Venky’s (& Suhail) Out Protest Ideas

[desrover]

26 minutes ago, TheRoversGRL said:

We certainly don't think the owners are part of the solution. 

However, if certain people leave. We’re very certain the owners will follow. Hardest part is pleasing everyone. We’re trying our best

Could these strategies be outlined further? I do not think everyone is fully aware of why this would follow.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

14 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I knew you loved to deflect from the owners but I didnt realise your views are so ludicriously extreme.

You will struggle to explain what was going on and why we was so shoddily run and why we was downsizing continiously for over 7 years prior to his appointment.

Im not deflecting from the owners. That's all in your head. Everything that happens is ultimately the owners responsibility.

Im not sure though why you struggle with the concepts that:

a) The owners aren't hands on and half the time probably dont have a clue what's going on down at Ewood. They do allow a degree of latitude to those on the ground and let them get on with running (ruining) the Club.

b) Generally they employ incompetent people and/ or willing patsys. Just because they are incompetent or compliant doesn't mean they should be absolved from any or all blame as you seem to think nor that they shouldnt be removed if we've to be any hope of being successful.

Once again, just for the avoidance of any doubt as you're struggling to grasp it,  it's the owners fault for employing this calibre of person and their fault if they fail to remove them. Said people shouldnt be immune to criticism or stay in situ however.

[RevidgeBlue]

43 minutes ago, TheRoversGRL said:

We certainly don't think the owners are part of the solution. 

However, if certain people leave. We’re very certain the owners will follow. Hardest part is pleasing everyone. We’re trying our best

Keep up the good work. The latest abandonment was manna from heaven for you in finally getting the EFL to sit up and take notice Id imagine.

[RevidgeBlue]

19 hours ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Come off it. The blueprint for our path was created in 2010. You seem to be the only person who has failed to see that.

That's rich coming from the person who is currently one of the first ones to shoot down any criticism of the Club.

You're not wrong with the above statement. However the modus operandi has changed considerably, in the early days they pissed money up the wall like it was going out of fashion.

Then bruised by that they went to the other extreme and we're now penny pinching our way into oblivion which was Waggott's MO.

[roversfan99]

16 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Im not deflecting from the owners. That's all in your head. Everything that happens is ultimately the owners responsibility.

Im not sure though why you struggle with the concepts that:

a) The owners aren't hands on and half the time probably dont have a clue what's going on down at Ewood. They do allow a degree of latitude to those on the ground and let them get on with running (ruining) the Club.

b) Generally they employ incompetent people and/ or willing patsys. Just because they are incompetent or compliant doesn't mean they should be absolved from any or all blame as you seem to think nor that they shouldnt be removed if we've to be any hope of being successful.

Once again, just for the avoidance of any doubt as you're struggling to grasp it,  it's the owners fault for employing this calibre of person and their fault if they fail to remove them. Said people shouldnt be immune to criticism or stay in situ however.

Ive never said that they shouldnt be criticised. But you have historically deflected from the owners. It isnt in my head as lots of other people have pointed it out over the years.

If Waggott was the "architecht" of the downsizing, and what has happened since his departure was because of his work. What happened for over 7 years before he was appointed?

If your argument is that the owners dont care and want to pass the blame away to people closer to home. Then surely Suhail would be the architecht, having been here before, during and after Waggott and with seemingly more power.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Do the Venkys actually know the real depth of resentment amongst the fans to their Tenure?

What info are they being fed at Boardroom and Management level by individuals who are pro Venkys for no other reason than to line their own pockets with money.The self preservation society.

All fine Mrs D,nothing to see here...another contract extension my good acolyte!

Edited 2 hours ago by SIMON GARNERS 194

[RevidgeBlue]

14 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Ive never said that they shouldnt be criticised. But you have historically deflected from the owners. It isnt in my head as lots of other people have pointed it out over the years.

If Waggott was the "architecht" of the downsizing, and what has happened since his departure was because of his work. What happened for over 7 years before he was appointed?

If your argument is that the owners dont care and want to pass the blame away to people closer to home. Then surely Suhail would be the architecht, having been here before, during and after Waggott and with seemingly more power.

Where I may have differed from many people over the years was that rather than simply wanting to chase the owners out of town straightaway I thought the ideal scenario would have been to combine their financial clout with proper people running the Club on the ground. I dont have to like the owners, I'm not going to invite them round for dinner or anything, I just want the Club to properly funded to give them a chance of being successful.

Unfortunately we never got to the situation where competitive funding married up with competent ambitious people on the ground. Anderson, Singh etc burnt their way through money like it was going out of fashion initially, Waggott and Mowbray wasted the period when they still retained a bit of an interest plodding along feathering their own nests. It was always going to happen that the owners' interest would fizzle out sooner or later and by the time we lucked upon a couple of outstanding candidates in JDT  and Eustace, the taps had been well and truly turned off.

Out of curiosity, as you dont seem to blame Waggott or Mowbray for anything, then using the same logic do you absolve say Anderson or Coyle from any blame? After all, it's all the owners fault and said people were acting under their auspices and with the tools they'd been given at the time.

[Devon Rover]

2 hours ago, TheRoversGRL said:

We certainly don't think the owners are part of the solution. 

However, if certain people leave. We’re very certain the owners will follow. Hardest part is pleasing everyone. We’re trying our best

"Very certain" is a bold statement. The reasoning/theory for this should be shared, or the language reconsidered.

[roversfan99]

35 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Where I may have differed from many people over the years was that rather than simply wanting to chase the owners out of town straightaway I thought the ideal scenario would have been to combine their financial clout with proper people running the Club on the ground. I dont have to like the owners, I'm not going to invite them round for dinner or anything, I just want the Club to properly funded to give them a chance of being successful.

Unfortunately we never got to the situation where competitive funding married up with competent ambitious people on the ground. Anderson, Singh etc burnt their way through money like it was going out of fashion initially, Waggott and Mowbray wasted the period when they still retained a bit of an interest plodding along feathering their own nests. It was always going to happen that the owners' interest would fizzle out sooner or later and by the time we lucked upon a couple of outstanding candidates in JDT  and Eustace, the taps had been well and truly turned off.

Out of curiosity, as you dont seem to blame Waggott or Mowbray for anything, then using the same logic do you absolve say Anderson or Coyle from any blame? After all, it's all the owners fault and said people were acting under their auspices and with the tools they'd been given at the time.

I think Waggott was a poor CEO. I think Mowbray was an ok manager who did a decent job, but certainly had a number of flaws. I think Anderson was a leech and out of the 4 certainly have the most disdain for, he cant be compared to managers/executives/board members (bar maybe Suhail). And I think Coyle was a dreadful manager. I dont think they shouldnt all be judged on what they have done at the club. I just am not naive enough to think that the architecht of our downsizing is anyone but the owners.

I think your deflection of blame away stems around your warped logic about how "their financial clout" impacts us. They merely offset the losses every year by raising share capital or debt. The same as all Championship owners, none of then have a choice. Norwich, Swansea, Preston, QPR, the list goes on although i doubt their fans praise them for it. You seem to view it as if at the start of the year, they go heres £20m see what you can do with this.

[lraC]

Actual attendance on Tuesday was 5670.

[Mattyblue]

25,670 to 5,670 under their watch. Some achievement that 👏 

[wilsdenrover]

12 minutes ago, lraC said:

Actual attendance on Tuesday was 5670.

Do you know how many Oxford brought?

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

16 minutes ago, lraC said:

Actual attendance on Tuesday was 5670.

Never that low,never.

The whole attendance could have fit in the BBE..about 8,000 or so.

Edited 1 hour ago by SIMON GARNERS 194

[Mattyblue]

I’d say it was, certainly not 3,000 between the Blackburn End, Darwen End and Riverside (and the Jack Walker was nowhere near half full).

Edited 1 hour ago by Mattyblue

[simongarnerisgod]

unofficial boycott has began seemingly🙂

[lraC]

52 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Do you know how many Oxford brought?

No, sorry 

[lraC]

50 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

Never that low,never.

The whole attendance could have fit in the BBE..about 8,000 or so.

Apparently it’s correct, although I can’t prove it.

[Bethnal]

2 minutes ago, lraC said:

Apparently it’s correct, although I can’t prove it.

You can prove it by lodging a FOI request with the police, who have to be provided with the actual attendance (people in the building) for safety/fire risk, etc. it works, it’s been done already this season.