Something Is Rotten In The State Of Denmark

[tommy toes]

We did get massive crowds in the 60's when we were doing well.
The difference being:

1. It cost a couple of bob then to get in, we could easily afford to go to three home matches in a week. Now you're lookind at 75 quid for the same thing

2. Times have changed, there are so many more things people, especially youngsters, are interested in these days.

Until the player's wages bubble bursts, or the country miraculously recovers from the slump and people have more disposable income, then attandances will continue to to fall at ALL clubs, as they are doing now.
The Rovers, thanks mainly to JR, are better placed than most to survive, because I'm sure a lot of clubs wont.
Look at Bolton, 120 million quid in debt. If ever the owner wants his money back they're finished. Hearts may very well soon be.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

Very perceptive comments.

To some extent, O'Driscoll's genius lay in seeing before most managers how the culture (that word...) was changing, and it moving towards a one-man-up-front policy. We often played McCammon or Price as left-sided "hole" players. I'll admit that i didn't see the sense in that, and it often resulted in some pretty grim fare until we perfected it (which really didn't come until the Championship days, especially with Sharp as the "one man" - in the successful L1 days, between Xmas and March 07-08, we more often than not played with two out and out strikers - Guy or Price supporting Heffernan).

(The scales fell from my eyes during Euro 08 when I saw Spain and to some extent Holland playing a much more polished version of what O'Driscoll was trying to achieve.)

The problems we had with the one-man-up-front policy (especially when we steadfastly refused to play the one really top quality striker that we had in early 08-09) came from the fact that even our excellent midfield were playing too slowly and were easily nullified by well organised defences. As you say, you really need a pacy approach AND an excellent line leader to play that style effectively. We have the bits and pieces to do that now when Cotterill and Bennett are fit and on form, but little to replace them with if they are out of sorts or injured.

If those two come back, we have enough firepower and pace/skill to trouble this league. Without them, we are plodders.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Donnybob made a reference to how 90% of the teams in this league are a worse quality than we are. Are we a "big" club now?!

I offer you the obvious Sheff U and Coventry as significantly "bigger" clubs. Also on par, or thereabouts, with us are MK Dons, Notts County, Portsmouth (despite their troubles), Swindon and Preston. Bournemouth, Brentford too. Tranmere clearly doin well but have spent a lot of time at this level and above on merit. Even Stevenage are a well organised club these days, small crowds but on the up, esp with Luton out of the picture at the moment.

We have no right to be up there - but we are 

[CusworthRovers]

Although, when one lists our starting 11 and bench players:

Brown, Paynter, Clingan, Griffiths, Blake, Woods, Bennett, Cotts, Quinn, Jamie and Rob, Shelton, Tommy, Sulli, Hume, Harper

we have every right to be where we are, and I would suggest all the opposition teams look at these and think 'look at Donny and all these players that we know and recognise and are ex CCC players or quality L1 players'..........It will take a few seasons, but I can't really name any of the opposition players or recognise them (like I could 4-5 years ago), but I'll wager you that most opposition fans will have heard of ours and relate to them being decent players.

[hoolahoop]

Colin C

Once again, I used the word to describe the standard of the DIVISION. It was in response to DonnyBob calling it a tin pot division.

But since you raise the issue, I'd prefer to watch Rob Jones, Tommy Spurr, David Cotterill, Kyle Bennett and Ian Hume grinding out results at the top of Div 3 than watch some of the dross we've had over the years getting arseholed week in week out at the bottom of Div 4 or in the Conference.

I'm funny like that.

Imo it still is a ''tinpot'' division. after 4 years of Championship footy I no longer feel the need to doff my cap to every other club's supporters i.e giving it the 'we're only a pub team 'avin a laugh'' mentality. We have dragged ourselves out of obscurity following the fall from grace of the 1950's . Ask any demoted team's supporter what he thinks about the opposition in their new division and most would hope/expect to get the hell out of there as soon as possible.
Yes we've got to keep it in perspective, true we have to fight for the right to be at the top but we have no right to think that because we have spent year upon year in the 3/4 tier of football that we should settle for that. That's exactly the type of thinking that kept us in the 3rd/4th and Conference Divisions.
Do you think that Wigan/Brighton fans for instance would be that accepting of a tumble down the divisions ?
I have also supported our team since '68 and have rarely seen worse football at this level in the past. It truly has to be one if not the weakest tier 3 EVER.

[hoolahoop]

Donnybob made a reference to how 90% of the teams in this league are a worse quality than we are. Are we a "big" club now?!

I offer you the obvious Sheff U and Coventry as significantly "bigger" clubs. Also on par, or thereabouts, with us are MK Dons, Notts County, Portsmouth (despite their troubles), Swindon and Preston. Bournemouth, Brentford too. Tranmere clearly doin well but have spent a lot of time at this level and above on merit. Even Stevenage are a well organised club these days, small crowds but on the up, esp with Luton out of the picture at the moment.

We have no right to be up there - but we are 

What a load of bollox.........we have every right.

[TheFunk]

You may have been a supporter since 1968, but how you can say this is one of the weakest tier 3s in history when we've spent virtually all of the time in tiers 4 and 5.

[Rovers Return]

You may have been a supporter since 1968, but how you can say this is one of the weakest tier 3s in history when we've spent virtually all of the time in tiers 4 and 5.

5? Err no only 5 years

Tier 3 & 4 yes

[hoolahoop]

You may have been a supporter since 1968, but how you can say this is one of the weakest tier 3s in history when we've spent virtually all of the time in tiers 4 and 5.

Tier 2..........10
Tier 3..........14
Tier 4..........31
Tier 5..........  5

That covers the last 60 years, accepted that we have spent 50% of the time in the 4th tier but twice as long in the 2nd tier than we ever spent in the Conference. You could argue that we've spent 40% of our time in tiers 2 & 3. I think that merits some respect.
However those 2 long spells in the 4th. tier between 67/68-80/81 and 88/89-97/98 spanning 10 years a piece haven't helped the overall perception of our supporters to our place amongst English football clubs.
We have to look forward to a better 60 years for our supporters rather than dwelling on those many years of abject failure.

[Donnybob]

I do wish folk would stop harping on about the dark days of the past Century. They are the past. It was a different club back then playing in a ramshackle, near-derelict ground with pi55 poor training facilities for a board with no ambition. Every once in a while we’d appoint a manager with a bit of nous who would gain a quick promotion, but it wasn’t ever going to be a new dawn. He’d invariably see us as a stepping stone to better things and so did his players. Relegation was never far behind our promotions.

That changed. A chairman came forward and laid out his vision of the future. Or at least a vision that spanned a few years. All his targets were achieved, all the promises delivered. We now play in a modern stadium and have fantastic training facilities. The set-up at Doncaster is way above the average standard to be found in League One, particularly off the field. It’s not pampered fans looking down our noses at the Stevenage Towns and Crawleys because we’re up ourselves. Just look at the facilities and the comparative size of crowds – despite the disgruntlement. We may trade in the same division on the pitch but we are in a different league off it.

It wasn’t me who said, just 12 months ago, ‘I haven’t ruled out the play-offs this season and the club will be making a serious challenge for promotion to the Premiership next season!’ Only a year ago John Ryan still had ambition.

The Chairman didn’t tell the media that we’ve historically been a sh1t club playing in sh1t leagues so our fans should accept relegation as inevitable and be happy to put up with watching rubbish football in a tin pot league at prices that are 33% higher than 4 years ago.

It seems to me that some posters are suggesting that would have been the truth, aren’t you?

When the club began climbing the leagues numerous forum posters branded the growing fanbase as ‘glory hunters’ when in fact many were actually returning fans. Fans who had probably watched the club before these chavvy dissenters were even born.

Because they don’t feel inclined to pay good money to watch the turgid fare currently being served up they are once again labelled as glory hunters. Ironically there are plenty of chavvy dissenters who are complaining they’ve had enough now and vowing not to return.

Well this club needs to understand that football supporters cannot be taken for granted. Gates have fluctuated wildly in the past 50 years but one thing is certain. When the team plays attractive winning football the crowds turn up and expect to be entertained. That’s what these floating fans want to watch. They are not interested in standing, or singing some inane ditty, or goading away supporters or banging a drum. It’s not about blind loyalty or about grinding out results, it’s about fun. It’s entertainment. It’s value for money and quality.

Above all else these floaters need to have a reason to attend. The game has to have a purpose. Floating around in League One or even League Two isn’t a purpose. Having a declared goal, an ambition, a determination to succeed on a path that is part of a journey is something you can buy into.

Doing better than we expected in a tinpot league with no obvious leader to follow is not exactly attractive to the majority of the stay-aways.

To bring those people back to the club it has to create a vision, give them something to believe in. Right now that’s lacking. Is this a year of consolidation or a year when we’re going all out for promotion? Or does no-one know? It’s a let’s see how it goes year, isn’t it? Wait until January and we’ll re-asses. No-one at the club has a clue. And what if, God forbid, we were to be promoted with the current staff? Be honest, it would be a disaster.

So, what does our future hold? Where’s the plan? Where’s the declared ambition? Where do we intend to be in 5 years? Or in ten? Sitting in South Africa listening to the game on Player and moaning that the fans aren’t turning up in numbers is hardly going to prick many consciences, is it?

Come on Board. Give the fans a dream. Give them something to believe in. Try for once to understand that relegation to League One wasn’t what broke the bond of trust, it was how we ended up in League One that created such a massive rift. Stop pretending. Let’s see a bit of honesty. Otherwise this is one ship on a ride to nowhere, sailing towards the rocks, because you only have to read the comments on here written by those who have previously been happy to follow blindly that things are far from cushty.

[BobG]

It is very noticeable that leadership, in the context by which we have understood it this last 10 years, has completely disappeared. As a purely personal opinion, I suspect that has to do with the changed nature of the balance of power between the owners of the club, the hamstringing, decimation, of the Board, and, the curious structural relationship between the major shareholders and the Board of the company.

Whatever, it's not healthy. We are almost in a position to start to suspect the company and club are being run by shadow directors today. Now that would turn the clock back! I do wonder if there's an end game being played here? (I don't necessarily mean a destructive one. That's just one of several possibilities). The continuing deafening silence about the VSC's Board position, especially since it has now clearly become a vibrant  force, remains an intriguing back drop too.

BobG

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

There is leadership from what I can see from the chief executive which is to me how it should be.  Take a look at today's Free Press there are 3 pages from him in there today.

Equally, the club should perhaps use its own website to get this out a little bit more, but there appears to me to be a good bit of obvious leadership from the current chief executive.  With him doing more and being more proactive than the previous, that's allowed the owners to be a bit quieter which is a positive to me.  The direction and aims of the club seem clearer to me now than they did two years ago, I'm not quite understanding what people are seeing that I'm not?

[BobG]

There's a difference, BFYP, as I suspect you know very well, between leading an operational activity as our Chief Exec is doing, and strategic leadership defining long term goals, objectives and values. We have had none of the latter for 12 months now. Hardly surprising given that what little remains of the Board, whose job that is, are entirely powerless. Unless and until someone can point me towards an entirely credible reason for each and every resignation from the Board - which does not rely on platitudes or time honoured excuses - I'm afraid I will continue to wonder just what is going on.

I repeat, BFYP, there has been a serious lack of leadership within the club for 12 months now and it shows no sign of changing.

BobG

PS. As you are a VSC Director BFYP, how many shares would the VSC need to own before it could insist upon a seat on the Board? In other words, how many shares have been issued in total? I can work it out from that.

[silent majority]

I'm seriously in danger of repeating myself over and over with this subject. For the umpteenth and final time the position with the board is this;

The board grew quite considerably before JR sold large parts of his shareholding to two others. Then the board we had were making decisions which they had no financial responsibility for, hence the desire to cut back the size of the board. Now decisions are made, and ultimately the financial responsibility, falls to the 3 major shareholders of the club. They own the club, they want to make and take the decisions. After all they are meeting the financial shortcomings.

With regards to Shakespeare I prefer 'Much Ado About Nothing'

[BobG]

Fair enough SM. But that then means the club, and the company are controlled by shadow directors. And that, whilst not illegal, is a well known indicator of very severe risk.

As HM Revenue and Customs state:

"It raises the suspicion that the shadow director is attempting to conceal something by managing the company but not being listed as one of its directors."

This is the link:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/insmanual/ins44133.htm

Cheers

BobG


PS Nice to have at least one of my suspicions confirmed though!

PPS Care to comment on the VSC and a seat on the Board? (Not that it would give the VSC any influence, clearly. given your points above)

[silent majority]

Fair enough SM. But that then means the club, and the company are controlled by shadow directors. And that is illegal.

Cheers

BobG


PS Nice to have at least one of my suspicions confirmed though!

PPS Care to comment on the VSC and a seat on the Board?

Far too simplistic a definition Bob, and you should know that.

We won't be getting a seat on the board any-time soon, not unless the legislation on football governance changes and I can't see that happening just yet, the recommendations that came out of the select committee report and were considered by the FA, PL and FL have been rejected by the FA National Council, so expect the government to get involved again.

Not only that but whilst JR, TB and DW are funding the massive gap in our income stream they are doing so by converting the money they put in by converting that into shares. Whilst that is good for the club and means the club carry no debt its not good for our shareholding which gets diluted. We currently have about 1.5% of the club, but we are working on ways to increase this.

[BobG]

Thanks SM. Although I didn't know the numbers of course, the scale of the purchases that the VSC would have to make to be automatically entitled to a seat on the Board is obviously and clearly immense.

My point was more that JR's long and much vaunted desire to have a VSC rep on the Board has disappeared into thin air. It's got nothing to do with Select Committee Reports. That's simply a red herring in this context. It has everything to do with John's often repeated and widely publicised commitment to a seat for the VSC. I was wondering where it's gone? And why? I know that once Andy left his successor was too far away to be able to easily attend the necessary meetings. That's understandable. But with a rejuvenated VSC and a veritable multitude of locally based and very competent VSC people available, I'm wondering why the continued silence? A theory. and it's only one of many that could be constructed, is that JR no longer has the power to make a seat available. And that, if it did happen to be true, would underline the idea of the club and the company being run by shadow directors wouldn't it?

BTW, I don't agree with you about my alleged simplistic interpretation. In your own words "decisions are made, and ultimately the financial responsibility, falls to the 3 major shareholders of the club. They own the club, they want to make and take the decisions. After all they are meeting the financial shortcomings."

Only one of those three major shareholders is on the Board. Therefore, it is perfectly clear and perfectly logical that the other two, who "want to make and take the decisions" are indeed shadow directors. That is perfectly simple and clear. Your argument against that is now making me wonder just what you are trying to prove tbh. And why? It's beginning to look like you are trying to defend the indefensible - especially when each of your posts today has contained some little dig seemingly aimed at undermining my credibility.

Cheers

BobG

[dickos1]

Having read these threads thoroughly I cannot identify what points are indefensible. Anybody would think we were close to administration which come to think of it bob you predicted a few months ago, along with relegation, no signings, no investment etc etc etc.
All these false dawns yet you still keep searching for these conspiracy theories. I don't really understand the motive

[BobG]

No Dickos. The point is who is in control of DRFC? What impact does that have on decision making? And what risk might the answers to those questions pose?

BobG

[dickos1]

Who is in control is easy isn't it? The 3 owners! They make the decisions, as its their money and their club.

[BobG]

Yes Dickos. But if they are acting as shadow directors, as they appear to be, then it means that the appointed Board do not have the power that they are supposed to have; that the strings are pulled by people away from the gaze of the regulatory authorities and that, as HM Revenue and Customs said, there is a significant question about their motives - and that this, in their experience (and who could have better?) leads to increased risk to the company. And that is something we should all be very concerned about.

BobG

[Norfolk N Chance]

see the FP this week and the great interview with Mr Baldwin.......Something is very right with the club in my opinion........

[BobG]

It is - at an operational level. It's not - at a strategic level. Depends, I suppose, on how you value the strategic view.

BobG

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Reading through the thread, I find myself agreeing very much with Donnybob's post.

I'm sure we all recognise that through the naughties, we were one of, if not the best performing football club and quite rightly JR has to take the credit.

When things conspire against you and the tide turns, it's very difficult to stop the rot. What we have seen though, is Gavin Baldwin coming on board to actually manage the club affairs, and so far it seems very competently. Christ on a bike, JR drove the club forward and he deserves a rest. His health and mojo seemed to suffer so who can blame him.

The article in the Free Press is a very bold and a very welcome statement that reflects reality and acknowledges that things went wrong. In my view it's better to bottom out now and start rebuilding from here, rather than burying heads in sand.

I hope that article will go some way to restoring faith so that we can start to move forward again. I'm sure the club will now be more focussed on trying to grow the club whilst making sure the fans are the process rather than a product of it.

Ask yourself the question. What should be our ambition and how much are we prepared to back it ?   

[Sammy Chung was King]

Half the fun of supporting our team was getting there,the championship i mean,once we achieved that as a club,a lot of supporters stopped enjoying it,and taking it for granted,the pub team motto was us enjoying going up the league's,and come what may enjoying the game week after week,there's no denying the club spoilt some of it for us with the experiment that went wrong,Baldwin has come out and said mistakes were made,we seem to be learning from the mistakes we made in the past as a club,we are running a very competitive team on a budget that can be afforded,there's a lot of teams throughout the league's who don't learn from there mistakes,and going for the dream without thinking where next month or next year is going to see them.
The fella in charge,the chief exec seems spot on up to now,with the job he's doing,i've got to admit i prefer John Ryan,not being in the press all the time,he's a very passionate fella about Rovers,so sometimes could say the wrong thing here and there  prefer only to hear from the manager most of the time,on the two fellas not being on the board,it wouldn't bother me usually,but if they are investors in the club,surely it's better if there names are included on the board as contributors.

[dickos1]

Who do you think is on the board now that should be making the decisions rather than the owners. Sm has explained why they have taken more control in making decisions, because others were making the decisions when it wasn't their money to be making decisions on.
We're currently in probably the best financial shape in our league, so what on earth is the problem?

[silent majority]

BobG,

I'm not prepared to debate the VSC and its board position on here for a couple of reasons. Firstly I am the Secretary of this Trust, which means I have all the correspondence between this board and the club with regard to the board position. It's obvious to me that you don't have as much knowledge of that situation as you think you do which leaves you to assume certain things, wrongly as it happens.

The second reason I won't debate it here with you is that you resigned from the VSC, withheld your funds and yet still operate and ask questions as though you have a right to the answers. You don't. Furthermore you resigned quite publicly and over a long period based on the very negative opinions that have been expressed on this forum, blaming the VSC for those opinions. Pot and kettle spring to mind!!

[BobG]

Lol SM. I don't have any knowledge at all That's why I'm asking these questions about something that doesn't look right.

If you'd care to say either that 'you can't discuss these matters because  confidential discussions are under way which you expect to be able to disclose in xx weeks or months', or, if you chose to say 'Yes. There is a potential  issue. We are looking into it' then I could understand that. But prolonged sniping and prolonged denial of the bleeding obvious is really making me wonder now just what you are trying to achieve.

And  I have not, ever. resigned from the VSC. It took my money. It's on my bank statement. 31st July this year. I just haven't wanted to give you guys more work fiddling about attending to a minor detail.

I don't recall ever blaming the VSC for anything either actually. I might not like the way in which SOD was removed, or the appointment of Dean, but neither of those things can be laid at the door of the VSC. In fact I don't think I've ever apportioned blame to anyone at all. My point has always been the morality of what happened and the potential consequences. I've asked questions, sure. I've even offered theories - labelled as such. But laid blame? I think you might have misunderstood the contributions I've made.  But then, to accuse me of resigning 'quite publicly' when that is demonstrably untrue about sums up the tenor of this debate doesn't it?

BobG

[Rios]

I know many on this forum don't want to join the VSC, and some even seem against the VSC, but no-one can argue with the phrase "stength in numbers", which is what the trust is all about.

The second reason I won't debate it here with you is that you resigned from the VSC, withheld your funds and yet still operate and ask questions as though you have a right to the answers. You don't. Furthermore you resigned quite publicly and over a long period based on the very negative opinions that have been expressed on this forum, blaming the VSC for those opinions. Pot and kettle spring to mind!!

So one director of the VSC muses as to the VSC's struggle to grow and be accepted by forum users (and Rovers fans in general I assume), yet another VSC director doesn't want to debate or answer questions from a dissenter because they don't pay a subscription.  If it's a personal beef between the two of you that's different, but maligning the majority because they won't pay into your little gang isn't going to convert anyone and get the "strength of numbers" that are needed to maybe make the VSC the future of the club when the KM3 are gone.

Personally I think you two are protesting a little too much and should just get a room!   

[BobG]

So do I Rios!

My intention was just to point out a potential issue and its possible consequences. Usual sort of debate really. But the persistent sniping, (not from me I might add!), the refusal to address the issue and the obvious attempts to draw red herrings across the subject have all left me wondering just what the agenda is tbh. I've never claimed any knowledge on the subject. All I wanted was a view on what looks to be an odd senior management set up. If there wasn't a view because it's not been addressed yet, fine! No problem with that. what is not fine is the wriggling, the sniping and the repeated red herrings seeking to obscure the point under discussion.

And no. It's not a personal beef. Not for me anyway. I don't think I've ever had the pleasure of meeting SM. I'd love to do so. His efforts, along with several others, have transformed the VSC into the vibrant and dynamic organisation it is today. It's hard not to respect that. And that's why I am so puzzled by the apparent inappropriateness of these responses. Unfortunately, I think you're right Rios. We seem unable to have a rational discussion. Why? Is what I want to know now.

BobG