Fans Forum/Roverstore/Commercial Chat

[lraC]

8 hours ago, glen9mullan said:

O2G on holiday and I can't say it enough times, he's not the party villain here. 

The process certainly broken or never been challenged before that's a certainty.

However he presented the edited version to the club when the initial approved  set were rejected by the members of the forum 

Club has amended the new set, which all groups with members have rejected.

The options presented by the chair are as my previous. I've reiterated my stance, (told others have too). 

Case closed from my perspective, the minutes if ever released wont be the ones which i believe reflect the meeting, so i will push on as per the mandate set by the members I represent, remain transparent and cover it off in the podcast i'm taking part in at the weekend.

Under the FEP the FF is open to all,

Can I just ask, as I may owe O2G an apology here, which I will make, if necessary.

The first version contained lies and inaccuracies. Was this done in error, or was it done so that the status quo remained?

I was under the impression that the inaccurate version of the minutes, was one man’s version and if he lied in them, then that is not acceptable.

Fans on here and I’m sure in general, have been hoping to get some feedback and were hoping that the fans forum, was the voice needed to ensure that the club is being run in a professional and safe way. 

[47er]

It's the silence that's getting to me. We should have been able to read these minutes weeks ago. What is the process for resolving this matter? Whose responsibility is it? What's being done?

If all that's being achieved is more stone -walling from the employees what is the plan to deal with it?

They simply cannot be allowed to get away with this even once.

As for the Fans Forum, it's not an elected body and if that's the organisation the Club prefers to deal with then that sets alarm bells off for me. 

So, my advice, the time for appeasing these morons has passed, release the real minutes, show us what the Club objected to and take them on. Maximum publicity---what they hate most. Obvious they fear what could be read in Pune as opposed to what info Venkys usually get.

 

 

[K-Hod]

9 hours ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

The club has created this issue.

They have closed down all communication forums and chose to hide behind a group of unelected fans who are happy to have their autograph books signed.

Our club is in serious existential difficulties which requires elected fans who are prepared to hold them to account.

If the club will only speak the FF then the FF members need to be radically overhauled.

First bit in bold, I've never heard such bollocks in my life.

Second part in bold, this literally happens and the club don't get an easy ride.

You're absolutely way out of order with what you've been saying the last few days and weeks.

[glen9mullan]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

Can I just ask, as I may owe O2G an apology here, which I will make, if necessary.

The first version contained lies and inaccuracies. Was this done in error, or was it done so that the status quo remained?

I was under the impression that the inaccurate version of the minutes, was one man’s version and if he lied in them, then that is not acceptable.

Fans on here and I’m sure in general, have been hoping to get some feedback and were hoping that the fans forum, was the voice needed to ensure that the club is being run in a professional and safe way. 

No O2G didn't write any lies, ive said previously its hard writing minutes as things jump about in meetings. He captured what he could but there were parts missing, or not elaborated for context. The points missing where probably the key points most would have an interest in. I never saw a version until they were approved by the club, so cant comment on how they looked prior.

I've not seen any comments from any FF members who have not disputed the minutes or indeed suggested the ones which were put forwards as the second draft are a not correct record of facts. . Those who have commented clearly state the second version is true and accurate.

The current version (number 3) is the clubs amended version of 2, which ive personally rejected completely as have others.

This is ALL on the club, no-one else, no conspiracy, they've edited the truth to suit their own agenda and I maintain that if its not the truth that goes public then I will address the inaccuracies publicly.

On your final point, its fair to say the opinions on the forum.are from one spectrum to another. I'd say Duncan, @K-Hod and myseif very much mirror the overall consensus on here. Its fair to say others, dont share this view but are equally allowed their opinion and the FF is the place for this 

Its fair to say what I may see as a priority,  others may not, for example who we play in pre season is more important to some than who is running the club.

However all members are doing it for free and deserve some respect for doing so, regardless of where their views lie.

Is it the right vehicle, or set up correctly? I dont personally believe so, its not democratic and cannot be allowed to become the only comms, as i believe if certain people didn't attend that the questions that matter to me or others on this forum would not be asked or recorded with an acceptable answer.

Edited 3 hours ago by glen9mullan

[wilsdenrover]

12 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

No O2G didn't write any lies, ive said previously its hard writing minutes as things jump about in meetings. He captured what he could but there were parts missing, or not elaborated for context. The points missing where probably the key points most would have an interest in. I never saw a version until they were approved by the club, so cant comment on how they looked prior.

Perhaps, rightly or wrongly, O2G used his previous experience in only including what he knew the club would approve.

It does sound like the ff member  ‘kick back’ re the minutes hasn’t happened before - maybe @K-Hod is in a position to confirm either way?

Edited 3 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[K-Hod]

8 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Perhaps, rightly or wrongly, O2G used his previous experience in only including what he knew the club would approve.

It does sound like this ff member  ‘kick back’ re the minutes hasn’t happened before - maybe @K-Hod is in a position to confirm either way?

I don't remember the minutes being rejected before, no.

[arbitro]

21 minutes ago, glen9mullan said:

No O2G didn't write any lies, ive said previously its hard writing minutes as things jump about in meetings. He captured what he could but there were parts missing, or not elaborated for context. The points missing where probably the key points most would have an interest in. I never saw a version until they were approved by the club, so cant comment on how they looked prior.

I've not seen any comments from any FF members who have not disputed the minutes or indeed suggested the ones which were put forwards as the second draft are a not correct record of facts. . Those who have commented clearly state the second version is true and accurate.

The current version (number 3) is the clubs amended version of 2, which ive personally rejected completely as have others.

This is ALL on the club, no-one else, no conspiracy, they've edited the truth to suit their own agenda and I maintain that if its not the truth that goes public then I will address the inaccuracies publicly.

Are you in a position to name who has edited (or initiated the edit) the minutes (both versions) from the club?

Many could hazard a guess and the strong likelihood is they would be correct I believe but it would be helpful at this stage to prevent the unnecessary criticism of certain Forum members.

 

[47er]

34 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

First bit in bold, I've never heard such bollocks in my life.

Second part in bold, this literally happens and the club don't get an easy ride.

You're absolutely way out of order with what you've been saying the last few days and weeks.

First of all, I'm grateful to you and all the others who take time to represent us to the Club. But you must admit surely that this charade has been dragging on for weeks? Are they going to be allowed to get away with it? What have our reps got planned to address it?  Glen shouldn't have to act on his own, though I'm quite sure he can manage it.

Have our reps met/talked and decided on a course of action? What's the next step?

Keep us in the loop.

Edited 3 hours ago by 47er

[wilsdenrover]

Well run clubs will engage with their fans over and above what any regulations tell them to do.

Because of this, the regulations should be written with the badly run clubs in mind - I mean stipulating such things as:

The need to minute any meetings and what’s to happen if these can’t be agreed.

The complaints process should any fan attendee think the club aren’t complying with the regulations.

The investigative process following such a complaint (and the club punishment(s) should the fan complaint be upheld).

The rules as they currently are may as well not exist.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, 47er said:

First of all, I'm grateful to you and all the others who take time to represent us to the Club. But You must admit surely that this charade has been dragging on for weeks? Are they going to be allowed to get away with it? What have our reps got planned to address it?  Glen shouldn't have to act on his own, though I'm quite sure he can manage it.

Have our reps met/talked and decided on a course of action? What's the next step?

I’d be amazed if he is.

[K-Hod]

Just now, 47er said:

First of all, I'm grateful to you and all the others who take time to represent us to the Club. But You must admit surely that this charade has been dragging on for weeks? Are they going to be allowed to get away with it? What have our reps got planned to address it?  Glen shouldn't have to act on his own, though I'm quite sure he can manage it.

Have our reps met/talked and decided on a course of action? What's the next step?

At no point have I denied any of that and it's probably annoying me more than anyone.

There's been a fair bit of other resistance and rejection of the minutes and no, nobody is getting away with anything.

[lraC]

11 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I don't remember the minutes being rejected before, no.

The first time then and they are surrounded in controversy.

Is it a coincidence in your opinion that Waggott has now gone and we have had others speaking more than they normally would, who have perhaps not handled the criticism, very well?

[glen9mullan]

7 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Are you in a position to name who has edited (or initiated the edit) the minutes (both versions) from the club?

Many could hazard a guess and the strong likelihood is they would be correct I believe but it would be helpful at this stage to prevent the unnecessary criticism of certain Forum members.

 

I ain't a clue 

[K-Hod]

7 minutes ago, lraC said:

The first time then and they are surrounded in controversy.

Is it a coincidence in your opinion that Waggott has now gone and we have had others speaking more than they normally would, who have perhaps not handled the criticism, very well?

In my view, no coincidence.

[JBiz]

6 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

In my view, no coincidence.

Waggott was 100% a sheath for scrutiny. Also a huge lying bastard like his employers.

[roverblue]

Waggot was akin to a used car salesmen and can imagine he did a good job of keeping it all from bubbling over.

I have said it repeatedly but if these meetings were recorded or broadcast it takes all this controversy away.

[lraC]

34 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

At no point have I denied any of that and it's probably annoying me more than anyone.

There's been a fair bit of other resistance and rejection of the minutes and no, nobody is getting away with anything.

That's good to hear.

Hopefully a clear and concise statement will follow, and it would be a real shame, if they did get away with this, as it is exposing the shambolic way in which the club is being run. 

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, roverblue said:

Waggot was akin to a used car salesmen and can imagine he did a good job of keeping it all from bubbling over.

I have said it repeatedly but if these meetings were recorded or broadcast it takes all this controversy away.

It is ironic you should say that, as I had a 1-1 meeting with Waggott at the back end of 2023. His main concern in that meeting, seemed to be, if I was recording him or not. 

[MarkBRFC]

I find it strange that the minutes aren't recorded.

Every meeting I have been in, in my professional life has been recorded for minute purposes.

That way, when the minutes are written up and are circulated to the relevant parties there can be nothing disputed.

[roverblue]

Another option is to get someone like Elliot Jackson from the LET to attend them who probably already has all the necessary equipment and motivation to get some prompt coverage of what happened out.

[Tomphil2]

3 minutes ago, roverblue said:

Another option is to get someone like Elliot Jackson from the LET to attend them who probably already has all the necessary equipment and motivation to get some prompt coverage of what happened out.

Yup a local journo recording the mins would make sense if it were possible to arrange.

[GHD]

7 hours ago, lraC said:

I think there is a very simple solution here, but perhaps, I am missing something.

Release both sets of minutes and put a caveat in, to state who does and who does not agree with each version.

Given that the club have struck a line through certain parts that they don’t agree with, or don’t want releasing, highlight those bits as being rejected, by the club and ask them to comment on why they want it removing. If they won’t give a reason, simply say, the club refused to comment on why they rejected XXX but the fans attending, consider these minutes to be fair and accurate. 
Rather than asking anyone to resign, go down the route of a no confidence vote again and get it out in the press. 
It’s pretty clear now, that these meetings have been a pointless exercise, so again, either a coalition statement, or a FF statement, ensuring that it’s made perfectly clear, who is making the vote of no confidence and who isn’t. 

You have written, very eloquently, exactly what I was about to post

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 minute ago, Tomphil2 said:

Yup a local journo recording the mins would make sense if it were possible to arrange.

Might be a bit much to ask the journo to write the minutes in the first instance, but could act as an independent arbitrator in dealing with the sort of dispute that has arisen here.

[glen9mullan]

4 minutes ago, roverblue said:

Another option is to get someone like Elliot Jackson from the LET to attend them who probably already has all the necessary equipment and motivation to get some prompt coverage of what happened out.

I genuinely dont believe the club has any intention of having any other narrative than the one they wish to portray. The consistent view of "only a handful with an agenda" have any concerns is the line they are giving the media and its in their interest that the minutes show them in a positive light.

This is clearly the motive to not speaking to groups whilst also the motive why they continually ignore emails from groups notably WATR who have an MOU the club are now failing to honour 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

The problem lies clearly with the Club,they are censuring info (as I feared) and this should be acceptable to no one.What a mess.

We look forward to your podcast Glen,the sooner the better.

Edited 2 hours ago by SIMON GARNERS 194