@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.
Will do .. sorry about that ..was annoying me too. I'm not exactly computer savvy as u can see !
@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.
Will do .. sorry about that ..was annoying me too. I'm not exactly computer savvy as u can see !
Cheers. There's no need to apologise it was a bit tongue in cheek.
@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.
Will do .. sorry about that ..was annoying me too. I'm not exactly computer savvy as u can see !
and no text speak either please, it's you not u, thanks
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?
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?
@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.
Will do .. sorry about that ..was annoying me too. I'm not exactly computer savvy as u can see !
and no text speak either please, it's you not u, thanks
</blockquote Oops sorry again ! Bit of a habit that !
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?
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.
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.
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.
@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.
But that will never happen there will always be fans attending it would be impossible to get everyone to boycott. Thats my point we all have different opinions but all want the same outcome. I don't think for one minute anyone that still attends games is part of the problem and we certainly don't deserve everything we get and have every right to moan if we so wish. I would suggest even more so than those choosing to stay away .
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.
We tried that, it didn't work, he's still here. Now if there was not one single fan at the Valley on Saturday just imagine the media field day, and the embarrassment to The Rat. I will respect anyones right to chose it they want to go to games under this current regime, however I will not agree with it and IMHO if you buy a season ticket this season (while Ratty is the owner) then you are part of the problem and deserve everything you get, and also have no right to moan about the owner.
Well you would say that, because you are still feeding The Rat.
But that will never happen there will always be fans attending it would be impossible to get everyone to boycott. Thats my point we all have different opinions but all want the same outcome. I don't think for one minute anyone that still attends games is part of the problem and we certainly don't deserve everything we get and have every right to moan if we so wish. I would suggest even more so than those choosing to stay away .
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.
We tried that, it didn't work, he's still here. Now if there was not one single fan at the Valley on Saturday just imagine the media field day, and the embarrassment to The Rat. I will respect anyones right to chose it they want to go to games under this current regime, however I will not agree with it and IMHO if you buy a season ticket this season (while Ratty is the owner) then you are part of the problem and deserve everything you get, and also have no right to moan about the owner.
Well you would say that, because you are still feeding The Rat.
Well of course i will. Thats my opinion. We the fans are not the problem... HE is the problem. So as fans we have to do whatever we see fit to try to do something about it.
And as I said yesterday, the best action could be one that most fans will support/take part in. Boycotting is not that, because you've lost @ 50% from the off. Whether boycotters think that's right is neither her nor there. Effective action backed by as many fans as possible is what is required.
Let's see where we are when the loan window closes, because the support for action is definitely swayed by the strength of the squad. Once again, whether some like it or not.
If we were top of the league and looking good for promotion, presumably because RD has invested a little more in the squad. Would we have the necessary support for mass action ? The answer is of course not.
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?
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.
Yeah, but can we make it a Checkatrade game ?
Would anyone notice the difference?!
It may not be 100% effective, because we all know the attendances are dire. However, if the publicity was in place beforehand. Yes, I think it would prove a point, if it was made clear that the attendance of let's say 60 (it will never be nil - Seb) was a protest at the owner.
It is also more likely to happen.
Alternatively a League Cup Game, although I reckon MKD will knock out our reserves anyway.
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?
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.
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.
RD's only strategy seems to be try to offload players at a discount which makes the club worth less and less. Where will it end?
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.
RD's only strategy seems to be try to offload players at a discount which makes the club worth less and less. Where will it end?
If it's worth less the Aussies will hopefully need to pay less and if they are struggling to meet a higher price, it may be the solution we are all praying for.
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.
RD's only strategy seems to be try to offload players at a discount which makes the club worth less and less. Where will it end?
If it's worth less the Aussies will hopefully need to pay less and if they are struggling to meet a higher price, it may be the solution we are all praying for.
But every time they negotiate a price the old git will just sell another player. We'll be left with Peacock, JJ and Bowyer in the starting line up.
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.
RD's only strategy seems to be try to offload players at a discount which makes the club worth less and less. Where will it end?
If it's worth less the Aussies will hopefully need to pay less and if they are struggling to meet a higher price, it may be the solution we are all praying for.
But every time they negotiate a price the old git will just sell another player. We'll be left with Peacock, JJ and Bowyer in the starting line up.
After Aribo, Bauer and Fosu are out the door, there's no-one left he can sell!
Comments
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?
Boycotting is not that, because you've lost @ 50% from the off.
Whether boycotters think that's right is neither her nor there.
Effective action backed by as many fans as possible is what is required.
Let's see where we are when the loan window closes, because the support for action is definitely swayed by the strength of the squad. Once again, whether some like it or not.
If we were top of the league and looking good for promotion, presumably because RD has invested a little more in the squad.
Would we have the necessary support for mass action ?
The answer is of course not.
However, if the publicity was in place beforehand.
Yes, I think it would prove a point, if it was made clear that the attendance of let's say 60 (it will never be nil - Seb) was a protest at the owner.
It is also more likely to happen.
Alternatively a League Cup Game, although I reckon MKD will knock out our reserves anyway.
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.
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?