Boycott Or Not?

[Upside Down]

I see chaddy is back to stealing the oxygen out of the room with his militant refusal to understand the basics of life. 

So, who's going to be boycotting the Watford game then?

Who has already joined the boycott?

 

[...]

54 minutes ago, Scotty1991 said:

Deputy CEO 😂😂😂 fuck me that’s tickled me that!

Deputy deputy

[...]

58 minutes ago, Scotty1991 said:

Deputy CEO 😂😂😂 

 

 

 

 

[Scotty1991]

24 minutes ago, ... said:

Deputy deputy

Absolute corker that 😂😂 should of just said PA 

[J*B]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

If I was the owner, I would be running the club myself along with the CEO and Deputy CEO. 

BRFCS has a clearer board structure than Rovers and we’re 5 unpaid fools!

When I have no idea what I’m talking about I stop talking and listen to others that do. I’d recommend you do the same. 

[Upside Down]

9 minutes ago, J*B said:

BRFCS has a clearer board structure than Rovers and we’re 5 unpaid fools!

When I have no idea what I’m talking about I stop talking and listen to others that do. I’d recommend you do the same. 

I had no idea you were unpaid 

[J*B]

14 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I had no idea you were unpaid 

I still can’t work it out — but as per my post, @Herbie6590 says we’re not getting any money and I listen, because he knows numbers and I don’t. 

[Upside Down]

23 minutes ago, J*B said:

I still can’t work it out — but as per my post, @Herbie6590 says we’re not getting any money and I listen, because he knows numbers and I don’t. 

So are you saying that @Herbie6590 is the BRFCS Pasha?

[Herbie6590]

10 hours ago, Upside Down said:

So are you saying that @Herbie6590 is the BRFCS Pasha?

We do this purely for the love (& an occasional piece of free merch..!) but to echo @J*B’s point - our corporate structure is more robust than the one at Ewood!!

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

Having skimmed a few pages it's hard to tell whether the Watford game will be effective or not.  I'm glad something has at least been started though.  There is a very stubborn group of supporters that just can't or won't see the wood for the trees.  There must only be 6-7k in the ground these days - looking at the stands. Another 2k off that might not look much different. 

It would also seem that many fans (me included) aren't attending games anyway.  So as much as I would've certainly boycotted the game, my situation makes it irrelevant - as with many on here. 

I'm sure this has probably been considered -  perhaps doing the opposite for a game.  IE All those who have had enough, are boycotting, lost interest, will come back when owners leave etc, attend  1 game.  Spend nothing in the ground.  Walk out at a given time - or stay for the whole game.  Visually, mostly full stands will make a point.  Especially when they are back to being a third full the following game.  

 

If we could increase the attendance significantly, for one game,  it would be a clearer indication of the number of fans they are losing each week.  It's not dependent on those who refuse to boycott.  Those extra attending would also likely be pretty vocal in the boards/owners direction. 

All that said,  it would probably need a good 8k extra on the gate to really be effective.  Not sure there is the will for that either.  Also would have to be a game against a mid table team with a  small following so it can't be labelled a relegation clash or 'going to watch the top team play'. 

Just a thought. 

 

[RoverDom]

Chaddys guide to corporate governance has given me a good tickle for a Sunday morning. Thank you. 

[barry_]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but i saw it on FB and it's certainly not my opinion... 

'

Why it is a fantasy we will get new owners 👇

You may have seen a post this week from the ‘Rovers Coalition’ highlighting other clubs getting new owners and suggesting Blackburn Rovers should be in the same position.

What that post doesn’t show you is the reality of those clubs versus Rovers, and why comparing ownership situations without context is dangerously misleading.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: history does not drive financial return or investment potential. Investors don’t buy nostalgia they buy future cashflows, market size and upside.

Here are a few uncomfortable but factual findings.

1. Attendance and matchday revenue
Blackburn average around 12,000 fans.
Most of the clubs people point to (Birmingham, Coventry, Southampton, Sheffield United, West Brom) average 20,000 to 28,000.

That alone equates to £5 - 10 million more per season in ticket revenue before food, drink, hospitality or merchandise are even counted.

2. Population and catchment
Blackburn’s population is roughly 117,000.
Most comparator clubs sit in cities or metro areas ranging from 250,000 to over 1 million.

That directly impacts:
How many fans you can realistically grow
How many casual supporters exist
How much commercial interest a club can attract

You cannot scale revenues in a small town the same way you can in a major city.

3. Wealth and spending power
Blackburn sits at around £26 to 28k per capita.

Many of these other areas are £32 to 40k+, with London significantly higher.

Higher income areas spend more on:
Hospitality
Corporate boxes
Sponsorship
Merchandise
Matchday food and drink

This is why sponsors pay more elsewhere. It’s not sentiment, it’s audience value.

4. Corporate sponsorship base
The clubs listed have companies operating HO operations in the area such as:

Major banks
Multinationals
Large regional employers
Dense SME networks

Blackburn simply does not have the same corporate ecosystem. That caps sponsorship value regardless of who owns the club.

5. Competition vs scale

Ironically, Blackburn has high competition for a small population (Burnley, Preston, Bolton, Wigan nearby).

Other clubs either dominate their region (Hull, Southampton) or can absorb competition due to sheer population size (Birmingham, Sheffield).

That matters far more than league position in the long term.

So what does this actually prove?

It proves that Blackburn Rovers are punching well above their natural financial weight.

It proves that the losses being sustained now are not commercially rational for a new investor looking for return.

And it proves that the idea of a “better owner” coming in, spending more, and magically competing higher up the pyramid is not grounded in any sense of reality.

The uncomfortable truth is this:

No rational new owner will sustain these losses long term

No investor will overpay for a structurally limited asset

And wishing Venkys away without a viable commercial alternative risks something far worse

Administration and a slide down the pyramid is what happens when spending detaches from revenue fundamentals.

If anyone can argue otherwise using a commercial, data-backed case, not emotion or history, I’d genuinely like to see it.

Because right now, the numbers don’t support the fantasy people are selling.

Pack the stadium, get behind the team so we don’t go down and all the stay aways prove there is a viable business and your not just going because we aren’t in the Premier League anymore'

[RoverDom]

Is that guys name Thomas by any chance? 

[J*B]

44 minutes ago, barry_ said:

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but i saw it on FB and it's certainly not my opinion... 

'

Why it is a fantasy we will get new owners 👇

You may have seen a post this week from the ‘Rovers Coalition’ highlighting other clubs getting new owners and suggesting Blackburn Rovers should be in the same position.

What that post doesn’t show you is the reality of those clubs versus Rovers, and why comparing ownership situations without context is dangerously misleading.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: history does not drive financial return or investment potential. Investors don’t buy nostalgia they buy future cashflows, market size and upside.

Here are a few uncomfortable but factual findings.

1. Attendance and matchday revenue
Blackburn average around 12,000 fans.
Most of the clubs people point to (Birmingham, Coventry, Southampton, Sheffield United, West Brom) average 20,000 to 28,000.

That alone equates to £5 - 10 million more per season in ticket revenue before food, drink, hospitality or merchandise are even counted.

2. Population and catchment
Blackburn’s population is roughly 117,000.
Most comparator clubs sit in cities or metro areas ranging from 250,000 to over 1 million.

That directly impacts:
How many fans you can realistically grow
How many casual supporters exist
How much commercial interest a club can attract

You cannot scale revenues in a small town the same way you can in a major city.

3. Wealth and spending power
Blackburn sits at around £26 to 28k per capita.

Many of these other areas are £32 to 40k+, with London significantly higher.

Higher income areas spend more on:
Hospitality
Corporate boxes
Sponsorship
Merchandise
Matchday food and drink

This is why sponsors pay more elsewhere. It’s not sentiment, it’s audience value.

4. Corporate sponsorship base
The clubs listed have companies operating HO operations in the area such as:

Major banks
Multinationals
Large regional employers
Dense SME networks

Blackburn simply does not have the same corporate ecosystem. That caps sponsorship value regardless of who owns the club.

5. Competition vs scale

Ironically, Blackburn has high competition for a small population (Burnley, Preston, Bolton, Wigan nearby).

Other clubs either dominate their region (Hull, Southampton) or can absorb competition due to sheer population size (Birmingham, Sheffield).

That matters far more than league position in the long term.

So what does this actually prove?

It proves that Blackburn Rovers are punching well above their natural financial weight.

It proves that the losses being sustained now are not commercially rational for a new investor looking for return.

And it proves that the idea of a “better owner” coming in, spending more, and magically competing higher up the pyramid is not grounded in any sense of reality.

The uncomfortable truth is this:

No rational new owner will sustain these losses long term

No investor will overpay for a structurally limited asset

And wishing Venkys away without a viable commercial alternative risks something far worse

Administration and a slide down the pyramid is what happens when spending detaches from revenue fundamentals.

If anyone can argue otherwise using a commercial, data-backed case, not emotion or history, I’d genuinely like to see it.

Because right now, the numbers don’t support the fantasy people are selling.

Pack the stadium, get behind the team so we don’t go down and all the stay aways prove there is a viable business and your not just going because we aren’t in the Premier League anymore'

As I replied:

1. Attendances
Blackburn averaged over 20K fans before Venky’s. You’re comparing data now, which is excluding thousands of people boycotting home matches. A new owner would be looking at potential - “where have the 10,000 home fans gone, is it achievable to get them back?”

2. Population
Please see Bolton Wanderers, or, if ambitious, Green Bay Packers for evidence of what can happen when a club is actively embedded within the community. There are very little recreational things to do in Blackburn, this is a positive, not a negative. 

3. Wealth and Spending Power
Agreed, price the tickets ultra competitively to compensate rather than over pricing to the 7,000 loyal fans that will buy regardless of price. See Bayern Munich, Dortmund or any German club. 

4. You’re looking at sponsorship regionally. Football is an international business in a digital world. There are many businesses that would see huge value in sponsoring a club even if not a single person in Blackburn knew who they were.

The uncomfortable truth is this: 
In the last 15 years, can you please point out a single element of progression at Blackburn Rovers Football Club? For clarity, that means, one thing that has improved since Venky’s took over.

[StHelensRover]

1 hour ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

If we could increase the attendance significantly, for one game,  it would be a clearer indication of the number of fans they are losing each week.  It's not dependent on those who refuse to boycott.  Those extra attending would also likely be pretty vocal in the boards/owners direction. 

This season there was a big crowd on versus Derby for the 150th anniversary and last season Vs Dingles the three home stands were completely sold out, so everyone already knows the fan base is still there and can be coaxed back for big matches. I don't think it needs to show up again, though if we get a big cup draw at Ewood this season I'm sure most of them would turn up as a one-off. Besides these big one-off matches, most of these fans aren't interested in buying season tickets or coming regularly. If the owners go, I think a decent portion (not all) will start coming more often, even initially if only for the novelty and curiosity.

[StHelensRover]

1 hour ago, barry_ said:

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but i saw it on FB and it's certainly not my opinion... 

'

Why it is a fantasy we will get new owners 👇

You may have seen a post this week from the ‘Rovers Coalition’ highlighting other clubs getting new owners and suggesting Blackburn Rovers should be in the same position.

What that post doesn’t show you is the reality of those clubs versus Rovers, and why comparing ownership situations without context is dangerously misleading.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: history does not drive financial return or investment potential. Investors don’t buy nostalgia they buy future cashflows, market size and upside.

Here are a few uncomfortable but factual findings.

1. Attendance and matchday revenue
Blackburn average around 12,000 fans.
Most of the clubs people point to (Birmingham, Coventry, Southampton, Sheffield United, West Brom) average 20,000 to 28,000.

That alone equates to £5 - 10 million more per season in ticket revenue before food, drink, hospitality or merchandise are even counted.

2. Population and catchment
Blackburn’s population is roughly 117,000.
Most comparator clubs sit in cities or metro areas ranging from 250,000 to over 1 million.

That directly impacts:
How many fans you can realistically grow
How many casual supporters exist
How much commercial interest a club can attract

You cannot scale revenues in a small town the same way you can in a major city.

3. Wealth and spending power
Blackburn sits at around £26 to 28k per capita.

Many of these other areas are £32 to 40k+, with London significantly higher.

Higher income areas spend more on:
Hospitality
Corporate boxes
Sponsorship
Merchandise
Matchday food and drink

This is why sponsors pay more elsewhere. It’s not sentiment, it’s audience value.

4. Corporate sponsorship base
The clubs listed have companies operating HO operations in the area such as:

Major banks
Multinationals
Large regional employers
Dense SME networks

Blackburn simply does not have the same corporate ecosystem. That caps sponsorship value regardless of who owns the club.

5. Competition vs scale

Ironically, Blackburn has high competition for a small population (Burnley, Preston, Bolton, Wigan nearby).

Other clubs either dominate their region (Hull, Southampton) or can absorb competition due to sheer population size (Birmingham, Sheffield).

That matters far more than league position in the long term.

So what does this actually prove?

It proves that Blackburn Rovers are punching well above their natural financial weight.

It proves that the losses being sustained now are not commercially rational for a new investor looking for return.

And it proves that the idea of a “better owner” coming in, spending more, and magically competing higher up the pyramid is not grounded in any sense of reality.

The uncomfortable truth is this:

No rational new owner will sustain these losses long term

No investor will overpay for a structurally limited asset

And wishing Venkys away without a viable commercial alternative risks something far worse

Administration and a slide down the pyramid is what happens when spending detaches from revenue fundamentals.

If anyone can argue otherwise using a commercial, data-backed case, not emotion or history, I’d genuinely like to see it.

Because right now, the numbers don’t support the fantasy people are selling.

Pack the stadium, get behind the team so we don’t go down and all the stay aways prove there is a viable business and your not just going because we aren’t in the Premier League anymore'

He'll have to explain why someone bought Wrexham in the fifth tier then, because Blackburn has a far larger population than Wrexham and it's surrounding area and all the arguments he made about Blackburn apply at least two-fold to a small town in North Wales. Wrexham's owners are targeting (might not manage) Premier League football. Our owners and naysayers like this dickhead on social media are targeting keeping the lights on.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Burnley,Brentford,Bournemouth?

One big difference to us...they have owners who give a flying fook.

[simongarnerisgod]

16 minutes ago, StHelensRover said:

He'll have to explain why someone bought Wrexham in the fifth tier then, because Blackburn has a far larger population than Wrexham and it's surrounding area and all the arguments he made about Blackburn apply at least two-fold to a small town in North Wales. Wrexham's owners are targeting (might not manage) Premier League football. Our owners and naysayers like this dickhead on social media are targeting keeping the lights on.

the moron on facebook has clearly missed the fact,venkys relegated us out of the premier league and have made damn sure we`ll never get back,doubling down,they`ve even made sure we`ll never reach the play offs either

[Athlete]

1 hour ago, barry_ said:

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but i saw it on FB and it's certainly not my opinion... 

'

Why it is a fantasy we will get new owners 👇

You may have seen a post this week from the ‘Rovers Coalition’ highlighting other clubs getting new owners and suggesting Blackburn Rovers should be in the same position.

What that post doesn’t show you is the reality of those clubs versus Rovers, and why comparing ownership situations without context is dangerously misleading.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: history does not drive financial return or investment potential. Investors don’t buy nostalgia they buy future cashflows, market size and upside.

Here are a few uncomfortable but factual findings.

1. Attendance and matchday revenue
Blackburn average around 12,000 fans.
Most of the clubs people point to (Birmingham, Coventry, Southampton, Sheffield United, West Brom) average 20,000 to 28,000.

That alone equates to £5 - 10 million more per season in ticket revenue before food, drink, hospitality or merchandise are even counted.

2. Population and catchment
Blackburn’s population is roughly 117,000.
Most comparator clubs sit in cities or metro areas ranging from 250,000 to over 1 million.

That directly impacts:
How many fans you can realistically grow
How many casual supporters exist
How much commercial interest a club can attract

You cannot scale revenues in a small town the same way you can in a major city.

3. Wealth and spending power
Blackburn sits at around £26 to 28k per capita.

Many of these other areas are £32 to 40k+, with London significantly higher.

Higher income areas spend more on:
Hospitality
Corporate boxes
Sponsorship
Merchandise
Matchday food and drink

This is why sponsors pay more elsewhere. It’s not sentiment, it’s audience value.

4. Corporate sponsorship base
The clubs listed have companies operating HO operations in the area such as:

Major banks
Multinationals
Large regional employers
Dense SME networks

Blackburn simply does not have the same corporate ecosystem. That caps sponsorship value regardless of who owns the club.

5. Competition vs scale

Ironically, Blackburn has high competition for a small population (Burnley, Preston, Bolton, Wigan nearby).

Other clubs either dominate their region (Hull, Southampton) or can absorb competition due to sheer population size (Birmingham, Sheffield).

That matters far more than league position in the long term.

So what does this actually prove?

It proves that Blackburn Rovers are punching well above their natural financial weight.

It proves that the losses being sustained now are not commercially rational for a new investor looking for return.

And it proves that the idea of a “better owner” coming in, spending more, and magically competing higher up the pyramid is not grounded in any sense of reality.

The uncomfortable truth is this:

No rational new owner will sustain these losses long term

No investor will overpay for a structurally limited asset

And wishing Venkys away without a viable commercial alternative risks something far worse

Administration and a slide down the pyramid is what happens when spending detaches from revenue fundamentals.

If anyone can argue otherwise using a commercial, data-backed case, not emotion or history, I’d genuinely like to see it.

Because right now, the numbers don’t support the fantasy people are selling.

Pack the stadium, get behind the team so we don’t go down and all the stay aways prove there is a viable business and your not just going because we aren’t in the Premier League anymore'

What clown spouted that ..we are a attractrive marketable proposition more marketetable than the likes of Wrexham

[simongarnerisgod]

even a tiny club like lincoln are on the up and could well go above us division wise next season,whats next accy stanley being our local derby

i think a lot of those facebook posts are club plants,nobody is that naive,same with the idiots in the telegraph

[StHelensRover]

3 minutes ago, Athlete said:

What clown spouted that ..we are a attractrive marketable proposition more marketetable than the likes of Wrexham

There is a perennial venky lover on social media who does lots of long posts (well, my guess is that he gets AI to produce long posts, judging by the layout and wording) about all the reasons we should accept our lot with the Venkys.

His key argument is that no one else except the Venkys would be willing to sustain these large losses. He hasn't explained why Venkys are happy to sustain them if no one else will, it's a contradictory argument. He also hasn't travelled far from Blackburn, because most Championship teams run at huge losses which are comparable to ours (PNE and Stoke off top of my head). Neither of those clubs have had much success in recent years but I'd swap their owners for ours tomorrow, why do their owners accept huge losses every year? Only Venkys are prepared to apparently.

[Athlete]

26 minutes ago, StHelensRover said:

There is a perennial venky lover on social media who does lots of long posts (well, my guess is that he gets AI to produce long posts, judging by the layout and wording) about all the reasons we should accept our lot with the Venkys.

His key argument is that no one else except the Venkys would be willing to sustain these large losses. He hasn't explained why Venkys are happy to sustain them if no one else will, it's a contradictory argument. He also hasn't travelled far from Blackburn, because most Championship teams run at huge losses which are comparable to ours (PNE and Stoke off top of my head). Neither of those clubs have had much success in recent years but I'd swap their owners for ours tomorrow, why do their owners accept huge losses every year? Only Venkys are prepared to apparently.

There are some halfwits on social media

I dont follow any of those pages so I dont get wound up

Anyway off to get the thermals on ready to watch some league two plodders ..oh sorry I meant Rovers

[Guy N. Cognito]

46 minutes ago, StHelensRover said:

There is a perennial venky lover on social media who does lots of long posts (well, my guess is that he gets AI to produce long posts, judging by the layout and wording) about all the reasons we should accept our lot with the Venkys.

The "no one could own us but Venky's" argument is the same logic people used to defend Mowbray's stagnation at the club. Lo' and behold, we found two young managers who turned us into promotion contenders, only to be shafted by the owners. 

It's difficult to tell the mischief-makers from those who have been conditioned into accepting the status quo.

[Herbie6590]

2 minutes ago, Guy N. Cognito said:

. 

It's difficult to tell the mischief-makers from those who have been conditioned into accepting the status quo.

My fear is that with each passing year & more supporters packing it in, the latter group forms an increasing percentage of the (dwindling) matchday attendance. 

[JHRover]

Presumably these same people would have turned Jack Walker and his plans away and stuck with the status quo of being a perennial 2nd or lower division club with no money.

Quite a sad state of affairs but as I've said previously it's not hard to see why the club and town have both ended up in the state they are when plenty are content to accept rubbish and never seek change or improvement.

And I've been called negative...yet I'm not the one making excuses for an inexcusable situation or wanting us to stay in this state.