Say 'Dial Square' or 'Royal Arsenal' or something like that.
Clearly along the lines of FC united of Manchester but you know, minus the Northern Monkeys...
Anyway: would you go?
Would you sack off the AFC season ticket and go to the new club instead?
No because there's only one Arsenal. If I felt strongly enough to stop supporting all together, then I'd just stop following football.
Last edited by Marc Overmars; 27-06-2011 at 08:52 AM.
Probably not. The Glazers took money out of Manu and regarded it as a cash cow to be milked. I can see how some supporters felt their club was stolen and so, like Wimbledon, they formed a new club. (I guess if I lived in Woolwich a hundred years ago, forming a new Dial Square might have been an option though!)Originally Posted by Alan B'stard
I don't think the Arsenal under Kroenke is like that. In any case, I will have followed the team in the red shirts and white sleeves for 40 years come October 6th 2011 so I cannot imaging supporting any other club.
Nope.
But I wouldn't discard the chance that I'd just get fed up, drift away and not bother going anymore and be reduced to just checking out the team's results. In fact I'm pretty much on that road right now.
Nope I wouldn't go.
Thing is, while we're all frustrated by what is going on at the club and in general there is a disconnect between club and fans I'd suggest the latter problem, while genuine, is a football-wide issue not an Arsenal-specific one.
Something major would have to happen for people to even consider this - like Wimbledon up and leaving for MK, for example.
Hackney Marshes, jumpers for goal posts, dogshit on the ball for Eboue to header.....I'm there!!
Society is now one polished horde
Formed by two mighty tribes, the bores and the bored.
"After all, it was the Gunners’ goalkeeper who started the move that culminated in Thomas’ crowning glory. It was Lukic who, in injury time, decided to throw the ball out to Lee Dixon rather than lump it long..."
Consider the following:
(a) director/shareholders suck the money out of the club directly a la glazer
(b) directors/shareholders deny the club the ablity to invest in the team and instead have the earnings of the club sit around in the bank or tied up in property developments - meaning that the share price goes up as the club gains wealth but none of that is turned into sporting sucess. They they cash out when the shares have gone up enough for a backdated payday.
Theory: (a) = (b) = same fucking thing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote