2011/2012 English Premier League thread

[carom]

I had a good time. I was a little skeptical to go to my first EPL game by myself with no ticket beforehand, but it worked out great. I found a guy selling tickets on the street a few hours before the game, paid a little bit more then face value and met a few people when I got into the stand and was having a beer. The view wasn't the best as you could tell, it was a little hard to see the other side of the field with the partial obstruction, but if it was raining i would have stayed dry.

Honestly, the level of fan engagement is very impressive. I kind of expected it to be that way after watching so many game on TV over the years, but to see it in person was quite amazing. I have to learn some of the songs next time.

Im flying home in a few hours so I can write some more about the experience then.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by carom

I had a good time. I was a little skeptical to go to my first EPL game by myself with no ticket beforehand, but it worked out great. I found a guy selling tickets on the street a few hours before the game, paid a little bit more then face value and met a few people when I got into the stand and was having a beer. The view wasn't the best as you could tell, it was a little hard to see the other side of the field with the partial obstruction, but if it was raining i would have stayed dry.

Honestly, the level of fan engagement is very impressive. I kind of expected it to be that way after watching so many game on TV over the years, but to see it in person was quite amazing. I have to learn some of the songs next time.

Im flying home in a few hours so I can write some more about the experience then.

Did you hear that stupid "Blue is our colour" song?

[carom]

Over and over and over.

They were mostly singing:

"Que Sera, Sera
Whatever Will Be, Will Be
Were going to Germany,
Que Sera, Sera"

I personally liked the individual player' songs, they were the most clever.

EDIT: oh yeah, and some song about being a bird and defecting over Tottenham, that one cracked me up.

[NBC]

Poignant article by Phil McNulty, BBC's chief football writer.

Tears of triumph for Manchester City

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/philmcnul...mancheste.html

The whole stadium was a seething, swaying mass of celebration. It was as if a valve had been opened to release the years of suffering for City and for that famously good-natured support who have been sustained through the lean years by some of the game's finest dark humour.

The instant feeling here was that this was their Nou Camp moment, on a scale of importance to this particular club that could be compared with Manchester United's last-gasp comeback to win the Champions League against Bayern Munich in the same year.

The cynics will suggest this was the day City proved the Premier League was something money could buy, but the outpouring of emotion on the pitch and in the stands when Aguero's shot hit the back of Kenny's net was the product of the old glory of the game not financial rewards, as captain Kompany was keen to point out.

[NBC]

If anyone wants some cheap entertainment, have a look at Joey Barton's twitter feed.

http://twitter.com/#!/joey7barton

He has a massive go at Alan Shearer. Quite odd that.

My personal favourite comes from another witless wonder Wayne Rooney. But fair play to him for this:

@Joey7Barton back on the super are you? Send my love to your murdering racist brother will you... Apple doesn't fall far from the tree

That made me laugh.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by carom

Over and over and over.

They were mostly singing:

"Que Sera, Sera
Whatever Will Be, Will Be
Were going to Germany,
Que Sera, Sera"

I personally liked the individual player' songs, they were the most clever.

EDIT: oh yeah, and some song about being a bird and defecting over Tottenham, that one cracked me up.

That is an Arsenal song strangely enough, but understand why it was being sung there yesterday.

[The Big Chill]

Originally Posted by NBC

I believe the key to that statement was diehard. No one ever made the claim that people can or cannot support whoever they wish. But the fervor that many of these people have for what seems to be nothing more than a random choice borders on lunacy. People have reasons for choosing to support a particular team/club, some reasons, such as geographic location, family history, involvement with said club, are certainly better than others. While I do not think that fanaticism and ardent zeal is a good thing, I can at least understand why it is that many Bolton supporters were upset that they were relegated, because a plurality of Bolton supporters are from Bolton. It actually means something to them - community pride, increased revenues, etc. Having one of these club "supporters" from Western Canada, Singapore or the Eastern Cape get all bent out of shape because their somewhat randomly selected English Premier League side didn't win the title that year is odd, very odd, and most people here (in the actual home of the EPL) find it odd too. Again this is not to suggest that people should not have an interest in foreign leagues, because they can. It is the level of fervor and aggression that people have in doing it.

Oh and good work in bringing Jagger into this debate. He is one of the only individuals posting here that I can understand being upset at his club of choice's poor state of affairs. Why? Because he is from Merseyside. And if I was going to have a cheeky punt, I'd wager that he comes from a long line of supporters who have proudly (though not currently) worn the red and white. Connections are a big thing for people when they choose to support a particular club. Randomly choosing to support the biggest or most successful club at the time then claiming them as one's own, irritates many people, myself included.

Go ahead, support whomever you want, glory hunt to your heart's content. My only wish is for these types of "supporters" to not get as visibly upset over results that have little impact upon their day to day lives and to have some perspective in all of it. It is a big ask I know, but one that is eminently achievable.

This argument annoys the hell out of me, and for some reason I only ever hear it in relation to the EPL. Why shouldn't I be as big as a fan as someone who lives in Merseyside? Teams like Liverpool and ManU are hugely dependent on the revenues they bring in from around the world and yet get offended when these fans from abroad want to be a fan of their team.

How does where you live have an impact on how much this game/team affects your day-to-day life?

[GirlySports]

Villa sacked MacLeish today; had the season gone on another week I've no doubt Villa would have been relegated - ending couldn't come fast enough.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

That is an Arsenal song strangely enough, but understand why it was being sung there yesterday.

every set of supporters sings that song, usually with Wembley in place of Germany if they are close to a cup final

[devo22]

Originally Posted by NBC

I believe the key to that statement was diehard. No one ever made the claim that people can or cannot support whoever they wish. But the fervor that many of these people have for what seems to be nothing more than a random choice borders on lunacy. People have reasons for choosing to support a particular team/club, some reasons, such as geographic location, family history, involvement with said club, are certainly better than others. While I do not think that fanaticism and ardent zeal is a good thing, I can at least understand why it is that many Bolton supporters were upset that they were relegated, because a plurality of Bolton supporters are from Bolton. It actually means something to them - community pride, increased revenues, etc. Having one of these club "supporters" from Western Canada, Singapore or the Eastern Cape get all bent out of shape because their somewhat randomly selected English Premier League side didn't win the title that year is odd, very odd, and most people here (in the actual home of the EPL) find it odd too. Again this is not to suggest that people should not have an interest in foreign leagues, because they can. It is the level of fervor and aggression that people have in doing it.

Oh and good work in bringing Jagger into this debate. He is one of the only individuals posting here that I can understand being upset at his club of choice's poor state of affairs. Why? Because he is from Merseyside. And if I was going to have a cheeky punt, I'd wager that he comes from a long line of supporters who have proudly (though not currently) worn the red and white. Connections are a big thing for people when they choose to support a particular club. Randomly choosing to support the biggest or most successful club at the time then claiming them as one's own, irritates many people, myself included.

Go ahead, support whomever you want, glory hunt to your heart's content. My only wish is for these types of "supporters" to not get as visibly upset over results that have little impact upon their day to day lives and to have some perspective in all of it. It is a big ask I know, but one that is eminently achievable.

well you're entitled to your opinion, I accept that. Don't agree one bit though.

The world isn't black and white. You can't take every single foreign supporter and deem them "glory hunters" or whatever. You don't know if a result "has little impact upon their day to day lives" or not. Those are merely guesses and prejudices. Again, you're entitled to your own opinion, but I'd call that a pretty limited view on the topic.

I'm not a worse fan because I live somewhere else. And believe me, I wouldn't save my hard-earned money to buy hugely overpriced tickets over the internet and make a trip to Old Trafford every now and then if this club didn't mean the world to me. I wouldn't stay up all night and watch Flames games if this club didn't mean the world to me either. If people don't understand that, that's fine.

PS: The Big Chill is right, the EPL is the only league where I have heard that argument too.

[NBC]

I would not be so brazen to suggest that every single foreign supporter is a glory hunter. But when you have people randomly selecting who they decide to support based largely (assumption here, granted) on current or recent results/successes, then I'd say yes, that is akin to glory hunting. Why Manchester United? Big Cristiano Ronaldo fan? Or is there a more esoteric element to your choice or reasoning? Why not West Bromwich Albion? Sheffield United? Bristol Rovers? Those are random choices as well. Or is there an overwhelming desire to attach oneself to a winner - the winner?

What is the decision-making process when someone chooses to support a foreign club, and again I'll assume this until proven otherwise - that seems to be little more than a random choice? I don't think that it is a complex phenomenon. People want to support winning clubs, regardless of any other reason, rational or irrational. I'll tell you that it is quite annoying to see how a plurality of Brits are New York Yankee, New England Patriot and Los Angeles Laker fans. It is the same basic principles regardless of which side of the pond one lives on, large swathes of sports "fans" (there I go again) are in it to support whoever is winning at that time.

How many on CP have levelled this claim against the Vancouver Canucks' fan base over the past few years? I'm not sure that this debate is unique to the EPL. I for one hear it all the time.

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by devo22

...... sure

Have you forgotten that Man United have broken the modern day transfer record more times than any other team?

Andy Cole for £7 million.
£28 million on Juan Sebastian Veron.
£29 million acquisition of Rio Ferdinand

To put those figures into context, it should be reiterated that Ferdinand cost more than Samir Nasri, Mario Balotelli and Edin Dzeko.

For all the talk of City’s incredible spending, it should be noted that United paid £25.5 million for a 19 year old Wayne Rooney – the highest fee ever paid for a player under the age of 20 – while spending £20.4 million on Anderson and €25.5 million on Nani (in the same month).

Ferguson has also paid upwards of £15 million on players like Michael Carrick (in a deal possibly rising to £18.6 million), Antonio Valencia (£16 million), and Dimitar Berbatov (£30 million).

United only have two home grown players playing regularly (and both are over 35) - though City don't have many more.

In 2007 they spent £61.7 million on Carlos Tevez, Nani, Anderson, Owen Hargreaves, Rafael and Fabio Da Silva, Rodrigo Possebon, Tomasz Kuszczak and Manucho.

They just bought De Gea for £19 million, Ashley Young for £17 and Phil Jones for £17 million.

On GD 37, Man City's starting line-up cost 161 million. Uniteds cost 169 million.

The only difference really between the teams as I see it are this: United spent over 6 or more seasons while City did it in 3. And City paid inflated prices due to the huge inflation in transfer prices in the last few years. No way you could buy Rooney for 25 million today.

United have been buying the title for years. So did Chelsea. So did Blackburn. So does Real Madrid and Barcelona. All teams 'buy' championships. And I agree - without the money and the buying of the players City too wouldn't have won. It doesn't make their win any less deserved just because they're new to the game of 'buying' championships.

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by NBC

I would not be so brazen to suggest that every single foreign supporter is a glory hunter. But when you have people randomly selecting who they decide to support based largely (assumption here, granted) on current or recent results/successes, then I'd say yes, that is akin to glory hunting. Why Manchester United? Big Cristiano Ronaldo fan? Or is there a more esoteric element to your choice or reasoning? Why not West Bromwich Albion? Sheffield United? Bristol Rovers? Those are random choices as well. Or is there an overwhelming desire to attach oneself to a winner - the winner?

You can't be a real fan of a team unless every player is born in the town in which they play.

[NBC]

^ Just like Yorkshire Cricket.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by NBC

I would not be so brazen to suggest that every single foreign supporter is a glory hunter. But when you have people randomly selecting who they decide to support based largely (assumption here, granted) on current or recent results/successes, then I'd say yes, that is akin to glory hunting. Why Manchester United? Big Cristiano Ronaldo fan? Or is there a more esoteric element to your choice or reasoning? Why not West Bromwich Albion? Sheffield United? Bristol Rovers? Those are random choices as well. Or is there an overwhelming desire to attach oneself to a winner - the winner?

What is the decision-making process when someone chooses to support a foreign club, and again I'll assume this until proven otherwise - that seems to be little more than a random choice? I don't think that it is a complex phenomenon. People want to support winning clubs, regardless of any other reason, rational or irrational. I'll tell you that it is quite annoying to see how a plurality of Brits are New York Yankee, New England Patriot and Los Angeles Laker fans. It is the same basic principles regardless of which side of the pond one lives on, large swathes of sports "fans" (there I go again) are in it to support whoever is winning at that time.

How many on CP have levelled this claim against the Vancouver Canucks' fan base over the past few years? I'm not sure that this debate is unique to the EPL. I for one hear it all the time.

I think it has more to do with the North American sports fan's mentality and the lack of parity in soccer than anything else. Most people over here think it's pointless to attach yourself to a team that never has a hope in hell of winning anything. With the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc., even the worst teams can conceivably win a championship. The EPL is similar to the MLB in that you have a couple of teams that are so far above everyone else financially that the competition really boils down to those two teams. This has actually been cited as one of the biggest reasons why the NFL has overtaken MLB as the biggest sport in North America, and even MLB has a wider variety of winners and underdog champs in the past 20 years than the EPL.

[The Big Chill]

Originally Posted by NBC

I would not be so brazen to suggest that every single foreign supporter is a glory hunter. But when you have people randomly selecting who they decide to support based largely (assumption here, granted) on current or recent results/successes, then I'd say yes, that is akin to glory hunting. Why Manchester United? Big Cristiano Ronaldo fan? Or is there a more esoteric element to your choice or reasoning? Why not West Bromwich Albion? Sheffield United? Bristol Rovers? Those are random choices as well. Or is there an overwhelming desire to attach oneself to a winner - the winner?

What is the decision-making process when someone chooses to support a foreign club, and again I'll assume this until proven otherwise - that seems to be little more than a random choice? I don't think that it is a complex phenomenon. People want to support winning clubs, regardless of any other reason, rational or irrational. I'll tell you that it is quite annoying to see how a plurality of Brits are New York Yankee, New England Patriot and Los Angeles Laker fans. It is the same basic principles regardless of which side of the pond one lives on, large swathes of sports "fans" (there I go again) are in it to support whoever is winning at that time.

How many on CP have levelled this claim against the Vancouver Canucks' fan base over the past few years? I'm not sure that this debate is unique to the EPL. I for one hear it all the time.

My point had nothing to do with why people chose who they did to support. My point was that I find it ridiculous when people say that I shouldn't/can't be as big of a supporter as you because I live further away. That is a notion that I have only come across in the EPL. My level of support has never been questioned in this way by fan bases of other teams I support.

I couldn't care less when you call me a glory hunter (although a look at the teams I support will quickly quash that idea), but when you say that I shouldn't be as invested in a team as someone who lives in England, then I can't help but argue that ridiculous claim.

[NBC]

And my point had to do with choices and decision-making. For a lot of people the why is the key. And clearly someone who supports LFC in this day and age cannot be termed a glory hunter as they have yet to win the title. That is less of an issue.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by NBC

Why Manchester United? Big Cristiano Ronaldo fan? Or is there a more esoteric element to your choice or reasoning? Why not West Bromwich Albion? Sheffield United? Bristol Rovers? Those are random choices as well. Or is there an overwhelming desire to attach oneself to a winner - the winner?

I can only assume that the reasons will differ. I have no doubt that many people got hooked in 99 or because of Beckham or because of Ronaldo or because of whatever. To be honest, I don't really care what the reasons are. As for me, it was 1996 when I discovered United. I was 10 back then, and this was when I started being interested in international football - before that, I really only cared about Salzburg, but the WC 94 and Salzburg's UEFA Cup run in 94 and first Champions League appearance in 95 basically got me interested in international football. English football always interested me most, don't really remember why. So in 1996, I cheered for England and basically cried my eyes out when the stupid Germans won after Southgate missed the penalty. Anyway, my father took me to a Champions League game between Rapid Wien and Manchester United the same year and I got hooked. Simple as that. I always hated Rapid, but I had heard a lot about this Cantona bloke and you simply don't turn down an invitation to go to a Champions League game, right? Anyway, United won and I got hooked. And that's the boring story of how devo22 became a Manchester United "supporter"

Originally Posted by SoCalFlamesFan

To put those figures into context, it should be reiterated that Ferdinand cost more than Samir Nasri, Mario Balotelli and Edin Dzeko.

and where is the problem with that? Ferdinand has played 10 years for United, was the captain for some time and a couple years ago, he was part of what probably was the best centre back pair in the world (before the injury woes began ...). I'd take Ferdinand over those players all the time, although I will admit that Nasri is a good player and Dzeko could be a gamebreaker if used properly.

Originally Posted by SoCalFlamesFan

United only have two home grown players playing regularly (and both are over 35) - though City don't have many more.

Danny Welbeck, Jonny Evans and Tom Cleverley have also played their ways into the team nicely I'd say. Plus there's Darren Fletcher, who was excellent for many years before his illness. Three home grown players in John O'Shea, Darron Gibson and Wes Brown have just left the club. There are others that could come through the ranks as well, but City have good home grown players too.

Originally Posted by SoCalFlamesFan

And City paid inflated prices due to the huge inflation in transfer prices in the last few years.

yeah, but City have inflated the prices themselves. United surely have overpaid for a few players (Berbatov and Anderson, for example), but City have set the stage with inflated transfer prices over the last few years. 32.5 million for Robinho. 18 million for Jô (a City record at the time!). 17.5 million for Santa Cruz. Kolo Toure, Bellamy, Dzeko, Aguero, Yaya Toure, Balotelli, Adebayor, Milner, Kolarov, Boateng, Tevez, Barry, Johnson, Lescott, De Jong, Wright-Phillips, Bridge ... it's been a revolving door of players coming in, and they all cost a lot of money. At times, their spending looked a bit headless. Are there any players on the team that have played there five years ago? I don't think there'll be many.

As for the other points - look, I won't stand here and say that United hasn't spent a lot. Obviously they have, there's no denying in it. But it's another philosophy ... most of the time, United have bought players that fitted a need and could improve the team in a special area (that's basically why there is huge interest in guys like Gaitan and Kagawa right now - United need help in offensive midfield). Since City got that huge money splash from that sheik, it has sometimes seemed like they virtually buy every player that can somehow kick a ball. It has improved over the time obviously, but the way they basically bought a whole new team that replaced the old one is something that United has never done in the time I have been a fan of theirs. The only teams that have done that are Chelsea and City.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by NBC

And my point had to do with choices and decision-making. For a lot of people the why is the key. And clearly someone who supports LFC in this day and age cannot be termed a glory hunter as they have yet to win the title. That is less of an issue.

Ain't that the truth. I, a born and raised Albertan, became a Liverpool fan a number of years ago when I was overseas for work and met and became fast friends with a Scouser. I was never a big footy fan before, but through our friendship, I became a LFC fan and he became a Flames fan. We both curse each other these days.

[NBC]

Good for you devo, likewise JKK. Like I said earlier, I don't think that every foreign supporter is a glory hunter, but I do think a large percentage are. It is nice to hear that there are some out there that have made choices for, well, the right reasons (how's that for pejorative?) as opposed to what is currently fashionable. Personally I'll be more than irritated if I start seeing a bunch of 15 year old kids running around the South-East, sporting sky blue Tevez and Balotelli shirts. I somehow don't see that happening as MUFC will be hard to dislodge as the club of choice in Royal Tunbridge Wells.