Venky’s & Waggott Out Protest Ideas

[rigger]

1 hour ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Given that the club are yet to announce how they intend meeting their obligations for fans' consultation I would suggest it is somewhat premature for you to describe those arrangements as "exclusive". Perhaps a more constructive approach would be for your group to publish a set of proposals as to how you would like these arrangements to work.

Everybody will have their own views as to how this should work. For now I will restrict myself to simply suggesting what I think should be the composition of the representative group of fans :

3 members of the existing Fans Forum, of whom at least 1 should be female

3 members of WATR, of whom at least 1 should be female

1 member of the Disabled Supporters Association

1 member of the Pride Supporters group

1 member of the South Asian Supporters Association

It would be best if these people were elected via secret ballot.

More generally there have been explanatory notes setting out how the new legislation and regulatory system should operate. The most relevant is Bill 213 EN 2024-25 which I think you should read if you haven't already done so. The manner in which the fans group consultation is expected to operate is set out on pages 51 and 52.

I would have thought the most important criteria would be that they are Rovers fans.

[glen9mullan]

Just now, Mashed Potatoes said:

Thank you for your reply, and the courteous manner of it.

As I understand it you envisage an open to all forum. This strikes me as having two practical problems :

1. How do you ensure that everybody coming forward is actually a Rovers supporter as opposed to say Burnley supporters trying to make trouble.

2. How could the forum operate in practice. There are 11000 or so regular match attending supporters plus a few thousand more attending from time to time plus all the others who live far away and don't attend games. How would this work if several hundred wanted to attend ?

A panel wouldn't be made up of hundreds, 

It be vetted pre ballot, with potentially an official supporters club formed in parallel 

The panel probably be limited to say 16 where maximum terms are served to allow freshness, of course there would be a need for continuity.

I'm very much a positive person who finds solutions to hurdles rather than use hurdles as a reason not to evolve.

One of the biggest issues I read daily is that the club communicates to an exclusive few and that information is more than often only made public when the club is against the wall and then publicly speaks as per the Execs interview a few weeks ago.

An acceptance of a voice to unite the supporter base and club should imo be strived for to take away the "they don't represent me" element which currently outweighs , they represent me.

It's not an easy thing to achieve but success is uncomfortable and to get to the line,  it's gonna take getting uncomfortable to achieve.

 

[Gav]

25 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

 

We've already seen in recent weeks how Sheffield Wednesdays fan panel has lost credibility in their supporter base due to how it was set up in line with your suggestion.

Whilst I have a 'big toe' in the Wednesday camp due to family and friends being fans, I'm still of the opinion that tackling ownership issues would be better served with supporters coming together, rather than individually. I know The Spirit of Shankly have been keen to work with other supporters groups on ticketing prices and many other issues in the past, not that I'm advocating us working with them in particular, but for a small club like ours we need a bigger voice and linking up with other clubs in similar positions may help with that.

Has this been considered Glen? 

[glen9mullan]

1 minute ago, Gav said:

Whilst I have a 'big toe' in the Wednesday camp due to family and friends being fans, I'm still of the opinion that tackling ownership issues would be better served with supporters coming together, rather than individually. I know The Spirit of Shankly have been keen to work with other supporters groups on ticketing prices and many other issues in the past, not that I'm advocating us working with them in particular, but for a small club like ours we need a bigger voice and linking up with other clubs in similar positions may help with that.

Has this been considered Glen? 

That's exactly what the Coalition is Gav, only WATR and SAS have not joined.

Every other supporter group is on the panel equally matched with the independents.

(Must point out the Coalition is not in any shape or form the proposed voice, it's purely a working group of unity to tackle the many supporter issues in a collective way).

The new democratic panel which will be formed would be independent to that of the coalition, though anyone in the coalition could stand as a person to join the panel which is natural given they are in the groups Mashed Potatoe previously mentioned , and other groups not mentioned)

[Mashed Potatoes]

5 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

A panel wouldn't be made up of hundreds, 

It be vetted pre ballot, with potentially an official supporters club formed in parallel 

The panel probably be limited to say 16 where maximum terms are served to allow freshness, of course there would be a need for continuity.

I'm very much a positive person who finds solutions to hurdles rather than use hurdles as a reason not to evolve.

One of the biggest issues I read daily is that the club communicates to an exclusive few and that information is more than often only made public when the club is against the wall and then publicly speaks as per the Execs interview a few weeks ago.

An acceptance of a voice to unite the supporter base and club should imo be strived for to take away the "they don't represent me" element which currently outweighs , they represent me.

It's not an easy thing to achieve but success is uncomfortable and to get to the line,  it's gonna take getting uncomfortable to achieve.

 

Thanks. Presumably everyone is free to join the group after being vetted and then the panel members are elected via secret ballot. Would you envisage there being a requirement for a guarantee of representation for female supporters, disabled supporters, gay supporters, supporters of South Asian heritage ?

[Mattyblue]

‘Small club’, Blackburn Rovers?

[glen9mullan]

8 minutes ago, Gav said:

Whilst I have a 'big toe' in the Wednesday camp due to family and friends being fans, I'm still of the opinion that tackling ownership issues would be better served with supporters coming together, rather than individually. I know The Spirit of Shankly have been keen to work with other supporters groups on ticketing prices and many other issues in the past, not that I'm advocating us working with them in particular, but for a small club like ours we need a bigger voice and linking up with other clubs in similar positions may help with that.

Has this been considered Glen? 

In terms of wider supporter groups,

The AG have worked with Spirit of Shankley and other clubs supporter groups for 12 years.  Holding regular meetings, as members of the FSF we've also attended the various FSF regionals and built great relationships with these groups.

Strangely many groups come to us for advice now on how they combat their issues given how Rovers supporters have managed to keep our club in the news over a sustained period if time 

[glen9mullan]

4 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Thanks. Presumably everyone is free to join the group after being vetted and then the panel members are elected via secret ballot. Would you envisage there being a requirement for a guarantee of representation for female supporters, disabled supporters, gay supporters, supporters of South Asian heritage ?

I'd say it be a public vote (only my opinion) 

It would need to guarantee representation of all EDI spectrums.

 

[CD_93]

https://x.com/alexbrooks12/status/1922271298459254892/photo/1

Edited 5 hours ago by CD_93

[BankEnd Rover]

5 minutes ago, CD_93 said:

https://x.com/alexbrooks12/status/1922271298459254892/photo/1

And yet there are still people who defend this ownership?

[Exiled_Rover]

10 minutes ago, CD_93 said:

https://x.com/alexbrooks12/status/1922271298459254892/photo/1

I hope this comes to fruition.*

It's a PR disaster. Imagine the public uproar you'd receive, especially if the three Euro's winning Lionesses that started their careers at Rovers weighed in.

Utd, Liverpool, City et al already get a load of stick for not financially backing their women like Chelsea do (nor should they imo).

Rovers folding the women's team with billionaire owners? That'd be a goldmine for us. 

 

*I would like the women's team to be reinstated when we're taken over by owners that care

[StHelensRover]

If this ends up being true about the womens' side then the temperature needs to be be turned up to scorching on these absolute tossers running the club. 

How absolutely embarrassing would that be for a club entering it's 150th anniversary and a club that has fostered generational talent in the womens' game.

I really hope it's not true, it would be sickening

Edited 5 hours ago by StHelensRover

[arbitro]

18 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

I hope this comes to fruition.*

It's a PR disaster. Imagine the public uproar you'd receive, especially if the three Euro's winning Lionesses that started their careers at Rovers weighed in.

Utd, Liverpool, City et al already get a load of stick for not financially backing their women like Chelsea do (nor should they imo).

Rovers folding the women's team with billionaire owners? That'd be a goldmine for us. 

 

*I would like the women's team to be reinstated when we're taken over by owners that care

I agree although I do have an element of sympathy. I was told the other week that Pasha and Swag were questioning the viability of the women's team.

The national media would be all over this and shine the spotlight once again on the Punekars and their acolytes over here.

It's essentially a free hit for the coalition if true.

[arbitro]

8 minutes ago, StHelensRover said:

If this ends up being true about the womens' side then the temperature needs to be be turned up to scorching on these absolute tossers running the club. 

How absolutely embarrassing would that be for a club entering it's 150th anniversary and a club that has fostered generational talent in the womens' game.

I really hope it's not true, it would be sickening

I would imagine Waggots wage alone eclipses the budget for the women's team.

[Mashed Potatoes]

It might be a good idea if all those getting worked up about the possible closure of the Ladies team said how many times they went to see them last season.

To indicate the lack of interest there is, the thread on this forum about the Ladies team was begun in October 2018 and six and a half years later has reached page 12.

[Wheelton Blue]

24 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

It might be a good idea if all those getting worked up about the possible closure of the Ladies team said how many times they went to see them last season.

To indicate the lack of interest there is, the thread on this forum about the Ladies team was begun in October 2018 and six and a half years later has reached page 12.

By that logic, if they similarly decided to cease funding of the Academy, and bearing in mind that few of us go to watch games there, then we shouldn't get 'worked up' about that either.

Whether people attend the women's games is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is yet another decision being made which is symptomatic of the way in which the club operates.

Edited 4 hours ago by Wheelton Blue

[Mashed Potatoes]

10 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

By that logic, if they similarly decided to cease funding of the Academy, and bearing in mind that few of us go to watch games there, then we shouldn't get 'worked up' about that either.

Whether people attend the women's games is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is yet another decision being made which is symptomatic of the way in which the club operates.

The difference is that the Academy has a track record of making a significant contribution to the performance of the first team, as well as generating significant funds. Nobody sensible wants to see the Academy go.

[Forever Blue]

There’s an article in the Guardian today on the Rovers women’s team and funding issues, if someone can link it in here.

[RV Blue]

12 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

By that logic, if they similarly decided to cease funding of the Academy, and bearing in mind that few of us go to watch games there, then we shouldn't get 'worked up' about that either.

Whether people attend the women's games is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is yet another decision being made which is symptomatic of the way in which the club operates.

We just sold an academy product for £20m a little over a year ago. If the women’s team was producing players worth £20m you might have a point, but it doesn’t, so you don’t.

[StHelensRover]

They should probably scrap our academy then by that logic as no one goes to watch that either.

I've been several times to watch the Womens' side, at Ewood and at Leyland in the last couple of years. Not that it makes any difference as to whether the club should fund them or not.

Maybe more people would go and watch the Womens' side if it wasn't being run like a Sunday league team with the players getting the equivalent of minimum wage in the second tier of WSL and being told the team is gonna fold over WhatsApp. That team has been on a hiding to nothing the last two seasons and seems to have stayed up by miracle this season with a tiny budget.

Our owners are billionaires by the way.

[MarkBRFC]

39 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

It might be a good idea if all those getting worked up about the possible closure of the Ladies team said how many times they went to see them last season.

To indicate the lack of interest there is, the thread on this forum about the Ladies team was begun in October 2018 and six and a half years later has reached page 12.

Massively missing the point again.

Try reading it a bit closer.

That's not how you treat your employee's.

[KentExile]

8 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

There’s an article in the Guardian today on the Rovers women’s team and funding issues, if someone can link it in here.

consider it done

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/may/13/fears-grow-that-blackburn-will-withdraw-from-wsl-2-due-to-financial-reasons

 

LT also

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/25159926.blackburn-rovers-womens-wsl2-participation-doubt/

Edited 4 hours ago by KentExile

[StHelensRover]

Some of the Womens' players are speaking out on X/Twitter about how badly and unprofessionally the feel their side has been run for the last few years. 

It is not a good look for the club and I have to feel sorry for the players. 

https://x.com/Kayleigh_Mcx/status/1922274911042572769?t=5bDIqNkz_2hnPllet_w2yQ&s=19

[Mattyblue]

This the same Masher who was banging the drum at Glen insisting on female representation in any fan consultation group... weird then that he doesn't think the club should extend the courtesy to female representation for an actual team.

[Mashed Potatoes]

7 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

Massively missing the point again.

Try reading it a bit closer.

That's not how you treat your employee's.

I agree with you that no employee should be told that they will lose their job via a message from their employer via WhatsApp. However it would appear that the post on WhatsApp was from one of the players.