On 14/05/2021 at 16:57, RevidgeBlue said:

Yes. I understand the Trust do have a problem in voicing opposition in that I understand that their ultimate aim is a seat on the Board.

They do have to nail their colours to the mast though, are they committed to a seat on the Board for appearances sake and to the exclusion of all else, I.e. a seat on the Board even if it be alongside the present incumbents or are they genuinely committed to change and wanting the Club to improve?

The silence from the Trust on the Brockhall issue was absolutely deafening and I genuinely feel this latest contribution along the lines of "The last ten years haven't been good enough but never mind,  just crack on as before lads and we'll maintain a watching brief" is pretty unhelpful in the overall scheme of things.

Edit: For the sake of clarification by "present incumbents" I mean Waggot/Cheston/Mowbray/Venus etc

In fairness, the Trust had a Zoom meeting with Steve Waggott which was fed back in the form of a newsletter several weeks ago.

In the meeting itself (albeit not publicly) it got heated enough that Waggott knew exactly what we Trust board members all personally thought; that the Brockhall scheme had no basis and was complete rubbish.

However, in between the meeting and the related newsletter, RB’s fantastic open letter said everything that we simply weren't allowed to without directly consulting over 2000 members and subscribers.

We also engaged with Brockhall residents (at their request) to put them in touch with knowledgeable people to assist in pushing back against the plans. This was within a couple days of the story breaking on here and around a week before the zoom meeting.

In truth, we have to operate publicly in a way that we know has the backing of the majority of our members, or else we couldn't claim to be representative. However, where members privately request our help, we do what we can (all completely voluntarily).

We felt that the above was more useful to the cause as only the Brockhall residents could realistically challenge the plans.

Given that wider public opinion was largely divided on this issue, we couldn't commit to outright criticism in public.

This open letter came about because opposition to the ESL is unanimous, and therefore something we can confidently use (without consulting members) to try and open dialogue with the owners.

41 minutes ago, PeteJD13 said:

Following on from the news that the Club are planning to sell the Senior Training Centre at Brockhall, the Rovers Trust issued a press release asking the Club for answers to what we believed were fair and relevant questions relating to this matter. Last week the Trust had an online meeting with Rovers’ CEO, Steve Waggott, who kindly gave the Trust some time for it to provide responses. The Trust is happy to share these with its Members now.

This has been transcribed from the video recording of the meeting, which lasted around an hour. Anything in quotes and italics is an accurate representation of the replies given. There was a reasonable amount of other discussion and repetition in the meeting and this has not been included for clarity and relevance. The Trust agreed with Steve that any commercially sensitive information would be kept confidential and has been done so.

Is the Club aware of legal Covenants placed by the Walker Trust when the sale of the Club was completed, preventing the land being used for housing?

“In 2018/19 TM started training at the LTC, using pitch five, as it was a more discreet site and we preferred to work from the bottom site for the first team. All the facilities at the top site were good enough for the Academy, for the Cat One status as well.

We thought we would put a coaching plan together for an integrated model that would see the Academy, Development Squad, Under-23s and First Team all sit together in the same building. Having them all together is something we feel is really useful, especially with the pressure of Brexit on the way.

I’ve got our Legal Team to interrogate the different transfer sale documents; there were negative Covenants on the original lower site and you couldn’t build the actual training facilities club house more than 9300 square feet but this fell away seven years after the sale took place in 1993 (in September 2000).

On the upper site, with all our research, it hasn’t shown up any negative Covenants to stop a residential project proposal being carried out on the site.”

Why was the process begun before the proposal was outlined to the supporters? Was this a result of social media speculation?

ANSWER CONFIDENTIAL

Who is being asked to carry out the initial consulting work?

Peacock and Smith (Planning)
https://www.peacockandsmith.co.uk/

BE1 For Design Work
https://be1architects.co.uk/

Camargue for PR
https://camargue.uk/#
 
What is the likely cost of the work?

“Unknown, but 100% of the sale of the land, should it happen, will go towards the new facility. If more is needed, then the Owners may have to contribute.”

Will this affect the transfer budget?

“No”.

Does this affect the Academy Category One status?

“There’s a few challenges if the project gets the green light; pitch wise we think we can program the pitches, it’s the building of the actual Training Centre itself where we have to have classrooms, gyms and everything else that can integrate into the model which will be a challenge in design; again without spending too much cost on the design. The restrictions on the First Team are imposed by the Club, whereas the Academy’s is imposed by an external body, the Premier League.

This whole move is predicated by Brexit, the issues of recruitment in Europe and abroad now, a points system, and UK players and local players become a premium....it’s such a competitive market we need to grow our own talentand the facilities are…
[INTERUPTED BY QUESTION-If it aint broke why fix it?]-Two things, the facilities are nearly 30 years old they are tired, they are good don’t get me wrong,  they service the basic needs of what we want. The split site, even though we bring the U18s and U23 up, the Manager would work better if we can see all the players together on nearby pitches.

[QUESTION-How can two separate centres be better than one merged centre?]It’s all about the integration model, how we utilise a much more modern, state of the art facility for all teams to come together then to program the use of the pitches. The hours are flexible now…. with Sky TV etc...and we have got to fulfil the Cat One requirements which is absolutely pivotal to this.”

[QUESTION Is this not an asset stripping process and downgrading of the Academy status?]
 In the pre-planning process request we didn’t have to link the two, I insisted that they were. So that one can’t happen without the other, I don’t want to be accused of asset stripping that’s not what I`m about, I am about trying to push the club forwards. Category One is absolutely essential to this Club, it costs the club £1.9m a year to maintain, with a top up grant for £1.2m -it’s a £3m operation. Because of Brexit and COVID-19 situations, it’s crystalized this.

Part of the development includes matching a new pitch at Ewood (a stitch pitch) to the new ones at the training centres.

This all about player development.

I can categorically state that Venky’s have not asked us to raise money by selling the land for development.”

Where did the decision to merge the centre come from, e.g. players, coaching staff, Ewood management, Venky’s?

“From the Club.”[Answered partly in the last section also].

What is the plan should the Council reject the planning permission?

“The status quo will remain. We may have another look at taking the First Team down the hill and switching the sites and look at more and more integration of the operation side of things.”

Are there any FFP implications?

“We are currently compliant.”[Longer answer subject to confidentiality].
 

---

The Scoping Document for the Brockhall development (not Planning Permission) is due to be lodged with Ribble Valley BC on Thursday 11^th March.

The KEY role of the Rovers Trust is to preserve the Assets, Status and Heritage of OUR Club. Whilst this does not mean outright opposition to any ‘progress’ it does mean vigilance that the Club does not take a wrong turn, especially after a very difficult decade.

You will want to express your opinions on this:

• To chair@roverstrust.co.uk
• If you are a Ribble Valley resident (and 148 of our members are) to Nigel Evans MP and/or your Councillor
• Brockhall Residents have set up an Action Group
• Any Trust members can write to Ribble Valley BC Chief Executive, Marshal Scott about this bid via Marshal.Scott@ribblevalley.co.uk

Volume counts on this!

Non-Members of the Trust or lapsed Members, may wish to join the Trust via www.roverstrust.com. As a Community Benefit Society we have to charge a membership fee. No official of the Trust takes any fees.  AGM is planned for late-June 21.

JM/OJ March 21

Saved me a job there, thank you!

On 14/08/2020 at 08:06, Stuart said:

What is happening to Wigan, nearly happened to Bolton and happened to Bury is exactly why we need to keep the Rovers Trust going.

The big fear is of course elimination from the EFL but the bigger fear is not even being able to start again in non-league.

Thanks again Venkys.

You may find our latest newsletter interesting reading, as it shares your sentiments:

Notice of AGM 2020:
The contents (and the optimism level) of this Newsletter has changed several times! After postponement due to the ongoing Covid-19 situation, the Trust will hold its AGM on Thursday October 8th. It's our hope by then at least Season-Ticket holders will be attending matches.

At the AGM we seek new Members of the Board. One of our longest serving Board members, Professor Michael Doherty, has reluctantly resigned his Board post due to the Covid-19 pressures of running a Law Department. He will still be available if the worst happens to the Club (see his article to be sent later). We at Rovers Trust would like to thank Professor Doherty for his service to Rovers Trust and its members.

One other Board Member, Mr. David Riding, is due to seek re-election. Board Members serve for 2 years and the number of elected Board Members allows us to seek co-opted Board members in the same numbers. So please consider putting yourself forward for election–we have a lot to do!

All that is required is that you must be a Rovers Trust Member, be nominated by another Rovers Trust Member, and be seconded by a third Rovers Trust Member.

Any nominations should be directed to our Secretary, Michael Ellison via his email: michael91ellison@hotmail.com

or if you want to discuss anything at all, contact the Chair, John Murray on 0044-7880507080, or email chair@roverstrust.co.uk


June Newsletter Response:
The June Newsletter asked a number of questions –thanks to all those who responded.

SEASON TICKETS:
95% sought no refund (out of 52 responses) although 10% mentioned incentives for next season.

NEXT SEASON:
Some 42 respondents were keen to come back as soon as possible.

VENKYS OWNERSHIP:
Only 1 Member who replied was NOT happy for a rapprochement with Venkys.

SALARY CAP:
Including Twitter responses, some 118 supporters were in favour for each Division.
- Note: Since the time of writing, clubs in Leagues 1+2 have recently voted in favour of Salary Caps. This shows there is appetite for change even at Board level within Football Clubs. Rovers Trust, alongside a multitude of Supporters Trusts, have helped in this regard by ensure fans' views are heard at Board level.

Conclusion:
If you wondered about the Rovers Trust position on EFL rules and policies to maintain the integrity of the EFL (and PL), here is a good summary recently put together by retiring Board member, Michael Doherty:

'For Rovers supporters the events at Wigan, 20-odd miles down the road, over the last few months will have been both reassuringly familiar and depressingly chilling. The distant owners with a complex corporate network around the ownership arrangements – check. The obscure former footballer appointed as a ‘football consultant’ – check. The agents and loans and interest payments all happening right in the line of sight of a football organisation that has shown no genuine interest in protecting its clubs – check, check, check.

Blackburn Rovers has suffered some indignities over the last decade, but we have been spared the near-death blow that fell on Bury and the tide of sanctions, points deductions, squad culls and (hopefully) in-depth investigations that have started to roll over Wigan Athletic. Memories are both very long and very short in football – who remembers Wigan profiting from Bolton Wanderers financial distress by buying their principal training ground as long ago as 2016? The current model of ownership and regulation in the EFL keeps disaster lurking just over the horizon for the majority of its clubs.

Those were not particularly cheery paragraphs, were they? More direct and useful questions are;

• What can Rovers supporters do to reduce the risk of similar existential threats to the continuance of the club that has been at the heart of our community for 145 years? Look at what has saved clubs facing similar threats – not the Government, not the FA, not the EFL. It had been supporters who have created or, more effectively, drawn on existing organisational structures to save their clubs – see Wimbledon, Bury, Cambridge, Portsmouth, Swansea etc etc etc for examples.

• What can Rovers supporters do to avoid the need for this sort of crisis-management, heart-in-the-mouth, sleepless-night approach to supporters saving their clubs? It cannot lie in individual action. It can only lie in collective action from a legitimate supporters’ organisation that can push for real change. The Rovers Trust is a member of the Football Supporters Association. It is sitting down across tables with Government ministers, FA, EFL etc putting forward specific demands to protect clubs as not ‘ordinary busineses’ but as expressions of community identity. This involves removing conflicts of interest, professionalising the regulatory abilities of football authorities and introducing greater financial responsibility and transparency.

Rovers Trust can be a part of that conversation via the FSA and you can be a voice in this debate because you are a Member of the Trust.'

Keep the faith, get involved and encourage others to join via www.roverstrust.co.uk.
John Murray, Chair of Trust

Rovers Trust has worked tirelessly over the last 8 years to persuade the FA, Premier League and English Football League in order to improve the safeguarding of the organisation and control of our Football Clubs.

The Trust has decided to embrace a new medium and take the fight to the theatre to show the anxiety and devastation of being a true fan in these circumstances. Blackburn Rovers was an original founding member of the football league; therefore, the Rovers' Trust should also lead from the front and stage this production, not just for Rovers' fans, but also for the fans of clubs like Blackpool, Coventry, Wimbledon and Charlton etc. We feel it is time that the football authorities were made to sit up and take notice. We urge you to support this play and plight, providing a platform for the voice's of true fans to be heard in an exciting and revolutionary way.

A sum of £9,000 is required to make this play happen; a national appeal which is supported by Henry Winter, one of the few prominent journalists to lend his support to football fans who feel a lost connection with their club.

https://mobile.twitter.com/henrywinter/status/1092798519243689986

This is not a mere protest play. It’s a story about one fan’s feeling of depression and helplessness when there is a loss of localism, and the connection with his club begins to slip away. I’m sure we all know how that has felt at some point in the last 8 years, and we hope fans of other clubs who have had similar experiences of ownership to ours will support this message. If you wish to support this play, you can view the appeal brochure and donation pages from this link:

https://www.roverstrust.com/2019/01/17/heart-scarf-soul-a-play-starring-a-blackburn-rovers-fan/

Please feel free to share far and wide!