Boycott Or Not?

[M_B]

7 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I think you need to add contradiction to the large list of things you don't understand.

So when the owners wind up the club because it isn't financially viable, it will be my fault because I kept going, not yours who has not only  "stopped" going, but has urged others to do the same as well as stop giving the club any money.

And it's me who apparently doesn't understand contradiction 🤦

[Vinjay]

Are you going to back down on using Jack Walker now because cretins like Jim Wilkinson are upset? Considering how Jack died where was his outrage when they slapped Totally Wicked on shirt? Nowhere because he's a Man United lover. 

Don't bow down to them. Especially the likes of him.

[rigger]

4 minutes ago, Vinjay said:

Are you going to back down on using Jack Walker now because cretins like Jim Wilkinson are upset? Considering how Jack died where was his outrage when they slapped Totally Wicked on shirt? Nowhere because he's a Man United lover. 

Don't bow down to them. Especially the likes of him.

At least the campaign is being advertised to a wider audience.

[RoversTilliDie]

Staying away, damages Blackburn Rovers, not the owners. A big crowd motivates the team, and we need it at the moment, if we're to survive in the Championship.

[K-Hod]

Mad that people are getting more offended by the use of Jack Walker’s image, than those who destroyed his legacy.

What a time to be alive.

[KentExile]

14 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Mad that people are getting more offended by the use of Jack Walker’s image, than those who destroyed his legacy.

What a time to be alive.

We unfortunately live in an age where it is seen as a "better tactic" to say that you are offended by something, than it is to provide a counter argument

 

[Dreams of 1995]

It probably needs to be reminded to a few that football is unlike any other business. The owners can’t simply “wind the club down”. This isn’t a retail store

The owners could, if they wanted, place the club in to administration and the league will penalise us - usually points deduction. However the league then mandates the sale of the club and appoints an administrator

The idea that BRFC could cease to exist at the whim of Venkys is wrong

What could be said, is that by not going you accelerate that process. It is harmful in the short term but again, the end result is something that we all want - an end to Venkys

I have stopped using Twitter but I always had Jim Wilkinson down as a bit of a rage baiter who has a strange obsession with cats. It strikes me as pretty normal thing for him to find offence at the use of Jack Walker

One thing we can all agree on is that Jack Walker would not abide by the standard of ownership that Venkys have produced. Say what you want about paying the bills, the financial struggles of EFL clubs or who may be a potential new owner but the amateur way that Venkys control this club and the contempt they show the fans and the town is a total reversal from what Jack wanted here. I don’t think he would object with his image used - why would he?

Afterall, 135 years of pride and 15 years of shame. That statement resonates with every single fan of this club 

Edited 14 hours ago by Dreams of 1995

[Vinjay]

16 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The owners could, if they wanted, place the club in to administration and the league will penalise us - usually points deduction. However the league then mandates the sale of the club and appoints an administrator

The idea that BRFC could cease to exist at the whim of Venkys is wrong

Administration is perhaps the best scenario as it forces them out. The worst is deliberate spite and putting in the absolute bare minimum required to meet salaries to punish the fans. They could take the club lower than the National League if they felt like it and being in Pune they are almost immune to threats. There is also the chance they could sell to someone who turns out to just as unpopular on purpose.

I'm sure they would show their faces if Charles Windsor visited Ewood though.

Edited 14 hours ago by Vinjay

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, RoversTilliDie said:

Staying away, damages Blackburn Rovers, not the owners. A big crowd motivates the team, and we need it at the moment, if we're to survive in the Championship.

Not sure it does. The owners damage Blackburn Rovers, the fans attending or not is likely immaterial to their decision making one way or the other.

Likewise I often hear about a big crowd motivating the players. Again I'm not sure that's correct. I suspect it makes very little difference and we've frequently performed poorly with a big crowd on 

[MarkBRFC]

1 hour ago, RoversTilliDie said:

A big crowd motivates the team, and we need it at the moment, if we're to survive in the Championship.

It really doesn't.

Any slightly higher crowd than usual at Ewood and this lot play like they have never met before.

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, M_B said:

So when the owners wind up the club because it isn't financially viable, it will be my fault because I kept going, not yours who has not only  "stopped" going, but has urged others to do the same as well as stop giving the club any money.

And it's me who apparently doesn't understand contradiction 🤦

Face palm indeed.

[Vinjay]

I see the coalition have apologised. So what you're cowardly backing down because some idiots don't like it? That's a disgrace and it will completely evaporate what is left of my sympathy. It's a miracle I have any to begin with except where Jack is concerned.

Edited 14 hours ago by Vinjay

[London blue]

1 hour ago, RoversTilliDie said:

Staying away, damages Blackburn Rovers, not the owners. A big crowd motivates the team, and we need it at the moment, if we're to survive in the Championship.

There's zero evidence that a big crowd motivated this team.

Besides, a boycott isn't designed to improve the performance and/or result of a single game.

Edited 14 hours ago by London blue

[RevidgeBlue]

15 hours ago, M_B said:

Before I start, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just providing you with the information so that you've got some anecdotal stuff to consider.

Since new year, I've asked at least 7 (2 today) if they're boycotting and not one is. One of them goes  from a pub in Darwen and doesn't know anyone from that pub who is  boycotting. Nobody I've asked even seemed to consider it. 

Maybe someone else has any info 

Im not sure what point it is you're trying to make with the above post but good for you. That's your prerogative entirely.

[RevidgeBlue]

18 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

An “I’m not gonna renew” red card protest? 🤔

On reflection this could be a really good idea.

Once the planned boycott is out of the way maybe there could be a "Venky's out" match.

Don't know if it would be logistically too difficult to organise but we could try (as far as possible) to fill the ground with people holding up a red card.

People who have already voted with their feet like me could go down as a one off and hold up a card saying something like "Ill be back when Venky's leave" and those who are still going could hold up a card saying something like "Venky's out" or "No season ticket renewal for me".

Or just "Venky's out!" for everyone. I'd be prepared to order and pay for a card in advance.

Just throwing ideas out there - could probably do with some fine tuning but there's possibly the basis of a good idea in there especially if someone like M-B would be prepared to participate.

[Mattyblue]

You can be pro or against the boycott in and of itself, but to try and argue it will impact the team is obviously BS.

Millwall game, no bugger there, comfortable win.
Derby, very good crowd by this season’s standards, crap performance.

[...]

3 hours ago, RoversTilliDie said:

Staying away, damages Blackburn Rovers, not the owners. A big crowd motivates the team, and we need it at the moment, if we're to survive in the Championship.

Are you not boycotting?

[...]

2 hours ago, KentExile said:

We unfortunately live in an age where it is seen as a "better tactic" to say that you are offended by something, than it is to provide a counter argument

 

 

 

 

[...]

3 hours ago, RoversTilliDie said:

Staying away, damages Blackburn Rovers, not the owners. A big crowd motivates the team, and we need it at the moment, if we're to survive in the Championship.

We dont have a big crowd at an away game but play better 👍🏻

[K-Hod]

3 hours ago, RoversTilliDie said:

Staying away, damages Blackburn Rovers, not the owners. A big crowd motivates the team, and we need it at the moment, if we're to survive in the Championship.

In the same way that slagging off those not boycotting isn’t helpful, neither is this kind of language.

Divide and conquer- plays right into Suhail’s hands.

Shouldn't be that difficult to respect the views of others.

[DE.]

14 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

In the same way that slagging off those not boycotting isn’t helpful, neither is this kind of language.

Divide and conquer- plays right into Suhail’s hands.

Shouldn't be that difficult to respect the views of others.

We've already seen "backing the boys" and bigger than usual crowds have zero effect on the team or indeed the club as a whole. We've also seen that money generated largely just disappears into a black hole.

We haven't seen what affect a proper boycott would have yet. The absolute worst case scenario for anyone is that they miss one match against Watford of all teams, in a season when we're clearly going nowhere.

[Mattyblue]

RTID was saying he wasn’t going to any more games about a month ago, so I’d take it with a pinch of salt.

[Dreams of 1995]

I have to be honest, I am really struggling to understand the intentions of those who are clearly out to find fault with the coalition’s strategy. I am of the opinion that all supporters have the same opinion - that the Venkys have been nothing short of a disaster for Blackburn Rovers.

With that in mind, what is with the level of vitriol? The faux outrage at the production and sharing of memes. I haven’t read the comments around the Jack Walker meme but any outrage of his use - or criticism that one is appropriating and exploiting a “dead man’s image” - is surely so over the top it borders on performative. I don’t think there can be any doubt that Jack Walker would want something different for Rovers than we currently have. Although I do understand that it is an assumption he would support a boycott

Is this about not wanting to listen, wanting to object, or is it a genuine belief that Venkys are the best we can hope for. Everyone has one thing in common - the want for Rovers to be better tomorrow than today - so what is with the vehement refusal to collaborate and, more important than the collaboration, the outright rejection of all things boycott or coalition from this very loud minority of fans?

[Wheelton Blue]

On 08/01/2026 at 13:00, 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.
 

I've been thinking about these 4 cohorts and perhaps there is a fifth, which I would include myself in. I'd describe this as an extension of #4.

ie those of us who are genuinely torn as to whether to boycott the Watford game or not, but are amenable to other forms of 'protest'. For example, since the boycott announcement, I've refused to buy any drink or food from the outlet. Arguably, that's trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I feel like I'm at least doing something.

At the moment, the commentrary seems to be mostly about attending the game or not, with little discussion of other mechanisms of protest. There's a trick being missed here IMO.

[...]

We dont want to be a business pursuit anymore. 

We want the club to be an intrinsic part of people's every day life like it was 15 years ago.

We want our club to be back on the lips of everyone in the town like it was 15 years ago.

We want a club that will be fighting to compete at the highest level like it was 15 years ago.

We want a club that cares about the people that turn up in the wind and rain (and then be sent home again).

We want a club that we can pass down generation to generation. 

Like we did 15 years ago. 

Venkys Out. Times up.