Boycott Or Not?

[Hasta]

9 hours ago, Tricky said:

Sounds like depression and anger 

And why wouldnt you be angry at all that I posted? If you're not angry at how the club is being run (and I didnt even mentioned the squad or performances) then you really are a "happy clapper". 

[RoversClitheroe]

7 hours ago, Roverreturns said:

Embarrassing today, the principle was great but the execution was amateur. Most of the boycott was people who pussied out years ago and today had no impact.

Hurts a few egos but the ones who are gonna save this club and are in the loop aren't the ones who are trying to be celebrities. 

And you're a Rovers fan? And feel the need to try and belittle others?

That's rather sad if you ask me.

Hopefully you find yourself with some passion by supporting Burnley.

[...]

7 hours ago, Roverreturns said:

Embarrassing today, the principle was great but the execution was amateur. Most of the boycott was people who pussied out years ago and today had no impact.

Hurts a few egos but the ones who are gonna save this club and are in the loop aren't the ones who are trying to be celebrities. 

Probably the stupidest comment I've ever seen on here.

You're in the loop are you? Come on then let's hear it. What do you know that we don't?

Guarantee that this is how you'll spend your time now going back n forth, but there's a cut off point and I don't interact much with stupid.

 

[...]

If someone Is leaning over the edge of a cliff and about to go off the edge which one are you?

A) Do nothing they were going to die anyway.

Or 

 Try to get to them regardless of the outcome but have peace of mind knowing you tried.

[Penwortham Blue]

2 hours ago, MarkBRFC said:

Looks like those who boycotted are saying it was noticeable and a success, and those who didn't boycott are saying it was barely noticeable and looked like a normal crowd.

Truth is it was probably somewhere in the middle, not a roaring success but not a total failure either.

The constant sniping from both sets of fans on the divide though is becoming very tiring.

Wait for the police crowd figure, if it 7600 as we expect, that number won’t peddle false truths !

Edited 2 hours ago by Penwortham Blue

[Mattyblue]

…with away fans, so c6,700 home fans. 

[roversfan99]

The sniping is becoming annoying on either side. And sadly I cant see it easing.

There are people who seem to be taking pleasure in the crowd not being very low. Some even defending the owners which is pretty sick inducing.

And there have been (mainly on social media) people purposely going out to provoke division on the other side, suggesting that attendees arent proper fans etc. These seem to be people that are more interesting in their own accounts being noticed, perhaps a bit of an ego thing. Often people who wouldnt have attended anyway.

The way the coalition communicated in a non aggressive, non provoactive way was refreshing. These are the aims, this is why we are doing what we are doing, no calling out those who wont boycott.

[RoversClitheroe]

Just now, roversfan99 said:

The sniping is becoming annoying on either side. And sadly I cant see it easing.

There are people who seem to be taking pleasure in the crowd not being very low. Some even defending the owners which is pretty sick inducing.

And there have been (mainly on social media) people purposely going out to provoke division on the other side, suggesting that attendees arent proper fans etc. These seem to be people that are more interesting in their own accounts being noticed, perhaps a bit of an ego thing. Often people who wouldnt have attended anyway.

The way the coalition communicated in a non aggressive, non provoactive way was refreshing. These are the aims, this is why we are doing what we are doing, no calling out those who wont boycott.

I do agree with you.

I think the lack of unity is sad personally, that Maf person constantly on the wind up.

Rovers "fan" forum trying to wind people up and getting personal in there attacks when you post on there doesn't help either.

I'm starting to lose hope personally.

[Penwortham Blue]

14 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

…with away fans, so c6,700 home fans. 

Yes, including 500 free school kids !

[Mattyblue]

6,700 home fans for a 3pm Saturday league game.

It obviously had an impact on its own terms, plus, more importantly getting the cause in the media again after a very long hiatus.

And before the likes of gooze or some of the more obnoxious posters from the last 24 hours start, yes, I know in and of itself they aren’t closer to the exit door. But it’s a start.

Edited 2 hours ago by Mattyblue

[Leonard Venkhater]

9 hours ago, 47er said:

The pride from turning up as usual at Ewood equates to the pride from participating in an almost unheard of boycott of the club? Especially when many boycotters were season ticket holders and had already paid for their ticket?

I really don't think so!

Any way, my gripe with you is not about whether the boycott succeeded or not, its that you positively wanted it to fail.

Knowing the division in the fanbase, the "nobody tells me what to do" and " I refuse to follow that "wannabee celebrity" vibes, I was worried that the call to boycott might not have the desired impact. Also, I had the concern that absent season ticket holders would still be included in the attendance figure.

However, I felt it was so important to stay away and back the action. I was determined not to do anything to undermine the boycott plan. Sometimes, you just have to take sides and I know what side I am on.

Reflecting this morning, I think there has already been some success in actually getting our plight back into the national media. A first step and something to build on.

Also, I thought the attendance did look very sparse and I am well aware that the official attendance figure will be debunked to show an actual attendance of 6,500 or so.

Stay strong. Ignore the gloaters and the underminers.

Someone sent me a text yesterday that made me laugh out loud. It said "4000 Scabs in Blackburn Lancashire!"

 

[47er]

10 hours ago, Tricky said:

Sounds like depression and anger 

So basically the same as those that oppose it 

No ones defended the owners?

Sickening... really?

I'm comfortable with putting up with it. Depends how you feel and what you manifest?

You're trolling I think.

[speedies gonna get ya.]

8 hours ago, Roverreturns said:

Embarrassing today, the principle was great but the execution was amateur. Most of the boycott was people who pussied out years ago and today had no impact.

Hurts a few egos but the ones who are gonna save this club and are in the loop aren't the ones who are trying to be celebrities. 

What a childish nasty ill informed comment. Exactly why we are where we are 15 years later. A keyboard warrior slagging off people trying to improve things. Literally cannot win, people calling out Coalition to go public with identities then claiming people after being celebrities. 

What have you done?

[roversfan99]

26 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

I do agree with you.

I think the lack of unity is sad personally, that Maf person constantly on the wind up.

Rovers "fan" forum trying to wind people up and getting personal in there attacks when you post on there doesn't help either.

I'm starting to lose hope personally.

People on both sides trying to provoke arguments, take the moral high ground and increase their own social media profiles.

[sharpysharps86]

What's the crack over on the other forum? Are they all pro-Venky's or something? I'm not trying to be funny with that question, I'm genuinely trying to understand the other side of this divided fanbase.

Surely we all want the same thing - to have a club that is well run with people making decisions with the clubs best interests at heart? I don't think anyone of sound mind can say that we currently have that. Or is it simply a case of as long as the club is afloat in some shape or form that some supporters don't care how it is being run?

I really hate the sniping that's occurred on both sides. Why such hatred and hostility? We all support the same club 🥲.

[Eternal Optimist]

Out of curiosity does anyone know how many action groups there are? 

[TheRoversGRL]

I apologise for last nights heated discussion. 

I’m a passionate fan who cares about her club 

[Goozburger]

24 minutes ago, sharpysharps86 said:

What's the crack over on the other forum? Are they all pro-Venky's or something? I'm not trying to be funny with that question, I'm genuinely trying to understand the other side of this divided fanbase.

Surely we all want the same thing - to have a club that is well run with people making decisions with the clubs best interests at heart? I don't think anyone of sound mind can say that we currently have that. Or is it simply a case of as long as the club is afloat in some shape or form that some supporters don't care how it is being run?

I really hate the sniping that's occurred on both sides. Why such hatred and hostility? We all support the same club 🥲.

No hatred from me at all.

My crime in the last 24 hours is analysing and critiquing why I don't think the boycott worked. Some posters at least debate the point, but the majority, including one of the organisers, seem to respond petulantly or with a stab that it's people like me that drives supporters apart. Huge shame if people really think an opposing opinion is the problem at Rovers, that it must be trolling, that the club's better off with me, etc. That's why there is no debate. Many simply can't accept that some disagree with the boycott and, frankly, from what I've seen in terms of responses, resort to insults. That's what drive fans apart.

Nobody on the other forum is pro-Venky's. Although I don't see why anything needs justifying. I, and others, have said countless times that the Venky's have made disastrous decisions, that they were naive and manipulated early on by weasels and snakes, that this is all of their own making, etc. Currently, yes, there are still operational decisions and misalignments within the club, and the only thing turning me from a full-on boycott is that the Venky's still put money into the club when it needs to pay its bills.

Would I like owners that are more hands-on? Yes! But perhaps the financial aspect is even more important. It's a business with financial obligations, and the current owners can't be accused of not sticking to those, even if it is of their own making. Because if they don't pay for their mess, then somebody else is likely going to have to. And I don't see who on Earth could sustain that, or volunteer to do so - at least not somebody with the right intentions.

That does not mean "we should be thankful" to the Venky's. I wish people would stop bloody saying that nonsense. Nobody has ever thought "thank you, Venky's!", and nobody ever will. It's just a petulant remark that has zero founding to it. It is simply a recognition that that's what they at least continue to.

If we could get new owners that both show more care and closeness to the club, and have the same, if not more, wealth than the Venky's to be prepared to cover obligations and then some, then great. Count me in! But, as yet, I am really reluctant to believe that will just happen if the Venky's ever decide to sell.

So, is that a pro-Venky's stance? If I'm not sold on the idea of a boycott (and I'm not the only one), must I therefore be in support of the current owners? Absolutely not. And this is where so many people fall over themselves to pigeon hole supporters into a category. I am not claiming to have solutions. I'm not sure what the answer is. But for those coming up with answers, please stop getting precious if people criticise it. Perhaps taking things on board, including the opinions of those who don't agree with you and give reasons why, instead of saying "I'm disappointed, you're not the type of supporter that's good for us". Horrible reaction to fair criticism in my view, particularly if you're looking to get everybody onboard with your mission.

[Mattyblue]

*FYI nobody on this board has said folk are pro-Venky’s if they still went yesterday.

[Hasta]

3 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

If we could get new owners that both show more care and closeness to the club, and have the same, if not more, wealth than the Venky's to be prepared to cover obligations and then some, then great

And that’s where we disagree, as I outlined to you  last week here. Maybe you mistook it for one of them posts on here that was more interested in “killing off debate”

.

 

[Goozburger]

10 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

*FYI nobody on this board has said folk are pro-Venky’s if they still went yesterday.

I'm just answering the question posed: "Is everybody on the other forum pro-Venky's?"

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, sharpysharps86 said:

What's the crack over on the other forum? Are they all pro-Venky's or something? I'm not trying to be funny with that question, I'm genuinely trying to understand the other side of this divided fanbase.

Surely we all want the same thing - to have a club that is well run with people making decisions with the clubs best interests at heart? I don't think anyone of sound mind can say that we currently have that. Or is it simply a case of as long as the club is afloat in some shape or form that some supporters don't care how it is being run?

I really hate the sniping that's occurred on both sides. Why such hatred and hostility? We all support the same club 🥲.

They formed because they felt that BRFCS wouldn’t let them have what they defined as free speech & post whatever they wanted & they grew tired of the bans when they overstepped what we considered to be acceptable. 

As a consequence this site is now persona non grata over there & anyone quoting it, referencing it or sharing it is seriously frowned upon. 

We are all Rovers supporters though and it serves to indicate that there is a broad breadth of opinion over what the club should aspire to & the role of a supporter. 

It’s analogous to the growth of the increasingly binary mindset across society at large IMO. 

 

[...]

16 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

No hatred from me at all.

My crime in the last 24 hours is analysing and critiquing why I don't think the boycott worked. Some posters at least debate the point, but the majority, including one of the organisers, seem to respond petulantly or with a stab that it's people like me that drives supporters apart. Huge shame if people really think an opposing opinion is the problem at Rovers, that it must be trolling, that the club's better off with me, etc. That's why there is no debate. Many simply can't accept that some disagree with the boycott and, frankly, from what I've seen in terms of responses, resort to insults. That's what drive fans apart.

Nobody on the other forum is pro-Venky's. Although I don't see why anything needs justifying. I, and others, have said countless times that the Venky's have made disastrous decisions, that they were naive and manipulated early on by weasels and snakes, that this is all of their own making, etc. Currently, yes, there are still operational decisions and misalignments within the club, and the only thing turning me from a full-on boycott is that the Venky's still put money into the club when it needs to pay its bills.

Would I like owners that are more hands-on? Yes! But perhaps the financial aspect is even more important. It's a business with financial obligations, and the current owners can't be accused of not sticking to those, even if it is of their own making. Because if they don't pay for their mess, then somebody else is likely going to have to. And I don't see who on Earth could sustain that, or volunteer to do so - at least not somebody with the right intentions.

That does not mean "we should be thankful" to the Venky's. I wish people would stop bloody saying that nonsense. Nobody has ever thought "thank you, Venky's!", and nobody ever will. It's just a petulant remark that has zero founding to it. It is simply a recognition that that's what they at least continue to.

If we could get new owners that both show more care and closeness to the club, and have the same, if not more, wealth than the Venky's to be prepared to cover obligations and then some, then great. Count me in! But, as yet, I am really reluctant to believe that will just happen if the Venky's ever decide to sell.

So, is that a pro-Venky's stance? If I'm not sold on the idea of a boycott (and I'm not the only one), must I therefore be in support of the current owners? Absolutely not. And this is where so many people fall over themselves to pigeon hole supporters into a category. I am not claiming to have solutions. I'm not sure what the answer is. But for those coming up with answers, please stop getting precious if people criticise it. Perhaps taking things on board, including the opinions of those who don't agree with you and give reasons why, instead of saying "I'm disappointed, you're not the type of supporter that's good for us". Horrible reaction to fair criticism in my view, particularly if you're looking to get everybody onboard with your mission.

It's having this attitude that spoils your view. Bit childish tbh

[Herbie6590]

17 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

No hatred from me at all.

My crime in the last 24 hours is analysing and critiquing why I don't think the boycott worked. Some posters at least debate the point, but the majority, including one of the organisers, seem to respond petulantly or with a stab that it's people like me that drives supporters apart. Huge shame if people really think an opposing opinion is the problem at Rovers, that it must be trolling, that the club's better off with me, etc. That's why there is no debate. Many simply can't accept that some disagree with the boycott and, frankly, from what I've seen in terms of responses, resort to insults. That's what drive fans apart.

Nobody on the other forum is pro-Venky's. Although I don't see why anything needs justifying. I, and others, have said countless times that the Venky's have made disastrous decisions, that they were naive and manipulated early on by weasels and snakes, that this is all of their own making, etc. Currently, yes, there are still operational decisions and misalignments within the club, and the only thing turning me from a full-on boycott is that the Venky's still put money into the club when it needs to pay its bills.

Would I like owners that are more hands-on? Yes! But perhaps the financial aspect is even more important. It's a business with financial obligations, and the current owners can't be accused of not sticking to those, even if it is of their own making. Because if they don't pay for their mess, then somebody else is likely going to have to. And I don't see who on Earth could sustain that, or volunteer to do so - at least not somebody with the right intentions.

That does not mean "we should be thankful" to the Venky's. I wish people would stop bloody saying that nonsense. Nobody has ever thought "thank you, Venky's!", and nobody ever will. It's just a petulant remark that has zero founding to it. It is simply a recognition that that's what they at least continue to.

If we could get new owners that both show more care and closeness to the club, and have the same, if not more, wealth than the Venky's to be prepared to cover obligations and then some, then great. Count me in! But, as yet, I am really reluctant to believe that will just happen if the Venky's ever decide to sell.

So, is that a pro-Venky's stance? If I'm not sold on the idea of a boycott (and I'm not the only one), must I therefore be in support of the current owners? Absolutely not. And this is where so many people fall over themselves to pigeon hole supporters into a category. I am not claiming to have solutions. I'm not sure what the answer is. But for those coming up with answers, please stop getting precious if people criticise it. Perhaps taking things on board, including the opinions of those who don't agree with you and give reasons why, instead of saying "I'm disappointed, you're not the type of supporter that's good for us". Horrible reaction to fair criticism in my view, particularly if you're looking to get everybody onboard with your mission.

An eloquent post.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

19 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

No hatred from me at all.

My crime in the last 24 hours is analysing and critiquing why I don't think the boycott worked. Some posters at least debate the point, but the majority, including one of the organisers, seem to respond petulantly or with a stab that it's people like me that drives supporters apart. Huge shame if people really think an opposing opinion is the problem at Rovers, that it must be trolling, that the club's better off with me, etc. That's why there is no debate. Many simply can't accept that some disagree with the boycott and, frankly, from what I've seen in terms of responses, resort to insults. That's what drive fans apart.

Nobody on the other forum is pro-Venky's. Although I don't see why anything needs justifying. I, and others, have said countless times that the Venky's have made disastrous decisions, that they were naive and manipulated early on by weasels and snakes, that this is all of their own making, etc. Currently, yes, there are still operational decisions and misalignments within the club, and the only thing turning me from a full-on boycott is that the Venky's still put money into the club when it needs to pay its bills.

Would I like owners that are more hands-on? Yes! But perhaps the financial aspect is even more important. It's a business with financial obligations, and the current owners can't be accused of not sticking to those, even if it is of their own making. Because if they don't pay for their mess, then somebody else is likely going to have to. And I don't see who on Earth could sustain that, or volunteer to do so - at least not somebody with the right intentions.

That does not mean "we should be thankful" to the Venky's. I wish people would stop bloody saying that nonsense. Nobody has ever thought "thank you, Venky's!", and nobody ever will. It's just a petulant remark that has zero founding to it. It is simply a recognition that that's what they at least continue to.

If we could get new owners that both show more care and closeness to the club, and have the same, if not more, wealth than the Venky's to be prepared to cover obligations and then some, then great. Count me in! But, as yet, I am really reluctant to believe that will just happen if the Venky's ever decide to sell.

So, is that a pro-Venky's stance? If I'm not sold on the idea of a boycott (and I'm not the only one), must I therefore be in support of the current owners? Absolutely not. And this is where so many people fall over themselves to pigeon hole supporters into a category. I am not claiming to have solutions. I'm not sure what the answer is. But for those coming up with answers, please stop getting precious if people criticise it. Perhaps taking things on board, including the opinions of those who don't agree with you and give reasons why, instead of saying "I'm disappointed, you're not the type of supporter that's good for us". Horrible reaction to fair criticism in my view, particularly if you're looking to get everybody onboard with your mission.

Not all the money they’re putting in is theirs. What happened to the Wharton money, the Sammi money, the Raya money ? 

Edited 45 minutes ago by Tyrone Shoelaces