RevidgeBlue

Fair enough, well done for supporting it when the time comes. Personally, I can't see it matters one iota which actual match is chosen as long as there's plenty of advance notice given and it's well publicised. No-one from the Coalition has used language like "complicit" as far as Im aware, that's come from one or two posters on here.

Right, so if I understand you correctly then, you're actually complying with the request to boycott for one game (kudos to you if that's the case) whilst at the same time constantly criticising the call for a boycott and saying it's the wrong thing to do. Makes sense.

They're not going to leave because of people boycotting for the Watford game or even for the rest of the season. They've got the Season Ticket money already. Imo though the only thing that rattles them is them not hitting their appointed targets for Season ticket revenue. (And presumably to a lesser degree, individual matchday revenue.) Which again would be achieved by a boycott. Just as a matter of interest, would you be prepared to consider not renewing your ST next time round in an attempt to try and force them out?

You might not have used the particular term "winner" before but that's been the gist of all your postings on this topic - that a boycott won't be particularly well supported and that as such it will somehow form some sort of PR victory for the owners. Which I think is absolute nonsense. Stop carping at those who are acting in good faith to try and make a positive difference at the Club. BTW I went from late 1970 to 2022 before finally being worn down by the evident lack of ambition at the Club and from the Coventrio - Waggott Mowbray and Venus. Sorry if that's not "super - fannish" enough for you.

Injured again. We're well shut of him.

What did he say? Im not on twatter (now known as X)

Not sure going in 5 mins late would be that noticeable unless absolutely everyone did it. Id prefer that sort of thing be saved for a separate protest in another game, maybe not going in until the 15th minute to symbolise their 15 years of mismanagement.

Ok well try a call for a boycott against Watford then put a chicken on the pitch the following match. See my reply to Matty, I really can't understand yours or anyone else's objections to a boycott unless you're happy with the owners and don't want them to leave. (As with not boycotting that's still everyone's prerogative to hold that opininion and Im sure there'll even be some still in that boat on the basis they'd be worried about who'd fund us if they left. As I've said before you'll never get anything like unanimity)

You're obsessed with this notion of there being "winners" and "losers" arising out of the call for a boycott. There's no such thing - if the boycott is "a success" and say 2 k less people than even the current paltry attendances refuse to attend then that would be nice, but it doesn't mean the owners will sell up the following day. Similarly if there is no noticeable decline in the attendance, there's nothing lost, there'll be some publicity for the cause, the ground will look extremely sparse anyway and it it will be a solid and welcome first step in what will probably need to be an unrelenting and fairly lengthy campaign if it is to be successful.

It's a loan with Brighton paying all the wages that's why.

He suggested the crowd holding up red cards I think. I've already suggested something similar to Glen with yellow cards, my reasoning being purely on the basis any messaging would show up better. Doubtful if many who wouldn't boycott in the first place would be prepared to get involved in that I'd have thought.

Imo you're making the mistake of thinking that the Coalition have to win the hearts and minds of nearly everyone. That's not the objective. The objective is to create enough of a stir to persuade the owners to sell. As we've seen from chaddy's comments on here, there is no "common ground" with a number of supporters and quite a lot also seem quite happy to attend games for the social experience and dont seem particularly worried about the state of the Club, whether we win or lose or whether we get promoted or relegated. You're never going to persuade the majority of those fans to boycott either. That doesn't mean the Coalition is wrong to call for a boycott. To my mind the call for a boycott is a perfectly sensible first step. You're rarely going to achieve complete unanimity throughout the fan base.

Childish response. If you dont want to boycott that's up to you but dont get arsey about people trying to do their best for the Club. ( Im not part of the Coalition BTW Im just sick of all the sniping from the sidelines already and work hasn't even started yet)

Please dont be put off by the naysayers on here. I find it really strange how some posters have painted themselves into a corner by insisting a boycott either won't work or is being held at the wrong time yada yada. The important thing for me is that the ball iis finally officially rolling on what is likely to be a very long and arduous campaign. Gates are so low now anyway it will be quite hard to achieve another significant reduction on existing levels but frankly you never know until you try. Even if there isnt a significant reduction I can't see that this particularly matters as long as a boycott isn't the ONLY tool in the Coalition's arsenal The issue will be firmly in the public domain, (hopefully to stay) battle lines will have been drawn, and it's important that it's only the first step in a co-ordinated and varied campaign which never lets up.

It appears to be the grand-son of former Rovers Chairman Derek Keighley. Which you could possibly understand, BUT bizarrely some years ago he appeared to be completely anti Venky's and attempting to set up a rival phoenix Club!

As always we need to win this game to try and regain some much needed confidence and momentum. The key is trying to strike the balance between resting one or two and still putting out a good enough side to win. Talk of going out being helpful to the League campaign is absolutely crackers. If we go down it won't be because of playing two or three extra games in the Cup, it will be because we weren't good enough over 46 games in the League.

Don't agree. No-one is getting anywhere near that Rathbone strike. Pears performed really well after coming in until being badly at fault for the first against Wrexham so as such he should now lose his place again. Suppose some of it depends on whether one of them is being sold this window. Out of the two I'd expect it to be Pears as he'll probably be on a slightly higher wage.

Sorry, I think that's absolute nonsense, the schedule is the same for everyone and all Clubs get injuries. The problem we've had has been with the planned downgrading of the squad in summer and the abysmal recruitment to replace those that left.

Seems to have forgotten he said that. Absolute blagger.

We're deteriorating at a rate of knots now though, one win in nine is it? You could argue our position has been "skewed" by an improbably high number of away wins in the first half of the season. All signs are that's come to an end and we still can't win any home games. It's only going to end one way if he remains in charge. Not that it matters that much to management or owners I dont suppose. Wonder if the owners know they'll lose £8m in Championship TV money if relegated?

Indeed - it was absolutely frightening the speed with which he undid all the good work of Eustace (and to a lesser extent Lowe).

Tronstad isnt here for long!

That would be Alebiosu by some distance. As for talk of selling him, that all depends on whether or not he has a paltry release clause in his contract. ( Which is quite probable knowing Rovers) If not Id be asking for at least £10m. If Everton or any other PL Club want him they'll have to pay for him.

Wow. Really?

Rovers will have to be willing to pay the fee which is far from a given based on past history and realistically the player will also need to be happy to come here.