Venky’s (& Suhail) Out Protest Ideas

[wilsdenrover]

There needs to be a club for there to be a team.

[davulsukur]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Id wager there'll be some sort of sly dig about it somewhere along the way.

"Those that would want to see us fail" or "Enemy within" type thing.

100% there will be.

Imagine if we actually win a fucking game for a change, there will be less of a sly dig and just a straight up insult to us.

[rigger]

28 minutes ago, davulsukur said:

100% there will be.

Imagine if we actually win a fucking game for a change, there will be less of a sly dig and just a straight up insult to us.

Bring on all the insults, as long as we win.

[Exiled in Toronto Mk2]

Having thought about this some more, I’m afraid to say I think it’s the wrong strategy being pursued in the wrong way.

Calling for a boycott sounds great to the fans already boycotting, but to the fans who aren’t, there’s nothing in the letter to make them consider doing so. 

1) It’s directed to the wrong audience - it’s a letter to the owners, not the attending fans.

2) “The Coalition” calling for a boycott is a long way from Red Robbo calling out the lads at Longbridge. They are by no means widely accepted as the voice of the majority. 

3) There is no argument, persuasion or rationale in the letter as to why a boycott will change anything. 

4) It’s too long, repetitious and reads like it was written by a committee (no doubt it was). It’s not exactly the Gettysburg Address or the “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” of the French Revolution.

When the ground isn’t empty against Watford, all that will have been achieved is a further loss in credibility.

 

[...]

14 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

Having thought about this some more, I’m afraid to say I think it’s the wrong strategy being pursued in the wrong way.

Calling for a boycott sounds great to the fans already boycotting, but to the fans who aren’t, there’s nothing in the letter to make them consider doing so. 

1) It’s directed to the wrong audience - it’s a letter to the owners, not the attending fans.

2) “The Coalition” calling for a boycott is a long way from Red Robbo calling out the lads at Longbridge. They are by no means widely accepted as the voice of the majority. 

3) There is no argument, persuasion or rationale in the letter as to why a boycott will change anything. 

4) It’s too long, repetitious and reads like it was written by a committee (no doubt it was). It’s not exactly the Gettysburg Address or the “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” of the French Revolution.

When the ground isn’t empty against Watford, all that will have been achieved is a further loss in credibility.

 

Should we just keep going down there to GeT bEhInD the LaDs? 

Something needs to change. If the owners aren't changing anything then we can only try. 

I personally can't keep goin down there seeing a club that should be in the premiership. And yes we should be. 

We've fallen away from the pack. Sinking like a rock. 

The foundations were there already to make us greater. Not to necessarily go and win the premiership again but to stay up there playing the big boys every week. The club was ready to be continued by new owners. We got one that didn't know you could get relegated. 15 years is enough for me. I've spent a small fortune over the years as have many many more to watch our little town become known as giant killers.

 

[Penwortham Blue]

29 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

Having thought about this some more, I’m afraid to say I think it’s the wrong strategy being pursued in the wrong way.

Calling for a boycott sounds great to the fans already boycotting, but to the fans who aren’t, there’s nothing in the letter to make them consider doing so. 

1) It’s directed to the wrong audience - it’s a letter to the owners, not the attending fans.

2) “The Coalition” calling for a boycott is a long way from Red Robbo calling out the lads at Longbridge. They are by no means widely accepted as the voice of the majority. 

3) There is no argument, persuasion or rationale in the letter as to why a boycott will change anything. 

4) It’s too long, repetitious and reads like it was written by a committee (no doubt it was). It’s not exactly the Gettysburg Address or the “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” of the French Revolution.

When the ground isn’t empty against Watford, all that will have been achieved is a further loss in credibility.

 

We don’t know what the outcome and effect might be. At least we are finally trying and we need to get behind it, rather than opining why it won’t work.

[Gamst]

28 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

Having thought about this some more, I’m afraid to say I think it’s the wrong strategy being pursued in the wrong way.

Calling for a boycott sounds great to the fans already boycotting, but to the fans who aren’t, there’s nothing in the letter to make them consider doing so. 

1) It’s directed to the wrong audience - it’s a letter to the owners, not the attending fans.

2) “The Coalition” calling for a boycott is a long way from Red Robbo calling out the lads at Longbridge. They are by no means widely accepted as the voice of the majority. 

3) There is no argument, persuasion or rationale in the letter as to why a boycott will change anything. 

4) It’s too long, repetitious and reads like it was written by a committee (no doubt it was). It’s not exactly the Gettysburg Address or the “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” of the French Revolution.

When the ground isn’t empty against Watford, all that will have been achieved is a further loss in credibility.

 

I feel what ultimately will make a difference is a strategy that gains a lot of publicity. I don’t think they will care about lost revenue as it’s a drop in the ocean for them. They will care about being publicly shamed. There has been some good early publicity for the boycott but it needs to gather steam in order to keep up the pressure. I’m worried that we will win a couple of matches and the momentum will be lost or the fans who are likely to boycott have already done so and only a few hundred less fans in the stadium won’t look much different to the pitiful turnout against Oxford. I think we need to do something before it’s too late though so in the words of Gary Bowyer we should ‘give it a good go’ 💪🏽 

[London blue]

28 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

Having thought about this some more, I’m afraid to say I think it’s the wrong strategy being pursued in the wrong way.

Calling for a boycott sounds great to the fans already boycotting, but to the fans who aren’t, there’s nothing in the letter to make them consider doing so. 

1) It’s directed to the wrong audience - it’s a letter to the owners, not the attending fans.

2) “The Coalition” calling for a boycott is a long way from Red Robbo calling out the lads at Longbridge. They are by no means widely accepted as the voice of the majority. 

3) There is no argument, persuasion or rationale in the letter as to why a boycott will change anything. 

4) It’s too long, repetitious and reads like it was written by a committee (no doubt it was). It’s not exactly the Gettysburg Address or the “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” of the French Revolution.

When the ground isn’t empty against Watford, all that will have been achieved is a further loss in credibility.

 

I disagree fairly firmly on all points 

1. It's an open letter. Often the intended audience to such a letter isn't the addressee.

2. Are you able to point me towards an institution/group of people better placed to claim to speak for the majority of Rovers fans than a coalition of the club's biggest supporter groups?

3. I think this is fairly widely accepted as a way to starve out negligent owners, and outside of football, a boycott is probably the most widely recognised form of protest against a business.

4. Wholly disagree. I think it's well written, impassioned and earnest. There's no need for militant language, and I would argue that using such language would be detrimental to the cause. There are far too many people looking for a reason to discredit the coalition and their aims.

[MatthewShaw97]

42 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

Having thought about this some more, I’m afraid to say I think it’s the wrong strategy being pursued in the wrong way.

Calling for a boycott sounds great to the fans already boycotting, but to the fans who aren’t, there’s nothing in the letter to make them consider doing so. 

1) It’s directed to the wrong audience - it’s a letter to the owners, not the attending fans.

2) “The Coalition” calling for a boycott is a long way from Red Robbo calling out the lads at Longbridge. They are by no means widely accepted as the voice of the majority. 

3) There is no argument, persuasion or rationale in the letter as to why a boycott will change anything. 

4) It’s too long, repetitious and reads like it was written by a committee (no doubt it was). It’s not exactly the Gettysburg Address or the “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” of the French Revolution.

When the ground isn’t empty against Watford, all that will have been achieved is a further loss in credibility.

 

What’s the alternative? Sit around and wait for the inevitable relegation to league 1? And become a middle of the road league 1 side? What an inspiring future that is. 

[Mattyblue]

The ground won’t be empty. Just like it wasn’t for Sheff Wed’s the other month. All about expectation management and having the real figures (and how they compare to a standard 3pm) quickly to hand.

I don’t generally disagree with much of EiT’s post. Do I think it will lead to much? No, not really. But it’s been fifteen years, we have to try something, quickly too, as we are getting to the point of no return as once we get stuck in the lower leagues, with the Cat 1 academy gone, with Brockhall once again in the sights of developers, with the Riverside either mothballed or actually in the river, with a ground generally in compete disrepair, then yes, those that decry ‘well, who’d buy us’ would have far more of a point then who this very attractive club could attract as of right now.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Mattyblue

[Penwortham Blue]

6 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

The ground won’t be empty. Just like it wasn’t for Sheff Wed’s the other month. All about expectation management and having the real figures (and how they compare to a standard 3pm) quickly to hand.

I don’t generally disagree with much of EiT’s post. Do I think it will lead to much? No, not really. But it’s been fifteen years, we have to try something, quickly too, as we are getting to the point of no return as once we get stuck in the lower leagues, with the Cat 1 academy gone, with Brockhall once again in the sights of developers, with the Riverside either mothballed or actually in the river, with a ground generally in compete disrepair, then yes, those that decry ‘well, who’d buy us’ would have far more of a point then who this very attractive club could attract as of right now.

 

Spot on.

[Exiled in Toronto Mk2]

29 minutes ago, Gamst said:

I feel what ultimately will make a difference is a strategy that gains a lot of publicity. I don’t think they will care about lost revenue as it’s a drop in the ocean for them. They will care about being publicly shamed. There has been some good early publicity for the boycott but it needs to gather steam in order to keep up the pressure. I’m worried that we will win a couple of matches and the momentum will be lost or the fans who are likely to boycott have already done so and only a few hundred less fans in the stadium won’t look much different to the pitiful turnout against Oxford. I think we need to do something before it’s too late though so in the words of Gary Bowyer we should ‘give it a good go’ 💪🏽 

I don’t think anyone knows what they care about, and what will make them want to sell. I’m fairly certain they won’t care about a five-minute slot on Rock FM or Radio Lancashire. Publicity isn’t an end in itself, especially in today’s 24-hr news cycle. 

However, it is a fact that there is a wide spread of opinions within the fan base about the owners and the desirability or not of getting rid of them. Personally, I think the Coalition’s efforts would be better directed first finding common ground across the majority of the fan base before calling for anything. A game-changer would be then getting a credible buyer on board, but easier said than done.

[Exiled in Toronto Mk2]

19 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

A great idea.

You were brilliant in assisting us with the drafting of the letter trying to stop Waggott flogging off the training ground.

Would you care to draft something up?

If the Coalition were interested in pursuing a bottom-up strategy I’d be more than happy to lend a wordsmithing hand, but I see no evidence as yet that they are.

[Athlete]

36 minutes ago, MatthewShaw97 said:

What’s the alternative? Sit around and wait for the inevitable relegation to league 1? And become a middle of the road league 1 side? What an inspiring future that is. 

Until we eventually drop to league 2 which is what will happen with these shysters

[Paul Mellelieu]

1 hour ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

Having thought about this some more, I’m afraid to say I think it’s the wrong strategy being pursued in the wrong way.

Calling for a boycott sounds great to the fans already boycotting, but to the fans who aren’t, there’s nothing in the letter to make them consider doing so. 

1) It’s directed to the wrong audience - it’s a letter to the owners, not the attending fans.

2) “The Coalition” calling for a boycott is a long way from Red Robbo calling out the lads at Longbridge. They are by no means widely accepted as the voice of the majority. 

3) There is no argument, persuasion or rationale in the letter as to why a boycott will change anything. 

4) It’s too long, repetitious and reads like it was written by a committee (no doubt it was). It’s not exactly the Gettysburg Address or the “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” of the French Revolution.

When the ground isn’t empty against Watford, all that will have been achieved is a further loss in credibility.

 

I understand the points here, but something needs to move.

[G Somerset Rover]

3 hours ago, lraC said:

It’s interesting what Elliott Bennett says on this, as it’s happened with other players and probably current ones 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14QpZLD42Yi/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Nice of them to extend the same disrespect they’ve consistently shown us fans to the players too. No doubt this is what we’re seeing with Pickering play out right now.