The Premier League. Where do your allegiances lie?

[holteman]

** For having the London press in their pocket. "This is Spur's year of course!"

I hate them more for there insane "we are a massive club, sleeping giant, biggest clubs in the world" mentality...its a joke

 

[kabbes]

I hate them more for there insane "we are a massive club, sleeping giant, biggest clubs in the world" mentality...its a joke

I dunno -- they've spent more money than just about anybody in the last few years and that money must have come from *somewhere*.

 

[Gym Beam]

Support - Manchester United (thanks to Dad who's been a supporter from the 50's)
Like/Admire - love watching Arsenal, also like Sunderland
Respect - N/A
Dislike - N/A
Hate - Liverpool (especially the sides from their glory years when thy won everything) - Hatred tempered by recent form

 

[holteman]

I dunno -- they've spent more money than just about anybody in the last few years and that money must have come from *somewhere*.

police investigation time ....

 

[stupid dogbot]

I dunno -- they've spent more money than just about anybody in the last few years and that money must have come from *somewhere*.

Hardly a secret, is it?

Chairman of ENIC, who own 70 odd % of the Hotspur, innit.

 

[RaverDrew]

Support: Crystal Palace
Respect: None atm
Indifferent: Fulham, Blackburn
Hate: All of them atm although there's been a couple of relegated clubs that I've liked in the past
REALLY HATE: Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea

 

[FunkyUK]

Support: The Arsenal
Respect: Man U
Soft Spot for: Villa, West Ham
Indifferent:The rest
Hate: Hull, Bolton, Pool, Spurs
REALLY HATE: Chelsea

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Chelsea haters -- how did you feel pre-Abramovic?

I hated them just as much then.

 

[holteman]

Chelsea haters -- how did you feel pre-Abramovic?

annoying tiny club

 

[tommers]

Supporters of other premiership clubs are going to have increasing problems with that attitude, though. (Not that I disagree with you, but still). Because already 10 of 20 clubs are in very rich foreign hands, which makes them all wank rags as well. How long before the other 10 go that way too? Then it's just a matter of degree -- one rich tosspot is slightly richer than another rich tosspot, so his wank rag does better, but it's all the same thing really.

Well yeah. it's why modern football is rapidly becoming really shit.

There was a time when a club's success might even have something to do with its supporters (cos they pay to attend, bigger clubs have more revenue and a higher likelihood of success. Hell, there was even some kind of sense of community and the team "belonging" to an area.) I look at Chelsea & Man City now and I wonder how their fans can have any sense of pride in their achievements. It's got nothing to do with them any more. You're supporting a multinational. But hey, everyone else is doing it so why not join in?

West Ham are shit. They're run like a lesson in how not to run a football club but at least there is still some kind of local connection there, most of the supporters have a connection to the area, there's an emphasis on local youngsters coming through. If there wasn't that - if we were bought by some Arab, moved to a shiny new ground, had a selection of Brazilians playing for us and were the biggest club in Malaysia then what, really, would we be supporting? The brand?

Chelsea, though, are always going to be held up for especial dislike because not only are they arguably the most obvious example of somebody's money buying success but they became really arrogant and ruthless in the process.

 

[kabbes]

West Ham are shit. They're run like a lesson in how not to run a football club but at least there is still some kind of local connection there

You mean like when a rich (at the time) Icelandic bought your club? I'd be careful assuming things are going to always be local.

Chelsea, interestingly enough, have actually NEVER been a grass-roots organically developed local side. They were set up in 1905 when a rich landowner decided to build a stadium and then needed a team to go in it. The original team, if memory serves, consisted of ten mercenary Scots and an Englishman.

So actually, Chelsea are the one side who really are following their tradition by having a rich owner buying up a foreign team.

Personally, my interest in football has waned enormously since Abramovic bought my club. I view the whole thing now as roughly akin to supporting Nintendo over Sony: you can be a fanboy if you want, but it's a bit meaningless when it's actually all just there to line the pockets of the megarich and nobody gives a stuff about the actual supporter.

 

[kabbes]

While I'm on the subject, here's another thing: the whole concept of a "big" club is now almost entirely meaningless. What does it signify any more? To the extent that it is determined by success on the pitch, this is as fluid as considering the current team and spending power, both of which are highly fluid in the game of the wank rags of billionaires. Chelsea have been a big club for a few years, Manchester City are suddenly a big club today, who knows who will be the big clubs tomorrow? Could be anyone. It's got smeg-all to do with fanbase or tradition though, I'll tell you that for nowt.

 

[tommers]

You mean like when a rich (at the time) Icelandic bought your club? I'd be careful assuming things are going to always be local.

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. If the above things happened to us (new stadium, foreign billionaire owner, no more youth players, loads of foreign fans) then I'd probably still support them but it wouldn't be the same. At the time I was happy with the Icelandics but only because they weren't Joorabchian. I like what I hear about this Intermarket group (a consortium of wealthy west ham fans, according to them) but who knows really?

Personally, my interest in football has waned enormously since Abramovic bought my club. I view the whole thing now as roughly akin to supporting Nintendo over Sony: you can be a fanboy if you want, but it's a bit meaningless when it's actually all just there to line the pockets of the megarich and nobody gives a stuff about the actual supporter.

We agree then. I'm not sure it's to line their pockets though. Do people actually make money with football clubs? Terry Brown did, I suppose.

 

[kabbes]

You're right -- "line their egos" might be a better way of putting it.

 

[chieftain]

Well yeah. it's why modern football is rapidly becoming really shit.

Just a slight re-wording: modern football is really shit

 

[tommers]

Just a slight re-wording: modern football is really shit

I'm still holding out that it's all going to change.

Fuck it, I'm going down Dulwich Hamlet.

 

[kabbes]

My friend plays for Morcambe -- can I suggest supporting them instead?

 

[tommers]

My friend plays for Morcambe -- can I suggest supporting them instead?

Might be a bit of a trek.

 

[discokermit]

any team that wasn't in the original league is just some tinpot johnny-come-lately who can never be considered a big club.

 

[mattie]

Perhaps watch the rugby. Just not Harlequins.

 

[discokermit]

Perhaps watch the rugby. Just not Harlequins.

hahaha!

 

[mattie]

hahaha!

It is just that much fun.

 

[discokermit]

It is just that much fun.

so, disillusioned by the advance of corporatism, we should go from watching the best sport in the world, to watching the worst sport in the world*?



*outside of america.

 

[kabbes]

Might be a bit of a trek.

It's the price you just have to pay for glory-hunting.

 

[mattie]

so, disillusioned by the advance of corporatism, we should go from watching the best sport in the world, to watching the worst sport in the world*?



*outside of america.

Not with that attitude.

 

[skyscraper101]

Support: Manchester United
Like: Fulham, West Ham, Manchester City, Tottenham
Respect: Arsenal
Indifferent: All the others not mentioned
Dislike: Liverpool, Birmingham, Aston Villa, Wolves
Hate: Chelsea

A lot of teams I take an interest in/like purely because I like the manager, eg. Wigan cos I like Roberto Martinez. Otherwise, I'm fairly indifferent to teams when it comes to individual players.

 

[aylee]

Support: Villa

Respect: Arsenal (for the gob-smackingly beautiful football of which they're capable at their best), Fulham (for the lovely old-fashioned ground with a neutrals section), Burnley, Stoke (both for overcoming the odds so far this season and last season in Stoke's case), Everton (for the way they continually punch above their weight under Moyes).

Indifferent: all others

Dislike: Liverpool, Manchester City, Spurs, Birmingham City (can't bring myself to hate them as I have mates who are Blues fans).

Hate: Manchester United, Chelsea.

 

[aylee]

Supporters of other premiership clubs are going to have increasing problems with that attitude, though. (Not that I disagree with you, but still). Because already 10 of 20 clubs are in very rich foreign hands, which makes them all wank rags as well. How long before the other 10 go that way too? Then it's just a matter of degree -- one rich tosspot is slightly richer than another rich tosspot, so his wank rag does better, but it's all the same thing really.

Not really. Just because a team has a rich owner doesn't mean that it necessarily merits that description. It depends on the way the club is run, whether the new owner starts interfering in the selection of the team or the choice of new players to buy. whether the new owner interferes with or nurtures its traditions and community roots, whether the financial structure of the club or the method by which it was bought puts its existence in jeopardy .... I could go on.

Good: Randy Lerner at Villa, the various owners of Arsenal (though this may change depending on whether someone is able to get outright control), the owners of Spurs (who have run the club very astutely over the last few years).

Jury out: the owners of Citeh and Portsmouth.

Bad: the Glaziers at ManUre, the American comedy duo at LOLverpool, Abramovic at Chelsea.

 

[discokermit]

Not with that attitude.

i got more where that come from.

 

[kabbes]

Not really. Just because a team has a rich owner doesn't mean that it necessarily merits that description. It depends on the way the club is run, whether the new owner starts interfering in the selection of the team or the choice of new players to buy. whether the new owner interferes with or nurtures its traditions and community roots, whether the financial structure of the club or the method by which it was bought puts its existence in jeopardy .... I could go on.

Good: Randy Lerner at Villa, the various owners of Arsenal (though this may change depending on whether someone is able to get outright control), the owners of Spurs (who have run the club very astutely over the last few years).

Jury out: the owners of Citeh and Portsmouth.

Bad: the Glaziers at ManUre, the American comedy duo at LOLverpool, Abramovic at Chelsea.

OK, well, you keep telling yourself that if it helps you enjoy the sport.

Football is dying, dude.