Boycott the Boycott

DOUCHER said:

do me a favour - if rd wanted to sell, he would - if a buyer wanted to buy, he would send rd's bank an offer - its that simple. There is no official boycott, card main players r attending games, most with season tickets. Get down there, help the team get promoted and rd can sell up - dave 21 is right - don't b a martyr - its irrelevant and only hurting yourself

Could you help me out with RDs bank details?

I've an offer he can't refuse.

Airman Brown said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

I'm not aware that ANY of the "CARD main players" have season tickets, never mind "most", although if they did that would still be a matter for them as it is for anyone else. I don't know what an "official boycott" would be if there was one either.

do u have a season ticket airman?

No.

I could have told him that ;-)

there is no boycott and the atmosphere is good but will be better with more people - if u can forget the politics you will have a good day out but the kit might have to wait

Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:

DOUCHER said:

Airman Brown said:

I'm not aware that ANY of the "CARD main players" have season tickets, never mind "most", although if they did that would still be a matter for them as it is for anyone else. I don't know what an "official boycott" would be if there was one either.

do u have a season ticket airman?

That's bloody poor form chap

well, i was told otherwise but was surprised so thought i'd ask the question

@Airman Brown
So you know people who have been in 'direct contact' with RD? Who might they be? I know, I know, you can't say.
But RD has told them it was KM who prevented potential buyers from meeting him.Is that what you're trying to imply here?

DOUCHER said:

there is no boycott and the atmosphere is good but will be better with more people - if u can forget the politics you will have a good day out but the kit might have to wait

How can you claim that there is no boycott, when many people have clearly stated that they are boycotting?

Must be all lost because of the unavoidable relegation

Redskin said:

@Airman Brown
So you know people who have been in 'direct contact' with RD? Who might they be? I know, I know, you can't say.
But RD has told them it was KM who prevented potential buyers from meeting him.Is that what you're trying to imply here?

You haven't been keeping up.

Have CARD not called a boycott because it would mean they wouldn't be able to go.

Gillis said:

DOUCHER said:

there is no boycott and the atmosphere is good but will be better with more people - if u can forget the politics you will have a good day out but the kit might have to wait

How can you claim that there is no boycott, when many people have clearly stated that they are boycotting?

I meant it's an individual choice

killerandflash said:

Airman Brown said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

The only person/people that are being hurt by the boycott are the boycotters.

Looking around the covered end last saturday afternoon and Tuesday night and it was full of people that are there for the social side of the game, the hope of seeing a good match and if they are lucky a win and if they are really lucky a good season. The signs are they are going to get all of these. Boycotting makes no sense because if the team does well then others will go to the valley (a la premiership years) buy the tickets and sit in those vacant seats.

But the team isn't going to do well, the ownership will see to that. It may do OK but what is on offer is third tier football, which we know from repeated experience does not attract additional supporters in any number and certainly won't replace those lost.

In reality, the people who boycotted Selhurst were vastly outnumbered by others who would have watched top flight football at The Valley but said no, not there, not in these circumstances - we can't be bothered.

That's what Meire and Duchatelet are achieving with their "unique offer" to watch the future stars of other clubs.

No need to argue about that - Meire was very clear that's what they want the club to be. It's only "unique" in the sense of being foolish as an objective and many absent fans are simply saying no, not now, not with you in charge - we can't bothered.

They can only fail.

Selhurst was slightly different in that even if supporters supported the idea of ground sharing, the sheer effort required to get there would put some off. If Charlton had ground shared with a mythical "Woolwich United" then the attendances would have been higher

I'm sure L1 football is having an effect. If Riga had somehow managed to scrape us to safety last season, I suspect attendances would be higher, even though we had the same owner with the same "philosophy"

L1 football is probably the single most reason gates are down, so far. Of course the negativity of the boycotters emphasising it's all Roland, Katrien and the regime's fault will have been a deciding factor for some but in reality it would have been the crap football last season, the inability to score and defend and the prospect of worse in L1 and the promise of the certain relegation by some on here that has probably made most fans stay away.

A good run by Russel's team of what is looking like players you can easily associate with as a charlton fan and get behind and support and the more positive attitude that's been shown by the fans in the ground in backing the team and manager will draw more fans back to the valley.

And if you don't think this team will do well just read the comments about Holmes, Ajose etc so far and consider that they've not yet had a lot of game time together to gel properly.

On tuesday night the covered end bars were doing a roaring trade at half time with queues I thought would never clear when I first saw the back of them snaking around but actually did move quickly with pre-poured pints so not much of a sign the boycott giving the regime money has a lot of support there.

It's personal choice whether to boycott or not but if the team does well the boycott will have had hardly any impact and the only losers will be those that stayed away on principle when they'd rather be watching football at the valley.

letthegoodtimesroll said:

killerandflash said:

Airman Brown said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

The only person/people that are being hurt by the boycott are the boycotters.

Looking around the covered end last saturday afternoon and Tuesday night and it was full of people that are there for the social side of the game, the hope of seeing a good match and if they are lucky a win and if they are really lucky a good season. The signs are they are going to get all of these. Boycotting makes no sense because if the team does well then others will go to the valley (a la premiership years) buy the tickets and sit in those vacant seats.

But the team isn't going to do well, the ownership will see to that. It may do OK but what is on offer is third tier football, which we know from repeated experience does not attract additional supporters in any number and certainly won't replace those lost.

In reality, the people who boycotted Selhurst were vastly outnumbered by others who would have watched top flight football at The Valley but said no, not there, not in these circumstances - we can't be bothered.

That's what Meire and Duchatelet are achieving with their "unique offer" to watch the future stars of other clubs.

No need to argue about that - Meire was very clear that's what they want the club to be. It's only "unique" in the sense of being foolish as an objective and many absent fans are simply saying no, not now, not with you in charge - we can't bothered.

They can only fail.

Selhurst was slightly different in that even if supporters supported the idea of ground sharing, the sheer effort required to get there would put some off. If Charlton had ground shared with a mythical "Woolwich United" then the attendances would have been higher

I'm sure L1 football is having an effect. If Riga had somehow managed to scrape us to safety last season, I suspect attendances would be higher, even though we had the same owner with the same "philosophy"

L1 football is probably the single most reason gates are down, so far. Of course the negativity of the boycotters emphasising it's all Roland, Katrien and the regime's fault will have been a deciding factor for some but in reality it would have been the crap football last season, the inability to score and defend and the prospect of worse in L1 and the promise of the certain relegation by some on here that has probably made most fans stay away.

A good run by Russel's team of what is looking like players you can easily associate with as a charlton fan and get behind and support and the more positive attitude that's been shown by the fans in the ground in backing the team and manager will draw more fans back to the valley.

And if you don't think this team will do well just read the comments about Holmes, Ajose etc so far and consider that they've not yet had a lot of game time together to gel properly.

On tuesday night the covered end bars were doing a roaring trade at half time with queues I thought would never clear when I first saw the back of them snaking around but actually did move quickly with pre-poured pints so not much of a sign the boycott giving the regime money has a lot of support there.

It's personal choice whether to boycott or not but if the team does well the boycott will have had hardly any impact and the only losers will be those that stayed away on principle when they'd rather be watching football at the valley.

Maybe comparing the league one gates this season and the recent seasons before will prove your point or kill it. You may be right, you may be wrong but you never lose doing things out of principle.