Venky’s (& Suhail) Out Protest Ideas

[lraC]

53 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

That appears to be an Indonesian poster, nothing to do with India

Asia 

[Herbie6590]

52 minutes ago, KentExile said:

buy different presents, this is not a boycott on Christmas, there are other places to acquire stocking fillers than the Roverstore

There are…

https://shop.brfcs.com

[Herbie6590]

53 minutes ago, KentExile said:

buy different presents, this is not a boycott on Christmas, there are other places to acquire stocking fillers than the Roverstore

“Now on Radio Leeds…”Boycott On Christmas” - in which Yorkshire’s finest opening batsman takes us on a tour of his favourite Christmas markets…”

[KentExile]

1 minute ago, Herbie6590 said:

There are…

https://shop.brfcs.com

I will take my commission for that set up later 😉 

[Herbie6590]

38 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Who says they are stocking fillers presents? 

Some parents will be buying shirts/kits for their children as main presents plus other things like hoodies, etc. 

You cant expect and shouldn't expect people not to buy them

What if your kid wants a 150th Anniversary shirt…😉

[Hasta]

Some people (Rigger, J*B) have walked away for a long time. Despite my angst at the club, I couldn’t lose the social aspect of going to Ewood for many, many years as they have done. That’s why I’ve got a season ticket in practically every season of their 15 year tenure. If I thought not renewing would see their exit within months then I would, but not enough people would follow suit, so I don’t. I appreciate it’s a little bit chicken and egg, but I’ve not been prepared to lose years of my Rovers-supporting life.

However if you really want to try and force change (Whether it’s just the people running the club or ultimately a change in ownership) then 1 game is not a big sacrifice to make. If there was 0 home fans in the ground it absolutely would work. The power the coalition would then be able to wield would but huge. It’s just how low can we get the numbers?

Edited 1 hour ago by Hasta

[Penwortham Blue]

3 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Some people (Rigger, J*B) have walked away for a long time. Despite my angst at the club, I couldn’t lose the social aspect of going to Ewood for many, many years as they have done. That’s why I’ve got a season ticket in practically every season of their 15 year tenure. If I thought not renewing would see their exit within months then I would, but not enough people would follow suit, so I don’t. I appreciate it’s a little bit chicken and egg, but I’ve not been prepared to lose years of my Rovers-supporting life.

However if you really want to try and force change (Whether it’s just the people running the club or ultimately a change in ownership) then 1 game is not a big sacrifice to make. If there was 0 home fans in the ground it absolutely would work. The power the coalition would then be able to wield would but huge. It’s just how low can we get the numbers?

Top post, same situation as me. I would have given up my ST had there been a formal and coordinated call for it previously, I was just waiting for it but frustratingly, it just never came. Finally, it has and I will observe the boycott, folk need to see the bigger picture to save the club for us and future generations.

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Some people (Rigger, J*B) have walked away for a long time. Despite my angst at the club, I couldn’t lose the social aspect of going to Ewood for many, many years as they have done. That’s why I’ve got a season ticket in practically every season of their 15 year tenure. If I thought not renewing would see their exit within months then I would, but not enough people would follow suit, so I don’t. I appreciate it’s a little bit chicken and egg, but I’ve not been prepared to lose years of my Rovers-supporting life.

However if you really want to try and force change (Whether it’s just the people running the club or ultimately a change in ownership) then 1 game is not a big sacrifice to make. If there was 0 home fans in the ground it absolutely would work. The power the coalition would then be able to wield would but huge. It’s just how low can we get the numbers?

I remember flicking through the Sky channels when the Sheff Wednesday boycott was on and although there weren't obviously literally zero people in, it did look like a game behind closed doors in the home areas, just the odd person dotted about here and there.

It would be great if we could get a similar sort of take up here for one game.

[Mattyblue]

Just as an aside, rigger was a regular till this season (and I think he’s still been this season).

[roversfan99]

@chaddyrovers you are getting peoples backs up because you are either failing to understand the purpose of the boycott or are being purposely obtuse, totally dominating in the process.

Whether you choose to boycott or not is fine, and you keep repeating your stance. It also doesnt make constructive debate to repeatedly just say "well are you boycotting," people will offer their individual stance if its part of a reason as to why to add to the debate, but surely the main point is to figure out what the objective is and what movements will and will not help in getting to that objective.

We all love going to Rovers in normal circumstances. We may or may not buy merchandise, and may or may not buy on the concourses.

The point of the boycott is whether people are willing to SACRIFICE short term doing those things to try and get the owners out. Its fine either way, we all have our reasons, but we can discuss whether that would work etc or what alternatives there are.

Your stance on attending games is clear. You will not consider not attending, that is totally up to you, although you are very repetitive and provocative in getting that point across. To boycott, you would have to fall into a category where you go normally and you want to go but you are going to miss the game(s) to try and send a message.

Your stance on buying on the concourses is NOT a protest movement or a sacrifice. You just dont like the food or the value. Your repeated stance of this doesnt really fit into this debate.

Your stance on merchandise is where it becomes really clear that you either dont understand the point of all this or you are just being typically awkward. To protest, you would avoid giving money to Rovers, it might mean coming up with alternative presents, and making that sacrifice. Its also a way of ensuring for those who cant bring themselves not to attend, they can still do their bit, and if they are season ticket holders, theyd have paid for their ticket anyway so its actually a way of not giving the owners money moreso than match attendance.

Im sure you will respond by asking me my stance, or by telling me I dont buy merchandise, or by repeating your stance. Its not about us. Just please understand the purpose of the protest, make your own decisions which is fine, but its going round in circles with you going off on tangents.

[wilsdenrover]

39 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

There are…

https://shop.brfcs.com

You never miss an opportunity 😁

[RoverDom]

56 minutes ago, Bronzed A Donis said:

but there are ways you can have your cake and eat it.

What about people who don't like cake? Maybe not everyone wants to go to the football and eat cake.

Edited 1 hour ago by RoverDom

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

You never miss an opportunity 😁

Like Nicola Sturgeon during Covid. Never let a good Crisis go to waste! 

 

[lraC]

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

@chaddyrovers you are getting peoples backs up because you are either failing to understand the purpose of the boycott or are being purposely obtuse, totally dominating in the process.

Whether you choose to boycott or not is fine, and you keep repeating your stance. It also doesnt make constructive debate to repeatedly just say "well are you boycotting," people will offer their individual stance if its part of a reason as to why to add to the debate, but surely the main point is to figure out what the objective is and what movements will and will not help in getting to that objective.

We all love going to Rovers in normal circumstances. We may or may not buy merchandise, and may or may not buy on the concourses.

The point of the boycott is whether people are willing to SACRIFICE short term doing those things to try and get the owners out. Its fine either way, we all have our reasons, but we can discuss whether that would work etc or what alternatives there are.

Your stance on attending games is clear. You will not consider not attending, that is totally up to you, although you are very repetitive and provocative in getting that point across. To boycott, you would have to fall into a category where you go normally and you want to go but you are going to miss the game(s) to try and send a message.

Your stance on buying on the concourses is NOT a protest movement or a sacrifice. You just dont like the food or the value. Your repeated stance of this doesnt really fit into this debate.

Your stance on merchandise is where it becomes really clear that you either dont understand the point of all this or you are just being typically awkward. To protest, you would avoid giving money to Rovers, it might mean coming up with alternative presents, and making that sacrifice. Its also a way of ensuring for those who cant bring themselves not to attend, they can still do their bit, and if they are season ticket holders, theyd have paid for their ticket anyway so its actually a way of not giving the owners money moreso than match attendance.

Im sure you will respond by asking me my stance, or by telling me I dont buy merchandise, or by repeating your stance. Its not about us. Just please understand the purpose of the protest, make your own decisions which is fine, but its going round in circles with you going off on tangents.

One thing to add to that, is do the people who had the same stance when Bury FC regret not making every effort, to oust their owner, before what became of them, was too late.

I know many will think it can't happen to Rovers, but what if it did, would the super fans have failed, or would they just have supported the club, come what may?

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, lraC said:

One thing to add to that, is do the people who had the same stance when Bury FC regret not making every effort, to oust their owner, before what became of them, was too late.

I know many will think it can't happen to Rovers, but what if it did, would the super fans have failed, or would they just have supported the club, come what may?

I think a select few would glory in being ‘there ‘til the end’.

[Penwortham Blue]

12 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

@chaddyrovers you are getting peoples backs up because you are either failing to understand the purpose of the boycott or are being purposely obtuse, totally dominating in the process.

Whether you choose to boycott or not is fine, and you keep repeating your stance. It also doesnt make constructive debate to repeatedly just say "well are you boycotting," people will offer their individual stance if its part of a reason as to why to add to the debate, but surely the main point is to figure out what the objective is and what movements will and will not help in getting to that objective.

We all love going to Rovers in normal circumstances. We may or may not buy merchandise, and may or may not buy on the concourses.

The point of the boycott is whether people are willing to SACRIFICE short term doing those things to try and get the owners out. Its fine either way, we all have our reasons, but we can discuss whether that would work etc or what alternatives there are.

Your stance on attending games is clear. You will not consider not attending, that is totally up to you, although you are very repetitive and provocative in getting that point across. To boycott, you would have to fall into a category where you go normally and you want to go but you are going to miss the game(s) to try and send a message.

Your stance on buying on the concourses is NOT a protest movement or a sacrifice. You just dont like the food or the value. Your repeated stance of this doesnt really fit into this debate.

Your stance on merchandise is where it becomes really clear that you either dont understand the point of all this or you are just being typically awkward. To protest, you would avoid giving money to Rovers, it might mean coming up with alternative presents, and making that sacrifice. Its also a way of ensuring for those who cant bring themselves not to attend, they can still do their bit, and if they are season ticket holders, theyd have paid for their ticket anyway so its actually a way of not giving the owners money moreso than match attendance.

Im sure you will respond by asking me my stance, or by telling me I dont buy merchandise, or by repeating your stance. Its not about us. Just please understand the purpose of the protest, make your own decisions which is fine, but its going round in circles with you going off on tangents.

Great post. Is there anyone out there that doesn’t know that Chaddy gets his grub from the Burger Van behind the club shop 😊

[lraC]

For those wavering, reach out to some of the Bury fans, who got on board with the protests when it was too late. There are plenty about who will tell you their story.

Act now to ensure we do not become another Bury, as it can happen, despite what some may believe.

Bury FC: Anger and tears at League One club before EFL decision - BBC Sport

Missing one match or even a few, is more important than just attending due to some sort of duty, or feeling that you are a super fan.

These are extraordinary times and your club needs you to do the right thing, for the greater good.

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

@chaddyrovers you are getting peoples backs up because you are either failing to understand the purpose of the boycott or are being purposely obtuse, totally dominating in the process.

Whether you choose to boycott or not is fine, and you keep repeating your stance. It also doesnt make constructive debate to repeatedly just say "well are you boycotting," people will offer their individual stance if its part of a reason as to why to add to the debate, but surely the main point is to figure out what the objective is and what movements will and will not help in getting to that objective.

We all love going to Rovers in normal circumstances. We may or may not buy merchandise, and may or may not buy on the concourses.

The point of the boycott is whether people are willing to SACRIFICE short term doing those things to try and get the owners out. Its fine either way, we all have our reasons, but we can discuss whether that would work etc or what alternatives there are.

Your stance on attending games is clear. You will not consider not attending, that is totally up to you, although you are very repetitive and provocative in getting that point across. To boycott, you would have to fall into a category where you go normally and you want to go but you are going to miss the game(s) to try and send a message.

Your stance on buying on the concourses is NOT a protest movement or a sacrifice. You just dont like the food or the value. Your repeated stance of this doesnt really fit into this debate.

Your stance on merchandise is where it becomes really clear that you either dont understand the point of all this or you are just being typically awkward. To protest, you would avoid giving money to Rovers, it might mean coming up with alternative presents, and making that sacrifice. Its also a way of ensuring for those who cant bring themselves not to attend, they can still do their bit, and if they are season ticket holders, theyd have paid for their ticket anyway so its actually a way of not giving the owners money moreso than match attendance.

Im sure you will respond by asking me my stance, or by telling me I dont buy merchandise, or by repeating your stance. Its not about us. Just please understand the purpose of the protest, make your own decisions which is fine, but its going round in circles with you going off on tangents.

There's also always this undercurrent with Chaddy that he's a better and more loyal fan than everyone else because he'll always support the team no matter what blah blah blah and that is coming out again with his absolute refusal to countenance a boycott for even a single game.

Personally I stopped going at the end of the Mowbray era because I was completely fed up with repeated failures to make the play offs etc even when it seemed impossible not to do so. I felt there was something very off about the Club even then. So I'm not boycotting because of the owners as such, if I felt there was suddenly a genuine desire to try and succeed within the Club Id hopefully be back. Unfortunately despite thinking there might be green shoots of recovery under both JDT and Eustace, overall since the time I last attended regularly things have got even worse, it seems we have a new disaster on more or less a weekly basis these days so there's absolutely no incentive for me to return at present.

I fully accept that my long term absence makes me not as committed or as good of a supporter as say a mate of mine who has continued to go and who retained his season ticket. For present purposes though there should be no suggestion that anyone who boycotts for either a single game or longer is any less of a supporter than someone who refuses to do that.

Nor should there be any criticism of anyone who refuses to boycott, even for a single game. I don't personally agree with that stance as I think if absolutely nothing is done the Club will die.

It is however a matter of personal choice and anyone who doesn't want to boycott is perfectly entitled to that point of view.

[Mercer]

11 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Ironically when his Granddad Derek Keighley was briefly Chairman before ill health sadly took him from us all too soon, I thought the Club displayed far more ambition than it did under Bill Bancroft. A then Club record fee of £80,000 for Duncan Mckenzie in the old 3rd Division etc.........

Used to sit behind Derek in the old Nuttall St. Stand. Poor guy used to sit there chain smoking cigarettes every game looking like his life was on the line with every kick.

His grand son however sounds a very confused individual. How can you go from being a proponent of FC Rovers (a notion I vehemently reject)  to being full square behind the owners?

I would go as far to say Derrick Keighley was the best chairman I can recall.  A man fired with desire and ambition and a passionate Roverite.  Think he was only 50 when he passed, a sad loss for all.

Edited 40 minutes ago by Mercer

[MarkBRFC]

I love going as much as anyone, whether its home, away or whatever. My lad has also picked up the obsession too which makes it even better.

I have never understood how folk can be so precious that they wouldn't miss one single game though, that is hopefully for the greater good. That just baffles me.

The sort of people who would turn down being there best mates best man at there wedding because we're at home to Charlton or something.

Edited 24 minutes ago by MarkBRFC

[M_B]

10 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

So it seems like you are in similar situations. Neither have committed to saying in as many words that Venkys out is key, but I will assume both of you want that.

I appreciate that it can be bloody hard to stop going. So out of interest, for those willing to stop attending as an attempt to even try and accelerate the process of getting Venkys out. Even if you think its futile, its pointless, it will make no difference which perhaps is a reasonable argument. Does it earn your respect and kudos that people are so keen to get rid that theyll sacrifice something they want to do in the hope that it will get rid of the problem owners and help the club, earn massive respect from you both. Or do you not see it like that?

Also chaddy, are you suggesting that Suhail might stop working for Rovers and essentially be replaced? Hes a cockroach who has been close to Venkys throughout, hes not just a normal employee. Coupled with the suggestion that it has been Coar running things, I think you need to get real. Hes is here for the duration.

If someone wants to boycott thinking it will make a difference, I obviously accept their opinion.

What I would say though, is that if that someone was definitely going to attend a game and doesn't, then they would be boycotting. If they wouldn't have gone anyway, then that isn't boycotting, it's just missing another game.

It's disingenuous for those that don't have  a decision to make, to call out those for whom it would be a massive wrench. 

[StHelensRover]

9 minutes ago, M_B said:

It's disingenuous for those that don't have  a decision to make, to call out those for whom it would be a massive wrench. 

I can't accept that it would be a massive wrench for anyone to not attend just one regular league fixture in January versus Watford in a season where the very best we could hope for is midtable. They're not asking people to boycott a huge cup game or a local derby.

Almost everyone with a ST or who regularly goes misses a home game every season, they go on holiday, they get poorly, they have to work, a wedding, anything. Even diehards sometimes miss a game. No one suddenly says they have let the club down or they're a fairweather fan. No one individual is going to be considered a rubbish fan if they boycott once as an experiment, to see how the owners react.

Edited 29 minutes ago by StHelensRover
Midtable autocorrected to miserable. Prophetic.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, M_B said:

If someone wants to boycott thinking it will make a difference, I obviously accept their opinion.

What I would say though, is that if that someone was definitely going to attend a game and doesn't, then they would be boycotting. If they wouldn't have gone anyway, then that isn't boycotting, it's just missing another game.

It's disingenuous for those that don't have  a decision to make, to call out those for whom it would be a massive wrench. 

I don’t think it’s as simple as that.

Some of these people will be continuing their own personal boycott whilst others will just be missing another game.

It all depends on why those people no longer attend.

 

 

 

 

[Mattyblue]

3 minutes ago, StHelensRover said:

I can't accept that it would be a massive wrench for anyone to not attend just one regular league fixture in January versus Watford in a season where the very best we could hope for is midtable. They're not asking people to boycott a huge cup game or a local derby.

Almost everyone with an ST or who regularly goes misses a home game every season, they go on holiday, they get poorly, they have to work, a wedding, anything. Even diehards sometimes miss a game. No one suddenly says they have let the club down or they're a fairweather fan. No one individual is going to be considered a rubbish fan if they boycott once as an experiment, to see how the owners react.

One person doesn’t, he’s been very clear that he has zero other social/life events/holiday commitments between August and May.

Edited 26 minutes ago by Mattyblue

[Jimmy612]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Thanks, so some people still went but the desired result was still achieved.

I think this is important to remember.

 

 

I think it's important to acknowledge the contrast of 'perceived immediate peril' between Rovers' and Sheff Wednesday's situations.  When they boycotted the Boro game, drawing national attention and widespread unity, the following had happened in the previous 6 months alone (source is Wikipedia, so may not be 100% accurate).

• On 3 June, the club and owner Dejphon Chansiri were charged with multiple breaches of EFL Regulations relating to payment obligations by the EFL.
   
• On 5 June, the club were placed under a registration embargo.
   
• On 18 June, the EFL placed the club under a three-window fee restriction ban after exceeding 30 days of late payments, with the club confirming they would be appealing.
   
• On 27 June, the club were placed under a further embargo by the EFL, over amounts owed to HM Revenue and Customs.
   
• On 1 July, several players handed in their 15-day notice, following the June wages being delayed.
   
• On 3 July, the club were placed in a triple embargo due to money Wednesday owed to Southampton and Norwich City for fees towards players Shea Charles and Akin Famewo. On 14 July, it was revealed money was still owed to Hull City for the transfer of Mallik Wilks.
   
• On 30 July, it was revealed that players hadn't been paid for the third month in a row and for the fourth time in five months.
   
• On 8 August, had their transfer embargos lifted after paying outstanding debts for players and transfer fees, but remained under a transfer-fee ban and are still bound by a business plan set out by the Club Financial Reporting Unit.
   
• On 17 September, Wednesday were placed under two more embargoes for future financial information and secure funding linked to an inability to prove that the club can be funded going forward.
   

• On 25 September, the club were placed under a further embargo by the EFL, over amounts owed to HM Revenue and Customs again.

• On 26 September, the club were placed under a further two emargoes, so five in total, this time for football creditors and amounts due to another club.

• On 29 September, senior players and staff were told not to expect wages on payday, the fifth time that calendar year.

• On 4 October, the match against Coventry City was delayed due to a fan protest on the pitch against the owner.

• On 6 October, the club were hit with their sixth embargo after failure to pay players on time.

• On 9 October, new chair of the Independent Football Regulator, David Kogan said Sheffield Wednesday's struggles are a "significant problem" and the new football regulator is seeking powers to investigate clubs in such situations.

• On 9 October, Unite the Union issued a statement against owner Dejphon Chansiri, for his continuous failure to pay non-football staff.

• On 14 October, it was confirmed that the players and non-playing staff received the rest of their September wages removing one of their six embargoes.

• On 16 October, it was reported that HMRC are close to issuing a winding-up order due to an unpaid tax bill of around £1m.

• On 22 October, the fans boycotted the fixture against Middlesbrough.

Also worth noting the following happened during Chansiri's reign:

• 6 Point Deduction and relegation to league one (July 2020)
• Players salaries capped (attributed to revenue losses during COVID) - November 2020
• Delayed Wage Payments (April and May 2021)
• Chansiri issued a 1,500-word statement on September 29, 2023, vowing to stop funding the club due to “selfish” fans’ criticism and “insults” to his family.
• HMRC Payment Delay, Wage Risk, and Asking Fans to contribute £2m to cover HMRC bill (October 2023)
• HMRC Payment Delay (November 2023)
• HMRC Payment Delay and Embargo (November 2024)

Whilst a lot of Rovers fans (Myself included) are extremely angry about the last 15 years, and extremely worried about the short, medium and long term future of the club under the Rao's, our current situation is (on the surface) not really comparable with that of Sheff Wed.  Very little of the above has happened at Rovers, save for a transfer embargo in.... 2015? 

What I'm saying is, whilst wages are paid, whilst there's 11 players in blue and white on the swamp, whilst we maintain Championship status and whilst there is no imminent (or at least publicised) threat to the club, many fans (and importantly the media and powers that be ((FA, EFL)) will turn a blind eye, and as we have witnessed, become quite angry at the prospect of protests, boycotts or otherwise, citing, "where would we be without them". 

In my opinion, protests won't gather a huge amount of traction until there's a tanginble threat to the future of the club. At the moment, the Rao's, and the board are managing to keep the good ship Rovers out of totally treacherous seas.