Lining his own pockets

[Walshy]

Lining his own pockets. That's why he kept turning up at games in 1998 and didn't run off with Richardson.

https://awayonsaturday.blogspot.com/2021/02/mark-weaver-on-his-time-at-doncaster_24.html

[BobG]

I've just read Part 3. What a sanctimonious creep that man is. There are plenty of examples in there, but when he said the Council wanted to see the end of the Rovers ("The council wanted it to be a Bury") he's gone too far. I was present, at a meeting with the Leader of the Council during that time and I personally heard him state that the survival and future of the Rovers was the Council's overriding concern. You only have to look back at the local plan to see that the Council had made provision for a new ground. The only thing the Council wanted was to see the back of Richardson and his awful sidekick.

Or how about this? "I knew I was going to sell the club in November 1997,"Clearly he had taken a leaf out of his masters' handbook. The club wasn't his to sell. Firestarter owned the shares. It was he who made all the decisions. I seriously doubt if he would ever have allowed his lapdog to make such an enormous decision. A decision central to the entire rationale for Richardson being in the position he was.....

That article is fantasy. The man is living in dreamland. It should never have been published.

BobG

[selby]

  Why not Bob, most people including Andrew knows it is fantasy island stuff, but why not print the interview its part, a big part of where we were, the type of people that ran the club, and should be out there to show just how easy it is to fall into the hands of unscrupulous people who have ulterior motives to get control of a towns football club to profit from it for themselves.
  It is the lowest point in our clubs history, and should be something we are wary of could happen easily in the future, but also a point of  pride that some supporters stood steadfastly in the way of letting the club sink at the vital moment and its subsequent rise should be a matter for celebration and pride for all those involved.
  Its part of the clubs History from one persons point of view, we can disagree with it but to try and bury it would not be the right thing to do.

[BobG]

Because the fact of it being published makes it part of the public record. It muddies the water. You and I might know it is  self serving and baseless but what would guys in Somerset know? What would jourmalists under the age of 45 know? No. it is an utterly bas**rdised and worthless version of what happened. It should never have seen the light of day. It's author has been led right up the garden path. He has allowed himself to be used and he has become a tool in that man's defence.

BobG

[hamiltonrover]

  Why not Bob, most people including Andrew knows it is fantasy island stuff, but why not print the interview its part, a big part of where we were, the type of people that ran the club, and should be out there to show just how easy it is to fall into the hands of unscrupulous people who have ulterior motives to get control of a towns football club to profit from it for themselves.
  It is the lowest point in our clubs history, and should be something we are wary of could happen easily in the future, but also a point of  pride that some supporters stood steadfastly in the way of letting the club sink at the vital moment and its subsequent rise should be a matter for celebration and pride for all those involved.
  Its part of the clubs History from one persons point of view, we can disagree with it but to try and bury it would not be the right thing to do.

Agree 100% Selby, I went to every single game of Richardson’s entire reign, home and away, I found the article of interest, things I didn’t know and yes, lots of bull, he nearly killed our club, but he didn’t, we emerged from it much stronger. Do we not have freedom of speech in this country?

[DRNaith]

  Why not Bob, most people including Andrew knows it is fantasy island stuff, but why not print the interview its part, a big part of where we were, the type of people that ran the club, and should be out there to show just how easy it is to fall into the hands of unscrupulous people who have ulterior motives to get control of a towns football club to profit from it for themselves.
  It is the lowest point in our clubs history, and should be something we are wary of could happen easily in the future, but also a point of  pride that some supporters stood steadfastly in the way of letting the club sink at the vital moment and its subsequent rise should be a matter for celebration and pride for all those involved.
  Its part of the clubs History from one persons point of view, we can disagree with it but to try and bury it would not be the right thing to do.

Agree 100% Selby, I went to every single game of Richardson’s entire reign, home and away, I found the article of interest, things I didn’t know and yes, lots of bull, he nearly killed our club, but he didn’t, we emerged from it much stronger. Do we not have freedom of speech in this country?

Sadly that freedom doesn't just allow for the positive things that people think of when "freedom of speech" is mentioned, it also allows for poor writing, misinformation and downright lies.

[BobG]

Freedom of speech does not encompass the publication of knowing lies.

BobG

[hamiltonrover]

Freedom of speech does not encompass the publication of knowing lies.

BobG

Should maybe have a word with the National Press !

[Walshy]

I agree as well that its better out there being said than left unsaid.

I don't like everything which Weaver has put on record and there's parts what are definitely rubbish but the more things that are documented about that era, the better as it's an important part in the history of our football club.

There can't be a single fan around who hasn't wondered what happened to him or Richardson in the years afterwards, or who haven't spent time thinking back to those days at some point or anoter.

[BobG]

It's not the fans I'm bothered about Walshy. They know what happened. They know who the serial liars were. It's the uninformed outsider, the supporter who has yet to be born, the journalist who will accept this tripe at face value that bother me. Anybody who publishes what he writes about historical events has an obligation to the public at large. An obligation to work hard to ensure objective truth is portayed.

You will have noticed, I am sure, that I offered independent verification for at least part of what I said. The author of this shit simply parrots Weaver saying 'I did this', 'I was sure I could do that'. That's not even reporting. It is the action of a copy typist. Yet he portrays what is written as an exercise in truth. It is no such thing. Therefore it does not deserve to ever see the light of day - unless clearly labelled 'fiction'.

BobG

[Ldr]

It's not the fans I'm bothered about Walshy. They know what happened. They know who the serial liars were. It's the uninformed outsider, the supporter who has yet to be born, the journalist who will accept this tripe at face value that bother me. Anybody who publishes what he writes about historical events has an obligation to the public at large. An obligation to work hard to ensure objective truth is portayed.

You will have noticed, I am sure, that I offered independent verification for at least part of what I said. The author of this shit simply parrots Weaver saying 'I did this', 'I was sure I could do that'. That's not even reporting. It is the action of a copy typist. Yet he portrays what is written as an exercise in truth. It is no such thing. Therefore it does not deserve to ever see the light of day - unless clearly labelled 'fiction'.

BobG

There was a wonderful timeliness of events compiled by your father published in the fanzine at the time

[Draytonian III]

One my original concerns about this interview is that is done by someone who was not about at the time due their age, if the questions had been asked by someone over the age of 40 the answers would have been very different.

[Glyn_Wigley]

One my original concerns about this interview is that is done by someone who was not about at the time due their age, if the questions had been asked by someone over the age of 40 the answers would have been very different.

He doesn't even know it's 'passing the buck', not 'passing the book'...

[idler]

I thought exactly the same Glynn.
Not much proof reading gone on, grammar and punctuation are getting worse every year. Even in the national press.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I thought exactly the same Glynn.
Not much proof reading gone on, grammar and punctuation are getting worse every year. Even in the national press.

*ahem*Glyn not Glynn*ahem*

[selby]

  Seems to me that part of the problem is as well as the subject itself  in part it is a vendetta against the person who conducted the interview by certain people.
  I go along with the idea that it happened, some good people did everything they could to overturn a corrupt regime in charge of the club at the time, but can't for the life of me see why some want to bury any printed information whether fantasy island or not on the subject as it is in the history of this great club and people not involved at the time are interested in what and didn't go off at the time.

[Draytonian III]

  Seems to me that part of the problem is as well as the subject itself  in part it is a vendetta against the person who conducted the interview by certain people.
  I go along with the idea that it happened, some good people did everything they could to overturn a corrupt regime in charge of the club at the time, but can't for the life of me see why some want to bury any printed information whether fantasy island or not on the subject as it is in the history of this great club and people not involved at the time are interested in what and didn't go off at the time.







If you are referring to me, you are out of order because the point I’m raising is that the older supporters would have more insight to what went off than someone who wasn’t about at the time, nothing to do with the actual person who did the interview.

[BobG]

And if you are making allegations of that sort Selby, then some evidence might be rather handy.  As far as I can see, the comment has been about the content. Not the author except to the extent that his investigative, research and challenging weaknesses impact upon the veracity of what has been written. I trust you noted, Selby, that not once in this thread, and on very few occasions in the other thread, has the authors' name ever been mentioned. Even when it was, it was restricted to a nickname. If someone has a personal vendetta against the author then surely it would be sensible to make sure that everyone on this board knew who the target was - rather than the increasingly smaller sub section from perhaps 5 years and more ago who were on the board during the time the author was. 

BobG

[selby]

  Draytonian III, Rigo attracted quite a bit of opposition in the past from certain people for some reason, in Bobs case he feels very deeply about the subject and fair does to him for standing his corner on a subject he feels so strongly about,
  Others don't agree with anything anybody says about anything.

[idler]

I thought exactly the same Glynn.
Not much proof reading gone on, grammar and punctuation are getting worse every year. Even in the national press.

*ahem*Glyn not Glynn*ahem*

Say no more.

[EasyforDennis]

I assume you never read either the Daily Mail or Express Bob?

[hamiltonrover]

It's not the fans I'm bothered about Walshy. They know what happened. They know who the serial liars were. It's the uninformed outsider, the supporter who has yet to be born, the journalist who will accept this tripe at face value that bother me. Anybody who publishes what he writes about historical events has an obligation to the public at large. An obligation to work hard to ensure objective truth is portayed.

You will have noticed, I am sure, that I offered independent verification for at least part of what I said. The author of this shit simply parrots Weaver saying 'I did this', 'I was sure I could do that'. That's not even reporting. It is the action of a copy typist. Yet he portrays what is written as an exercise in truth. It is no such thing. Therefore it does not deserve to ever see the light of day - unless clearly labelled 'fiction'.

BobG

Where does he portray what is written as an exercise in truth? And as the article is in a blog as opposed to a wider reaching publication I don’t think you need to worry too much about the uninformed outsiders too much.

I get the passions of the time, I was there, I lived it, I campaigned, I marched. It’s nearly 25 years ago and like it or not, it’s part of our history, a history that has blossomed since.

[Draytonian III]

Selby did you actually read what I wrote, it has nothing to do with the person asking the questions Rigo or not, it’s about someone being older and witnessing the events first hand

[NickDRFC]

I’m not really sure what the big deal is here. In my opinion nothing that gobshite says should see the light of day, but an airing on a blog doesn’t exactly suggest it’s going to get a broad audience.

[BradwellRover]

I’m appalled by the fact that this rubbish has been put out, and that he has been given the attention (which he loves).

It’s a twisted view of what happened, and unfortunately the truth can’t be put out by many of those that know it, for fear of libel.  Most of the two documentaries made at the time suffered for the same reason; tied up by lawyers.

Let’s not forget that him, Richardson and his cronies dragged us through hell and made many of our lives a misery.  People suffered real consequences, that’s why we are angry.

For information, before anyone starts, I haven’t spoken to Rigo for years and had no axe to grind with him previous to this.

[VivaRovers]

  Seems to me that part of the problem is as well as the subject itself  in part it is a vendetta against the person who conducted the interview by certain people.

Where on earth have you drawn that from, from anything written on this thread? It's a daft statement that really isn't helpful to a reasonable discussion that's been taking place.

The article itself is disappointing. I'll give credit to its writer for doing a reasonable amount of research and asking for input from fans who were present at the time before interviewing Weaver, and he gets no criticism from me for going ahead and interviewing the man... I said as much in the fanzine. But, for reasons Bob and others have already covered, unfortunately the end result isn't so much an interview as a platform for one man to speak his version of events. It's alright the interviewer writing that he 'interjected sternly', but it doesn't come across in the resulting copy that he did so.

Unfortunately, as Bob also pointed out, because Weaver's not spoken to anyone else on this, his version of the truth will become accepted as the norm because it exists on the internet where the counterpoints don't. This is where the interview really disappoints because it appears there has been no fact-checking of what has been said between interview and publication.

It's alright saying, 'ah well, it's only on a blog', what does it matter, but it's still published and out there for folk to find and read. If it was sent to me to publish in the fanzine, I wouldn't... not because it's Weaver, not because of who's written it, but because it's missing a fact check, and it's missing counter arguments where there should be some.

[bobjimwilly]

"I made for myself, I'm not denying that, but I also kept the football club alive because nobody else really gave a shit."

 

[hamiltonrover]

Out of interest Glen, why didn’t you speak to Weaver? It looked like the door was wide open going by a Twitter exchange I saw (not with you, but a regular contributor)

Genuine question, but where do you feel it could be fact checked? I was around at the time and know there is a lot of hot air spoken by Weaver, but what is factually incorrect?

Ta

[Ldr]

Out of interest Glen, why didn’t you speak to Weaver? It looked like the door was wide open going by a Twitter exchange I saw (not with you, but a regular contributor)

Genuine question, but where do you feel it could be fact checked? I was around at the time and know there is a lot of hot air spoken by Weaver, but what is factually incorrect?

Ta

Issue 7 (I think) of kwcr, courtesy of Ray Gilbert

[VivaRovers]

Out of interest Glen, why didn’t you speak to Weaver? It looked like the door was wide open going by a Twitter exchange I saw (not with you, but a regular contributor)

Genuine question, but where do you feel it could be fact checked? I was around at the time and know there is a lot of hot air spoken by Weaver, but what is factually incorrect?

Yeah, I saw a few folk suggested he speak to the fanzine, and that would've fallen on me, but (between the 'zine, my dayjob and other projects) I don't really have the time to do it properly, plus I'm still not really sure that the fanzine would've been a suitable place for it.

On the fact-checking point, there are a few points that have already been pointed out to be inaccurate on other threads on this board, or can at least be countered by the experiences of people involved within Save the Rovers, and that should be highlighted in the piece. Credit where it's due, the countering is done a couple of times in the form of questions, but there's no comeback really to any of Weaver's subsequent answers.

Beyond that, within the final part you've one man's take on a lot of financial back and forth that involved several parties. John Ryan surely isn't beyond being approached or asked, even if Phelan and O'Brien are. Plus there are reams of stuff on the Westferry takeover online that don't or won't align with Weaver's account.