Herbie6590

2 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

You’re saying Waggott doesn’t make any  decisions unilaterally that impact the club or its supporters? 

I think he takes his orders from Pune/Suhail & carries them out accordingly within what I suspect are fairly tight constraints. e.g. I have heard tale that any prospective purchase of £5k or more needed sign off from India so I understand he doesn’t have that much of substance upon which he can unilaterally decide, certainly not like you would expect of a CEO of a “more traditionally run” business. 
Now, whether he pushes back robustly to his bosses to challenge their constraints or just goes along with what they demand is a different argument.
The £300k salary & associated benefits is quite the lever to ensuring compliant behaviour IMO.

edit: for clarity - I should also add, if Waggott were removed, I firmly believe our position would remain largely unchanged as the successor would be recruited to follow orders similarly hence that observation 🤷‍♂️

3 hours ago, simongarnerisgod said:

we signed maradonas son as well😄

Well…considered it…this is a great read…

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/when-diego-maradona-junior-came-to-dunfermline-1414304

17 minutes ago, windymiller7 said:

Just looked it up & Donnarumma's out of contract and only has a transfer value of £300k! We should be all over that!

 

 

 

 

(Ok, it's not THAT Donnarumma, it's his older, shitter, brother, but I'm sure if you post on FB without his first name, you'll get a few bites! 😂)

We signed Santa Cruz’s younger brother once…so there is a precedent for this sort of nefarious activity 😁

14 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I appreciate the sacrifices made by folk like @glen9mullan @Mike Graham @Miller11 and all the others I am missing out.

This is work that needs to be done and any of those criticising from the sidelines should get involved and invoke the change they want to see. Obviously not everyone is in the position to be able to do the same things as those mentioned above for various reasons. I am doing what little I can from my position as I believe this is important.

That being said, I think we're at a point now where any meeting that is not attended by Suhail is completely pointless as Waggott is merely repeating what he's been told to when it comes to the court case etc. If Suhail is not present then the Trust members should be walking out and publicly stating the club's unwillingness to co-operate with the Supporters Trust.

I would also like to see a referendum of some sort carried out by the Trust with it's members in regard to a vote of "no confidence" in the owners and the club senior management. Naturally the time for this should be after the 20th August court hearing. 

 

For those interested, I have posted the incomplete version of the timeline of the last few years over in the HMRC thread.

Spot on…no Suhail, no point. Waggott is & always has been Venky’s bullet-proof vest. He’s carried out his instructions from Pune admirably. Our issue is with the owners & Suhail is their eyes & ears. 

30 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

To put into context, these pair were playing in a Coyle side so of course they looked rotten.

Just like Sam Gallagher did…oh hang on…😉

For those championing Daniel Iversen…

Last day today…👍

9 minutes ago, OsloRover said:

We paid a fee, unbelievable

Did we press Send on internet banking?

I’m sure the music’s good but those shirts are sensational…👍

51 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

So not a Spielberg special!?

We’re a summer late for a doom-laden Oppenheimer spoof sadly…

8 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

He’s also saying club will confirm Ohashi and Gueye today.  I wonder what the announcement vids will be like this year? They’ve had plenty of time to think about them!!

Low budget. 

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

That’s why I asked the question.

I found an article which says buying players for your academy is exempt but income from selling an academy player is included. 

What I don’t know is whether this person knows this or has just interpreted the rules this way.

I had a quick skim of the rules but nothing jumped out one way or the other.

 

If the income wasn’t allowed, it would make selling academy products like eg Cole Palmer irrelevant so that’s why I believe income is allowed, expenses are deducted 👍

8 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Won’t any fee they pay be FFP exempt (youth development)?

Youth development costs are removed from FFP calculations but this is income…? 🤔

9 hours ago, Mike E said:

A good one too. No measure, purely my reading of membership emails/questions from my time as membership officer vs my modding of this forum.

When we last did a proper consultation meeting, representatives of this forum asked more direct and pressing questions than myself or John (then Chair) did in representing our members.

Though I must say I personally preferred the questions asked by BRFCS members.

I’d say that (again, my reading of the room) the WATR membership doesn’t approve of Venkys ownership any more than the average BRFCS member, BUT the general consensus of WATR membership is to try and influence things for the positive before going full nuclear.

Until getting my new job, I would personally support going full nuclear. With my new role I would impartially observe from the sidelines with a wry smile on my face when Venkys finally leave.

Thanks Mike - I was meaning more about the demographics, especially age & gender. I suspect the membership of WATR & BRFCS are quite similar but I thought you’d uncovered a way of demonstrating it 😉I’ve seen this “WATR are more representative” line peddled a few times.

interestingly, if you were a polling company, to get a statistically significant sample size of Rovers fans to a confidence level of 95% you wouldn’t need to poll that many people. If you assume a home crowd of 15,000, then a poll of just 375 would give you that (with a 5%  margin of error).

I would therefore argue that with over a thousand active forum accounts, BRFCS is actually quite representative. Although I do accept that folks who sign up to the Forum are motivated supporters as opposed to being randomly selected.

But the same observation can be made of WATR.

3 hours ago, Mike E said:

.

Remember that WATR represent a wider scope of fans than is on BRFCS.

Measured how Mike? Genuine question BTW.

5 minutes ago, Ricky said:

 

I do sometimes wonder if you’re paid to post by admin. Before you came on and started spouting your usual nonsense this morning there had been about 3 posts, since then there have been about 30. Mainly calling you out on the absolute nonsense you seem to believe .

“Chaps…they’re onto us…” 😆

The build up to the Dingle Derby starts here…

12 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Have you considered having a militant wing?  😁

We Are The Ravers 

@Miller11 Duncan - how many paid up members does WATR have, what is the trend ?

If your mandate is dictated only by extant members (understandably in fairness), but membership isn’t growing significantly/quickly - (especially in current circumstances) perhaps the only way to grow your membership *is* to change your stance? 
 

This is akin to a political party - do you exist to serve only your current members or do you endorse/adopt policies that are more popular - albeit not with your current membership? 🤷‍♂️

1 minute ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Tonight you are being a WUM / Troll and should be banned 🤣😘

I agree…😆

3 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Now’s not the time for historical references, Herbie 😅

I know that now 😉

5 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Are you interpreting what Nixon has said, or hinting at something that you know?

9 minutes ago, roversinmyblood said:

Is that a statement regarding transfers or the manager?

56 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

‘Escalated a bit’ isn’t what you would say if a situation has improved.

The situation has developed …not necessarily in our favour…