Yeah I guess. But I meant feeling connected. I could choose a team now and promise myself I’ll follow them, but I don’t think I’d feel connected until I started putting in the time.
Edit: Or had put in x amount of time. Dunno how long x is.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Long distance fans
- Thread starter Lucky Toma
- Start date
Edit: Or had put in x amount of time. Dunno how long x is.
Bilboblue
Well-Known Member
I forgot to add, my mothers side of the family is from Prestwich, but you wouldn't know that by my accent. I was also born in Singapore (father in the army).....so I'm probably more of a rag than a rag is !I started by saying people would be uncomfortable with this.
I never said you had to justify your choice of clubs. I like you I am entitled to an opinion and there is no need to slag me off.
I genuinely don't get it why some people choose to support clubs who they have no connection to.
If your dad or uncle or who ever gave you your affilliation great.
I was just posting my opinion and you are entitled to yours.
And if you are calling a kid from Wythenshawe a snob you know very little about Manchester!
By snobbery, I meant looking down on others, just because they don't 'talk proper'.
Vienna_70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 36,885
- Location
- 100, 32, 106, +79, 19
- Team supported
- Treble Winners 2022/23.
They tend to 'support' the most famous teams and either rarely go or destroy the environment doing so.
A lot are mainly either the late 60s to early 80s fans or the first Keegan season, or the 2007 takeover onwards.
Anyone who 'chooses' a team isn't a real fan, more a customer.
I chose City.
January 1970, aged seven in Cornwall. My dad is a rugby man; mum had no interest in sport whatsoever.
Season ticket 99-04, and from from 07/08-present.
Am I less of a City supporter than you?
Football clubs are social institutions, in my view.
Despite what some people, and those temporarily in charge of clubs at various times, would sometimes like to claim, they were established to represent the geographical locality.
Some people argue that they were this in the past but are no longer.
But consider this. What difference is there between any football club - City, Unuted, Rochdale, Real Madrid, Santos - if their geographical location is stripped from them? Nothing. They would be a touring, faceless, cynical franchise without a home and without any culture.
Everything that any fan recognises as 'special' about 'their' club is determined by the location that they represent. The history of the club, the nature of the club, the culture of the support, the long term style of the football. Is their a difference between City and West Ham? Yes, and that difference is nothing about temporary success (or lack of success) or temporary players or staff. It is that one is an East End club, representing that area with that culture defining them and the other does the same in Manchester. Every defining characteristic about the clubs stems from the area they represent. Otherwise, there would be no difference between the clubs and they, and every club, would be soulless shells with very little appeal to anyone other than the most cynical.
So, if you 'choose' to shun a club that represents an area that you feel close to or connected to in some way, whether that is being born there, growing up there or being connected to it by family roots or some other connection, it does a disservice to your roots, in my opinion. Despite what we all think at times, football is not important enough to sell your soul down the river in pursuit of something more glamorous. Particularly as that glamour is, in the ranking of what is really important in life, will not actually have much impact on your real happiness (family, opportunities, sense of self worth, etc).
I absolutely understand people having nothing to do with a location but supporting them because dad (or someone else extremely close) did. It's a form of connection. Although they must be able to see that they would 'feel' it even more if City (or whoever) were still the same club but magically transported to represent the history and success of the town/city that they feel closest too.
But I can't really understand those who, as adults, claim 'passion' for a chosen club that they literally had nothing to do with at the time. Yes, I can admire the time and money spent to travel but, as an adult, who presumably likes to be able to understand what motivates myself, would always have a question about what motivates me to claim that they represent me. I get that some people will 'choose' an unrelated team as a child and children, as we all know, make immature and easily influenced decisions based on glmaour. I do wonder why those people don't question why they continue that mindset/choice into adulthood though.
Saying all of the above though, as stated, football isn't actually that important in life so whilst it's not important enough to shun teams that genuinely represent you and your roots, in my opinion, those choices also not important enough to be bothered about compared to really important issues in life.
Despite what some people, and those temporarily in charge of clubs at various times, would sometimes like to claim, they were established to represent the geographical locality.
Some people argue that they were this in the past but are no longer.
But consider this. What difference is there between any football club - City, Unuted, Rochdale, Real Madrid, Santos - if their geographical location is stripped from them? Nothing. They would be a touring, faceless, cynical franchise without a home and without any culture.
Everything that any fan recognises as 'special' about 'their' club is determined by the location that they represent. The history of the club, the nature of the club, the culture of the support, the long term style of the football. Is their a difference between City and West Ham? Yes, and that difference is nothing about temporary success (or lack of success) or temporary players or staff. It is that one is an East End club, representing that area with that culture defining them and the other does the same in Manchester. Every defining characteristic about the clubs stems from the area they represent. Otherwise, there would be no difference between the clubs and they, and every club, would be soulless shells with very little appeal to anyone other than the most cynical.
So, if you 'choose' to shun a club that represents an area that you feel close to or connected to in some way, whether that is being born there, growing up there or being connected to it by family roots or some other connection, it does a disservice to your roots, in my opinion. Despite what we all think at times, football is not important enough to sell your soul down the river in pursuit of something more glamorous. Particularly as that glamour is, in the ranking of what is really important in life, will not actually have much impact on your real happiness (family, opportunities, sense of self worth, etc).
I absolutely understand people having nothing to do with a location but supporting them because dad (or someone else extremely close) did. It's a form of connection. Although they must be able to see that they would 'feel' it even more if City (or whoever) were still the same club but magically transported to represent the history and success of the town/city that they feel closest too.
But I can't really understand those who, as adults, claim 'passion' for a chosen club that they literally had nothing to do with at the time. Yes, I can admire the time and money spent to travel but, as an adult, who presumably likes to be able to understand what motivates myself, would always have a question about what motivates me to claim that they represent me. I get that some people will 'choose' an unrelated team as a child and children, as we all know, make immature and easily influenced decisions based on glmaour. I do wonder why those people don't question why they continue that mindset/choice into adulthood though.
Saying all of the above though, as stated, football isn't actually that important in life so whilst it's not important enough to shun teams that genuinely represent you and your roots, in my opinion, those choices also not important enough to be bothered about compared to really important issues in life.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
You don't have to be posh to be a snob. I had one working class and one lower-middle class gran and the working class one was a far bigger snob. She was also a formidable woman, but an inveterate snob, nonetheless.And if you are calling a kid from Wythenshawe a snob you know very little about Manchester!
Scaring Europe to Death
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 3,937
I had no choice with City.
Dad simply said "Son, it's your first game tomorrow" and that was that.
We drew 1-1 with Chelsea (April 1971), and almost 1400 games later, i'm off to West Ham on Sunday.
It's a completely different story with Baseball
I was in Chicago, when the White Sox won the World Series, and discovered, almost by accident, that the city's other team, the Cubs, had far more in common with the jinxed football team from Manchester.
For my 50th birthday, I flew to Chicago for 5 games (won 2 lost 3), and the Cubs finished 2nd bottom of MLB, albeit with a successful youth policy, and a whiff of Hinchcliffe, Moulden, and White.
In 2016, the Cubs finally beat the curse of the goat, and after 108 years, finally won the World Series.
However, I've only experienced a brief taste of their pain.
Dad simply said "Son, it's your first game tomorrow" and that was that.
We drew 1-1 with Chelsea (April 1971), and almost 1400 games later, i'm off to West Ham on Sunday.
It's a completely different story with Baseball
I was in Chicago, when the White Sox won the World Series, and discovered, almost by accident, that the city's other team, the Cubs, had far more in common with the jinxed football team from Manchester.
For my 50th birthday, I flew to Chicago for 5 games (won 2 lost 3), and the Cubs finished 2nd bottom of MLB, albeit with a successful youth policy, and a whiff of Hinchcliffe, Moulden, and White.
In 2016, the Cubs finally beat the curse of the goat, and after 108 years, finally won the World Series.
However, I've only experienced a brief taste of their pain.
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Its something I dont really understand to be honest. Listening to talksport yesterday and loads of Liverpool fans ringing up, about one of them was scouse, the rest were from Wales or Devon etc I just cant get my head around supporting a team you have no connection to who play miles away just because they were winning things when you grew up, surely the bond you have with your football club stems from local pride?
Dont get me wrong obviously Mancs who have moved away its easy to understand but when you speak to out of town reds they all say their dad was from Manchester, what a coincidence.
You’re viewing it through the restricted lens of someone who happens to have a Premier League team right on his doorstep, and who clearly has no frame of reference for anything outside of the geographical orientation of that lens. Outside of the narrow corridor that stretches from the North West down through the Midlands and on into London, there are huge swathes of the country where the nearest Premier League team is located miles away, and yet nearly everyone in those areas supports a top flight club, because the Premier League is an all consuming monster, beamed into the nation’s living rooms almost 24/7 and it’s near impossible for youngsters not to gravitate towards it. Those of us in places like Exeter may support their local club too (and 30 years after I left my hometown I still go and watch them 3 or 4 times a season), but they’re a side show. As a kid in the playground I was Francis Lee, whereas today those in remote areas are Sergio Aguero, Eden Hazard, Mo Salah or whomever. The only difference between now and when I started primary school in 1969, is that the spread of teams supported is far narrower than it was. I had Derby, Stoke, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs, Leicester, Leeds and Arsenal fans in my class at school, whereas nowadays it’s all the rags, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool. The nearest top flight team to me geographically as a kid was Chelsea, and they were 160 miles away.
You think you love City more than me, cos you were born and raised in Manchester? IMO it makes fuck all difference, although neither of us could ever know for sure. I went to my first live City match in 1974, I’ve been going home and away since 1982, my first season card was 1990, my kids have had theirs since 2003, and I’ve been to 70 of the 92 domestic league grounds and 12 European trips to 10 different grounds, yet my connection to Manchester, beyond the friends I have made there as a consequence of following City, was and is zero.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 26,184
Most of ours originally lived in Greater Manchester or were children of people who cane from Greater Manchester. Some just detested Man Utd and chose us, some chose us because Sky Blue is their favourite colour and some chose us because we were shit.
We have a couple of thousand tourists from abroad but not many Glory seekers yet.
A fan is a fan. So long as they don't follow us for reflected glory I don't give a toss.
We have a couple of thousand tourists from abroad but not many Glory seekers yet.
A fan is a fan. So long as they don't follow us for reflected glory I don't give a toss.
OneTonyHenry
Well-Known Member
“You don’t choose Manchester City. Manchester City chooses you”
I often quoted that in the wilderness years to try and make sense of why we persevered and became even more obsessed.
I was lucky enough to “be chosen” and as a kid could wag school and walk across Alex Park and watch the team at Platt Lane ( and did at every opportunity)
My lad doesn’t get that opportunity. Born in London, lives in Sydney, surrounded by rag fans, and scouse fans, and rugby league!? fans.
I never pushed him, as long as it wasn’t the red *#*#s he could support anyone.
Manchester City chose him ... and he’s miles more obsessed than I ever was.
The glory hunting out of towner!!!!
I often quoted that in the wilderness years to try and make sense of why we persevered and became even more obsessed.
I was lucky enough to “be chosen” and as a kid could wag school and walk across Alex Park and watch the team at Platt Lane ( and did at every opportunity)
My lad doesn’t get that opportunity. Born in London, lives in Sydney, surrounded by rag fans, and scouse fans, and rugby league!? fans.
I never pushed him, as long as it wasn’t the red *#*#s he could support anyone.
Manchester City chose him ... and he’s miles more obsessed than I ever was.
The glory hunting out of towner!!!!
I chose City.
January 1970, aged seven in Cornwall. My dad is a rugby man; mum had no interest in sport whatsoever.
Season ticket 99-04, and from from 07/08-present.
Am I less of a City supporter than you?
As City were one of the best teams in the world in 1970, I would class you in the same bracket as any United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Villa, Newcastle, Everton, Blackburn or Chelsea fan there. All have fans all over the country from periods when they were good.