Fans Forum/Roverstore/Commercial Chat

[lraC]

34 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

That's what happened aye. 

It was more that points made needed more detail, so these were agreed and then went back to the club.

We're still at that stage.

Just for clarity then, if you don't mind. Nothing was missing from the original version, it was just more detail needed on points already covered?

Thanks in advance. 

[glen9mullan]

3 minutes ago, lraC said:

Just for clarity then, if you don't mind. Nothing was missing from the original version, it was just more detail needed on points already covered?

Thanks in advance. 

I can answer thst , as i sent the edited version.

Some things missed, some things needed more detail, some things misrepresented or incorrect.

Duncan and I have agreed to do a podcast to talk about a number of things and no doubt we will discuss the FF meeting and add meat to the bones were applicable 

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

I can answer thst , as i sent the edited version.

Some things missed, some things needed more detail, some things misrepresented or incorrect.

Duncan and I have agreed to do a podcast to talk about a number of things and no doubt we will discuss the FF meeting and add meat to the bones were applicable 

Thanks Glen.

This is exactly what I thought, but as you will have read, some people still want to disguise this and my comment that the fans have been taken for mugs, who are led to believe the minutes are fair and accurate, now has more weight now. 

I sincerely hope this is a one off and all other recorded and posted minutes were indeed fair an accurate and nit diluted to suit the clubs agenda.

If there weren't then I genuinely despair. 

[lraC]

8 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

I can answer thst , as i sent the edited version.

Some things missed, some things needed more detail, some things misrepresented or incorrect.

Duncan and I have agreed to do a podcast to talk about a number of things and no doubt we will discuss the FF meeting and add meat to the bones were applicable 

Sorry Glen, just one other question.

What date did you send the edited version to the club and was every attendee in agreement with the content, or did you meet some resistance?

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

28 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

I can answer thst , as i sent the edited version.

Some things missed, some things needed more detail, some things misrepresented or incorrect.

Duncan and I have agreed to do a podcast to talk about a number of things and no doubt we will discuss the FF meeting and add meat to the bones were applicable 

Thank you Glen...matters need to be brought out into the open.

[wilsdenrover]

I can’t see how you can ever get full agreement as people can read the exact same thing and interpret it in different ways.

 

 

[lraC]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

I can’t see how you can ever get full agreement as people can read the exact same thing and interpret it in different ways.

 

 

That's all well and good, but if things are deliberately being left out to paint a prettier picture, that's a different matter.

Hopefully that is not the case, but I think we are about to find out.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

That's all well and good, but if things are deliberately being left out to paint a prettier picture, that's a different matter.

Hopefully that is not the case, but I think we are about to find out.

It would be a different matter but that would involve collusion between the club and every member of the fans’ forum.

That feels highly unlikely to me.

 

[rigger]

4 hours ago, glen9mullan said:

To add, the flaw in the ff system is the original minutes go to the club for approval prior to being circulated to the FF attendees, with the intention they are on website within 48 hours of club approval.

This needs to change, having no input into the minutes or agreement of the accuracy of minutes prior to going to the club has created this indigestion

Its the process which is broken, not the people 

The process seems to have been broken for a long time, and nobody seems to have complained.

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

It would be a different matter but that would involve collusion between the club and every member of the fans’ forum.

That feels highly unlikely to me.

 

That's exactly why we are where we are now.

Read the post by GM above, as you will see that a version was sent to the club and according to Glen (who I have believe completely on the matter) an edited version was sent as "Some things missed, some things needed more detail, some things misrepresented or incorrect".

Now that seems to me, that the first version could have been club friendly and although I don't yet know, how long the club have had the current version, they may not like them and are perhaps delaying releasing them. 

Given that there were some attendees, who went to the FF meeting for the first time, they were not around to question previous meetings, so the past minutes, would indeed need to involve collusion, between every member, so maybe there were fair and accurate and it is just a coincidence that the latest one has been challenged. 

[lraC]

5 minutes ago, rigger said:

The process seems to have been broken for a long time, and nobody seems to have complained.

The same seems to have been the case at Morecambe too and it appears that the complaints came a little too late.

We can sit back and hope that the custodians have the very best intentions for BRFC or we can challenge things, that do not seem that way.

I know what I am inclined to do.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

That's exactly why we are where we are now.

Read the post by GM above, as you will see that a version was sent to the club and according to Glen (who I have believe completely on the matter) an edited version was sent as "Some things missed, some things needed more detail, some things misrepresented or incorrect".

Now that seems to me, that the first version could have been club friendly and although I don't yet know, how long the club have had the current version, they may not like them and are perhaps delaying releasing them. 

Given that there were some attendees, who went to the FF meeting for the first time, they were not around to question previous meetings, so the past minutes, would indeed need to involve collusion, between every member, so maybe there were fair and accurate and it is just a coincidence that the latest one has been challenged. 

Or the new members simply had a different opinion on what should and shouldn’t have been minuted and what ‘tone’ should’ve been emphasised more.

Without us seeing both versions of the minutes (which I’m sure we won’t) it will be very hard for us to come to any sort of conclusion. 

 

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Or the new members simply had a different opinion on what should and shouldn’t have been minuted and what ‘tone’ should’ve been emphasised more.

Without us seeing both versions of the minutes (which I’m sure we won’t) it will be very hard for us to come to any sort of conclusion. 

 

Agreed, so for balance, we will hopefully see both versions.

Edited 2 hours ago by lraC

[rigger]

2 hours ago, K-Hod said:

Well, there are certainly some that are wide of the mark 😃.

I was in that meeting and this has been blown way out of proportion. This is a delay down to the club.

It's frustrating as hell and I in fact chased the completion of the minutes on Sunday with all that attended. 

 

If communications are poor, people will speculate and most times come to a negative conclusion. The problem is solved by good communication, even if it is not what people want to hear. 

[K-Hod]

10 minutes ago, rigger said:

If communications are poor, people will speculate and most times come to a negative conclusion. The problem is solved by good communication, even if it is not what people want to hear. 

I know that and I know that communications are poor. 
As someone who was in that meeting, I’m keen that the blame is aimed at the door of those communicating poorly, not those trying to hold the club to account.

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I know that and I know that communications are poor. 
As someone who was in that meeting, I’m keen that the blame is aimed at the door of those communicating poorly, not those trying to hold the club to account.

Has the forum considered giving the club a deadline after which they’ll publish the minutes (elsewhere) themselves? 

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Has the forum considered giving the club a deadline after which they’ll publish the minutes (elsewhere) themselves? 

it is a good idea.

Sounds like Glen and Duncan Miller are ready to do that anyway.

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, lraC said:

it is a good idea.

Sounds like Glen and Duncan Miller are ready to do that anyway.

I have them now and then.

I try not to make a habit of it though 😁

[Crimpshrine]

4 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

The FF worked well when it was two sets of people across the table pulling in the same direction. Issues like the price of pies really were the most concerning thing on the day as the likes of John Williams were trusted to get on with the macro stuff.

Now both sides aren’t pulling in the same direction and the FF are being expected to pull the regime up on all kinds of strategic  stuff it was never intended for when it set up in more simpler times.

The FF hasn’t changed, the club has. It’s somehow ended up in this position by default as the last forum standing. Ergo other supporter consultations (I.e the ones they quietly dropped around Covid) need bringing back ASAP, and the FF can go back to its modus operandi, I.e the lower level retail stuff - of course they won’t bring them back as this set up works perfectly fine for the regime.

This is exactly right. 

At the last WATR MoU meeting with the club in November 2024, the club committed to reinstating the fan consultation meetings and set target dates for February/March 2025. WATR were to help facilitate the meetings. Dates and venues were to be confirmed by the club in due course. 

From that point onwards, the club turned their back on WATR and their own Fan Engagement Plan entirely. Steve Waggott would answer emails but with delaying tactics and prevarication. Pasha and Lynsey Talbot stopped acknowledging emails altogether. The club have ignored all requests for further meetings .

The latest FEP seems to confirm the intention to reduce fan engagement and control it via the FF - which as Matty correctly explains - is not the right vehicle. 

This is all down to Pasha doing things his way for his benefit.  Luckily, he gets rattled easily - this is a battle we can win. 

[lraC]

17 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

This is exactly right. 

At the last WATR MoU meeting with the club in November 2024, the club committed to reinstating the fan consultation meetings and set target dates for February/March 2025. WATR were to help facilitate the meetings. Dates and venues were to be confirmed by the club in due course. 

From that point onwards, the club turned their back on WATR and their own Fan Engagement Plan entirely. Steve Waggott would answer emails but with delaying tactics and prevarication. Pasha and Lynsey Talbot stopped acknowledging emails altogether. The club have ignored all requests for further meetings .

The latest FEP seems to confirm the intention to reduce fan engagement and control it via the FF - which as Matty correctly explains - is not the right vehicle. 

This is all down to Pasha doing things his way for his benefit.  Luckily, he gets rattled easily - this is a battle we can win. 

I firmly believe it is Pasha getting rattled easily that has caused this situation with the minutes being delayed and edited. He will not want an official version of events to be out in the public domain, if it paints him a bad light. 

Edited 1 hour ago by lraC

[Rogerb]

They're getting you arguing amongst yourselves again.

[toogs]

4 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

They're getting you arguing amongst yourselves again.

Yep.

Just tell the truth, and keep telling the truth.

[glen9mullan]

2 hours ago, lraC said:

Sorry Glen, just one other question.

What date did you send the edited version to the club and was every attendee in agreement with the content, or did you meet some resistance?

I recieved the first set of club approved minutes on the 18th July from a forum member as I was accidentally left of the circulation .

I reviewed and requested if I could edit as i felt they were inaccuate. I sent edited version which was supported by other attendees on the 20th July to chair/secretary. When it went club I'm not sure, But its certainly been with them a while.

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

I recieved the first set of club approved minutes on the 18th July from a forum member as I was accidentally left of the circulation .

I reviewed and requested if I could edit as i felt they were inaccuate. I sent edited version which was supported by other attendees on the 20th July to chair/secretary. When it went club I'm not sure, But its certainly been with them a while.

Thanks.

Sounds like they could have had them for a couple of weeks then.

Maybe they don't like the edited version, but I wonder why?

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Too many nodding Dogs on the FF?