Venky’s (& Suhail) Out Protest Ideas

[Dreams of 1995]

19 minutes ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

Hypothetically speaking.

Venkys decide to throw the towel in and put us up for sale but no one is interested in taking us on? What then? Do they continue to fund us or let us slip into administration which could be disastrous for employees? 

The recent churn of staff suggests that the environment they are being asked to work in has become toxic. This is another avenue that could be explored via a social media campaign - although appreciate it may be hard to find ex employees who will or even can speak. It’s also easy to discredit ex employees as bearing a grudge

Something has changed since Steve W has left. He wasn’t the greatest but Rudy and Suhail seem toxic and way out of their depth. They need to be removed and the owners need to understand that it is time to pass custody on to a party which holds an active interest

That active interest may come in the form of actually coming to the UK and understanding the depth of the club, its fans and expectations

In 15 years have we ever had that?

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Dreams of 1995

[Uddersfelt Blue]

So essentially the viability of the club needs to be demonstrated to a potential buyer. That would require all fans to show their intentions to continue/recommence attending matches (as Wednesday’s fans have) once new owners/administrators came in. Do we have that depth of potential support willing to back the club? 

 

 

[Upside Down]

4 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I have given some ideas to a member who messaged me here but I can't repeat enough that your last point is hugely important to any form of protest movement winning.

There's a PR campaign to be had here. Open letters and calls to boycott are great but they will never really 'go viral'.

Too often the retort to protesting fans are along the lines of

1. Who will buy us?
2. £20m per year investment
3. £200m investment so far
4. We are a small club, small town, small fan base...who will buy us?

These sorts of narratives can and should be challenged on the battleground that is social media.

Since the Venkys ownership, a cursory glance of the accounts show that, based on the accounts and position of Rovers on their purchase, to where we are now, there is around a 460m implied revenue gap. That is the cost of Venky's ownership and it does not even count in the new TV deals, which I am certain in concerted efforts on here we have the ability to produce and show that 'revenue gap' being much bigger had we maintained our PL Status

This sort of simple graphic challenges the "£200m pound" lie easily, without drawn out debate and given its nature has the potential to go viral

You can run all sorts of similar campaigns. A "Uncle Jack's Legacy" campaign could feature, with the well-known quote from Madame heading a series of "before and after" photographs, data or actions which could feature everything from the general state of Ewood, the attempt to sell off Brockhall, the drainage or the demise in fan base and interest

In short I think there's a battle to win hearts and minds, to remind some supporters of what we can be as a football club instead of what folk think we should be and it needs to be social media friendly, quick, graphic and in large volume. From a single series such as the Uncle Jack's legacy you could create dozens of graphics and circulate periodically. And the wider football fanbase are insignificant - these graphics need to be targeted at Rovers fans and if they do reach others great, if not who cares

And if you keep it factual then the Club can threaten all they want but they can't do a thing. Spelling out facts online is not a crime

This is exactly the kind of plan we need. 

An information war is what needs to be waged here. 

The facts don't lie.

[Mattyblue]

19 minutes ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

So essentially the viability of the club needs to be demonstrated to a potential buyer. That would require all fans to show their intentions to continue/recommence attending matches (as Wednesday’s fans have) once new owners/administrators came in. Do we have that depth of potential support willing to back the club? 

 

 

Sheff Wed fans did briefly but the crowds have dropped back again (to be expected when the team is that bad).

No reason there wouldn’t be an initial return of a good number here.

Edited 3 hours ago by Mattyblue

[rigger]

18 minutes ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

So essentially the viability of the club needs to be demonstrated to a potential buyer. That would require all fans to show their intentions to continue/recommence attending matches (as Wednesday’s fans have) once new owners/administrators came in. Do we have that depth of potential support willing to back the club? 

 

 

We won't know until it occurs. What I would suggest is, if there isn't  a change that the present supporter base  will continue to dwindle.

[Andy]

On 17/12/2025 at 13:40, JHRover said:

Some of this, I think, comes back to the strange obsession some people have with the period of say 1975-1989. A 15 -20 year block of our history (similar to the Venky era) yet for some reason, perhaps because it immediately preceded the Walker revolution, some people fixate on this spell as being representative of what Blackburn Rovers is and can expect to be as a club. 

You rarely, if ever, get people referring back to what the club was in the 40s,50s, 60s and often these people are keen to remind us that it isn't the 90s or 00s anymore, that we've no right to rely on that 20 year block as a benchmark or standard as it isn't 'normal'. But why is 1975-1989 'normal' but the 50s, 60s, 90s, 00s not normal?

A lot of it of course is because people can clearly remember the 70s and 80s and consider what is happening now to be simply a return to that. But by the same token I could refer them to the decades before then.

Sadly I think a few are still in this 'I was there before it was good' mentality - that because they followed Rovers before the Walker glory days that this gives them more perspective, knowledge, understanding of what BRFC really is than those who decided to or were of an age to start supporting the club when the times were good in the 90s and 00s. 

Well the same people ought to know that taking our history as a whole it is certainly more than being a struggling second division club with 4-figure crowds. Because aside from the Venky created sham we have now and a period when English football was on its knees in terms of crowds and stadia that just isn't accurate as a reflection.

But with the willingness to accept it and convince themselves it is the best we can expect it is little wonder the club drifted in the wilderness for the best part of 30 years rarely getting anywhere. 

Whatever the truth of it nothing and nobody will tell me that I should accept something that clearly isn't good enough. The disgrace of a regime and ownership that occupies the club today certainly isn't good enough and need to be reminded of that on a regular basis.

Appreciate this is going back a few pages (I'm catching up), but I've been saying this for a long time - just not as eliquently,

Historically Rovers are a very successful club and have spent more time in the top division than any other.
A rough period in the 60's/70's/80's doesn't change this - and it certainly doesn't define 'our natural level' in the football pyramid.

I definitely agree with the 'I was there before the JW era' attitude with some, almost like it's a badge of honour instead of it simply being defined by when you were born.

Edited 2 hours ago by Andy

[Uddersfelt Blue]

13 minutes ago, rigger said:

We won't know until it occurs. What I would suggest is, if there isn't  a change that the present supporter base  will continue to dwindle.

It would be useful for the coalition to undertake some research into how many fans are prepared to return. That may be quite difficult but key information for any potential buyer. 
 

As a minimum we should be looking at figures in the region of 15000 home fans in the Championship. Is that achievable? 

[norwichblue]

8 minutes ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

As a minimum we should be looking at figures in the region of 15000 home fans in the Championship. Is that achievable? 

We know we have the fans. Just see the B*rnley game last year. I’m sure lots would return with the parasites gone and reasonably priced tickets.

[norwichblue]

Just now, norwichblue said:

Just see the B*rnley game last year

Actually that was start of this year wasn’t it. My god what a fucking shit year for us. Lord I beg you please let 2026 be the year we break free.

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, glen9mullan said:

My understanding is their cash imput is limited to £20m, not a penny more and if it can be less, those charged with running it have fullfilled the remit given to them.

The owners if they could shift it (i.e a buyer rolls in to ewood with proof of funds to both buy and sustain the club) they'd sell without hesitation. Will they actively state "its for sale" absolutely not, but the reality is, every club is for sale.

 

Do you know this or is it just what you suspect?

[bob fleming]

That’s quite a shift. Surely they’d go back to those who have expressed an interest over the years?

Pride? Surely there’s no pride in being seen as idiots, repeating the same expensive mistake and trusting the wrong people year after year?

[TugaysMarlboro]

44 minutes ago, norwichblue said:

We know we have the fans. Just see the B*rnley game last year. I’m sure lots would return with the parasites gone and reasonably priced tickets.

My last game was one under Eustace (can't remember who) about 2 months before he left.

Since then I've held my own personal boycott, I haven't attended a game or purchased any merchandise from the club. Although I can't commit to a ST, I will attend the first game after Venkys sell.

[glen9mullan]

14 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Do you know this or is it just what you suspect?

What ive been told

[aletheia]

5 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I have given some ideas to a member who messaged me here but I can't repeat enough that your last point is hugely important to any form of protest movement winning.

There's a PR campaign to be had here. Open letters and calls to boycott are great but they will never really 'go viral'.

Too often the retort to protesting fans are along the lines of

1. Who will buy us?
2. £20m per year investment
3. £200m investment so far
4. We are a small club, small town, small fan base...who will buy us?

These sorts of narratives can and should be challenged on the battleground that is social media.

Since the Venkys ownership, a cursory glance of the accounts show that, based on the accounts and position of Rovers on their purchase, to where we are now, there is around a 460m implied revenue gap. That is the cost of Venky's ownership and it does not even count in the new TV deals, which I am certain in concerted efforts on here we have the ability to produce and show that 'revenue gap' being much bigger had we maintained our PL Status

This sort of simple graphic challenges the "£200m pound" lie easily, without drawn out debate and given its nature has the potential to go viral

You can run all sorts of similar campaigns. A "Uncle Jack's Legacy" campaign could feature, with the well-known quote from Madame heading a series of "before and after" photographs, data or actions which could feature everything from the general state of Ewood, the attempt to sell off Brockhall, the drainage or the demise in fan base and interest

In short I think there's a battle to win hearts and minds, to remind some supporters of what we can be as a football club instead of what folk think we should be and it needs to be social media friendly, quick, graphic and in large volume. From a single series such as the Uncle Jack's legacy you could create dozens of graphics and circulate periodically. And the wider football fanbase are insignificant - these graphics need to be targeted at Rovers fans and if they do reach others great, if not who cares

And if you keep it factual then the Club can threaten all they want but they can't do a thing. Spelling out facts online is not a crime

Yes agreed here.

Long thought some sort of simple leaflet/social media page spelling out ‘facts’ and dispelling myths –directly countering the apologist narrative.  Keep it simple, cheap. I’m sure plenty here have the expertise for this –where to distribute ect.

Eg. Top 10 myths

Myth: Nobody would buy us.

Fact: simple debunk

Myth: Not our fault regarding weather

Fact: Waggot presented plans but board rejected etc etc

Or

Did you know?

Maybe 10 of these

 OR

Top 10 facts about the Raos

Top 10 facts about transfers

Top 10 facts about Ismael’s record

 

[aletheia]

6 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

As things stand we are caught in a cleft stick

Yep, zombie club –lumbering along, alive but not alive.

[Tomphil2]

From Waggots laid back water treading approach to being run as if by administrators is my take on it.

The new finance director, the shadowman with complete day to day power now and his puppet are i'd say running it culturally a lot different than normal.

And what a job they are doing, relegation fight, a raft of signings who'll never be worth more than the fees paid and the lowest number of people in the ground on match days since the late 80's.

I wonder if Suhail is filling the owners in on these facts ?

Edited 1 hour ago by Tomphil2

[OllieNO]

54 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

From Waggots laid back water treading approach to being run as if by administrators is my take on it.

Agree, but to be fair to that profession - administrators and corporate recovery specialists, like the ones appointed at Sheffield W - they’re very skilled at running distressed businesses and would do a much, much better job than Pasha & co (completely different league - we’re talking Prem vs National League here…)😇