roversfan99

I agree on Ismael. Saying that Ismael needs to go is a current problem at least though, rather than fixating on staff members that have been and gone and are not current issues. You also arent suggesting that any ambition went with Ismael. There has been no ambition across the last 15 years, consistently. It cant just be pinned on a former manager. Nor are you saying that Ismael has lowered the standards that the current board are just continuing with. By making these sorts of comments, you are pinning the root cause down to individuals rather than Venkys so it is deflecting blame. Saying that their name is over the door sort of does put it back on them but only artificially. Venkys (Suhail is an anomaly here is he is essentially an extension of them, but even then, even he isnt the direct cause) are the problem and always have been, beyond merely just being a name over the door. If you pinpoint what you perceive to be the trigger standard lowering or downgrading of the club down to any individual, whether it be Mowbray, Waggott, Broughton, Ismael, Kean, whoever. Just look before and after their employment. Standards were no higher, its been consistently like this since Venkys came in. We need to focus on them. If people have lost interest/are boycotting for any reason other than the owners then not enough attention has been paid.

Youve gone down rabbit holes you cant now climb out of. If you genuinely think that Mowbray was the protagonist to our lack of ambition, based on an out of context, petulant throw away comment under pressure. Or any individual who has been and gone during the last 15 years. Then you havent been paying attention. Before Mowbray we didnt have ambition. After him, no ambition. Also, Waggott never invested into the company. Not his job. Venkys barely have invested, theyve covered standard losses, huge difference. We havent had any ambition across the last 15 years.

I definitely also get the superfan undercurrent but perhaps it is purely subconscious or inadvertent. Also agree with a number of other points. I dont get why the owners arent the trigger point for your disillusionment, but each to their own. Mowbray seemed to be one of a few rabbit holes you went down which have taken you away from the owners. After that season when we fell away, it had happened once under Mowbray, it has also happened since twice since. Different managers, different staff, 15 years of constant embarassment.

@chaddyrovers you are getting peoples backs up because you are either failing to understand the purpose of the boycott or are being purposely obtuse, totally dominating in the process. Whether you choose to boycott or not is fine, and you keep repeating your stance. It also doesnt make constructive debate to repeatedly just say "well are you boycotting," people will offer their individual stance if its part of a reason as to why to add to the debate, but surely the main point is to figure out what the objective is and what movements will and will not help in getting to that objective. We all love going to Rovers in normal circumstances. We may or may not buy merchandise, and may or may not buy on the concourses. The point of the boycott is whether people are willing to SACRIFICE short term doing those things to try and get the owners out. Its fine either way, we all have our reasons, but we can discuss whether that would work etc or what alternatives there are. Your stance on attending games is clear. You will not consider not attending, that is totally up to you, although you are very repetitive and provocative in getting that point across. To boycott, you would have to fall into a category where you go normally and you want to go but you are going to miss the game(s) to try and send a message. Your stance on buying on the concourses is NOT a protest movement or a sacrifice. You just dont like the food or the value. Your repeated stance of this doesnt really fit into this debate. Your stance on merchandise is where it becomes really clear that you either dont understand the point of all this or you are just being typically awkward. To protest, you would avoid giving money to Rovers, it might mean coming up with alternative presents, and making that sacrifice. Its also a way of ensuring for those who cant bring themselves not to attend, they can still do their bit, and if they are season ticket holders, theyd have paid for their ticket anyway so its actually a way of not giving the owners money moreso than match attendance. Im sure you will respond by asking me my stance, or by telling me I dont buy merchandise, or by repeating your stance. Its not about us. Just please understand the purpose of the protest, make your own decisions which is fine, but its going round in circles with you going off on tangents.

If the intention was to directly quote then quotation marks would be used.

So it seems like you are in similar situations. Neither have committed to saying in as many words that Venkys out is key, but I will assume both of you want that. I appreciate that it can be bloody hard to stop going. So out of interest, for those willing to stop attending as an attempt to even try and accelerate the process of getting Venkys out. Even if you think its futile, its pointless, it will make no difference which perhaps is a reasonable argument. Does it earn your respect and kudos that people are so keen to get rid that theyll sacrifice something they want to do in the hope that it will get rid of the problem owners and help the club, earn massive respect from you both. Or do you not see it like that? Also chaddy, are you suggesting that Suhail might stop working for Rovers and essentially be replaced? Hes a cockroach who has been close to Venkys throughout, hes not just a normal employee. Coupled with the suggestion that it has been Coar running things, I think you need to get real. Hes is here for the duration.

I get that some people dont want to miss a game. Its a shame I think that we couldnt just have 1 game where literally no one goes but its never gonna happen. But equally, I am not sure how constructive it is to just say that you wont be told what to do, or stuff about backing the team etc. So @M_B and @chaddyrovers the question to you both is not whether you are boycotting or not, we know you arent as its been repeated. I think it would make a pretty boring thread if we just all said what we are doing individually. What are your feelings on the protest movement? Are you both desperate for Venkys to go? Do you think its a good idea to try and start a not a penny more movement both to starve the owners of money and to raise publicity, or if not, why not? Do you see it making a difference? Id like to know your opinions beyond just telling us what you are doing personally, often in a way that comes across as purposefully provocative.

The usual routine of changing the question and then whinging when your deflection question is not answered. Following a 180 degree turn from wanting Ismael gone to him being the new messiah, you used the formation as proof that Ismael isnt stubborn comparing favourably to previous more successful managers. We have lost more than we have won with the back 3, and 3 of the wins came when we were a totally different proposition with Wharton available. I was just adding this context, the change has led to more losses than wins. The formation helped to lead to an initial small spike in results but soon fizzled out. Obviously we are limited with a really poor squad.

The point was that you was using the formation as a reason to praise Ismael whilst having a dig at previous managers who you at the time also would have defended but now theyve gone you have turned on. I just was pointing out that its not really been a roaring success. Initially we had Scott Wharton fit and got 9 of those 15 points in 3 games, hes bang average but average is much better than whats left without him. The points have not really followed since. It wasnt a debate about which formation I would or wouldnt play. To be honest, with the current set of players especially our crap defenders its impossible to build a balanced team out of whats left either way. We dont have 1 competent centre back, never mind 3, but we also dont have any competent wide players.

We have got 15 points from 12 games since we changed to a back 3/5. Its hardly been a remarkable change in results.

Brittain, Hyam, Batth, Travis and Dolan also all started. Now look at the current team and its not comparable. Look at the state of the defence now for a start.

That defence is embarassing. And it is not just a bad selection, no one could make a respectable defence.

This "what about disabled and elderly fans" argument is bizarre even for chaddy. Im sure there are some disabled and elderly fans who are also desperate for change and would welcome an attempt to try and force change.

His job is safe either way. Unless he voices any displeasure too much.

Says a lot that we signed was it 10 players in the summer, Gestede crowed as to how our squad was better, we have 24 registered. And yet the squad is in need of totally gutting. Wont happen, obviously. If we was going to back any manager in January, surely we would get a competent one in first. But we wont back anyone.

Last time he played it out perfectly. Refused to comment until we won a couple of games.

Youve not answered my question. Youve just repeated (again) how the structure works, thats not telling me why it is beneficial to run like this.

I don't think that Pickering is best suited by any means to playing as a wing back. But he is superior to alternatives in either position. He is defensively aware and decent on the ball. He wouldn't keep switching off like the useless De Neve who doesn't even offer anything going forward either. Pickering was a regular in a team that finished 8th as a wing back but still, it would be a case of not ideal, but a million times better than a bloke even a relegated Belgian side were happy to let go. Especially if Hedges is back, Pickering would be our best bet at left centre back. Ribeiro is crap and not only that, is very much a full back. Pickering has filled in at left centre back comfortably before.

The club are getting away with it having blocked the LET (although Jackson wouldn't have asked anyway) but it is absolutely crazy even for this club to have arguably our best available defender frozen out. Is he the solution to an absolute mess of a defence? Obviously not. But he should be starting either on the left side of a back 3 or at left back. He is steady, experienced, reads the game well and is good on the ball. Miller is crap, McLoughlin is crap and Ribeiro is crap.

The question was not why will you not protest to be fair, it was why are you bothering with a protest specific thread if you have no interest in it whatsoever. I totally get and agree that I wouldn't be running on the pitch, nor should people urge others to do so, especially in some cases when they dont go themselves, so wouldn't be taking on the same risks that they expect others to. But you also say it would piss alot of fans off. By this, do you mean that if other people ran onto the pitch, and lets say got a game paused, or even abandoned, embarrassing the owners/board, creating bad publicity and challenging the twats who are running our clubs into the ground. You would be pissed off about that?

Can you tell me why it is beneficial to have anyone beside the manager deciding on the tactics, the style and the players to use? Forest this season is a good example of the point I am making. Theyve signed loads of players that none of the managers have wanted to use, which suggests that theyve been selected above the manager. They are doing significantly worse and keep changing manager and style. A director of football can be useful but they have far too much power now. They shouldnt be telling the manager which style to play, how many youngsters to use, or even at times decide on signings. Im yet to see you explain why it makes sense, you just say that I dont understand if I dont agree. All of the drawbacks and risk of such a structure are obvious here. And look at us. Also, feel free to have something against Gestede. Not only incompetent and overseeing our squad being saddled with shit, but also comes across as smarmy and arroganr.

Are you sure?

Certainly doesnt help. Although our defenders individually are poor anyway which compounds it. McLoughlin is a squad player at best, Miller is even worse.

I obviously know Gestede doesnt go out scouting the players. I never said that he did. Even back in Ferguson's era, he would have had scouts. I never said that. We will have limited our managerial search to desperados like Ismael because managers wont want crap players put before the. They wont want dickhead novices like Gestede being at the head of the recruitment operation, or demands put on them regarding how to play, how many youngsters need to play etc. The manager should be able to choose as he should be best placed to decide. Ismael might have decided between x and y but I can only imagine how bad some of the lists of players will have been. Tomasson was the same and got publically frustrated by it. I remember him saying when we had a self inflicted block on transfers that he had said yes to loads of people that hadnt arrived, suggesting that he was just desperate for bodies at that point. Im guessing you are happy with Gestede being in the position he is and with the structure of Gestede and Ismael. I do understand how many modern day football clubs are setup. I DISAGREE that it necessarily makes total sense all of the time for them to run like that even if it modern day fashion.

We have had some bad defences in the last 15 years. I dont think any have been as bad as this one.