Boycott Or Not?

[Vinjay]

19 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

How the fuckity fuck fuck fuck would an Aussie consortium or an American ‘understand the supporters and local area’? 
 

 

It's probably better if they don't unless you're trying to put them off. 

If you're explaining illness as a reason for continuing to go you can also make an argument for the exact opposite. Why waste part of your life on people who don't care (and that includes a significant number of fans on certain issues such as that trash in Monaco) and have a complete lack of empathy? The English sports media and a lot of people in English football are complicit too in ruining Jack's legacy. If you want to get over the bitterness (not that I have) it's better to keep English football to a minimum and look abroad. 

Has the last 20 years posting on forums like this improved my mental health? Absolutely not. Infact I've sometimes wondered if some kind of illness would be my snapping point. Maybe I just watch Breaking Bad too much but you never know. Nothing to lose when you're seriously ill especially if you're 100% justified in taking action while you're still able to do so. 

5 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

blue and white be the very best it can be.

Blue and white. Not blue, white and red devil. What did I say about empathy again? Where's the empathy for Jack when Totally Wicked gets slapped on the kit? It's an insult to him. 

[Ferrit]

Absolutely boycott.

[LeftWinger]

I'm not sure how much traction a boycott of the Watford game will get. Sheffield Wednesday did it well though.

It needs media coverage. They'll report the attendance figure with season tickets included so the numbers won't look horrendous. 

I was looking round the ground today and noticed how much the stewards/police stand out in high vis jackets. Maybe everyone could start to turning up to games in high vis vests if they want Venkys out. It'd look like we just had a crowd full of stewards on TV. 

[Upside Down]

I think in the build-up to the Watford game the coalition should be releasing a series of "Facts about the last 15 years" with a new one every two or three days. 

Getting our message out there and winning the information war is absolutely crucial. The facts are completely on our side.

[JPTSwindon]

On 28/12/2025 at 17:43, Rogerb said:

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

I would love a modern day Jack Walker...

If there was one and the Venky's dug in, then I'd be all for a boycott to force their hand.

My point was, at the moment I can't see an investor on the horizon.  That doesn't excuse the current situation we are in - far from it, but no bids means 'what is the alternative?'.

[Mattyblue]

Championship clubs on the market have little issue attracting investors from what I can see… but of course you need two parties at the table.

[MarkBRFC]

3 hours ago, JPTSwindon said:

I would love a modern day Jack Walker...

If there was one and the Venky's dug in, then I'd be all for a boycott to force their hand.

My point was, at the moment I can't see an investor on the horizon.  That doesn't excuse the current situation we are in - far from it, but no bids means 'what is the alternative?'.

How does every other championship club and many at levels below us attract new owners?

Why are we so unique that nobody else could possibly own us?

Venkys greatest achievement in the past 15 years is that they have managed to convince a good portion of the fanbase that nobody else could possibly own us.

Edited 3 hours ago by MarkBRFC

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

8 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I think in the build-up to the Watford game the coalition should be releasing a series of "Facts about the last 15 years" with a new one every two or three days. 

Getting our message out there and winning the information war is absolutely crucial. The facts are completely on our side.

Exactly this.

Sky did us a small favour yesterday mentioning the Coalition...keep the pressure up,dont back down

[davulsukur]

8 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I think in the build-up to the Watford game the coalition should be releasing a series of "Facts about the last 15 years" with a new one every two or three days. 

Getting our message out there and winning the information war is absolutely crucial. The facts are completely on our side.

Via Twitter, I think they already are.

[chaddyrovers]

All depends what type of owner you would want in charge of Rovers. 

There is always plenty of interested from people but without proper checks to find out whether these people are suitable or not

[roversfan99]

I suspect they will be more suitable than Venkys.

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

All depends what type of owner you would want in charge of Rovers. 

There is always plenty of interested from people but without proper checks to find out whether these people are suitable or not

I don't care 'what type' of owner we get, as long as it isn't Venkys there's a very strong chance the club will benefit from it.

'Proper checks' - those being the same that allowed Venkys to get hold of this institution and destroy it in the first place and ever since has offered no protection whatsoever despite continued neglect and ruin?

Checks such as allowing us to operate without a board of directors, without a Chief Executive, relying on silent Bob to provide a façade of normality, allowing shadowy characters to run the club from the background? 

Checks are a waste of time and guarantee nothing. 

This is a club with a serious and probably terminal illness. It needs urgent surgery/medication to remove the cause of that illness. 

That's the point we are at. Failure to address the illness will probably mean the death of BRFC. 

We can worry about what comes next when it actually arrives. And if the next lot are awful too then we'll deal with that issue when it comes. 

Would you turn down live saving surgery on the basis you weren't sure how you would feel afterwards? Because that's the equivalent here. Stick with Venkys and enjoy the ride to oblivion because you 'aren't sure' 'what sort' of owner 'might' replace them. 

There are two issues. Getting the club wreckers out asap, and then worrying about what comes next. The first part is non-negotiable as far as I and most sensible people are concerned - it has to happen and as soon as possible whilst there is still some semblance of a club left to recover. Part two is something that can only happen and be worried about once part one has happened. 

[roverandout]

The irony of chaddy warning us that we could get poor owners when we have one of the worst owners in English football 

Edited 2 hours ago by roverandout

[chaddyrovers]

21 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I don't care 'what type' of owner we get, as long as it isn't Venkys there's a very strong chance the club will benefit from it.

'Proper checks' - those being the same that allowed Venkys to get hold of this institution and destroy it in the first place and ever since has offered no protection whatsoever despite continued neglect and ruin?

Checks such as allowing us to operate without a board of directors, without a Chief Executive, relying on silent Bob to provide a façade of normality, allowing shadowy characters to run the club from the background? 

well I suggest you blame the Walker trust and family for selling the club to them. 

We have a board of directors. Its 3 people. 

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, roverandout said:

The irony of chaddy warning us that we could gey poor owners when we have one of the worst owners in English football 

 

[JHRover]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

well I suggest you blame the Walker trust and family for selling the club to them. 

We have a board of directors. Its 3 people. 

I do ultimately blame them yes. Doesn't make the current lot any more acceptable or mean they should stay.

The suggestion that we have a functioning board of directors is laughable and has been since they removed Williams, Finn and Goodman and never replaced any of them with competent and crucially empowered people. 

Please do explain to me who is on the 'board' and what these 'board' members do on a day to day basis for the betterment of Blackburn Rovers.

[Mattyblue]

Silent Bob sitting on his own in the boardroom rubber stamping documents put under his nose will be the extent of ‘board meetings’, you’d imagine.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

There is always plenty of interested from people but without proper checks to find out whether these people are suitable or not

Yes chaddy,much to our cost,we know all about that point dont we!😉

As for Silent Bob eh,the person who gave a moving Eulogy on Jacks passing...how does your conscience cope ?

Edited 2 hours ago by SIMON GARNERS 194

[chaddyrovers]

19 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I do ultimately blame them yes. Doesn't make the current lot any more acceptable or mean they should stay.

Never said it does, but that's how all this started. 

19 minutes ago, JHRover said:

The suggestion that we have a functioning board of directors is laughable and has been since they removed Williams, Finn and Goodman and never replaced any of them with competent and crucially empowered people. 

getting rid of Williams and Finn was a massive mistake. 

19 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Please do explain to me who is on the 'board' and what these 'board' members do on a day to day basis for the betterment of Blackburn Rovers.

check companies houses/Rovers website and you see who is on the board of directors are,

How would I know what they do, when I'm not in the room? Do you know what they do? 

I'm not sure why you need a board of directors anyway. A simple managerial structure of CEO, Deputy CEO, then head of departments 

[JHRover]

4 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

I'm not sure why you need a board of directors anyway. A simple managerial structure of CEO, Deputy CEO, then head of departments 

Well the vast majority of clubs have them, so probably a good move, if you want to act like a proper club which we clearly don't.

But on the topic of a CEO....now 8 months and counting since Slippery Steve sailed off into retirement. What's taking so long?

This all comes back to my original point. They just don't take this seriously and never will. End of story.

[chaddyrovers]

9 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Well the vast majority of clubs have them, so probably a good move, if you want to act like a proper club which we clearly don't.

A CEO and Deputy CEO is all that is needed to a run a club properly 

9 minutes ago, JHRover said:

But on the topic of a CEO....now 8 months and counting since Slippery Steve sailed off into retirement. What's taking so long?

Waggott has only just left as CEO at the end of October according to Companies House . He has period of notice to serve

[JHRover]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

Waggott has only just left as CEO at the end of October according to Companies House . He has period of notice to serve

So a multi-million pound organisation has to drift along without anyone leading it for months and months and months because he has a notice period to serve?

Ridiculous. Again, doesn't happen anywhere else. 

And even if that was a reason, why couldn't they have had a new one ready to start in October or November so they were ready to get to work ahead of the January transfer window.

The answer Chaddy, as I suspect you know deep down, is that these owners have never wanted a CEO and don't believe we need one. That's why aside from Waggott we haven't had one for most of the last 15 years, and I would bet we don't appoint one at least until the summer. They only agreed to bring in Waggott after Mowbray persuaded them in India because they 'trusted' Mowbray. 

Like with every other element of their ownership they try to get away with the bare minimum and the club rots in the process.

[Rogerb]

At a normal club the change from one CEO to another is seamless.

[roverandout]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

 

I was including Sheffield Wednesday but I think they've potted their owners?

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, JHRover said:

So a multi-million pound organisation has to drift along without anyone leading it for months and months and months because he has a notice period to serve?

Ridiculous. Again, doesn't happen anywhere else. 

And even if that was a reason, why couldn't they have had a new one ready to start in October or November so they were ready to get to work ahead of the January transfer window.

You have other people have running the club as you know who they are for these months

 

Just now, JHRover said:

The answer Chaddy, as I suspect you know deep down, is that these owners have never wanted a CEO and don't believe we need one. That's why aside from Waggott we haven't had one for most of the last 15 years, and I would bet we don't appoint one at least until the summer. They only agreed to bring in Waggott after Mowbray persuaded them in India because they 'trusted' Mowbray. 

Like with every other element of their ownership they try to get away with the bare minimum and the club rots in the process.

You have had Waggott has CEO for 7 years, Shaw as MD as nearly 4 years