Boycott Or Not?

[47er]

11 minutes ago, M_B said:

Look, just because a few people who I don't know have come up with an  idea doesn't mean it becomes gospel. Who are they to call it "Official" anyway ??? They didn't ask my opinion, did they ask yours? 

Tell you what, the boycott is OFFICIALLY OFF and everyone has to attend the Watford match. There you go, 25000 crowd against Watford coming up, don't forget, you have to turn up because it's OFFICIAL because I said so. 

 

 

You're never going to support a protest movement. We get it.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, M_B said:

Look, just because a few people who I don't know have come up with an  idea doesn't mean it becomes gospel. Who are they to call it "Official" anyway ??? They didn't ask my opinion, did they ask yours? 

Tell you what, the boycott is OFFICIALLY OFF and everyone has to attend the Watford match. There you go, 25000 crowd against Watford coming up, don't forget, you have to turn up because it's OFFICIAL because I said so. 

 

 

Childish response.

If you dont want to boycott that's up to you but dont get arsey about people trying to do their best for the Club.

( Im not part of the Coalition BTW Im just sick of all the sniping from the sidelines already and work hasn't even started yet)

[speedies gonna get ya.]

@M_B what is the suggestion please? 

And the coalition is made up of virtually every fan group including the trust (WATR). Please dont make out that we are not legitimately acting on the will of recognised fan representatives. The idea, the open letter is all run past every member group. We do not act unilaterally. 

Boycotting is not an act of hate. It is an act of love. A sacrifice for our precious club. 

Edited Tuesday at 22:33 by speedies gonna get ya.

[Exiled_Rover]

9 hours ago, Hasta said:

Interesting. So last season on average 1 in 5 didn't attend who had bought tickets (or 20%).

However for league midweek games outside of the Christmas period this number is 30%

For Saturday games this number is 18.5%. The highest figure for a Saturday game is 24.3%

I suspect a large portion of this are kids who have been bought a season ticket (or even match ticket) because they are so cheap, therefore it's easy to "waste".

 

 

There's a few around me in the Jack Walker that don't live local anymore, so getting to Ewood for 7:45pm on a random Tuesday just isn't possible for them.

[...]

19 minutes ago, M_B said:

Look, just because a few people who I don't know have come up with an  idea doesn't mean it becomes gospel. Who are they to call it "Official" anyway ??? They didn't ask my opinion, did they ask yours? 

Tell you what, the boycott is OFFICIALLY OFF and everyone has to attend the Watford match. There you go, 25000 crowd against Watford coming up, don't forget, you have to turn up because it's OFFICIAL because I said so. 

 

 

The majority of people's opinions are the same.  

Do you want the best for the club?

Yes

Are you happy with the decline of the last 15 years?

No

Are you happy with the owners?

No

Have the owners maintained the clubs pride and kept us competitive?

No

Have the owners failed at running a Premiership football club

Yes

Will you be willing to stay home for 1 game in protest of the poor ownership? 

You say no? There's no logic

 

[M_B]

14 minutes ago, speedies gonna get ya. said:

@M_B what is the suggestion please? 

And the coalition is made up of virtually every fan group including the trust (WATR). Please dont make out that we are not legitimately acting on the will of recognised fan representatives. The idea, the open letter is all run past every member group. We do not act unilaterally. 

Boycotting is not an act of hate. It is an act of love. A sacrifice for our precious club. 

I've replied to TugaysMarlboro on p16 with the suggestion. 

[M_B]

18 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Childish response.

If you dont want to boycott that's up to you but dont get arsey about people trying to do their best for the Club.

( Im not part of the Coalition BTW Im just sick of all the sniping from the sidelines already and work hasn't even started yet)

Don't try to turn this on its head, we both know how this goes. 

[speedies gonna get ya.]

4 minutes ago, M_B said:

I've replied to TugaysMarlboro on p16 with the suggestion. 

A visual show of frustration? 

Could you elaborate please?

What exactly would it be and how would you spread the message?

[RevidgeBlue]

On 04/01/2026 at 22:38, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

 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.

Imo you're making the mistake of thinking that the Coalition have to win the hearts and minds of nearly everyone.  That's not the objective. The objective  is to create enough of a stir to persuade the owners to sell.

As we've seen from chaddy's comments on here, there is no "common ground" with a number of supporters and quite a lot  also seem quite happy to attend games for the social experience and dont seem particularly worried about the state of the Club, whether we win or lose or whether we get promoted or relegated.

You're never going to persuade the majority of those fans to boycott either. That doesn't mean the Coalition is wrong to call for a boycott.

To my mind the call for a boycott is a perfectly sensible first step. You're rarely going to achieve complete unanimity  throughout the fan base.

[M_B]

9 minutes ago, speedies gonna get ya. said:

A visual show of frustration? 

Could you elaborate please?

What exactly would it be and how would you spread the message?

I explained it in a reply to TugaysMarlboro, there are 2 posts 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

14 minutes ago, speedies gonna get ya. said:

A visual show of frustration? 

Could you elaborate please?

What exactly would it be and how would you spread the message?

He suggested the crowd holding up red cards I think. I've already suggested something similar to Glen with yellow cards, my reasoning being purely on the basis any messaging would show up better.

Doubtful if many who wouldn't boycott in the first place would be prepared to get involved in that I'd  have thought.

Edited Tuesday at 23:06 by RevidgeBlue

[Vinjay]

28 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Imo you're making the mistake of thinking that the Coalition have to win the hearts and minds of nearly everyone.  That's not the objective. The objective  is to create enough of a stir to persuade the owners to sell.

As we've seen from chaddy's comments on here, there is no "common ground" with a number of supporters and quite a lot  also seem quite happy to attend games for the social experience and dont seem particularly worried about the state of the Club, whether we win or lose or whether we get promoted or relegated.

You're never going to persuade the majority of those fans to boycott either. That doesn't mean the Coalition is wrong to call for a boycott.

To my mind the call for a boycott is a perfectly sensible first step. You're rarely going to achieve complete unanimity  throughout the fan base.

In reference to the 70's and 80's Ronnie Clayton said it was "just a social club". It seems like that's more the case now as back then people may not have stood for the endless disrespect. There would have been more violence that's for sure even if Ewood wasn't near the top of dangerous grounds. Back then it wouldn't have just been a snowball. 

No idea where it will be (probably not at Ewood) but one day an owner (or their stooges) are going to push the wrong person too far. There are too many leeches in football and the day of reckoning is coming for at least one of them.

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, M_B said:

Look, just because a few people who I don't know have come up with an  idea doesn't mean it becomes gospel. Who are they to call it "Official" anyway ??? They didn't ask my opinion, did they ask yours? 

Tell you what, the boycott is OFFICIALLY OFF and everyone has to attend the Watford match. There you go, 25000 crowd against Watford coming up, don't forget, you have to turn up because it's OFFICIAL because I said so. 

 

 

What a completely ridiculous childish thing to post. 

Fucking embarrassing.

If you're not prepared to try and join in with taking action against the scum that own the club then that makes you complicit. 

Stop being part of the problem and help to try and be part of the solution.

[M_B]

8 hours ago, Upside Down said:

What a completely ridiculous childish thing to post. 

Fucking embarrassing.

If you're not prepared to try and join in with taking action against the scum that own the club then that makes you complicit. 

Stop being part of the problem and help to try and be part of the solution.

It doesn't make me or anyone else complicit, stop peddling this ridiculous rhetoric , how old are you? 

[Dreams of 1995]

10 hours ago, M_B said:

Look, just because a few people who I don't know have come up with an  idea doesn't mean it becomes gospel. Who are they to call it "Official" anyway ??? They didn't ask my opinion, did they ask yours? 

Tell you what, the boycott is OFFICIALLY OFF and everyone has to attend the Watford match. There you go, 25000 crowd against Watford coming up, don't forget, you have to turn up because it's OFFICIAL because I said so. 

I don't quite agree with this.

If I am correct, the coalition is made up from every official supporter group, without exception. The only way to make it any more 'official' is if the club announced it itself. You are of course free to consider yourself as part of a different supporters group - the unrepresented, maybe - but nevertheless this is as official a call for a boycott as one could expect

Your last paragraph would stand true had you been involved or took the lead on a separate supporters' group yourself. You could do. You could also then oppose the boycott

I won't go down the childish route of calling you complicit. The various supporters' groups have come together and have not demanded but instead requested that all fans stand together, whether you are part of the dozen or so groups which form the coalition or not. That choice is entirely your own and many will exercise that choice, each for different reasons

For some, time may simply be slipping away from them and the chance to watch Rovers week in, week out is a hobby they will cherish each and every time they can

For others, it will simply be a case of contrarianism and a "you cannot tell me what to do" attitude

In this respect, no boycott will ever be everyone. Sheffield Wednesday came the closest that I have ever seen but they were really difficult circumstances for the club

What I would disagree with here is your suggestion that the coalition is trying to force you to do anything or that the coalition has decided on an action that is divisive. From what I have seen online, the divisiveness has come from those who oppose the boycott; insults and posts such as this, where it is clear that fans who do not join any supporters' group at all, also really dislike the idea of being spoken for. What I would say is that it is always harder to be represented if you do not join a group to represent you.

I'll caveat all of that by saying - I don't attend. I live too far away, I have other commitments, and I am well aware that if I was to try and convince anyone to actually boycott it would be hypocritical. But I think you're being unfair in your dismissal of the coalition aims here. I am guessing they want the same thing as you - for Venky's to sell - it is just the road chosen to get there

[BigUts]

I'll post this again here as it was in the "protest ideas" thread:

Anyone not wanting to participate in a ONE game show of solidarity against the Rao family systematically destroying the club, the fan base, the proud legacy and history of 150 years should now be considered complicit and history will 

 

I honestly do not get it at all. Digging in and saying "I won't let anyone tell me what to do" get your head out of the f*cking sand. You're having your pants pulled down by a family who simply don't give two shiny turds about you, the club, the town and our proud history. They're taking you for mugs. Maybe put your pride to one side for ONE...JUST ONE match and see what happens. It will get a lot of coverage from the press if there's barely a sole in attendance and we have already seen over the past year how just a small but of pressure starts to make the weak at the knees.

 

It can work. Look at Sheff Wed. They did it, even THEY are telling us to crack on and persevere and they're in the worst of it right now from a sporting sense.

 

I guarantee somebody will buy us if we are in administration. We are a large club with a fantastic history and lots of potential for increases in revenue in basically all areas. It won't take a lot for big losses to be much smaller losses. We can all think of clubs similar to ours who have been through the mill and come out the other side bigger, better stronger and propelled themselves skywards.

 

Attendances across the country have absolutely rocketed in the last 5 - 10 years yet we are an outlier. It will flip, it will change and people will return. Think of the taking back Ewood campaign and the huge number of STs that were sold...cast your eye a little bit up the road to Horwich and you'll see exactly that.

 

We must keep pushing, we must stick together and people must make choices for the greater good. It can happen and we have to keep believing it will.

[Wheelton Blue]

It always makes me chuckle when I see accusations of 'complicity in the regime' should people choose not to boycott one game.

By extension, anyone who has attended any game over the past 15 years is arguably also complicit.

Yes, it's a ridiculous thing to say.

[Herbie6590]

34 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

It always makes me chuckle when I see accusations of 'complicity in the regime' should people choose not to boycott one game.

By extension, anyone who has attended any game over the past 15 years is arguably also complicit.

Yes, it's a ridiculous thing to say.

Indeed...imagine you are Suhail reading this thread...he'll be delighted at the lack of unity across the fanbase. 

We need to rise above petty insults & concentrate on getting the message to Venky's that we ALL want owners who care. 

[BigUts]

43 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

It always makes me chuckle when I see accusations of 'complicity in the regime' should people choose not to boycott one game.

By extension, anyone who has attended any game over the past 15 years is arguably also complicit.

Yes, it's a ridiculous thing to say.

What's ridiculous is people not willing to make the minute sacrifice of not attending a single game to help prove a point and shine a spotlight a little more on our crazy owners.

Imagine being one of those people and the history books... "Fan groups attempted to rally support against the Rao family ownership, by organising a blanket boycot of a single game, yet there remained a number of supporters who were unwilling to do so, instead insisting that they would not be told what to do by anyone"

I can tell you now, that anyone attending the game will, by proxy, be supporting the spinned notion by 'the club' that there "remains strong support amongst the fan base for what we are trying to do here"

[wilsdenrover]

The notion of strong support can be countered irrespective of the success or otherwise of the boycott.

 

 

[Wheelton Blue]

13 minutes ago, BigUts said:

What's ridiculous is people not willing to make the minute sacrifice of not attending a single game to help prove a point and shine a spotlight a little more on our crazy owners.

Imagine being one of those people and the history books... "Fan groups attempted to rally support against the Rao family ownership, by organising a blanket boycot of a single game, yet there remained a number of supporters who were unwilling to do so, instead insisting that they would not be told what to do by anyone"

I can tell you now, that anyone attending the game will, by proxy, be supporting the spinned notion by 'the club' that there "remains strong support amongst the fan base for what we are trying to do here"

You made some good points in your initial post.

But whether folk attend or not is a personal decision for them alone, and is no one else's business. Calling them 'complicit' should they choose to attend, is basically just name calling and serves no purpose. 

[BigUts]

31 minutes ago, Wheelton Blue said:

You made some good points in your initial post.

But whether folk attend or not is a personal decision for them alone, and is no one else's business. Calling them 'complicit' should they choose to attend, is basically just name calling and serves no purpose. 

Yep I can certainly see that and in many respects I agree, it is just in reality name calling...but I firmly believe attendance really is just justifying the status quo to those in their ivory towers. This is about a show of force; that fans have had enough.

I suppose my overriding feeling is of sadness that some will not make a tiny sacrifice for the greater good. 

[Mattyblue]

As I’ve said previously, I think there’s a lack of understanding of match goers and their motivations. The lads around me aren’t particularly the happy clapper, turn up to Ewood to watch a team in blue and white and don’t think much else of if till the next game types (like some certainly are), they think the owners have been a disaster, we’ve had many a discussion about it.

However, despite them, they see themselves as fans, as ST holders and as such they go and support the team. If you told them that they are ‘complicit’ because they are choosing to sit in a seat they’ve paid for to try and help the team stay out of the third division they’d see it as a very odd descriptor of them.

As Herbie says above, only one winner from the looks of this thread.

Edited yesterday at 13:06 by Mattyblue

[Hasta]

5 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

However, despite them, they see themselves as fans, as ST holders and as such they go and support the team. If you told them that they are ‘complicit’ because they are choosing to sit in a seat they’ve paid for to try and help the team stay out of the third division they’d see it as a very odd descriptor of them

The difference between us and Wednesday was they repeatedly stopped playing the players. Therefore boycott action to remove the owners was also seen to be supporting the players. I imagine it made it a much easier decision for match attendees to miss a game. Even then, they still had people that turned up.

[Exiled in Toronto Mk2]

15 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The objective  is to create enough of a stir to persuade the owners to sell.

You’re a smart bloke Rev, surely you can’t believe that a few hundred less people in a ground that’s 2/3rds empty anyway will do anything? We usually can’t agree amongst ourselves on here the attendance to the nearest thousand. “Turn off the taps” to billionaires? They get richer each minute by more than you and I have spent on Rovers in our lives.

Now, a chicken on the pitch every week would make the news globally, and might, just might, get through to them because it mocks them, and their stewardship of the club, personally.