It seems Mr Spencer was asked to leave the ground on Saturday. He resigned as a director of BRFC in 2006 and has has apparently consistently criticised the Board , management and team of the Football Club. He has been told not to return. http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-ban-director-Kevin-Spencer/story-17050034-
I have no idea about this, don't know Kevin either. It is strange they have stopped him from going to the games purely because of his criticism about the club though?? What ever happened to free-speach?
i dont know kevin or what happened in 2006. im not in any group who is in the know so i dont know any politics from board level apart from what is passed down via media or forums. reading the forums and bits from the media, here is the full picture from the impression i have received regarding what happened in 2006 until now. obviously details could be wrong as again im basing this on just what i have read on the forum from those involved and in the know. sorry if details are wrong. 4 people including this kevin person was asked by the board to look at ways to improve us. these 4 were also on the board of directors as well. they made the 'ROVERS AGENDA FOR CHANGE' (RAFC) which highlights all the changes they feel needed to be done to take us forward as they believed we were going backwards. exactly what they were asked to do by the rest of the board. here is that document for RAFC - (26 pages and well worth a read and a lot sounds like a very good ideas) - http://www.roversagendaforchange.org.uk/docs/Rovers Agenda for Change.pdf they put forward lots of ideas to the table to improve relations with the fans as this was at an all time low. a lot of the ideas looks like was to do with the clubs finances. they wanted to inject over a million of their own funds to implement these changes but one of the conditions were the board had to let these 4 run the day to day finances of the club so they can keep their changes on track and on scheduale. sounds good to me! but it seems like the board took offense to this request and refused to look at the RAFC documents. as a result kevin and and the other 3 resigned from the board as no longer wanted to be part of that current board who they thought was taking the club backwards. here is what was in the press at the time they resigned: they even went as far as not watching rovers play again until this season as they didnt want anything to do with the club while the current board are still in place. but their love for rovers brought them back to watching games this season as fans in the stands like the rest of us paying their money to watch. fair enough. during saturdays match with northampton, the board heard kevin was in attendance so they got another employee to escort kevin from the stadium during the game and handed him a letter confirming he was banned from ever returning. the other few 3 who resigned didnt get escorted or banned though. sounds like this kevin person done something to upset the current board for them to still that angry to ban him now after 6 years. here is the boards statement: this kevin posts on a different forum. he has denied these claims that he has been doing what the board claims. this has angered a lot of fans who know kevin and fans in the know of what has happened. the way he was escorted and banned has angered a lot of people who dont even know kevin. there has been talk on a different forum that kevin comments on about boycotting games and saying things like they wont return until kevin is allowed back etc. kevin has issued a response to this: now i dont know who to believe.... this kevin person who denies any wrong doing or the board who has evidence that kevin has persistantly/consistantly criticised the current board over the last 6 years and feel angered enough to ban him from attending games. whoever is correct, still to me doesnt give the board the right to ban a fan. if he has broken the law then yes fair enough but to ban him due to criticising the board once or 1000 times, shouldnt give the board the right to ban him. dennis dunford once said.... "the Board are not the owners of the club they are it's custodians and then only temporarily. The club is the fans, and free speech must be allowed at all times without fear of reprisals." a very poor move by higgs and company. if we cannot criticise the board a number of times then i dont think there will be many fans left allowed to attend!
I don't know Kevin, and I don't know any members of the board on a personal basis ... but this I DO know. Several people who have had dealings with Bristol Rovers on a professional basis have been treated very badly with reference getting invoices paid etc. (this was a few years ago), and have stated that they will NEVER do buisness with the club again. This does not promote the club in a good light, and I feel that this Kevin guy only wanted what's best for Bristol Rovers, both on & off the pitch. We as supporters have known for years that something is fundamentally wrong at the club. Yes the present Board have put their hand in their pockets. Yes they have got the UWE stadium into it's final stages ... and credit where credit is due ... BUT - many supporters who I chat with and go on match days KNOW that all is not well, and this is backed up by the last 10 -12 years performance on the pitch - 2007 being the exception. To ban a LIFE long supporter for LIFE (and an ex-board member as well!) seems a bit draconian - especially as Higgs personally asked us to "Pack" the Mem - meaning we NEED every supporter we can get in these times. The whisperings have always been - what happened to the money - Cardiff; Wembley; Cup run; Lambert etc etc - there seems to be no transparency - if there is NOTHING to hide why don't they let us know. Unfortunately until there is a change at the top then I think OUR club will be run in the same "Mickey Mouse" way as it has been for the last decade ... only time will tell if and (hopefully) when we get the UWE, but I ain't holding my breath!!
Having had a quick read of the 26 page business plan I am not sure which side we should take on this issue. The plan makes many pretty obvious statements on how the Football Club should integrate into the community and make closer relationships with the Supporter's Club; the local community and local sports clubs.. Also they require a greater transparancy of the club's financial position. Presumably the RAfC document was constructed and made public after the Directors resigned. If you 'aint innit you cant win it' comes to mind. There is also a section which hints that at present the best man for the job is not currently the case. The plan suggests that Directors should be employed to serve the football club in a role which is most closely linked to their business ability and be held directly responsible for the actions they take. Generally, although a bit repetitive, I think most of the ideas in the RAfC are good ones as long as everyone on the Board is prepared to share the burden sensibly; do the things which best suit them; agree to a greater involvement from the Supporters Club; agree to a closer involvement with the local community and allow the necessary transparency for it to work. So I think there probably a lot more to this saga than we have been made aware of.
I know Kevin not well but know him, his wife is best friends with my auntie and used to babysit me and my brothers with a plastic baseball bat, I always thought we were well behaved children I will say that I have always found him a good laugh and I know that he always wanted what was the best for your club.
I think something must have been said that caused this decision ROD. On face value it does no one any favours. There is an underlying tone to the ROfC which suggests that control should be wrested out of the hands of the current Board.
Probably explains why your a City supporter, she hit you senseless for you to be pick the wrong team! Seriously though, I came across this which dates back to 2007. http://br-isc.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/cowlin-sold-for-52m.html It seems that Geoff Dunford had been charging the club 'many hundreds of thousands of pounds' for the team to use 'his' training facilities and also charging the club for 'putting players up at 'his' hotel. Seems the board are very close-knit and will only do business with each other which makes them money and not the club??
Pride. The letter you refer to seems to be another unsubstantiated statement about how the Rovers Board has behaved. Pretty much all of the conclusions which have been drawn over this issue are entirely based on non-factual or unsupported statements. Nobody really seems to know what caused the final straw to break the camel's back. In 'another place' I read that the small number of fans who have decided that the Board is at fault are ' the majority of Rovers supporters'. I think there are a few more fans than that even given that only a small minority of them currently attend the Rovers matches. As we do not know what went on we are unable to draw conclusions. But, under the circumstances a little bit of extra information could be generated by Mr Higgs as a courtesy to those of us who feel that the decision may appear to be a little high-handed. Ignorance is not always bliss!
