brummie

I wouldn't agree about sitting... or even singing, depending on what you mean. The British display an extraordinary reticence to start following the orders of blokes holding loud-hailers and release streamers in unison. Now that's not to say we can't or haven't made a hell of a racket, we just don't do it in the foreign way. That's true. Except for Walsall fans, as this amusing clip shows: Check out the big guy at the front.

Ask bolton, villa, blackburn, boro, fulham and man city if they can see half full grounds in the near future, the league champions sold less than half of there allocation at everton last week, and the week before fulham brought 300 to anfield. Attendances are falling. As a Villa fan, i can comment on that. One thing we are seeing is that with the current cost of going to matches, once you lose the fans, no matter for how short a period, it is very, very hard indeed to get them back. Last season we had something like 22,000 season ticket holders. We had a shit season, and over this last season, something approaching half of the ST holders didn't renew, in protest at the Ellis / O'Leary regime. What we've seen so far this season is that once these people find other things to do with their money, it is very, very hard indeed to get them back again, mainly because if you set aside 500 quid or so for your season ticket, then don't renew and spend it on something else instead, it is such a large some of money that it is hard to find that cash again. We had 27,000 last week against Bolton, which was shocking. Bolton brought about 150 supporters. The match was played at 5.15 on a Saturday, at the behest of Sky. That's the last but one saturday before Christmas. Which brings me to my other point - if the cost of going to matches doesn't kill football, then Sky will do, eventually. Newcastle's support seems to turn up regardless, but almost all other clubs don't have that luxury, I just think that the combination of high prices for low quality football (why does it cost so much to watch our league than, say, the imho better Spanish league?) and saturation television coverage are slowly but surely killing the game.

The last page of this thread = :lol: :lol:

Well, there's the way he was dicked about at the last minute in the last transfer window. Wish him all the best if he stays with you, though, I think he's a brilliant prospect

Yes. A lot of my friends are Inter fans, and they're all unanimous on it. He's one of those players people pick out as much better than he actually is, purely because he is Brazilian.

20m on Adriano = 2,000,000,000 pennies wasted.

Racism takes different forms. The BNP votes mentioned are, in my opinion, a result of primarily working class racism (note, I don't mean that being working class means you are racist, I mean racism amongst working class people) being expressed through BNP votes. I also don't buy this "they're voting BNP because of social deprivation, not because of racism" argument either. Look at who the BNP blame the deprivation on, for a start. Blaming it all on a scapegoat is easy, and it works. Look at Germany in the early 30s for the best example. Middle class racism tends to manifest itself in many different ways - supporting the more right wing elements of the Conservative party, voting for UKIP (I'm not saying UKIP voters are all racist, just that their support base is to a large degree xenophobic and xenophobia and racism often go together), angry letters to the Daily Mail etc etc They're both wrong.

In fairness, he was a decent player for us. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Charles tells us the following: 2000 Birmingham City (loan) 3 (0) So he's already hit rock bottom a few years ago. Decent aye. England class, no. IMO like. Although it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. He was a good player at Forest too. I agree with you on that one. Seriously, though, its a shame to see a former player sink to such levels (the prison thing, not the Blose thing, obv). He was what you'd call "an honest pro" by and large. Kept his head down, did a good job.

In fairness, he was a decent player for us. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Charles tells us the following: 2000 Birmingham City (loan) 3 (0) So he's already hit rock bottom a few years ago.

http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/frostreport4.jpg

Bolton, at least when i watched them on Saturday, play 9-1-1, so Beckham would fit in perfectly there, lots of scope to remain utterly anonymous and do nothing for 90 mins, as he has done for England for so long.

Well, I think it is a shame that we are going to lose Anfield and Goodison (although the latter really is a dog hole). The old "four stands" architecture of our grounds is dying so quickly. Tis sad, in my opinion.

Precisely. None of these new fancy foreign owners are interested in having anything less than 100 percent of the club. They don't want to have to piss about with relics like Shepherd or Ellis or Brown or whoever. Our takeover went that way - first bought out Ellis' 29 percent, then bought out Petchey's 20 percent, then the shareholdings of Ellis' family and hangers on, then appealed to buy shares owned by fans since flotation, then hit 75 percent and delisting. Once at 75 percent (reached pretty quickly once people knew Ellis was f***ing off finally), he kept the offer open to go for 90 percent which means compulsory purchase of the remaining 10 percent and total ownership. A few points from our takeover which might be salient for yours: 1. It takes f***ing ages. Ages in football terms, that is, when you need the money for team investment and you need it NOW (ours went through after the transfer window closed). 2. Even after an offer is accepted, it means weeks of chewing your finger nails *praying* it goes through. you'll learn that a deal isn't actually a deal, and agreements can remain "non binding" for far too long for your nervous health. 3. When they delist, you actually find yourself in the strange position of having even less knowledge of what is going on at the club than you had before - they own it, they can do what the F*** they want with it. Fine so far, as our new owners have been nothing other than faultless thus far, but even in the Ellis years we had the annual chance to go and throw abuse at him at the AGM. Kind of ironic, that.

This is sadly the same at every ground these days (bar, curiously, Portsmouth, which is the one ground which still most resembles an old school English ground - coincidence?). The lack of noise produced by 76,000 people at Old Trafford is probably the most stark example.

I think most fans would have "sympathy" with Newcastle fans, with the extraordinary lack of success for the money spent, and the quality of players you've had (I don't want to get into a "our net spend is actually about the same as Fulham's" style argument, but you can't argue with signings like Shearer or Owen being of the highest level). However, the obssession with attendances / best fans in the world / we're a massive club thing is what annoys fans of other clubs. Yes, your support is pretty impressive, yes, we wish ours was that good, but it is done to death somewhat. Oh, and there is a general perception that NUFC are a Sky era club - fortunes improved as Sky started running the game, pretty much loved by Sky ever since. I'd still say the general "like / dislike" balance is in your favour though, just not anywhere near as much as it used to be.

And Paul McGrath, who he sold for peanuts, played on for another 7 years or so, and is in my (admittedly hugely biased) opinion, still the finest defender to play in the Premiership. But then again, I would say that.

I can only support teams who have already won it, so as not to reduce the number of clubs we can sing "have you ever won the European Cup?" at. I also like the fact that no London club has ever won it, and would like it to stay that way (particularly in the case of Chelsea).

I honestly think you can get a point there, your defence seems to be functioning relatively well, and spirits are up. Much like our point there this season - it can definitely be done, it is about spirit more than anything. Although the second half made the Alamo look like an evenly fought contest. And they mullered us in the carling cup. I'm tempted to have a punt on you.

I for one rejoice in, and embrace, the contribution the attractive lesbian community has made to our society. You are to be commended for your acceptance of this different culture.

I didn't even notice it, by that time I'd spotted the avatar and racism had been nudged from my mind by quality lesbianism.

I can only start to imagine how simple you'd need to be to automatically link that 7/7 demo with the vast, vast majority of British Asians, many of whom are actually Hindu and Sikh anyway, not forgetting the vast majority of law abiding British muslims who have absolutely nothing to do with islamic fundamentalism. To then make some sort of connection suggesting that that is in anyway connected to chanting "you're just a town full of pakis" suggests that you are possibly a bit of a numpty. I bet you're up in arms when the foreign press labels all followers of the England national team as hooligans because a few pissed up idiots go round causing trouble at big tournaments, though, aren't you?

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the point - are you suggesting that "paki" isn't viewed as an offensive racist word? And whether "brits" offends you or not is irrelevant to the point here - if you *do* find Brits offensive, how does that make "paki" any less offensive? Two wrongs do not make a right. You can't win a moral debate by saying "cos that's what people think"? I've no experience of rape, but I know that is morally wrong, and that is what most people "think", too. Where's the debate over whether the word "paki" is acceptable in modern British society? I'd have thought this was pretty much self evident. Agreed

Quite ironic that you should mention the Aussies, as in cricket they quite openly refer to the Pakistan team as "The Pakis". Your thoughts? My thoughts are that I don't know what the connotations are with the word over there but i certainly know what they are over here.

So if an English speaking Spanish bar owner says 'All these f***ing Brits bringing the tone down in our lovely coastal town' its not racist? The use of the term "Brits" is not racist, no. The suggestion that one national group is having a detrimental effect on an area is somewhat xenophobic. "Paki" has an entirely different connotation, as it has been used as a term of abuse. If you were to ask 100 British Asians whether they find the term derogatory, how many do you think would say no? And as for the chant "you're just a town full of pakis" - do you think that is not meant to be racist?

I have to say, I heard the "town full of pakis" chant from Toon fans down at our place this year, not in the ground itself, but outside the ground. There are certain clubs we get this from a lot, all the north eastern clubs included. When we played up at Wigan a few weeks ago, apparently the home fans were singing it there. It's not nice. Every club has racist elements still (us included), but I think coming from fans from towns which don't have a particularly large Asian population (compared to Birmingham), whilst it is obviously racist, it is more of an ignorant racism than an aggressive racism, if that makes sense. Not that it excuses it. Oh, and that "paki is short for Pakistani like Aussie is short for Australian" is laughable, btw.