please since you are the only ones who can change that please just:

FUCK OFF

You'll feel so much better for doing it, I promise.

Kind regards

Ulrich

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ulrich said:

Dear Desai Family,

I hope this letter finds you well and the current world situation is not impacting you or your loved ones. I sincerely do.

I write as a rovers supporter of 30years plus in a quite probably vain way, but written in the hope that it will find it's way to you. Rumours abound that you are disillusioned and confused in regards football and your club, Blackburn Rovers. Given the relative time, emotion and money I have invested in Rovers I wanted to write to offer some advise concerning how to alleviate your concerns, issues running our shared passion. I humbly hope that after you read/consider these proposals you will see that it is possible to remove the issues at Rovers.

1) Wipe out our debt to you. You as a family will feel so much better for having come true on your initial promises.

2) Sell our club to anyone who gives a dam. Your tenure has been great, I've loved every minute of it, but given our current status and the promised ones, we'll it's clear your ability to protect our legacy, isn't up to scratch.

basically what I am saying in the most polite and respectful manner, is your issues are caused by owning us and 20m a year is a lot of money. It's time to pass the gauntlet on and no one would begrudge you after a decade protecting rovers. You have done your duty, in the darkest of days.

The root cause of all the problems is you owning us, so please since you are the only ones who can change that please just:

FUCK OFF

You'll feel so much better for doing it, I promise.

Kind regards

Ulrich

 

 

you spelt dam wrong! It should be damn😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reg Rover wrote - Do Rovers play in the 2nd tier of English football ?
YES. 
A minor miracle in itself.

Is Ewood Park kept in prime condition , a magnificent stadum to be proud of. ?
YES. 


Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stuart said:

Personally I think the letter is poorly written. Not because of grammar or formatting but because there is no clear message in it.

It neither calls for change nor backs the manager.

It talks about being confused (is that an attempt at rapport?) by a convoluted decision making process but does not add clarity or simplicity.

It squeezes in Brockhall between the pandemic and the super league, trivialising it as an issue.

It says the Trust are concerned and confused by the things happening at Rovers but then says they will maintain their support of wider football matters,  

 

Exactly Stuart, people are trying to trivialise criticism of the letter by making out critics are being pedantic about minor grammatical errors.

"Poorly thought out plans to redevelop Brockhall" etc  - that kind of implies that if the plans had been slightly better thought out they'd have been in favour.

And as you say to squeeze it in between the pandemic and the European Super League as an issue makes no sense at all. The three things have no correlation whatsoever and it completely trivialised Brockhall as an issue.

The main problem with the letter though is that it doesn't have any overall point or message. I want the RoversTrust to stand up for OUR Club. I couldn't care less where they stand on issues affecting the National game or what National groups they are affiliated to if I'm being honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/05/2021 at 12:46, oldjamfan1 said:

Obviously it is a matter of opinion (as you say) but I think your first sentence is pretty harsh, to be honest. I do think you make a fair point in your second paragraph though. The Trust perhaps should be directly offering to help Venkys engage with supporters.

I have volunteered to help The Trust going forward and I did get sight of the first draft of this letter and made some suggested changes, many of which were taken on board. This isn't necessarily aimed at you bringdunnback but its too easy sometimes to simply criticise from the sidelines when it is basically one or two people constantly trying to be all things in relation to the Trust. They need our support.

The Trust is about to attempt to re-energise itself and reconnect with the broader Rovers fan base and so I would encourage as many Rovers fans as possible to join in and subscribe - the annual cost is the same as watching just one game on the EFL iFollow channel.

 

I've said a couple of times that I should sign up to the Trust but never did.

This morning I finally signed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rovers Trust said:

In fairness, the Trust had a Zoom meeting with Steve Waggott which was fed back in the form of a newsletter several weeks ago.

In the meeting itself (albeit not publicly) it got heated enough that Waggott knew exactly what we Trust board members all personally thought; that the Brockhall scheme had no basis and was complete rubbish.

However, in between the meeting and the related newsletter, your own fantastic open letter said everything that we simply weren't allowed to without directly consulting over 2000 members and subscribers.

We also engaged with Brockhall residents (at their request) to put them in touch with knowledgeable people to assist in pushing back against the plans. This was within a couple days of the story breaking on here and around a week before the zoom meeting.

In truth, we have to operate publicly in a way that we know has the backing of the majority of our members, or else we couldn't claim to be representative. However, where members privately request our help, we do what we can (all completely voluntarily).

We felt that the above was more useful to the cause as only the Brockhall residents could realistically challenge the plans.

Given that wider public opinion was largely divided on this issue, we couldn't commit to outright criticism in public.

The open letter came about because opposition to the ESL is unanimous, and therefore something we can confidently use (without consulting members) to try and open dialogue with the owners.

Thanks for that reply, a far more informative and well thought out response than the open letter itself.

Thank you also for your kind remarks about the Brockhall letter.

I have to say though that if that is the way you have to operate you should have waited and canvassed your members views well in advance before penning a far more forthright letter for the owners' consideration.

I suspect though there's a reason you didn't want to wait which has nothing to do with the Club or strictly footballing matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leicester City's Thai owners took over their Club roughly the same time the dreaded Venky's took control at Ewood.One club run with the utmost care and diligence and have thrived,the other,one of the Country's oldest and most historical tragically being mismanaged and neglected like never before.

What the feck did we do to deserve this?..makes me want to throw up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom
3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

"Poorly thought out plans to redevelop Brockhall" etc  - that kind of implies that if the plans had been slightly better thought out they'd have been in favour.

You’ve got me thinking here. What if the plan had been exactly as envisioned BUT with the purchase of land from the neighbouring Brockhall Farm to enable a bigger single complex that didn’t downsize the total facilities?

Now I’ve said it, I’m amazed it wasn’t the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they laid into the manager and the guy who works for him it would probably never have got to print. LT is in their pockets.

I was amazed to see it on there to be honest so fair play to all involved, it obviously passed the tick box exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.