kalel wrote:I was aware of that  @shik - Yeah he did, publicity. It's a tough one, because I always considered the Yid chant as something proud. Much like a lot of American rap music, it is reclaiming the word whilst simultaneously never forgetting what went before it. Yet my step-father, whose side of the family are far stricter than mine finds it an uncomfortable song that he doesn't feel has a place. Certainly the deliberate hissing to replicate the gas chambers with no other intention but to insult is far worse, but the lines are definitely blurred. Edited by puddleduck at 14:30:49 05-02-2013 |
The all-new Premier League thread • Page 3232
-
puddleduck 1,875 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 10 years ago -
I think it is proud for those who do it, and it's done with good intent, but equally it offends others and opens us up to racism.
Personally, I'd prefer us to stop. It served a purpose in a different time when we were regularly subject to racist abuse and nobody cared, but that time is over. I think we should move on. I also think the same thing about the 'n word' in rap music fwiw. At some point you're perpetuating the use of a word that should be allowed to die of death, and at that point you're being counter-productive as to why you needed to subvert the word in the first place.
But equally it's not something I'm particularly militant about. When I see groups of fans of all races singing 'Yid Army' passionately at games, as a Jew I feel quite proud. It's a rare thing to see anyone being proud of being Jewish, let alone non-Jews.gif)
-
THFourteen 47,875 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoAgree totally there, i don't care what religion, race, colour or ethnic background Tottenham fans are.
You're all equally wankers in my book. -
THFourteen 47,875 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoOh, forgot smiley
.gif)
-
The-Bodybuilder 17,184 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 14 years agopuddleduck wrote:
Quite possibly.
In fact, without Chelsea's big investment from Roman and Man City's from Mansour, would anyone other than Man U have won the league since Arsenal? Is that really what we're looking at?
For one, the rise of Chelsea and City, if it never happened would've ensured clubs who "built properly"; like Everton and Spurs, would've been in the CL top 4, got even more money to invest, and thus would have enough to challenge for the title. -
Exactly. We would have been a regular CL team at least for the last five years if it hadn't been for Chelsea and City.
Not only that, but the players they've bought would have been players we might conceivably have signed. Players we had in the past like Klinsmann, Gazza, Linekar etc would never had come to Spurs today. No chance. -
The-Bodybuilder 17,184 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 14 years agoAnd that's without mentioning the fact that Spurs, Everton and even Arsenal would've been able to hold on to their players.
And then there is the effect they had on inflating wages, pushing out the rest of th eleague from getting top players. Now every top player wants 100k per week ot they tell you to piss off. -
I also again maintain that there's still lots of things a billionaire can do to make little clubs into big ones within FFP. It's just all good healthy stuff, as opposed to just buying expensive players. -
nickthegun 73,268 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoThe flipside is that manyoo would have won every trophy for the last ten years so, y'know, fuck that noise. -
nickthegun wrote:
I dunno. Arsenal seemed to be able to go toe-to-toe with United once they had a decent manager. It was only when Chelsea got their billions that Arsenal got pushed out the picture.
The flipside is that manyoo would have won every trophy for the last ten years so, y'know, fuck that noise. -
nickthegun 73,268 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoThere are still plenty of teams around the world that would have snaffled their best players, not just city. I think arsenal would have kept exactly the same trajectory as they have. Their comparative downfall is pure wenger, nothing to do with chelsea or city, -
Syrette 49,782 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoTHFourteen wrote:
Agree totally there, i don't care what religion, race, colour or ethnic background Tottenham fans are.
You're all equally wankers in my book.
-
FWB 54,407 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoDeckard1 wrote:
Nothing to read about after work.
I miss the transfer window.
-
Dougs 85,201 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 15 years agonickthegun wrote:
It's less to do with Wenger and more to do with the stadium move. Which we embarked on to compete with Utd's revenues.... Which in turn was blown out of the water by the billionaires. Sure, there are things I wish he'd done differently, but most of the path we've been on is down to being hampered by the move, with a but of it down to Wenger’s stubbornness and ideals.
There are still plenty of teams around the world that would have snaffled their best players, not just city. I think arsenal would have kept exactly the same trajectory as they have. Their comparative downfall is pure wenger, nothing to do with chelsea or city, -
nickthegun wrote:
Sure, but the point is that if Arsenal can be competitive in the absence of Chelsea and City, so could have Spurs, or Everton, or Liverpool, or Villa even.
There are still plenty of teams around the world that would have snaffled their best players, not just city. I think arsenal would have kept exactly the same trajectory as they have. Their comparative downfall is pure wenger, nothing to do with chelsea or city, -
President_Weasel 12,349 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 14 years agoYou should be careful of the antisemitism stuff, or you'll never get on Britain's Got Bakers. Everyone knows the Jews run Paul Hollywood. -
nickthegun 73,268 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 12 years agokalel wrote:
Yeah, everyone would have shuffled up two places so you would have had maybe six years CL money in the bank.
nickthegun wrote:
Sure, but the point is that if Arsenal can be competitive in the absence of Chelsea and City, so could have Spurs, or Everton, or Liverpool, or Villa even.
There are still plenty of teams around the world that would have snaffled their best players, not just city. I think arsenal would have kept exactly the same trajectory as they have. Their comparative downfall is pure wenger, nothing to do with chelsea or city,
My meagre point is that none of you would have challenged utds dominance, so im happy they spunked billions up the wall, frankly. -
But Arsenal did challenge their dominance! As did Liverpool...kinda... -
nickthegun 73,268 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoPresident_Weasel wrote:
Thats more tortured than a brown man in cia custody
You should be careful of the antisemitism stuff, or you'll never get on Britain's Got Bakers. Everyone knows the Jews run Paul Hollywood. -
nickthegun 73,268 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 12 years agokalel wrote:
I know but they fell away and it had nothing to do with chelsea or city is what im saying. They were challenging before roman came along.
But Arsenal did challenge their dominance! As did Liverpool...kinda...
Yeah, they may have finished second every year for the last ten years, but it would still have been well behind utd.
Edited by nickthegun at 16:50:34 05-02-2013 -
Blotto 2,778 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 7 years agokalel wrote:
Disagree to a certain extent. Some of it is to do with Wenger, granted, but as much as we Arsenal fans like to bleat on about how the players left because they're greedy. It's only Cesc who really left with another reason that wasn't "I want to win things" and even then that was definitely a factor. If we were challenging for the title/winning things then I'm pretty sure we'd still have Nasri/Van Persie at least. Plus a few other less high profile players.
nickthegun wrote:
Sure, but the point is that if Arsenal can be competitive in the absence of Chelsea and City, so could have Spurs, or Everton, or Liverpool, or Villa even.
There are still plenty of teams around the world that would have snaffled their best players, not just city. I think arsenal would have kept exactly the same trajectory as they have. Their comparative downfall is pure wenger, nothing to do with chelsea or city, -
What's happened to Arsenal since is irrelevant to be honest. The point is that in the absence of City and Chelsea, other clubs may well have emulated what Arsenal were doing at one point. So your statement that United would have just won everything is (perhaps) not true.
For what it's worth, I don't think I agree that what's happened to Arsenal had absolutely nothing to do with Chelsea and City. I think Wenger's experiment was partly because he knew he'd never be able to sign the equivalents to the likes of Bergkamp and Henry now that those guys were on the scene. It was partly a reaction to what was happening elsewhere. But that's a side point as I say. -
nickthegun 73,268 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoI think the opposite is true. Not being able to hold onto great players rather than sign them and that isnt chelseas fault.
The rot properly started with Ashley Cole. A season (?) after they won the league they offered the worlds best left back a 5k pay rise. I know he went to chelsea but literally any of the top 5 clubs in the world would have taken him at 90k pw.
I genuinely dont think anyone would have been able to challenge utd. Being already well established by 'doing things the right way' they would be able to piss on every other team in the league. It would take a generation of success for anyone to be able to catch them up in the traditional way, so they would continue to financially dope their way to success by buying the best players, as they always have done. -
reddevil93 14,283 posts
Seen 40 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agoCircular arguments about stuff that's been discussed loads of times in the PL thread, colour me shocked
Maybe we should have a desperate thread for racism, financial doping and Suarez' teeth -
I know I'm repeating myself, but I just think the very fact that Arsenal had such a successful period right in the middle of United's dominance shows it could be done. And let's not forget Blackburn, or how close Newcastle came.
It's all deeply hypothetical but Chelsea and City have had a profound effect on the league, and there's no way of knowing what might have happened, but I think there's a very good chance other teams will have done Blackburns and Newcastles. For example, it's a fact that Levy was courting Mourinho before Chelsea came and got him. Who knows what he could have done at Spurs. And that's just one example of how things could have panned out differently. -
reddevil93 wrote:
Shall we just go back to talking about how fucking shit De Gea is then?
Circular arguments about stuff that's been discussed loads of times in the PL thread, colour me shocked
Maybe we should have a desperate thread for racism, financial doping and Suarez' teeth -
reddevil93 14,283 posts
Seen 40 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agokalel wrote:
Touchy..
reddevil93 wrote:
Shall we just go back to talking about how fucking shit De Gea is then?
Circular arguments about stuff that's been discussed loads of times in the PL thread, colour me shocked
Maybe we should have a desperate thread for racism, financial doping and Suarez' teeth
Wasn't a criticism, hell I get involved in a fair few silly arguments myself. Just the pattern of the thread. -
We didn't offer Cole a 5k pay rise (was more like 20k I think), it was that the final offer was 5k less than Dein had verbally agreed (but didn't have Board agreement on), so Cole felt slighted (some may say justifiably). Still, 55k a week back then was a lot of money and it was his reaction that turned fans against him.
But yeah, that's certainly where it started.... And even if we had held onto him, I have no doubt he'd have left for pastures richer by now.
.gif)
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
