Boycott Or Not?

[Goozburger]

3 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

On each occasion you have spoke about what drives fans apart, the reason you have given centres around the actions of boycotting fans. Nowhere in your otherwise well reasoned posts have you ever taken note of just how much anger and vitriol the coalition and boycotting fans have received. Why is that?

Yes, it works both ways. People are stubborn and then it gets a bit personal.

I did call Rev a negative bugger recently. Soz, Rev! My apologies, poor form, and that's an example of my own that doesn't help, so I'll hold my hands up and own that. In my defense, and for those that have known of me for a while, I don't generally resort to that.

However, Dreams, please stop with this assertion that I'm blaming boycotters for driving fans apart. What I've said is that it's the reactions (yes, in this case, from some who support a boycott) to opinions that cause division. Just like yours is doing now when, for whatever reason, you're really trying to twist what I've said into me blaming boycotters. I've really done no such thing and you need to stop claiming that.

Anyway, it's really tiring. To each their own and that's OK.

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think it would be nearer £33 million as it will exclude money that’s been converted into shares. 

Thanks for clarifying.

Either way it's seems a bonkers rule to me - a reward for bad ownership if you will.

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks for clarifying.

Either way it's seems a bonkers rule to me - a reward for bad ownership if you will.

The 25% rule covers all non footballing creditors not just owners but I agree it rewards them.

I believe there’s a 15 point deduction for failing to comply with this rule - I think we’d all take that in exchange for Venkys not getting a penny…

[Dreams of 1995]

10 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

Yes, it works both ways. People are stubborn and then it gets a bit personal.

I did call Rev a negative bugger recently. Soz, Rev! My apologies, poor form, and that's an example of my own that doesn't help, so I'll hold my hands up and own that. In my defense, and for those that have known of me for a while, I don't generally resort to that.

However, Dreams, please stop with this assertion that I'm blaming boycotters for driving fans apart. What I've said is that it's the reactions (yes, in this case, from some who support a boycott) to opinions that cause division. Just like yours is doing now when, for whatever reason, you're really trying to twist what I've said into me blaming boycotters. I've really done no such thing and you need to stop claiming that.

Anyway, it's really tiring. To each their own and that's OK.

I’m not being forceful - I wouldn’t say it is an assertion. It is more an observation around your language and posting history. I am not trying to twist it. I’ve given you examples of your posts, told you how I think it is coming across and asked you why. I haven’t put words in your mouth as I have directly quoted you. 

This is all part of the critical debate you appear to want. If you don’t like being criticised yourself, perhaps you shouldn’t be so forceful in criticising others. 
 

In both of your posts about division your examples were centred to fans who boycott. On the other forum, your criticism extends to fans on here who disagree with you. I think it is entirely fair to ask why you have never once criticised any of the abuse that the coalition and boycotters have received themselves, including on the board in which you moderate. This is despite some very reasoned and voluminous posts you have made on the subject. You would have thought, in an objective view, you would have acknowledged this by now and without having to be prompted 

I think you need to attempt harder to find middle ground with your fellow fans. Thousands of people are telling you they have had enough through boycotting. There must be a better approach to your interaction in all of this that does not involve asking those people to produce an in depth business case for what is next in order to for them to be so rewarded with your participation

Edited 2 hours ago by Dreams of 1995

[Herbie6590]

51 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Isn't there some weird EFL rule whereby they're entitled to 25p in the pound therefore they'd be entitled to expect c£55m?

This rule is aimed at new owners. The more they pay to the unsecured creditors of the club, this reduces the chance of a further points deduction. 

A new owner may of course think “F*ck that…” & swallow the additional points deduction to protect their cash reserves. 

https://www.danielgeey.com/done-deal-blog/football-league-insolvency-regulation-changes-a-brief-summary

[aletheia]

9 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

In both of your posts about division your examples were centred to fans who boycott. On the other forum, your criticism extends to fans on here who disagree with you. I think it is entirely fair to ask why you have never once criticised any of the abuse that the coalition and boycotters have received themselves, including on the board in which you moderate. This is despite some very reasoned and voluminous posts you have made on the subject. You would have thought, in an objective view, you would have acknowledged this by now and without having to be prompted 

One sided vitriol masquerading as balanced reason?

 

[Goozburger]

11 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

There must be a better approach to your interaction in all of this that does not involve asking those people to produce an in depth business case for what is next in order to for them to be so rewarded with your participation

The only approach you appear to want me to have is to have the same opinion as you, otherwise you'll force through some odd interpretation that I'm blaming boycotters for division in the support base. For the third or fourth time, I've done no such thing, and you are clutching at straws to convince me otherwise.

I've aired my opinions. Nobody has to agree with them. I'm not going to take your opinions and twist them into something totally false to demean your stance. So don't do the same to me.

[Goozburger]

2 minutes ago, aletheia said:

One sided vitriol masquerading as balanced reason?

 

Vitriol? Really... I think this is just getting out of hand.

[RevidgeBlue]

18 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

.I did call Rev a negative bugger recently. Soz, Rev! My apologies, poor form, and that's an example of my own that doesn't help, so I'll hold my hands up and own that. In my defense, and for those that have known of me for a while, I don't generally resort to that.

Absolutely no problem. I freely admit I've been a VERY negative bugger about the Club over the last 5 years or so because other than the glimmers of hope offered by JDT and Eustace I see nothing whatsoever to be positive about!

In fact I've been dubbed "The anti chaddy" on here as well which reflects my level of concern about the Club. Imo it's not just a normal case of we've got a poor manager (although we have) and we'll go down and bounce back etc. It's the very existence of the Club that is at stake. We won't be bouncing back like last time it happened and imo if Venky's remain for any length of time the Club dies. It's as simple as that.

So for me we have to do SOMETHING, anything to try and get them out. Sitting back and doing or saying nothing simply isn't an option if we want the Club to survive in a meaningful form.

And a call for a boycott is a logical and appropriate first step in that process imo.

 

[M_B]

47 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Why is it not the plan though? Because they refuse to spend the money.

Why do they refuse to spend the money? Because they are no longer able or willing to. Probably the latter.

Tin hat on for this one, but according to the Norwegian end, they paid £3 million for Jorgensen.

Does money have to be spent on a Lyndon Dykes for it to be acknowledged ? 

Edited 2 hours ago by M_B

[simongarnerisgod]

Just now, M_B said:

Tin hat on for this one, but according to the Norwegian end, they paid £3 million for Jorgensen.

Does money have to be spent on a Lindon Dykes for it to be acknowledged ? 

then why don`t they tell us the truth at rovers end,instead of the usual undisclosed fee???

personally i would`nt trust anyone at ewood to tell me the truth if i asked what the weather was like outside

[M_B]

Just now, simongarnerisgod said:

then why don`t they tell us the truth at rovers end,instead of the usual undisclosed fee???

personally i would`nt trust anyone at ewood to tell me the truth if i asked what the weather was like outside

That's why I quoted their end. Let's spin it on it's head, Bodo say undisclosed and Rovers say £3 million?

[StHelensRover]

8 minutes ago, M_B said:

Tin hat on for this one, but according to the Norwegian end, they paid £3 million for Jorgensen.

Does money have to be spent on a Lyndon Dykes for it to be acknowledged ? 

Problem is that the selling club usually inflates the value of the deal to appease their fans, the buying club doesn't disclose or plays down the price for the same reason, then it's usually somewhere in-between. I'd be very surprised if we have put our hand in our pockets and produced 3 million quid, even if it's in installments. If it's anywhere near that amount, I think it would be subject to all sorts of clauses and hedging our bets on our part.

Edited 1 hour ago by StHelensRover

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, M_B said:

Tin hat on for this one, but according to the Norwegian end, they paid £3 million for Jorgensen.

Does money have to be spent on a Lyndon Dykes for it to be acknowledged ? 

I was meaning more they wont spend the going rate on wages more than transfer fees.

Also, dont forget they sold Hyam in the last few hours of the summer transfer window which would have been £3m in they weren't necessarily expecting so I dont think they deserve a ticker tape welcome through town for reinvesting that money either!

[Dreams of 1995]

26 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

The only approach you appear to want me to have is to have the same opinion as you, otherwise you'll force through some odd interpretation that I'm blaming boycotters for division in the support base. For the third or fourth time, I've done no such thing, and you are clutching at straws to convince me otherwise.

I've aired my opinions. Nobody has to agree with them. I'm not going to take your opinions and twist them into something totally false to demean your stance. So don't do the same to me.

I’m sorry, what? Nowhere in my post has it said that. You are doing extremely well at trying to position yourself as a victim in this discussion but that could not be further from the truth

I asked a pretty pertinent and well intentioned question - why have all of your lengthy posts about division completely ignored the abuse that the coalition and boycotting fans have received, despite highlighting multiple times the abuse that boycotting fans have given? I really think that is a reasonable question. Nowhere have I put words in your mouth - I quote you directly!!

You may want to twist this in to a perverse interpretation but that’s not quite how a reasoned debate works. I still don’t think you have acknowledged the rank abuse the coalition has received. In all of your post on divisions, it is about people not respecting YOUR opinion.

Across both this thread and the forum that you moderate you have told some untruths which have gone unchecked. In one post, you have accused the coalition of saying that fans who disagree with a boycott “are not the type needed at the club because they don’t care about Rovers”. This has never been said by the coalition or its spokesperson. An individual support may have but that is not the same. Claiming this is a quote from the coalition is just false. 

This type of untruth is divisive in nature and it begs the question why, despite all of your protestations and claims of reasoned and rationalised posts. The pattern of your posts is that when it comes to a discussion about the coalition or boycotting fans there’s a subtle drift from “reasoned and rationalised debate” to accusation.

This would be like me saying that, because a fan on your board once accused the coalition members of wanting to be celebrities, that is a direct from yourself. History tells us you would call out this type of bad faith debate. When the shoe is on the other foot however you want to provide a light touch to debate; yet, if YOUR opinion should be criticised, it should be moderated to a much higher degree 

I do not think you have approached this discussion in good faith. Now you can sit and accuse me interpretation or twisting or whatever other accusation you want to throw at me goozburger but it couldn’t be any more inaccurate. I thought you were an excellent poster during your time on here and I think you have, at times, presented yourself well on this discussion however I cannot shake a sense of bias in your posts that you are veiling in a constant assertion you are being rational and reasonable at all times. Sorry for that and if that makes me a far left, wingy, toxic little echo chamber maniac then so be it- have your way. 

[M_B]

1 minute ago, StHelensRover said:

Problem is that the selling club usually inflates the value of the deal to appease their fans, the buying club doesn't disclose or plays down the price for the same reason, then it's usually somewhere in-between. I'd be very surprised if we have put our hand in our pockets and produced 3 million quid, even if it's in installments. If it's anywhere near that amount, I think it would be subject to all sorts of clauses and hedging our bets on our part.

The amount wasn't the point really, it was Rev asking why Rovers won't spend money on Championship players. 

The problem is, everyone wants them to spend money on players, then when they (supposedly) do, nobody believes it anyway because it doesn't fit the narrative. It's all a bit of a pointless conversation. 

[Tomphil2]

'A deal worth up to 3 million' can be structured many ways it doesn't mean they've just tipped up 3 million quid.

[aletheia]

28 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

31 minutes ago, aletheia said:

One sided vitriol masquerading as balanced reason?

 

Vitriol? Really... I think this is just getting out of hand.

I was thinking more of the site over which you preside rather than here. Happy for mods to remove the post if you regard it as too personal.

[aletheia]

5 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I’m sorry, what? Nowhere in my post has it said that. You are doing extremely well at trying to position yourself as a victim in this discussion but that could not be further from the truth

I asked a pretty pertinent and well intentioned question - why have all of your lengthy posts about division completely ignored the abuse that the coalition and boycotting fans have received, despite highlighting multiple times the abuse that boycotting fans have given? I really think that is a reasonable question. Nowhere have I put words in your mouth - I quote you directly!!

You may want to twist this in to a perverse interpretation but that’s not quite how a reasoned debate works. I still don’t think you have acknowledged the rank abuse the coalition has received. In all of your post on divisions, it is about people not respecting YOUR opinion.

Across both this thread and the forum that you moderate you have told some untruths which have gone unchecked. In one post, you have accused the coalition of saying that fans who disagree with a boycott “are not the type needed at the club because they don’t care about Rovers”. This has never been said by the coalition or its spokesperson. An individual support may have but that is not the same. Claiming this is a quote from the coalition is just false. 

This type of untruth is divisive in nature and it begs the question why, despite all of your protestations and claims of reasoned and rationalised posts. The pattern of your posts is that when it comes to a discussion about the coalition or boycotting fans there’s a subtle drift from “reasoned and rationalised debate” to accusation.

This would be like me saying that, because a fan on your board once accused the coalition members of wanting to be celebrities, that is a direct from yourself. History tells us you would call out this type of bad faith debate. When the shoe is on the other foot however you want to provide a light touch to debate; yet, if YOUR opinion should be criticised, it should be moderated to a much higher degree 

I do not think you have approached this discussion in good faith. Now you can sit and accuse me interpretation or twisting or whatever other accusation you want to throw at me goozburger but it couldn’t be any more inaccurate. I thought you were an excellent poster during your time on here and I think you have, at times, presented yourself well on this discussion however I cannot shake a sense of bias in your posts that you are veiling in a constant assertion you are being rational and reasonable at all times. Sorry for that and if that makes me a far left, wingy, toxic little echo chamber maniac then so be it- have your way. 

That was perhaps a more nuanced post than mine 😉 

[roversfan99]

30 minutes ago, M_B said:

The amount wasn't the point really, it was Rev asking why Rovers won't spend money on Championship players. 

The problem is, everyone wants them to spend money on players, then when they (supposedly) do, nobody believes it anyway because it doesn't fit the narrative. It's all a bit of a pointless conversation. 

He specifically said though that we wont spend on Championship wages, not transfer fees.

On fees, our spending this season is far from unreasonable. But there is a clear and aggressive policy to massively cut the wage budget hence signing players from weaker foreign leagues.

[Paul Mellelieu]

3 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

I’m always happy to debate on here - in hopefully a grown up manner.

The last 4000 Holes podcast for instance, I said I’d make the case against the boycott because I thought it was a good intellectual exercise to rehearse how the boycott might be challenged by others with different viewpoints.

I’m not remotely bothered by what is posted elsewhere TBH as there’s bugger all I can do about that - but if someone is civil on here & wants a debate I think that’s what this forum is for…& I’m happy to engage at face value 🤷‍♂️

Tearing myself away from the drama going on at work, to something more important.....I think you are more forgiving than me Ian, and probably rightly so. That said I will argue the toss all day long if it is done in good faith, but I'm not sure that's going on in this case.  And I find the "we know what's really going on" implied (not by you, by the Gooseberry) not helpful at all.

As for the wider point, I didn't feel that the boycott was likely to be very successful, because we have a rather pliant hardcore of fans who even in the Steve Kean dog days just shuffled on by when other were calling for change.  But once hardworking good folk wanted to give it a go, I am all for it.  I've been missing games for two seasons now, so not a great sacrifice for me, but something has to be done because my support is dangling by a thread right now.

Edited 57 minutes ago by Paul Mellelieu

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I’m sorry, what? Nowhere in my post has it said that. You are doing extremely well at trying to position yourself as a victim in this discussion but that could not be further from the truth

 

Excellent post. There’s plenty of fair debate on here, and the narrative that opposite views aren’t tolerated is nonsense.

I can’t help thinking there’s a few posters on here in the last 24 hours desperate for some personal namecalling or an OTT rebuke so they can run back over the road and cry how nasty we are.

Edited 12 minutes ago by Hasta