Mattyblue

‘We were delighted to host 'An Evening with Valérien Ismaël' last night, as part of the club’s ongoing 150th anniversary celebrations. 💙 Thank you to all supporters and #Rovers Business Club members who attended at Ewood Park, making it a thoroughly enjoyable occasion. ‘ Something else that has bugger all to do with the history of the club being ‘celebrated’ in the 151st year.

Like to see the breakdown of attendees between those from the Business Club v actual punters that shelled out 35 notes of their own.

Away at West Ham for QPR… ut oh! 😬

Do they actually write anything themselves these days? Not a good time to be a Comms Officer.

Nobody’s going to own up to that!

A club with an actual connection to its heritage back then.

Yep, no human would write ‘belongs-on’

£120 for something blatantly ‘designed’ on ChatGPT.

TMS certainly didn’t think England would win at a canter. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/cgqlqlw4gx3o

The Coalition themselves obviously have no issue with different perspectives, as Speedie is showing, so folk can carry on using this thread to discuss ideas (and yes, sometimes have a difference of opinion) until the actual mods say otherwise.

Exactly right. So knock it on the head and actually *read* what I’m writing, Rev for Christs sake.

No goal posts movement. I still don’t see the need for an ‘official’ boycott, but it’s happening so I’m supporting it. I still think the Sheff Wed game would be better, but Watford it is, so I’m supporting it. You know, doing what is needed for the cause, despite my own misgivings, and yet you hound me across the thread.

End of the day the only ‘on the record’ statement the regime even makes is in a quarterly FF and as you say they have said bugger all to the various releases from the Coalition, so I wouldn’t be worrying unduly about that lot.

Not sure about that. They’d certainly use the player angle, I imagine McLoughlin et al will be thrown in front of a camera again to mouth some platitudes, but seriously doubt they’ll try and paint the remainers as Venky supporters.

Pretty sure that’s been my point from the beginning, I.e there’s different camps of match going fans and if providing different ideas is ‘beating them with a stick’ you obviously have a very low tolerance for differing views. But do carry on.

If trying to explain the motivations of differing types of fans in a thread (a thread on a message board, not the Coalition’s executive committee) that is asking fans to make a choice is ‘hand wringing’ (it was ‘carping’ yesterday) then so be it. Speedie and ergo the Coalition get it, i.e other things will be tried too in this campaign, so I’m glad I’ve raised despite you trying to shout me down.

Good post, Speedie. Glad to hear that from the Coalition there’s an acknowledgement that protest does take different forms and different methods are planned to attract different folk. As there’s some very black and white posting on this thread for something that really isn’t easy.

What I’m trying to say is that there is a another group (out of 4) that is nuanced. 1) So there’s the folk that will do the boycott. 2)The ‘back the lads’ crew fundamentally aren’t interested in any of this, don’t as long as there are those lads in blue and white running about. 3) The Venkyclappers that still believe they are benevolent owners and we’d be dead without them (some cross over between 2 and 3). 4) This is the group I’m talking about. They fully agree that the owners have been an unmitigated disaster, no Venkyclapping to be seen, they do think about the club more than just once a fortnight, they care deeply - but boycotting just doesn’t enter the conversation. They are a match going fan and they’ll go to the match as it’s what they do, what they’ve always done as despite everything ‘your club’s your club’ and you get behind the team. For me, we need to keep group (4 onside.

Can only think it’s tied in with that Business Club thing they do with local firms, as yes, who the bloody hell else is shelling our 35 quid in early January and rushing round from work to attend that!

Only time you’d be happy to get a ban from the ground for asking a question they don’t like.

A first team game and that’s probably the best we can do if we want to rest some key players. It’s negligence from an unserious set up.

Because a lot of remaining match going fans fundamentally don’t think that’s what you do as a supporter. Crap owners but it’s their cross to bear. We may struggle with that, it’s one game, think of the big picture and all that. But not going to a game when they are a season ticket holder, when they think the team needs support, wouldn’t cross their mind for a second and are bemused by the whole thing. (and before you jump in Rev. This isn’t me ‘carping’, this isn’t me saying it isn’t the right thing to do, this isn’t me not supporting the Coalition. As it’s a thread to discuss it I’m just explaining the mindset of all those that sit around me that will be there. So let’s stop worrying about them and just try and work with what we’ve got.).

Let’s hope so, personally I’d just see them using it as an excuse to further cut costs and mothball/sell off the infrastructure we have left. A Wigan-esque lower league club. We’ll find out either way as BRFC will end up in League 1 sooner rather than later and ST sales will continue to decline.

Just my opinion, I think it’s a step they’ll back away from. Time will tell, I suppose. By the way, you are falling in to that trap of thinking these are normal owners. You’re not going to get them out by losing a couple more thousand ST holders either, as losing twelve thousand of them under their watch has shown. Boycott or no boycott we’ll be considerably down on ST holders next season and they will still be here .

Right, all agreed then, people that attend aren’t complicit, but Rovers fans, just like us, who happen to see things differently. I’d be surprised if the Coalition went there with season tickets.