'I bet they wish they had a Delap now'

[Matty]

...Is this the Stoke that had a average attendance of 17,000 before getting in the Premiership.

Claims about attendance levels always make me laugh. It's all about relative support compared to size of City. Approx 2.5 million live in greater manchester. 360,000 live in the city of stoke and borough of newcastle. that makes Manchester nearly 7 times bigger. If we can attract 17000, you should be able to get 118,000 in... mmm.. and with the 27500 that turn up at the Britannia for every home game these days, you would need to be getting 190,000 in every week.

I'm quite willing to concede that Munchester is a bigger city than Stoke, but more committed fans? don't make me laugh!!

Nice distortion of the facts. Stoke has 2 clubs, Joke and Port Vale. Greater Manchester has many more than that, City, United, Stockport, Oldham, Bury, Rochdale, Bolton, Wigan, Altrincham etc.

 

[ShaunMCFC]

Claims about attendance levels always make me laugh. It's all about relative support compared to size of City. Approx 2.5 million live in greater manchester. 360,000 live in the city of stoke and borough of newcastle. that makes Manchester nearly 7 times bigger. If we can attract 17000, you should be able to get 118,000 in... mmm.. and with the 27500 that turn up at the Britannia for every home game these days, you would need to be getting 190,000 in every week.

I'm quite willing to concede that Munchester is a bigger city than Stoke, but more committed fans? don't make me laugh!!

Nice distortion of the facts. Stoke has 2 clubs, Joke and Port Vale. Greater Manchester has many more than that, City, United, Stockport, Oldham, Bury, Rochdale, Bolton, Wigan, Altrincham etc.

 

[Matty]

Claims about attendance levels always make me laugh. It's all about relative support compared to size of City. Approx 2.5 million live in greater manchester. 360,000 live in the city of stoke and borough of newcastle. that makes Manchester nearly 7 times bigger. If we can attract 17000, you should be able to get 118,000 in... mmm.. and with the 27500 that turn up at the Britannia for every home game these days, you would need to be getting 190,000 in every week.

I'm quite willing to concede that Munchester is a bigger city than Stoke, but more committed fans? don't make me laugh!!

Nice distortion of the facts. Stoke has 2 clubs, Joke and Port Vale. Greater Manchester has many more than that, City, United, Stockport, Oldham, Bury, Rochdale, Bolton, Wigan, Altrincham etc.

In fact, as of 2008, Manchester actually had a population of approx 464,000 NOT 2.5million. Stoke-on-Trent the other hand, in 2001, had a population of 457,165, so virtually identical to Manchester. Your point, therefore, is bollocks.

 

[01782]

...Stoke-on-Trent the other hand, in 2001, had a population of 457,165, so virtually identical to Manchester.

Are you really so deluded? Stoke has 250,000. The borough of Newcastle has about another 100,000.

Wherever did you get your dodgy statistics from?

Only a fool would try to put the populations of Stoke and Manchester the same. Back to school Matty!! If, indeed, you ever went in the first place.

 

[Matty]

...Stoke-on-Trent the other hand, in 2001, had a population of 457,165, so virtually identical to Manchester.

Are you really so deluded? Stoke has 250,000. The borough of Newcastle has about another 100,000.

Wherever did you get your dodgy statistics from?

Only a fool would try to put the populations of Stoke and Manchester the same. Back to school Matty!! If, indeed, you ever went in the first place.

According to the Office for National Statistics Manchester, in 2002, had a population of 422,300, they place Stoke at approx 250,000 (obviously the figures I used must have included Newcastle without specifying such). Either way it was yourself that misused statistics to try and prove a point, comparing Stoke to the entire area of Greater Manchester which encompasses several very large towns, many of which have their own football teams.

And yes thanks I did indeed go to school, I also decided I'd give college and University a try and, you know what, they only gave me qualifications from both, one of which was a BSC Honours Degree in Geography which, amongst other things, involved in depth studying of demographics, population densities and other Human Geography topics. Now, take your 12 fingers away from the keyboard before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[m27]

So what is it that you really hate about Stoke? All the money you've spent gives you automatic wins against 'a horrible dirty shite football team'. Think you'll find 'arrogance ' has more to do with your 'kin attitude than Stoke's. We've got a committed manager, team, chairman and supporters all up against twats like you who think your new found wealth brings automatic success. You'll struggle for top 4, arsehole.

Don't worry my oatcake eating, chip on my shoulder because I have no regional identity, odd speaking, ale house football worshipping friend, I've always hated Stoke. You are just one of those clubs I'm afraid.

Funnily enough, I hated you before I had some 12 fingered apes throwing blocks of concrete at me outside your ground in 1998. That just re-inforced the hatred. See you next season.

 

[Timbobs]

...Is this the Stoke that had a average attendance of 17,000 before getting in the Premiership.

Claims about attendance levels always make me laugh. It's all about relative support compared to size of City. Approx 2.5 million live in greater manchester. 360,000 live in the city of stoke and borough of newcastle. that makes Manchester nearly 7 times bigger. If we can attract 17000, you should be able to get 118,000 in... mmm.. and with the 27500 that turn up at the Britannia for every home game these days, you would need to be getting 190,000 in every week.

I'm quite willing to concede that Munchester is a bigger city than Stoke, but more committed fans? don't make me laugh!!

Obviously you lack the logic to understand the very basic part of that. I am not talking about size of city, so please don't use that as some sort of rebuttal. I was replying to a statement that Stoke had "committed fans" and simply and rightly mentioned that 2 years ago they had 10, 000 empty seats and are now filled while they're in the Premiership. Since they are now filled, your argument about city size in invalid (truly pointless too as I wasn't referring to it), so if these fans are really so committed, it's strange that a third of the weekly attendance didn't bother to show up until last year in the Premiership. Unless your definition of commitment is the same as John Terry or Ashley Cole, that's not very committed.

 

[Timbobs]

Stoke average attendance year to year of a near 30,000 stadium

2007/08 - 16,823 (lowest 11,147)
2006/07 - 15,749 (lowest 11,66)
2005/06 - 14,432 (lowest 10,121)
2004/05 - 16,455 (lowest 12,785)
2003/04 - 14,424 (lowest 10,277)
2002/03 - 14,587 (lowest 10,409)

stats courtesy of <a class="postlink" href="http://www.stokecityfc.com/page/Attendance/0,,10310~200210310,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.stokecityfc.com/page/Attenda ... 10,00.html</a>

So outside of the Premiership, the Britannia Stadium has at best only had 11,560 empty seat and at worst 13,959 which really is only half a stadium full. So again, please our resident Stoke fans preaching about the commitment of Stoke's amazing fans, explain with the universal definition of commitment how you can reconcile this with the facts presented by your own club.

 

[samharris]

So what is it that you really hate about Stoke? All the money you've spent gives you automatic wins against 'a horrible dirty shite football team'. Think you'll find 'arrogance ' has more to do with your 'kin attitude than Stoke's. We've got a committed manager, team, chairman and supporters all up against twats like you who think your new found wealth brings automatic success. You'll struggle for top 4, arsehole.

The wanker of the week award goes to "owned twat".....Yes I meant "owned"

 

[samharris]

Ho-hum.

Man City's tactics were to clog the midfield with as many men as possible at every moment. They had no intention of playing the game and spent the entire time smacking it long to Adebayor or Santa Cruz, as you did the week before. If you weren't doing that, you were tippy-tappying it on the halfway line. Stoke were the only team out there that actually looked like they wanted to attack and win the game.

Let's look at the goals. First goal was a beauty, a purposeful passing move from the back, a well manoeuvred one-two and a superb finish. Your goal was a free-kick that shouldn't have been that led to a hopeful punt into the box. Adebayor won the header on the far post to get it to the poorly marked Bellamy. The second, a long throw. Rather than calling Delap scummy, you should probably try and work out why Shay Given thought it would be better to try and jump through two of his own defenders than to stay on his line. The third goal, a fine combination of our combativeness and skill. Whelan putting in a good firm tackle, powering through your half and then Tuncay waltzing around your defence.

The best player on the pitch? Fuller, by a mile. Tuncay, Whelan and Whitehead were pretty close behind. The only player you had who looked worth the money was Kompany. I presume you still have somebody from Mark Hughes' coaching staff somewhere, because somebody had finally realised how right Mark Hughes was when he put Kompany in midfield to man-mark Sidibe and cut off our get out ball.

Bad luck, but no need for all the sour grapes.

fuck off you inbred twat...fuller the best player.....