The Sky Sports Generation

SectionF

daithijjj wrote: »

the british isles.

Ouch! Tell that to the GAA man in the Liverpool jersey. He'll give you British Isles! :eek:

Boggles

daithijjj wrote: »

I would beg to differ on that point Xavi, LFC, as with most large clubs has a much wider base than that across the british isles. Theres no point getting into this debate here but what happened affected many more people than the simple equation in your post.

Isn't it the cheapest newspaper in Britain?

People will buy it because it is 10p, the vast majority will not be put off buying it because of something that was written 20 years ago.

If Liverpool fans were really that passionate about it, they would have stopped supporting the club in 1992 since it is large quantities of Murdochs money that go into the running of the club.

It's as hypocritcal as Ash Wednesday, No beef but sure I will have this lovely bit of salmon instead.

Being passionate about something is fine, picking and choosing the application of the passion to suit your need is quite stupid.

Savman

Des V Dub13 for the worst poster of the year award '09.
Lads, dig up.

stovelid

Fair enough, it was MacKenzie, but shouldn't true Liverpool fans also be boycotting all of his boss' media, including Sky, as well? :P

Tbh, I find the idea of forcing people not to read the Sun a bit bogus. I think it's fine to boycott it yourself on a matter of principle, but Liverpool fans telling other people what to read is a bit off. That also goes for actual Liverpudlians ( who are really the only ones that should be bearing the main grudge tbh) too.

I hate the Sun of course, especially after Hillsborough, don't get me wrong, but it's not my business what people want to read.

Highsider

Xavi6 wrote: »

It isn't anything to him over a 20 year period.

Say the figure is a ballpark of £80 million pounds. That's £4 million a year, or £11,000 per day. Murdoch has a net worth of about £6 billion. I really don't think he cares.



Not belittling it but you made it out to be some sort of travisty for The Sun. It isn't.

I never said it was a "travisty for the s*n". I said it has hit their sales hard. 80m+ quid is a lot of money i'm afraid whichever way you package it. Every one sale from the s*n that does'nt go into his pockets is alright by me and by millions of LFC fans worldwide. Do you honestly think the s*n does'nt regret printing that story? I for one hope (and expect) that in another 20 years we will be still on here arguing the boycott as that means the story will still be in the public eye.

Dub13

Lads lets not make this about the Sun.We were having a good debate.

Xavi6

Highsider wrote: »

I never said it was a "travisty for the s*n". I said it has hit their sales hard. 80m+ quid is a lot of money i'm afraid whichever way you package it. Every one sale from the s*n that does'nt go into his pockets is alright by me and by millions of LFC fans worldwide. Do you honestly think the s*n does'nt regret printing that story? I for one hope (and expect) that in another 20 years we will be still on here arguing the boycott as that means the story will still be in the public eye.

I don't believe it is to a company of that magnitude. I doubt the The Sun's owners lose much sleep over the whole thing.

The use of the asterisk makes me lol btw.

CiaranC

Liverpool thread that way

---

>

daithijjj

SectionF wrote: »

Ouch! Tell that to the GAA man in the Liverpool jersey. He'll give you British Isles! :eek:

The 'british isles' is a geographical term which denotes an area on the globe, it does not have political connotations, allthough many a 'muck savage' takes it as having those connotations. Those of us with a more sensitive nature can call it the british and irish isles or whichever they chose. It is no more derogatory than somebody in this thread using the word "retarded" in decribing another comment by someone on the forum.

Highsider

Boggles wrote: »

Isn't it the cheapest newspaper in Britain?

People will buy it because it is 10p, the vast majority will not be put off buying it because of something that was written 20 years ago.

If Liverpool fans were really that passionate about it, they would have stopped supporting the club in 1992 since it is large quantities of Murdochs money that go into the running of the club.

It's as hypocritcal as Ash Wednesday, No beef but sure I will have this lovely bit of salmon instead.

Being passionate about something is fine, picking and choosing the application of the passion to suit your need is quite stupid.

You keep going round in circles there fella. It means something to the people of liverpool and to fans of the club (and others)worldwide.It's something they believe in and that's a good thing. Lets say the same event had taken place with man u fans and they had started a boycott,would you still be taking the view of "it's retarded or stupid"...me thinks not. Anyway's your views are obviously biased so i don't know why i bother. Your hatred for Liverpool is there for everybody to see .

Highsider

Xavi6 wrote: »

I don't believe it is to a company of that magnitude. I doubt the The Sun's owners lose much sleep over the whole thing.

The use of the asterisk makes me lol btw.

lol all you want. It shows your level

eagle eye

So far we've seen the Sky Sports generation which becomes Liverpool fans should be ashamed of themselves if they read the S*N and then whether it affects Murdonch.
LOL
Xavi give up on it, Rupert Murdoch is well known as a glutton for money so it does hurt him even though its not a huge amount relative to his wealth.

Dub13 you should have left the Sun out of it. That really has nothing to do with the Sky Sports generation imo. If you watch TV and follow a club without ever leaving your house you should be aware of that boycott. If you see someone reading that rag then you might have to understand that it might have something to do with the level of intelligence and there is very little they can do about that.

Xavi6

Highsider wrote: »

lol all you want. It shows your level

What 'level'? Elaborate please.

Boggles

Highsider wrote: »

Anyway's your views are obviously biased so i don't know why i bother. Your hatred for Liverpool is there for everybody to see .

My views on whether someone has the right to tell you what to read or not is biased yes.

Little bit of homework for you, tell your parents or whoever pays your sky/chorus bill that you want the sub cancelled because of your passionate views, see the reaction you get. :rolleyes:

Call Me Jimmy

I wouldn't belittle the boycott at all, in fact I give credit to people who actually do something, anything to show discontent with something.

The problem is, and it's relevant to the topic as a whole, is that there is no such thing as a moral high-ground. There's just an uneven landscape.

[/philosophing]

daithijjj

Boggles wrote: »

Isn't it the cheapest newspaper in Britain?

People will buy it because it is 10p, the vast majority will not be put off buying it because of something that was written 20 years ago.

If Liverpool fans were really that passionate about it, they would have stopped supporting the club in 1992 since it is large quantities of Murdochs money that go into the running of the club.

It's as hypocritcal as Ash Wednesday, No beef but sure I will have this lovely bit of salmon instead.

Being passionate about something is fine, picking and choosing the application of the passion to suit your need is quite stupid.

Yes, it is very cheap, i went to uni in birmingham and there was a fish and chip shop close to us and the boss bought 300 copies every thursday to put the fish and chips in, marvelous initiative i thought, soaks up the oil very well apparently.

Dave!

Highsider wrote: »

They're embarassing. Was going to a game on the ferry to Anfield there about a year ago and two "fans" of Liverpool reading the s*n newspaper and not a bother in the world. I had a word with them and was told to mind my own business.."the past is the past" etc...Not a violent person but felt like smashing my fist into their faces.:mad: Typical of fans of the club who have jumped aboard in the last 10 years or so.

Bad time to jump aboard tbh

Xavi6

daithijjj wrote: »

Yes, it is very cheap, i went to uni in birmingham and there was a fish and chip shop close to us and the boss bought 300 copies every thursday to put the fish and chips in, marvelous initiative i thought, soaks up the oil very well apparently.

And it has tits

invincibleirish

Sky Sports may have brought football to the Irish masses, but football culture in this country, as Eagle Eye mentioned earlier and i believe he is also a cranky old man, has long had a gra for the English League as well.

eagle eye

invincibleirish wrote: »

Sky Sports may have brought football to the Irish masses, but football culture in this country, as Eagle Eye mentioned earlier and i believe he is also a cranky old man, has long had a gra for the English League as well.

wat???:mad:

therecklessone

CiaranC wrote: »

I think the point is that these lads are unaware that football is 150 years old, and has history and traditions that run deep; not that football is better or worse at this point in time.

Which is maybe why you get support for the likes of European superleagues and all-star games on here.

You keep holding up tradition as a stick to beat others with on this forum, but what traditions would you like us to observe?

It used to be the case that footballers were amateurs and professionalism was a dirty word.

The game that was invented by the English, and whose rules at that stage were largely written by the four British FAs, featured no British side in it's premier competition until 1950, due to their withdrawal from FIFA in 1920, partly as a protest at the "general feeling that there was now too much foreign influence in what was surely a British game" Source

You rail against the idea of a European Superleague, yet the European Cup is in existence for less than half the time that football has been played as a codified sport. On a similar note to the point above, the inaugural tournament featured no English side.

It used to be the case that no foreigners could play in the Italian league.

Football evolves, you can piss and moan all you want that but is as much a certainty as the pope wearing a funny hat. Why do you get to decide what we keep as sacrosanct?

The blokes I usually travel to Spurs games with are mostly older than me, a lot went in the 70s and 80s when being a football fan meant fighting your way into and out of a football stadium, when you travelled on WW2-era British Rail rolling stock football specials and were met by police dogs and riot truncheons on arrival at your destination. In those days, violence and racism were rife, and if you didn't like it tough.

Most of those guys hate what football is now...you know what? The generation that came before them hated what my mates saw as the norm as well. Bill Nicholson walked away from Spurs after witnessing the carnage on the terraces in the 74 Uefa Cup final. For his generation that sort of behaviour was anathema.

Did you know that until quite recently, football fans in the UK capital would routinely go and see their rivals play at home if their own side was away and they couldn't afford to travel? Spurs one week, Arsenal the next. I know plenty that did it. West Ham and Spurs did the same up until the late 80s, when the ICF wrought havoc on the Park Lane and Shelfside terraces. Now the two sets of fans cannot abide each other.

Things don't always stay the way they were, you can try set yourself up as the boards.ie authentic football fantm all you want, but your experience is just one of many.

Xavi6

invincibleirish wrote: »

Sky Sports may have brought football to the Irish masses, but football culture in this country, as Eagle Eye mentioned earlier and i believe he is also a cranky old man, has long had a gra for the English League as well.

Bahahaha brilliant!

CiaranC

therecklessone wrote: »

You keep holding up tradition as a stick to beat others with on this forum, but what traditions would you like us to observe?

It used to be the case that footballers were amateurs and professionalism was a dirty word.

The game that was invented by the English, and whose rules at that stage were largely written by the four British FAs, featured no British side in it's premier competition until 1950, due to their withdrawal from FIFA in 1920, partly as a protest at the "general feeling that there was now too much foreign influence in what was surely a British game" Source

You rail against the idea of a European Superleague, yet the European Cup is in existence for less than half the time that football has been played as a codified sport. On a similar note to the point above, the inaugural tournament featured no English side.

It used to be the case that no foreigners could play in the Italian league.

Football evolves, you can piss and moan all you want that but is as much a certainty as the pope wearing a funny hat. Why do you get to decide what we keep as sacrosanct?

The blokes I usually travel to Spurs games with are mostly older than me, a lot went in the 70s and 80s when being a football fan meant fighting your way into and out of a football stadium, when you travelled on WW2-era British Rail rolling stock football specials and were met by police dogs and riot truncheons on arrival at your destination. In those days, violence and racism were rife, and if you didn't like it tough.

Most of those guys hate what football is now...you know what? The generation that came before them hated what my mates saw as the norm as well. Bill Nicholson walked away from Spurs after witnessing the carnage on the terraces in the 74 Uefa Cup final. For his generation that sort of behaviour was anathema.

Did you know that until quite recently, football fans in the UK capital would routinely go and see their rivals play at home if their own side was away and they couldn't afford to travel? Spurs one week, Arsenal the next. I know plenty that did it. West Ham and Spurs did the same up until the late 80s, when the ICF wrought havoc on the Park Lane and Shelfside terraces. Now the two sets of fans cannot abide each other.

Things don't always stay the way they were, you can try set yourself up as the boards.ie authentic football fantm all you want, but your experience is just one of many.

Good, interesting post as usual trd, fair play.

As you well know from experience of football fans, my opinions on football are my own and intransigent, and they certainly wont be 'evolving' with the current trends.

SectionF

daithijjj wrote: »

The 'british isles' is a geographical term which denotes an area on the globe, it does not have political connotations, allthough many a 'muck savage' takes it as having those connotations. Those of us with a more sensitive nature can call it the british and irish isles or whichever they chose. It is no more derogatory than somebody in this thread using the word "retarded" in decribing another comment by someone on the forum.

Perhaps the fact that you deride as muck savages those who question its use indicates that it may be political, and that your use of it is. Certainly, I don't see it in common usage here or elsewhere by Irish fans of British clubs.

Anyway, not to drag the thread off topic... it's all part of the commodification of the game, a large part of which is about media investment breaching social and geographic boundaries.

daithijjj

Xavi6 wrote: »

And it has tits

So, to recap, it has tits and it soaks up oily fish. I believe these to be all the advantages going for it.

Racing Flat

Dub13 wrote: »

or the ones who bring a tricolor.

Big +1.


Even worse IMO are those who bring a tricolour to a concert :eek:

Certainly makes me super proud and patriotic when someone throws a tricolour to Robbie Williams and he says 'this is the best crowd we've played to, I love Ireland' whilst raising the flag :rolleyes:. I can't go to U2 concerts anymore because of the tricolours .

keane2097

I actually have yet to hear any argument for why the older generation is superior to the Sky Sports generation tbh...

Is it the violence or the high-horsing ye're holding so dearly to lads?

CHD

Lol at this thread. Loi fans are a bitter bunch. People can support who they want so ****ing what if its in england.

Dub13

This thread maybe a milestone for the soccer forum,nearly 200 posts on a fairly contentious issue and not one reported post.The way debate should be IMO.

Boggles

Dub13 wrote: »

This thread maybe a milestone for the soccer forum,nearly 200 posts on a fairly contentious issue and not one reported post.The way debate should be IMO.

REPORTED!

keane2097

Dub13 wrote: »

This thread maybe a milestone for the soccer forum,nearly 200 posts on a fairly contentious issue and not one reported post.The way debate should be IMO.

Not only that, a fair number of the replies have been from Boggles Public Enemy Number 1 and still no reports :pac:

EDIT: Oh Boggles

daithijjj

SectionF wrote: »

Perhaps the fact that you deride as muck savages those who question its use indicates that it may be political, and that your use of it is. Certainly, I don't see it in common usage here or elsewhere by Irish fans of British clubs.

Anyway, not to drag the thread off topic... it's all part of the commodification of the game, a large part of which is about media investment breaching social and geographic boundaries.

My apologies, perhaps the use of muck savages was more flippant than i intended at the time. It is used very commonly in my experience but not in football i suppose. It is used quite a bit in golf and sailing and other sports that try and find a 'champion' of these particular shores. And other stuff too, like people who follow migration patterns of birds, and im not referring to 'the lads' from the local club out on the lash on a saturday night.;)

Boggles

keane2097 wrote: »

Not only that, a fair number of the replies have been from Boggles Public Enemy Number 1 and still no reports :pac:

EDIT: Oh Boggles

I wish, last count I was only Public Enemy Number 3.

therecklessone

There's a recent phenomena at Spurs known as the "waiting-listers" aka "5 minute *****rs" (as in they've not been going a wet weekend)

Usually comes up when we draw some lower division side in the early stages of a domestic cup, or a home tie in the group stages of the Wafer against a team from The Dog and Duck...season tickets holders can't be arsed going, so their seats are released to members, many of whom are on the ST waiting list...meanwhile the regulars sit at home, and pontificate how the crowd is sh1t and none of them make any noise...

Somehow the regulars miss the irony of slating people who actually make the effort to see us play sh1t against a team of "no-marks" while they think their own sh1t doesn't stink.

That fcuks me off more than anything.

_blank_

therecklessone wrote: »

There's a recent phenomena at Spurs known as the "waiting-listers" aka "5 minute *****rs" (as in they've not been going a wet weekend)

Usually comes up when we draw some lower division side in the early stages of a domestic cup, or a home tie in the group stages of the Wafer against a team from The Dog and Duck...season tickets holders can't be arsed going, so their seats are released to members, many of whom are on the ST waiting list...meanwhile the regulars sit at home, and pontificate how the crowd is sh1t and none of them make any noise...

Somehow the regulars miss the irony of slating people who actually make the effort to see us play sh1t against a team of "no-marks" while they think their own sh1t doesn't stink.

That fcuks me off more than anything.

Oh yes, them **** are the epitome of the plastic fan that I so despise.

Buy a season ticket then pick and chose which games you go to, leaving empty seats at "sold-out" grounds.

:mad:

eagle eye

Xavi6 wrote: »

Bahahaha brilliant!

Féck off you too.

I'm not cranky:mad:

Savman

Let's just stop flirting with the real issue and have it out once and for all ffs.

LoI V PL megathread ftw. 100 men enter, 50 men leave.

Boggles

Anyone remember Eurosport Germany analogue reception pre 92?

Now that was a generation, oldskool!!

Edit: Some great skin flicks too buts that for a different thread.

keane2097

Savman wrote: »

Let's just stop flirting with the real issue and have it out once and for all ffs.

LoI V PL megathread ftw. 100 men enter, 50 men leave.

I'm in.

CiaranC

This thread has nothing to do with the LOI.

_blank_

CiaranC wrote: »

This thread has nothing to do with the LOI.

Exactly, but the victims like to play it otherwise.

Guy:Incognito

Dub13 wrote: »

Here is one of the worst examples of this,a mate took this pic back at the Liverpool Wigan in August.If this is you then all I have to say is you are a tool.

Is that Rafa?:)

Boggles

CiaranC wrote: »

This thread has nothing to do with the LOI.

This thread has nothing to do with the title either, but thats not stopping us.

Savman

Boggles wrote: »

Anyone remember Eurosport Germany analouge reception pre 92?

Not that was a generation, oldskool!!

Statto!!!
"And he passes it to....er......Diego....uh....something"

Boggles

Savman wrote: »

Statto!!!
"And he passes it to....er......Diego....uh....something"

Relive, you had to love it.

Anyone old enough here to remember Screensport?

Savman

Des wrote: »

Exactly, but the victims like to play it otherwise.

Oh, you shit stirrer

I'm tellin ye. This needs to happen to shut yiz up for a while.
I love my PL.

Savman

Stekelly wrote: »

Is that Rafa?:)

No, otherwise it would have worked out for Robbie :pac:

Headshot

Savman wrote: »

No, otherwise it would have worked out for Robbie :pac:

Savman wrote: »

Oh, you shit stirrer

....

Savman

Headshot wrote: »

....

Y'see, I am both pot and kettle. A first for boards.

invincibleirish

Villa fans v LoI & PL fans. Just to make it fair is all im saying.