RevidgeBlue

Just out of interest, what is it that makes anyone believe a word he says? He didnt like loans either, supposedly.

Or did he know there was no chance whatsoever of that, but said it anyway to try and placate a gullible fan base? The signing we have made only seems to be here because he won't cost us anything whatsoever.

Ill be really annoyed if we put a line up like that out. It SHOULD be the strongest possible line up. (But won't be I know, it's just a question of degree.)

I have been reading what you're writing. The Coalition are acting in good faith and doing their best. The fan base will never be in complete agreement about this but some things that are tried will no doubt appeal more to some than they will to others and vice versa. It serves no purpose to "carp" about individual initiatives. (Sorry if you dont like that term.)

You started off by disagreeing with the call for a boycott per se then when that wasn't quite in accordance with the majority view, shifted the goalposts and said you didnt agree with it being on a Saturday game, should have been a night match. But do keep contributing these "different ideas".

I've consistently said it needs to be a long and varied campaign. You dont seem to "get" or even entertain my basic point either that not everyone will be in agreement, ever, but that shouldn't be a stick to beat the Coalition with.

It "could" snow in August. I did say "more or less". We'll have to see. Either way scrapping to finish 21st isn't what I want to see.

That will only be determined with hindsight in 5 -10 years time when we see whether a) We still have a Club left to support at all and if so b) Whether we're doing better now than currently and c) Whether that's under the same or different owners. It's a matter of opinion and personal choice about whether you think you are doing the right thing. A proportion of fans simply will not support a boycott, refuse to attend games or actively support any form of action against their Club. That's a given so I don't know why such hand wringing is being done in certain quarters (sorry Matty) about trying to get everyone to think exactly the same way. It simply isn't going to happen. As long as the boycott gets SOME support it can be classified as an outright success, and even if it doesn't it still focuses attention on the cause and gets any protest movement off to a solid start. If we went out of business in the next 5 years a lot of the people who were still going at that point would no doubt still blame the majority of the fan base who had already stopped going. Conversely, a few might attach a bit of blame to those who didn't boycott and didnt put the owners under enough pressure to leave. It's the way it is, everyone has to act according to their own individual conscience but you're never going to get everyone to agree. Obviously the scale would shift more strongly in favour of protest if we got to a Sheffield Wednesday type situation but the whole point about protesting now is trying to prevent getting to that stage at any point.

Yet for large parts of last season Gueye looked considerably better than Gallagher who stole a wage for many seasons here. Hope he goes on to find some success elsewhere. Him and Ismael was always going to be a marriage made in hell.

I think even for these owners, there will be a point of critical mass that we're rapidly approaching. Imo losses exceeding a certain prescribed level that they're prepared to go to will be the only thing that shifts them. They certainly dont seem to mind being unpopular.

Burnley 2-1 down now. Edit: Bugger, 2-2 as I typed!

Why? You're not going to get them out by going "We dont like you but it doesn't matter we'll buy tickets or attend matches regardless." Has to be all or nothing.

Burnley 1-1 now. Thought there was a ridiculous VAR inspired penalty for Citeh in their game v Brighton. Doku took a swan dive over an outstretched leg and the ref (rightly imo) ignored it. Then VAR referred him to the screen and we know what happens next.

Whilst Im fully behind the call for a boycott it isn't quite that black and white. People have to decide whether or not to forgo something they've already paid for and there'll be a few like the poster previously who are obliged to attend as a one off due to personal circumstances. Im also not one of those who thinks the result of this initial call to boycott is of crucial importance either way. I assume in due course there'll be a call to supporters to boycott ST purchases for next season. You may (or may not) find there's a more noticeable response to that and either way it'll hit the owners in the pocket harder which will have the most chance of achieving the end goal. Need to do as many different things as possible by way of protest.

Never said they are. It's entirely a matter of personal choice whether anyone wants to attend/not attend, boycott for one game or permanently/not boycott etc. I voted with my feet several seasons ago so can't boycott per se however I do firmly think it's the right thing to do. Something has to be done. Imo those that still enjoy attending games, even under the current circumstances, won't have a Club left to follow in a few seasons if the Club continues on its current trajectory.

I think you're looking for reasons to be offended there ( particularly if you're boycotting yourself anyway) but hey ho. There will no doubt be some supporters who take the stance "Im not being told what to do" no matter what the rhetoric is surrounding the call to arms.

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.