NO football supporter takes the decision to boycott their club lightly.
Those Saturday afternoons spent in self-imposed exile will be tough to contend with. The threats issued and bleak scenarios painted by a club board panicking over revenue streams drying up will prey on your darkest fears and tug at your emotions.
You have to be strong. You have to retain an unshakeable belief in your principles. You have to be prepared to go to the wire. That is precisely what the overwhelming majority of Coventry City supporters did when their owners Sisu, a hedge fund, moved them out of the Ricoh Arena following a dispute over rent and forced them to spend the whole of last season playing 35 miles away in Northampton Town's Sixfields Stadium as part of a proposed three-year agreement.
They simply refused to turn up at the games. Even though the club was in administration, they refuse to buckle amid threats they were putting its future in even greater peril.
Unless the team was moved back into Coventry, they would not be giving the board a single penny more. They would back the team during their away fixtures, but the 'home' matches were a no-go zone.
When the battle was over and Steven Pressley's side played their first match back at the Ricoh, a 1-0 win over Gillingham in League One last Friday night, there were almost 28,000 punters in the ground to relish every single moment.
Boycotts are sometimes the only option left to a frustrated fanbase that feels cornered and powerless.
That description certainly applies to a sizeable section of Rangers followers left demoralised by one horror story after another emerging from the bowels of their troubled club and Jan Mokrzycki, spokesman for Coventry's Sky Blues Trust, takes great interest in the news that talk of an all-out boycott is now in the air around Ibrox.
He believes it could succeed. What he points out, though, is that supporters must remain united and there has to be a definite end goal in sight whether that exists in the form of legally-binding assurances over the future of Ibrox and Murray Park or something altogether more revolutionary.
"Rangers is a massive club with a huge fanbase," said Mokrzycki. "If those supporters stick together, they can make things happen. That is what has happened at Coventry. We had a very clear message that we wanted the team back in Coventry and had a march in July, involving between 8000 and 10,000 people, to show the potential support there was if the team did come back.
"One thing we said to supporters at the start was that they should put themselves in the shoes of the owners. People will say they are all about business. Well, business is about money. You deprive them of what it is they are after and they will listen. They don't care about the history or the community, but if you can affect their bottom line and show you will support them if they do as you want, their bank balance tells them they had better listen. You have to have a clear message and be united, though.
"If they had been getting 5000 or 6000 at Sixfields, we would still be there. They could have kept things ticking over. When they were getting 1500, it became unsustainable."
Should current conversations over an Ibrox boycott lead to a sustained campaign of staying away, however, Mokrzycki warns that those involved are likely to face all manner of emotional blackmail and carrots-on-sticks from the club directors.
"They tried every tactic of bribery and threats with us and it just didn't work," said Mokrzycki. "In the eyes of some people, the view was almost that it might be better if we went bust because we could start all over again. No-one believed they would ever let the club go bust, though, because that would have seen them walk away from the money they had piled into it. Most folk saw it as an empty threat.
The problems faced by Coventry City supporters were different to those troubling a large percentage of the Rangers legions, but their story shows the power that those in the stands are still capable of wielding.
"For us, it was because people objected to the club being moved out of the city," explained Mokrzycki.
"The owners were incredibly unpopular anyway, but ours had a fairly fractious relationship with the supporters and had treated them with disdain for some time. The decision to move the club to Northampton was seen by the vast majority of supporters as not necessary. This was a calculated bargaining move by the owners with absolutely no care or thought for the supporters. The majority looked at it, didn't agree with it and were not prepared to support it. Our support went from around 12,000 home fans to something like 1200.
"You support a team because it represents your community. If it is playing in Northampton, it is no longer representing your community."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article