Venky’s (& Suhail) Out Protest Ideas

[Mike E]

12 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It was probably more Waggott and Venus.

Mowbray was there for a while though I think. Kept them up initially then bombed when handed the job permanently

Mowbray got a lot of credit there for walking before he could be sacked. I think I even used it myself as a positive for when he was employed here. Then he clung like a bad smell til the end of his contract, when he really should’ve left about a year earlier.

Then again he wasn’t the problem for us. Never was. Just a symptom.

[NeilInBristol]

Who are worse off

us or Sheffield Wednesday 

genuine question- similar situation 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Well done Wednesday fans with the Boycott tonight...that's how you do it Rovers fans!

Leeds fans are just a bunch of classless Arseholes.

[...]

8 hours ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Well done Wednesday fans with the Boycott tonight...that's how you do it Rovers fans!

Leeds fans are just a bunch of classless Arseholes.

I don't people are really bothered about us would we get the same reception from Leicester? 

 

 

[MarkBRFC]

5 hours ago, ... said:

I don't people are really bothered about us would we get the same reception from Leicester? 

If we were in a similar situation to Sheffield Wednesday I think most would have sympathy.

While we as fans know we are being run into the ground, to the wider football world all they see is us paying everyone on time every month, meeting hmrc requirements, selling players for profit but also spending a bit of money on replacing them.

Technically, they can say they aren't doing anything wrong.

Edited 1 hour ago by MarkBRFC

[JHRover]

Indeed. They should replace 'fit and proper' with 'do you pay your bills on time?' as the only requirement of an owner these days. If you do that you are fine and free to do whatever you please. If you don't then you are evil. 

[RevidgeBlue]

16 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Indeed. They should replace 'fit and proper' with 'do you pay your bills on time?' as the only requirement of an owner these days. If you do that you are fine and free to do whatever you please. If you don't then you are evil. 

In devil's advocate mode: 

You can't (and don't want) authorities intervening because Clubs are being run badly per se. Clubs have be left to live and die (figuratively speaking) by their own mistakes or good management. It's only when their viability starts to come into question that the Authorities should intervene.

Manchester United were atrocious last season and finished way below where they should for a Club of that size. Does that mean the Authorities should have intervened?

[RoverDom]

31 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

In devil's advocate mode: 

You can't (and don't want) authorities intervening because Clubs are being run badly per se. Clubs have be left to live and die (figuratively speaking) by their own mistakes or good management. It's only when their viability starts to come into question that the Authorities should intervene.

Manchester United were atrocious last season and finished way below where they should for a Club of that size. Does that mean the Authorities should have intervened?

I agree with this. The authorities should have stepped in when there was a stink of agents running the club. They should also be keeping a watchful eye on the court case situation but as yet we've not defaulted on anything. The fact that they keep pulling the rug from underneath anyone who gets within a sniff of 6th spot is just bad business but not illegal. The EFL can't come along and demand more of the Adam Wharton money be spent on transfers.