Boycott Or Not?

[rigger]

Boycott the evening with Valerian.

[Mattyblue]

No Rev I interviewed every fan on the way in on Saturday 🙄

It’s called ‘anecdotal’.

I am telling you now that 5/6,000 people at least will be in the ground, ergo it can’t be deemed a success as a ‘boycott’.

Like I said if that doesn’t matter as it’s all part of a bigger campaign, then fine (which of course begs the question, why do it at all and not focus on other things that do work in and of themselves)

[StHelensRover]

11 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

why do it at all and not focus on other things that do work in and of themselves

I don't think there is anything that can be done which hasn't already been done in the last 15 years, which isn't illegal.

Fans have involved MPs, spoken to regional, national, international press, supporter federations, protested inside the ground, outside the ground, brought livestock into the ground, done planned walkouts, thrown a snowball, chanted endlessly, made banners and at least two thirds of the fan base have just stopped attending. No one outside of East Lancashire cares about the issue.  I'm not aware of anything else that people can do.

Emptying the stadium is the one final thing which hasn't been done.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by StHelensRover

[RevidgeBlue]

30 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

It’s the start of what will almost certainly have to be a long (& divisive) campaign. 

 

…if the alternative is 15 more years of death of a thousand cuts, then…🤷‍♂️

Exactly.

[Crimpshrine]

31 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

And you’ve repeatedly said how it’s a good idea when the evidence of actual fans that still go says the exact opposite.

Protesting by numbers instead of thinking what will actually work.

The call for a boycott is a starting point. I don't think there are many Rovers fans who have not heard about it - so that is a start - get people thinking, get people talking and get the spotlight on Venky's in general and Pasha in particular. 

It is an initial step and if most fans ignore it - as you suggest will be the case - then other options will be considered. 

Things that will get more people on board are a run of bad results/relegation/bad transfer dealings. All those things will happen sooner or later under the current set up but if we wait until things are that bad, the call for a boycott will just appear to be reactionary.  I think it is a good idea to 'get our retaliation in first' and it shouldn't stop after the Watford game whether there is 1 person there or 20,000 there.

[Tomphil2]

Next seasons ST sales and home turnouts will be catastrophic from the word go and there's no way that can be dressed up as anything else other than a boycott.

As pointed out a few times when people are left to make their own minds up and aren't playing the martyr for either side just finding their own excuses not to go the proof will be in the pudding.

Yes 5 or 6k will always be there but we'll then have dropped from 12k hardcore to half in twelve months and that cannot be ignored by anybody.

Unless we get relegated then it'll just be 'shit support' of course.

Edited 2 hours ago by Tomphil2

[Paul Mellelieu]

We have a de facto boycott - including by me for 18 months - so it will be difficult to prise away the most loyal fans.  And therefore, whilst it might not the most effective tactic, it might  have an impact.  So good luck.

[Mattyblue]

Exactly, Paul.

Nothing will happen v Watford that isn’t happening already. But if you want to call it ‘official’ now, fine. Still don’t see why none of this couldn’t have been achieved through an FOI police request and a media campaign, which would have kept the remaining match goers in the tent.

Like I said brfcs-ers and The Coalition  don’t understand the actual reality of where the fans in the ground are.

But crack on

[Crimpshrine]

16 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

 

Like I said brfcs-ers and The Coalition  don’t understand the actual reality of where the fans in the ground are.

I think they do understand - that is why the coalition have requested that anyone not wishing to boycott the match to boycott food and drink in the ground and goods from the club shop. 

[Mattyblue]

…and they won’t do that either as Saturday showed.

[aletheia]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

Like I said if that doesn’t matter as it’s all part of a bigger campaign, then fine (which of course begs the question, why do it at all and not focus on other things that do work in and of themselves)

Did you say what those alternatives are? Or your alternative is?

[levi]

I've been saying for a while that the only way to get them out is to do what shef wed did

Thing is i now live an hour and half away,my lad plays on a saturday so we only get to a handful of home games a year when he's not playing

 

Unfortunately the watford game falls on my lads birthday...i've already booked 2 none refundable hotel rooms,plus tickets and jacks kitchen us all

 

So we'll be attending and also spending in the ground😬

Edited 5 minutes ago by levi

[Mattyblue]

Ive already said. What the Coalition did last season to smoke the three stooges out their foxhole was excellent, plus use FOI through Lancs Police to get the fact a ‘boycott’ is already underway into the press. 6,000 people at a league game for Blackburn Rovers. A club that had an average crowd of 25,000 as these owners bought the club.

There’s your story right there and will have just as much national media interest as this non-boycott will have, *plus* keeps match goers onside. As at the moment the only people winning with this are the regime as the fanbase is well and truly divided again.