Boycott Or Not?

[Mattyblue]

What I’m trying to say is that there is a another group (out of 4) that is nuanced.

1) So there’s the folk that will do the boycott.

2)The ‘back the lads’ crew fundamentally aren’t interested in any of this, don’t as long as there are those lads in blue and white running about.

3) The Venkyclappers that still believe they are benevolent owners and we’d be dead without them (some cross over between 2 and 3).

4) This is the group I’m talking about. They fully agree that the owners have been an unmitigated disaster, no Venkyclapping to be seen, they do think about the club more than just once a fortnight, they care deeply - but boycotting just doesn’t enter the conversation. They are a match going fan and they’ll go to the match as it’s what they do, what they’ve always done as despite everything ‘your club’s your club’ and you get behind the team.

For me, we need to keep group (4 onside.
 

[London blue]

Why should group 4 be kept onside if they're not going to consider taking action?

Tailoring messaging towards a group who are going to ignore you is only going to dilute the message for those you can reach.

If you want Venky's gone but aren't willing to sacrifice anything for it then the coalition clearly isn't for you, and that's fine.

[StHelensRover]

26 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

What I’m trying to say is that there is a another group (out of 4) that is nuanced.

1) So there’s the folk that will do the boycott.

2)The ‘back the lads’ crew fundamentally aren’t interested in any of this, don’t as long as there are those lads in blue and white running about.

3) The Venkyclappers that still believe they are benevolent owners and we’d be dead without them (some cross over between 2 and 3).

4) This is the group I’m talking about. They fully agree that the owners have been an unmitigated disaster, no Venkyclapping to be seen, they do think about the club more than just once a fortnight, they care deeply - but boycotting just doesn’t enter the conversation. They are a match going fan and they’ll go to the match as it’s what they do, what they’ve always done as despite everything ‘your club’s your club’ and you get behind the team.

For me, we need to keep group (4 onside.
 

If as a fan base we can't convince the group 4 people to show their dissatisfication and/or anger towards to the owners then we won't succeed, but at the same time, if they haven't been persuaded to join in by this point I don't think anything could persuade them, unless we ended up in league 2 or liquidated, by then it would be too late and we might do a Bury. At that point some of group 4 which you've described might regret not speaking out earlier. That's not a prediction of what is going to happen to this club but it's not unthinkable in the long term. I think League One is inevitable in the next couple of years if they don't leave.

Edited 20 hours ago by StHelensRover
Typo

[Herbie6590]

15 minutes ago, London blue said:

Why should group 4 be kept onside if they're not going to consider taking action?

Tailoring messaging towards a group who are going to ignore you is only going to dilute the message for those you can reach.

If you want Venky's gone but aren't willing to sacrifice anything for it then the coalition clearly isn't for you, and that's fine.

If you want to persuade/influence/change minds…don’t alienate initially is possibly a solid starting point..? 🤔

[StHelensRover]

8 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

If you want to persuade/influence/change minds…don’t alienate initially is possibly a solid starting point..? 🤔

The problem is that people in group 1 and group 4 (ignore 2&3 for now) are likely to be of the view that the other group are damaging or sabotaging the prospects of the club. I'm in group 1 and while I'm not hostile to people in group 4, my long term view is that their unwillingness to see my point of view will allow venkys to continue to ruin the club. They might think that people like me who are going to boycott are damaging the club by impacting players, results, finances, whatever. I don't agree with that but that is likely to be their view. Who is is in the right? 

Edited 20 hours ago by StHelensRover

[rigger]

People seem to have forgotten group 5. That is people who don't give a fuck anymore, of which I am one. I am at the moment spending the money i saved by not going to recent games, on a bar-girl in Pattaya. I know which fucking I prefer.

Edited 20 hours ago by rigger

[speedies gonna get ya.]

36 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

What I’m trying to say is that there is a another group (out of 4) that is nuanced.

1) So there’s the folk that will do the boycott.

2)The ‘back the lads’ crew fundamentally aren’t interested in any of this, don’t as long as there are those lads in blue and white running about.

3) The Venkyclappers that still believe they are benevolent owners and we’d be dead without them (some cross over between 2 and 3).

4) This is the group I’m talking about. They fully agree that the owners have been an unmitigated disaster, no Venkyclapping to be seen, they do think about the club more than just once a fortnight, they care deeply - but boycotting just doesn’t enter the conversation. They are a match going fan and they’ll go to the match as it’s what they do, what they’ve always done as despite everything ‘your club’s your club’ and you get behind the team.

For me, we need to keep group (4 onside.
 

A really fair point. Moving forward another form of protest may be planned to include group 4. The situation is very nuanced. We are all passionate about Rovers and frustration with our current predicament is evident on here. I can admit I am guilty of that as I really want the boycott to be a success to send a clear message. 

Importantly it is important we dont fight amongst ourselves whatever your view. Please remember that the work done in people's own time with zero funds is done for the love of the club, wether people agree with it or not.  It is not about right and wrong approach, but more about a united approach to make a really strong and clear statement. 

[Mattyblue]

Good post, Speedie. Glad to hear that from the Coalition there’s an acknowledgement that protest does take different forms and different methods are planned to attract different folk.

As there’s some very black and white posting on this thread for something that really isn’t easy.

Edited 20 hours ago by Mattyblue

[Vinjay]

Why don't you ask them what their breaking point actually is? As far as a boycott which will end once the club is sold.

The question is where does it end? Could they sell to someone out of spite? 

Regarding my comment about potential FA Cup boycotts Sheffield Wednesday chose a big Carabao Cup game against Leeds. As for Leicester how could they be so disrespectful to Vichai by criticising his son! 🙄 🙄🙄The children of benefactors and popular owners are beyond criticism even if they are an absolute lowlife! 🙄

Edited 20 hours ago by Vinjay

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, StHelensRover said:

The problem is that people in group 1 and group 4 (ignore 2&3 for now) are likely to be of the view that the other group are damaging or sabotaging the prospects of the club. I'm in group 1 and while I'm not hostile to people in group 4, my long term view is that their unwillingness to see my point of view will allow venkys to continue to ruin the club. They might think that people like me who are going to boycott are damaging the club by impacting players, results, finances, whatever. I don't agree with that but that is likely to be their view. Who is is in the right? 

That will only be determined with hindsight in 5 -10 years time when we see whether 

a) We still have a Club left to support at all

and if so

b) Whether we're doing better now than currently

and 

c) Whether that's under the same or different owners.

It's a matter of opinion and personal choice about whether you think you  are doing the right thing. A proportion of fans simply will not support a boycott, refuse to attend games or actively support any form of action against their Club. That's a given so I don't know why such hand wringing is being done in certain quarters (sorry Matty) about trying to get everyone to think exactly the same way. It simply  isn't going to happen. As long as the boycott gets SOME support it can be classified as an outright success, and even if it doesn't it still focuses attention on the cause and gets any protest movement off to a solid start.

If we went out of business in the next 5 years a lot of the people who were still going at that point would no doubt still blame the majority of the fan base who had already stopped going. Conversely, a few might attach a bit of blame to those who didn't boycott and didnt put the owners under enough pressure to leave. It's the way it is, everyone has to act  according to their own individual conscience but you're never going to get everyone to agree.

Obviously the scale would shift more strongly in favour of protest if we got to a Sheffield Wednesday type situation but the whole point about protesting now is trying to prevent getting to that stage at any point.

[Mattyblue]

If trying to explain the motivations of differing types of fans in a thread (a thread on a message board, not the Coalition’s executive committee) that is asking fans to make a choice is ‘hand wringing’ (it was ‘carping’ yesterday) then so be it.

Speedie and ergo the Coalition get it, i.e other things will be tried too in this campaign, so I’m glad I’ve raised despite you trying to shout me down.

Edited 19 hours ago by Mattyblue

[speedies gonna get ya.]

Just a caveat to add to my last post. The Coalition absolutely dont want the fans to fall out over this and ofcourse would love as many as possible joining the boycott in a united show of strength. 

It is important to say that we would not blanket those who attend as Venky supporters, but I strongly suspect the club would. Just another thing to bare in mind. If you do chose to attend and want to show your anger, then that is up to the individual as to how they do that. 

[RevidgeBlue]

13 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

If trying to explain the motivations of differing types of fans in a thread (a thread on a message board, not the Coalition’s executive committee) that is asking fans to make a choice is ‘hand wringing’ (it was ‘carping’ yesterday) then so be it.

Speedie and ergo the Coalition get it, i.e other things will be tried too in this campaign, so I’m glad I’ve raised despite you trying to shout me down.

I've consistently said it needs to be a long and varied campaign.

You dont seem to "get" or even entertain my basic point either that not everyone will be in agreement, ever, but that shouldn't be a stick to beat the Coalition with.

 

[Mattyblue]

Pretty sure that’s been my point from the beginning, I.e there’s different camps of match going fans and if providing different ideas is ‘beating them with a stick’ you obviously have a very low tolerance for differing views. But do carry on. 

Edited 19 hours ago by Mattyblue

[Leonard Venkhater]

2 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

I'm actually on the side of the boycott as I have stated a few times.

But as a grown up I can also see the other side and why people want to attend, without saying "well they must be happy and content with how things are, so attend".

I accept that Speedie has said that it was maybe a poor choice of words however.

My comment wasn't aimed at you.

The fanbase is certainly divided and my experience is that for many on their different sides, their position is sensitive for them-almost a matter of identity. This is going on within my own friendship group.

I think this requires leaders to tread very carefully with their language-especially in print-and even then, they will "offend" by accident.

[Mattyblue]

5 minutes ago, speedies gonna get ya. said:

 

It is important to say that we would not blanket those who attend as Venky supporters, but I strongly suspect the club would. 

Not sure about that. They’d certainly use the player angle, I imagine McLoughlin et al will be thrown in front of a camera again to mouth some platitudes, but seriously doubt they’ll try and paint the remainers as Venky supporters.

[speedies gonna get ya.]

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Not sure about that. They’d certainly use the player angle, I imagine McLoughlin et al will be thrown in front of a camera again to mouth some platitudes, but seriously doubt they’ll try and paint the remainers as Venky supporters.

It depends on numbers. If the boycott is considerable then it wont be mentioned. If it isnt very noticeable, I suspect they will claim those in attendance are happy, even though they have yet to acknowledge anything is happening. It remains to be seen.

Edited 19 hours ago by speedies gonna get ya.

[Mattyblue]

End of the day the only ‘on the record’ statement the regime even makes is in a quarterly FF and as you say they have said bugger all to the various releases from the Coalition, so I wouldn’t be worrying unduly about that lot.

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Pretty sure that’s been my point from the beginning, I.e there’s different camps of match going fans and if providing different ideas is ‘beating them with a stick’ you obviously have a very low tolerance for differing views. But do carry on. 

You started off by disagreeing with the call for a boycott per se  then when that wasn't quite in accordance with the majority view, shifted the goalposts and said you didnt agree with it being on a Saturday game, should have been a night match.

But do keep contributing these "different ideas".

 

[Mattyblue]

No goal posts movement. I still don’t see the need for an ‘official’ boycott, but it’s happening so I’m supporting it. I still think the Sheff Wed game would be better, but Watford it is, so I’m supporting it.

You know, doing what is needed for the cause, despite my own misgivings, and yet you hound me across the thread.

Edited 19 hours ago by Mattyblue

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

PLEASE...stop the arguing and for the long term good of the Club come together as one.

This infighting is exactly what these b'stards want to see.

[Mattyblue]

Exactly right. So knock it on the head and actually *read* what I’m writing, Rev for Christs sake.

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Exactly right. So knock it on the head and actually *read* what I’m writing, Rev for Christs sake.

I have been reading what you're writing.

The Coalition are acting in good faith and doing their best. The fan base will never be in complete agreement about this but some things that are tried will no doubt appeal more to some than they will to others and vice versa.

It serves no purpose to "carp" about individual initiatives. (Sorry if you dont like that term.)

[Vinjay]

41 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Not sure about that. They’d certainly use the player angle, I imagine McLoughlin et al will be thrown in front of a camera again to mouth some platitudes, but seriously doubt they’ll try and paint the remainers as Venky supporters.

They used the players at a fans forum didn't they and the fans walked right into their trap? They won't just resort to using the current players either as they can potentially exploit idiots like Dunn to try and condemn any boycotters. 

Some of the anti-boycotters are the type who would have taken a copy of The Sun to Anfield in 1989 if they supported them. They are just ignorant and there's no cure for that.

Edited 18 hours ago by Vinjay

[speedies gonna get ya.]

I think the best way of summing up my take. If you are supporting the boycott please spread the info to as many people as possible. Let them know what is planned and why. With that knowledge then it is up to them what they do.

If you dont support the boycott but dont support Venkys then please try not to actively argue against it as that plays into the clubs hands. I think that is a fair ask. Its not for you. That is fine.