My 3 to go down, if you could choose would be 1 Stoke - hate the place, the people are thick ignorant ****wits. Like a step back in time if you visit. Too many deluded plastic supporters who have 2nd teams that usually play in red. 2 Palace - In-laws team of choice. Another ****hole. 3 Sunderland - because they're **** with deluded support.
Anyone from Hull can't have a go about people supporting teams in red from another city. I'll bet you see less people,walking about in Stoke in the shirts of clubs from other cities than you do in Hull. Palace, crap area but always liked going there. More like a local club than most London teams. Sunderland. I wish we could get the level of support they do from a smaller population. Compare them roaring their team on today to hang on to their lead to the morgue of the KC. No one there leaving early, as ours do no matter the state of the game. Compare all their fans stood there applauding them at the end to ours scrambling to get away. Look at how many fans they take away, travelling further than we have to. For our game they had 11,000 ticket applications. I would swap fheir fans for most of ours any day. It must be great living in a city which is a proper football city with no one supporting rugby clubs and teams from other cities like we have.
When we played stoke in 2006 there 13400 at the game, they've gained 15000 supporters. There are far more jugger shirts around, even here in Cheshire. Many openly have 2nd teams. It's evident down the boozer on CL nights.
And how many fans have we gained? You can pick any club out at selected seasons and show they had less fans at some time.
Is that the fault of Stoke fans though? More the ****s that are filling their stadium. Their loyal 20k odd fan base is one of the better in the PL. But they have more than their fair share of plastics. I despise Stoke as a club. But I can't help but admire the fact they've clung onto the PL and their fans are very noisy.
I meant the club, the city(although it's not a real city), the supporters, the citizens, the accent, the ****ing lot They've hung onto their PL status because they've been heavily subsidised by their owner Coates. Look at how much they've spent since 2008, add on the wages & see if tv money & 28K crowds pay for it.
Modern football mate. If you're going to hate owners who put their hands in their pockets then you're going to hate a lot of teams. Even you've spent your fair share. The 'City' really is woeful though. But again. Is Hull that good? Is Leicester that good? There aren't many PL football clubs from nice areas to be fair. I don't like Stoke City Football Club. But I can't give you a reason why.
Hull & even Leicester are far superior to Stoke. It honestly has no redeeming features, a true **** tip. It's the amount they've spent (in excess of £110m) with little if any progress. Our owner is whinging about an £11m deficit, I'd hate to see theirs. Add to that ignorant plazzy supporters, thick ****s on every street corners & a stupid accent. Bomb the ****ing joint.
Why do you hate them for the amount they've spent though. They've not been as successful as they should, so I don't see what there is to hate. I find their lack of progress funny to be honest. I agree with the plastics and the accent though. Curbstomp worthy.
1999/2000 our average was 5700 approx. 2003/2004'was 18,700. Which is considerably more than a 100% increase. As I said, everyone can be shown to have bandwagon jumpers.
In that time there was also the move from Boothferry to the KC. That had a significant effect. Boothferry at the end had many problems with it. It was in a poor state. Kempton was out of use for most of the later years which did not help.
I think Stoke is a dump but you dislike is bordering on the ridiculous. Not a proper city? Then neither is Hull as they both achieved city status in fhe same way. As for being subsidised, so are lots of other clubs, including ourselves. Most top clubs have rich people subsidising them or spend beyond their means and trade in a way other businesses would not be allowed to. Where do you think we would be if Allam hadn't subsidised us with his loans?
It is impossible to compare Hull and Leicester to Stoke. It's like trying to compare a butchers fillet steak to Lidl's microwave cheeseburgers. The only thing they have in common is they're cities.
And? We are talking people suddenly appearing from nowhere. Our crowds went up more in a shorter time than Stoke's. Of course in a way the crowds going up on our move to the KC is significant in one way. We attracted a load of people who like do sit in comfort and ha e no experience of how a football crowd should act. Which is why the afmosphere is pathetic compared to that at Stoke.
