All Activity

Am I allowed to suggest he’s an attention seeking twat?

I wouldn’t disagree but of those who won’t, there are surely some who would get involved in another way if it was an option.

I don’t see why the message would automatically be mixed/watered down if the protest included both people boycotting and others entering the ground late. In fact it would have the possibility of a ‘double impact’ - fewer fans + it being clear those who are attending are against the regime too.

He isn’t the most reliable certainly, something bad about a rovers contract. I’d be guessing tronstadt is going if he were to be believed

Didn't he look like he'd put on some timber a few weeks ago

Yes of course there could be other factors or incidents that we aren't privy to that change things, but based on the available information (that he isn't good enough and isn't training professionally) it would be unfair for him to walk away with about a million (allegedly) if the rest of his contract got paid off in full now, then probably walk into another reasonably paid gig immediately, to a club signing him for free when we paid a decent fee, all because he wasn't up to it. I'd consider that another of life's injustices, although the sort of thing you half expect under this mob.

Ok well try a call for a boycott against Watford then put a chicken on the pitch the following match. See my reply to Matty, I really can't understand yours or anyone else's objections to a boycott unless you're happy with the owners and don't want them to leave. (As with not boycotting that's still everyone's prerogative to hold that opininion and Im sure there'll even be some still in that boat on the basis they'd be worried about who'd fund us if they left. As I've said before you'll never get anything like unanimity)

Pretty sure today is the first time I’ve even mentioned Suhail et al as being ‘the winner’, and that was after Herbie did, go after somebody else for once (you know, people that, unlike me, aren’t actually doing what’s being asked of them on the 24th) as being lectured to by somebody that doesn’t even go in the first place and ergo has no decision to make is getting tiresome.

You're obsessed with this notion of there being "winners" and "losers" arising out of the call for a boycott. There's no such thing - if the boycott is "a success" and say 2 k less people than even the current paltry attendances refuse to attend then that would be nice, but it doesn't mean the owners will sell up the following day. Similarly if there is no noticeable decline in the attendance, there's nothing lost, there'll be some publicity for the cause, the ground will look extremely sparse anyway and it it will be a solid and welcome first step in what will probably need to be an unrelenting and fairly lengthy campaign if it is to be successful.

I'm not happy with venky's at all I've said this before but the watford game falls closest to my lads birthday,so i'd already booked 2 none refundable hotel rooms (as we live an hour and half away and only get to a handfull of home games a season as lad plays saturday's),tickets and jack's kitchen by the time the boycott was announced(the tickets went on sale earlier than normal,maybe due to being included in the xmas bundle) So that's the reason we'll be attending....i'm happy to enter the ground 5 minutes late as has been suggested above though

So like I was saying the Coalition are struggling with the mindset of a lot of match goers. There are plenty in that ground that have no truck with the owners whatsoever, but they would not countenance not supporting the team. You can debate the rights and wrongs of that as a viewpoint, but that’s the reality, and saying ‘well, it means the attendees are all content with the owners and the regime’ is just another way of using loaded terms like ‘complicit’ and it isn’t helpful (well, it is to Suhail et al).

Rovers will be on a DNR instruction in another couple of years under this ownership

I understand but if we send mixed messages it will really waterdown the effectiveness of the protest. We cannot promote a boycott but say if you do go please show your ire. We have had many protests attempted in ground before. They never get off the ground. This is a simple and effective way of sending a clear message. We reason we are now at the stage of trying a boycott is that everything else hasn't worked.

Probably 🙂 At least it wasn't DNR !

are they making them sign NDAs in in blood now? 😉

This 'ITK' posted this. But I take everything he says as bs

I see your point, but I think as many as possible should just get behind the idea...

Depends on the truth of the matter and we've only heard one side and we only will once hes signed his DNA and gone. However a contract is a contract and the clowns at Ewood probably gave him a good one so if they want him out and can't find a buyer there's only one option. Unless he breaches the contract or requests a move.

Time ticking to get all of these signings in by Hull as requested. Surely an easy task for such an organised club.

I don't think that would be the fairest thing to do at all. I don't agree with being paid exorbitant sums for failure and laziness.

It's the latter more than the former IMO. He definitely isn't so bad that he shouldn't even make a bench that has zero strikers in a team that plays 2 at a time, one of whom already isn't a striker (or any good at all). Ismael wants to make a point about training standards, and that's his prerogative tbh.

Sounds like a great use of time… https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c62ver6z7z8o

I don't think its ever been unusual in football except here they are playing their games out in public. Same as 'Wanted to leave/Greedy/Wanted to be closer to home/Was offered a record wage here but still chose to leave' etc etc. Works both ways to be fair as i assume Gueyes agent will be saying pay us off in full and we'll go. Which in theory would be the fairest thing to do but it uses up vital money and exposes those who brought him in as making a massive balls up. Maybe THEY should be made to pay him up instead !

I don’t think it’s helpful to suggest someone attending means they’re content with the running of the club. It would be far better to try and establish how people who wish to attend can contribute in a different way.

Oh, constructive dismissal by bullying/ marginalising?