Boycott Or Not?

[Hasta]

8 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

you could just nip on the website and buy them before attending and pick your seat. 

 

Do you actually read the threads? For Sheff Wednesday you cant. 

[Tomphil2]

You couldn't buy online for today for a couple of days despite it not selling out.

Complete bollocks it's no wonder this club gets endless stick it deserves every ounce.

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

Do you actually read the threads? For Sheff Wednesday you cant. 

No. No he doesn't.

 

[MarkBRFC]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

hence why I ask who decision it was and no-one can say for sure can we? 

Sheffield Wednesday are still selling tickets online to there own fans.

So why would they say to Rovers, you need to take these off sale 6 days before the game?

Think about it for just a minute, and that will tell you who's decision it was.

[Gav]

I know we have more pressing issues than selling tickets for Sheffield Wednesday away, but it would be good if someone from Fans Forum could pick this up, or another supporters representative and ask why this ludicrous decision was made.

[Leonard Venkhater]

On 24/12/2025 at 21:45, J*B said:

We seem to still be overlooking the biggest argument to be made to anyone not willing to miss one home game.

”Name one thing that has improved in the 15 years of Venky’s ownership?”

They can’t answer. Because there isn’t an improvement. Think about that. For 15 years things have either got worse or not improved - which given advancements over the 15 years - is actually a net negative.

If you can’t miss one home game after 15 years of no improvement then unfortunately you will never see the light.

This does end, eventually. It’s simply a case of the speed of the demise now. There’s 10,000 people missing. The standards are dropping. The results are trending down. We either force their hands, or let them do it themselves. 

If you want it to be quick and painful then don’t spend a penny. No season tickets, no merchandise, no TV match passes. 

If you want it to be long and excruciating continue going and spending your money. 

I agree. In all my anti ownership arguments over the years, this has been the trump card.

Name me just one thing etc

[wilsdenrover]

4 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

Sheffield Wednesday are still selling tickets online to there own fans.

So why would they say to Rovers, you need to take these off sale 6 days before the game?

Think about it for just a minute, and that will tell you who's decision it was.

Such a thought could be…

‘Why are a club who love deflecting blame not ‘shouting from the rooftops’ that it wasn’t their decision?’

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

I agree. In all my anti ownership arguments over the years, this has been the trump card.

Name me just one thing etc

I think you'd be struggling to name one thing that has stayed the same and hasnt actively got miles worse.

Let alone improved.

[JPTSwindon]

My issue with boycotting is I just can't see an alternative (rich) owner on the horizon.  We aren't a sleeping giant, our catchment area is crowded and for all Venky's failings they have sunk £230m+ in for absolutely no return which will worry potential investors.

Now, if they were refusing to sell to a serious, rich owner then fair enough (which in some clubs cases is what was happening).

To stay at this level we need circa £20-£30m to stand still - I just can't see alternatives at the moment.

[Rogerb]

43 minutes ago, JPTSwindon said:

My issue with boycotting is I just can't see an alternative (rich) owner on the horizon.  We aren't a sleeping giant, our catchment area is crowded and for all Venky's failings they have sunk £230m+ in for absolutely no return which will worry potential investors.

Now, if they were refusing to sell to a serious, rich owner then fair enough (which in some clubs cases is what was happening).

To stay at this level we need circa £20-£30m to stand still - I just can't see alternatives at the moment.

How long are you prepared to stumble on for? Not having a go but things have to change surely 

[Mattyblue]

A Championship club, one good season from the promised land and nobody would be interested?

But of course until they actually put it up for sale we’ll never know for sure, will we. So it’s all a pointless argument until they do.

 

[Tomphil2]

48 minutes ago, JPTSwindon said:

My issue with boycotting is I just can't see an alternative (rich) owner on the horizon.  We aren't a sleeping giant, our catchment area is crowded and for all Venky's failings they have sunk £230m+ in for absolutely no return which will worry potential investors.

Now, if they were refusing to sell to a serious, rich owner then fair enough (which in some clubs cases is what was happening).

To stay at this level we need circa £20-£30m to stand still - I just can't see alternatives at the moment.

And we are now seemingly in the can't/won't keep putting in that level of money regularly anymore.

So what is the point of them ?

Because we'll slowly go down the pan anyway especially with the absolute baffoons they employ to run the show.

[M_B]

24 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

A Championship club, one good season from the promised land and nobody would be interested?

But of course until they actually put it up for sale we’ll never know for sure, will we. So it’s all a pointless argument until they do.

 

The club doesn't have to be put up for sale for someone to offer to buy it.

Worse case scenario is that someone has already made a sensible bid, but they've turned it down. 

[Mattyblue]

Well, obviously. 

I am purely going off rumours that they have always flatly refused to engage any potential/speculative purchaser.

[JHRover]

They won't even speak to the manager or club staff, or visit the place, so meaningful engagement with prospective buyers ? Forget it. 

They're lazy, arrogant, stubborn. No way are they making any effort to pass the club over to others who will immediately do a better job.

They've shown over the last few years that the club and its performance are utterly inconsequential to their decision making. It's preferable to them to keep hold but let the club rot into oblivion than do the decent thing and pass it over to suitable custodians.

I see the £20-30 million figure is appearing again though. Still waiting for an explanation as to how Preston, Millwall, Watford and numerous other smaller clubs than Rovers can compete in this league whilst losing half or less of that amount each year.

[chaddyrovers]

6 minutes ago, JHRover said:

They won't even speak to the manager or club staff, 

Ismael spoke to the owners last week. 

[Herbie6590]

 

[JHRover]

43 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Ismael spoke to the owners last week. 

Of course he did. 

Notice we never get any specifics when this gets thrown out there. Just a random 'the owners' and never any detail of who out of the gruesome four (if any) were on the other end of the line or what was discussed. 

I suspect if anyone had any interest and asked Ismael which of the 'owners' he spoke to and more importantly what subjects they spoke about information would be very thin on the ground indeed.

Similar to when we get the AI manufactured 'statements' from the 'owners' every year or so that don't have a name to them.

[chaddyrovers]

13 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Of course he did. 

Notice we never get any specifics when this gets thrown out there. Just a random 'the owners' and never any detail of who out of the gruesome four (if any) were on the other end of the line or what was discussed. 

I suspect if anyone had any interest and asked Ismael which of the 'owners' he spoke to and more importantly what subjects they spoke about information would be very thin on the ground indeed.

Similar to when we get the AI manufactured 'statements' from the 'owners' every year or so that don't have a name to them.

Well asked BBC Radio journalists to ask him for specifics if you want to know more given you are on twitter anyway 

 

[Old Codger]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Ismael spoke to the owners last week. 

Yes, and my bollocks were painted in titanium by Audrey Hepburn at the same time.

Ismael is part of the problem. I don't believe for a nanosecond that he had any meaningful direct dialogue with anyone who might be considered an owner of Blackburn Rovers Football Club Ltd. You might as well consider a corridor conversation with Mr Arse himself (the toady known as Suhail Pasha) as 'speaking to the owners' because it is meaningless drivel, at all  levels UNTIL SOMETHING CHANGES.

Not sure if you've really noticed Chaddy, but things aren't what they used to be at this club, and the trajectory continues to be DOWN.

We ain't looking UP until the cancer is cut out of the club. 

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, JPTSwindon said:

My issue with boycotting is I just can't see an alternative (rich) owner on the horizon.  We aren't a sleeping giant, our catchment area is crowded and for all Venky's failings they have sunk £230m+ in for absolutely no return which will worry potential investors.

Now, if they were refusing to sell to a serious, rich owner then fair enough (which in some clubs cases is what was happening).

To stay at this level we need circa £20-£30m to stand still - I just can't see alternatives at the moment.

I understand to an extent the arguments around any boycott making no difference etc.

I cannot fathom the argument that implies essentially better the devil you know. All other clubs in the league (beside Wednesday for a short period with Chansiri after which the club went into admin) rely on owners to offset losses. We arent in some unique situation whereby we rely on owner funding (and it certainly isnt £30m, maybe £20m without profit on player trading so usually lower) so there are people and groups clearly willing to invest in Championship clubs.

I dont see why it will worry potential owners. Buying a Championship club means accepting yearly losses, its not just here.

[chaddyrovers]

18 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I understand to an extent the arguments around any boycott making no difference etc.

I cannot fathom the argument that implies essentially better the devil you know. All other clubs in the league (beside Wednesday for a short period with Chansiri after which the club went into admin) rely on owners to offset losses. We arent in some unique situation whereby we rely on owner funding (and it certainly isnt £30m, maybe £20m without profit on player trading so usually lower) so there are people and groups clearly willing to invest in Championship clubs.

I dont see why it will worry potential owners. Buying a Championship club means accepting yearly losses, its not just here.

You made a number of good points there but you cant expect owners to keep footing the shortfall every time. You can increase the commercial revenue streams especially if you have the correct contacts can make their shortfall less. Plus player trading aswell 

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

You made a number of good points there but you cant expect owners to keep footing the shortfall every time. You can increase the commercial revenue streams especially if you have the correct contacts can make their shortfall less. Plus player trading aswell 

Most years though, any Championship owner will incur a loss. Its par for the course and many people/groups are clearly willing to do it as you can see across the league. We seem to be the only club whose fans cherish the fact that ours do something they have no choice in, and misinterpret or at least suggest its something they choose to do.

A club run properly could definitely reduce those losses, we now seemingly have another rookie idiot in Yasir Sufi overseeing that area. Selling the club would naturally cause a spike in interest in terms of ticket sales anyway, which could then be improved further by a competent man overseeing the commercial side. Venkys have never found anyone.

[47er]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

You made a number of good points there but you cant expect owners to keep footing the shortfall every time. You can increase the commercial revenue streams especially if you have the correct contacts can make their shortfall less. Plus player trading aswell 

Anyone with knowhow could improve the revenue stream but not this lot! These owners have created the shortfall so it's right they should pay for it. If they are not prepared to pay for it they should sell.

Instead their minions just try to make false economies everywhere (like the pitch, the stadium etc) and the Club goes down and down.

Surely you can see this? The signs of decline are all around you.

Edited 15 hours ago by 47er

[Crimpshrine]

4 hours ago, JPTSwindon said:

My issue with boycotting is I just can't see an alternative (rich) owner on the horizon.  We aren't a sleeping giant, our catchment area is crowded and for all Venky's failings they have sunk £230m+ in for absolutely no return which will worry potential investors.

Now, if they were refusing to sell to a serious, rich owner then fair enough (which in some clubs cases is what was happening).

To stay at this level we need circa £20-£30m to stand still - I just can't see alternatives at the moment.

I don't see why any of that is an argument against boycotting.

If you are unhappy with the way the club is run then boycotting is an opportunity to show it - it's only one match.