Fans Forum/Roverstore/Commercial Chat

[glen9mullan]

7 minutes ago, JHRover said:

The Consultation Meetings used to be recorded / broadcast on the radio so that everyone could directly hear what was said by the club. 

By comparison this nonsense over minutes is absolutely outrageous given it is the only way fans can find out about how the club is being run.

If the joke that is the EFL had any interest or backbone they would not be accepting this arrangement as being compliant with their regulations on supporter communication/consultation.

My issue is the unprofessional outburst and aggressive nature of some of the club officials.

They went to a place where they lost total control of their emotions and lashed out stating things they now clearly regret.  

We were just a panel of supporters giving our free time.

I can't accept a retraction or minutes which state things which were never said or edits to change what was said , which in turn then make the published answer a lie and complete fabrication of the truth.

Thankfully it appears particularly supporter group leads are all of the same opinion and are also rejecting on this basis 

[JBiz]

8 hours ago, StHelensRover said:

 

I think the request that Pasha, Waggott and Gestede not attend matches was a good move, in hindsight. It was an unusual and quite petty request that the fan groups surely understood would be ignored, but it was a different angle of attack to the blanket "venkys out, sell the club".

It caught people running the club off guard a bit and it got media attention in the way that the last ten years of "venkys out, sell the club" hasn't. 

I think since then they've continued to trip themselves up when speaking on the record and showed a level of incompetence many of us expected. Every time we're able to force the leadership out in the open they continue to expose the rubbish job they've done and continue to do.

Given Waggott's speedy departure and then now coming out and threatening to ban fans, I'd say it ruffled feathers more than anything else in the last half-decade 

I don’t think it’s done anything positive personally but that’s opinions. I also need to point out, if you talked to as many rovers fans as you could, young and old - the majority wouldn’t have described that as “a good move”. 
 

I personally think losing 6 on the bounce or whatever it was, did a lot more to open us up to media criticism.

[lraC]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

For the fans forum? 

I didn't like you attacked O2G for the minutes and given he has been doing that job for a long time and very well. Maybe some respect is needed here. 

Sadly, he has been allowing the club we love, to get away without being properly held to account.

I am hopeful we will see exactly this, very soon, as we have had a club friendly version of the minutes and a non club friendly version this time and given they haven’t  been challenged in the past, they have done more harm than good in my opinion. 

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, glen9mullan said:

Hahahaha absolutely gold.

 

[lraC]

1 hour ago, glen9mullan said:

My issue is the unprofessional outburst and aggressive nature of some of the club officials.

They went to a place where they lost total control of their emotions and lashed out stating things they now clearly regret.  

We were just a panel of supporters giving our free time.

I can't accept a retraction or minutes which state things which were never said or edits to change what was said , which in turn then make the published answer a lie and complete fabrication of the truth.

Thankfully it appears particularly supporter group leads are all of the same opinion and are also rejecting on this basis 

Thank goodness you are calling this out. They were once again, getting away with this and for those who were happy to let them do so, by omitting things from the minutes and adding things  that were lies, please have a serious look at yourselves.

This time, they are not getting away with it, but perhaps they have in the past and as we have just seen with my reply to one supporter, people were convinced, fans were doing a good job on these meetings, yet it appears that they were letting the club, cover some serious issues up.

[lraC]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

For the fans forum? 

I didn't like you attacked O2G for the minutes and given he has been doing that job for a long time and very well. Maybe some respect is needed here. 

Well given what we have now learned from Glen Mullan, perhaps you need to show me and a few other people a bit more respect,

It appears I am correct to say, what I have, or of course, you could carry on defending, someone, who despite good intentions, may have been letting the club off the hook. 

[lraC]

11 hours ago, rigger said:

Should this not be put to the EFL for them to ask questions of the club. Maybe ask the Blackburn MP, to ask the EFL to look into it.

I guess it is now down to the people who were present at the meeting. It seems that we have two versions of the minutes. One version that the club were happy with, but several attendees weren’t and another version, that the club, have now rejected.

Perhaps the club, now need to explain, their reasons for rejecting the second version, as the fans, are still in the dark.

I haven’t seen either version, but of course the club, do have a responsibility, to meet with the fans and certain things need to be dealt with in order for them to comply with their responsibilities. It appears to me, they they are falling well short of this, but whether they are held to account or not, remains to be seen. 

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

Thank goodness you are calling this out. They were once again, getting away with this and for those who were happy to let them do so, by omitting things from the minutes and adding things  that were lies, please have a serious look at yourselves.

This time, they are not getting away with it, but perhaps they have in the past and as we have just seen with my reply to one supporter, people were convinced, fans were doing a good job on these meetings, yet it appears that they were letting the club, cover some serious issues up.

Maybe these meetings weren't as confrontational previously. Swag was there to just shrug his shoulders and fob people off and the heated exchanges were more with WATR.

Seems as though they've now cut off contact with the Trust and there is no more swag so the FF meetings have become the only contact between the fans and club. With the likes of Glen there they're not going to be able to get away with just fobbing folk off with nothing answers and the fact that the shadow man is a complete gutless coward that can't handle any pressure whatsoever has brought up the current situation. Official minutes that show how unprofessional and incompetent these people are will not be something the club wants to put out there.

Applying pressure on the shadow man clearly is having an effect. As I said previously, I can actually see a point in time where the club severs all contact with the fans as they simply can't handle the pressure. Even if there's a new CEO put in place, it needs to be demanded that the shadow man is in attendance as he is clearly the one running the show. 

Keep up the good work all involved 👍 

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, lraC said:

Sadly, he has been allowing the club we love, to get away without being properly held to account.

I am hopeful we will see exactly this, very soon, as we have had a club friendly version of the minutes and a non club friendly version this time and given they haven’t  been challenged in the past, they have done more harm than good in my opinion. 

You know this for fact? No one who attended the FF meeting has blamed O2G Unlike yourself have they? 

Anyway I've leaving it there IraC. 

[lraC]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

You know this for fact? No one who attended the FF meeting has blamed O2G Unlike yourself have they? 

Anyway I've leaving it there IraC. 

Read what Glen has posted which is pretty damning. Either this is a one off and has been called out, due to people attending, who will challenge those not acting in the best interests of the club, or it’s the norm.

Fine for you to leave it there, but fortunately some won’t, as doing nothing, is not an option. 

[wilsdenrover]

5 hours ago, lraC said:

Thank goodness you are calling this out. They were once again, getting away with this and for those who were happy to let them do so, by omitting things from the minutes and adding things  that were lies, please have a serious look at yourselves.

This time, they are not getting away with it, but perhaps they have in the past and as we have just seen with my reply to one supporter, people were convinced, fans were doing a good job on these meetings, yet it appears that they were letting the club, cover some serious issues up.

Perhaps @K-Hod can confirm whether the outbursts Glen refers to have happened at previous meetings too.

It may just be that Glen knows how to ‘push the right buttons’ to get such a reaction.

For clarity, I would see the ability to do this as a positive as it can lead (as Glen says it did) to the loss of control leading to the truth coming out. 

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Perhaps @K-Hod can confirm whether the outbursts Glen refers to have happened at previous meetings too.

It may just be that Glen knows how to ‘push the right buttons’ to get such a reaction.

For clarity, I would see the ability to do this as a positive as it can lead (as Glen says it did) to the loss of control leading to the truth coming out. 

From what I understand, Pasha took exception at Glen having direct contact with the owners, but perhaps he can clarify that.

Why Pasha would do that is open to debate I guess. These original minutes contained lies, according to Glen’s posts, so why is that and is it a one off to save embarrassment, or normal procedure, to keep relationships intact? 

[wilsdenrover]

4 hours ago, lraC said:

I guess it is now down to the people who were present at the meeting. It seems that we have two versions of the minutes. One version that the club were happy with, but several attendees weren’t and another version, that the club, have now rejected.

Perhaps the club, now need to explain, their reasons for rejecting the second version, as the fans, are still in the dark.

I haven’t seen either version, but of course the club, do have a responsibility, to meet with the fans and certain things need to be dealt with in order for them to comply with their responsibilities. It appears to me, they  are falling well short of this, but whether they are held to account or not, remains to be seen. 

Just on this point.

The EFL regulations regarding these meetings are so weak it is very easy for the club to comply.

 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

From what I understand, Pasha took exception at Glen having direct contact with the owners, but perhaps he can clarify that.

Why Pasha would do that is open to debate I guess. These original minutes contained lies, according to Glen’s posts, so why is that and is it a one off to save embarrassment, or normal procedure, to keep relationships intact? 

Unless you believe neither will answer honestly, both @K-Hod and @only2garners  could clear this up very quickly.

As to why Pasha would do that, my impression of @glen9mullan from on here is he does know how to elicit the response he is after (again - a good thing).

[Mattyblue]

The regime isn’t half as clever as they think they are. They thought stripping all fan engagement down to one forum, a forum that historically has been more retail focused (and where they’ve had a measure of control over the proceedings and output) would keep them off the hook … well, guess what, as a voluntary forum that anybody is free to join, the awkward squad from the groups you’ve excluded will just find their way into it anyway and said control is now lost.

Never mind ay, Pasha.
 

Edited 3 hours ago by Mattyblue

[K-Hod]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Perhaps @K-Hod can confirm whether the outbursts Glen refers to have happened at previous meetings too.

It may just be that Glen knows how to ‘push the right buttons’ to get such a reaction.

For clarity, I would see the ability to do this as a positive as it can lead (as Glen says it did) to the loss of control leading to the truth coming out. 

Pasha only really started coming to the FF meetings last season regularly. 

I'd say he was the most animated I'd seen him at the last meeting, yes.

He told me to 'get my facts right' which I was quite surprised at (in reference to JDT & Eustace leaving a year apart for the same reason- no backing).

He had no answer when I reminded him that JDT tried to leave the previous summer and the club hadn't let him.....

[wilsdenrover]

Just one further thing to add.

Sometimes it only takes one person ‘sticking their head above the trenches’ for others to then follow.

Maybe this is what’s happened here.

[roverblue]

The meetings need audio/video recording and publishing in real time or soon after the event.

[rigger]

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Just on this point.

The EFL regulations regarding these meetings are so weak it is very easy for the club to comply.

 

So I would say go to the people who regulate the EFL, which I would think is the government, so the local MP.

[lraC]

1 hour ago, K-Hod said:

Pasha only really started coming to the FF meetings last season regularly. 

I'd say he was the most animated I'd seen him at the last meeting, yes.

He told me to 'get my facts right' which I was quite surprised at (in reference to JDT & Eustace leaving a year apart for the same reason- no backing).

He had no answer when I reminded him that JDT tried to leave the previous summer and the club hadn't let him.....

Did that bit about his response to you, go in the original minutes?

Hopefully it did, as it is typical of the attitude of some. The seem to forget that we know about certain things and how he can suggest you get your facts right on this, shows what he really thinks. 

 

[Mike Graham]

6 minutes ago, rigger said:

So I would say go to the people who regulate the EFL, which I would think is the government, so the local MP.

There are EFL regulations about supporter consultations and what clubs should do.  Sadly there are no teeth to these regulations and no penalties for clubs who fail to carry  out what they should be doing.

[Mashed Potatoes]

24 minutes ago, rigger said:

So I would say go to the people who regulate the EFL, which I would think is the government, so the local MP.

I don't think the government regulate the EFL as government interference in running football is against FIFA and UEFA rules. Also the local MP is not a member of the government.

[Crimpshrine]

3 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Perhaps @K-Hod can confirm whether the outbursts Glen refers to have happened at previous meetings too.

It may just be that Glen knows how to ‘push the right buttons’ to get such a reaction.

For clarity, I would see the ability to do this as a positive as it can lead (as Glen says it did) to the loss of control leading to the truth coming out. 

The meetings used to be run by Steve Waggott who was very skilled at keeping everything very civil and taking control of the dialogue in a calm manner. Now that Pasha is under direct scrutiny he is being exposed. He gets rattled very easily and doesn't have the people skills that Waggott had.  My guess is that he will let Lynsey Talbot run any future meetings - if there are any.

[StHelensRover]

11 hours ago, JBiz said:

I don’t think it’s done anything positive personally but that’s opinions. I also need to point out, if you talked to as many rovers fans as you could, young and old - the majority wouldn’t have described that as “a good move”. 
 

I personally think losing 6 on the bounce or whatever it was, did a lot more to open us up to media criticism.

You might be right, but I don't think even losing ten on the bounce would have produced that bizarre 'press conference' from Waggott, Pasha and Gestede or the flurry of other media appearances/interviews from Gestede, Yasir Sufi, et al. For a decade, most Rovers fans hadn't even heard of Pasha, now everyone knows he is the main man at the club and he's under much more scrutiny. For that reason alone, I can't accept that it wasn't a good idea to change tack. I had no personal involvement in it whatsoever, I've nothing to gain from saying it was a good idea btw.

On the other hand, if you're right and the majority of Rovers fans don't think it was a good move, we're back to the problem of what can/should anyone be doing about the situation? I don't think people should sit on their hands and accept our lot. I don't know what much else there is that can be done which is within the law to get attention at the ground or in the media. Was it not better to try something different? I'm glad they gambled and did something else.

The 'majority of fans' , 'young and old' seemed to think it was a good idea to wave inflatable snakes and boo John Eustace throughout the Derby County match. Was that a good idea, no? Was he blameless in orchestrating his move? No, but the fans deciding to target him non-stop for 90 minutes was embarrassing, achieved nothing and was the perfect outcome for the people running the club.

 

Edited 3 minutes ago by StHelensRover