Of course there would have been or why call yourself a supporter?If people had found football boring, there would never have been the demand in the first place.
Can't remember channel but few years ago f1 had ruddy ad breaks during a live race ffs lol.a lot of people like cricket but its changed its format to be more "attractive"
Football has changed its format also. And frankly if the yanks get their way will change to have ads in the middle of games rather than shots of the crowd and players gobbing.
Of course there would have been or why call yourself a supporter?
a lot of people like cricket but its changed its format to be more "attractive"
Football has changed its format also. And frankly if the yanks get their way will change to have ads in the middle of games rather than shots of the crowd and players gobbing.
Yes but you also get the interest from wining things.look at Chelsea. Our history is much much better than theirs but they have appeal lately and better than us as been successful not entertaining.You (well, maybe not you) wouldn't be a supporter because it was too boring to get your interest. Hence the demand not being there.

Not at all.Come on seriously ffs.
Football exists because of the money in the game.
Plastics.Yes but you also get the interest from wining things.look at Chelsea. Our history is much much better than theirs but they have appeal lately and better than us as been successful not entertaining.
Can we just agree to disagree or rhc will go on one and call me an argumentative ****![]()
Yes but you also get the interest from wining things.look at Chelsea. Our history is much much better than theirs but they have appeal lately and better than us as been successful not entertaining.
Can we just agree to disagree or rhc will go on one and call me an argumentative ****![]()
Not at all.
In its current form it's awash with money, but people would still play and watch the game regardless.

Talking in context mate. Don't see too many cricketers getting paid £300k pw.
Think we could have done with him on Tuesday.That's about to get a whole lot worst with Hendo back in the team![]()
On the 1 nil vs 4 or 5 nil debate would guys be happy with a 1 nil but played quick attacking football like last year? I think that's the most important thing from this game is to see a performance closer to last years then the dire sideways backwards passing we have seen a lot this season.
I think it 's a mind set thing when you batter someone as opposed to just getting over the line with a 1-0 win over a lowly placed team.Someone facing Us when were scoring lots of goals against teams will be psychologically effected ,but if they see us only managing 1 goal against the likes of their peers they're going to fancy their chances.
On the 1 nil vs 4 or 5 nil debate would guys be happy with a 1 nil but played quick attacking football like last year? I think that's the most important thing from this game is to see a performance closer to last years then the dire sideways backwards passing we have seen a lot this season.
But it isn't just about the 3 points. Surely that is our minimum expectation given the current gap between the clubs?I'm not against giving the opposition a good beating, but more that we must give them a beating in order to move forward.
3 points first, let's see how many we score second.
What we saw last year is teams knowing we would go all out attack, but if they sit deep, we will cough up a few chances.
This year opposition know we can score, but the oppotunity to counter are servely limited.
I'd rather win 5 out of 5 one nil, than 4 out 5 5 nil, with a draw or loss
Yeah I would take a straight forward 2 nil with a good performance. We beat West Ham 4 nil first game of season but wouldn't say it was a good performance it was more how poor West Ham were.Yes, the word I've been looking for amongst the drivel I've been spouting, a good performance would be a major step forward. Just to look cohesive as a team would be a start.