Your logic is flawed, anders. You cannot justify action by simply stating that it makes the completion of your aim more likely; you have to weigh up the level of risk involved and compare it to the possibility of a favourable outcome. You know this, surely. Considering that the owners can control EBITDA by limiting squad investment, and that meeting EBITDA targets has to be their top priority, wouldn't any detriment to revenue caused by boycotts just be hitting the budget for squad investment and not the Glazers' right to dividends? Perhaps, for example, wages will be capped to make up the shortfall in attendance figures. You're not going to take the Glazers by suprise here, they will make up the figures and meet their targets even if it means restricting spending and weakening the squad as a consequence. I'm asking, how have you come to the conclusion that this seemingly long-shot is worth the risk? If your attitude is such that you're willing to do anything in order to increase your chances of success, regardless of possible negative outcomes, then you are in no position to be giving out advice to other fans.