@angrybird when you are quoting can post your comments after the quote of the poster you are responding it helps with my OCD of having things in the right order. Ta.
Blackpool got as close to a 100% boycott as anyone is ever likely to and I don't think it forced Oyston out - hes still there as far as I know? I don't even remember it being hugely covered in the press but were there benefits? It would be interesting to know if people would be prepared to boycott one match only IF there was genuine thought that it would make a difference. Surely that is not too much of a sacrifice.
We cannot compare ourselves to Blackpool fans, they are Premier League "boycotters" shown by the fact they missed out on their Wembley Play Off final in their thousands......respect.
You only had to read the comments on here last season when Wembley was on the horizon to know we would have taken 25,000 plus and all thoughts of Roland would have been forgotten.
Well i agree about pitch invasions.. it would be effective but it would need a significant amount of fans to make it work and as previous attempts showed this wouldn't happen. I wish i had more constructive ideas but unfortunately i haven't so throwing things in an attempt to get the game abandoned is the only thing i can suggest. Getting someone to sell something they don't want or can't sell is never going to be easy.
Yes because I'm not being forced to give up supporting my team and enjoying watching them play by him. I won't spend any money in the shop or on programmes etc. But i personally don't think staying away is the answer. He doesn't care one way or another if anyone pitches up. I think getting as many fans as possible to games and causing havoc will be more effective. Just my opinion.
I respect that. But I think you need to define havoc. Throwing things on the pitch was novel for a couple of games, garnered media interest and gave people the opportunity to feel they were doing something. But......the c**t is still here, like you I have some cynicism about the legitimacy of any takeover and whilst people say it is costing him money being here, is it, or is our debt to stapricks just increasing? Like I said, define havoc, if you want to run on the pitch and stage a sit in, you have my 100% backing but that will likely lead to you getting arrested and banned so you will then have to "give up" watching the team. I support any action that will lead to getting rid of him, but like me, there will be very very few people prepared to stand up and lead any disruption at matches.
Yes because I'm not being forced to give up supporting my team and enjoying watching them play by him. I won't spend any money in the shop or on programmes etc. But i personally don't think staying away is the answer. He doesn't care one way or another if anyone pitches up. I think getting as many fans as possible to games and causing havoc will be more effective. Just my opinion.
I respect that. But I think you need to define havoc. Throwing things on the pitch was novel for a couple of games, garnered media interest and gave people the opportunity to feel they were doing something. But......the c**t is still here, like you I have some cynicism about the legitimacy of any takeover and whilst people say it is costing him money being here, is it, or is our debt to stapricks just increasing? Like I said, define havoc, if you want to run on the pitch and stage a sit in, you have my 100% backing but that will likely lead to you getting arrested and banned so you will then have to "give up" watching the team. I support any action that will lead to getting rid of him, but like me, there will be very very few people prepared to stand up and lead any disruption at matches.
Orient went on the pitch en masse. West Ham made a beeline for the directors box and individuals went on the pitch. To be fair, I think both got the desired outcome. Orient got new owners fairly soon after and I think WH agreed to spend more? SL fans invaded his office in Belgium and a club I cannot recall made death threats to the owner which forced him to sell (possibly Notts County). More direct action can be very effective but it needs to be led by someone and understandably there are very very few takers due to the illegality and immorality of said actions.
We surrounded the Directors Box against Brighton.
What's the point - it will be empty apart from Chis and Sue!
Well i agree about pitch invasions.. it would be effective but it would need a significant amount of fans to make it work and as previous attempts showed this wouldn't happen. I wish i had more constructive ideas but unfortunately i haven't so throwing things in an attempt to get the game abandoned is the only thing i can suggest. Getting someone to sell something they don't want or can't sell is never going to be easy.
Yes because I'm not being forced to give up supporting my team and enjoying watching them play by him. I won't spend any money in the shop or on programmes etc. But i personally don't think staying away is the answer. He doesn't care one way or another if anyone pitches up. I think getting as many fans as possible to games and causing havoc will be more effective. Just my opinion.
I respect that. But I think you need to define havoc. Throwing things on the pitch was novel for a couple of games, garnered media interest and gave people the opportunity to feel they were doing something. But......the c**t is still here, like you I have some cynicism about the legitimacy of any takeover and whilst people say it is costing him money being here, is it, or is our debt to stapricks just increasing? Like I said, define havoc, if you want to run on the pitch and stage a sit in, you have my 100% backing but that will likely lead to you getting arrested and banned so you will then have to "give up" watching the team. I support any action that will lead to getting rid of him, but like me, there will be very very few people prepared to stand up and lead any disruption at matches.
Yes because I'm not being forced to give up supporting my team and enjoying watching them play by him. I won't spend any money in the shop or on programmes etc. But i personally don't think staying away is the answer. He doesn't care one way or another if anyone pitches up. I think getting as many fans as possible to games and causing havoc will be more effective. Just my opinion.
I respect that. But I think you need to define havoc. Throwing things on the pitch was novel for a couple of games, garnered media interest and gave people the opportunity to feel they were doing something. But......the c**t is still here, like you I have some cynicism about the legitimacy of any takeover and whilst people say it is costing him money being here, is it, or is our debt to stapricks just increasing? Like I said, define havoc, if you want to run on the pitch and stage a sit in, you have my 100% backing but that will likely lead to you getting arrested and banned so you will then have to "give up" watching the team. I support any action that will lead to getting rid of him, but like me, there will be very very few people prepared to stand up and lead any disruption at matches.
Orient went on the pitch en masse. West Ham made a beeline for the directors box and individuals went on the pitch. To be fair, I think both got the desired outcome. Orient got new owners fairly soon after and I think WH agreed to spend more? SL fans invaded his office in Belgium and a club I cannot recall made death threats to the owner which forced him to sell (possibly Notts County). More direct action can be very effective but it needs to be led by someone and understandably there are very very few takers due to the illegality and immorality of said actions.
We surrounded the Directors Box against Brighton.
What's the point - it will be empty apart from Chis and Sue!
Well i agree about pitch invasions.. it would be effective but it would need a significant amount of fans to make it work and as previous attempts showed this wouldn't happen. I wish i had more constructive ideas but unfortunately i haven't so throwing things in an attempt to get the game abandoned is the only thing i can suggest. Getting someone to sell something they don't want or can't sell is never going to be easy.
Yes because I'm not being forced to give up supporting my team and enjoying watching them play by him. I won't spend any money in the shop or on programmes etc. But i personally don't think staying away is the answer. He doesn't care one way or another if anyone pitches up. I think getting as many fans as possible to games and causing havoc will be more effective. Just my opinion.
I respect that. But I think you need to define havoc. Throwing things on the pitch was novel for a couple of games, garnered media interest and gave people the opportunity to feel they were doing something. But......the c**t is still here, like you I have some cynicism about the legitimacy of any takeover and whilst people say it is costing him money being here, is it, or is our debt to stapricks just increasing? Like I said, define havoc, if you want to run on the pitch and stage a sit in, you have my 100% backing but that will likely lead to you getting arrested and banned so you will then have to "give up" watching the team. I support any action that will lead to getting rid of him, but like me, there will be very very few people prepared to stand up and lead any disruption at matches.
Yes because I'm not being forced to give up supporting my team and enjoying watching them play by him. I won't spend any money in the shop or on programmes etc. But i personally don't think staying away is the answer. He doesn't care one way or another if anyone pitches up. I think getting as many fans as possible to games and causing havoc will be more effective. Just my opinion.
I respect that. But I think you need to define havoc. Throwing things on the pitch was novel for a couple of games, garnered media interest and gave people the opportunity to feel they were doing something. But......the c**t is still here, like you I have some cynicism about the legitimacy of any takeover and whilst people say it is costing him money being here, is it, or is our debt to stapricks just increasing? Like I said, define havoc, if you want to run on the pitch and stage a sit in, you have my 100% backing but that will likely lead to you getting arrested and banned so you will then have to "give up" watching the team. I support any action that will lead to getting rid of him, but like me, there will be very very few people prepared to stand up and lead any disruption at matches.
Orient went on the pitch en masse. West Ham made a beeline for the directors box and individuals went on the pitch. To be fair, I think both got the desired outcome. Orient got new owners fairly soon after and I think WH agreed to spend more? SL fans invaded his office in Belgium and a club I cannot recall made death threats to the owner which forced him to sell (possibly Notts County). More direct action can be very effective but it needs to be led by someone and understandably there are very very few takers due to the illegality and immorality of said actions.
We surrounded the Directors Box against Brighton.
What's the point - it will be empty apart from Chis and Sue!
Murray.
But he's just a puppet and has no influence on Douchebags. By all means let him know how you feel (as if he doesn't know already) but barking at him - and anyone else in the directors' box (to me at any rate) is pretty pointless.
Hmmm...I find this post to be an oxymoron. On one hand you are calling for protests yet on the other you are putting money into Roly's pocket by buying a season ticket. Strange.
There are different types of protests, you can support some methods and not others.
Doesn't have to be all or nothing.
You also have to bear in mind some people only have one hobby. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people on this website who are passionate Charlton fans and all things Charlton consume 90%+ of their free time. Giving up going to matches would be extreme for them. Others, myself included, have other things wed rather be doing and so whilst giving up Charlton is sad it's not the end of the world.
I don't really get why Roland Rat hangs onto Charlton given he has no interest in football, has an asset that is declining in value and continues to lose money. Are we missing something?
The longer he holds onto it the more money he loses so wtf is going on inside his head? Losing a few million quid by selling the club will at least bring it to an end - is there a hidden benefit in retaining ownership or is he just acting out of spite?
He can't run the rest of his 'empire' in such a short-sighted manner?
is it real estate no charlton no problem its been his plan all along,backhanders,planning permission,house shortage and he doesnt do failure
Of course, I’m providing a view that suits my own agenda, but I genuinely don’t feel a boycott will ever work.
We had one chance at it imo, when we were relegated from Champ, but in hindsight it wasn’t pushed hard enough and it was conflicted by those small in number but loud in ‘noise’ who were desperate to galvanise ‘pro club / anti protest’ and driving a wedge with ‘protestors not being real fans’. Mainly because there was dislike from a few in that camp governed by hate for some of those involved with the protest movement And in a way, that worked, and was supported with the Slade / EFL recruitment shift.
All the momentum that was built up into the end of the previous season (where it escalated from Boro Sky game to the Burnley game) had evaporated by that point. There were a couple of,notable successes the following season, but they were sporadic and both the unique ideas had run dry and the wider support eroded.
A boycott won’t work now,as there are already enough fans committed to going and enough doubt in its effectiveness to leave open questions. The danger is that for every 100 that ‘boycott’, the likelihood is there are 50 that are simply wringing their hands with it and are walking away. The longer people ‘boycott’ and the longer he remains, the high the percentage of people that are gone forever and their kids never taking up the reigns in providing the next generation
If you were to offer the flip argument to ‘boycotting and starving the club of your cash’ (which I fully appreciate the logic of why), you could argue that the protests were at their most vibrant and supported with more people in the stadium. And if you wanted to cost R.D. money, then it would be having to fork out with the extensive enhanced security that had to be drawn in previously.
What happened in the summer of 2016 is that about 4,000 people stopped going, because they decided they had better things to do. They haven't come back. I think it's fanciful to imagine that if someone had shouted "boycott" that summer the outcome would have been significantly different to now or that the fact a few other people decided to post the opposite view and attack other fans on the internet made any difference either.
Believing otherwise is to give way too much weight to the influence of individuals and/or social media and message boards. Whether people will go is about the credibility of the football offer from the club - was then and is now. Everyone can have a view, but that's all it is. A boycott is quite different from asking people to join in a one-off protest after which they can then go off and do what they normally do. It would only have happened in 2016 if, for example, the club had brought Karel Fraeye back.
@angrybird when you are quoting can post your comments after the quote of the poster you are responding it helps with my OCD of having things in the right order. Ta.
A question for Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms @angrybird. I have a magic wand and if I waved it and promised you he would leave but only if you didn't attend for one game, would you?
Of course, I’m providing a view that suits my own agenda, but I genuinely don’t feel a boycott will ever work.
We had one chance at it imo, when we were relegated from Champ, but in hindsight it wasn’t pushed hard enough and it was conflicted by those small in number but loud in ‘noise’ who were desperate to galvanise ‘pro club / anti protest’ and driving a wedge with ‘protestors not being real fans’. Mainly because there was dislike from a few in that camp governed by hate for some of those involved with the protest movement And in a way, that worked, and was supported with the Slade / EFL recruitment shift.
All the momentum that was built up into the end of the previous season (where it escalated from Boro Sky game to the Burnley game) had evaporated by that point. There were a couple of,notable successes the following season, but they were sporadic and both the unique ideas had run dry and the wider support eroded.
A boycott won’t work now,as there are already enough fans committed to going and enough doubt in its effectiveness to leave open questions. The danger is that for every 100 that ‘boycott’, the likelihood is there are 50 that are simply wringing their hands with it and are walking away. The longer people ‘boycott’ and the longer he remains, the high the percentage of people that are gone forever and their kids never taking up the reigns in providing the next generation
If you were to offer the flip argument to ‘boycotting and starving the club of your cash’ (which I fully appreciate the logic of why), you could argue that the protests were at their most vibrant and supported with more people in the stadium. And if you wanted to cost R.D. money, then it would be having to fork out with the extensive enhanced security that had to be drawn in previously.
I don't really get why Roland Rat hangs onto Charlton given he has no interest in football, has an asset that is declining in value and continues to lose money. Are we missing something?
The longer he holds onto it the more money he loses so wtf is going on inside his head? Losing a few million quid by selling the club will at least bring it to an end - is there a hidden benefit in retaining ownership or is he just acting out of spite?
He can't run the rest of his 'empire' in such a short-sighted manner?
Not much of it makes sense to me. I don't get RD's strategy, assuming he has one, and I don't get why the Aussies haven't pulled out. As the assets disappear and promotion this year becomes less and less likely, I can't believe that they don't see Charlton as a worse investment than when they first negotiated with RD (assuming they did). Things just don't stack up.
Comments
You only had to read the comments on here last season when Wembley was on the horizon to know we would have taken 25,000 plus and all thoughts of Roland would have been forgotten.
Completely different band.
Doesn't have to be all or nothing.
You also have to bear in mind some people only have one hobby. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people on this website who are passionate Charlton fans and all things Charlton consume 90%+ of their free time. Giving up going to matches would be extreme for them. Others, myself included, have other things wed rather be doing and so whilst giving up Charlton is sad it's not the end of the world.
Believing otherwise is to give way too much weight to the influence of individuals and/or social media and message boards. Whether people will go is about the credibility of the football offer from the club - was then and is now. Everyone can have a view, but that's all it is. A boycott is quite different from asking people to join in a one-off protest after which they can then go off and do what they normally do. It would only have happened in 2016 if, for example, the club had brought Karel Fraeye back.