President's Club

The safeguarding issue is just one of a list of things they used to try and discredit Wael or the Al'Qadi family with.  They or Wael have no money, they are going to sell the mem, there was no transfer funds available, people not being paid...the list is endless.  However it was all coming from them.

Concept, here is my version based on what I know, and the evidence I have seen and been given of the things you raise.

The letter of concern:

The letter of concern was something that was drafted, proofed and finalised by Steve Hamer and Ken Masters.  Jim Chappell knew about it, but I don't think he was complicit in its construction.  Given the close relationship that the executive of the previous SC had with the PC and the close-nit relationship of the ones at the top table of both organisations there is little doubt all knew about this.

The letter was based on a question that was asked by another supporters club member about how a supporter together with a family relative obtained an invitation by Wael to enjoy a match in the directors box in the West Stand.

Protocols:

The SC never had a direct complainant.  There was no accusation of any foul play by anyone, either by the person concerned, his relative that attended with him or any parent/legal guardian.  As there was no complainant, and not a shred of evidence to suggest anything was inappropriate from the offer or the acceptance thereof, nor anything happening during the corporate box, there was nothing to investigate. All that had to be done was ask the simple question of the club and the people involved who approved the invite.  

However the decision was taken to inform the EFL, Police and Council and all 3 found absolutely nothing doing.  

Whatever protocols were followed, there appeared to be one that said it had to be attempted to be sold to the national press, in case the ones above didn't work, just for additional sleaze purposes I would imagine.  

Being removed as a SC director candidate:

Your assumption is incorrect, it had nothing to do with releasing information about anything to any forums. In relation to the SG issue, I had already been blackballed by then.

The reason I was removed was because of a comment I made on Gaschat towards a poster called Gasincider or Brian Williams who has sadly since passed away.  Me and Brian didn't see eye to eye and we both sledged and insulted each other publicly on the forums and privately in PMs or other forums of electronic communication.  

He was vociferously supportive of the above gang who I had exposed as ones who were working against the ownership and of course, I was as vocal in my disapproval of their tactics, and, as a result we became sworn enemies, which is strange in itself as I believe we had only met in person 2 or 3 times and even then it was very briefly.

On one occasion though, I admit I had made a comment that although was made in the spirit of jest and with no real malice intended, I took it too far, made it too personal and crossed a line.  On this occasion Brian took major offence (I could see why) and made a couple of threats in return.  I removed my comments, apologised to him privately (which wasn't accepted) and was then vilified on here and by a few others to my face at a game or 2 after.  

In my defence, Brian had crossed a few lines with me in the past, but I ignored them because I didn't see the need to make a big deal out of it, as offensive as it was.  Some mods wanted to ban him from GC and rather than get involved, I stayed out of any discussion about it and often voted for him to stay a poster. Being an old totender with a past reputation, I assumed it to be as fair game as he appeared to be with me, but I misjudged that and with retrospect, I'm not proud of it, because its not really who I am.  

Now Brian isn't here anymore to give his side of the story, he may well have told a different one to his family and friends, but thats my take on it.  What is sad is that although we disagreed and spared with great passion, I truly wished him no physical harm, the same with any poster on here I might lock horns with, but this spat took place when his wife was poorly with covid after which he contracted and succumbed to.  I had no idea at the time that he was going through that and had I known, I certainly would have been more dispassionate and conciliatory towards him.

Perhaps with a meeting face to face, an apology and a truce we may have been able to sit down and work out our differences.  Perhaps not, but maybe and I wouldn't have been against it personally. 

Anyway, after that comment Jim sent me an email standing me down from the current election and any going forward citing the reasons for my disagreements and the tone of them with Brian as not becoming of the standards of a director.  Well, I've never accused an innocent man of being a nonce without evidence or reason and if that isn't unbecoming then our standards differ greatly in any case.




Edit:

The reason why I know so much about this, and I said it here before, was because I was sent an anonymous letter by someone addressed to my business after I had stated on both forums there was a public witch-hunt of our owner.

This had nothing to do with anyone from inside the club giving me information they shouldn’t or using me as a pawn to try and shame or discredit members of the SC/PC.

The letter that I received came from the SC which included the letter of concern. I still have that letter.

I actually went directly to Wael and asked him what was going on and if there is anything I should be concerned about, bearing in mind I also have a young son myself and these kind of things make my skin crawl.

I also had the thought that if this sort of thing was being passed about, and it isn’t true, what it can do to a man’s reputation even though he is innocent. Wael also being a father himself had that side of things to protect.

I was pretty convinced Wael hadn’t done anything wrong but he was gracious enough to talk to me very fully about it, even showing why these accusations could be so easily discredited.

That’s why I stated that these people can’t be true fans of rovers and how they must have something to gain by going to extreme lengths such as these, even if their motive was just to obtain a stadium, but I highly doubt that was their only motive and positions of authority or financial gain wasn’t in the terms and conditions somewhere.

ITB - Thanks very much for taking the time and providing a detailed reply. It has been hard to piece things together because you've mentioned the safeguarding incident several times, but we hadn't known the full picture from your side.

It would probably be a good idea if I explain my involvement with the SC, or lack of it!, to make it clear. 
I was a member for many years, but just someone who paid the annual fee, and that was when the application form came with the season-ticket form and it was easy to send a cheque at the same time. Apart from that I've probably used the SC away travel coaches on no more than 10 occasions since the early '90s, and was fairly regular attendee at the SC quiz nights. It would be a shame if the quiz nights came to an end, as they were the best quizzes I went to; so hopefully, once time and the pandemic have passed, Phil feels able to put them on again.

I know very little about Gasincider, and can only speak of what I do know. It took me a while to realise who he was, but do remember not enjoying being sat directly in front of him at Coventry (on top of not enjoying the game!) and having to listen to things like: "F... off Linesy, you f...... tart." all game. He also started coming to the SC quiz nights around 2019, and I remember him complaining at the end of one that his team's score was lower than it should have been - he was wrong, I'd been keeping tabs all along, and they were a long way back.
The main thing I remember was hearing about the disruption made at a BRFC AGM. At the time people were attributing the disruption to the SC, but it must be said that Gasincider wasn't on the SC Committee and was no more than me, or any other member, in having paid his annual fee; although, he was far more well known to others in that he would have attended meetings and regularly followed the team away from home.   


One thing that I do still find uneasy is that, reading your reply to Swiss, you still appear to be of the opinion you wouldn't follow the protocol if you were handed a letter of concern. Surely you realise, whether you agree with any accusations or not, that you would have a duty to follow the correct procedures?  
If you've watched the film Spotlight you'll know the content itself is shocking, but one of the main points that comes out right at the end, and is often overlooked, is that the organisation investigating were trying to cover up some wrong-doing themselves - it highlighted it is easy to be defensive, try to brush something off as a one-off, and not want the publicity. Hopefully things have changed, back then we didn't have the safeguarding and procedures in place to follow.

Here's JC's side of the story. And from what he has to say, it sounds like he followed the correct procedures at the time. It then goes on to mention when it was referred to on Gaschat, which was when it first came into the public domain:
bristolroverssc.co.uk/jim-chappells-report-to-the-agm/

Our members deserve an explanation and what happened is that, before a League game at the Memorial Stadium I was handed a ‘letter of concern’ from a trusted member of the Supporters Club which he requested me to pass on to the Football Club. Both our Treasurer Sue Williams and Safeguarding Officer Sam Parsons were in the cabin working on the 50/50 Draw with me, as they were at every home match. Sam took the letter and promised to pass it on to the Football Club’s Safeguarding Officer and she reported that this had been done at our next Committee Meeting. The matter was minuted with little discussion. The following Thursday evening Sam and I were required to attend a meeting with CEO Martyn Starnes and FC Safeguarding Officer Nikki Parker when the then latest EFL Safeguarding Instructions were outlined to us and which we agreed to take on board in full.

The ‘Letter of Concern’ was not mentioned at that meeting which lasted around an hour. After a couple of weeks I was advised by Sam Parsons that we were duty bound as the recipients to follow up the letter with Nikki Parker which we did and we were informed that the matter was closed because it was not possible to obtain further information from the complainant. This was confirmed by the Bristol City Council/Avon & Somerset Police Safeguarding Officer and this was minuted at our next Committee Meeting.

The matter was never discussed further either in committee or outside until a few months back when it started being openly referred to on the ‘Gaschat’ social media forum. The information being discussed on the forum did not originate from the Supporters Club and our Secretary was instructed to issue a disclaimer on our website. This was duly done, and members can draw their own conclusions as to where the information originated but it was not from your committee.

The so called ‘moderator’ of the ‘Gaschat’ site has since written to me also claiming that I had colluded with others, that he had evidence and attached a copy of the original ‘Letter of Concern’ and wanted to meet with me to discuss the same.

How he obtained this confidential information is not clear, but I have no intention of discussing it with him and his letter has been placed in the hands of the Supporters’ Club’s solicitors.

Okay. That's fair enough ITB.

You must forgive me for being slightly confused though.

We've come full circle, and the reason we started a bit of ping-pong was because I felt it unfair for you to say the SC: "... had an attitude of “what can the football club do for us” ...". And your ping-pong with TWD was to ask you how Jim was "in it for himself", and when he pointed out (28/12/2021 12.28am) that you'd gone off on a tangent, and not answered the direct question about Jim, your response again (28/12/2021 7.46pm) went off on another tangent and mentioned others but not Jim. 

And you say above that safeguarding issues need to be done correctly and privately, but whether or not they were done privately by others, you were the one who brought it into the public domain by posting about it on the forum, when most of us might never have known about it.

I think if you'd replied at the start that you didn't mean the SC in general, and in fact were just referring to the Supporters Club Director, it would have been cleared up a lot quicker.

Look, we all want the best for BRFC - I just point out where I think I see unfair criticism.

It has not made anyone look good at all and, as you rightly say, some things should stay private but that is just my opinion. I know i can sometimes get indignant and wish to say something but i have learned, mostly i must add, when to stay quiet, a lesson i should have learned much earlier. 
It’s a very sad read and state of affairs. 

I find myself confused in the same way that The Concept seems to be.

Are you saying that Wael was supportive of the plan, which Hani had approved, for Rovers to have new owners and a stadium at the Fruit Market but then he found out that SH and KM had allegedly written a letter to the SC which falsely accused him of doing something seriously wrong so he withdrew his support for the plan ? 

If he did that then I can't see how it helped Rovers.

Surely if he was the victim of false allegations and corruption he should have pursued the matter through the courts ?

The sequence of events very briefly as I understand it are as follows:

At some point Hani no longer wants to proceed with the stadium or heavily invest in the future of Rovers, but Wael does.

The UWE collapses.

2018 - Between Masters and Hamer they locate the fruit market site and make the initial enquiries on it. Hamer knowing Hani at this stage isn’t keen on investment and would probably want to share his stake, with the SC shares means they have a rough total holding of approx 40%. They try both try to broker a deal.

Hamer and Masters then bring the deal to the club. The current board is retained except if your name ends in Al’Qadi.

Martyn Starnes joins the board to run the FC, Hamer is sidelined.

The first mutterings of discontent are with Masters and the text gate saga. Then people not being paid etc etc

Wael and Hani then take more control of the negotiations which then becomes a triangle between the club, the brokers (Hamer and Masters) and the proposed investors purchasers. It’s suspected Hamer and Masters are looking after their own interests rather than their own. Wael announces stadium project on RB.

Sept-October 2019 Letter of concern sent to the SC and onto the club. Investigation takes place, Wael is cleared.

Nov 2019 Hamer dismissed. Masters asked to leave, he refuses.

Jan 2020 Masters banned from the boardroom, exec boxes, community trust and the West Stand.

April 2020 Masters resigns