Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2020 23:32:49 GMT
I know nothing of club politics but I see a club being torn apart as it moves towards administration with mounting debts and turmoil both on and off the field. The threat to the club is at the highest level since we moved out of Eastville.
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Jan 14, 2020 23:51:03 GMT
This is taken from a post discussing Ken and the SC a while ago... With regard to the community trust, in 2004, it seemed that our community department was about to fold, with no facilities worthy of the name being available, and no funding. Ken decided not to allow that to happen, as it would mean the sh** would have the whole of Bristol to themselves. So, he put a considerable sum of his own money into the scheme, and worked to get additional funding from other sources, and approached a number of schools in the area who between them raised more funds to start a revamped community trust with funding of about £35k. To cut a long story short, this was in about 2008. Ken appointed Adam Tutton, and started promoting the Trust as hard as he could, with massive support from Adam. This year, the Trust has just achieved a turnover of over £500,000, has had fantastic success in helping people in all walks of life in the area, so much so, that in 2018, it won the Bristol Life Charity of the year award, and this year it has received the Gloucester County FA community award. It is presently short listed with Cardiff City and Sunderland for a national business award. The decision will be made later this month. Cardiff and Sunderland receive huge backing from their parent clubs, whilst ours doesn't. As for the gas girls, for some years now, funding was promised to get them back up and running. Nothing transpired, so in May, Ken apparently asked the supporters club for £2000, to get the required kit and a few footballs, to get the girls up and running. He said he would need the funding before August to get the project under way. The supporters club decided it was a worthy project, and immediately donated £5000, literally the following day. The gas girls advertised they were reforming, and on the first day, over 140 ladies and girls reported at the training site. There were only only a couple of staff to cope, and they were shocked at the response. But they were determined not to turn anyone away, and selections were made as to groups to represent the first team and the development squad, whilst most of the others were encouraged to play in in house matches if only to achieve higher levels of fitness, and generally creating an avenue for socialising and getting people out into the fresh air. Since then, the staff has increased to 10, including two who were present with Adam and Ken last night, who were brilliant representatives for the girls and consequently the club. They were all of the same opinion, and couldn't praise Ken enough for his efforts in creating the new gas girls network, and I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the efforts Ken, who is a retired guy has put in. He worked in the the education system for some years, and used his experiences to help create a classroom set up to run B-Tech courses, which apparently are the equivalent of a three A Level course. This I believe is in the West Stand. ................ I would add that I believe despite his position meaning he had complimentary passes for each game he still bought a season ticket every season. I think it has also be said that it was Ken who located the FM site, sought funding and set the wheels in motion to secure the future of BRFC. (Although I don’t know that bit for a fact so stand to be corrected). Regardless of what people think of the SC I think it’s sad that a man who clearly has the best interests of Bristol Rovers at heart and has given more time and energy to the cause than anybody else I’ve known of is pushed aside in this manner. Then I come on to gaschat to find people mocking his suit, haircut, lack of contact details etc. What a sh** fest that as fans we are more interested in his email address or suit than the above. Boggles the mind. In addition nobody seems to care that there is nobody of any description representing our views at board level and trying to do what’s best for the FC. Whether Ken was the best person at that or not, he was better than an empty chair. It also concerns me that there is no statement from the club. If they have a reason to remove our representative then let’s hear it. For me the trust with the current board has gone. Financially they have been pathetic and personally they have made some decisions that rob the soul from the club. I’m falling out of love with it fast. Anyway if people could be somewhat respectful to a man who has clearly done more for the club and community than any of us that would be great. I was Chairman of the Supporters Club from October 2004- September 2006 (I was on SC Committee from June of that year having previously served from 1997-2003). I have no recollection whatsoever of the following assertion made above "With regard to the community trust, in 2004, it seemed that our community department was about to fold, with no facilities worthy of the name being available, and no funding. Ken decided not to allow that to happen, as it would mean the sh** would have the whole of Bristol to themselves. So, he put a considerable sum of his own money into the scheme." At the time the Supporters Club was completely focused on getting much needed money into the Football Club, frankly the Community Department was not the priority. I am pretty sure I would have known about such a gesture, but maybe the writer has the timeline slightly wrong. During that period Jane Browne and Kim Stuckey were SC directors, when Jane Browne left the board she was replaced by David Brain as an Associate Director. Ken Masters was elected as Supporters Club director (having previously stood unsuccessfully twice) after Kim resigned. Just to be clear anyone being elected to those positions was elected to represent the Supporters Club, any additional responsibilities undertaken subsequently would have been in addition to that primary role. Mr Masters record is second to none with regard to his work with the Community Trust but that wasn't what he was elected to do. Regards John Malyckyj
|
|
|
Post by madgas on Jan 15, 2020 0:12:38 GMT
I have said KM through the years has done many a noble deed. I cant argue with any of it. But why stain that record? Why put all of that at risk and for what? The promise of a VPship or a place on the board with the club under new ownership? Was that the kind of legacy he wanted? To be remembered as some kind of hero? If so, that chase has just ended with a very public rebuke and a tarnish of his own reputation. You attack me like Im making all this up, but he really has done it to himself. Do you really think that they would ban him without any evidence or foundation? I think not. At a total guess I would say he has been working hard trying to do what he thinks is in the best interest of BRFC. The link to the other forum has a known poster claiming he believes they could easily be sued for their actions which would imply Wael and co haven’t necessarily acted correctly themselves. I don’t think the SC will sue and I’d wager that’s the gamble they took before issuing the ban. I'd be suprised if they could sue and win. At absolute worst- it's very unlikely that removal of a director is illegal. With regard to banning from the boxes- weve seen that many times At best a court might decide some refund could be due.
|
|
|
Post by james246 on Jan 15, 2020 0:32:30 GMT
What is the guy accused of ?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 15, 2020 6:22:48 GMT
At a total guess I would say he has been working hard trying to do what he thinks is in the best interest of BRFC. The link to the other forum has a known poster claiming he believes they could easily be sued for their actions which would imply Wael and co haven’t necessarily acted correctly themselves. I don’t think the SC will sue and I’d wager that’s the gamble they took before issuing the ban. I'd be suprised if they could sue and win. At absolute worst- it's very unlikely that removal of a director is illegal. With regard to banning from the boxes- weve seen that many times At best a court might decide some refund could be due. They would need a bloody goo case i suspect and i guess the solicitors will tell them so for a nice fee. Anyway nice to see the SC pipe up for once
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 15, 2020 6:33:38 GMT
What is the guy accused of ? No one knows but Wael's fanboys on here have decided he's guilty, regardless as to whether it may have been in the club's own long term interests.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2020 6:34:51 GMT
What is the guy accused of ? No one knows but Wael's fanboys on here have decided he's guilty, regardless as to whether it may have been in the club's own long term interests. Guessing nobody knows if he’s innocent either? The Wael haters have decided he is though and that Wael is the devil and ken is the saviour
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 15, 2020 6:35:10 GMT
There is no proof of anything! Ever!! Thats always been my issue. Until such time that anyone backs up any claims then what should the default position be? It's all such a sorry state of affairs. But G1981 and you as forum mods have taken it upon yourselves to cast aspirations on KM's character whilst not posting a shread of evidence to back them up, meanwhile you are making out Wael's doing a good job of running the club whilst we lose £m's every year and are producing football on the pitch the worse most of us have ever witnessed. What's going on when we lose a Chairman, a Club Legal Secretary and an FD all within the space of a few weeks, Wael's the captain of a ship seemingly sinking fast and all you and G1981 can do is gang up on an SC volunteer without saying what he's done which is apparently so wrong. Ken has said absolutely nothing about the way the club is run. This is a fact we can agree on, yes? Meanwhile those claiming to be close to the SC have done nothing but slag the owners off with no basis or foundation. Ken has either allowed them to continue this campaign under false pretences or he is the one leaking the information or is aware of the leaks. Ken was actually caught trying to leak negative information via a poster on here so that sort of puts him in a difficult situation then doesn't it. I have heard Ken outside the Clubhouse on a matchday slating WAQ to a group of people without any care or discretion about who may be listening. None of this stuff is behaviour fitting of Director in my opinion. I said recently in a reply to Swiss that KM, the SC and the ITKers have really dealt with this situation badly and have ruined their own credibility. I'm open to the possibility that they are right and that the club is doomed but frankly if people who conduct themselves this way are our saviours then in my humble opinion we are f**ked either way. Finally, I'm not making out Weal is doing a good job of running the club. I've consistently said I dont know, but with the absence of evidence I have to accept that despite rising costs/debt the family will continue to service the debt.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Jan 15, 2020 8:29:53 GMT
1) why post tonight when we have a big cup replay 2) does launching a legal campaign against the club count as supporting? So if the FC take money from the supporters in exchange for shares and representation and then deny them that representation that’s in the best interests of the supporters of the FC is it? Supporting the FC is nor the same as supporting the owners of the FC and there are countless examples of where the owners of FCs have destroyed or decimated FCs. A famous example being Brighton when the owner sold the Goldstone and left them homeless. Other clubs who have suffered badly because of unscrupulous or incompetent owners include tonight’s opponents Coventry, Blackpool, Bury, Charlton, and Hereford United RIP. In every case the supporters of those clubs who loved those clubs fought the owners some with good outcomes others not but the motives of the supporters in every case was the good health of the football club as an ongoing entity. The motives of the owners was often completely at odds with that. Why then do we have fans critical of our supporters club? I would 100% trust the motives of BRSC in the same way as the supporters groups from those other clubs. On the other hand the owners of our club have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy and non communicative. The owners of the FC are far more likely to act against the long term health of the FC than the supporters club are and if the FC have now banished the SC representation from the Boardroom, people would be wise to worry much more about the motives of the owners than the motives of their fellow supporters! Because reports suggest Ken has been a very naughty bloke. They’ve not blocked the supporters club, they’ve blocked Ken. If they sue the club over this, then that’s taking time, money and effort away from focusing on getting us a new stadium and investing in new playing staff that can help us progress .They’re behaving like a boys club, and they’re upset their boy isn’t in charge any more. Just send someone else in who’s agreeable. I’m a member of the supporters club but don’t see them doing anything to hold the club to account in the correct way. Spreading false information, and leaking true information, is not the way to do this. Carefully released press releases to our supporters and open dialogue with people paying into the club is. If the supporters club wants to progress Ken needs to be replaced with someone who can do this.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Jan 15, 2020 8:32:50 GMT
No one knows but Wael's fanboys on here have decided he's guilty, regardless as to whether it may have been in the club's own long term interests. Guessing nobody knows if he’s innocent either? The Wael haters have decided he is though and that Wael is the devil and ken is the saviour Not really. There’s ways about going about things and it’s clear that he wasn’t doing it in the right way.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 15, 2020 8:34:15 GMT
So if the FC take money from the supporters in exchange for shares and representation and then deny them that representation that’s in the best interests of the supporters of the FC is it? Supporting the FC is nor the same as supporting the owners of the FC and there are countless examples of where the owners of FCs have destroyed or decimated FCs. A famous example being Brighton when the owner sold the Goldstone and left them homeless. Other clubs who have suffered badly because of unscrupulous or incompetent owners include tonight’s opponents Coventry, Blackpool, Bury, Charlton, and Hereford United RIP. In every case the supporters of those clubs who loved those clubs fought the owners some with good outcomes others not but the motives of the supporters in every case was the good health of the football club as an ongoing entity. The motives of the owners was often completely at odds with that. Why then do we have fans critical of our supporters club? I would 100% trust the motives of BRSC in the same way as the supporters groups from those other clubs. On the other hand the owners of our club have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy and non communicative. The owners of the FC are far more likely to act against the long term health of the FC than the supporters club are and if the FC have now banished the SC representation from the Boardroom, people would be wise to worry much more about the motives of the owners than the motives of their fellow supporters! Because reports suggest Ken has been a very naughty bloke. They’ve not blocked the supporters club, they’ve blocked Ken. If they sue the club over this, then that’s taking time, money and effort away from focusing on getting us a new stadium and investing in new playing staff that can help us progress .They’re behaving like a boys club, and they’re upset their boy isn’t in charge any more. Just send someone else in who’s agreeable. I’m a member of the supporters club but don’t see them doing anything to hold the club to account in the correct way. Spreading false information, and leaking true information, is not the way to do this. Carefully released press releases to our supporters and open dialogue with people paying into the club is. If the supporters club wants to progress Ken needs to be replaced with someone who can do this. Good points. I would join and support a supporters club that did this. Our owners should be accountable to fans and thats what I see the role of the SC director being.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2020 8:38:08 GMT
So if the FC take money from the supporters in exchange for shares and representation and then deny them that representation that’s in the best interests of the supporters of the FC is it? Supporting the FC is nor the same as supporting the owners of the FC and there are countless examples of where the owners of FCs have destroyed or decimated FCs. A famous example being Brighton when the owner sold the Goldstone and left them homeless. Other clubs who have suffered badly because of unscrupulous or incompetent owners include tonight’s opponents Coventry, Blackpool, Bury, Charlton, and Hereford United RIP. In every case the supporters of those clubs who loved those clubs fought the owners some with good outcomes others not but the motives of the supporters in every case was the good health of the football club as an ongoing entity. The motives of the owners was often completely at odds with that. Why then do we have fans critical of our supporters club? I would 100% trust the motives of BRSC in the same way as the supporters groups from those other clubs. On the other hand the owners of our club have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy and non communicative. The owners of the FC are far more likely to act against the long term health of the FC than the supporters club are and if the FC have now banished the SC representation from the Boardroom, people would be wise to worry much more about the motives of the owners than the motives of their fellow supporters! Because reports suggest Ken has been a very naughty bloke. They’ve not blocked the supporters club, they’ve blocked Ken. If they sue the club over this, then that’s taking time, money and effort away from focusing on getting us a new stadium and investing in new playing staff that can help us progress .They’re behaving like a boys club, and they’re upset their boy isn’t in charge any more. Just send someone else in who’s agreeable. I’m a member of the supporters club but don’t see them doing anything to hold the club to account in the correct way. Spreading false information, and leaking true information, is not the way to do this. Carefully released press releases to our supporters and open dialogue with people paying into the club is. If the supporters club wants to progress Ken needs to be replaced with someone who can do this. g+e I am not a member of the sc and have not been since the 90s. Can I ask, as a member when was the last time you received some form of communication by way of an update? Maybe an email, with a simple update on what they are up to?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 15, 2020 8:38:49 GMT
So if the FC take money from the supporters in exchange for shares and representation and then deny them that representation that’s in the best interests of the supporters of the FC is it? Supporting the FC is nor the same as supporting the owners of the FC and there are countless examples of where the owners of FCs have destroyed or decimated FCs. A famous example being Brighton when the owner sold the Goldstone and left them homeless. Other clubs who have suffered badly because of unscrupulous or incompetent owners include tonight’s opponents Coventry, Blackpool, Bury, Charlton, and Hereford United RIP. In every case the supporters of those clubs who loved those clubs fought the owners some with good outcomes others not but the motives of the supporters in every case was the good health of the football club as an ongoing entity. The motives of the owners was often completely at odds with that. Why then do we have fans critical of our supporters club? I would 100% trust the motives of BRSC in the same way as the supporters groups from those other clubs. On the other hand the owners of our club have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy and non communicative. The owners of the FC are far more likely to act against the long term health of the FC than the supporters club are and if the FC have now banished the SC representation from the Boardroom, people would be wise to worry much more about the motives of the owners than the motives of their fellow supporters! Because reports suggest Ken has been a very naughty bloke. They’ve not blocked the supporters club, they’ve blocked Ken. If they sue the club over this, then that’s taking time, money and effort away from focusing on getting us a new stadium and investing in new playing staff that can help us progress .They’re behaving like a boys club, and they’re upset their boy isn’t in charge any more. Just send someone else in who’s agreeable. I’m a member of the supporters club but don’t see them doing anything to hold the club to account in the correct way. Spreading false information, and leaking true information, is not the way to do this. Carefully released press releases to our supporters and open dialogue with people paying into the club is. If the supporters club wants to progress Ken needs to be replaced with someone who can do this. What focus on a new stadium, as I understand the owners have no involvement in the FM site? Not sure Wael's going to have to set £10K's aside from the transfer budget just in case the SC solicitors ever write to the club! As far as KM leaking info the only text I'm aware of is one to a fellow late Gashead asking what would fans think if they knew Starnes was watching Plymouth rather than Rovers, that's hardly leaking classified info?
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 15, 2020 8:53:02 GMT
Because reports suggest Ken has been a very naughty bloke. They’ve not blocked the supporters club, they’ve blocked Ken. If they sue the club over this, then that’s taking time, money and effort away from focusing on getting us a new stadium and investing in new playing staff that can help us progress .They’re behaving like a boys club, and they’re upset their boy isn’t in charge any more. Just send someone else in who’s agreeable. I’m a member of the supporters club but don’t see them doing anything to hold the club to account in the correct way. Spreading false information, and leaking true information, is not the way to do this. Carefully released press releases to our supporters and open dialogue with people paying into the club is. If the supporters club wants to progress Ken needs to be replaced with someone who can do this. What focus on a new stadium, as I understand the owners have no involvement in the FM site? Not sure Wael's going to have to set £10K's aside from the transfer budget just in case the SC solicitors ever write to the club! As far as KM leaking info the only text I'm aware of is one to a fellow late Gashead asking what would fans think if they knew Starnes was watching Plymouth rather than Rovers, that's hardly leaking classified info? I agree, there is currently no evidence that he has leaked classified info, only the accusation or assumption that he may have done.
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Jan 15, 2020 9:01:49 GMT
What focus on a new stadium, as I understand the owners have no involvement in the FM site? Not sure Wael's going to have to set £10K's aside from the transfer budget just in case the SC solicitors ever write to the club! As far as KM leaking info the only text I'm aware of is one to a fellow late Gashead asking what would fans think if they knew Starnes was watching Plymouth rather than Rovers, that's hardly leaking classified info? I agree, there is currently no evidence that he has leaked classified info, only the accusation or assumption that he may have done. And as per usual the club have said absolutely nothing despite banning a director.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 15, 2020 9:03:48 GMT
I agree, there is currently no evidence that he has leaked classified info, only the accusation or assumption that he may have done. And as per usual the club have said absolutely nothing despite banning a director. Yep. water poor that.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 15, 2020 9:10:07 GMT
At a total guess I would say he has been working hard trying to do what he thinks is in the best interest of BRFC. The link to the other forum has a known poster claiming he believes they could easily be sued for their actions which would imply Wael and co haven’t necessarily acted correctly themselves. I don’t think the SC will sue and I’d wager that’s the gamble they took before issuing the ban. I'd be suprised if they could sue and win. At absolute worst- it's very unlikely that removal of a director is illegal. With regard to banning from the boxes- weve seen that many times At best a court might decide some refund could be due. Obviously not illegal, but breach of any contract between the FC and the SC / share scheme?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 15, 2020 9:20:41 GMT
I agree, there is currently no evidence that he has leaked classified info, only the accusation or assumption that he may have done. And as per usual the club have said absolutely nothing despite banning a director. To be fair he is the SC/Share Scheme representative.
I would suggest the onus is on the SC to tell us why he has been banned, but all they have said is they have consulted their solicitors and said he has done nothing wrong (Which insinuates he has been banned for doing something wrong)
The SC should be telling us why our representative has been banned and why they believe him to be innocent
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Jan 15, 2020 9:22:52 GMT
Regardless of who is in the right or wrong here, this is just another sad tale in the ever-increasing tales in our anthology of embarrassments. Our club seems to be a total shambles and I believe the lack of communication from the top on important issues is mostly to blame.
We need strong leadership to guide the whole club and unite it. The lack of communication has created a breeding ground for negativity, scaremongering and in-fighting between factions of Gasheads. It's absolutely ridiculous.
This is said without me having an ounce of bias towards any one director or party at the top of our club. I just want a professional, united club looking towards the future. Is that so hard to ask!?
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Jan 15, 2020 9:25:13 GMT
Because reports suggest Ken has been a very naughty bloke. They’ve not blocked the supporters club, they’ve blocked Ken. If they sue the club over this, then that’s taking time, money and effort away from focusing on getting us a new stadium and investing in new playing staff that can help us progress .They’re behaving like a boys club, and they’re upset their boy isn’t in charge any more. Just send someone else in who’s agreeable. I’m a member of the supporters club but don’t see them doing anything to hold the club to account in the correct way. Spreading false information, and leaking true information, is not the way to do this. Carefully released press releases to our supporters and open dialogue with people paying into the club is. If the supporters club wants to progress Ken needs to be replaced with someone who can do this. g+e I am not a member of the sc and have not been since the 90s. Can I ask, as a member when was the last time you received some form of communication by way of an update? Maybe an email, with a simple update on what they are up to? Think I may have had a solitary email since but don’t think I’ve had anything other than a printed newsletter in the first year back in League one Edit: e-newsletter in July which basically asked me to renew via the new website and an invitation to the AGM, which I didn’t bother with
|
|