Venky’s (& Suhail) Out Protest Ideas

[AllRoversGirl_]

8 minutes ago, Devon Rover said:

Yesterday you stated that "if certain people leave. We’re very certain the owners will follow". If you believe that with the certainty you stated (I dont think you responded to my reply anout this) then why are you posing this question and asking others to come up with solutions when we aren't aware of the facts that make this such a certainty, for you? Your wording suggested the crucial action is targeting particular individuals. So who are they and how might that be effective, based on the information that gives you such certainty? I feel like I'm missing something here between certainties and asking what to do. 

 

Pasha is Venky's advisor. Target him and make it uncomfortable at matches.  Pasha has been a constant figure since the owners took over. Has started to be targeted heavily in the last 12 months or so. 

I'm just going to be completely blunt with you. It's not down to just 1 supporter group to do something about it. 

[sharpysharps86]

Agree with previous post from Kidder. Last season when the fans targeted the 3 execs it caused a bit of a stir and forced them into that woeful interview. However as always with Rovers fans, as soon as the club string a few positive results together the pressure dies off. I could understand it to a certain degree with last season because there were still faint hopes of a playoff place, but this time round there really is no excuse to not be putting sustained pressure on Suhail and Gestede.

[Mattyblue]

Surely if it is called ‘The Coalition’, it very much is down to them (forget WATR).

Edited 7 hours ago by Mattyblue

[Devon Rover]

Just now, AllRoversGirl_ said:

Pasha is Venky's advisor. Target him and make it uncomfortable at matches.  Pasha has been a constant figure since the owners took over. Has started to be targeted heavily in the last 12 months or so. 

I'm just going to be completely blunt with you. It's not down to just 1 supporter group to do something about it. 

You are correct in that. But we are all a demoralised and exhausted fanbase and, to be blunt with you, you have stated with absolute certainty venkys will leave if certain individuals go. Armed with some intel that many of us clearly arent, then, what might be done by any/all of us to achieve ousting those individuals? I have no idea, as a reasonably informed individual, how to do that. And talk of organised protests goes round and round on here without unanimity whilst I am unconvinced they would achieve that particular initial key outcome. Evidence of the "certainty" of that outcome leading to venkys going would be a huge game changer for many. Do you have it, or were you describing a personal belief, rather than absolute certainty?

I realise electronic discussions can be interpreted differently and I dont want the above to come across as confrontational - it isnt intended that way. I think wording is very important and your original post gave me hope. Subsequent ones, less so.

[Bethnal]

44 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Can you confirm that since the Trust got involved it stopped all coalition progress?

The trust for the last few years have just been silent and non-existent.

And can you confirm if Pasha has ran away to India or just on holiday or something?

This is subjective, so confirmation is tough, but my tuppence:

I left the coalition (it’s not even formally a thing, by the time I left it was two group chats) basically because there was action around the Derby game planned but I and another got stonewalled on it.
 

My suggestion was that the trust had the governance and infrastructure to fundraise for that action - I wasn’t comfortable having a fundraiser done by a lone person or group of independent people. I was told expressly by Trust board members that the didn’t have the mandate to fundraise for action, the rest of the board wasn’t as motivated to take action as the coalition/the trust board members in that coalition were and that some board members didn’t need the heat on them.

The plan for action ran out of time, I left the group.

In my view - everything slowed at the point where the Trust and The Coalition fused a bit. I expect those still active will say that’s not the case and that’s their opinion to have. But it isn’t my experience.

[wilsdenrover]

Engagement is a two way thing.

[KidderStreetNoise]

14 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Surely if it is called ‘The Coalition’, it very much is down to them (forget WATR).

But they fused, with coalition members going on to the trust's board & trust members getting involved with the coalition

[Mattyblue]

Have they fused? Thought WATR stayed separate? If they have then my original point stands even more, it’s one group, it’s them or nowt.

[KidderStreetNoise]

1 minute ago, Mattyblue said:

Have they fused? Thought WATR stayed separate? If they have then my original point stands even more, it’s one group, it’s them or nowt.

Not in name or branding, but members of the coalition became part of the trust's board, therefore had to be less militant as they were now representing the supporters trust. Trust board members became part of the coalition & they were never going to be as militant because they were a part of the trust that had achieved nothing for years.

[Bethnal]

10 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Have they fused? Thought WATR stayed separate? If they have then my original point stands even more, it’s one group, it’s them or nowt.

Once they realised they were being left behind, this came.

[DE.]

On 13/12/2025 at 10:56, 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

For what it's worth I agreed with the majority of the statement, it was really only the last page I had an issue with. It implies that a statement from the owners would have value, when it wouldn't, and the suggestion is that if such a statement was released the coalition / trust would "continue to hold them accountable". 

Frankly, that is just a retread of the "critical friend" overtures that have failed for well over a decade. It didn't work with the FF, it didn't work with the AG, it didn't work with the Trust and it won't work now. 

The demand simply has to be for the owners to put the club up for sale. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether such a statement achieves anything is another matter - it probably won't - but my view is that this should be a message repeatedly reinforced no matter what. 

I'm just one guy from the outside looking in, so I don't expect any weight to be assigned to my thoughts, but nonetheless that's how I feel. 

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, Bethnal said:

This is subjective, so confirmation is tough, but my tuppence:

I left the coalition (it’s not even formally a thing, by the time I left it was two group chats) basically because there was action around the Derby game planned but I and another got stonewalled on it.
 

My suggestion was that the trust had the governance and infrastructure to fundraise for that action - I wasn’t comfortable having a fundraiser done by a lone person or group of independent people. I was told expressly by Trust board members that the didn’t have the mandate to fundraise for action, the rest of the board wasn’t as motivated to take action as the coalition/the trust board members in that coalition were and that some board members didn’t need the heat on them.

The plan for action ran out of time, I left the group.

In my view - everything slowed at the point where the Trust and The Coalition fused a bit. I expect those still active will say that’s not the case and that’s their opinion to have. But it isn’t my experience.

Not sure I understand your post.

Are you saying you left both "The Coaltion" because they wouldnt mobilise for the Derby game, and before that you left WATR because the Board members were reluctant to take any action?

Tbh, historically different supporters groups have always been a bit "Fuck off - we're the Judean People's Front not The People's Front of Judea" for me. However I've no idea how anyone wouldnt unite behind the aim of removing the owners and their vile henchmen now.

Tbf the only bit of positive action I've ever seen from anyone was from "The Coalition" when they requested that the 3 stooges stay away from games, gained significant media attention and panicked them into putting out the car crash interviews.

That was excellent work, unfortunately since then it all seems to have gone relatively quiet and the Derby game which would have been an excellent rallying point has been and gone.

I couldnt agree more about the comment about the mood fluctuating with results. A couple of bad ones and people on here are climbing the walls. A couple of good ones and people are suddenly happy as Larry and it's "oooo isnt Ismael doing well with such limited resources" type thing.

The odd (and it is only the odd) good result doesn't change anything. Underneath the Club is rotten to the core and imo hurtling towards oblivion. League 2 or beyond.

The question is, are we as a fanbase prepared to do anything about it or are we happy to just sit back and let the Club die?

Doesn't have to be anything illegal but imo we have to step up our opposition and it has to be visible, absolutely constant and incessive.

Can't have one excellent initiative then nothing for 6 months. (That's not a criticism of the Coalition more the fanbase as a whole)

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

If you're running a professional football club you don't take your holidays in December when it's the busiest time of the year for matches and we've a transfer window approaching, especially when we are floundering towards the bottom of the league.

I know you want to excuse and justify every inexcusable thing this lot do but it just isn't acceptable.

Its not something that actually bothered JH, If people want a holiday when they want, thats fine by me. 

Maybe that why he gone to India for talks over January and to see his family 

1 hour ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

I don't think Lancs Police would prosecute 2,000 fans on the pitch forming some protest. Until the fan base show some bottle & come together to do it, it wouldn't be worth the small number that are actually interested in doing something going on the pitch.

Yes.

so that's a no to you going on the pitch against Millwall then? 

I think all that Pitch protest would do is actually turn fans away from your protest group and be against you

1 hour ago, Penwortham Blue said:

We should, if we want to save our club for the existing and dormant supporter base and for our future generations.

then don't attend games if that your choice, 

I don't see what any affect that actually has when we had 15k walk away and we have around 10k a game. 

1 hour ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

The coalitions call for the 3 stooges to stay away was the most attention we’ve ever got on the club since the Steve Kean days, for once, the supporters actually had the momentum & protests were naturally happening without the need for a call to action, then the trust got involved. 

but did they stay away? The Boro game atmoshphere was toxic and horrible to be in the ground that night. 

what effect did the trust getting involve affect things? 

1 hour ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

Pasha is in India having 'critical talks' is what I was told.

told by whom? 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Its not something that actually bothered JH, If people want a holiday when they want, thats fine by me. 

There really are no lengths you won't go to to try and defend the Club are there?

So is it all right if Ismael went on holiday in December? (actually that might actually help but I presume you get the point)

What about some of the players? Poor lambs must be getting a bit tired by now.

[KidderStreetNoise]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

so that's a no to you going on the pitch against Millwall then? 

I think all that Pitch protest would do is actually turn fans away from your protest group and be against you

No, because I'd be alone.

6 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

but did they stay away? The Boro game atmoshphere was toxic and horrible to be in the ground that night. 

what effect did the trust getting involve affect things? 

That was always the aim, they carried on going to games knowing it was a detriment to the atmosphere.

It should be like the 'Boro game at every home game until they're gone.

I've explained the effect further up.

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

told by whom? 

Why would I name them?

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Its not something that actually bothered JH, If people want a holiday when they want, thats fine by me. 

Maybe that why he gone to India for talks over January and to see his family 

so that's a no to you going on the pitch against Millwall then? 

I think all that Pitch protest would do is actually turn fans away from your protest group and be against you

then don't attend games if that your choice, 

I don't see what any affect that actually has when we had 15k walk away and we have around 10k a game. 

but did they stay away? The Boro game atmoshphere was toxic and horrible to be in the ground that night. 

what effect did the trust getting involve affect things? 

told by whom? 

So your solution is do nothing and "Get behind the lads FFS"?

[chaddyrovers]

7 minutes ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

It should be like the 'Boro game at every home game until they're gone.

and how does that help the players and the team win games?

[KidderStreetNoise]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

and how does that help the players and the team win games?

Winning games is irrelevant under this ownership

[chaddyrovers]

9 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

There really are no lengths you won't go to to try and defend the Club are there?

So is it all right if Ismael went on holiday in December? (actually that might actually help but I presume you get the point)

What about some of the players? Poor lambs must be getting a bit tired by now.

defend who? I'm not bothered whether Pasha is there or not. I'm not the obsessing over him going to India to see the owners before the January window and probably to see his family 

[wilsdenrover]

I expect there are reasons why this isn’t viable but how about:

A match day protest outside the ground.

Those who wish to attend the game can then do so as those who don’t remain where they are.

[chaddyrovers]

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So your solution is do nothing and "Get behind the lads FFS"?

what's your solution Rev? how do you forces owners based in India to sell? 

Are you going to there getting involve and playing your part in this supposedly action or just sit at home watching on TV as others do it? 

Just now, KidderStreetNoise said:

Winning games is irrelevant under this ownership

Can't agree there at all. Winning games is complete and utter relevant under any ownership, 

[KidderStreetNoise]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Can't agree there at all. Winning games is complete and utter relevant under any ownership, 

Means nothing in the long term

[wilsdenrover]

Does anyone know how many fans were prosecuted for going on the pitch vs Oxford (2018)?

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

what's your solution Rev? how do you forces owners based in India to sell? 

Are you going to there getting involve and playing your part in this supposedly action or just sit at home watching on TV as others do it? 

Can't agree there at all. Winning games is complete and utter relevant under any ownership, 

I've said above, concerted and persistent action. Persistence is the key. Once it's started never let up.

I'd be prepared to participate in any legal and organised forms of protest if any were announced.

What's your solution?

[chaddyrovers]

5 minutes ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

Means nothing in the long term

don't agree