Exactly.
Printable View
Exactly.
Not at all, but we're not talking about me - the cities of Manchester and Liverpool have always historically had a rivalry that transcends football. Do your homework on the reason the Manchester Ship canal was built and the respective roles of each city in the slave trade. When the debate was raging about the slave trade, the scousers ran the leading opponents out of Liverpool (it was very profitable for them) and refused to sign the petition, whilst the first major meeting to oppose the slave trade in Britain was in the collegiate church (now the cathedral) in Manchester - and it was packed. From a population of 75,000 at the time, Manchester produced 20,000 signatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by hopey
I had a good discussion with NotIntaFells (Liverpool supporter) at the last Northern track league about this rivalry too. Banter between fans is fine but when a load of scousers are singing about Munich, then it's bang out of order (and where a lot of the hatred comes from). It took Hillsborough to stop that but there are still sick b*stards from each side who still sing about Munich / Hillsborough.
It's not a unique thing to have this inter-city rivalry in football - for Liverpool / Manchester read Barcelona / Madrid, Milan-Turin. The fact that they are the two most successful sides in English football is incidental.
What I really find funny is supporters of teams like Bolton, Wigan, Bury, Rochdale hating Utd. If that isn't jealousy, then what is?
I would say that most Rochdale, Bury supporters hate Man Utd for drawing locals to a team 10-20 miles away rather than the one on their doorstep.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
I don't expect they are jealous of success, they're at a completely different level, where 'success' has a whole different meaning.
a genuine rivalry down here too
forest and derby
i love it
come on you rams
same as burnley and blackburn are even burnley and preston
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
Now if you knew your history you would know why Bolton hate utd.
All to do with the 58 cup final, the Bolton team where bricked and attacked going through salford on there journey back from wembley.
I have the newspaper cutting somewhere...
I don't hate utd, I just have a dislike for there supporters (it's very easy to support a winning team), would all these 1,000's be ssupporting them if they weren't one of the best teams in Europe, what if they had never won anything...
There are more people in Bolton that support Bolton, things like that I find veery sad.
Some of us support them whether they are doing well or not. It's same at all clubs.
Take Blackburn for instance never seen as many fans when they won the premiership.
Now they do well to get 20,000 on at ewood, so you get that at all clubs.
In the end of the day the supporters only want to see there team play good football
That happens everywhere, for that one story about Bolton fans being attacked I can tell you at least 10 just detailing the walk from Everton / Liverpool to Lime St Station.Quote:
Originally Posted by hopey
Bolton have got 4 (yes four) firms - they're hardly angels are they? 43 of them were stopped from travelling to the world cup last year. I don't agree with it, but it's just one of those things. Utd fans aren't angels and Bolton's definitely aren't either.
For the record, I've been following FCUM - hardly one of the best teams in Europe, so I don't need anyone coming on here preaching what team I should support. Particularly as the nearest league club to me growing up was Man Utd anyway!
Utd wouldn't be so popular today without Munich - it's nothing to do with the recent successes, they've had the highest average attendance every year since the WW2 including in the old division 2 in the 70s.
Who did that?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
Complete rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
For example in 1988/89, Liverpool's average was 38,706 and Utd's 36,474.
But you are and have been very well supported.
I was referring to Hopey's assertion that we wouldn't support Utd if we weren't successful. My first game was a good few years before the Premier League even existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fellhell
It was an exaggeration, but if I remember rightly the SE corner of Old Trafford was being redeveloped around that time. Liverpool's attendances also dropped below 40,000 and they were at the top of their game at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by fellhell
Just had a quick look and that season was the only time in the last 34 years that Utd didn't have the highest attendance. Given the long period of failure the club went through (including relegation in 74) between the late 60s and the late 80s, it's unfair to say 'would all these 1,000's be supporting them if they weren't one of the best teams in Europe, what if they had never won anything...'. When Utd were in the 2nd division, they averaged crowds of 48,000, that's 3000 more than anyone else.
It's true Munich is the reason Man U is so popular. Man U were a smallish team until a Liverpool player made them one of the biggest clubs in the world. Had Sir Matt stayed at Liverpool its very possible United would be where City are now.
Man U have also been lucky to be THE team at each of footballs boom periods.
i.e. in the 60's when Best was one of the first football stars that transcended the game. and then in the 90's when Sky's money came in.
In 1992 there were a few clubs who had money, Sheffield Wednesday and Man U were right up there, but through management choices look at where they are now.
I've never understood liverpool fans moaning about glory supporters, when they like Man U have been so popular due to their past successes and tragedies.
Re Preston/Bury/Bolton hating Man U as they take there fans, that's just silly. If it wasn't Man U it would be city, if not city it would be Liverpool. It's the same for any North walean club.
I should also add that you don't pick your club, you are born into it. I was born in Manchester into a United family, when I grew up Liverpool were the team, but you have no say, you get given your shirt and you stick. Some of us are just lucky :-)
Pity us poor sods that were born in Nottingham.
An interesting perspective and not one I've heard before on the historical animosity between the cities of Liverpool and Manchester... but one that seems to be very biased in favour of the Macunians. While I agree that the animosity transcends football and has its roots in the industrial development of the two cities, I always thought that the basis of the hatred was that during the industrial revolution Liverpool provided the (mostly Irish) labour, the toil, the blood, the sweat and the tears that built the infrastructure of the north west, whilst the spivs in Manchester simply creamed off the profits. Admittedly this is a scouse-centric view but one that's more plausible than Liverpudlian opposition to slave labour antagonising the virtuous Mancs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
Why is that more plausible?Quote:
Originally Posted by crowhill
I think its more likely that we hate scousers as they are the nearest big team, they hate us as we are the nearest big team. No near neighbours with big clubs get on. I don't tyhink there's any need to look for some deep seated reason.99% of it is just banter, I tend to get on with scousers as there's always common ground when we meet, well the fact we both hate each other :-)
But lets face it we love it. I miss Leeds being in the league as no matter how much fun it was to see them go down, you'd rather play them than Watford. The derbies are what football is all about.
We all look for the Man U V L'Pool derbies each year as soon as the fixture list is released.
No, there's no need but that's history and it's interesting. The deep seated hatred between Barcelona and Real Madrid isn't just banter. Try telling that to Figo as he dodges out of the way of a flying pig's head...Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Cos I say so ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
But Real and Barca aren't near neighbours.
Ok there's other reasons.
People go on about the War of the roses for the hatred between Leeds and United, but TBH that's not a factor for my dislike of leeds, more one Alfe 'I'm going to cry to the papers' Inge Haaland.
Please don't tell me you're on Roy Keane's side over that???
I wouldn't have been so restrained.
Roy can do no wrong in my eyes, guys a god.
He should have got a life ban. How he can still be involved in professional football is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Though unacceptable, what Haaland did can be seen week in week out on football fields. What Keane did was vicious, premeditated brutality.
That you see in any game up and down the country week in week out.
I've had players walk on the pitch and say to me they'll break my legs, then first challenge crack. How is that not pre meditated? I don't mind, I see it as part of the game. Saying that I've done the same. Most players will have walked on a pitch knowing who they want a crack at.
Look at Balls challenge last month?
Ian Wrights on Schmeichel following many games of bickering? How was that not premeditated.. The FA banned keane for 8 games for making money out of the challenge and going on a pitch to injur an opponent. The former maybe, but the second is very very common.
I could name 10 challenges which were as bad if not worse, yet Keanes is still spoken about because it's him.
What Haaland did is rarely seen. I can't think of many examples of a player laughing at a player who is lay thinking their career may be over? I can't think of many players goading opposition players so openly in the papers 'Roys scared of me', type headlines. Every game, he did the same. He got the response he wanted, he knew that would happen. Anyway Haaland played on after that challenge, even a court of law ruled the challenge did not end his career.
And built on money raised from the slave trade. Liverpool was Britain's number 1 slave port, and 64 petitions for slavery were presented by Liverpool merchants whilst the rest of the country were petitioning against it. Penny Lane (as in the Beatles) was even named after a slave trader (James Penny) who spoke in favour of the slave trade in parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by crowhill
In fact, Liverpool actually apologised for their role in the slave trade and they are opening up a Slavery Museum in August this year, so at least they are finally admitting it now!
Why is it more plausible? One word - Peterloo. Mancunians have always been known as more radical reformists than their Scouse brethren. (You only need to look at the response of the respective supporters to being taken over by Americans for a modern day example!).Quote:
Originally Posted by crowhill
In relation to the Manchester Ship Canal, I think if you research it properly then you'll find that it was a reaction to the commercial monopoly of the Liverpool ports (like slavery, very profitable for them). Liverpool's exorbitant road tolls and harbour dues were killing trade in Manchester and it was said at the time that it was cheaper to transport the goods double the distance to Hull rather than Liverpool.
http://www.redissue.co.uk/news/loadn...TMNW&id=339221Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHeathens
http://www.redissue.co.uk/news/loadn...TMNW&id=339220
I was lucky too. Born and lived all my life in Lancaster but always been a Morecambe fan. There is even a rivalry here with Morecambe hated by Lancaster City fans (the few of them that are left that is):DQuote:
Originally Posted by IainR
On the slavery note a little known fact is that Lancaster was the 4th largest port involved in the slave trade behind Liverpool, London and Bristol.
The Heathens and I would just like to wish Liverpool every success in Athens tonight as Liverpool carry the torch for English football. Good luck Liverpool.
After that match-fixing scandal, Milan shouldn't even be in the competition anyway.
:D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by crowhill
TheHeathens is Rossoneri for tonight :cool:
Ahh I don't go with that.
Milan have been one of the best teams in Europe this season. I've not seen Man U so well beaten this year. Even the games we've lost (Chelsea, Arsenal x 2), havebeen close games, but that was't. They deserve to be there. As much as it hurts me to say so are Liverpool.
I do think its no coincidence that both teams in the final have had no meaningful games in the league since March, and so were able to rest and concentrate on the CL. It does worry me that teams so far off being the best in the or own countries can be the best in Europe. But I can't see how we can get past that and still have the top 4 in Europe. The only obviosu way is to reduce the PL to 18 clubs, but that won't happen due to the format of the league.
Lets face it we'd rather see Milan Liverpool, than TNS V Aberdeen or Derry.
I thought it's more down to the way the teams play being better suited to European Football, though obviously being able to fully focus must have helped.
If the competitions are so different in the way they're played and what is required to win, it makes sense that the best at one might not be the best at the other.