Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LondonBrown

Big Gay Soccer Thread

Recommended Posts

Cysko man! Come on! Choose a team similar to the Browns- Arsenal are consistently good, solid support, a nice bunch, but quiet...so quiet! Shooosh.....no, you still can't hear them, that was a pin drop!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Chris mate, Villa haven't really suffered, no where what West Ham have. When was the last time you went down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cysko man! Come on! Choose a team similar to the Browns- Arsenal are consistently good, solid support, a nice bunch, but quiet...so quiet! Shooosh.....no, you still can't hear them, that was a pin drop!!

Why would I ever choose to support a bad team? I was born into browns fandom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ha, that's the thing, West Ham are on the verge of greatness, will have an iconic stadium next year, have superb support and a better kit. Trust me Cysko the Arse are shit ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My team is Liverpool. My Mom's family is from there. Just like I was born into the Browns fandom, I was also born into being a Liverpool fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try to answer your questions Gipper, but this only imo. I think the clubs in the biggest cities (London, Manchester and Liverpool) are the teams that dominate and they also have the biggest stadiums with the most loyal support. That isn't coincidence. Virtually all have now been bought out by mega rich owners and in soccer that makes a big difference.

 

Let me give you an example of one obvious exception- a team I despise, Chelsea. The year they got promoted, to what became the EPL eventually, they were playing at home in their last game to Birmingham I think. They needed to win the game to be Div 2 champions. 12,000 attended. They are pathetic. That is their natural level of support. A wealthy Russian buys them and buys success and now they are a brand which everyone adores. They are the exception.

 

Man City, Manure (Man Utd), Liverpool and Arsenal are all big clubs. Tottenham ( who I don't like either, but for other reasons) are a big club in waiting and are from London. My team, West Ham (also London- Arsenal, Tottenham and West Ham are the only 3 big clubs in London), are also a big club in waiting, but to make the leap now need mega rich owners. Both Tottenham and West Ham have sizeable fan bases and are moving shortly in to big stadiums which they will both fill. West Ham dominate Essex and East London and Tottenham share North London with Arsenal, but dominate Hertfordshire.

 

England's second biggest city Birmingham should theoretically be able to compete, but it has some major let downs which stop it doing so. 1. Their fans suck- take a look at their half empty grounds when things go wrong. 2. They don't appeal to rich buyers because they are not in London or the North West. This is also Newcastle's problem, although their fans are loyal. On my theory the only other club that could make the transition to compete is Everton as they have great fans, are planning to build a bigger stadium, are in Liverpool, but....have no money.

 

Money is making other teams in England competitive, but only those teams with good fan bases and good stadiums plus good training facilities and academies will stay at the top. At this moment in time I can only see Manure, Man City (Citeh), Arsenal, Chelscum staying at the top. Liverpool, Tottenham and West Ham will soon be kicking down the doors to be let in. What money is doing is allowing these teams to buy players who can earn the top bucks, but crucially buy very good players who don't charge the top dollar as the 'big boys' get fleeced by the top players agents. To give you examples of this type of player West Ham have bought Dimitri Payet who is superb, but players like this are only now coming to West Ham because we are moving to the Olympic Stadium and can now pay their wages.

 

In terms of the MLS I see no reason why it won't be able to compete eventually. Americans produce world class athletes and take competition very seriously. The USA has lots of money and lots of people. Americans love sport. The only reason I say eventually is because soccer I believe still needs to grow in the USA and you still need to develop training academies and experienced coaches, but all this will come in time and I hope it does. I would love to see the day when American teams beat Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Juventos, AC Milan, and any English club apart from West Ham. And if you're ever over during our season and West Ham are at home, let me know and I will take you to a game, as I have 2 season tickets.

Could the difference be that in American sports leagues there is so much "revenue sharing" that while there are certain disparities, the money isn't the biggest thing?

Is there no revenue sharing in the EPL. Primarily national broadcast revenues. That is what keeps parity.

 

In the NFL/NBA/NHL there are salary caps/floors which somewhat take disparate money revenues out of the picture.

MLB does not have a salary cap.....and for some time it was a big problem. The big money teams were always winning....or at least in the picture to win......Yes, the Yankees.

But lately.....even though the Yankees/Dodgers and others still have the big money, downtrodden, lower revenue teams have become competitive:

The Kansas City Royals are now champs after 20 years of bottom feeding. The Pittsburgh Pirates, the Houston Astros, even the Cubs.....all with extensive bottom feeding histories have now become the teams to watch.

While there is no salary cap in baseball....there is revenue sharing....which may be why these former forlorn clubs are now competitive.

 

Could the same happen there? Is there revenue sharing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm just arbitrarily picking an English soccer team I'm going to pick a good one.

Then it wouldn't be an arbitrary choice, it would be a FRAK like choice, no? Arbitrary would mean random....not backing the best.

 

If I were to choose, I too would probably choose Liverpool. My uncle lived there and was a Liverpool supporter. (so, that choice would not be arbitrary). Though, I think he was more into rugby. He gave me a Liverpool Rugby jersey when I went to visit him 40 years ago. And my cousin....his son...is a big rugby guy. He travels the world following rugby. (he.....an Englishman....says most soccer players are preening pansies.....his words)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Chris mate, Villa haven't really suffered, no where what West Ham have. When was the last time you went down?

What are you asking him? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, unlike in the NFL there is relegation in the football leagues. For example in the EPL the 3 teams who finish last play in the league below the next year. The top 2 teams of the division below (called the Championship) go up to the EPL and the 4 teams below the top 2 play off to see who the third team is to go up. This goes through all 4 professional leagues and in to the non professional leagues. So my question to Chris was when did Villa last get relegated to the Championship? It was a long time ago. Despite their size West Ham have been relegated a number of times, but have been in the EPL for the last 4 seasons. Villa are currently bottom of the EPL and the bottom placed team by Christmas has always been relegated apart from in one season. So although Villa fans have been suffering recently traditionally they are Birmingham's biggest team and constantly in the EPL. This is why I was saying Hammers fans have suffered a lot more pain.

 

You're right about the disparity in English football compared to American sports. There is no attempt to reduce the gap. The FA (ruling body of football in England and Wales) decided to bring in a Financial Fair Play system supposedly to reduce the gap. The morons thought that by restricting clubs to spending a fixed proportion of their income on players and their salaries this would help, and it was connected to the amount they had spent in their previous season. So when clubs like Man City spend £150-200 million on players whereas top 10 teams like West Ham can only afford to spend £20-30 million all they were doing was increasing the disparity! They were also hoping to stop smaller clubs spending too much and going bust. There is so much money in European football and traditions have been so ingrained that I think it is too late for the football authorities to curb the powers of the biggest teams. If they tried they would probably just set up their own league of mega rich clubs and govern themselves.

 

The only thing reducing the gap is the sheer amount of money EPL clubs now receive due to TV deals. These are so vast that teams can spend money on attracting players from UK/Europe that normally wouldn't have been interested in playing for teams like Swansea, Stoke, Southampton etc. The EPL is the richest league in the World and the traditional European power houses of Italy and Spain have been caught up with. Players now want to play in England whereas for decades most wanted to go to Italy and Spain. There is no reason why Man City shouldn't be competing for the European Cup, but the difference seems to be the tactics and ball skills which Barcelona and Real Madrid remain better at. The Barcelona teams of recent years have been phenomenal as have Bayern Munich. Chelscum, Man Citeh and Arsenal are all through to the next stage of the European Cup competitions this year and could do very well. Man Utd went out this week (ha ha ha)

 

If there is a connection to an English club this a good reason to follow them. I wouldn't just pick one though I would research and choose one that most suits you based on location, tradition, colours, reputation, fans....

 

It's just a thought, but this could be why the NFL is getting so popular in England? No relegation, much greater parity and your team should win a division at some point. There are of course exceptions! And it's also so much better to watch. And Gipper, your relation is right, footballers are a bunch of whimps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it wouldn't be an arbitrary choice, it would be a FRAK like choice, no? Arbitrary would mean random....not backing the best.

 

If I were to choose, I too would probably choose Liverpool. My uncle lived there and was a Liverpool supporter. (so, that choice would not be arbitrary). Though, I think he was more into rugby. He gave me a Liverpool Rugby jersey when I went to visit him 40 years ago. And my cousin....his son...is a big rugby guy. He travels the world following rugby. (he.....an Englishman....says most soccer players are preening pansies.....his words)

That is random. I don't know anything about any of them except I've heard of arsenal before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is random. I don't know anything about any of them except I've heard of arsenal before.

But, saying "I am going to follow the winningest teams" is neither random nor arbitrary.....it is a specific choice you make on who you want to follow: the ones who win.

That is how the Steelers/Cowboys and a few others got to be a FRAK fan base.

 

I mean, if choosing a big winner is why you choose a team, so be it. Just admit it. Though I prefer to go the "I have a connection" route.

 

And hell another reason....besides the "my uncle was a Liverpudlian" connection, for people where I live to support Liverpool:

Fellow Akronite LeBron James is a part owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happened to google arsenal because it was only one of two English soccer teams I've ever heard of. The other was Manchester united. Upon googling them I noticed they were the tenth ranked team in the world. Nothing more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't choose Arsenal because they are only one of two teams you've ever heard of in England?! Well, you can....but if it's glory you hope for you're backing the wrong horse. If you're determined to follow shit (Arse, Manure) you'd be better going for manure and then you'd have a rivalry with Gipper as Liverpool and Manure are bitter enemies. Youd have a shit rivalry Poo v Manure! ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh don't get me wrong. I have no intention of following any soccer team foreign or domestic. The game does nothing for me. Hockey either. Basketball and (American) football is where my loyalties lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only watched the Olympic version and whIle it can be an amusing diversion I wasn't vested in it at all. I do expect it to pick up steam here in light of the concussion concerns in football but that's for my kids to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happened to google arsenal because it was only one of two English soccer teams I've ever heard of. The other was Manchester united. Upon googling them I noticed they were the tenth ranked team in the world. Nothing more than that.

I kind of like the name though: Arsenal. Sounds "tough". You know: this is where we keep stuff that blows shit up. How did they get the name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only watched the Olympic version and whIle it can be an amusing diversion I wasn't vested in it at all. I do expect it to pick up steam here in light of the concussion concerns in football but that's for my kids to deal with.

FYI.....I heard the statistic: more kids here get concussions playing soccer than do playing football. I don't know if kids are kicking each other in the head a lot or what. In football at least they wear a helmet for protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of like the name though: Arsenal. Sounds "tough". You know: this is where we keep stuff that blows shit up. How did they get the name?

They were originally workers from the woolwich arsenal 'guns n shit' factory.

 

That's one thing I like about soccer, the teams have organic roots, like west ham as we talked about before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like their nickname..... "The Gunners" but I don't like them as a team though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize Columbus had a team. If they do, and you didn't just make that up, I hope they win.

 

is that considered Support?

 

WSS

They do have a team, I did not make it up....they played for the MLS title, but lost to Portland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, with this move....and the move of the Rams also to LA.....guess who may be in line to fill the void in those cities: yes, the "gay" sport. The MLS is looking at being at 28 teams by around 2020-2022.

Prime MLS expansion targets are: St. Louis, which the NFL abandoned, Sacramento...which, if the Raiders move to LV, it along with Oakland which constitutes the "East Bay" fan base of the Raiders. San Antonio/Austin, Raleigh, Tampa, Detroit....and now, I suspect San Diego could easily be high on the list to put an MLS team in. Huge Hispanic, soccer oriented population....no competing "real" football team.

The MLS is already in the largest 3-4 non NFL markets: Portland, Orlando, Columbus, Salt Lake

Going into Sacramento and San Diego and San Antonio and St. Louis and Raleigh would put them into like 8 of the 30-32 largest Metropolitan areas in the US....with no NFL competition in those markets (plus they are in Toronto and Montreal)

The largest metro area in the country that an MLS team is not in is Detroit (#10 largest metro area)...and Detroit is also on the target list for MLS expansion.

 

If an MLS team went into Detroit, guess which metropolitan area would be the largest without an MLS team? Answer: Cleveland/Akron/Canton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "soccer" gay? Is this a trick question? :lol:

 

Soccer, recess for big kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of my post above is that I think it is unjustifiable for the NFL to cede those markets mentioned above to the "gay" sport.

 

Of the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the USA, the NFL is absent from 6 of them.

 

After proposed expansion, the MLS will be absent only from at most 2-3, including Cleveland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the soccer players aren't rolling around on th floor in their underwear like UFC guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×