Venky’s (& Suhail) Out Protest Ideas

[KidderStreetNoise]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

don't agree

15 years of this & you still think a win on a Saturday means something, embarrassing

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

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?

protests have been done and done, nothing change. 

As I said before, I don't have the solution but I won't break the law or invade the pitch. The best idea was from Carl this morning but yet again Kidders didn't like straight away and dismiss it 

[KidderStreetNoise]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

protests have been done and done, nothing change. 

As I said before, I don't have the solution but I won't break the law or invade the pitch. The best idea was from Carl this morning but yet again Kidders didn't like straight away and dismiss it 

We've never organised a serious match protest

How is giving the owners more money a good solution?

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, KidderStreetNoise said:

15 years of this & you still think a win on a Saturday means something, embarrassing

you think getting a game called off by protesting and running the pitch is something to be proud off, is that not embarrassing?  

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, KidderStreetNoise said:

We've never organised a serious match protest

How is giving the owners more money a good solution?

Your idea of invading the pitch is a serious one which is breaking the law? 

[Mattyblue]

Yes it very much would be something to be proud of. 

Of course, you’d be the very first enjoying the fruits of new ownership if such actions helped lead to it.

Edited 7 hours ago by Mattyblue

[RevidgeBlue]

12 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

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.

Not a bad idea.

I think we're at the stage where as many people as possible need to carry out an agreed and organised protest every week.

Boycott one week, go in on 18 mins, leave on 75, another, fill the ground on a Venky's out day, whatever.

Do as many slightly different things as possible to keep it fresh. 

[wilsdenrover]

History is full of changes being ‘forced’ through law breaking.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

you think getting a game called off by protesting and running the pitch is something to be proud off, is that not embarrassing?  

Too late to ruin the pitch, they've already done that for us.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by RevidgeBlue

[sharpysharps86]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Your idea of invading the pitch is a serious one which is breaking the law? 

Presumably you were disgusted at what Reading fans did a couple of years ago?...and Blackpool fans a few years back under the Oyston ownership.

Yet I don't recall any swathes of negativity in the press about what those fans did. If anything there was increased support for them and more of a spotlight put on the ownerships at those clubs.

[Bethnal]

38 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

Yeah, I am a member of the Trust (I assume, never really hear from them, but did get the survey), but I was also "in" The Coalition (again, it's just a few group chats. No formal structure, when I left, at least). I suggested that the fundraising for the action planned by some in the Coalition should be something the Trust undertakes, given it has a formal structure and - implicitly - they were near-enough running the Coalition by that point.

The Life of Brian analogy is entirely fair. As I've always understood it, the Coalition is a mixture of fans' groups, independent fans, etc, under one banner. It became it's own thing because of the traction it got. It changed once the overlap with members of the Trust happened, which I felt was cynical and/or not conducive to making progress.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, Bethnal said:

Yeah, I am a member of the Trust (I assume, never really hear from them, but did get the survey), but I was also "in" The Coalition (again, it's just a few group chats. No formal structure, when I left, at least). I suggested that the fundraising for the action planned by some in the Coalition should be something the Trust undertakes, given it has a formal structure and - implicitly - they were near-enough running the Coalition by that point.

The Life of Brian analogy is entirely fair. As I've always understood it, the Coalition is a mixture of fans' groups, independent fans, etc, under one banner. It became it's own thing because of the traction it got. It changed once the overlap with members of the Trust happened, which I felt was cynical and/or not conducive to making progress.

So broadly speaking in your view, the Trust have taken over "The Coalition"  (such as it was) and shut them up?

 

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, sharpysharps86 said:

Presumably you were disgusted at what Reading fans did a couple of years ago?...and Blackpool fans a few years back under the Oyston ownership.

Yet I don't recall any swathes of negativity in the press about what those fans did. If anything there was increased support for them and more of a spotlight put on the ownerships at those clubs.

invading the pitch is criminal offence and one you risk getting a record from, people need a clear record for their jobs, so are you serious suggestion people put their jobs at risk for that sort of action. 

I'm sorry, but I won't.  

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

invading the pitch is criminal offence and one you risk getting a record from, people need a clear record for their jobs, so are you serious suggestion people put their jobs at risk for that sort of action. 

I'm sorry, but I won't.  

Would you participate in a legal protest?

[sharpysharps86]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

invading the pitch is criminal offence and one you risk getting a record from, people need a clear record for their jobs, so are you serious suggestion people put their jobs at risk for that sort of action. 

I'm sorry, but I won't.  

That's absolutely fair enough, nobody should do anything they don't want to....but equally don't pretend that 3 points does anything but paper over the cracks of the sh*tshow ownership at Rovers. Pure head in the sand mindset that.

[Bethnal]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So broadly speaking in your view, the Trust have taken over "The Coalition"  (such as it was) and shut them up?

 

While trying to avoid acquiring some shiny, tinfoil headgear - essentially, yes.

I think their rationale is multi-faceted, but I think it's not a coincidence that the only executive at the club who wilfully pushed fan engagement (and directly engaged with the Trust on a regular basis) gets unceremoniously defenestrated on the 22nd May this year and three days later, the board of the Trust meets to decide to "work with" those already under the banner of the Coalition, after the relative success of the Coalition's initiatives in such a short timeframe.

I would also point to the glacial pace that both are now working at, but that's a subjective assessment and I obviously have no idea what they're working on, so could be completely incorrect.

[chaddyrovers]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Would you participate in a legal protest?

like what? 

5 minutes ago, sharpysharps86 said:

That's absolutely fair enough, nobody should do anything they don't want to

 

[TheRoversGRL]

9 minutes ago, Bethnal said:

While trying to avoid acquiring some shiny, tinfoil headgear - essentially, yes.

I think their rationale is multi-faceted, but I think it's not a coincidence that the only executive at the club who wilfully pushed fan engagement (and directly engaged with the Trust on a regular basis) gets unceremoniously defenestrated on the 22nd May this year and three days later, the board of the Trust meets to decide to "work with" those already under the banner of the Coalition, after the relative success of the Coalition's initiatives in such a short timeframe.

I would also point to the glacial pace that both are now working at, but that's a subjective assessment and I obviously have no idea what they're working on, so could be completely incorrect.

Would you have pushed for a protest ahead if it meant you personally would be looking at 2-3K bill.

Not trying to cause an argument, but people did try. 

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, TheRoversGRL said:

Would you have pushed for a protest ahead if it meant you personally would be looking at 2-3K bill.

Not trying to cause an argument, but people did try. 

Could you explain how that bill would have arose?

Thanks 

[TheRoversGRL]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

Could you explain how that bill would have arose?

Thanks 

Traffic management plan by the council and a member of the coalition was told they would be responsible for any costs if a protest went ahead and issues arose. 

 

[Leonard Venkhater]

6 minutes ago, TheRoversGRL said:

Would you have pushed for a protest ahead if it meant you personally would be looking at 2-3K bill.

Not trying to cause an argument, but people did try. 

All very frustrating, especially after the coalition fanfare a few months ago. Now, it just feels like "where there's a will, there's a won't".....

[TheRoversGRL]

1 minute ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

All very frustrating, especially after the coalition fanfare a few months ago. Now, it just feels like "where there's a will, there's a won't".....

Can someone explain how it’s fair to expect someone to take personal responsibility and costs? 

 

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, TheRoversGRL said:

Can someone explain how it’s fair to expect someone to take personal responsibility and costs? 

 

Do you know if there is any legal basis for this?

(sorry for all the questions!)

[TheRoversGRL]

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

Do you know if there is any legal basis for this?

(sorry for all the questions!)

We’re not 100% sure. 

The police and council were involved 

 

[KidderStreetNoise]

13 minutes ago, TheRoversGRL said:

Would you have pushed for a protest ahead if it meant you personally would be looking at 2-3K bill.

Not trying to cause an argument, but people did try. 

Members of the coalition did push for an estimated £5k protest