Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,901
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jan 4, 2022 14:14:06 GMT
Agree with this. The BRSC Safeguarding Officer is responsible for safeguarding issues within the BRSC not the club. The Club Safeguarding Officer is responsible for safeguarding issues within the Club. Why then was this letter shared with the BRSC in the first place and why shared with various members of the BRSC? Issues of this type by their various natures should be kept within the people with the appropriate responsibility. Accusations can have far reaching consequences whether proven to be true or not. It is important for victims and accused that they are handled properly and sensitively. I wonder then why this letter has been seen by so many people..... Wouldn't it be the case that when Ken knew about a letter of concern he would have a responsibility to advise the SC? I would say not TWD. The safeguarding issue relates to a member of the FC not the BRSC. While he was a representative of the BRSC it is technically and legally (as I see it) nothing to do with them, purely a concern for the FC. If he didn't trust the Club Safeguarding Officer to keep it confidential he should have gone straight to the police as should the originator of the accusation if they didn't trust the Club Safeguarding Officer. The way it was gone about meant more people were involved than necessary which then again raises the question, why was it done the way it was done?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2022 14:29:49 GMT
Wouldn't it be the case that when Ken knew about a letter of concern he would have a responsibility to advise the SC? I would say not TWD. The safeguarding issue relates to a member of the FC not the BRSC. While he was a representative of the BRSC it is technically and legally (as I see it) nothing to do with them, purely a concern for the FC. If he didn't trust the Club Safeguarding Officer to keep it confidential he should have gone straight to the police as should the originator of the accusation if they didn't trust the Club Safeguarding Officer. The way it was gone about meant more people were involved than necessary which then again raises the question, why was it done the way it was done? Thanks for the reply. The reason that I asked was that I think the SC organise events / facilities for minors, maybe Junior pirates or something similar, so it may have been appropriate for the SC to be aware? I share what I read as being your concerns around how this was 'leaked'.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 4, 2022 16:07:39 GMT
I'm not going to publish what was sent to me or anything else I might have in my possession amd really, I dont think I need to say anymore. I'm sure you appreciate its difficult for me to write anything further. Like I said, I am only involved because I (a) heard a rumour and had to moderate one comment on GC because of that (b) asked if it was true (c) was told who started it (d) was given a copy of the correspondence (e) then challenged all of the untrue accusations and included this one in them. The real people to ask going forward from here and for the devils detail from here would be Wilf, KM, Hamer and Jim. From there you can ask John Harding, Roy Cowell and anyone else connected to that circle if they were complicit or in knowledge of any compaint, construction and sending of the letter. Any accusation that is made, if you know it has no foundation, verbal or written is henious IMO, if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with and there was no accusation from a parent in relation to any child. It gets even more confusing. What do you mean by "if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with" ? You have confirmed that in Sept/Oct 2019 a letter of concern was sent to the SC who forwarded it to the FC and the matter was dealt with correctly in accordance with protocol and was kept confidential as it should have been. So why, completely out of the blue, on May 4th 2020 in a topic headed "season tickets" did you reply to a question about your attacks on members of the SC executive with this. " I only targeted the ones that got caught telling horrific lies and making up baseless accusations. I’m glad I’m out and it was only done for a bit of sport really. If you have to accuse our owner of grooming children in his exec box at match days to try and and wrestle some form of control then that’s a club I’m happily not part of and would rather see destroyed than represent our fan base."If you remember I happened to be online at the time composing a reply to Axegas and when I saw your post immediately suggested you delete it but you decided not to.
Now you say you only got involved because you heard a rumour and admit there may never have been any heinous accusations made about Wael.
This thread has revealed there is no evidence or corroboration to back up your story about Masters and Hamer making heinous accusations about Wael and you are the only one who has ever said they did.
But there is plenty of evidence on both forums to show that you have made heinous accusations about Masters and Hamer.
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Jan 4, 2022 16:11:22 GMT
I'm not going to publish what was sent to me or anything else I might have in my possession amd really, I dont think I need to say anymore. I'm sure you appreciate its difficult for me to write anything further. Like I said, I am only involved because I (a) heard a rumour and had to moderate one comment on GC because of that (b) asked if it was true (c) was told who started it (d) was given a copy of the correspondence (e) then challenged all of the untrue accusations and included this one in them. The real people to ask going forward from here and for the devils detail from here would be Wilf, KM, Hamer and Jim. From there you can ask John Harding, Roy Cowell and anyone else connected to that circle if they were complicit or in knowledge of any compaint, construction and sending of the letter. Any accusation that is made, if you know it has no foundation, verbal or written is henious IMO, if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with and there was no accusation from a parent in relation to any child. It gets even more confusing. What do you mean by "if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with" ? You have confirmed that in Sept/Oct 2019 a letter of concern was sent to the SC who forwarded it to the FC and the matter was dealt with correctly in accordance with protocol and was kept confidential as it should have been. So why, completely out of the blue, on May 4th 2020 in a topic headed "season tickets" did you reply to a question about your attacks on members of the SC executive with this. " I only targeted the ones that got caught telling horrific lies and making up baseless accusations. I’m glad I’m out and it was only done for a bit of sport really. If you have to accuse our owner of grooming children in his exec box at match days to try and and wrestle some form of control then that’s a club I’m happily not part of and would rather see destroyed than represent our fan base."If you remember I happened to be online at the time composing a reply to Axegas and when I saw your post immediately suggested you delete it but you decided not to.
Now you say you only got involved because you heard a rumour and admit there may never have been any heinous accusations made about Wael.
This thread has revealed there is no evidence or corroboration to back up your story about Masters and Hamer making heinous accusations about Wael and you are the only one who has ever said they did.
But there is plenty of evidence on both forums to show that you have made heinous accusations about Masters and Hamer.
Strange that the SC never gave a reason for Masters being banned from the West Stand, and losing his place as fans' Director - I may be taking a leap in the dark, but it seemed to tie in with the timing of the above.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Jan 4, 2022 17:18:52 GMT
I'm not going to publish what was sent to me or anything else I might have in my possession amd really, I dont think I need to say anymore. I'm sure you appreciate its difficult for me to write anything further. Like I said, I am only involved because I (a) heard a rumour and had to moderate one comment on GC because of that (b) asked if it was true (c) was told who started it (d) was given a copy of the correspondence (e) then challenged all of the untrue accusations and included this one in them. The real people to ask going forward from here and for the devils detail from here would be Wilf, KM, Hamer and Jim. From there you can ask John Harding, Roy Cowell and anyone else connected to that circle if they were complicit or in knowledge of any compaint, construction and sending of the letter. Any accusation that is made, if you know it has no foundation, verbal or written is henious IMO, if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with and there was no accusation from a parent in relation to any child. It gets even more confusing. What do you mean by "if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with" ? You have confirmed that in Sept/Oct 2019 a letter of concern was sent to the SC who forwarded it to the FC and the matter was dealt with correctly in accordance with protocol and was kept confidential as it should have been. So why, completely out of the blue, on May 4th 2020 in a topic headed "season tickets" did you reply to a question about your attacks on members of the SC executive with this. " I only targeted the ones that got caught telling horrific lies and making up baseless accusations. I’m glad I’m out and it was only done for a bit of sport really. If you have to accuse our owner of grooming children in his exec box at match days to try and and wrestle some form of control then that’s a club I’m happily not part of and would rather see destroyed than represent our fan base."If you remember I happened to be online at the time composing a reply to Axegas and when I saw your post immediately suggested you delete it but you decided not to.
Now you say you only got involved because you heard a rumour and admit there may never have been any heinous accusations made about Wael.
This thread has revealed there is no evidence or corroboration to back up your story about Masters and Hamer making heinous accusations about Wael and you are the only one who has ever said they did.
But there is plenty of evidence on both forums to show that you have made heinous accusations about Masters and Hamer.
The rumour I mention of an allegation is a rumour until its confirmed. I've had it confirmed that there is more than a rumour of an accusation by the horses mouth at both ends. We have had it confirmed that there was something more than a rumour by the various staments released by the SC at the time. So it wasnt jusrt a rumour was it. Just because I havent disclosed any evidence on here, it doesnt mean there isnt any does it. It just means you havent been given any. If I was lying, why were there statements at the time regarding it and in JC closing epitah making mention to it and the threat of legal action? When I say there was no accusation, I meant there was no accusation from any one individual claiming they were being groomed or innappropriate behaivour had taken place towards them and neither was there any accusation from any parents saying their child had been. The accusation of something innappropriate had manifested itself from certain members connected to the SC and the executive and in full knowledge of this, the SC and those in support of the then administration were happy to run with it. If I was lying, why not come out and deny it outright? Afterall there is no evidence, right? Unfortunately, their electronic footprint, in quite a few areas has let them down and incrimated at least 2 of them if not 3. Its a slam dunk. One of them, felt the need to talk to me personally about it and someone else sent me even more cooberative evidence through the mail to my business anonymously. I still dont know who that is. Now I tried to speak to JC personally about this by sending him some of what I had been sent and asked him to meet me to explain why this had been done, why the individuals were allowed to do it, why the SC then ran with it. and also to exonerate or distance himself from it. But he didnt even acknowledge my email until he made his statement! I am not saying he is guilty by association, but If it was all untrue, if there wasnt any reason to suggest everyone had been complicit, why not meet me and publicly outcast the ones who had done it? So either I'm making it up or everything I have said is accurate. Like I said previously, what do I gain from all of this?
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Jan 4, 2022 17:29:09 GMT
It gets even more confusing. What do you mean by "if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with" ? You have confirmed that in Sept/Oct 2019 a letter of concern was sent to the SC who forwarded it to the FC and the matter was dealt with correctly in accordance with protocol and was kept confidential as it should have been. So why, completely out of the blue, on May 4th 2020 in a topic headed "season tickets" did you reply to a question about your attacks on members of the SC executive with this. " I only targeted the ones that got caught telling horrific lies and making up baseless accusations. I’m glad I’m out and it was only done for a bit of sport really. If you have to accuse our owner of grooming children in his exec box at match days to try and and wrestle some form of control then that’s a club I’m happily not part of and would rather see destroyed than represent our fan base."If you remember I happened to be online at the time composing a reply to Axegas and when I saw your post immediately suggested you delete it but you decided not to.
Now you say you only got involved because you heard a rumour and admit there may never have been any heinous accusations made about Wael.
This thread has revealed there is no evidence or corroboration to back up your story about Masters and Hamer making heinous accusations about Wael and you are the only one who has ever said they did.
But there is plenty of evidence on both forums to show that you have made heinous accusations about Masters and Hamer.
Strange that the SC never gave a reason for Masters being banned from the West Stand, and losing his place as fans' Director - I may be taking a leap in the dark, but it seemed to tie in with the timing of the above. I don't think you are taking a leap in the dark unless someone else can come up with a credible explanation for their prompt dismissals? Regards John Malyckyj
|
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 401
|
Post by bondigas on Jan 4, 2022 18:33:21 GMT
We have been told they were involved in bringing the Fruit Market stadium deal to Hani who wanted to sell the club. If they were taken out as they were then that cleared the way for the present owner to do what he likes including capitalising the debt. All we can all do is now wait and see what the eventual outcome will be, so far the signs are not encouraging.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,354
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 4, 2022 19:07:22 GMT
I'm not going to publish what was sent to me or anything else I might have in my possession amd really, I dont think I need to say anymore. I'm sure you appreciate its difficult for me to write anything further. Like I said, I am only involved because I (a) heard a rumour and had to moderate one comment on GC because of that (b) asked if it was true (c) was told who started it (d) was given a copy of the correspondence (e) then challenged all of the untrue accusations and included this one in them. The real people to ask going forward from here and for the devils detail from here would be Wilf, KM, Hamer and Jim. From there you can ask John Harding, Roy Cowell and anyone else connected to that circle if they were complicit or in knowledge of any compaint, construction and sending of the letter. Any accusation that is made, if you know it has no foundation, verbal or written is henious IMO, if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with and there was no accusation from a parent in relation to any child. It gets even more confusing. What do you mean by "if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with" ? You have confirmed that in Sept/Oct 2019 a letter of concern was sent to the SC who forwarded it to the FC and the matter was dealt with correctly in accordance with protocol and was kept confidential as it should have been. So why, completely out of the blue, on May 4th 2020 in a topic headed "season tickets" did you reply to a question about your attacks on members of the SC executive with this. " I only targeted the ones that got caught telling horrific lies and making up baseless accusations. I’m glad I’m out and it was only done for a bit of sport really. If you have to accuse our owner of grooming children in his exec box at match days to try and and wrestle some form of control then that’s a club I’m happily not part of and would rather see destroyed than represent our fan base."If you remember I happened to be online at the time composing a reply to Axegas and when I saw your post immediately suggested you delete it but you decided not to.
Now you say you only got involved because you heard a rumour and admit there may never have been any heinous accusations made about Wael.
This thread has revealed there is no evidence or corroboration to back up your story about Masters and Hamer making heinous accusations about Wael and you are the only one who has ever said they did.
But there is plenty of evidence on both forums to show that you have made heinous accusations about Masters and Hamer.
Wow.
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Jan 4, 2022 22:25:12 GMT
It gets even more confusing. What do you mean by "if indeed it was an actual accusation to begin with" ? You have confirmed that in Sept/Oct 2019 a letter of concern was sent to the SC who forwarded it to the FC and the matter was dealt with correctly in accordance with protocol and was kept confidential as it should have been. So why, completely out of the blue, on May 4th 2020 in a topic headed "season tickets" did you reply to a question about your attacks on members of the SC executive with this. " I only targeted the ones that got caught telling horrific lies and making up baseless accusations. I’m glad I’m out and it was only done for a bit of sport really. If you have to accuse our owner of grooming children in his exec box at match days to try and and wrestle some form of control then that’s a club I’m happily not part of and would rather see destroyed than represent our fan base."If you remember I happened to be online at the time composing a reply to Axegas and when I saw your post immediately suggested you delete it but you decided not to.
Now you say you only got involved because you heard a rumour and admit there may never have been any heinous accusations made about Wael.
This thread has revealed there is no evidence or corroboration to back up your story about Masters and Hamer making heinous accusations about Wael and you are the only one who has ever said they did.
But there is plenty of evidence on both forums to show that you have made heinous accusations about Masters and Hamer.
Wow. "Wow"..... To some supposition on the part of Swiss? I have never met ITB (to the best of my knowledge) nor Swiss, I have exchanged emails with the former when he was seeking to become a director and I gave him advice as I have to at least five different potential candidates. Other than that I don't know him from Adam. ITB has set out quite clearly a raft of damning evidence and I can understand why he will not reveal everything. No-one who actually knows what happened, and ITB has named those who are in a position to rebut, have come forward. Swiss wants to put him in the dock but he needs to take aim elsewhere, if none of what he says is true then let those who know, rebut. The silence in my view is most telling, and don't dare anyone suggest that they don't know what has been said. This series of events has nearly destroyed the reputation of one innocent man. Less importantly those events nearly destroyed Bristol Rovers Supporters Club, an institution that on many occasions propped up the Football Club, it certainly did within my period of activity between 1997 and 2006 with cash advances and other practical help. the thing is, if things go tits up as far as those who oppose the current owner seem to think it will, the Supporters Club (as it stands) is in no position to get the Football Club out of it as once was the case. The events of the past two years have hammered the nail into that coffin although as I have said before the Supporters Club failed to understand the impact of the new ownership model when the new owners took over the club. I am not holding my breath for a rebuttal given questions I have put to one of the individuals named by ITB about the membership of the Presidents Club over the best part of two years (and I know that some of you haven't seen the point of that pursuit). If they can't even be honest about the level of their membership.....well you know the rest.... Regards (with a very heavy heart) John Malyckyj
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 5, 2022 1:15:57 GMT
"Wow"..... To some supposition on the part of Swiss? I have never met ITB (to the best of my knowledge) nor Swiss, I have exchanged emails with the former when he was seeking to become a director and I gave him advice as I have to at least five different potential candidates. Other than that I don't know him from Adam. ITB has set out quite clearly a raft of damning evidence and I can understand why he will not reveal everything. No-one who actually knows what happened, and ITB has named those who are in a position to rebut, have come forward. Swiss wants to put him in the dock but he needs to take aim elsewhere, if none of what he says is true then let those who know, rebut. The silence in my view is most telling, and don't dare anyone suggest that they don't know what has been said. Regards (with a very heavy heart) John Malyckyj I have great respect for your opinion John but in this specific part of the case must disagree with you. Debate about whether the PC and SC are a bunch of old farts trying to undermine the owner or whether they are Gasheads with genuine concerns about the way the club is being run is absolutely fine. The taunting of knowall about the PC membership amuses many of us and I accept that the feeling of antipathy which you and others have towards the old guard may well be justified. But a claim that two former directors accused the club owner of child grooming is not, IMO, something that should be aired on a public forum which is why I tried to persuade ITB to withdraw the claim in May last year. When we heard the accusation that Masters and Hamer had drafted, proofed and finalised a letter I'm sure we all assumed it referred to the so called letter of concern and that this letter contained the accusation of child grooming. But when I asked ITB if this was the case he acknowledged that the letter he had seen only mentioned safeguarding issues. And when I then asked him where the heinous accusations about the owner were to be found he said he wouldn't publish anything. So we seem to be back where we were when Gasincider and knowall used to infuriate forum members by gleefully claiming that they knew something we didn't but they couldn't tell us how they knew it except that it was going to be very very good / very very bad for the football club. The difference is, IMO, unsubstantiated accusations about the finances and management of the club are far more palatable than unsubstantiated accusations which relate to child grooming. ITB is not revealing everything just as they didn't so I fail to understand why he is not being judged using the same standards as Gasincider and knowall were. The inference that Masters and Hamer must be guilty because they have not rebutted ITB's allegations has no foundation at all. Look at it this way. We are told that Wael was subject to heinous accusations. Whether he was or was not subject to those accusation it is a matter of fact that he maintained a dignified silence. Does this mean the alleged accusations were true ? Or does the dignified silence mean that he was not subject to any heinous accusations and therefore had nothing to rebut ? I feel uncomfortable even thinking about this subject and would much prefer we get back to tearing into each other over differing opinions about the PC and the SC but most of all about the FC.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,260
|
Post by oldie on Jan 5, 2022 2:20:13 GMT
"Wow"..... To some supposition on the part of Swiss? I have never met ITB (to the best of my knowledge) nor Swiss, I have exchanged emails with the former when he was seeking to become a director and I gave him advice as I have to at least five different potential candidates. Other than that I don't know him from Adam. ITB has set out quite clearly a raft of damning evidence and I can understand why he will not reveal everything. No-one who actually knows what happened, and ITB has named those who are in a position to rebut, have come forward. Swiss wants to put him in the dock but he needs to take aim elsewhere, if none of what he says is true then let those who know, rebut. The silence in my view is most telling, and don't dare anyone suggest that they don't know what has been said. Regards (with a very heavy heart) John Malyckyj I have great respect for your opinion John but in this specific part of the case must disagree with you. Debate about whether the PC and SC are a bunch of old farts trying to undermine the owner or whether they are Gasheads with genuine concerns about the way the club is being run is absolutely fine. The taunting of knowall about the PC membership amuses many of us and I accept that the feeling of antipathy which you and others have towards the old guard may well be justified. But a claim that two former directors accused the club owner of child grooming is not, IMO, something that should be aired on a public forum which is why I tried to persuade ITB to withdraw the claim in May last year. When we heard the accusation that Masters and Hamer had drafted, proofed and finalised a letter I'm sure we all assumed it referred to the so called letter of concern and that this letter contained the accusation of child grooming. But when I asked ITB if this was the case he acknowledged that the letter he had seen only mentioned safeguarding issues. And when I then asked him where the heinous accusations about the owner were to be found he said he wouldn't publish anything. So we seem to be back where we were when Gasincider and knowall used to infuriate forum members by gleefully claiming that they knew something we didn't but they couldn't tell us how they knew it except that it was going to be very very good / very very bad for the football club. The difference is, IMO, unsubstantiated accusations about the finances and management of the club are far more palatable than unsubstantiated accusations which relate to child grooming. ITB is not revealing everything just as they didn't so I fail to understand why he is not being judged using the same standards as Gasincider and knowall were. The inference that Masters and Hamer must be guilty because they have not rebutted ITB's allegations has no foundation at all. Look at it this way. We are told that Wael was subject to heinous accusations. Whether he was or was not subject to those accusation it is a matter of fact that he maintained a dignified silence. Does this mean the alleged accusations were true ? Or does the dignified silence mean that he was not subject to any heinous accusations and therefore had nothing to rebut ? I feel uncomfortable even thinking about this subject and would much prefer we get back to tearing into each other over differing opinions about the PC and the SC but most of all about the FC. Does it not come down to the simple calculation of whether we believe ITB or not? I am with JM, the fact that ITB has not been challenged with legal recourse, or as a minimum a public rebuttal of his claims, speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Jan 5, 2022 8:20:41 GMT
"Wow"..... To some supposition on the part of Swiss? I have never met ITB (to the best of my knowledge) nor Swiss, I have exchanged emails with the former when he was seeking to become a director and I gave him advice as I have to at least five different potential candidates. Other than that I don't know him from Adam. ITB has set out quite clearly a raft of damning evidence and I can understand why he will not reveal everything. No-one who actually knows what happened, and ITB has named those who are in a position to rebut, have come forward. Swiss wants to put him in the dock but he needs to take aim elsewhere, if none of what he says is true then let those who know, rebut. The silence in my view is most telling, and don't dare anyone suggest that they don't know what has been said. Regards (with a very heavy heart) John Malyckyj I have great respect for your opinion John but in this specific part of the case must disagree with you. Debate about whether the PC and SC are a bunch of old farts trying to undermine the owner or whether they are Gasheads with genuine concerns about the way the club is being run is absolutely fine. The taunting of knowall about the PC membership amuses many of us and I accept that the feeling of antipathy which you and others have towards the old guard may well be justified. But a claim that two former directors accused the club owner of child grooming is not, IMO, something that should be aired on a public forum which is why I tried to persuade ITB to withdraw the claim in May last year. When we heard the accusation that Masters and Hamer had drafted, proofed and finalised a letter I'm sure we all assumed it referred to the so called letter of concern and that this letter contained the accusation of child grooming. But when I asked ITB if this was the case he acknowledged that the letter he had seen only mentioned safeguarding issues. And when I then asked him where the heinous accusations about the owner were to be found he said he wouldn't publish anything. So we seem to be back where we were when Gasincider and knowall used to infuriate forum members by gleefully claiming that they knew something we didn't but they couldn't tell us how they knew it except that it was going to be very very good / very very bad for the football club. The difference is, IMO, unsubstantiated accusations about the finances and management of the club are far more palatable than unsubstantiated accusations which relate to child grooming. ITB is not revealing everything just as they didn't so I fail to understand why he is not being judged using the same standards as Gasincider and knowall were. The inference that Masters and Hamer must be guilty because they have not rebutted ITB's allegations has no foundation at all. Look at it this way. We are told that Wael was subject to heinous accusations. Whether he was or was not subject to those accusation it is a matter of fact that he maintained a dignified silence. Does this mean the alleged accusations were true ? Or does the dignified silence mean that he was not subject to any heinous accusations and therefore had nothing to rebut ? I feel uncomfortable even thinking about this subject and would much prefer we get back to tearing into each other over differing opinions about the PC and the SC but most of all about the FC. My view on this , looking at your prospective on this, is that you are so "anti" the way the current owner is running the club that IMO your judgment is rather clouded, and not prepared to accept ITB's explanation on the affair
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,354
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 5, 2022 9:33:21 GMT
"Wow"..... To some supposition on the part of Swiss? I have never met ITB (to the best of my knowledge) nor Swiss, I have exchanged emails with the former when he was seeking to become a director and I gave him advice as I have to at least five different potential candidates. Other than that I don't know him from Adam. ITB has set out quite clearly a raft of damning evidence and I can understand why he will not reveal everything. No-one who actually knows what happened, and ITB has named those who are in a position to rebut, have come forward. Swiss wants to put him in the dock but he needs to take aim elsewhere, if none of what he says is true then let those who know, rebut. The silence in my view is most telling, and don't dare anyone suggest that they don't know what has been said. This series of events has nearly destroyed the reputation of one innocent man. Less importantly those events nearly destroyed Bristol Rovers Supporters Club, an institution that on many occasions propped up the Football Club, it certainly did within my period of activity between 1997 and 2006 with cash advances and other practical help. the thing is, if things go tits up as far as those who oppose the current owner seem to think it will, the Supporters Club (as it stands) is in no position to get the Football Club out of it as once was the case. The events of the past two years have hammered the nail into that coffin although as I have said before the Supporters Club failed to understand the impact of the new ownership model when the new owners took over the club. I am not holding my breath for a rebuttal given questions I have put to one of the individuals named by ITB about the membership of the Presidents Club over the best part of two years (and I know that some of you haven't seen the point of that pursuit). If they can't even be honest about the level of their membership.....well you know the rest.... Regards (with a very heavy heart) John Malyckyj The wow was meant, quite literally, on the whole thing but also in how this whole thing came about. I feel like i do not know the club at all now John and i feel more disconnected now than ever. The thing i DO understand is a reticence to say anything as i have been burned for saying certain things and by doing relatively little digging but if people are going to dig at those such as knowall et al for not revealing or answering then i think it works both ways but, again, i do not do any digging now, i literally cant be bothered , such is that disconnection. I admire that you still have interest given how things worked out for you. this whole thread is deeply worrying and sad. I have no more to say on it apart from its a new low. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Just flabbergasted by everything and why a brather would work behind another’s back, is the main one. Sad times indeed. I admire your tenacity in wanting to be involved, i really do as i dont recognise the club as the one i started to support from a very young age
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,354
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 5, 2022 9:36:43 GMT
"Wow"..... To some supposition on the part of Swiss? I have never met ITB (to the best of my knowledge) nor Swiss, I have exchanged emails with the former when he was seeking to become a director and I gave him advice as I have to at least five different potential candidates. Other than that I don't know him from Adam. ITB has set out quite clearly a raft of damning evidence and I can understand why he will not reveal everything. No-one who actually knows what happened, and ITB has named those who are in a position to rebut, have come forward. Swiss wants to put him in the dock but he needs to take aim elsewhere, if none of what he says is true then let those who know, rebut. The silence in my view is most telling, and don't dare anyone suggest that they don't know what has been said. Regards (with a very heavy heart) John Malyckyj I have great respect for your opinion John but in this specific part of the case must disagree with you. Debate about whether the PC and SC are a bunch of old farts trying to undermine the owner or whether they are Gasheads with genuine concerns about the way the club is being run is absolutely fine. The taunting of knowall about the PC membership amuses many of us and I accept that the feeling of antipathy which you and others have towards the old guard may well be justified. But a claim that two former directors accused the club owner of child grooming is not, IMO, something that should be aired on a public forum which is why I tried to persuade ITB to withdraw the claim in May last year. When we heard the accusation that Masters and Hamer had drafted, proofed and finalised a letter I'm sure we all assumed it referred to the so called letter of concern and that this letter contained the accusation of child grooming. But when I asked ITB if this was the case he acknowledged that the letter he had seen only mentioned safeguarding issues. And when I then asked him where the heinous accusations about the owner were to be found he said he wouldn't publish anything. So we seem to be back where we were when Gasincider and knowall used to infuriate forum members by gleefully claiming that they knew something we didn't but they couldn't tell us how they knew it except that it was going to be very very good / very very bad for the football club. The difference is, IMO, unsubstantiated accusations about the finances and management of the club are far more palatable than unsubstantiated accusations which relate to child grooming. ITB is not revealing everything just as they didn't so I fail to understand why he is not being judged using the same standards as Gasincider and knowall were. The inference that Masters and Hamer must be guilty because they have not rebutted ITB's allegations has no foundation at all. Look at it this way. We are told that Wael was subject to heinous accusations. Whether he was or was not subject to those accusation it is a matter of fact that he maintained a dignified silence. Does this mean the alleged accusations were true ? Or does the dignified silence mean that he was not subject to any heinous accusations and therefore had nothing to rebut ? I feel uncomfortable even thinking about this subject and would much prefer we get back to tearing into each other over differing opinions about the PC and the SC but most of all about the FC. Kind of what i wanted to say too but you articulate it much better than I. As i said, it should work both ways. Sad times at Rovers.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,354
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 5, 2022 9:38:57 GMT
I have great respect for your opinion John but in this specific part of the case must disagree with you. Debate about whether the PC and SC are a bunch of old farts trying to undermine the owner or whether they are Gasheads with genuine concerns about the way the club is being run is absolutely fine. The taunting of knowall about the PC membership amuses many of us and I accept that the feeling of antipathy which you and others have towards the old guard may well be justified. But a claim that two former directors accused the club owner of child grooming is not, IMO, something that should be aired on a public forum which is why I tried to persuade ITB to withdraw the claim in May last year. When we heard the accusation that Masters and Hamer had drafted, proofed and finalised a letter I'm sure we all assumed it referred to the so called letter of concern and that this letter contained the accusation of child grooming. But when I asked ITB if this was the case he acknowledged that the letter he had seen only mentioned safeguarding issues. And when I then asked him where the heinous accusations about the owner were to be found he said he wouldn't publish anything. So we seem to be back where we were when Gasincider and knowall used to infuriate forum members by gleefully claiming that they knew something we didn't but they couldn't tell us how they knew it except that it was going to be very very good / very very bad for the football club. The difference is, IMO, unsubstantiated accusations about the finances and management of the club are far more palatable than unsubstantiated accusations which relate to child grooming. ITB is not revealing everything just as they didn't so I fail to understand why he is not being judged using the same standards as Gasincider and knowall were. The inference that Masters and Hamer must be guilty because they have not rebutted ITB's allegations has no foundation at all. Look at it this way. We are told that Wael was subject to heinous accusations. Whether he was or was not subject to those accusation it is a matter of fact that he maintained a dignified silence. Does this mean the alleged accusations were true ? Or does the dignified silence mean that he was not subject to any heinous accusations and therefore had nothing to rebut ? I feel uncomfortable even thinking about this subject and would much prefer we get back to tearing into each other over differing opinions about the PC and the SC but most of all about the FC. Does it not come down to the simple calculation of whether we believe ITB or not? I am with JM, the fact that ITB has not been challenged with legal recourse, or as a minimum a public rebuttal of his claims, speaks volumes. He, I mean ITB, did say he was threatened by legal action, whether that was to do with this, who knows ? It’s just bloody awful.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Jan 5, 2022 10:16:08 GMT
"Wow"..... To some supposition on the part of Swiss? I have never met ITB (to the best of my knowledge) nor Swiss, I have exchanged emails with the former when he was seeking to become a director and I gave him advice as I have to at least five different potential candidates. Other than that I don't know him from Adam. ITB has set out quite clearly a raft of damning evidence and I can understand why he will not reveal everything. No-one who actually knows what happened, and ITB has named those who are in a position to rebut, have come forward. Swiss wants to put him in the dock but he needs to take aim elsewhere, if none of what he says is true then let those who know, rebut. The silence in my view is most telling, and don't dare anyone suggest that they don't know what has been said. This series of events has nearly destroyed the reputation of one innocent man. Less importantly those events nearly destroyed Bristol Rovers Supporters Club, an institution that on many occasions propped up the Football Club, it certainly did within my period of activity between 1997 and 2006 with cash advances and other practical help. the thing is, if things go tits up as far as those who oppose the current owner seem to think it will, the Supporters Club (as it stands) is in no position to get the Football Club out of it as once was the case. The events of the past two years have hammered the nail into that coffin although as I have said before the Supporters Club failed to understand the impact of the new ownership model when the new owners took over the club. I am not holding my breath for a rebuttal given questions I have put to one of the individuals named by ITB about the membership of the Presidents Club over the best part of two years (and I know that some of you haven't seen the point of that pursuit). If they can't even be honest about the level of their membership.....well you know the rest.... Regards (with a very heavy heart) John Malyckyj The wow was meant, quite literally, on the whole thing but also in how this whole thing came about. I feel like i do not know the club at all now John and i feel more disconnected now than ever. The thing i DO understand is a reticence to say anything as i have been burned for saying certain things and by doing relatively little digging but if people are going to dig at those such as knowall et al for not revealing or answering then i think it works both ways but, again, i do not do any digging now, i literally cant be bothered , such is that disconnection. I admire that you still have interest given how things worked out for you. this whole thread is deeply worrying and sad. I have no more to say on it apart from its a new low. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Just flabbergasted by everything and why a brather would work behind another’s back, is the main one. Sad times indeed. I admire your tenacity in wanting to be involved, i really do as i dont recognise the club as the one i started to support from a very young age You keep saying you feel disconnected now Jools, but you never, articulately or not, say why you do? What is it you miss? The bumbling along with no real direction commercially or otherwise? The twerton days where we had nothing but punched above our weight on tuppence halfpenny, being given money for transfers by the manager? The Higgs era where we relied on a cup run to break even and there was no real interest in realising the commercial potential of the club, simply because our commercial manager lacked the experience to drive this area of the club forward? Whatever halcyon days you look back on, football as an industry has changed from the Dunford and Higgs era. The changes we have gone through in the last 4 years should have been done and implented around 15-20 years ago and had we done it with a bit more creative vision and a bigger budget, we may have been on a much better footing now and not having to radpidly wholesale change everything. I dont think you, swiss or others that continually double down on the current ownership realise how behind the curve we were and to a point, still are. To make our club better and for it to improve we have to embrace change rather than oppose it especially when there is a long term benefit for doing so. I think, rather mistakenly, people assumed a new stadium was the answer to all our prayers to solve all of the field issues, when in fact our issues ran much deeper than that, which have been identified and rectified over the past 4 or 5 years. As articulate as Swiss is, he very much sits on the side of the fence where nothing that the Alqadi's could do will ever be correct, will ever be good enough or in the correct way. It begs the question why he isnt sat on a board of a premier league or EFL club himself earning a very fair wedge himself such is the knowledge and ideas he has? I dont mean that disparagingly either because some of things he says do make a degree of alternative sense, albeit not knowing the full facts of a situation as to why the club has made the decisions they have. However there comes a point where not everything the ownership does is negative and yet there is a negative spin on almost everything. This is the problem the old SC had, the current PC has and individuals like you and Swiss continue to promote. That is why all of the noise on this thread needs to be put into the open. To see exactly what the gripes are, why people act the way they do, why they cant explain simple things like membership numbers or the structure or what they actually do for the club. If none of that is positive then it becomes a drain on the FC rather than something that promotes it.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Jan 5, 2022 10:33:31 GMT
"Wow"..... To some supposition on the part of Swiss? I have never met ITB (to the best of my knowledge) nor Swiss, I have exchanged emails with the former when he was seeking to become a director and I gave him advice as I have to at least five different potential candidates. Other than that I don't know him from Adam. ITB has set out quite clearly a raft of damning evidence and I can understand why he will not reveal everything. No-one who actually knows what happened, and ITB has named those who are in a position to rebut, have come forward. Swiss wants to put him in the dock but he needs to take aim elsewhere, if none of what he says is true then let those who know, rebut. The silence in my view is most telling, and don't dare anyone suggest that they don't know what has been said. Regards (with a very heavy heart) John Malyckyj I have great respect for your opinion John but in this specific part of the case must disagree with you. Debate about whether the PC and SC are a bunch of old farts trying to undermine the owner or whether they are Gasheads with genuine concerns about the way the club is being run is absolutely fine. The taunting of knowall about the PC membership amuses many of us and I accept that the feeling of antipathy which you and others have towards the old guard may well be justified. But a claim that two former directors accused the club owner of child grooming is not, IMO, something that should be aired on a public forum which is why I tried to persuade ITB to withdraw the claim in May last year. When we heard the accusation that Masters and Hamer had drafted, proofed and finalised a letter I'm sure we all assumed it referred to the so called letter of concern and that this letter contained the accusation of child grooming. But when I asked ITB if this was the case he acknowledged that the letter he had seen only mentioned safeguarding issues. And when I then asked him where the heinous accusations about the owner were to be found he said he wouldn't publish anything. So we seem to be back where we were when Gasincider and knowall used to infuriate forum members by gleefully claiming that they knew something we didn't but they couldn't tell us how they knew it except that it was going to be very very good / very very bad for the football club. The difference is, IMO, unsubstantiated accusations about the finances and management of the club are far more palatable than unsubstantiated accusations which relate to child grooming. ITB is not revealing everything just as they didn't so I fail to understand why he is not being judged using the same standards as Gasincider and knowall were. The inference that Masters and Hamer must be guilty because they have not rebutted ITB's allegations has no foundation at all. Look at it this way. We are told that Wael was subject to heinous accusations. Whether he was or was not subject to those accusation it is a matter of fact that he maintained a dignified silence. Does this mean the alleged accusations were true ?
Or does the dignified silence mean that he was not subject to any heinous accusations and therefore had nothing to rebut ?
I feel uncomfortable even thinking about this subject and would much prefer we get back to tearing into each other over differing opinions about the PC and the SC but most of all about the FC. If you had been accused of soemthing in relation to child safeguarding, would you broadcast it, innocent or not? Of course not, because either way the mud sticks. Even if you have all the legal armoury to robustly prove yourself innocent and then sue the individuals concerned your reputation runs the risk of being tarnished forever. You would want to kleep it silent, and yet, it still found its way in to executive boxes and gaschat, and not by me I hasten to add. Funny how this whole situation also coincided with Masters being banned from the West Stand and the removal of Hamer shortly after, isnt it?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,556
|
Post by eppinggas on Jan 5, 2022 10:43:55 GMT
The wow was meant, quite literally, on the whole thing but also in how this whole thing came about. I feel like i do not know the club at all now John and i feel more disconnected now than ever. The thing i DO understand is a reticence to say anything as i have been burned for saying certain things and by doing relatively little digging but if people are going to dig at those such as knowall et al for not revealing or answering then i think it works both ways but, again, i do not do any digging now, i literally cant be bothered , such is that disconnection. I admire that you still have interest given how things worked out for you. this whole thread is deeply worrying and sad. I have no more to say on it apart from its a new low. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Just flabbergasted by everything and why a brather would work behind another’s back, is the main one. Sad times indeed. I admire your tenacity in wanting to be involved, i really do as i dont recognise the club as the one i started to support from a very young age You keep saying you feel disconnected now Jools, but you never, articulately or not, say why you do? What is it you miss? The bumbling along with no real direction commercially or otherwise? The twerton days where we had nothing but punched above our weight on tuppence halfpenny, being given money for transfers by the manager? The Higgs era where we relied on a cup run to break even and there was no real interest in realising the commercial potential of the club, simply because our commercial manager lacked the experience to drive this area of the club forward? Whatever halcyon days you look back on, football as an industry has changed from the Dunford and Higgs era. The changes we have gone through in the last 4 years should have been done and implented around 15-20 years ago and had we done it with a bit more creative vision and a bigger budget, we may have been on a much better footing now and not having to radpidly wholesale change everything. I dont think you, swiss or others that continually double down on the current ownership realise how behind the curve we were and to a point, still are. To make our club better and for it to improve we have to embrace change rather than oppose it especially when there is a long term benefit for doing so. I think, rather mistakenly, people assumed a new stadium was the answer to all our prayers to solve all of the field issues, when in fact our issues ran much deeper than that, which have been identified and rectified over the past 4 or 5 years. As articulate as Swiss is, he very much sits on the side of the fence where nothing that the Alqadi's could do will ever be correct, will ever be good enough or in the correct way. It begs the question why he isnt sat on a board of a premier league or EFL club himself earning a very fair wedge himself such is the knowledge and ideas he has? I dont mean that disparagingly either because some of things he says do make a degree of alternative sense, albeit not knowing the full facts of a situation as to why the club has made the decisions they have. However there comes a point where not everything the ownership does is negative and yet there is a negative spin on almost everything. This is the problem the old SC had, the current PC has and individuals like you and Swiss continue to promote. That is why all of the noise on this thread needs to be put into the open. To see exactly what the gripes are, why people act the way they do, why they cant explain simple things like membership numbers or the structure or what they actually do for the club. If none of that is positive then it becomes a drain on the FC rather than something that promotes it. A decent case for the defence ITB. I don't think that swiss has a problem with Wael Al-Qadi as an individual. The problem I (and others) have with Wael is the people he has employed at a senior management level. Who exactly is he getting advice from? We've had a number of people in and out of the Boardroom. It is not stable. There is no continuity. Until Wael gets better quality advice - bad decisions will continue to be made. I don't have time to list them all. After nearly 6 years of Dwane Sports control Rovers are 18th in the 4th tier. Our ground is decrepit. We are losing (in a non-Covid year) around £2.5mil a year, despite decent gate sizes. Our reputation is in tatters since the arrival of Barton and his never ending gob-s**tery. "... issues ran much deeper than that, which have been identified and rectified over the past 4 or 5 years." OK - "Some" issues have indeed been identified and rectified. Training Ground, good. Commercially better, good. Relationship with the SC - early days but improving, good. Overall. No. Nice try though.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,556
|
Post by eppinggas on Jan 5, 2022 11:06:06 GMT
I have great respect for your opinion John but in this specific part of the case must disagree with you. Debate about whether the PC and SC are a bunch of old farts trying to undermine the owner or whether they are Gasheads with genuine concerns about the way the club is being run is absolutely fine. The taunting of knowall about the PC membership amuses many of us and I accept that the feeling of antipathy which you and others have towards the old guard may well be justified. But a claim that two former directors accused the club owner of child grooming is not, IMO, something that should be aired on a public forum which is why I tried to persuade ITB to withdraw the claim in May last year. When we heard the accusation that Masters and Hamer had drafted, proofed and finalised a letter I'm sure we all assumed it referred to the so called letter of concern and that this letter contained the accusation of child grooming. But when I asked ITB if this was the case he acknowledged that the letter he had seen only mentioned safeguarding issues. And when I then asked him where the heinous accusations about the owner were to be found he said he wouldn't publish anything. So we seem to be back where we were when Gasincider and knowall used to infuriate forum members by gleefully claiming that they knew something we didn't but they couldn't tell us how they knew it except that it was going to be very very good / very very bad for the football club. The difference is, IMO, unsubstantiated accusations about the finances and management of the club are far more palatable than unsubstantiated accusations which relate to child grooming. ITB is not revealing everything just as they didn't so I fail to understand why he is not being judged using the same standards as Gasincider and knowall were. The inference that Masters and Hamer must be guilty because they have not rebutted ITB's allegations has no foundation at all. Look at it this way. We are told that Wael was subject to heinous accusations. Whether he was or was not subject to those accusation it is a matter of fact that he maintained a dignified silence. Does this mean the alleged accusations were true ?
Or does the dignified silence mean that he was not subject to any heinous accusations and therefore had nothing to rebut ?
I feel uncomfortable even thinking about this subject and would much prefer we get back to tearing into each other over differing opinions about the PC and the SC but most of all about the FC. If you had been accused of soemthing in relation to child safeguarding, would you broadcast it, innocent or not? Of course not, because either way the mud sticks. Even if you have all the legal armoury to robustly prove yourself innocent and then sue the individuals concerned your reputation runs the risk of being tarnished forever. You would want to kleep it silent, and yet, it still found its way in to executive boxes and gaschat, and not by me I hasten to add. Funny how this whole situation also coincided with Masters being banned from the West Stand and the removal of Hamer shortly after, isnt it? To be fair - I have only ever heard about the accusations / letter of concern from yourself. Was it really wise to bring this into the wider public domain (again)? Maybe time to draw a line under it.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jan 5, 2022 14:05:14 GMT
The wow was meant, quite literally, on the whole thing but also in how this whole thing came about. I feel like i do not know the club at all now John and i feel more disconnected now than ever. The thing i DO understand is a reticence to say anything as i have been burned for saying certain things and by doing relatively little digging but if people are going to dig at those such as knowall et al for not revealing or answering then i think it works both ways but, again, i do not do any digging now, i literally cant be bothered , such is that disconnection. I admire that you still have interest given how things worked out for you. this whole thread is deeply worrying and sad. I have no more to say on it apart from its a new low. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Just flabbergasted by everything and why a brather would work behind another’s back, is the main one. Sad times indeed. I admire your tenacity in wanting to be involved, i really do as i dont recognise the club as the one i started to support from a very young age You keep saying you feel disconnected now Jools, but you never, articulately or not, say why you do? What is it you miss? The bumbling along with no real direction commercially or otherwise? The twerton days where we had nothing but punched above our weight on tuppence halfpenny, being given money for transfers by the manager? The Higgs era where we relied on a cup run to break even and there was no real interest in realising the commercial potential of the club, simply because our commercial manager lacked the experience to drive this area of the club forward? Whatever halcyon days you look back on, football as an industry has changed from the Dunford and Higgs era. The changes we have gone through in the last 4 years should have been done and implented around 15-20 years ago and had we done it with a bit more creative vision and a bigger budget, we may have been on a much better footing now and not having to radpidly wholesale change everything. I dont think you, swiss or others that continually double down on the current ownership realise how behind the curve we were and to a point, still are. To make our club better and for it to improve we have to embrace change rather than oppose it especially when there is a long term benefit for doing so. I think, rather mistakenly, people assumed a new stadium was the answer to all our prayers to solve all of the field issues, when in fact our issues ran much deeper than that, which have been identified and rectified over the past 4 or 5 years. As articulate as Swiss is, he very much sits on the side of the fence where nothing that the Alqadi's could do will ever be correct, will ever be good enough or in the correct way. It begs the question why he isnt sat on a board of a premier league or EFL club himself earning a very fair wedge himself such is the knowledge and ideas he has? I dont mean that disparagingly either because some of things he says do make a degree of alternative sense, albeit not knowing the full facts of a situation as to why the club has made the decisions they have. However there comes a point where not everything the ownership does is negative and yet there is a negative spin on almost everything. This is the problem the old SC had, the current PC has and individuals like you and Swiss continue to promote. That is why all of the noise on this thread needs to be put into the open. To see exactly what the gripes are, why people act the way they do, why they cant explain simple things like membership numbers or the structure or what they actually do for the club. If none of that is positive then it becomes a drain on the FC rather than something that promotes it. I like your honesty. Don't give up the car business for a career in politics. My own take is opinion needs to be in the spectrum between not losing our soul and modernisation. I don't look back with great fondness on Rag-bag Rovers or go misty-eyed about the Twerton years. I do wax lyrical about Gerry Francis though. You take my point? My biggest concern is an ageing fan-base (myself included) and how we can ever break the 10k average crowd threshold. Without this, we are not even viable as a League One club, which historically is where we sit in the football pyramid. Keep up the honesty. Much appreciated.
|
|