Boycott Or Not?

[MarkBRFC]

55 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.

That's the same guy who tried to set up a phoenix club all those years ago by the way.

[Herbie6590]

27 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

That's the same guy who tried to set up a phoenix club all those years ago by the way.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9169044.rebel-rovers-fans-set-fc-blackburn/

[TugaysMarlboro]

Thinking a little further ahead, is there any way to obtain the actual attendance figures for every home game so far, whether via the police or another source?

That would allow us to judge whether the Watford boycott had any genuine impact, instead of relying on the club’s official figures, which have a well-established tendency to stretch the truth.

My concern is that the wider media and even some posters on here, will default to the club’s numbers and use them to argue that nobody attended the boycott

[Herbie6590]

4 minutes ago, TugaysMarlboro said:

Thinking a little further ahead, is there any way to obtain the actual attendance figures for every home game so far, whether via the police or another source?

That would allow us to judge whether the Watford boycott had any genuine impact, instead of relying on the club’s official figures, which have a well-established tendency to stretch the truth.

My concern is that the wider media and even some posters on here, will default to the club’s numbers and use them to argue that nobody attended the boycott

FOI request… @KidderStreetNoise can advise

[TugaysMarlboro]

4 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

FOI request… @KidderStreetNoise can advise

Thank you.

[Upside Down]

12 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

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!!

That's hardly surprising though. My cat and dog are more skilled at organising themselves than the munters down at Ewood.

I was being tongue in cheek with my unpaid comment BTW.

[Upside Down]

10 hours 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 an absolute lemon.

Completely contradicts his own argument within the first sentence. 

People don't buy clubs based on history, they buy them based on potential. Apparently.

The history dictates the potential you fucking smeg. 

By his logic, if Manchester United dropped down a division and had lower attendances, say 15,000 a week, and were losing shit loads of money they'd not be as attractive as Brentford who are averaging 25-30,000 a week and are turning a profit in a higher division. 

What a complete tool. 

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

What an absolute lemon.

Completely contradicts his own argument within the first sentence. 

People don't buy clubs based on history, they buy them based on potential. Apparently.

The history dictates the potential you fucking smeg. 

By his logic, if Manchester United dropped down a division and had lower attendances, say 15,000 a week, and were losing shit loads of money they'd not be as attractive as Brentford who are averaging 25-30,000 a week and are turning a profit in a higher division. 

What a complete tool. 

People also, on the whole, buy football clubs not to make money but to massage their egos.

[Exiled in Toronto Mk2]

The last few pages demonstrate, to my mind at least, why the coalition remains a minority group. Endless circular arguments with Chaddy, rage-hating on fans who express a different opinion as tools or club plants, and no surrender from a maximalist set of views are not, I would contend, the way to build a mass, movement that the majority of fans can get behind. Rather than seek to demolish contrary opinions, looking for common ground might be more effective.

For example, yes we had 20,000+ crowds per-Venky’s but that was in the Premier League. Ironically, if we were in the Premier League, crowds wouldn’t matter any more eg Bournemouth, Brentford, Bumley etc., The notion that there are 10-15,000 people desperate to come back once Venky’s eff off ignores that fact that many of them have moved away, died, lost interest etc plus that the hopper has not been filled with new young fans at previous rates for 15 years. In other words, it’s a complex multi-faceted issue that’s not black or white, and that’s before you get to pricing, sponsorship etc etc.

The coalition cannot achieve its aims if it cannot engage with the stayaways, the die-hards and the people who currently disagree with it. “How do we get bigger” should, in my opinion, take precedence over “how do we get airtime?” The latter may well play a role, but it’s not an end in itself.

[TugaysMarlboro]

9 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

The last few pages demonstrate, to my mind at least, why the coalition remains a minority group. Endless circular arguments with Chaddy, rage-hating on fans who express a different opinion as tools or club plants, and no surrender from a maximalist set of views are not, I would contend, the way to build a mass, movement that the majority of fans can get behind. Rather than seek to demolish contrary opinions, looking for common ground might be more effective.

For example, yes we had 20,000+ crowds per-Venky’s but that was in the Premier League. Ironically, if we were in the Premier League, crowds wouldn’t matter any more eg Bournemouth, Brentford, Bumley etc., The notion that there are 10-15,000 people desperate to come back once Venky’s eff off ignores that fact that many of them have moved away, died, lost interest etc plus that the hopper has not been filled with new young fans at previous rates for 15 years. In other words, it’s a complex multi-faceted issue that’s not black or white, and that’s before you get to pricing, sponsorship etc etc.

The coalition cannot achieve its aims if it cannot engage with the stayaways, the die-hards and the people who currently disagree with it. “How do we get bigger” should, in my opinion, take precedence over “how do we get airtime?” The latter may well play a role, but it’s not an end in itself.

Eloquent post.

 

@chaddyrovers I’m tagging you deliberately because you’ve explained why the boycott doesn’t work for you and you’re exactly the kind of committed match going supporter the coalition would need on side to have a huge impact.

Setting aside past arguments and personalities, I’d genuinely like to ask this in practical terms.

If this were a straight “how could the coalition get you onside?” question, what one or two specific actions or commitments from the coalition would make you more willing to engage with it? Not necessarily to agree with everything, but enough to feel it was moving in a direction you could support.

I’m not asking why you don’t back it now and I’m not asking you to defend your position. I’m asking what would actually change things for you.

If the coalition wants to grow beyond its current base, understanding what would persuade supporters like you feels very important.

Edited 6 hours ago by TugaysMarlboro

[StHelensRover]

1 hour ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

Rather than seek to demolish contrary opinions, looking for common ground might be more effective.

If someone at this point still believes we are better off with Venkys than without, against a 15 year in the making, huge mountain of evidence, then it's as if they're speaking a completely different language or living in a different reality from my perspective. I can't see how the two opposing views are even mutually intelligible. I don't know what constructive dialogue there is to have.

Common ground also sounds like compromise, which is important in some areas of life, but I personally wouldn't be prepared to compromise on the view that the club should be rid of these owners tomorrow, there's no way I can climb down from that. What does a common ground approach look like? I don't think many people who want them out are prepared to water down their view on the Venkys, so I'm not sure where to start on common ground. What do you think?

[Upside Down]

3 hours ago, StHelensRover said:

If someone at this point still believes we are better off with Venkys than without, against a 15 year in the making, huge mountain of evidence, then it's as if they're speaking a completely different language or living in a different reality from my perspective. I can't see how the two opposing views are even mutually intelligible. I don't know what constructive dialogue there is to have.

Common ground also sounds like compromise, which is important in some areas of life, but I personally wouldn't be prepared to compromise on the view that the club should be rid of these owners tomorrow, there's no way I can climb down from that. What does a common ground approach look like? I don't think many people who want them out are prepared to water down their view on the Venkys, so I'm not sure where to start on common ground. What do you think?

Ultimately, if you don't believe that getting rid of venkys would be good for the club then you are wrong. It's that simple. Not a matter of opinion, it's basic facts. 

What have they improved over the last 15 years? 

Nothing.

What have they made worse over the last 15 years?

Everything.

To deny that is denying reality and I have absolutely no time for mushrooms who refuse to accept reality. You're in the bin with flat earthers and climate change deniers.

The only grounds for compromise are how the fanbase should go about trying to get them out. 

[chaddyrovers]

12 hours ago, TugaysMarlboro said:

If this were a straight “how could the coalition get you onside?” question, what one or two specific actions or commitments from the coalition would make you more willing to engage with it? Not necessarily to agree with everything, but enough to feel it was moving in a direction you could support.

I’m not asking why you don’t back it now and I’m not asking you to defend your position. I’m asking what would actually change things for you.

If the coalition wants to grow beyond its current base, understanding what would persuade supporters like you feels very important.

Its a great question, The honest answer I don't know. Maybe other people who have similar thoughts and opinions to myself could come up with something that I can't

Think you made some very good points there tho. 

[Dreams of 1995]

14 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

The last few pages demonstrate, to my mind at least, why the coalition remains a minority group. Endless circular arguments with Chaddy, rage-hating on fans who express a different opinion as tools or club plants, and no surrender from a maximalist set of views are not, I would contend, the way to build a mass, movement that the majority of fans can get behind. Rather than seek to demolish contrary opinions, looking for common ground might be more effective.

For example, yes we had 20,000+ crowds per-Venky’s but that was in the Premier League. Ironically, if we were in the Premier League, crowds wouldn’t matter any more eg Bournemouth, Brentford, Bumley etc., The notion that there are 10-15,000 people desperate to come back once Venky’s eff off ignores that fact that many of them have moved away, died, lost interest etc plus that the hopper has not been filled with new young fans at previous rates for 15 years. In other words, it’s a complex multi-faceted issue that’s not black or white, and that’s before you get to pricing, sponsorship etc etc.

The coalition cannot achieve its aims if it cannot engage with the stayaways, the die-hards and the people who currently disagree with it. “How do we get bigger” should, in my opinion, take precedence over “how do we get airtime?” The latter may well play a role, but it’s not an end in itself.

I don’t think the coalitions actions will live or die by the circular debates with Chaddy

Other than that, I would agree that engagement at all levels is key. The coalition though is a collection of every supporter group - how broad of a church would you like Exiled? The coalition cannot make people engage. Nor can they make people agree. And they are not responsible for the behaviour of forum posters, facebook conversations or otherwise. Instead they can only control communications and content. Their recent content around Venkys ownership has been good.

[Dreams of 1995]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Its a great question, The honest answer I don't know. Maybe other people who have similar thoughts and opinions to myself could come up with something that I can't

Think you made some very good points there tho. 

This is why I think you’re trolling on this subject.

The poster in question did not make a point. He asked you to make a point. You have been very contrarian on all matters relating to the coalition. Now there’s not a single thing which springs to mind that you would improve on. This begs the question why you have held such strong opinions against it and spent hours telling us those strong opinions should be respected

I have long suspected you’re being contrarian for the sake of it. That’s fine. But at least we are now getting to the bottom of it

I would disagree with Tugaysmarlboro statement that the coalition needs fans like you. They need match going fans who have opinions on the direction of the football club - what they do not need to do is try and pander to contrarians who resist any form of representation for fear of being told what to do. There’s not enough oxygen in the room for them to ever achieve that

The truth is that for some fans they will never support the intention of the coalition no matter the health of Rovers. This has to be accepted. That’s why a boycott with -2k fans than normal against Watford is not a failure - it is a sign of who, contained within the hardcore, is prepared to act. 

Edited 48 minutes ago by Dreams of 1995

[chaddyrovers]

39 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The poster in question did not make a point. He asked you to make a point. You have been very contrarian on all matters relating to the coalition. Now there’s not a single thing which springs to mind that you would improve on. This begs the question why you have held such strong opinions against it and spent hours telling us those strong opinions should be respected 

have long suspected you’re being contrarian for the sake of it. That’s fine. But at least we are now getting to the bottom of it

I would disagree with Tugaysmarlboro statement that the coalition needs fans like you. They need match going fans who have opinions on the direction of the football club - what they do not need to do is try and pander to contrarians who resist any form of representation for fear of being told what to do. There’s not enough oxygen in the room for them to ever achieve that

The truth is that for some fans they will never support the intention of the coalition no matter the health of Rovers. This has to be accepted. That’s why a boycott with -2k fans than normal against Watford is not a failure - it is a sign of who, contained within the hardcore, is prepared to act.

He did made the point that "you’re exactly the kind of committed match going supporter the coalition would need on side to have a huge impact." You missed this. Everyone's opinion should be respect. 

You are not getting to any bottom of anything. If you want to support the coalition and their actions then that's your choice. In my opinion, The players need the support and backing of the fans at this time, not boycotting when we are facing a relegation battle, You have seen McLoughlin trying to get the crowd going more in the latter stages of yesterday's game. 

We all have opinions on the direction of the club thanks Dreams but match results are very important and staying up in the championship is the main issue right now IMO. 

 

Edited 7 minutes ago by chaddyrovers

[Mattyblue]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Everyone's opinion should be respect. 

The players need the support and backing of the fans at this time, not boycotting when we are facing a relegation battle

 

 

Oh.

Edited 4 minutes ago by Mattyblue

[wilsdenrover]

I’d rather the players got the support and backing of the club.