The Boycott

S

Soulbrother

Well-known member
Despite what happened today all is quite rosy in the tangerine garden, but I have been thinking back to the dark old Oyston days. We credit ourselves with getting rid of the Oystons by means of the boycott, picketting etc. I believe other clubs come to our committee for advice on how to get rid of their unwanted owners, but I have to admit, I am not sure how effective the boycott actually was. The Oystons had little respect for the fans and I'm not sure that beyond a status symbol they even cared about the club. As the income deteriorated they just made more and more cuts. I suspect our owners were so bloody minded they would have happily seen the club go down the pan before selling the ground for development. Of course we had to do something, which we did, but I can't help feeling it was the award given to Belekon which eventually did the damage. Other clubs with similar problems won't have the good fairy Belekon to help them. Maybe we just got lucky and in reality supporters are powerless to remove owners they do not want.
 
Soulbrother said:
Despite what happened today all is quite rosy in the tangerine garden, but I have been thinking back to the dark old Oyston days. We credit ourselves with getting rid of the Oystons by means of the boycott, picketting etc. I believe other clubs come to our committee for advice on how to get rid of their unwanted owners, but I have to admit, I am not sure how effective the boycott actually was. The Oystons had little respect for the fans and I'm not sure that beyond a status symbol they even cared about the club. As the income deteriorated they just made more and more cuts. I suspect our owners were so bloody minded they would have happily seen the club go down the pan before selling the ground for development. Of course we had to do something, which we did, but I can't help feeling it was the award given to Belekon which eventually did the damage. Other clubs with similar problems won't have the good fairy Belekon to help them. Maybe we just got lucky and in reality supporters are powerless to remove owners they do not want.
Click to expand...
Things definitely (finally) worked out in our favour and there's no doubt that Valeri Belokon's legal action ultimately precipitated the demise of the Oystons. That said, I recall even Sir Marcus referenced the impact of our collective efforts. Other clubs may need to find different routes, but fan power, demonstrations, withdrawal of goodwill and income streams will always be a vital part of the mix when it comes to flushing out bad owners.
 
Soulbrother said:
Despite what happened today all is quite rosy in the tangerine garden, but I have been thinking back to the dark old Oyston days. We credit ourselves with getting rid of the Oystons by means of the boycott, picketting etc. I believe other clubs come to our committee for advice on how to get rid of their unwanted owners, but I have to admit, I am not sure how effective the boycott actually was. The Oystons had little respect for the fans and I'm not sure that beyond a status symbol they even cared about the club. As the income deteriorated they just made more and more cuts. I suspect our owners were so bloody minded they would have happily seen the club go down the pan before selling the ground for development. Of course we had to do something, which we did, but I can't help feeling it was the award given to Belekon which eventually did the damage. Other clubs with similar problems won't have the good fairy Belekon to help them. Maybe we just got lucky and in reality supporters are powerless to remove owners they do not want.
Click to expand...
Dead right and I posted something similar just after we got rid of the Oystons but of course many on here wanted to take most of the credit for themselves.

While I respected those who took a principled stand and stayed away clearly the biggest factor that removed the Oyston`s was the court case ruling and if the Oystons hadn`t been so stupid and arrogant as to refuse Belekon`s offer of a far smaller out of court settlement they might still be here.
 
Without doubt we wouldn't have got rid of him without the Belokon judgment. However, its by no means certain that he couldn't have survived if it wasn't for the boycott. I would reckon the boycott cost him between 6-10 M with gate receipts and other lost revenues. With that he may have been able to cling on.
 
Seasider53 said:
Without doubt we wouldn't have got rid of him without the Belokon judgment. However, its by no means certain that he couldn't have survived if it wasn't for the boycott. I would reckon the boycott cost him between 6-10 M with gate receipts and other lost revenues. With that he may have been able to cling on.
Click to expand...
Plus the mental strain, the media attention and the spot light shining on his other business interests.
 
The fans certainly played their part and we dont need to rewrite history...all the moons and stars aligned and the egregious parasites went from a position where they couldnt lose to being removed and financially weakened...happy happy days when that happened.
 
Soulbrother said:
Despite what happened today all is quite rosy in the tangerine garden, but I have been thinking back to the dark old Oyston days. We credit ourselves with getting rid of the Oystons by means of the boycott, picketting etc. I believe other clubs come to our committee for advice on how to get rid of their unwanted owners, but I have to admit, I am not sure how effective the boycott actually was. The Oystons had little respect for the fans and I'm not sure that beyond a status symbol they even cared about the club. As the income deteriorated they just made more and more cuts. I suspect our owners were so bloody minded they would have happily seen the club go down the pan before selling the ground for development. Of course we had to do something, which we did, but I can't help feeling it was the award given to Belekon which eventually did the damage. Other clubs with similar problems won't have the good fairy Belekon to help them. Maybe we just got lucky and in reality supporters are powerless to remove owners they do not want.
Click to expand...
I agree and suspect the problems other clubs have if they don’t have a court force the sale, is that the owner can do what he likes, which can end up winding up a club, like happened to bury. My worry like yours, was that as the boycott hit Oyston, he might respond with spite and sell the ground for houses, etc and we end up with a Phoenix club, which would have been the end of my support full stop. BFC or nothing for me.

Thankfully that didn’t happen, super judge/super Simon to the rescue!!
 
Soulbrother said:
Despite what happened today all is quite rosy in the tangerine garden, but I have been thinking back to the dark old Oyston days. We credit ourselves with getting rid of the Oystons by means of the boycott, picketting etc. I believe other clubs come to our committee for advice on how to get rid of their unwanted owners, but I have to admit, I am not sure how effective the boycott actually was. The Oystons had little respect for the fans and I'm not sure that beyond a status symbol they even cared about the club. As the income deteriorated they just made more and more cuts. I suspect our owners were so bloody minded they would have happily seen the club go down the pan before selling the ground for development. Of course we had to do something, which we did, but I can't help feeling it was the award given to Belekon which eventually did the damage. Other clubs with similar problems won't have the good fairy Belekon to help them. Maybe we just got lucky and in reality supporters are powerless to remove owners they do not want.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree, the reason the club was put into receivership was because of the NAPM campaign cited by the judge. For every loss making year they had to borrow from other companies just to keep BFC going, they wouldn't have been able to sustain £2.7m losses for a lengthy period of time. He paid off the first £10m on time but that second £10m showed just how skint he really was. From memory 38 of his 41 companies were loss making and don't forget £5m was raised by financing a loan against the travelodge so yes the judgement helped but NAPM would have won through in the end.
 
Soulbrother said:
Despite what happened today all is quite rosy in the tangerine garden, but I have been thinking back to the dark old Oyston days. We credit ourselves with getting rid of the Oystons by means of the boycott, picketting etc. I believe other clubs come to our committee for advice on how to get rid of their unwanted owners, but I have to admit, I am not sure how effective the boycott actually was. The Oystons had little respect for the fans and I'm not sure that beyond a status symbol they even cared about the club. As the income deteriorated they just made more and more cuts. I suspect our owners were so bloody minded they would have happily seen the club go down the pan before selling the ground for development. Of course we had to do something, which we did, but I can't help feeling it was the award given to Belekon which eventually did the damage. Other clubs with similar problems won't have the good fairy Belekon to help them. Maybe we just got lucky and in reality supporters are powerless to remove owners they do not want.
Click to expand...
I've always thought (and said) that the boycott didn't get rid of the Oystons, VB did, Oyston would have been happy pootling along with 3k every week in the lower leagues.

That wasn't the point of it for me though, it was a moral choice, I no longer wished to be in the same place as them and the boycott was just a relief at the time, supporting the club had become miserable and I'd had enough, I didn't find it difficult not to go, it was far more preferable and I didn't sacrifice anything, the sacrifice was still going when they owned it.

To paraphrase the song, I didn't carry heavy loads, it was a relief not to be there giving money to them, the whole place was depressing at the end.
 
Last edited:
The main achievement of the boycott was that we made their lives absolutely miserable and made it clear there would be no place for them in the town any more. They decided to laugh that off and stay around out of spite and trolling - IMO this was their undoing. A lot of ridiculously poor business decisions made in the heat of a moment, or in response to a childish argument Karl might have got too excited over on AVFTT. And, in the end, the realisation that for all the money in the world they couldn't win the battle if we made self-respect, loyalty and passion the standards for victory.

I also believe the timing of Belokon's intervention was probably about taking advantage of the anti-Oyston sentiment in national press and local population; it would have made him realise that there was no risk to his legacy in entering proceedings against 'the Club', and that the support from fans would lend itself to the perception of his character in the court and the press.
 
It was the Oyston's greed and Belekons tenacity ultimately did the damage. Our protests brought our plight to the attention of the general public and our Boycott of all Oyston business'ssituated in the area drove him out of the town.
The Oyston's avaricious nature and disregard for others was their undoing.
 
Alf said:
The main achievement of the boycott was that we made their lives absolutely miserable and made it clear there would be no place for them in the town any more. They decided to laugh that off and stay around out of spite and trolling - IMO this was their undoing. A lot of ridiculously poor business decisions made in the heat of a moment, or in response to a childish argument Karl might have got too excited over on AVFTT. And, in the end, the realisation that for all the money in the world they couldn't win the battle if we made self-respect, loyalty and passion the standards for victory.

I also believe the timing of Belokon's intervention was probably about taking advantage of the anti-Oyston sentiment in national press and local population; it would have made him realise that there was no risk to his legacy in entering proceedings against 'the Club', and that the support from fans would lend itself to the perception of his character in the court and the press.
Click to expand...
I doubt VB really gave a toss about his reputation, he just wasn't get screwed over by a bunch of chancers and threw his clout behind bringing them down, regardless of the feeling of Blackpool fans.

As for respect, I also doubt Owen has the self awareness, he's a convicted rapist who still paraded around like he was about to be anointed a seraphic deity by his adoring public, he literally could not understand the frustrations of supporters, it didn't register that he'd done anything wrong, it probably still doesn't. He believes his self written mythology, I honestly think he's convinced he was actually a die hard supporter from the age of two. The rest of he family might have cottoned on but they were all completely irrelevant.
 
The boycott actually made a big difference.

Don’t get me wrong, if Belekon had settled and not taken Owen to court, then I doubt the impact it would have had - but who knows.

The club was placed in admin because of the boycott and people forget this.

When HRH Marcus Smith placed the club in the hands of independent receivers he did it because the club could not be sold for its true value while the fans boycotted.

Therefore it prejudiced VB getting his cash.

Hence, why it was the only Oyston business to have been put in this position.

Without the boycott HRH Marcus wouldn’t have had a reason to do it.

Proud 😎
 
seasideone said:
The boycott actually made a big difference.

Don’t get me wrong, if Belekon had settled and not taken Owen to court, then I doubt the impact it would have had - but who knows.

The club was placed in admin because of the boycott and people forget this.

When HRH Marcus Smith placed the club in the hands of independent receivers he did it because the club could not be sold for its true value while the fans boycotted.

Therefore it prejudiced VB getting his cash.

Hence, why it was the only Oyston business to have been put in this position.

Without the boycott HRH Marcus wouldn’t have had a reason to do it.

Proud 😎
Click to expand...
Well put ..... well said.... and accurate
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
I doubt VB really gave a toss about his reputation, he just wasn't get screwed over by a bunch of chancers and threw his clout behind bringing them down, regardless of the feeling of Blackpool fans.

As for respect, I also doubt Owen has the self awareness, he's a convicted rapist who still paraded around like he was about to be anointed a seraphic deity by his adoring public, he literally could not understand the frustrations of supporters, it didn't register that he'd done anything wrong, it probably still doesn't. He believes his self written mythology, I honestly think he's convinced he was actually a die hard supporter from the age of two. The rest of he family might have cottoned on but they were all completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you on both counts. I just think Val came in when he did because the aggro was at peak level and the Os were starting to go a bit doo-lally with all the grief. He was never going to let them keep his dosh. Agree with you regards Owen too, syphilitic grey matter will do that to you, but still it was enjoyable to watch him struggle to maintain the delusion. Like when you tell a mental patient it's not 1978 any more and they have a panic attack. That day he met the fans, he looked genuinely confused. And let's not forget, even if he takes comfort in being the lord saviour of Blackpool, he will soon be on his deathbed and he will die knowing that he's fuck all to do with Blackpool FC any more and not wanted. That surely has to make his entire life's work feel a little empty - and even if it doesn't, he will at least be dead.

Karl, however, wanted to be liked. He was a chaotic void of insecurity, thinly veiled in Slazenger chic. His AVFTT persona changed with the wind and he was eventually IMO a complete ** head-case. He enjoyed the days of bumspiders vs veinbulgers as it allowed him to have his own little cult of appreciation, and when we all started bulging from the same vein the vapid adulation of a blinkered few disappeared, and with it his only measurement of self worth. After that his sole source of entertainment was looking down on what he perceived to be the great unwashed masses, and so IMO when we left his will to live left with us. Granted this is nothing to do with getting the club back, but it was just delightful to watch his epic descent into madness and poverty.

Anyway, the point was not to win the club back through boycott, it was just that we couldn't stand to give them our money any more.
 
Alf said:
Completely agree with you on both counts. I just think Val came in when he did because the aggro was at peak level and the Os were starting to go a bit doo-lally with all the grief. He was never going to let them keep his dosh. Agree with you regards Owen too, syphilitic grey matter will do that to you, but still it was enjoyable to watch him struggle to maintain the delusion. Like when you tell a mental patient it's not 1978 any more and they have a panic attack. That day he met the fans, he looked genuinely confused. And let's not forget, even if he takes comfort in being the lord saviour of Blackpool, he will soon be on his deathbed and he will die knowing that he's fuck all to do with Blackpool FC any more and not wanted. That surely has to make his entire life's work feel a little empty - and even if it doesn't, he will at least be dead.

Karl, however, wanted to be liked. He was a chaotic void of insecurity, thinly veiled in Slazenger chic. His AVFTT persona changed with the wind and he was eventually IMO a complete ** head-case. He enjoyed the days of bumspiders vs veinbulgers as it allowed him to have his own little cult of appreciation, and when we all started bulging from the same vein the vapid adulation of a blinkered few disappeared, and with it his only measurement of self worth. After that his sole source of entertainment was looking down on what he perceived to be the great unwashed masses, and so IMO when we left his will to live left with us. Granted this is nothing to do with getting the club back, but it was just delightful to watch his epic descent into madness and poverty.

Anyway, the point was not to win the club back through boycott, it was just that we couldn't stand to give them our money any more.
Click to expand...
Marvellous post 👍
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
I doubt VB really gave a toss about his reputation, he just wasn't get screwed over by a bunch of chancers and threw his clout behind bringing them down, regardless of the feeling of Blackpool fans.

As for respect, I also doubt Owen has the self awareness, he's a convicted rapist who still paraded around like he was about to be anointed a seraphic deity by his adoring public, he literally could not understand the frustrations of supporters, it didn't register that he'd done anything wrong, it probably still doesn't. He believes his self written mythology, I honestly think he's convinced he was actually a die hard supporter from the age of two. The rest of he family might have cottoned on but they were all completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
That lack of self awareness was never more on show than his appearance at that BST event.
 
Wizaard said:
That lack of self awareness was never more on show than his appearance at that BST event.
Click to expand...
Yep. Not just deluded about himself but also the state of the club...

'Massive tons of money have gone in to making this a modern football club fit for purpose'

He also thought it was worth £40 million.
 
The boycott was never going to get rid of them as they didn’t care.
They loved the attention, total media whores.
I was on the 2 year deal and stopped going part way through second season as even being there in the same ground felt uncomfortable.
I went away but TBH I didn’t really care anymore, always wanted us to win but it didn’t really matter.
Proudest moment was judgement day and then I’m seeing the boycott at Wembley, how those that went must have felt is beyond me.
The difference now is incomparable, I would love to know how close we were to getting a Phoenix club going as that would have been the end of football forever for me - phew .

Still love to stick one on Sam and his vvanker watch mate - what goes around
 
22abus said:
The boycott was never going to get rid of them as they didn’t care.
They loved the attention, total media whores.
I was on the 2 year deal and stopped going part way through second season as even being there in the same ground felt uncomfortable.
I went away but TBH I didn’t really care anymore, always wanted us to win but it didn’t really matter.
Proudest moment was judgement day and then I’m seeing the boycott at Wembley, how those that went must have felt is beyond me.
The difference now is incomparable, I would love to know how close we were to getting a Phoenix club going as that would have been the end of football forever for me - phew .

Still love to stick one on Sam and his vvanker watch mate - what goes around
Click to expand...
Agree with every single point, especially the last bit. Edward Jackson was done for selling nicked watches in 2016 and drug driving a couple of years back, classy fella.

I'm not sure we were anywhere near a phoenix club to be honest, it was always a fairly silly idea.
 
Last edited:
Alf said:
The main achievement of the boycott was that we made their lives absolutely miserable and made it clear there would be no place for them in the town any more. They decided to laugh that off and stay around out of spite and trolling - IMO this was their undoing. A lot of ridiculously poor business decisions made in the heat of a moment, or in response to a childish argument Karl might have got too excited over on AVFTT. And, in the end, the realisation that for all the money in the world they couldn't win the battle if we made self-respect, loyalty and passion the standards for victory.

I also believe the timing of Belokon's intervention was probably about taking advantage of the anti-Oyston sentiment in national press and local population; it would have made him realise that there was no risk to his legacy in entering proceedings against 'the Club', and that the support from fans would lend itself to the perception of his character in the court and the press.
Click to expand...
Or maybe he was encouraged to do what he did
That trip to Latvia in March 14 was pivotal
And whatever we think of what followed Steve Smith was instrumental in making that happen
 
Doc said:
It was the Oyston's greed and Belekons tenacity ultimately did the damage. Our protests brought our plight to the attention of the general public and our Boycott of all Oyston business'ssituated in the area drove him out of the town.
The Oyston's avaricious nature and disregard for others was their undoing.
Click to expand...
Avaricious! Nice.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Doc
As others have said, regardless of whether we got the club back, the day I decided not to give another penny to the scum was a day of feeling better and satisfied that I wasn’t ever giving them money again. Karl really helped the boycott with his reg plate and smirking at supporters and just the small bit of suing fans (Tim in particular was the one that stood out) - any one with intelligence was galvanised by that. Yes take the money out of the club and pretend otherwise, but don’t blatantly take the piss out of fans to their faces and actually try to ruin lives. The football didn’t matter at that point.
 
Qblock said:
What exactly happened in Latvia in March 14 Tim?
Click to expand...
SS and myself were invited over
To be fair his pestering secured it
Whilst there VB spoke about his dissatisfaction with the scenario as well as what appeared in the minuted notes
Now I’m not saying he wouldn’t ultimately have looked at this however we mentioned the possibility of an an unfair prejudice claim ( which based on my experience was clearly warranted ) to dovetail with our actions
Next time we met in London ( in June ) that was on the Latvian agenda and indeed solicitors were appointed the day after that second meet
BST were also instrumental in the Latvian decision to press for the CARs appointment VB was worried about how it would look if he caused a points deduction that relegated us
He took some convincing I’ll tell you
 
Last edited:
TwelveAngryMen said:
SS and myself were invited over
To be fair his pestering secured it
Whilst there we spoke about his dissatisfaction with the scenario as well as what appeared in the minuted notes
Now I’m not saying he wouldn’t ultimately have looked at this however we mentioned the possibility of an an unfair prejudice claim ( which based on my experience was clearly warranted ) to dovetail with our actions
Next time we met in London ( in June ) that was on the Latvian agenda and indeed solicitors were appointed the day after that second meet
BST were also instrumental in the Latvian decision to press for the CARs appointment VB was worried about how it would look if he caused a points deduction that relegated us
He took some convincing I’ll tell you
Click to expand...
Cheers, very interesting
 
hills98 said:
I agree and suspect the problems other clubs have if they don’t have a court force the sale, is that the owner can do what he likes, which can end up winding up a club, like happened to bury. My worry like yours, was that as the boycott hit Oyston, he might respond with spite and sell the ground for houses, etc and we end up with a Phoenix club, which would have been the end of my support full stop. BFC or nothing for me.

Thankfully that didn’t happen, super judge/super Simon to the rescue!!
Click to expand...
He could not have done that. It was registered as an asset of community value. The boycott was spot on and any suggestion it wasn't and it somehow recklessly put the club at risk is just wrong.
 
Mark_GT said:
He could not have done that. It was registered as an asset of community value. The boycott was spot on and any suggestion it wasn't and it somehow recklessly put the club at risk is just wrong.
Click to expand...
I didn’t suggest anything of the sort. I said I was worried it would happen.
 
koudo said:
Totally disagree, the reason the club was put into receivership was because of the NAPM campaign cited by the judge. For every loss making year they had to borrow from other companies just to keep BFC going, they wouldn't have been able to sustain £2.7m losses for a lengthy period of time. He paid off the first £10m on time but that second £10m showed just how skint he really was. From memory 38 of his 41 companies were loss making and don't forget £5m was raised by financing a loan against the travelodge so yes the judgement helped but NAPM would have won through in the end.
Click to expand...
Ha ha, utter bollox
 
The boycott and associated actions certainly affected the O’s other business concerns - the Estate Agency also took a hit and that was his main income besides BFC.
 
I do think the boycott had an impact on what happened as stated above. But while we can debate that forever and a day, what I do know is that we should all take pride in what we did. As a fanbase we came together and made a stand, and it's something that just hadn't happened really in English football until that point. If you read on any fans message board of clubs that are struggling with bad owners, there is always a push by some to 'do what Blackpool fans did'. Using your collective power really is something that football fans should do far more and hopefully we've helped in some way to make a start on that.

And any PNE fans that still think we stopped going because of relegation need to take a look at the link. As soon as the Oyston's were removed, crowds doubled and in some cases trebled..........mid-season. We deserted the owner, not the club
 
Aside from the obvious point about the boycott showing publicly what supporters felt about how the owners of their club, it had a more specific purpose. The O’s used all available cash to duck and weave, rob Peter to pay Paul and work out who to knock and who to pay.

The boycott removed cash streams and - once the riga revolution was over - there was a pittance coming in. It’s ok saying they would cut their cloth, but the accounts show quite clearly that the club was losing money in those seasons. That impacted the value of the club and the families wider cash flow.

Would they have gone without the case? Obviously not. But it was part of the process to remove them and played a role.
 
Amazed so many of you don’t know the facts of what was said in court.

The judge confirmed in his ruling to appoint a CAR that the boycott was a key factor in his decision.

Which means it was a two pronged attack: legal through VB and financial through the boycott. One without the other would have been weak.
 
Dark_Side_of_the_Lune said:
The judge confirmed in his ruling to appoint a CAR that the boycott was a key factor in his decision.

Which means it was a two pronged attack: legal through VB and financial through the boycott. One without the other would have been weak.
Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell really.
Belekon was emboldened to take legal action by the boycott and I'm not sure he would have taken it without the strength of feeling against the O's from the fans.
It became the two pronged attack and the outcome in court was the coup de gras.
When is the book out!
 
Last edited:
Even if Belokon hadn't been a deciding factor the Boycott would have continued.
We would have got there ultimately, even if it was 2/3 more seasons.
Fortunately we had Belokon putting other pressures on.
Don't let anyone say that the Boycott Was fruitless, it also was a deciding factor.
Another point is that the Boycott brought fans together and we made friends with people we'd previously only seen in passing.
 
Last edited:
My belief is that the Oystons were essentially removed by Belokons court case but the campaign influenced the outcome significantly. Belokon wanted a good outcome for the club, as well as for himself, I think that was clear. The judge saw the combined desire and good intentions and chose to work towards an outcome that addressed Belokons treatment by the Oystons and the future of the club. The administrators bought into that and looked for the best owner to take the club forward in the interests of club and community. The boycott was a key factor. But other clubs won't have a Belokon.

The timing was really fortunate cos without belokon we would have hit Covid with the Oystons fighting the supporters and debts would have piled up and the result could have been catastrophic.
 
voyeur said:
My belief is that the Oystons were essentially removed by Belokons court case but the campaign influenced the outcome significantly. Belokon wanted a good outcome for the club, as well as for himself, I think that was clear. The judge saw the combined desire and good intentions and chose to work towards an outcome that addressed Belokons treatment by the Oystons and the future of the club. The administrators bought into that and looked for the best owner to take the club forward in the interests of club and community. The boycott was a key factor. But other clubs won't have a Belokon.

The timing was really fortunate cos without belokon we would have hit Covid with the Oystons fighting the supporters and debts would have piled up and the result could have been catastrophic.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. I do think that whereas other clubs might well not have a Belokon, they may have a potential new investor with better intentions than the incumbent. Some clubs will also have greater potential (and potential is the key word here...) fan power to wield. If 75 percent of Man U or Mags had boycotted and demonstrated on anything like the scale achieved here they could both have been looking at a different outcome. In Newcastle's case of course they have just swapped on dodgy owner for another even dodgier one - with deeper pockets and a PR battle to attempt to win rather than two fingers to raise to the fans. Who knows how it will play out?
 
seasideone said:
The boycott actually made a big difference.

Don’t get me wrong, if Belekon had settled and not taken Owen to court, then I doubt the impact it would have had - but who knows.

The club was placed in admin because of the boycott and people forget this.

When HRH Marcus Smith placed the club in the hands of independent receivers he did it because the club could not be sold for its true value while the fans boycotted.

Therefore it prejudiced VB getting his cash.

Hence, why it was the only Oyston business to have been put in this position.

Without the boycott HRH Marcus wouldn’t have had a reason to do it.

Proud 😎
Click to expand...
I don’t think the club was put into administration as such…
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
The day that VB joined the fight was pivotal
Utilising a WW2 analogy it was akin to the US joining the war effort
On our own we probably couldn't have forced regime change through on Owen's lifetime but from that point onwards in was more a case of when not if regime change would come
Click to expand...
The Moles would have been the end of them 🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top