Dreams of 1995

Confidence - you don’t feel confident when out of position. Soon as you’re out back, every touch is easier

Toth showing why he’s a million times better than Pears. Saved that follow up from McBurnie - phenomenal

I think Coyle was beat as a child. Played against too many men like him - he has a niggle at every person he comes in contact with. The surname must mean something

Disappointing line up for me. I wanted to see more of the academy I don’t think we need to see any more of De Neve or Henrikson up front. The bench lacks any real ambition and the fact that, given a free hit, we have gone with two left backs and two centre backs on the bench tells me we have no ambition whatsoever of progressing in this cup All of this talk about giving the academy a chance is nonsense. We may well win this match, but this line up is just crap. I hope I eat my words. I am hoping Hull put out an equally poor 11

Excellently summed up there wilsden. You will never convince cynics

Is there a difference between thinking we would be buggered without them and thinking they have been bad owners generally? It can’t be that big a portion of the fan base. I don’t have much conversation with Rovers fans but when I do it is always unanimous that the Venkys are bad for this club. I guess it is the company that you keep There is a message to get across but from the sounds of some posters here - Matty, yourself - there appears a belief that message is nigh on impossible to make. Unless, of course, the events on the pitch during the 90 minutes spark a sudden burst of frustration It is a shame really but this is the hand Rovers fans have been dealt

And you will be thinking that is the fault of the fans?

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?

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

I don’t know about this one. Sorry for being pedantic but………… Using the word “and” after a comma is ok, providing they are two complete sentences By your logic the use of the word “but” after comma is grammatically incorrect. Like in your post 😉 The “-“ are a huge giveaway though. Always something I’ve used fairly often to provide emphasis so I am now gutted they’ve become synonymous with AI

To be honest, I don’t think it’s as big a deal as the microcosm of people who post on here and Facebook are making out. The majority of supporters don’t post on here or follow the fan groups on FB with any regular interest. It is those people whom which the success of this action rests with - the silent majority I have some faith that, actually, a lot of people do engage with fan groups one way or another. And all fan groups are behind this action. Simply by membership, I’d wager at least 1-2 current match going fans are paid up members of groups contained within the Coalition. It only takes another 1-2 to 3 before you’re almost at 40-50% levels of typical home fans. If few who usually buy walk ons don’t bother, then the boycott will be visibly seen I think the cliff edge moment you allude to is driven firstly in good faith. By that, I mean that fans are disagreeing not with the end outcome but with the road one takes. This disagreement causes much frustration and the desire to persuade leads people to embellish. “This is our last chance”; “this has no chance of succeeding”; “they are billionaires - who cares”; “if you do go, you are complicit” The above are statements of persuasion more than anything. And human nature is such that when persuasion fails, it usually hardens people in opposition rather than changing hearts and minds I would disagree a statement to remain means the boycott has failed. They would provide that statement anyway and so usually when discontent occurs. Suggesting this is a sign of failure would mean that you are of the idea doing nothing and plodding on is more likely to see Venkys leave. The boycott won’t be the nail in the coffin, but it will help no matter the outcome as it is another sign that the club is not operating correctly

Exactly this. Our recruitment team are forced to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. We consistently let them down on the better, more quality acquisitions & the budget they have is limited to say the least Although, this season it strikes me that the power is now out of the hands of the football department. Suhail rules this roost and cash is king. Rudy is told what to do.

I don't quite agree with this. If I am correct, the coalition is made up from every official supporter group, without exception. The only way to make it any more 'official' is if the club announced it itself. You are of course free to consider yourself as part of a different supporters group - the unrepresented, maybe - but nevertheless this is as official a call for a boycott as one could expect Your last paragraph would stand true had you been involved or took the lead on a separate supporters' group yourself. You could do. You could also then oppose the boycott I won't go down the childish route of calling you complicit. The various supporters' groups have come together and have not demanded but instead requested that all fans stand together, whether you are part of the dozen or so groups which form the coalition or not. That choice is entirely your own and many will exercise that choice, each for different reasons For some, time may simply be slipping away from them and the chance to watch Rovers week in, week out is a hobby they will cherish each and every time they can For others, it will simply be a case of contrarianism and a "you cannot tell me what to do" attitude In this respect, no boycott will ever be everyone. Sheffield Wednesday came the closest that I have ever seen but they were really difficult circumstances for the club What I would disagree with here is your suggestion that the coalition is trying to force you to do anything or that the coalition has decided on an action that is divisive. From what I have seen online, the divisiveness has come from those who oppose the boycott; insults and posts such as this, where it is clear that fans who do not join any supporters' group at all, also really dislike the idea of being spoken for. What I would say is that it is always harder to be represented if you do not join a group to represent you. I'll caveat all of that by saying - I don't attend. I live too far away, I have other commitments, and I am well aware that if I was to try and convince anyone to actually boycott it would be hypocritical. But I think you're being unfair in your dismissal of the coalition aims here. I am guessing they want the same thing as you - for Venky's to sell - it is just the road chosen to get there

The comparison with the last previous 3pm games will be a good graphic.

Do Lancashire Police release official attendance figures for the games? The Clubs attendances can never be trusted

The board were embarrassed at home by Rangers. He was never going to see the week out

This is why I think you’re trolling on this subject. The poster in question did not make a point. He asked you to make a point. You have been very contrarian on all matters relating to the coalition. Now there’s not a single thing which springs to mind that you would improve on. This begs the question why you have held such strong opinions against it and spent hours telling us those strong opinions should be respected I have long suspected you’re being contrarian for the sake of it. That’s fine. But at least we are now getting to the bottom of it I would disagree with Tugaysmarlboro statement that the coalition needs fans like you. They need match going fans who have opinions on the direction of the football club - what they do not need to do is try and pander to contrarians who resist any form of representation for fear of being told what to do. There’s not enough oxygen in the room for them to ever achieve that The truth is that for some fans they will never support the intention of the coalition no matter the health of Rovers. This has to be accepted. That’s why a boycott with -2k fans than normal against Watford is not a failure - it is a sign of who, contained within the hardcore, is prepared to act.

I don’t think the coalitions actions will live or die by the circular debates with Chaddy Other than that, I would agree that engagement at all levels is key. The coalition though is a collection of every supporter group - how broad of a church would you like Exiled? The coalition cannot make people engage. Nor can they make people agree. And they are not responsible for the behaviour of forum posters, facebook conversations or otherwise. Instead they can only control communications and content. Their recent content around Venkys ownership has been good.

I would have sacked Val a long time ago. We won’t sack him though. The Venkys - Suhail - will only sack managers if they start to put pressure on ‘the board’ Whilst Val continues to protect the chaos above him and only keep the focus on the football, he will be protected In this respect, this window is very important. It is an easy out for any head coach here. If he does not get what he wants, all he needs to do is go on camera, name Suhail, blame the business in January for poor performances, and he will find himself a lovely contract pay out and we will be without a head coach If he loses 10 in a row but doesn’t blame Suhail, he will stay for as long as his contract has time

We are in real trouble here

I think Dlamini looks better than Henrikson and I’d be playing him instead even though I barely know what he’s good or bad at 😂 Henrikson is not a striker at all. Even if Tyjon won’t sign a deal, we are now desperate so just bloody play him. We are losing him anyway so what’s the point of cutting our nose off to spite our face? It’s crap management from the top down. It also shows the level of petty that Rudy Gestede has brought; anecdotal evidence suggests he’s a nasty bastard

There has been some great moments in the tournament. Hood vs Noppert game, Van Veen against Humphries and Anderson are stand outs. Closer games and upsets are always better for sure but sometimes it’s just good to witness real quality So it is not as though Littler ruined the tournament. What he has given the tournament though is a masterclass - very high scoring and very entertaining in how he goes about dismantling people Unfortunately, that means on some days he blows his opponent away. On others, it’s a better game. The Humphries final last year being an example. Other people need to step up to his level He was the spectacle today. It would have been nicer if Van Veen performed more like he did vs Anderson, but he was poor throughout and lost his head after the 3rd set was decided. Not Littlers fault. I enjoyed it tonight - each to their own I guess

You can’t understand? Or you just don’t want him to win all the time? You are allowed to have favourites in sport. Quite often, those favourites are the most entertaining. Winning is entertaining Littlers scoring and finishing is sublime. It’s Phil Taylor level. If you can’t understand supporting that, then you are not allowing yourself much room for enjoyment

I don’t really give a shite about how Coventry are run or how you would run a club. Your original post I quoted says you “don’t need a board of directors to run a football club”. Every club you have referenced has a board of directors who are involved, informed and interested. Doug King at Cov goes every week. Our owner hasn’t been for 15 years. I won’t respond again because I honestly cannot express how little I care how Chaddyrovers will run a club. I care about Rovers - ours isn’t ran properly and that is very clear. You removed the end of my last post so I’ll repeat it so it sinks in - This point has been twisted anyway. The volume of directors is secondary to the involvement and knowledge of those personnel. The Rovers board is neither involved, informed or interested - that is the important part. How chaddyrovers would run a football club is a distraction from that point

And how you would run a football club is at odds with the vast majority of successful and ambitious clubs. So long as you can accept that point then we are done here This point has been twisted anyway. The volume of directors is secondary to the involvement and knowledge of those personnel. The Rovers board is neither involved, informed or interested - that is the important part. How chaddyrovers would run a football club is a distraction from that point