I'd say it is the season ticket holders at most grounds who do it. They just get into the habit, most are middle aged men who either want to "avoid the traffic" or "beat the rush to the bar/get a seat" at the local pub. They probably then go into work on the Monday and boast they never miss a home game, what they should boast is "I never miss the first 75 minutes of a home game"
So was I. We used to wait behind on the Kop singing to avoid the rush out of the ground. There again most of the crowd wore flat caps and suits to the match in those days! Thought I would say it before Gerrez did.
You're right about the flat caps, we had a footy bus from the Labour Club in the Moss when I was a kid and when we got to the ground it was a sea of flat caps and overcoats, we went in the boys pen but it was safer sneaking in the kop back then.
Think that was an urban myth, but in the centre of the Kop people would just piss and at the end of the match the steps were covered in piss.
They couldn't do that at Goodison as the coppers would spot them in the sparse crowd and do them for indecent exposure. There again their defence could always be there was no one else there to witness it.
I never understood why someone would bother holding a piss covered Echo when they could just do it without....which brings back memories of a lass in front of us on the Kop screaming "eeeeh...some ****ers just slashed in me pocket" #gross #notguilty
Saw a couple **** once at half time in a crowded Kop. Dirty (dog rough) bitch gobbled him off too. Going home with the ends of my frayed, flared Wranglers (remember them?) soaked with piss seemed civilised after that.
Plus the fact no one wanted to go in the bogs at the back coz they were less pleasant than a kick in the bollox
Now Liverpool fans are coming out and exposing the myth of anfield. Barrett claims Klopp was right to say he felt alone in the spoofer's ground. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/article4609410.ece You have Klopp. If this had been said by anyone else, the media spin would have gone into a frenzy to try to deny it. As it is, they're caught between a rock and a hard place and forced to admit there's no such identity.
Errr..you actually pay to read the Times lol..I don't but doesnt that first section of the article say "losing identity" rather than no identity existed?