Boycott Or Not?

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

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.

With Wednesday, they got a lot of traction in the local press & not paying the wages of non-playing staff also damaged Chansiri massively in the community. 
Suhail (& Waggott) have been cute enough to stop that happening to Rovers. 
 

[Leonard Venkhater]

7 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

With Wednesday, they got a lot of traction in the local press & not paying the wages of non-playing staff also damaged Chansiri massively in the community. 
Suhail (& Waggott) have been cute enough to stop that happening to Rovers. 
 

A crucial problem down these 15 years-the slow, attritional  rate of the disease

[Crimpshrine]

18 hours ago, M_B said:

 

Rather than attempt to drive a wedge between the two factions, which was an obvious consequence of the whole idea, if there was a visual protest inside the ground to run alongside the number staying away, it would have been a way to unite the whole thing, holding up a red card at a certain time for example. 

The whole boycott thing is riddled with contractions, but I could get on board with showing frustrations within the ground. 

 

I think visual protests within the ground could be far more divisive than any boycott. 

I remember a 'hold up a red card' match during the Kean era which resulted in scuffles in the ground between protesters and people who didn't agree with it. 

Some fans will always be against all forms of protest , some fans will join in every form of protest, some fans will protest to some extent as long as it doesn't upset their routine.

Boycotting one match is an opportunity for the protesters to make a point without upsetting the anti-protesters in the ground. Everyone can make up their own mind whether they want to join in or not without affecting anyone else's routine or enjoyment.

[wilsdenrover]

Would a realistic compromise be…

Those who want to boycott do so;

Those who don’t enter the ground (eg) 5 minutes after kick off?

Edited yesterday at 16:07 by wilsdenrover

[KentExile]

15 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Would a realistic compromise be…

Those who want to boycott do so;

Those who don’t enter the ground (eg) 5 minutes after kick off?

At least that would convey their displeasure, rather than acceptance of the status quo

Edited yesterday at 16:22 by KentExile

[speedies gonna get ya.]

We are all individuals and have free will. We all see things differently. I believe that if you think we need change and want to convey that message then boycotting ONE match will be the best way to do that. 

If you are content with the current ownership and the way the club is being run then attend. If you are not, I struggle to understand why you find it difficult to join an organised boycott. 

It is a small sacrifice for the greater good. 

[wilsdenrover]

I don’t think it’s helpful to suggest someone attending means they’re content with the running of the club.

It would be far better to try and establish how people who wish to attend can contribute in a different way.

 

Edited yesterday at 17:33 by wilsdenrover

[Leonard Venkhater]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Would a realistic compromise be…

Those who want to boycott do so;

Those who don’t enter the ground (eg) 5 minutes after kick off?

I see your point, but I think as many as possible should just get behind the idea...

[speedies gonna get ya.]

10 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I don’t think it’s helpful to suggest someone attending means they’re content with the running of the club.

It would be far better to try and establish how people who wish to attend can contribute in a different way.

 

I understand but if we send mixed messages it will really waterdown the effectiveness of the protest. We cannot promote a boycott but say if you do go please show your ire. We have had many protests attempted in ground before. They never get off the ground. This is a simple and effective way of sending a clear message. We reason we are now at the stage of trying a boycott is that everything else hasn't worked.

[Mattyblue]

So like I was saying the Coalition are struggling with the mindset of a lot of match goers.

There are plenty in that ground that have no truck with the owners whatsoever, but they would not countenance not supporting the team. You can debate the rights and wrongs of that as a viewpoint, but that’s the reality, and saying ‘well, it means the attendees are all content with the owners and the regime’ is just another way of using loaded terms like ‘complicit’ and it isn’t helpful (well, it is to Suhail et al).

[levi]

30 minutes ago, speedies gonna get ya. said:

We are all individuals and have free will. We all see things differently. I believe that if you think we need change and want to convey that message then boycotting ONE match will be the best way to do that. 

If you are content with the current ownership and the way the club is being run then attend. If you are not, I struggle to understand why you find it difficult to join an organised boycott. 

It is a small sacrifice for the greater good. 

I'm not happy with venky's at all

I've said this before but the watford game falls closest to my lads birthday,so i'd already booked 2 none refundable hotel rooms (as we live an hour and half away and only get to a handfull of home games a season as lad plays saturday's),tickets and jack's kitchen by the time the boycott was announced(the tickets went on sale earlier than normal,maybe due to being included in the xmas bundle)

So that's the reason we'll be attending....i'm happy to enter the ground 5 minutes late as has been suggested above though

 

[RevidgeBlue]

4 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

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

You're obsessed with this notion of there being "winners" and "losers" arising out of the call for a boycott.

There's no such thing - if the boycott is "a success" and say 2 k less people than even the current paltry attendances refuse to attend then that would be nice, but it doesn't mean the owners will sell up the following day.

Similarly if there is no noticeable decline in the attendance, there's nothing lost, there'll be some publicity for the cause, the ground will look extremely sparse anyway and it it will be a solid and welcome first step in what will probably need to be an unrelenting and fairly lengthy campaign if it is to be successful.

[Mattyblue]

Pretty sure today is the first time I’ve even mentioned Suhail et al as being ‘the winner’, and that was after Herbie did, go after somebody else for once (you know, people that, unlike me, aren’t actually doing what’s being asked of them on the 24th) as being lectured to by somebody that doesn’t even go in the first place and ergo has no decision to make is getting tiresome.

Edited yesterday at 18:04 by Mattyblue

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto Mk2 said:

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.

Ok well try a call for a boycott against Watford then put a chicken on the pitch the following match.

See my reply to Matty, I really can't understand yours or anyone else's objections to a boycott unless you're happy with the owners and don't want them to leave.

(As with not boycotting that's still everyone's prerogative to hold that opininion and Im sure there'll even be some still in that boat on the basis they'd be worried about who'd fund us if they left. As I've said before you'll never get anything like unanimity)

Edited yesterday at 18:04 by RevidgeBlue

[wilsdenrover]

34 minutes ago, speedies gonna get ya. said:

I understand but if we send mixed messages it will really waterdown the effectiveness of the protest. We cannot promote a boycott but say if you do go please show your ire. We have had many protests attempted in ground before. They never get off the ground. This is a simple and effective way of sending a clear message. We reason we are now at the stage of trying a boycott is that everything else hasn't worked.

I don’t see why the message would automatically be mixed/watered down if the protest included both people boycotting and others entering the ground late.

In fact it would have the possibility of a ‘double impact’ - fewer fans + it being clear those who are attending are against the regime too. 

 

 

[wilsdenrover]

48 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

I see your point, but I think as many as possible should just get behind the idea...

I wouldn’t disagree but of those who won’t, there are surely some who would get involved in another way if it was an option.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I don’t see why the message would automatically be mixed/watered down if the protest included both people boycotting and others entering the ground late.

In fact it would have the possibility of a ‘double impact’ - fewer fans + it being clear those who are attending are against the regime too. 

 

 

Not sure going in 5 mins late would be that noticeable unless absolutely everyone did it.

Id prefer that sort of thing be saved for a separate protest in another game, maybe not going in until the 15th minute to symbolise their 15 years of mismanagement.

[wilsdenrover]

15 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not sure going in 5 mins late would be that noticeable unless absolutely everyone did it.

Id prefer that sort of thing be saved for a separate protest in another game, maybe not going in until the 15th minute to symbolise their 15 years of mismanagement.

It would be noticeable if 1. Enough people did it 2 it was publicised before that this was part of the protest.

I just feel it would be worth a try as against it being a simple boycott vs don’t boycott thing. 

[M_B]

9 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

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

I honestly don't oppose the boycott, people can do whatever they feel is right. It does make me wonder though, why it has taken an official one for people to act,i mean come on, they've had 15 years. 

Also how it is now being seen as some cliff edge, do or die moment, and if you don't comply(not saying that the coalition have said this) you are somehow responsible for the ills at the club. It's absolutely ridiculous. 

You're right, I obviously do wish they'd go, but I don't think for one second that they'll be forced into it. The result of what's happening, in my opinion, is much more likely to result in a statement confirming their intentions to stay, rather than an intention to leave. If that does happen, you can guarantee that the boycott hasn't helped, quite the opposite. 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Mattyblue said:

Pretty sure today is the first time I’ve even mentioned Suhail et al as being ‘the winner’, and that was after Herbie did, go after somebody else for once (you know, people that, unlike me, aren’t actually doing what’s being asked of them on the 24th) as being lectured to by somebody that doesn’t even go in the first place and ergo has no decision to make is getting tiresome.

You might not have used the particular term "winner" before but that's been the gist of all your postings on this topic - that a boycott won't be particularly well supported and that as such it will somehow form some sort of PR victory for the owners. Which I think is absolute nonsense. Stop carping at those who are acting in good faith to try and make a positive difference at the Club.

BTW I went from late 1970 to 2022 before finally being worn down by the evident lack of ambition at the Club  and from the Coventrio   - Waggott Mowbray and Venus. Sorry if that's not "super - fannish" enough for you.

[Mattyblue]

Well, no, you don’t have skin in the game for this particular protest as it’s an ask of people who do go, to not, as you already don’t you are a bystander, sorry.

This is a place to exchange views. Unfortunately for you the thread hasn’t been locked after one post of ‘great idea, just get behind the Coalition FFS’.

I’m going to do what’s being asked of me on the 24th and I’m a paid up member of one of the Coalition groups, so if I and others want to post an opinion (‘carping’ in your world) on a message board on what could be done differently, what  might have been more effective, we will… and others are free to disagree, like Speedie further up, but at least they are doing it respectfully. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Mattyblue

[RevidgeBlue]

12 minutes ago, M_B said:

You're right, I obviously do wish they'd go, but I don't think for one second that they'll be forced into it. The result of what's happening, in my opinion, is much more likely to result in a statement confirming their intentions to stay, rather than an intention to leave. If that does happen, you can guarantee that the boycott hasn't helped, quite the opposite. 

They're not going to leave because of people boycotting for the Watford game or even for the rest of the season. They've got the Season Ticket money already.

Imo though the only thing that rattles them is them not hitting their appointed targets for Season ticket revenue. (And presumably to a lesser degree, individual matchday revenue.)

Which again would be achieved by a boycott. Just as a matter of interest, would you be prepared to consider not renewing your ST next time round in an attempt to try and force them out?

 

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Well, no, you don’t have skin in the game for this particular protest as it’s an ask of people who do go, to not, as you already don’t you are a bystander, sorry.

This is a place to exchange views. Unfortunately for you the thread hasn’t been locked after one post of ‘great idea, just get behind the Coalition FFS’.

I’m going to do what’s being asked of me on the 24th and I’m a paid up member of one of the Coalition groups, so if I and others want to post my opinion (carping in your world) on a message board on what could be done differently, we will.

Right, so if I understand you correctly then, you're actually complying with the request to boycott for one game (kudos to you if that's the case) whilst at the same time constantly criticising the call for a boycott and saying it's the wrong thing to do.

Makes sense.

[Mattyblue]

Yes, it makes perfect sense. Not sure why you are finding this so difficult. But once again:

The Coalition needs support, there’s nobody else that’s going to front it and campaigns take many steps, so I’m happy to do my bit… but I think they should have chosen a different game and I don’t like language like ‘complicit’ aimed at anybody that doesn’t take part.

Guess what, life and the decisions you make aren’t always easy, aren’t always black and white.
 

Edited 23 hours ago by Mattyblue

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

The Coalition needs support, there’s nobody else that’s going to front it and campaigns take many steps, so I’m happy to do my bit… but I think they should have chosen a different game and I don’t like language like ‘complicit’ aimed at anybody that doesn’t take part.
 

Fair enough, well done for supporting it when the time comes.

Personally, I can't see it matters one iota which actual match is chosen as long as there's plenty of advance notice given and it's well publicised.

No-one from the Coalition has used language like "complicit" as far as Im aware,  that's come from one or two posters on here.