Do you agree with todays pitch invasion and match abandonment?

[Snowflake Royal]

Only on social media will you find people publishing photographs of others committing a criminal offence. Dumb is an understatement.

Give over granddad.

Free speech son.

Works both ways Weird Uncle Pete.

[Snowflake Royal]

Problem with boycotts (Geoffrey and otherwise) is they're difficult to organise en-mass.

The message isn't going to get out to everyone and as such will limit it's impact.

The pitch invasion was organised en-mass over social media, it was known about well beforehand.

It also started as a few dozen people being brave and then turned into hundreds because it was in full view. Then dwindled to about 80.

Getting people to not turn up, or turn up or leave at a particular time is a bit harder.

[Hendo]

Problem with boycotts (Geoffrey and otherwise) is they're difficult to organise en-mass.

The message isn't going to get out to everyone and as such will limit it's impact.

The pitch invasion was organised en-mass over social media, it was known about well beforehand.

It also started as a few dozen people being brave and then turned into hundreds because it was in full view. Then dwindled to about 80.

Getting people to not turn up, or turn up or leave at a particular time is a bit harder.

Thought that was clearly obvious, but yeah ^^this.

[WestYorksRoyal]

It was definitely organic, but there was a mood across social media and at the stadium. It was obvious that we only needed a dozen to kick it off and it would grow into something bigger.

[Lower West]

Give over granddad.

Free speech son.

Works both ways Weird Uncle Pete.

Dumb actions result in consequences. Little point in shooting the messenger.

[rabidbee]

It was definitely organic, but there was a mood across social media and at the stadium. It was obvious that we only needed a dozen to kick it off and it would grow into something bigger.

Difference is, you only needed 5% or 10% of the crowd to participate for the pitch invasion to work, and only once. For a boycott to work, it would really need to be a sizeable proportion of fans for a long period. And the club already has the money from the STHs, which would minimise the financial cost.

[Snowflake Royal]

The pitch invasion was organised en-mass over social media, it was known about well beforehand.

It also started as a few dozen people being brave and then turned into hundreds because it was in full view. Then dwindled to about 80.

Getting people to not turn up, or turn up or leave at a particular time is a bit harder.

Thought that was clearly obvious, but yeah ^^this.

It was, but you know, Bus.

[WestYorksRoyal]

It was definitely organic, but there was a mood across social media and at the stadium. It was obvious that we only needed a dozen to kick it off and it would grow into something bigger.

Difference is, you only needed 5% or 10% of the crowd to participate for the pitch invasion to work, and only once. For a boycott to work, it would really need to be a sizeable proportion of fans for a long period. And the club already has the money from the STHs, which would minimise the financial cost.

I think you underestimate our fanbase. Blackpool managed to achieve it. The main challenge would be communication beyond the twittersphere. We'd need to talk to local and national news outlets to spread the message. But anyone who still goes to matches will know how desperate our situation is and would likely support a boycott even we generate momentum.

[Snowflake Royal]

Free speech son.

Works both ways Weird Uncle Pete.

Dumb actions result in consequences. Little point in shooting the messenger.

There's really very little likelihood of criminal prosecution or even club bans.

There were 1000 people on the pitch. It's unmanageable, unnecessary and antagonistic.

[WestYorksRoyal]

I believe the ex-Scunthorpe owner went down the route of banning everybody who protested against him. I don't think Dai or Pang care enough though.

[blythspartan]

Works both ways Weird Uncle Pete.

Dumb actions result in consequences. Little point in shooting the messenger.

There's really very little likelihood of criminal prosecution or even club bans.

There were 1000 people on the pitch. It's unmanageable, unnecessary and antagonistic.

+1

[Stranded]

It was definitely organic, but there was a mood across social media and at the stadium. It was obvious that we only needed a dozen to kick it off and it would grow into something bigger.

Difference is, you only needed 5% or 10% of the crowd to participate for the pitch invasion to work, and only once. For a boycott to work, it would really need to be a sizeable proportion of fans for a long period. And the club already has the money from the STHs, which would minimise the financial cost.

I think you underestimate our fanbase. Blackpool managed to achieve it. The main challenge would be communication beyond the twittersphere. We'd need to talk to local and national news outlets to spread the message. But anyone who still goes to matches will know how desperate our situation is and would likely support a boycott even we generate momentum.

Boycotts take time to really take a hold - for them to be effective you need boycotters to be respectfully waiting outside the stadium and giving leaflets etc to those who are still going in to make it clear to them what is going on.

I lived in Brighton at the time the Goldstone was under threat and this is what happened there and whilst it took a few games, less and less people attended each passing game. You will always get some who want to attend irregardless and that has to be accepted as fine - it is personal choice, but if/when it gets to the stage where there are only say 2000 home fans in there, you may notice even those who swear they won't boycott suddenly do as it is no longer enjoyable being in there.

[Sutekh]

Difference is, you only needed 5% or 10% of the crowd to participate for the pitch invasion to work, and only once. For a boycott to work, it would really need to be a sizeable proportion of fans for a long period. And the club already has the money from the STHs, which would minimise the financial cost.

I think you underestimate our fanbase. Blackpool managed to achieve it. The main challenge would be communication beyond the twittersphere. We'd need to talk to local and national news outlets to spread the message. But anyone who still goes to matches will know how desperate our situation is and would likely support a boycott even we generate momentum.

Boycotts take time to really take a hold - for them to be effective you need boycotters to be respectfully waiting outside the stadium and giving leaflets etc to those who are still going in to make it clear to them what is going on.

I lived in Brighton at the time the Goldstone was under threat and this is what happened there and whilst it took a few games, less and less people attended each passing game. You will always get some who want to attend irregardless and that has to be accepted as fine - it is personal choice, but if/when it gets to the stage where there are only say 2000 home fans in there, you may notice even those who swear they won't boycott suddenly do as it is no longer enjoyable being in there.

Credit to all the recent players and management who spotted this early and have been successfully working towards a boycott over the last few seasons.

[Orion1871]

It was definitely organic, but there was a mood across social media and at the stadium. It was obvious that we only needed a dozen to kick it off and it would grow into something bigger.

Difference is, you only needed 5% or 10% of the crowd to participate for the pitch invasion to work, and only once. For a boycott to work, it would really need to be a sizeable proportion of fans for a long period. And the club already has the money from the STHs, which would minimise the financial cost.

That money was spent down Les Ambassadeurs a long time ago.

[tmesis]

The other problem with a boycott is that a lack of money in will just hurt the staff for more missed payments, points deductions for us, maybe more redundancies, and might cause a successful winding up order.

[blythspartan]

Difference is, you only needed 5% or 10% of the crowd to participate for the pitch invasion to work, and only once. For a boycott to work, it would really need to be a sizeable proportion of fans for a long period. And the club already has the money from the STHs, which would minimise the financial cost.

I think you underestimate our fanbase. Blackpool managed to achieve it. The main challenge would be communication beyond the twittersphere. We'd need to talk to local and national news outlets to spread the message. But anyone who still goes to matches will know how desperate our situation is and would likely support a boycott even we generate momentum.

Boycotts take time to really take a hold - for them to be effective you need boycotters to be respectfully waiting outside the stadium and giving leaflets etc to those who are still going in to make it clear to them what is going on.

I lived in Brighton at the time the Goldstone was under threat and this is what happened there and whilst it took a few games, less and less people attended each passing game. You will always get some who want to attend irregardless and that has to be accepted as fine - it is personal choice, but if/when it gets to the stage where there are only say 2000 home fans in there, you may notice even those who swear they won't boycott suddenly do as it is no longer enjoyable being in there.

I’d boycott games if I thought it would do any good. However, a small part of my reason for going to games and against Wigan on Saturday is to see as many matches as possible before the club folds.

I might be over exaggerating the severity of our situation, but I obviously don’t know.

[Snowflake Royal]

I think you underestimate our fanbase. Blackpool managed to achieve it. The main challenge would be communication beyond the twittersphere. We'd need to talk to local and national news outlets to spread the message. But anyone who still goes to matches will know how desperate our situation is and would likely support a boycott even we generate momentum.

Boycotts take time to really take a hold - for them to be effective you need boycotters to be respectfully waiting outside the stadium and giving leaflets etc to those who are still going in to make it clear to them what is going on.

I lived in Brighton at the time the Goldstone was under threat and this is what happened there and whilst it took a few games, less and less people attended each passing game. You will always get some who want to attend irregardless and that has to be accepted as fine - it is personal choice, but if/when it gets to the stage where there are only say 2000 home fans in there, you may notice even those who swear they won't boycott suddenly do as it is no longer enjoyable being in there.

I’d boycott games if I thought it would do any good. However, a small part of my reason for going to games and against Wigan on Saturday is to see as many matches as possible before the club folds.

I might be over exaggerating the severity of our situation, but I obviously don’t know.

I've been sort of boycotting games for a while now.

Part of it is convenience for sure, and a teensy bit cost.

But I'm mostly not attending whilst we're a shambles. Would have got a ST this season if profect rebuild had been on. But Dai ripped that up.

However, I'm still putting money in the club's pockets through RoyalsTV, so I am still contributing to the running of the club.

[OLLIE KEARNS]

The other problem with a boycott is that a lack of money in will just hurt the staff for more missed payments, points deductions for us, maybe more redundancies, and might cause a successful winding up order.

I suspect this is what the club statement is referring to with regard to impact on staff. The non season ticket sales revenue from Port Vale is probably around £50k less costs such as stewards etc. that goes a long way towards paying non football related staff for the month. At best it might mean them being paid late again. At worst it means more redundancies. The only short term solution then becomes player sales.
All said and done the Port Vale abandonment was the right thing to do. Another abandonment would hurt all of the wrong people in all likelihood.

[MartinRdg]

The other problem with a boycott is that a lack of money in will just hurt the staff for more missed payments, points deductions for us, maybe more redundancies, and might cause a successful winding up order.

I suspect this is what the club statement is referring to with regard to impact on staff. The non season ticket sales revenue from Port Vale is probably around £50k less costs such as stewards etc. that goes a long way towards paying non football related staff for the month. At best it might mean them being paid late again. At worst it means more redundancies. The only short term solution then becomes player sales.
All said and done the Port Vale abandonment was the right thing to do. Another abandonment would hurt all of the wrong people in all likelihood.

Maybe just a boycott for the first 15 minutes of the match then?

[MartinRdg]

The other problem with a boycott is that a lack of money in will just hurt the staff for more missed payments, points deductions for us, maybe more redundancies, and might cause a successful winding up order.

I suspect this is what the club statement is referring to with regard to impact on staff. The non season ticket sales revenue from Port Vale is probably around £50k less costs such as stewards etc. that goes a long way towards paying non football related staff for the month. At best it might mean them being paid late again. At worst it means more redundancies. The only short term solution then becomes player sales.
All said and done the Port Vale abandonment was the right thing to do. Another abandonment would hurt all of the wrong people in all likelihood.

Maybe just a boycott for the first 15 minutes of the match then?