Football 18/19

[thetime]

9 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Traditional big club is a misnomer. Football has been going professionally for 120 years ish. Out of that Liverpool have been a big club since the 70? All paid for by outside investment as well funnily enough. 

Liverpool won the league title in every decade until the noughties. 

You do seem to have a chip about fans going on about city’s cash. 

[Wooderson]

City crowds bigger than Libbpule's?

[lost]

23 minutes ago, eastynh said:

This big club stuff is a load of shite. How far are we going back to fulfill the 'traditional criteria'?  

It definitely doesn't mean anything since the creation of the premier league but that does create a "year zero" for people of a certain age who see it as two distinct periods. As mentioned its the 6 clubs who won 20+ trophies during the old football league period. i remember the phrase being used during the 80's but its irrelevant now. Only interesting how much of the extra money and investment has gone in London and how much the midlands has been screwed over as we've become a global league.

Edited April 24, 2019 by lost

[ThomThomDrum]

12 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Traditional big club is a misnomer. Football has been going professionally for 120 years ish. Out of that Liverpool have been a big club since the 70?

You do realise LFC won league titles before the 70s? 

And Anfields record capacity was way before that...(which has nothing to do with much really) 

You seem to look for stats/angles to suit your narrative.... ? 

like it or not City are not viewed by anyone, other than City fans maybe, as one of the historical big clubs. You know this. 

Anyway, what does it matter? 

It doesn’t 

Why do you care what others think of your club? If what they are doing currently is making you happy then fuck everyone else and fuck people’s interpretation of history. Stop getting ur knickers in a twist over nothing and enjoy it...

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, Wooderson said:

City crowds bigger than Libbpule's?

 

9 minutes ago, thetime said:

Liverpool won the league title in every decade until the noughties. 

You do seem to have a chip about fans going on about city’s cash. 

I have a chip about it being ok for one team to do it but not another.

[eastynh]

4 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

You do realise LFC won league titles before the 70s? 

And Anfields record capacity was way before that...(which has nothing to do with much really) 

You seem to look for stats/angles to suit your narrative.... ? 

like it or not City are not viewed by anyone, other than City fans maybe, as one of the historical big clubs. You know this. 

Anyway, what does it matter? 

It doesn’t 

Why do you care what others think of your club? If what they are doing currently is making you happy then fuck everyone else and fuck people’s interpretation of history. Stop getting ur knickers in a twist over nothing and enjoy it...

I do know they did, but they were no bigger than most teams till the 70's, hence why I said the traditional thing is a load of bollocks. Thats why I asked what the criteria is for a traditional big club. 

I am not getting my nickers in a twist, I am just contributing to a discussion on a forum.  Surely that is what forums are for? ?‍♂️

[thetime]

10 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

City crowds bigger than Libbpule's?

Think he’s confused, it’s when united played there after old Trafford got bombed.

[thetime]

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I do know they did, but they were no bigger than most teams till the 70's, hence why I said the traditional thing is a load of bollocks. Thats why I asked what the criteria is for a traditional big club. 

I am not getting my nickers in a twist, I am just contributing to a discussion on a forum.  Surely that is what forums are for? ?‍♂️

As a season ticket holder at city, explain this one.

When City were shit they were getting great crowds with a passionate support. Now you are brilliant and at the top, you can’t get the crowds in on a regular basis. Really can’t understand that one.

Edited April 24, 2019 by thetime

[The Nal]

6 minutes ago, thetime said:

As a season ticket holder at city, explain this one.

When City were shit they were getting great crowds with a passionate support. Now you are brilliant and at the top, you can’t get the crowds in on a regular basis. Really can’t understand that one.

Ticket prices. Someone has to pay for it all! Quick google - season tickets went up from £515 in 2011 to £860 in 2015. City fans were paying Championship prices and 3 years later they're paying £50 for a seat in level 2 of the east stand against West Brom. 

They would rather work off the new concert model of less people who pay more each and they've priced their core fanbase out of the club. 

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, thetime said:

As a season ticket holder at city, explain this one.

When City were shit they were getting great crowds with a passionate support. Now you are brilliant and at the top, you can’t get the crowds in on a regular basis. Really can’t understand that one.

In reply to your question, we get more fans now than we did during the dark days. That loyal following has not disappeared. Then fans who were lauded as being so loyal and passionate are now being chastised for empty seats. Like most teams we have a hardcore of local fans. We just have not attracted the huge amount of day trippers and glory hunters yet. If the success continues they will come. Citys crowds are absolutely fantastic really, considering it is a predominantly working class support which also draws its core support from the same City as arguably the most supported club in the world.

The empty seats thing is just media bullshit to have a pop at City. The crowds are actually great. No one has a pop at Barca and they hardly get anywhere near filling their stadium. Arsenal had loads of empty seats, you could still buy tickets for Liverpools Champions League quarter final this year, the day before the game, the media did not make a song and dance about that. United regulary have empty seats. It just seems a concerted effort to belittle City over though.

What really annoys me though is the pricks in the media who don't pay for their tickets having a pop. Instead of ridiculing, why they not pushing for cheaper tickets so that more people can afford to go?

 

[Wooderson]

Easty only on Button fucking Moon could you buy tickets for the Porto game the day before. Lies.

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Arsenal had loads of empty seats

to be fair, when Arsenal have empty seats (most of the time) they're tickets-sold-and-paid-for empty seats, which isn't the case at other clubs with empty seats.

[Wooderson]

City one up within 7 mins.

[The Nal]

12 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

City one up within 7 mins.

"Oh and Sterlings in here, and Sterling scores...."

[Wooderson]

3 minutes ago, The Nal said:

"Oh and Sterlings in here, and Sterling scores...."

?

[Homer]

With United being at home, think it's plausible they could squeeze a draw out of City. That would appear to be the past hope for Liverpool's title challenge!

[thetime]

@Wooderson out on the beer tonight.

 

[Wooderson]

When we were shite, Utd were ace. Now we’re ok, and Utd are shite. Funny that. 

Suffice to say I think you’ll be hammered tonight. Awful side, abysmal coach.

[kaosmark2]

3 hours ago, lost said:

It definitely doesn't mean anything since the creation of the premier league but that does create a "year zero" for people of a certain age who see it as two distinct periods. As mentioned its the 6 clubs who won 20+ trophies during the old football league period. i remember the phrase being used during the 80's but its irrelevant now. Only interesting how much of the extra money and investment has gone in London and how much the midlands has been screwed over as we've become a global league.

There's other times you could try and separate periods though. Teams like Forest, Newcastle, Leeds, City, have a load of trophies, tradition, and except for Forest still a large fanbase that stuck with them even in times outside the top division, going back to the 40s. I see "the big 4/big 6" as a modern media Prem creation, and not something that's particularly relevant when you talk about pre-Prem history. A "traditional big 6" going back before the Prem is just choosing to define another cut off point, same as how "the big 4" was choosing the 2004 post-Abrahamovic cut-off point.

[pink_triangle]

From experience when fans talk about other clubs attendances, their own club is generally underperforming on the pitch.

[Wooderson]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

From experience when fans talk about other clubs attendances, their own club is generally underperforming on the pitch.

City’s attendances are gash.

[kaosmark2]

18 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

From experience when fans talk about other clubs attendances, their own club is generally underperforming on the pitch.

Agreed.

Speaking as a fan of a club with good attendance and shit performance.

[thetime]

48 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

When we were shite, Utd were ace. Now we’re ok, and Utd are shite. Funny that. 

Not really funny, you’ve still won fuck all. 

[pryce]

Leeds have amazingish PR... We are always thought of a team who have loads of trophies.... We have hardly won fuck all..... Have plenty of 2nd places and runner ups though 

[pink_triangle]

Man utd holding their own so far, not the demolition job many were predicting.