I think the premise here that deserves challenge, is that the Sixfields boycott isn't having some effect financially and also putting pressure on the owners to return to Coventry.
Just because someone on here says that SISU are willing to continue to throw money at it doesn't make it true. It would be a remarkable business that was willing to continue to throw good money after bad, year-on-year.
I can understand if people really feel that they have to go and watch the team, and I don't want to hammer anyone for it. But to try to justify it by saying that it doesn't make any difference doesn't seem quite right to me, sorry. Go to Sixfields by all means, if you must, but accept that by doing so you are (whether you like it or not) offering some encouragement to our owner's current strategy.
In a related concept, talk of a protest inside Sixfields seems similarly misguided to me. It's just putting money in SISU's pockets, and for what? They know that the majority of fans don't want to be there. I'm sure they'd love 6,000 extra fans to turn up and pay twenty quid just to boo Fisher - what exactly would it prove?