Boycott Or Not?

[Polky]

Looking at the attendances from across the EFL and National League there was 9 League One, 1 League Two and 2 National League matches with higher attendances than the 7,600 at Ewood Park.

[Dreams of 1995]

14 hours ago, Hasta said:

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.

There has definitely been some baiting.

I have to be honest and find the attempts to gloat a bit hard to take. I can't fully understand it. I don't think there are many supporters who do not agree with the end goal - to get rid of Venky's - and so any action organised by fellow fans should at least be supported, even if you decide it is not right for you to participate.

It appears that some supporters have fallen in to this sort of paradox - where in one statement they will say they absolutely want rid of Venkys, and then in another cheer a perceived failure by a fan group to accelerate that end result. Social media has a lot to do with it, where fans find themselves locked in text based arguments - but unable to reason fully due to text limits - and then find themselves pushed to an extreme as all of the middle ground is eaten up with constant argument and accusation.

There is just no way I could ever find myself laughing, ridiculing or cheering on the failure of a fan-led movement or organisation which goes against the Venkys. I really do not like the term "complicit" in this argument. It was wrong for some supporters to say that if you did not support the boycott you were complicit. However, I don't think it is wrong to say that celebrating a supposed failure of the boycott is in many ways helping the Venkys, Suhail and Rudy to remain in control of the narrative. Is this complicit?

For those reasons above, I don't think it is the coalition who need to do some soul-searching. I think it is the fans who denigrate the coalition who do. There's a trap here - they have conflated their doubts over the efficiency of a boycott and their support for the coalitions objectives.  

Littered within all of the tittle tattle there were supporters who quite clearly opposed the boycott, but now started championing other forms of protests. Letter dumps to Venky HQ, red cards, sit ins after the game and the now infamous "let's fill Ewood to show investors". It is a startling sense of entitlement that one should now jump to support your idea of how to get rid of Venkys, when it has been weeks and weeks of ridicule of this idea. Although, with that said, I would support any and all action that accelerated the demise of Venkys and so if the coalition want me to make an effort to attend a certain game, I'm here for it and I really do hope that those promises of support weren't soundbites. I look forward to seeing full participation in the next round of action

Edited 6 hours ago by Dreams of 1995

[Tomphil2]

The gloaters/clappers/deniers/head in the sand or superfans call them whatever you want, are championing the fact 6.5k actually turned up.

That tells you all you need to know.

[47er]

23 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

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

Yea, you expect people to have differing views and to express them strongly at times but you don't expect your fellow supporters to be so mean and personal about it.

[47er]

17 hours 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 think the accusation is that you behave differently on another forum than on here. Its several hours since SuperBrfc raised it and you haven't responded to that charge.

[sharpysharps86]

12 minutes ago, 47er said:

I think the accusation is that you behave differently on another forum than on here. Its several hours since SuperBrfc raised it and you haven't responded to that charge.

Thought his post in reply to mine yesterday was a very fair and reasonable one, but if that is the case then that's just...well....pathetic.

[speedies gonna get ya.]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

There has definitely been some baiting.

I have to be honest and find the attempts to gloat a bit hard to take. I can't fully understand it. I don't think there are many supporters who do not agree with the end goal - to get rid of Venky's - and so any action organised by fellow fans should at least be supported, even if you decide it is not right for you to participate.

It appears that some supporters have fallen in to this sort of paradox - where in one statement they will say they absolutely want rid of Venkys, and then in another cheer a perceived failure by a fan group to accelerate that end result. Social media has a lot to do with it, where fans find themselves locked in text based arguments - but unable to reason fully due to text limits - and then find themselves pushed to an extreme as all of the middle ground is eaten up with constant argument and accusation.

There is just no way I could ever find myself laughing, ridiculing or cheering on the failure of a fan-led movement or organisation which goes against the Venkys. I really do not like the term "complicit" in this argument. It was wrong for some supporters to say that if you did not support the boycott you were complicit. However, I don't think it is wrong to say that celebrating a supposed failure of the boycott is in many ways helping the Venkys, Suhail and Rudy to remain in control of the narrative. Is this complicit?

For those reasons above, I don't think it is the coalition who need to do some soul-searching. I think it is the fans who denigrate the coalition who do. There's a trap here - they have conflated their doubts over the efficiency of a boycott and their support for the coalitions objectives.  

Littered within all of the tittle tattle there were supporters who quite clearly opposed the boycott, but now started championing other forms of protests. Letter dumps to Venky HQ, red cards, sit ins after the game and the now infamous "let's fill Ewood to show investors". It is a startling sense of entitlement that one should now jump to support your idea of how to get rid of Venkys, when it has been weeks and weeks of ridicule of this idea. Although, with that said, I would support any and all action that accelerated the demise of Venkys and so if the coalition want me to make an effort to attend a certain game, I'm here for it and I really do hope that those promises of support weren't soundbites. I look forward to seeing full participation in the next round of action

Stop being reasonable and grown up. Never going to catch on.

[RoversClitheroe]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

There has definitely been some baiting.

I have to be honest and find the attempts to gloat a bit hard to take. I can't fully understand it. I don't think there are many supporters who do not agree with the end goal - to get rid of Venky's - and so any action organised by fellow fans should at least be supported, even if you decide it is not right for you to participate.

It appears that some supporters have fallen in to this sort of paradox - where in one statement they will say they absolutely want rid of Venkys, and then in another cheer a perceived failure by a fan group to accelerate that end result. Social media has a lot to do with it, where fans find themselves locked in text based arguments - but unable to reason fully due to text limits - and then find themselves pushed to an extreme as all of the middle ground is eaten up with constant argument and accusation.

There is just no way I could ever find myself laughing, ridiculing or cheering on the failure of a fan-led movement or organisation which goes against the Venkys. I really do not like the term "complicit" in this argument. It was wrong for some supporters to say that if you did not support the boycott you were complicit. However, I don't think it is wrong to say that celebrating a supposed failure of the boycott is in many ways helping the Venkys, Suhail and Rudy to remain in control of the narrative. Is this complicit?

For those reasons above, I don't think it is the coalition who need to do some soul-searching. I think it is the fans who denigrate the coalition who do. There's a trap here - they have conflated their doubts over the efficiency of a boycott and their support for the coalitions objectives.  

Littered within all of the tittle tattle there were supporters who quite clearly opposed the boycott, but now started championing other forms of protests. Letter dumps to Venky HQ, red cards, sit ins after the game and the now infamous "let's fill Ewood to show investors". It is a startling sense of entitlement that one should now jump to support your idea of how to get rid of Venkys, when it has been weeks and weeks of ridicule of this idea. Although, with that said, I would support any and all action that accelerated the demise of Venkys and so if the coalition want me to make an effort to attend a certain game, I'm here for it and I really do hope that those promises of support weren't soundbites. I look forward to seeing full participation in the next round of action

Careful mate, they'll start calling you a far leftie for having a differing view!

[Waggy76]

Best way of protest is not a buying season ticket!

[K-Hod]

I think just to be really clear and in the interests of consistency- slagging off this forum on another forum, where members here don't have a right to reply- will lead to a ban from here.

We did it before with a poster who screen grabbed posts from here and slagged them off on Twitter and we can do it again.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Tomphil2 said:

The gloaters/clappers/deniers/head in the sand or superfans call them whatever you want, are championing the fact 6.5k actually turned up.

That tells you all you need to know.

That's it in a nutshell isn't it.

Not going to call anyone "clappers" or anything like that but some supporters actually seem to be citing the fact that only 6.5 k home fans turned up is some sort of failure on behalf of the protest organisers!

As if home crowds of that level are acceptable in general!

It's beyond bizarre.

Anyhow, Im eager to hear what the next protest initiative will be and if it involves turning up at a match Im in. 

Really, different sorts of protest should already have been organised for each of the next two home games. The pressure needs to be kept up now and constant imo.

[RevidgeBlue]

59 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

I think just to be really clear and in the interests of consistency- slagging off this forum on another forum, where members here don't have a right to reply- will lead to a ban from here.

We did it before with a poster who screen grabbed posts from here and slagged them off on Twitter and we can do it again.

Personally I think that's a bit harsh. I don't mind nipping over to the other forum to discuss the pro's and cons of anything or anyone doing the same over here as long as any live debate takes place in a reasonably respectful manner.

[K-Hod]

56 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Personally I think that's a bit harsh. I don't mind nipping over to the other forum to discuss the pro's and cons of anything or anyone doing the same over here as long as any live debate takes place in a reasonably respectful manner.

People are free to use the other forum as they wish, I’m not their boss.

But using that platform to slag people off from here, when they’ve no right of reply is the bit I’m not comfortable with.

[Hasta]

4 hours ago, Polky said:

Looking at the attendances from across the EFL and National League there was 9 League One, 1 League Two and 2 National League matches with higher attendances than the 7,600 at Ewood Park.

Presuming all people that bought tickets and had season tickets attended those games 😉

[Tom]

3 hours ago, Tomphil2 said:

The gloaters/clappers/deniers/head in the sand or superfans call them whatever you want, are championing the fact 6.5k actually turned up.

That tells you all you need to know.

Don’t forget ‘bovine tremblers’

[...]

22 hours ago, ... said:

We're clearly all passionate about the Club and how crap the last 15 years has been under venkys, imagine if we all put our heads together for something united 👍🏻

💙🤍

@Vinjay you not agree with this?

[Goozburger]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Personally I think that's a bit harsh. I don't mind nipping over to the other forum to discuss the pro's and cons of anything or anyone doing the same over here as long as any live debate takes place in a reasonably respectful manner.

You positive bugger! 😄😉 

On the boycott, I will say fair play to those that give up their time and energy to do what they believe is right. I've criticised it, but I do respect those who volunteer their own time for something they believe in. I do a bit of volunteering for perhaps lesser causes, and I know even a small amount of effort can take a lot out of you. My criticism might come across as "it's pointless", and perhaps I do feel that way, and perhaps I'll be wrong. I'd actually be glad to be wrong about it. I, like the rest of, probably hope for owners that care and are involved with the club, rather than treating us like a disowned child that needs a monthly allowance to survive (OK, that's one perspective, it could be framed differently).

If everyone thinks I've done something out of turn, I won't fight it. That's what you think, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind. I might have said a few things with a dash of emotion or laziness. I don't think I'm the only one guilty of that, but I think most of us do it, and it's a silly cherry on top of our arguments or whatever. I do think because of my stance (which I would class as "on the fence, not sure, etc."), there is a tendency to view it with extra cynicism. And perhaps I do the same to you. Perhaps there's a lesson in there somewhere that, rather than "you" being at fault, or "me" being at fault, we're all a bit guilty of adding to division.

On fault, though, none of us are at fault. Not those staying away. Not those attending. To blame one or the other isn't right. The faults lie elsewhere, and those faults have divided and conquered us. And I bet our overall feelings to the Venky's, at least on an emotional level, are no different to each others.

So... Group hug?!

Hopefully I'm not repeating myself... But I would like to see owners that are more involved. For all the mismanagement by the Venky's, I could perhaps stomach it a bit more if they were actually here, getting involved, making decisions, making us feel like we actually have an owner. That's gone on for far too long, although it's worth remembering when they seemed fairly involved right at the beginning, you could argue the decision making was much worse. And what does that say? On the basis alone, I want them out and replaced with owners that are involved more with the club, have their finger on the pulse, and yes, show some care. There is a practical side to it, and I think that's where opinions differ. But that's my general take.

[RevidgeBlue]

26 minutes ago, Goozburger said:

You positive bugger! 😄😉 

On fault, though, none of us are at fault. Not those staying away. Not those attending. To blame one or the other isn't right. The faults lie elsewhere, and those faults have divided and conquered us. And I bet our overall feelings to the Venky's, at least on an emotional level, are no different to each others.

So... Group hug?!

Perhaps you should convey that message to your glorious leader!

😂😂