1 minute ago, Mattyblue said:

This wasn’t and you know that very well. Really struggling with this approach from you tonight, Glen. Quite poor actually.

What bit you struggling with matt?

They didn't get issued with a winding up notice, 

I'm one of the worse critics of the whole circus, but at the same time , can't let hysteria get in the way of the facts,  however much I want the tide to turn and all out war

2 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

You may have known about it but I would guess 99% of Rovers fans didn't. 

The MoU between the club and the Trust requires the club to be open about important financial issues. This winding up order falls into that category and has never been disclosed by the club. 

It feels like important news to me.

You'd need to ask the trust , I'm sure like others they have alerts set up for when documents hit certain databases 

3 minutes ago, BigUts said:

The club being served a winding up petition by HMRC due to owing 3.5m isn't insignificant. Lots of people will know that winding up petitions get issued, but it isn't 'normal' at all.

What it shows is that we are / have been pissing very close to the wind and adds further fuel to the fire that we are knee deep in the biggest pile of shite we have been since these shysters took over...and that's saying something!

They were not served with a winding up notice.

They were warned they had to pay bill or it would be result in being served one

1 minute ago, Mattyblue said:

And you didn’t think of mentioning it on here? No?
 

The court stuff was discussed to death on here 

Just now, Mattyblue said:

Football clubs don’g usually  keep winding up orders quiet as you know very well.

Very odd stance here Glen, I’m surprised.

Because I quizzed  the muppet last year on it , so it's old news to me.

In business its common , you can get winding up notice for filing accounts late on a dormant company for example , until you come forward and state its not.

They did not get a winding up notice , that's the penalty had they not paid the bill. The club was late with the payment and it was then paid

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

It obviously hasn’t been in the public domain as it’s not been in any press/media, any club statement or interview or a Fans Forum of any sort. ‘Oops did nobody mention on here for *seven months* that little winding up order thing?’

It may well have been ‘dealt with’, just like the next one probably will be post some other Indian court appointment, but it has been anything but transparent. 
 

Why would there be a press reiease?

Do you know how many businesses get these threats every day? 

The reality is the bill was paid.

Sorry to pop the balloon,

This document has been in the public domain ages, so much so, we quizzed Waggott on it last year.

I thought it had been put on here previously?

It's old news, and was dealt with at the time.

Did you know the Action group issued a winding up notice on the club 9 years ago when they failed to pay up the receipts from the legends match?

These thing's happen all the time, 

The bill was paid, the courts granted the money, and continue to do so.

This takes the focus away from shit results , poor board etc .

We know we have shit owners , but let's take out the foot soldiers first 

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

alot of teams want a striker. WBA signed a good one last summer in Brandon Thomas-Asante. But Coventry spent big on 2 strikers this summer and neither performed like I thought they would and they play Gooden up front. 

Most teams want that quality striker until you have the funds to buy one. 

why? is that the only game that matters to you? 

JDT produced our best league finish since being relegated to this level. If he had been given Mowbray transfer funds we would be promote under him

How did GB fucked last January up when the problem with Lewis O'Brien deal was above in and not in his footballing department? 

How much real power does Waggott have and what departments is he really in charge? 

true they are problem with the budget being cut and lack of funds to strengthen this team right now. 

How can Lewis Obrien not be the football department?

GB gave a 30 minute interview admitting it was his fault.

SW confirmed by L Talbot in meeting,  had the same power as Coar had under Jack Walker.  Day to day decisions are his , which fall under his remit. 

Did you not ask this when you went for your picture ?

10 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Interesting post, I'd heard well before GB's arrival that the Club were looking to move towards the DOF model with Waggott being responsible for non footballing issues.

"The buck" certainly didn't stop with the DOF for the debacle last January did it? Absolutely zero accountability.

Do you think they're both virtually unsackable? It's an extremely grim prospect to contemplate two such unsuitable characters running the separate arms of the Club with zero accountability as long as they keep the lights on and just about keep our noses above water on the pitch.

Yep, I think these two only go if they decide to go themselves.

Feet under carpet 

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I get that but I think it just shows the lunacy of GB being accountable (to Venkys) for our transfer dealings when he has zero control over even the ‘self generated’ aspect of the playing side budget. 

 

 

Given the manager has no set achievement goals,  I'd have at a guess no does GB, bar generate young players from the academy , so we are self sustainable 

22 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

 

The fact he spent 2 hours saying we would be better without GB, and making out things initiated from before his time are personal triumphs certainly sounds like an agenda to me. I also don't trust very much that Swag says, so I'll be taking his claims with a truck of salt.

Logic tells me what's happening here is Swag feels threatened by the DOF model and is hoping to undermine it by spreading discontent towards GB. Wouldn't be surprised if he was happy about the O'Brien debacle that was in part caused by his attending a game instead of negotiations.

TBH, I don't think I have much interest meeting again. He wanted another meeting this month, but right now if any of them said it was sunny outside , I'd grab my umbrella and rain coat.

Its very much a pointless exercise, I.got the answers which I asked, recorded them on here (all meetings to date). What people take from the answers is up to them.

I will always be transparent.

I think the lot of them should go, all the way to the owners, they are holding the club back and right now I can't forsee a change in the pattern.

I'm currently working with an investigative journalist in India who is trying to get more insight into the sorry mess out there.  Hopefully this may get an article written in their backyard, but who knows 

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Regarding the bit I’ve emboldened.

Are you saying  GB could raise money (through player sales) to buy new players just for it to be taken away to ‘offset’ losses incurred on things for which SW is responsible?

 

It's the same at all clubs,  we have operating cost which are not met by other revenue streams.

Don't matter which is sat in the seat, bills still need to be paid

I think there will be a sale (Travis wages alone won't fund loan fees and wages, and those figures already gone to the courts).

I think Carter is the likely sale (despite us needing CBs) , and have heard murmurings of us wanting £12 million for him (I personally don't see £3 million in him) 

So it's a case of stacking replacements over the next week before pressing the trigger , because a sale if one happens I'd expect to be first half of the window (just my opinion)

2 minutes ago, bigbrandjohn said:

I think if Ipswich offered silly money it would seal their promotion spot. 

Can't disagree we need money , they want promotion. I think lots be sniffing now to see if they can grab him, and with his age. I'm sure he would jump at the chance to try and get in the prem

8 minutes ago, Mike E said:

‘Well he would say that wouldn’t he?’

You've probably met him more than me, so be a better judge of what he is likely to say

Match feed was going off topic.

Just to clear up a few things which maybe lost in translation or being read or written confusingly .

Blackburn rovers has many parts and for 19 days a season  Ewood Park is used to host first team fixtures for the football team.

However Ewood in itself is part of a wider business which operates throughout the whole year and to be honest most of its business operations are non football related.  This is firmly the remit of SW. Operating the business , being accountable for the P & L , Marketing , sponsorship,  Ticketing , Security, up keep of the ground, community engagement, business plans, business ventures (un football related) . He is accountable aa a company director to abide by all company/financial regulations and sign off accounts.

Away from that believe it or not there is another side of the business which is playing side, academy, results etc. This falls under GB , as pointed out by himself in numerous interviews. He is accountable to the owners and has full responsibility.

The cross over is of course the money, and how much the SW side can generate as a business or extract from the owners to provide for GB. 

The compromise comes when there is no money and GB had a decision to make on who he can sell to generate his own, noting any losses incurred by the business side would need to be fed too.

The two have clearly different remits.

SWs is the balance sheet.

GB is the playing side and results 

Given no funds are forthcoming GBs side is becoming impossible. We can link this back to SW who has not exactly put bums on seats to generate or be self sufficient.

However SW would argue not only are we operating within FFP, he is ensuring we don't over commit with irresponsible spending on wages or transfer fees which leaves us foul of FFP or worse unable to operate or pay bills.

When this was one Party I.e just a CEO fully accountable for the lot, then it was much easier to go gunning for the CEO regarding results, now all we can gun for him is bums on seats and commercial activity unrelated to the playing side.  The pressure on him or the opportunity to remove him was 2,3,4 and so on years ago.

This new model means anything football related the buck stops with the DOF, who is answerable only to the owners.

So in terms of picking your battles, although there is a link from a financial perspective, that's where it ends as both parties have carte blanche to operate how they see fit the things they are responsible for.

I strongly believe had Swag asked for £15 million in each of the last two January  transfer windows, it would of been granted. He didn't because he didn't want to gamble with the clubs future had promotion failed. 

Ultimately we've downgraded year upon year to keep afloat,  playing it safe. In business terms you could say he has acted responsibly. This wouldn't be the popular view, as we all want to to see success, but the spin of the coin don't always end in success and had we spent beyond our means and failed , then we would be in a pretty damning position.

A more cavalier and ambitious CEO would of thrown the kitchen sink at promotion, some have already done so and succeeded, Bournemouth being one of them. Though others have failed by doing so.

I genuinely feel we have missed the boat and are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. The lack of proper investment into the playing side bar the academy has us in a precarious position. 

I can't see us reaching the heights of the time before venkys, as we've done a fantastic job of handicapping ourselves on all fronts.

1 minute ago, AllRoverAsia said:

So, Maggott has no responsibilities on the football side, nor experience in actual football matters, but as CEO is ok with bad mouthing those who do whilst claiming credit for signings.

Way to go, sailing happy. What a leader.

The day I believe a word uttered by Maggott is the day I seek help from a mental health carer.

As in my previous post , I don't believe he has bad mouthed a single person, it's not really his style, he has answered difficult questions posed.

19 minutes ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

I'm very skeptical about some of SW's claims regarding GB as told by GM. 

Parts of the new model make sense and are in place at pretty much every successful club. Wether we have the money to do it and if GB can make more good moves than bad the jury is well and truly out. SW (or the previous model where he had more power) taking credit for most of the decent signings we've made comes across as snide and jealous. Some if it may be true but GB still pulled the trigger on those deals and seems to have been said to discredit GB, whose record without some of those slips well into the negative. 

Let's not forget the way the previous system worked. Players collected at random with little short or long term thought. Assetts allowed to walk out the door for nothing. A uncritical relationship between the ceo and the manager. We weren't very well run before and recruitment was similarly hit and miss, which happens when you don't have as much money to play with!!!

I don't genuinely think he has taken a swipe at GB. He has acknowledged that GB has an impossible job with zero to spend. We've seen just this week loaning a captain out to free up wages to try and bring bodies in, I'm sure GB would rather Travis was in the building.

Stating that we've recruited on the back of 12-18 months research for certain signings is hardly a kick at GB?

I guess it's how you want to read into things.

In terms of the boards performance during its tenure, its been in the main mediocre and I don't think that's disputed here bar by SW and a handful of others 

4 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Ah okay. Pretty dysfunctional though that he doesnt rate GB, and I imagine the feeling is mutual.

How engaged in Mr Desai? Daily/weekly interaction or just dips in every few months?

 

Daily as is Babu's (never missed a board meeting , SWs relationship is strong there and had this confirmed from both sides.

Mr D had reiterated daily and gone to every length to find ways of getting money into the club, their commitment to this (not popular i know) is unwaveredm

I think it be harsh to say he don't rate GB (he has an impossible job with no money).

The model , its fair to say is questionable.

I would say 100% though that lack of investment previously can be chucked firmly at Swags door, he just wants to balance books and has no intention of advising let's throw some cash at this,  which he could of in previous seasons when we was on a promotion push

2 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Ah, so we've got a CEO who does not want a DOF and is briefing against him??

Thats mad. Is it true GB brought in JDT? As he made it sound that way?

The football accountabilities are no longer SWs 

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

Last question (I promise!)

Did you ask why Mr Desai wanted to change to this way of doing things?

They get third party advice, always have.

They see this model works at other clubs. 

They think a football club needs departments , not micro management of each detail , hence different direct reports to them and different accountabilities.

The CEO in their model is by title only and not responsible for the playing side 

8 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Do you know/did you ask who decided to change to the DoF model?

(Sorry for all the questions!)

Mr Desai, who in the main is making most of the decisions 

14 minutes ago, Devon Rover said:

Firstly, good result today. Another defensive horror show.

 

Secondly, have I missed something? Waggott is explicitly dissing his DoF "colleague" to members of the public, now?!?!

I think its more of what you ask, how you ask it, and how you line the dominoes up.

I've made it perfectly clear from day dot to him, I don't do secret hand shakes or come for a balloon or picture. My time is precious and I will report exactly what's said.

We ain't playing games here, it's our football club and he might not like the questions,  but he is gonna get them anyway and be probed , probed again until he gives a tangible answer.

If I was rating him against the others who came before , I'd put him behind Shaw in terms of progress. I strongly believe he is holding the club back and I've seen zero evidence in the meetings to date that we can improve without a wholesale board change.

He has this strategy that he wants to be everyone's friend. It's a terrible recipe for change as the reality is, he holds all the strings and the more he keeps people quiet the longer progress won't be forthcoming 

10 minutes ago, Blow-in said:

Which is the point he made, that GB has to go or that the players had been scouted before GB's arrival?

That recruitment has been a shambles and at times "embarrassing" (referring to last January). His words not mine.

Hyam, Sammy, Brittain our long standing relationship with Brighton is the old regime, way of doing things and 12/18 months of solid scouting/data provided by the departing old guard.

The model had always been making a profit and it was acknowledged the likes of Armstrong etc were bought with that in mind.

Now through circumstances of time,  finance and change, its just not worked for one reason or another and its those coming though our ranks now seen as the next cheque rather than smart recruitment which was in place for the previous 5 years.

I don't believe there is some sort of power struggle, I do believe we are taking more risk than we've ever done, hence more misses than hits to date (which in fairness is dictated somewhat by being potless)

Sadly football is run "live" daily , time is one thing that no one gets.

GB has no money to work with, which makes it difficult to be critical.

Fault lies at the door of the owners and board