|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Dec 31, 2021 8:53:50 GMT
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 What a mess. "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."OK. You suggest that "Hamer and Masters are looking after their own interests". But surely they are just trying to procure a new Stadium for Bristol Rovers (which is what we all want). They may also have benefitted from it. I get that. But surely the primary motive is advancing Bristol Rovers FC. The main barrier to their approach would appear to be Wael Al-Qadi having to retain an interest at Board level. So my question would be - at this point isn't Wael Al-Qadi putting his own self interest / ego above what is best for Bristol Rovers FC? Serious question. Not winding you up. It’s a fair question and I’ll answer based on what I know of Wael, which isn’t much, we don’t socialise together, but I have spent small pockets of time with him here and there for a variety of reasons and I feel I’m a decent enough judge of character to speak as I find. First thing to say is that Wael may be many things in the eyes of others, but in all the times I’ve met, spoken and spent a small amount of time with him, the one quality I don’t get from him is that of being egotistical. I find him to be very affable, takes real personal interest in you and others and is very genuine, probably and has been to his own fault and detriment. He’s also a whole lot sharper than people give him credit for with a hard streak, if you break his trust, you aren’t likely to ever regain it, which I find to be a touch amusing as a few people from the other side brand him to be clueless and a bit of a soft touch. Where are they now…??!! Now Hamer and Co may well have been trying to deliver a stadium, but it may have been a terrible deal for the club (I don’t know the full SP, but from what I do know it was labeled a bad deal which needed a lot of adjustments to make it work) and it also didn’t stack up financially for the parties concerned given the investment put in. The accusation has been levied that without this, the Al’Qadis couldn’t build the stadium anyway. True or not, Wael is more than capable than Hamer and Co when it comes to running BRFC and even if that was the sole reason for blocking the stadium, that would be a very good reason based on Hamers scatter gun approach to his chairmanship with us. It would have been an unmitigated disaster if he was the sharp end of a faceless investment company who would pull the plug if it wasn’t going right. |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,901 
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Dec 31, 2021 8:55:49 GMT
Surely if he was the victim of false allegations and corruption he should have pursued the matter through the courts ? You would think so Swiss, but the problem with accusations of this kind they tend to stick and cast doubt, whether true or not. It is very risky. I think tactically it was handled well from a personally reputational point of view. If the accusation of the manufacture of the letter is true then some people have a lot to answer for and have certainly lost any sympathy I might have had. It is interesting that the inability to pay debts was also happily banded about by those attacking WAQ and the club but eventually died away to nothing. What happened to those rumours and was there ever anything factual or truthful behind them? If that was manufactured as well to discredit the Board it certainly caused many to have doubts about the club being able to meet its financial obligations. You know in business that it is a serious issue to have doubts about one's credit rating and financial institutions monitor the web as well as payment scoring. I would also point out that ITB's accusations are serious but could also be considered libellous by those he is accusing if false. Regards |
|
|
|
Post by johnmalyckyj on Dec 31, 2021 9:05:09 GMT
Surely if he was the victim of false allegations and corruption he should have pursued the matter through the courts ? You would think so Swiss, but the problem with accusations of this kind they tend to stick and cast doubt, whether true or not. It is very risky. I think tactically it was handled well from a personally reputational point of view. If the accusation of the manufacture of the letter is true then some people have a lot to answer for and have certainly lost any sympathy I might have had. It is interesting that the inability to pay debts was also happily banded about by those attacking WAQ and the club but eventually died away to nothing. What happened to those rumours and was there ever anything factual or truthful behind them? If that was manufactured as well to discredit the Board it certainly caused many to have doubts about the club being able to meet its financial obligations. You know in business that it is a serious issue to have doubts about one's credit rating and financial institutions monitor the web as well as payment scoring. I would also point out that ITB's accusations are serious but could also be considered libellous by those he is accusing if false. Regards Points well made, I have assumed that ITB is on solid ground to be so forthright about the sequence of events. Of course Wael may well have pursued this with his lawyers, we don't know and it's probably best it stays that way. Regards John Malyckyj |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Dec 31, 2021 9:40:42 GMT
I was pondering that very point earlier today and wondering how the person who made the accusation is feeling about it now. Quite how, as ITB alleges, it finishes up being pursued by the then chairman of the Football Club and the SC director is very strange indeed. Still waiting for a rebuttal of ITB's damning post. Regards John Malyckyj You certainly won't get one from knowall John. He is a hit and run man. Attacks the club and owner, throws accusations or makes petty comments and then runs away. We have had a couple of people try to answer questions about the PC but in very vague terms. So the perceived PC 'support' for the club is made up of: 'Hit and run' attacks on here and the other place Support for untrue personal allegations against the owner Support for claims of limitations to the owner's commitment to the club - in terms of funding, time, motives etc Readiness to meet the owner in person but offer nothing constructive in a face-to-face - in marked contrast to the SC A group of people who assess others for 'suitability' to join them Based on what's on here, it doesn't look like support you'd want, does it? What are we missing? |
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 401
|
Post by bondigas on Dec 31, 2021 10:42:55 GMT
What I have learned over the last few days is that it's the Al Qadi brothers who are fragmented and the club has suffered for it. Didn't the family lawyer who was on the board quit a few weeks after Hamer was removed, an announcement of his departure we still await. Didn't Hamer identify and negotiate the purchase of the training ground on behalf of the family. It sounds as if regarding a new stadium he was attempting to achieve it before the famous Blackpool interview kiboshed it. Why all of a sudden in the middle of the Barton trial did the Bristol Post run that story about the FM, was that because the jury were out and if Barton were sent down it would deflect attention from the verdict. Not heard any follow up on that story from the others involved in the FM deal. Any way I'm sitting patiently awaiting our Dear Gasheads New Years owners letter later today along with the announcement that the Leyton Orient game has been called off.
|
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Dec 31, 2021 11:01:53 GMT
Let’s be clear, I’ve no personal vendetta against any of the individuals concerned. That’s been levelled against me in the past because of how forthright I’ve been. In fact they have made it personal with me by certain individuals treating me the way they have through it all.
It’s also not to say that my support of the owner is blind and means I agree with every decision he has made or action he has taken, because I don’t, and I’m as equally vocal in that as I am anything else.
I was kind of dragged into this fight by the likes of Knowall to start with when I started asking questions of their postings on the forum. Things didn’t add up or make sense. Gasincider then got involved and little did I know at the time of the web that was behind these 2 posters. I was singled out by them particularly to start with and then I outed Hamer who was posting under a couple of pseudonyms. Any other person may have felt bullied and on more than one occasion, threatened.
I’ve been accused of being fed information from all the board members to release onto the forums (never has that happened and I would refuse if they did ask) and my name crops up time and time again in meetings they have with the club for some reason. I am told nothing about the day to day running of the club and what I do know they probably would know first and is in the public domain anyway.
At the time I was doing some sponsorship with BRFC and through that I got to know Tom and then Wael moved to box 10 and I was situated in 11 and just through some casual conversation I soon found out that what some were writing on the forum wasn’t at all true.
When things started to get more grimey in accusations I felt compelled to defend the person that was being unfairly victimised. It just happened to be our owner who was being victimised and I was trying to honestly work out why “supporters” in charge of “supporters clubs” were behaving the way they were.
I’ve been threatened continually both directly and indirectly over the last few years with legal action and rest assured, I wouldn’t be prepared to stick my head above the parapet if I didn’t have the evidence to do so. How foolish that would be. Some of that evidence came from members of the SC themselves albeit anonymously.
All I’ll say is that what I have is incredibly damning and perhaps someone who did have a vendetta would happily see it publicised for the whole fan base to see both around the club, in the press and in retort to the legal action that was aimed in my direction. But really, what would that achieve?
All I wanted to do was to stick up for an innocent man who has proven to have integrity to his word and has bank rolled us through some tough times when he really didn’t have to!
I’d happily sit and have an audience with all of the people concerned (I’ve asked and they wont..) I’ve offered to meet them all individually (they won’t) I’ve emailed them (they won’t/don’t reply) so if they are all so innocent why are they so scared to have a simple chat and clear all of this up, apologise to all concerned and move on? Because that doesn’t fit with their narrative of attempting to cause division. They can’t simply work with the owners and move on, it doesn’t interest them.
|
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Dec 31, 2021 11:16:12 GMT
Reading this thread, I think I've learned that...
the early FM discussions, from which I suspect Wael was to some extent excluded, were more detrimental than I'd realised
Wael is more ready than I had realised to play the long game. He capitalised the debt, was patient with the SC leadership longer than most would have been, has plugged away at the training ground, stuck by Joeybag, is persisting with the FM negotiations etc
The differences between the SC leadership situation and that of the PC are scale and visibility. If the SC peeps are banned from the boardroom, a volume of members can see it and at the (recently-rare) event of an AGM etc can question it. The PC appears less transparent. They may not have their meeting space in the stand now, but it is hard to see how their leaders are being challenged about an appropriate way forward
Without a willingness to adapt, it does appear that, in the words of a poster above, the PC might be a 'busted flush'
|
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Dec 31, 2021 11:20:55 GMT
Let’s be clear, I’ve no personal vendetta against any of the individuals concerned. That’s been levelled against me in the past because of how forthright I’ve been. In fact they have made it personal with me by certain individuals treating me the way they have through it all. It’s also not to say that my support of the owner is blind and means I agree with every decision he has made or action he has taken, because I don’t, and I’m as equally vocal in that as I am anything else. I was kind of dragged into this fight by the likes of Knowall to start with when I started asking questions of their postings on the forum. Things didn’t add up or make sense. Gasincider then got involved and little did I know at the time of the web that was behind these 2 posters. I was singled out by them particularly to start with and then I outed Hamer who was posting under a couple of pseudonyms. Any other person may have felt bullied and on more than one occasion, threatened. I’ve been accused of being fed information from all the board members to release onto the forums (never has that happened and I would refuse if they did ask) and my name crops up time and time again in meetings they have with the club for some reason. I am told nothing about the day to day running of the club and what I do know they probably would know first and is in the public domain anyway. At the time I was doing some sponsorship with BRFC and through that I got to know Tom and then Wael moved to box 10 and I was situated in 11 and just through some casual conversation I soon found out that what some were writing on the forum wasn’t at all true. When things started to get more grimey in accusations I felt compelled to defend the person that was being unfairly victimised. It just happened to be our owner who was being victimised and I was trying to honestly work out why “supporters” in charge of “supporters clubs” were behaving the way they were. I’ve been threatened continually both directly and indirectly over the last few years with legal action and rest assured, I wouldn’t be prepared to stick my head above the parapet if I didn’t have the evidence to do so. How foolish that would be. Some of that evidence came from members of the SC themselves albeit anonymously. All I’ll say is that what I have is incredibly damning and perhaps someone who did have a vendetta would happily see it publicised for the whole fan base to see both around the club, in the press and in retort to the legal action that was aimed in my direction. But really, what would that achieve? All I wanted to do was to stick up for an innocent man who has proven to have integrity to his word and has bank rolled us through some tough times when he really didn’t have to! I’d happily sit and have an audience with all of the people concerned (I’ve asked and they wont..) I’ve offered to meet them all individually (they won’t) I’ve emailed them (they won’t/don’t reply) so if they are all so innocent why are they so scared to have a simple chat and clear all of this up, apologise to all concerned and move on? Because that doesn’t fit with their narrative of attempting to cause division. They can’t simply work with the owners and move on, it doesn’t interest them. One wonders what might interest them. They appear short of options, don't they, beyond the occasional internet sniping which is available to us all? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 11:24:23 GMT
No comment on most of this, other than, Ken was never 'in charge' of the Supporters Club.
As a Share Scheme Director he would have held a position on the Executive Committee, and would have had a single vote along with all other EC members on any issues that required a show of hands. Apart from his powers of persuasion (stop giggling at the back) that was the extent of his influence within the SC. Or at least, it should have been.
As for Jim, I've read what you've written several times and am not sure what you are saying.
Is the suggestion that Hamer and Masters entirely concocted a story about a safeguarding issue and that Jim knew that it was all untrue, or are you saying that a letter was presented to Jim, which whilst he knew was drafted by Hamer and or Masters, thought was done so in response to contact from the legal guardian / parent of someone who had been invited into an executive box on a match day?
These are very different things, as I'm sure you are aware.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portishead Pirate on Dec 31, 2021 11:43:30 GMT
No comment on most of this, other than, Ken was never 'in charge' of the Supporters Club. As a Share Scheme Director he would have held a position on the Executive Committee, and would have had a single vote along with all other EC members on any issues that required a show of hands. Apart from his powers of persuasion (stop giggling at the back) that was the extent of his influence within the SC. Or at least, it should have been. As for Jim, I've read what you've written several times and am not sure what you are saying. Is the suggestion that Hamer and Masters entirely concocted a story about a safeguarding issue and that Jim knew that it was all untrue, or are you saying that a letter was presented to Jim, which whilst he knew was drafted by Hamer and or Masters, thought was done so in response to contact from the legal guardian / parent of someone who had been invited into an executive box on a match day? These are very different things, as I'm sure you are aware. He was a volatile character in my experience, wouldn't go as far to say he was a bully but his influence was no doubt greater than a single votes worth. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 12:27:50 GMT
No comment on most of this, other than, Ken was never 'in charge' of the Supporters Club. As a Share Scheme Director he would have held a position on the Executive Committee, and would have had a single vote along with all other EC members on any issues that required a show of hands. Apart from his powers of persuasion (stop giggling at the back) that was the extent of his influence within the SC. Or at least, it should have been. As for Jim, I've read what you've written several times and am not sure what you are saying. Is the suggestion that Hamer and Masters entirely concocted a story about a safeguarding issue and that Jim knew that it was all untrue, or are you saying that a letter was presented to Jim, which whilst he knew was drafted by Hamer and or Masters, thought was done so in response to contact from the legal guardian / parent of someone who had been invited into an executive box on a match day? These are very different things, as I'm sure you are aware. He was a volatile character in my experience, wouldn't go as far to say he was a bully but his influence was no doubt greater than a single votes worth. I thought the opposite. When he started stamping around and shouting or babbling on incoherently he had lost the argument, and at that point his influence was zero. But no doubt people who worked with him over a longer period would know better than me what influence he brought to bear on SC events. I can't remember exactly how it went, but in 'that' fan's interview he did with Hamer the guy conducting the interview asked a perfectly reasonable question and Ken went off on the most bizarre rant, something about how long his family had been following Rovers, I had no idea whatsoever what point he was trying to make, but he looked pretty agitated whilst making it. I wondered at the time if that was how he conducted himself at FC board meetings? |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Dec 31, 2021 14:37:40 GMT
The question I can't get my head around, and why I'm struggling with the whole thing about the 'letter of concern', is...
How on earth could someone, in their right mind, think that making something up of this nature would be a good idea; think that it would actually work; think there would be no consequences?
And if there is someone who could think this way then how on earth did they find someone else who would think that making something up of this nature would be a good idea; think that it would actually work; think there would be no consequences: and find that other person somewhere within the confines of planet Earth?
However, what we don't know is whether the 'letter of concern' just raised a concern that a situation was allowed to happen, or whether there were further allegations.
|
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 31, 2021 16:02:51 GMT
Surely if he was the victim of false allegations and corruption he should have pursued the matter through the courts ? You would think so Swiss, but the problem with accusations of this kind they tend to stick and cast doubt, whether true or not. It is very risky. I think tactically it was handled well from a personally reputational point of view. If the accusation of the manufacture of the letter is true then some people have a lot to answer for and have certainly lost any sympathy I might have had. It is interesting that the inability to pay debts was also happily banded about by those attacking WAQ and the club but eventually died away to nothing. What happened to those rumours and was there ever anything factual or truthful behind them? If that was manufactured as well to discredit the Board it certainly caused many to have doubts about the club being able to meet its financial obligations. You know in business that it is a serious issue to have doubts about one's credit rating and financial institutions monitor the web as well as payment scoring. I would also point out that ITB's accusations are serious but could also be considered libellous by those he is accusing if false. Regards Rum goings on Cheshire  I agree with you that accusations tend to stick and cast doubt whether they are true or not but only if accusations are actually made and become public knowledge. We learned from Jim Chappell that the letter of concern (not letter of accusation) was sent to the FC and after a period the SC were informed by the FC that the matter was closed. This was confirmed by the Safeguarding Officers at Bristol City Council and Avon & Somerset Police so the closure of the matter was minuted at their next committee meeting. And we have almost exactly the same account from ITB who says that the matter was investigated by the Club, the Police and the City Council but there were no grounds to take it further. His account also alleges that an attempt was made by someone to get a newspaper to publish the story but he doesn't say who this was and in any case it is hard to see how a newspaper would be interested in the contents of a letter of concern although they might be interested in a letter of accusation. So it appears that for eighteen months, from Sept/Oct 2019 till May 2021 the matter was handled well by all those involved because it was kept confidential. And then ITB posted about it on the forum. Why did he decide to do so and why at that specific time ? The statement released by the SC seems genuine to me unless there is an implication that David Thomas was also in on a conspiracy which would be completely ridiculous. Safeguarding Statement by David Thomas | May 6, 2021 | News The BRSC committee are disappointed that a safeguarding concern raised by one of our members has been made public on a supporter’s chat forum.The posting action by a forum contributor is entirely regrettable. There has been no communication between the BRSC and the poster regarding the content of the post and the sources are not known to the BRSC. Safeguarding concerns are dealt with properly and in strict accordance with safeguarding procedures at all times and in all cases. There has been and never will be any deviation from the rules, regulations and safeguarding procedures. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 16:18:24 GMT
You would think so Swiss, but the problem with accusations of this kind they tend to stick and cast doubt, whether true or not. It is very risky. I think tactically it was handled well from a personally reputational point of view. If the accusation of the manufacture of the letter is true then some people have a lot to answer for and have certainly lost any sympathy I might have had. It is interesting that the inability to pay debts was also happily banded about by those attacking WAQ and the club but eventually died away to nothing. What happened to those rumours and was there ever anything factual or truthful behind them? If that was manufactured as well to discredit the Board it certainly caused many to have doubts about the club being able to meet its financial obligations. You know in business that it is a serious issue to have doubts about one's credit rating and financial institutions monitor the web as well as payment scoring. I would also point out that ITB's accusations are serious but could also be considered libellous by those he is accusing if false. Regards Rum goings on Cheshire I agree with you that accusations tend to stick and cast doubt whether they are true or not but only if accusations are actually made and become public knowledge. We learned from Jim Chappell that the letter of concern (not letter of accusation) was sent to the FC and after a period the SC were informed by the FC that the matter was closed. This was confirmed by the Safeguarding Officers at Bristol City Council and Avon & Somerset Police so the closure of the matter was minuted at their next committee meeting. And we have almost exactly the same account from ITB who says that the matter was investigated by the Club, the Police and the City Council but there were no grounds to take it further. His account also alleges that an attempt was made by someone to get a newspaper to publish the story but he doesn't say who this was and in any case it is hard to see how a newspaper would be interested in the contents of a letter of concern although they might be interested in a letter of accusation. So it appears that for eighteen months, from Sept/Oct 2019 till May 2021 the matter was handled well by all those involved because it was kept confidential. And then ITB posted about it on the forum. Why did he decide to do so and why at that specific time ? The statement released by the SC seems genuine to me unless there is an implication that David Thomas was also in on a conspiracy which would be completely ridiculous. Safeguarding Statement by David Thomas | May 6, 2021 | News The BRSC committee are disappointed that a safeguarding concern raised by one of our members has been made public on a supporter’s chat forum.The posting action by a forum contributor is entirely regrettable. There has been no communication between the BRSC and the poster regarding the content of the post and the sources are not known to the BRSC. Safeguarding concerns are dealt with properly and in strict accordance with safeguarding procedures at all times and in all cases. There has been and never will be any deviation from the rules, regulations and safeguarding procedures. And yet here we are still discussing it, whilst the PC apparently have no influence over any FC affairs and the SC appears to have made a decent start in recreating itself. So I guess my question is, who gains what from all of this being dragged up and raked over? As an aside, the SC really need to update their website. I just visited to see if Masters was still involved in any capacity, but the 'Committee News' section doesn't appear to have been updated since Nov 2019. |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Dec 31, 2021 16:26:59 GMT
Rum goings on Cheshire I agree with you that accusations tend to stick and cast doubt whether they are true or not but only if accusations are actually made and become public knowledge. We learned from Jim Chappell that the letter of concern (not letter of accusation) was sent to the FC and after a period the SC were informed by the FC that the matter was closed. This was confirmed by the Safeguarding Officers at Bristol City Council and Avon & Somerset Police so the closure of the matter was minuted at their next committee meeting. And we have almost exactly the same account from ITB who says that the matter was investigated by the Club, the Police and the City Council but there were no grounds to take it further. His account also alleges that an attempt was made by someone to get a newspaper to publish the story but he doesn't say who this was and in any case it is hard to see how a newspaper would be interested in the contents of a letter of concern although they might be interested in a letter of accusation. So it appears that for eighteen months, from Sept/Oct 2019 till May 2021 the matter was handled well by all those involved because it was kept confidential. And then ITB posted about it on the forum. Why did he decide to do so and why at that specific time ? The statement released by the SC seems genuine to me unless there is an implication that David Thomas was also in on a conspiracy which would be completely ridiculous. Safeguarding Statement by David Thomas | May 6, 2021 | News The BRSC committee are disappointed that a safeguarding concern raised by one of our members has been made public on a supporter’s chat forum.The posting action by a forum contributor is entirely regrettable. There has been no communication between the BRSC and the poster regarding the content of the post and the sources are not known to the BRSC. Safeguarding concerns are dealt with properly and in strict accordance with safeguarding procedures at all times and in all cases. There has been and never will be any deviation from the rules, regulations and safeguarding procedures. And yet here we are still discussing it, whilst the PC apparently have no influence over any FC affairs and the SC appears to have made a decent start in recreating itself. So I guess my question is, who gains what from all of this being dragged up and raked over? As an aside, the SC really need to update their website. I just visited to see if Masters was still involved in any capacity, but the 'Committee News' section doesn't appear to have been updated since Nov 2019. This 'Committee' page is still titled: "Executive Committee Members ( 2019/20 Season )", so should be updated, but I'm sure it does correctly list details of the current committee members: bristolroverssc.co.uk/club-information/committee/ |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2021 17:53:40 GMT
And yet here we are still discussing it, whilst the PC apparently have no influence over any FC affairs and the SC appears to have made a decent start in recreating itself. So I guess my question is, who gains what from all of this being dragged up and raked over? As an aside, the SC really need to update their website. I just visited to see if Masters was still involved in any capacity, but the 'Committee News' section doesn't appear to have been updated since Nov 2019. This 'Committee' page is still titled: "Executive Committee Members ( 2019/20 Season )", so should be updated, but I'm sure it does correctly list details of the current committee members: bristolroverssc.co.uk/club-information/committee/Ah, thanks, from the drop down menu on the front page. I was going to the 'Categories' drop down menu. The 'Committee News' section is there. Anyway, no mention of Ken anywhere that I could see. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 31, 2021 18:39:17 GMT
Rum goings on Cheshire I agree with you that accusations tend to stick and cast doubt whether they are true or not but only if accusations are actually made and become public knowledge. We learned from Jim Chappell that the letter of concern (not letter of accusation) was sent to the FC and after a period the SC were informed by the FC that the matter was closed. This was confirmed by the Safeguarding Officers at Bristol City Council and Avon & Somerset Police so the closure of the matter was minuted at their next committee meeting. And we have almost exactly the same account from ITB who says that the matter was investigated by the Club, the Police and the City Council but there were no grounds to take it further. His account also alleges that an attempt was made by someone to get a newspaper to publish the story but he doesn't say who this was and in any case it is hard to see how a newspaper would be interested in the contents of a letter of concern although they might be interested in a letter of accusation. So it appears that for eighteen months, from Sept/Oct 2019 till May 2021 the matter was handled well by all those involved because it was kept confidential. And then ITB posted about it on the forum. Why did he decide to do so and why at that specific time ? The statement released by the SC seems genuine to me unless there is an implication that David Thomas was also in on a conspiracy which would be completely ridiculous. Safeguarding Statement by David Thomas | May 6, 2021 | News The BRSC committee are disappointed that a safeguarding concern raised by one of our members has been made public on a supporter’s chat forum.The posting action by a forum contributor is entirely regrettable. There has been no communication between the BRSC and the poster regarding the content of the post and the sources are not known to the BRSC. Safeguarding concerns are dealt with properly and in strict accordance with safeguarding procedures at all times and in all cases. There has been and never will be any deviation from the rules, regulations and safeguarding procedures. And yet here we are still discussing it, whilst the PC apparently have no influence over any FC affairs and the SC appears to have made a decent start in recreating itself. So I guess my question is, who gains what from all of this being dragged up and raked over? As an aside, the SC really need to update their website. I just visited to see if Masters was still involved in any capacity, but the 'Committee News' section doesn't appear to have been updated since Nov 2019. Perhaps its a case of not wanting old acquaintances to be forgotten ? |
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Dec 31, 2021 18:41:41 GMT
And yet here we are still discussing it, whilst the PC apparently have no influence over any FC affairs and the SC appears to have made a decent start in recreating itself. So I guess my question is, who gains what from all of this being dragged up and raked over? As an aside, the SC really need to update their website. I just visited to see if Masters was still involved in any capacity, but the 'Committee News' section doesn't appear to have been updated since Nov 2019. Perhaps its a case of not wanting old acquaintances to be forgotten ? yes, and as a broader generalisation, whenever I've looked the SC website has regular updates on all sorts of things. So this might be the exception rather than the rule |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Dec 31, 2021 19:02:23 GMT
Perhaps its a case of not wanting old acquaintances to be forgotten ? yes, and as a broader generalisation, whenever I've looked the SC website has regular updates on all sorts of things. So this might be the exception rather than the rule The SC website is hugely informative and many of the articles give great enjoyment to those of us with an interest in Rovers history. David Thomas and Keith Brookman must be commended for the amount of research they do and for sourcing original documents which add so much to the effect. |
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Dec 31, 2021 19:27:31 GMT
And yet here we are still discussing it, whilst the PC apparently have no influence over any FC affairs and the SC appears to have made a decent start in recreating itself. So I guess my question is, who gains what from all of this being dragged up and raked over? As an aside, the SC really need to update their website. I just visited to see if Masters was still involved in any capacity, but the 'Committee News' section doesn't appear to have been updated since Nov 2019. Perhaps its a case of not wanting old acquaintances to be forgotten ? I’m my defence, concept asked me to explain something and it went from there. |
|
