No, it completely misses the point. If you intend to pay to protest, at least do it at RBA or Philly.
At their stadiums, not in Foxboro. Is this thread not about going to Gillette and then having everyone walk out of section 143 on July 17th? Maybe I'm as confused as everyone else in this thread.
You don't get it. Yes, people are talking about spending 20$ to walk out of Gillette. Let me explain. It's not about "starving Kraft of money," but rather threatening to do so. It's a visual show of unity and strength. The fact is you can plop down lists of facts an figures, but humans ultimately respond the most to what they see. Why did John F. Kennedy win the presidential election in '61? Because he was visually more appealing and more composed than Nixon during the televised debates. And FDR NEVER would have been elected in 1932 had so many people seen him in a wheel chair. Ultimately, the appearance of a thousand fans walking out will have a greater impact than some bean counters realizing that a few dozen fans paid $20 to enter the stadium then walk out.
You're right that they could write about it elsewhere, and I don't mean to suggest that they either are or are not interested in the story. But in terms of reaching the largest, broadest audience within New England, it does come down to what the editors of the Herald and Globe deem newsworthy.
Anyone going to this? NERevolution NE Revolution We would like to invite all supporters to attend a meeting with the #revs on Wed., June 29 at 7pm at Gillette to discuss the events of 6/18
Wow, that is an incredible story... Actually no, not in the literal sense of the word -- it is very credible because I have experienced similar ham-handed treatment myself and seen that kind of treatment toward other paying customers more times than I care to think about. The thing that amazes me in general about TeamOps is that any competent security people, be they a bouncer at a bar or cops in a large crowd or security at a stadium or a concert should have their first goal to minimize disturbances, not escalate them. That means if someone is acting out of line, you go have a quick word with them quietly and privately, and in many cases, that is all it takes to diffuse a situation. Of course, this doesn't always work, but that should be the first action. Seems like these guys have a consistent track record of using "last resort" behavior in situations when "first resort" tactics should have been used.
What I really do not understand (still) about this whole situation is this: They have a problem with the swearing and, it seems, with the "You suck, asshole" chant. Frankly, I have heard much much worse being thrown at the officials from the more vocal (drunk) people in sections 108-112 where I usually sit. Seems silly that all of this would (apparently) start over the word "asshole."
Try purchasing tickets on the secondary market such as StubHub or Craigslist. That will 1) get you a ticket to the game and 2) deprive Kraft of additional revenue.
Like I said in another post, we don't know how they are going to approach this. We have to be open minded and give the benefit of the doubt, even if some of us feel it is not deserved. All the above quoate says is to "discuss the events..." That is about as neutral a way you can possibly say that. Who says it is on "their" terms? I have an idea of how they may approach this, but I am going to refrain from commenting and let them have a fair chance to open a dialogue. If fans go in there with your attitue, can we be surprised if nothing comes from this? If it is all going to blow up, let's be sure that it isn't because we fans went in there all belligerent. If letting them save face this time gets us a better relationship, I for one am fine with that. You can be "right" yet still be wrong.
The actuality of not paying money is better than the threat of not paying money, backed up by paying money. Threatening not to pay money while paying money is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It is saying "we do not negotiate with terrorists" while paying millions of dollars for a hostage release. It's solving the Cuban missile crisis, not by putting ships in the water, but by announcing a blockade while penning a letter to Khrushchev to personally assure him that you don't actually mean what you're saying in public. I regard this as crazy talk.
"This time"? This time?" The Krafts' and their Revolution management team have been engaged in having to "save face" regarding their piss-poor stewardship of the team for 16 years!!! Frankly, the Revolution's die-hard supporters have been "letting them save face" the entire time. What has it gotten us? The same-old disinterested, lackluster, half-assed efforts repeated ad nauseum. At this point, we have to shoulder a portion of the blame for the moribund condition the franchise finds itself. Why? Because, rather than hold the Krafts' feet to the fire and demand a higher standard of stewardship, we've acquiesced and allowed them to "save face" so damned often over 16 years that they've come to assume that we'll accept whatever piss-poor effort they put in to running the team. They see us as "all hat, no cattle" when it comes to taking a stand on issues facing this team. After all, no matter how often they come to us seeking to "save face", we let them off the f**king hook! Let them "save face this time". Like it would be the first time. That's rich.
I was just talking about this with a co-worker. it seems like TeamOps comes in the the mentality that they are fighting a mob, instead of dealing with an individual. I theorize it's because the behavior (chanting, singing...) is done as an organized group at a revs game. They don't face this at other events they work at Gillette. To compare to a Pats game, it's mostly individuals acting on their own, except for when the masses follow what the big board tells them ("De-Fense" or "First-Down"). They can handle those cases on a 1-1 basis. When faced with the fort, and several hundred people chanting alike, they treat one disorderly fas as though the entire section is going to act the same way. For me, that's the biggest reason leadership from TO needs to come to meetings, and learn about the behavior from the supporters perspective.
I don't disagree with you, but if you want anything positive at all to come from this, you can't go in there and act all angry, even when you are justified. And I agree that in this case it is justified. I'm thinking of the Revs as like a cross between Jack Warner, who finds pretty much everything directed doward him as a "grave insult" and the Chinese Government, who have the thinnest skins imaginable, and they are lucky their spleen doesn't fall out. Think of then as basically the biggest, most sensitive candy-asses you can imagine. This is combined with an ego so big they can't even consider that there might be another point of view worth listening to, and all the "hurt feelings" that people are saying nasty stuff about them, however justified. I remember the time Brian B came in here and posted how upset he was that people bash the Krafts. Grow a sack, man! Deal with it. Evan if you feel people are being unfair ass-oooops, I don't want to say that word--you have to allow them to say it. Knowing this kind of cry-baby psyche, they will come down hard on you if you start by demanding anything. Let them speak first. If they offer any sort of concilatory apologies, be nice and thank them, but remind them that they haven't been so trustworthy in the past about this kind of stuff. When they start to cry, hand them a cleenex and only then do a side-volley kick to the side of the haid!
Except, paying millions to save a hostage is different than spending $20 with the threat of not spending $200. Your analogy doesn't hold up Comparing this to threats in a time of war (or near war), where potentially millions of lives are on the line, is pretty much the most asinine thing written in this thread. Threatening to not buy season tickets, or merch or anything else in the future, could very well be worth $20 to one match.
Threatening to do something and actually doing something are two different things. As a business owner, I have no problem with someone "threatening" to teach me a lesson, as about 9 out of 10 are just bluffs. It's when that someone actually does something, that raises my concern.