Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
harwich fox

How many Leicester Man U fans..

By harwich fox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Leicesterpool

Leicesterpool

Posted
Posted

There was a guy on radio leicester after we played Everton, he said was originally from Liverpool supported Everton all his life, even when he moved down to Leicester, but since moving to Leicester he's followed the foxes and got a season ticket. You think of it, its a bit like Eric Morecambe he supported Luton but he also supported Morecambe as non league club but now they play in the same division. 

 

I can't understand though people who live in midlands who support a club over 100 miles away, it's not exactly your local side is it. How can you say your fan when you've never been to a home game, it's not so bad if your from the originally from that area or got family connections with the club. I mean I followed foxes cause my grandad was a foxes fan, I never realised this until later years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarshallForEngland

MarshallForEngland

Posted
Posted

Yeh you can bluff all you like but you and I both know there was nothing ironic about that post nor is there any sane reason to think there was.

 

Face it, you don't really belong on a forum for football fans if you think supporting two teams is ok.

 

I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain it because to be honest I was mildly embarrassed that you had said what you said. You're arguing against yourself. Whatever you think a "football fan" is, surely the less interested you are in other teams the further away from being a general fan of the sport you are, and the closer you are to being exclusively partisan to a single team based on your geographical location or local heritage rather than football itself. If someone is a "football fan" and, as such, follows multiple teams, how are they now less of a football fan than somebody who rejects every football team in the world except for the one that plays in the town or city they happened to be born in? You surely must get this?

 

So where is this "bluff"? You are making no sense and it is not for you to tell people where they do and don't belong. I do not have to explain myself to you or anybody else but I will say that I am a football fan first and Leicester fan second. I love football at every level, I will watch it anywhere and (within reason) any time. I have no "second team", but it has been very interesting to see how many of you dolts assumed that I must do because of the apparently disturbing presence of proportion and reason in my arguments. I have been an ST holder at City since I was a child and I love watching them. Some of you need to grow up and stop insisting that anybody who doesn't bleed blue blood cannot possibly be a true fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harry - LCFC

Harry - LCFC

Posted
Posted

Oxford Dictionary:

 

"A person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular person or thing"

 

MW:

 

1. An enthusiastic devotee

2. An ardent admirer or enthusiast

 

Dictionary.com

 

An enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity etc

 

Seriously, I will actually be really happy if you find me a definition of "fan" in any dictionary anywhere that classes attending performances as a prerequisite for fandom. At the most, it is one possible signifier of somebody's attitude towards a "sport, pastime, celebrity etc" - it might be evidence that suggests somebody is a fan - but it is not a defining factor in being one. Again, read the No True Scotsman page from start to finish and then try and make your current argument with a straight face. You are trying to redefine a term to suit your own ideas and biases.

 

I think there is a key part in your post which demonstrates how gravely you misunderstand the relationship between a "fan" and whatever he is a "fan" of. You said: "You wouldn't call yourself friends with someone else you've never met or talked to would you? You have no shared experiences with them so you wouldn't claim to have a relationship with them either. I think this applies to football too."

 

You surely must see how nonsensical this is? They are different relationships and aren't comparable at all. Being a fan requires no active reciprocation from the recipient of your affection whatsoever. "Friends" implies a mutual exchange of affection or whatever emotion chiefly connects the two parties - that's why I don't say I am friends with Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden - I am a fan of his, not a friend of his. I have all the information and "experiences" I need to be able to be "an enthusiastic devotee or admirer" without ever having seen the band play live and without him ever being aware of my existence. I might have heard their music on CDs, online, or on the tele. At which point in this process can I call myself a "fan" and safely avoid being told I am not one by you?

 

Here's the long and short of it - you don't get to tell everybody else what a "fan" is and whether or not they qualify as one.

 

Come to think of if that is what I'm trying to do. Ok, I'll come at this from a different angle.

 

There are two types of fan - the plastic and the real one. The real fan actively participates in the club whereas the plastic attaches themselves to a club they have no real link to. Having built strong ties to a club from their experiences the real fan can be said to 'belong' at a club. The plastic, having no strong ties whatsoever, should be viewed very much as an outsider.

 

Everything I said previously was correct. I just needed to change the terminology I was using to fit the definitions of the words we have. It's a fairly trivial activity as it doesn't alter the content of the argument but thanks for helping me out with it all the same.

 

EDIT: I also see football fans and music fans differently as I'm sure would most people. Participation and less so reciprocation is, in my opinion, part of being a football fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cjslcfc

cjslcfc

Posted
Posted

I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain it because to be honest I was mildly embarrassed that you had said what you said. You're arguing against yourself. Whatever you think a "football fan" is, surely the less interested you are in other teams the further away from being a general fan of the sport you are, and the closer you are to being exclusively partisan to a single team based on your geographical location or local heritage rather than football itself. If someone is a "football fan" and, as such, follows multiple teams, how are they now less of a football fan than somebody who rejects every football team in the world except for the one that plays in the town or city they happened to be born in? You surely must get this?

 

So where is this "bluff"? You are making no sense and it is not for you to tell people where they do and don't belong. I do not have to explain myself to you or anybody else but I will say that I am a football fan first and Leicester fan second. I love football at every level, I will watch it anywhere and (within reason) any time. I have no "second team", but it has been very interesting to see how many of you dolts assumed that I must do because of the apparently disturbing presence of proportion and reason in my arguments. I have been an ST holder at City since I was a child and I love watching them. Some of you need to grow up and stop insisting that anybody who doesn't bleed blue blood cannot possibly be a true fan.

 

I haven't particularly read all of the arguments as there was a lot of unnecessary aggression, but I assume they have been ridiculing that you claim to be a fan of football when you follow a few teams? While everyone else seems to have been quite reactionary and, frankly, narrow-minded, I think you could look at it from another angle. Within the sport of football is ingrained the idea of rivalry and almost a sense of tribalism. That is, you could argue that the idea of following several different teams, and therefore being part of several "tribes", is fairly counter-intuitive. Namely, the question could be "how can you be a fan of football when you yourself go against the fundamental partisan nature of the sport?". It could be argued that such attachment to one team is what defines the sport and makes it great. This isn't necessarily my point of view, but I feel this is a more civilised and thoughtful response as to why being a fan of football and a fan of several different teams could be seen as mutually exclusive.

 

Personally, I am confused by people who can actively be a fan of different teams. This is simply because it's not in my nature and I have followed Leicester ever since the first match my parents took me to when I was very young. Yet, I will happily go and watch other matches because I enjoy the spectacle. I have always enjoyed playing the game and always enjoy watching it. It's never quite as meaningful as when I watch Leicester but I enjoy it greatly nonetheless (and can watch it with less worry!). However, I also find people who simply can't bring themselves to attend games that don't involve their club as somewhat strange. Surely they watch football because they enjoy the game and not purely for partisan motives? That in itself, as I think you have pointed out, is also arguably something that means you are purely interested in the entity that is Leicester City FC rather than the game of football itself. 

 

Anyway, I find it strange for people to say "I'm a Leicester and a Manchester United fan" because I feel that, due to the nature of football and its support, it is very difficult to be a fan of both and more understandable to be a fan of one team who has interests in others. Due to rivalry etc... it is hard to be a fan of two teams in the same league. Therefore, if they said "I'm a fan of Leicester and a fan of Bury" it seems more acceptable because of the unlikelihood that the two will be rivals. I do raise an eyebrow when people with no link to a football club say they support it. It does tend to happen more often with Utd and others like Chelsea because of their high profile. However, it's very easy to judge without knowing the full story. Something which people do a lot if they, for example, see a United fan who is from Leicester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark_w

Mark_w

Posted
Posted

I haven't particularly read all of the arguments as there was a lot of unnecessary aggression, but I assume they have been ridiculing that you claim to be a fan of football when you follow a few teams? While everyone else seems to have been quite reactionary and, frankly, narrow-minded, I think you could look at it from another angle. Within the sport of football is ingrained the idea of rivalry and almost a sense of tribalism. That is, you could argue that the idea of following several different teams, and therefore being part of several "tribes", is fairly counter-intuitive. Namely, the question could be "how can you be a fan of football when you yourself go against the fundamental partisan nature of the sport?". It could be argued that such attachment to one team is what defines the sport and makes it great. This isn't necessarily my point of view, but I feel this is a more civilised and thoughtful response as to why being a fan of football and a fan of several different teams could be seen as mutually exclusive.

 

Personally, I am confused by people who can actively be a fan of different teams. This is simply because it's not in my nature and I have followed Leicester ever since the first match my parents took me to when I was very young. Yet, I will happily go and watch other matches because I enjoy the spectacle. I have always enjoyed playing the game and always enjoy watching it. It's never quite as meaningful as when I watch Leicester but I enjoy it greatly nonetheless (and can watch it with less worry!). However, I also find people who simply can't bring themselves to attend games that don't involve their club as somewhat strange. Surely they watch football because they enjoy the game and not purely for partisan motives? That in itself, as I think you have pointed out, is also arguably something that means you are purely interested in the entity that is Leicester City FC rather than the game of football itself. 

 

Anyway, I find it strange for people to say "I'm a Leicester and a Manchester United fan" because I feel that, due to the nature of football and its support, it is very difficult to be a fan of both and more understandable to be a fan of one team who has interests in others. Due to rivalry etc... it is hard to be a fan of two teams in the same league. Therefore, if they said "I'm a fan of Leicester and a fan of Bury" it seems more acceptable because of the unlikelihood that the two will be rivals. I do raise an eyebrow when people with no link to a football club say they support it. It does tend to happen more often with Utd and others like Chelsea because of their high profile. However, it's very easy to judge without knowing the full story. Something which people do a lot if they, for example, see a United fan who is from Leicester.

 

Exactly, they're freaks. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jobyfox

Jobyfox

Posted
Posted

My parents are not football fans. So with no parental influence growing up I supported Liverpool. I went to my first Leicester match and my first live football match at the age of sixteen and supported Liverpool.

I continued to watch Leicester and over time, and with age and maturity, I became 100% LCFC. Against anyone else I'd probably still want Liverpool to win, but against us it's Leicester all the way. There is not the slightest bit of ambiguity.

I used to work with a Man U fan who bought the memorabilia, sang the songs and watched them on TV. By then I was following LCFC home and away. He thought that by following them since the age of four and for 30 odd years put him on an equal footing to me. These fans seem to think that longevity of support will somehow make it seem less shallow and superficial - it won't!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted

Oxford Dictionary:

 

"A person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular person or thing"

 

MW:

 

1. An enthusiastic devotee

2. An ardent admirer or enthusiast

 

Dictionary.com

 

An enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity etc

 

Seriously, I will actually be really happy if you find me a definition of "fan" in any dictionary anywhere that classes attending performances as a prerequisite for fandom. At the most, it is one possible signifier of somebody's attitude towards a "sport, pastime, celebrity etc" - it might be evidence that suggests somebody is a fan - but it is not a defining factor in being one. Again, read the No True Scotsman page from start to finish and then try and make your current argument with a straight face. You are trying to redefine a term to suit your own ideas and biases.

 

I think there is a key part in your post which demonstrates how gravely you misunderstand the relationship between a "fan" and whatever he is a "fan" of. You said: "You wouldn't call yourself friends with someone else you've never met or talked to would you? You have no shared experiences with them so you wouldn't claim to have a relationship with them either. I think this applies to football too."

 

You surely must see how nonsensical this is? They are different relationships and aren't comparable at all. Being a fan requires no active reciprocation from the recipient of your affection whatsoever. "Friends" implies a mutual exchange of affection or whatever emotion chiefly connects the two parties - that's why I don't say I am friends with Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden - I am a fan of his, not a friend of his. I have all the information and "experiences" I need to be able to be "an enthusiastic devotee or admirer" without ever having seen the band play live and without him ever being aware of my existence. I might have heard their music on CDs, online, or on the tele. At which point in this process can I call myself a "fan" and safely avoid being told I am not one by you?

 

Here's the long and short of it - you don't get to tell everybody else what a "fan" is and whether or not they qualify as one.

 

Now I can see how you've ended up getting all angry.

 

Just because you can comfortably define yourself as a 'fan' doesn't mean you are comparable with other football fans. Both Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond are 'politicians' but there are a few key distinctions.

 

In most cases, Leicester fans support Leicester and Leicester alone. Me too - I've never supported anyone else. I'll pick sides in any televised game, but my club is Leicester. For people like me, we had to endure seven years of decline between 2001 and 2008, and the closest we came to respite was the lofty reign of Micky Adams. For a person who supports more than one team, that was never a problem, because they always had Chelsea / Liverpool / Man U to fall back on.

 

Now that might well be the more intelligent approach, and maybe you can claim to be a fan of two, three, or however many clubs. But you will never deserve the same sort of respect as a person who endured a decade of Taylors, Bassetts, Leveins, Megsons and Sousas; or the McLintock or Pleat years before. And I'd have infinitely more time for a devoted fan of Colchester or Lincoln or Torquay than I would for a Leicester man or woman who changes colours when it suits.

 

Maybe both set of people can be called fans. But there's a world of difference them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tylesta

tylesta

Posted
Posted

I was speaking to a chelsea fan yesterday. Got speaking and he come out with im watching the man city game tonight it will be a better.game and ours will be to easy so i'll.know we will win!

I couldnt belive what i heard, id give a arm and a leg to watch leicester every week and you got numptys like this

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RGFox

RGFox

Posted
Posted

Must admit it'll be even worse when we play Liverpool. I swear there's even more 'fans' of theirs living here. I know tons more and some of whom have bought memberships for the big matches.

Seriously don't get the fascination with supporting a team that you watch live (not sky) once in a blue moon if that. Buying a footy shirt doesn't make them any more of a fan either, or going to the pub to watch with other 'fans'.

Support a proper club than glory hunt.

Rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suffolk fox

suffolk fox

Posted
Posted

Shame on any ST holders who get Man Utd ''fans'' tickets in the home end. I was asked by a someone but i wouldnt get one for him on principle.

Great post this, spot on, I was asked by my brother in law and his son to get them tickets for the manure game, both are ardent manure supporters I said, er no, sorry, you will have to watch it on sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sylofox

sylofox

Posted
Posted

Shame on any ST holders who get Man Utd ''fans'' tickets in the home end. I was asked by a someone but i wouldnt get one for him on principle.

Not a shame at all if ST holders have bought tickets for Man u fans,

I just hope it kicks off then when they trace the person who bought the ticket they stop the ST and ban the person for life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...