Boycott Or Not?

[...]

How about people make a pact to act decent despite the difference in opinions. Presuming we are all adults here, it's the right thing to do going forward. 

[Goozburger]

Just now, ... said:

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

Perhaps it tells more of a sad story that for a long time I felt I could never post my opinion on here. They are my exact thoughts, and I've said nothing out of turn, not resorted to petulant insults or other things that dismiss debate out of hand. So I really think you're taking a low blow with that and trying to turn it into something that it's not.

[Goozburger]

2 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

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

Perhaps a financial expert on this matter can fill us in, but doesn't the club lose around £10m-£15m per season just by standing still? That would require a sale of Sammie and a bit every season to keep the club running. Not realistic because we aren't going to product that every season in my view. So somebody has to plug that gap. And my point is that new owners would have to do the same.

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, Goozburger said:

Perhaps a financial expert on this matter can fill us in, but doesn't the club lose around £10m-£15m per season just by standing still? That would require a sale of Sammie and a bit every season to keep the club running. Not realistic because we aren't going to product that every season in my view. So somebody has to plug that gap. And my point is that new owners would have to do the same.

One point you dont seem keen to acknowledge. All Championship clubs make losses and their owners all offset those losses, without the fanfare. Its not just a Rovers thing. In fact, I have read that even in the Premier League, only West Ham made a profit last year, as their stadium is funded by the government. Football clubs make losses. Yet are all owned by people who offset them.

The chances of any new owners being unwilling to do that, knowing that they would have to is low and would be temporary as the club would be taken away from them. There are clearly people out there with the funds and willingness to buy Championship football clubs knowing that they are loss making. Why are you so skeptical that it would happen here?

[...]

6 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

Perhaps it tells more of a sad story that for a long time I felt I could never post my opinion on here. They are my exact thoughts, and I've said nothing out of turn, not resorted to petulant insults or other things that dismiss debate out of hand. So I really think you're taking a low blow with that and trying to turn it into something that it's not.

I'm not taking a lot blow. That behaviour speaks for itself. You rarely post here anymore and came right back to comment after Saturday, judging by that comment seemingly to raise a reaction. 

[wilsdenrover]

36 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

Perhaps a financial expert on this matter can fill us in, but doesn't the club lose around £10m-£15m per season just by standing still? That would require a sale of Sammie and a bit every season to keep the club running. Not realistic because we aren't going to product that every season in my view. So somebody has to plug that gap. And my point is that new owners would have to do the same.

It does now.

It didn’t pre Venkys.

edited to add:

Total losses for last 5 pre Venky years = £9 million

Total for last 5 available Venky years (to June ‘24) = £87.8 million 

Both figures are before player trading, the second figure also excludes the sale of the training ground.

Edited 1 hour ago by wilsdenrover

[sharpysharps86]

47 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.

Thankyou for the detailed and clear reply. Everything you've said there I completely understand and respect.

Nobody should be treated with hostility if they choose to still go to games. I myself am a natural boycotter I suppose, having not been back to Ewood since August 2024. I highly doubt I will return anytime soon. My views are more aligned with the Coalition than anything else, but at the same time I do not endorse any hostility towards those who still want to attend. Equally, people who do not support things like a boycott have also been quite unpleasant as well. If people could just be more respectful then that'd be something.

[Goozburger]

28 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

One point you dont seem keen to acknowledge. All Championship clubs make losses and their owners all offset those losses, without the fanfare. Its not just a Rovers thing. In fact, I have read that even in the Premier League, only West Ham made a profit last year, as their stadium is funded by the government. Football clubs make losses. Yet are all owned by people who offset them.

Nope. I do acknowledge that. And I think anybody wanting to own a football club is bonkers!

But for me, the financial questions and the intentions of any new owner still worry me, and still have to be answered. And, yes, I'm just as befuddled as any other supporters as to why the Venky's still own us. I hear certain stories, but they are still here for whatever reason. The footballing/business world is an odd one to say the least.

2 minutes ago, sharpysharps86 said:

Thankyou for the detailed and clear reply. Everything you've said there I completely understand and respect.

Nobody should be treated with hostility if they choose to still go to games. I myself am a natural boycotter I suppose, having not been back to Ewood since August 2024. I highly doubt I will return anytime soon. My views are more aligned with the Coalition than anything else, but at the same time I do not endorse any hostility towards those who still want to attend. Equally, people who do not support things like a boycott have also been quite unpleasant as well. If people could just be more respectful then that'd be something.

You're generally right. I cannot answer for others. I'll hold my hands up, maybe I'm guilty of it here and there, although I try to not get carried away, and I do attempt to argue my points. In spite of suggestions that I'm just looking for a reaction, that's not the case, rather that I just expect I'll get the usual reactions that I'm happy with everything, I want to do other supporters down, blah blah blah. Total rubbish.

The thing is, we'll eventually agree that "we all want what's best for Rovers". I don't know what answer that entails. I don't think boycotting has been fully thought through, and the ingredients aren't there for full support of it.  See yesterday for evidence of that. That's not doing anybody down or deliberately looking to wind people up. That's just my objective take on it. 🤷‍♂️

[Mattyblue]

But there are plenty of these bonkers people that do want to own (Championship outfits especially) football clubs.

So I don’t see why it is so unfeasible that we’d be bought by one.

Edited 1 hour ago by Mattyblue

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

But there are plenty of these bonkers people that do want to own (Championship outfits especially) football clubs.

So I don’t see why it is so unfeasible that we’d be bought by one.

It’s like being Prime Minister. It’s the biggest arse kicking job in the world but 100’s of MP’s would jump at the chance. Not everybody on the planet is dealing with a full deck.

Edited 1 hour ago by Tyrone Shoelaces

[sharpysharps86]

4 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

You're generally right. I cannot answer for others. I'll hold my hands up, maybe I'm guilty of it here and there, although I try to not get carried away, and I do attempt to argue my points. In spite of suggestions that I'm just looking for a reaction, that's not the case, rather that I just expect I'll get the usual reactions that I'm happy with everything, I want to do other supporters down, blah blah blah. Total rubbish.

The thing is, we'll eventually agree that "we all want what's best for Rovers". I don't know what answer that entails. I don't think boycotting has been fully thought through, and the ingredients aren't there for full support of it.  See yesterday for evidence of that. That's not doing anybody down or deliberately looking to wind people up. That's just my objective take on it. 🤷‍♂️

I feel this is a fair assessment.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

"They're bullies over there, its as simple as that when you boil it down. They're trying to create an environment where its open season for personal abuse and intimidation towards anyone who is positive about Venkys. Well the brfcs keyboard warriors can snarl as much as they want, its not changing my view. I SUPPORT VENKYS! They plough a huge amount of money into the club, they've learnt from their earlier mistakes, and all things considered they've done a decent job from the Mowbray era onward."

 

 I kid you not😲

[Mattyblue]

They’ve learnt what, exactly?

[London blue]

As has been suggested many times, it's all about standards.

It seems there are those who are willing to see Rovers run in this manner. 

[Paul Mellelieu]

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

An eloquent post.

Made in bad faith if you consider his rather childish comments in the other place.  

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

12 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

"They're bullies over there, its as simple as that when you boil it down. They're trying to create an environment where its open season for personal abuse and intimidation towards anyone who is positive about Venkys. Well the brfcs keyboard warriors can snarl as much as they want, its not changing my view. I SUPPORT VENKYS! They plough a huge amount of money into the club, they've learnt from their earlier mistakes, and all things considered they've done a decent job from the Mowbray era onward."

 

 I kid you not😲

“ I SUPPORT VENKYS.“ I wouldn’t want that as my epitaph.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

It just astounds me!

Edited 1 hour ago by SIMON GARNERS 194

[Paul Mellelieu]

1 hour ago, ... said:

How about people make a pact to act decent despite the difference in opinions. Presuming we are all adults here, it's the right thing to do going forward. 

To act decently, you have to do so in both good faith and in agreement with the rules that we set for each other.  Sadly, we are not all adults in the sense you suggest.  Take our now departed Chaddy, who behaved like a drunk in the corner of the pub shouting endlessly the same things over and over again, seemingly with a level of enjoyment and lack of self-reflection.  The bar staff would rightly ask him to leave.   

[RoverDom]

The who would fund us argument is misleading. People don't own football clubs to make money. If you've got tens of millions to spare and want to make a return on investment - invest in the stock market, buy a profitable business, don't buy a football club.

 

If venkys don't want to fund the losses they shouldn't own us, it's not an act of generosity its an obligation as it is with evert club for which there is no shortage of owners and people wanting to buy a club. 

[M_B]

52 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

But there are plenty of these bonkers people that do want to own (Championship outfits especially) football clubs.

So I don’t see why it is so unfeasible that we’d be bought by one.

I genuinely don't know the answer to this,but how wealthy were the owners of the clubs which have been recently taken over?

To me there are 2 main reasons that clubs are sold, either the owners want to sell or they have to sell. I don't see Venkys falling into either category, certainly not the second one. 

 

[Mattyblue]

Different issue. Venky’s having no inclination to feck off is pretty much agreed on here, whatever the reasoning is.

But if they did, nobody being interested because they’d lose money is a very strange argument for anybody that has even a passing interest in English football.

[JHRover]

It costs money to own and run football clubs. Even if you buy a ready made PL one, like the Venky cretins did, you do so with full 'buyer beware' knowledge that there are 3 relegation slots every year which with some bad luck/decisions could wipe out the value of your investment and end up costing tons of cash.

Yet despite all that the buyers keep on coming. Indeed in the last 10 years or so English football including the lower leagues and smaller clubs, has become even more popular with foreign groups and interest whereas in the past it was largely limited to local or British businessmen.

So it's a myth that there is no interest, and everyone knows they risk losing a lot of money. 

I find it hard to comprehend why anyone would have concerns about the motives or intentions of potential new owners given the current gangs' background.

Never coming to games

Never communicating

Wrecked the club

On track for another visit to League One

Potentially involved in criminal or at least highly unethical conduct in India resulting in a freeze/restrictions on their ability to fund the club

Agents running the show

And yet you'd be worried about the motives of a new owner? They'd have some way to go to trump this lot.

[...]

6 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Different issue. Venky’s having no inclination to feck off is pretty much agreed on here, whatever the reasoning is.

But if they did, nobody being interested because they’d lose money is a very strange argument for anybody that has even a passing interest in English football.

English football is a behemoth in the world of football. If Venkys ever wanted to sell or leave us for whatever reason, there would be a queue. 

Edited 34 minutes ago by ...

[Guy N. Cognito]

50 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

"They're bullies over there, its as simple as that when you boil it down. They're trying to create an environment where its open season for personal abuse and intimidation towards anyone who is positive about Venkys. Well the brfcs keyboard warriors can snarl as much as they want, its not changing my view. I SUPPORT VENKYS! They plough a huge amount of money into the club, they've learnt from their earlier mistakes, and all things considered they've done a decent job from the Mowbray era onward."

 

 I kid you not😲

No one of sound mind can be positive about Venky's. They have visited one ignominy after another to this club since they took over. And now we're on the verge of dropping into League One (again!) under their stewardship.  

These have to be trolls, club shills, or as I said, people not playing with a full deck.

[Dreams of 1995]

2 hours 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.

I think it is quite telling that when discussing division in the fan base you have referenced the boycotting fans as a cause. Unless I am mistaken, you haven’t once mentioned the rank abuse that both the coalition and boycotting fans have received.

The fans on both sides of this perceived divide who lower themselves to abuse are the minority. Yet, it is clear you put the blame more in one camp than the other 

The language in your posts is very telling. You have been at great pain to stress that you approach this debate without bias and with an open mind - I don’t think that is necessarily the case. It is always difficult to fully understand somebody from text only but your language points towards a person whose mind is made up - that the boycotting fans and coalition are at fault for the division. This is all my opinion of course. One thing I keep repeating is that you will have more in common with those boycotting fans than you will with the board. With all of your referencing of the minority of boycotting fans who cause division, perhaps you also need to work harder to find common ground with your likeminded town folk, instead of seeking to put the blame for the issues within the fan base at their doorstep. Ultimately there is one party to blame here and it is not any of the multiple fan groups. It is Venkys.