Jump to content

Proposal: Match day protest against SB


flashingqwerty

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Plus 2k empty seats in the away end. I’d be surprised if it made 28k. Probably on around 26k at the moment, with Rotherham hardly bringing any. 

Cheers hadn’t even thought about the away end ?

As it is, I don’t think a low attendance for one game will cause much concern for the board. There’s a few additional factors with this one, it’s been rearranged already, it’s midweek, it’s against a not particularly glamorous side. 

If attendances regularly fell below 29-30k then they might take notice. But if that were to happen it would mean things really have gone bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheStagMan said:

Woah woah woah, you make some valid points but you ruin it all with the bit in bold. I don't recall that ever happening, and if it did it was one or two idiots. The notion that some fans have never accepted him because of small heath links is utter nonsense.

"As a former Small Heath boss some of us were reluctant to accept his appointment in the first place". I think that a few did feel that way, at least initially when he was appointed and that his links to Small Heath may have awoken that latent feeling held by some others now. Having said that, I think the vast majority have decided that it is time for change on the basis of performance and results rather than on his past. Hope that clears it up. :thumb:     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said:

I don't openly want my team to lose, I don't start the game hoping to lose.

That's fine. But there obviously people that do. Which is the point I was addressing.

42 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said:

As for jumping on you, that wasn't me, I can't jump very high.

I know it wasn't. Again it was a general point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

No point protesting, Steve will just moan about the fans and make sarcastic comments like every other time he's had any sort of pressure from us.

Correct, because whatever is wrong one thing is for certain. It's never* his fault. It's not enough players or too many new players or FFP or the price of tea in Zimbabwe. 

*He's got four promotions apparently. Wrote the book on how to get promoted and appointing him virtually guarantees promotion. 

Edited by villa89
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already protesting by not attending matches (have 2 season tickets), grabbing pitchforks and setting fire to the ends of sticks won't make any difference, it'll make some people just look a bit silly.

Results matter, lose to Rotherham and the board will know the fans thoughts regarding Bruce at the end of the game I'm sure. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tommo_b said:

Not to tell you you’re factually not correct but you are factually not correct. This time last season we had 10 points and Leeds who were too had 17, Wolves had 15.

This season we have 10 points, Leeds who are too have 15, and team in second Brentford have 14.

Although our points tally is the same we are closer to the top then this time last year, so theoretically you could say we have gone forward not backwards.

That's desperate. even ignoring the fact we have had an easy start and the one time we have come up against a top team we got tonked. 

so, you think that there have been improvements in our defence, in our playing style, in our moral, our tactics since last season?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John said:

"As a former Small Heath boss some of us were reluctant to accept his appointment in the first place". I think that a few did feel that way, at least initially when he was appointed and that his links to Small Heath may have awoken that latent feeling held by some others now. Having said that, I think the vast majority have decided that it is time for change on the basis of performance and results rather than on his past. Hope that clears it up. :thumb:     

I don't see any evidence of that, there are plenty of reasons to dislike his managerial "prowess", Small Heath connections are not one of them, and it is disingenuous to say that people have latent dislike because of it. The dislike of Bruce is entirely because of what he is failing to achieve here. Even if some people did feel that way, then they will be in an absolutely tiny minority. 

Read back through the Bruce thread, if you find more than a couple of idiots claiming "dont want him here because of Small Heath" I will be very surprised, and even if you did find them (which I doubt), it in no way lessens the multitude of genuine reasons to want him gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, briny_ear said:

The one thing you expect from fans is loyalty. Don’t really see the point of supporting a club if you don’t have that.

Personally, my loyalty is to Aston Villa Football Club and not to Steve Bruce, or any particular player. Managers and players come and go, Villa will endure. 

I want, and always will want what is best for my club, and in this case (in my opinion) the best for my club is for the manager to leave. If it takes Villa losing games to achieve that, I personally will not be happy at the results but would be accepting of the greater good that I would hope that they achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VILLAMARV said:

It isn't really though is it.

It may not be true for you or many other posters on here but I doubt you speak for 'the people'

It really is.

And I suppose you do speak for the people?

I have not heard anyone (and I speak to a lot of other Villa fans, and go to games) say, Boo, Bruce out because he managed SHA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheStagMan said:

It really is.

And I suppose you do speak for the people?

I have not heard anyone (and I speak to a lot of other Villa fans, and go to games) say, Boo, Bruce out because he managed SHA.

WTF are you on about?

If I know some people who don't really like him as he was at SHA beforehand does that help?

All it does is prove you're talking nonsense, it's no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, VILLAMARV said:

WTF are you on about?

If I know some people who don't really like him as he was at SHA beforehand does that help?

All it does is prove you're talking nonsense, it's no big deal.

No, all it does is prove that you know some idiots.

 

To claim that people do not want Bruce here because of his time at SHA is idiotic frankly and sounds like the kind of guff that the man himself would come out with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

It really is.

And I suppose you do speak for the people?

I have not heard anyone (and I speak to a lot of other Villa fans, and go to games) say, Boo, Bruce out because he managed SHA.

Well my comment was in response to the Sunderland fans who still claim when he was sacked he blamed his Geordie connections, despite them backing him favourably during his stay.

It's just a joke about Bruce constantly blaming anything and everything except for his own outdated ways and refusal to get with the times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

Well my comment was in response to the Sunderland fans who still claim when he was sacked he blamed his Geordie connections, despite them backing him favourably during his stay.

It's just a joke about Bruce constantly blaming anything and everything except for his own outdated ways and refusal to get with the times.

 

Wasn't aimed at you mate. You were clearly joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â