Get Behind the Team

[Melton Fox]

Oh come on Jeff I dont need them to tell me to get behind the team, I am more than willing to cheer my team on, but I need a bit of effort in return from the team. That is all I ask, but unfortunately that has been sadly lacking in recent games. I hate to think about the amount of money I have ploughed into that club with season tickets, away games etc.

Doesn't give you the right to make them upset though Cate.

I'm gonna bring my very own ticker tape tomorrow and wait for them at the tunnel at the end. Regardless of the outcome, I feel they each deserve to be "hero welcomed" into their own dressing room. Especially for having to work for a couple of hours over the festive period.

 

[Cate Fox]

The point I'm making is not about what the FT said but the response to it.

We regularly have matches when people get on the backs of players before they've kicked a ball, or players who get picked on in particular.

This often leads to heated debates about whether it's the right thing to do, with people arguing on both sides.

But when the FT say it they end up with a load of abuse, when other people who say the same thing don't get the same response.

The response some people have given suggests they haven't even read the article and just see the FT as an easy target for abuse.

To be honest Jeff I would give the same response to whoever posted a comment like that. I think that anyone in the crowd who picks on a certain player before they have even kicked the ball is a disgrace, no player deserves that. I only ask that each player in the team gives 100% to the team and the cause...unfortunately it has been blatently obvious that this has not been the case for a number of weeks.

 

[Cate Fox]

Doesn't give you the right to make them upset though Cate.

I'm gonna bring my very own ticker tape tomorrow and wait for them at the tunnel at the end. Regardless of the outcome, I feel they each deserve to be "hero welcomed" into their own dressing room. Especially for having to work for a couple of hours over the festive period.

Oh shite Melts, I stand corrected.... :icon_lol:

 

[Jeff]

To be honest Jeff I would give the same response to whoever posted a comment like that.

Many of the comments posted in this thread would have received warnings if they'd been directed at individuals, but people think it' OK to post them to the FT.

Don't tell people to 'fcuk off', tell them why you disagree with what they've said.

 

[Cate Fox]

Many of the comments posted in this thread would have received warnings if they'd been directed at individuals, but people think it' OK to post them to the FT.

Don't tell people to 'fcuk off', tell them why you disagree with what they've said.

Ok, I disagree with what they have said, I find it patronising and I would find it the same if anyone else posted the same comment. Apologies for the swearing.

 

[Jeff]

Ok, I disagree with what they have said, I find it patronising and I would find it the same if anyone else posted the same comment. Apologies for the swearing.

I wasn't just talking about your comments, I have only just read the thread and yours happened to be the last one before I replied, so I wasn't picking on you, I just think people go over the top when responding to the FT compared with how they would treat someone else.

I also agree about the article being patronising, although I agree in general with what they're saying I think it could have been worded differently.

 

[Disco Bob]

There are plenty of people who have said the same thing as the FT on this forum, but they haven't received the same kind of abuse. Wonder why...

Because they are not just an irrelevance but one that acts as though they are not.

 

[Jeff]

Because they are not just an irrelevance but one that acts as though they are not.

Melton is and we don't abuse him like that in the LCFC forum.

 

[Cate Fox]

I wasn't just talking about your comments, I have only just read the thread and yours happened to be the last one before I replied, so I wasn't picking on you, I just think people go over the top when responding to the FT compared with how they would treat someone else.

I also agree about the article being patronising, although I agree in general with what they're saying I think it could have been worded differently.

Thanks for that Jeff, I'm glad that you agree it was patronising as I did read the article before I posted. There are ways of telling people to get behind the team and for me, that just wasnt the way to do it. The fans will naturally get behind the team as soon as they see the same passion and effort being applied as they are giving. Its not rocket science.

 

[DesertFox]

do you honestly think anyone sets out on their christmas holidays to the walkers stadium with the intention of having a thoroughly shite time and getting on the players backs?

Yep.

 

[Disco Bob]

Melton is and we don't abuse him like that in the LCFC forum.

Melton is an institution - the FT belong in one.

 

[Cate Fox]

Melton is an institution - the FT belong in one.

:icon_lol:

 

[foxin_oz]

Many of the comments posted in this thread would have received warnings if they'd been directed at individuals, but people think it' OK to post them to the FT.

Don't tell people to 'fcuk off', tell them why you disagree with what they've said.

Totally agree Jeff. Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about. The Foxes Trust are obviously trying to get fans not to be negative towards our own players as they see this as having a detrimental effect on the team's performance as a whole. And I can see some merit in this viewpoint. What I don't see is why everyone's saying this is patronising and self-righteous? Maybe I've missed something here but to me the response was far too vitriolic and hostile. However I am open to arguments from both sides.

 

[Melton Fox]

Melton is and we don't abuse him like that in the LCFC forum.

If you check some reason threads, I have been on the receiving end of quite a lot of unpleasantries for daring to challenge certain players and Managers abilities.

I do however deal like to deal with it in a calm professional manner without getting dragged down to their name calling level. That's why you won't notice it :icon_bigg

 

[Redditch Fox]

I wasn't just talking about your comments, I have only just read the thread and yours happened to be the last one before I replied, so I wasn't picking on you, I just think people go over the top when responding to the FT compared with how they would treat someone else.

I also agree about the article being patronising, although I agree in general with what they're saying I think it could have been worded differently.

I certainly don't indulge in using obscene language about the FT - or anyone else th' they do provoke me to stronger language than any ther party I can think of.
I find them immensely irritating because of their patronising approach, their implicit pretence that they have a role and fundamentally by the ( in my opinion) destructive role they attempted to play during the Madaric takeover.

So I do admit to being "over the top" about them.

My problem is that they treat fellow Leicester supporters as idiots. There are intelligent people, not very bright people and plain ordinary average people who follow Leicester City. But the best the FT can do is deal in cliches at a level of a child's comic.

In all probability, the team might do slightly better over 94 mins if there was an incessant barrage of vocal support. I understand that. However, the problem is that there is a strong view that not only is this possibly the worst Leicester City squad of all recorded time but also composed of a number of players who don't try to give of their best. I think it is important that the management (Milan) understands that this is unacceptable and that takes precedent over applauding the unacceptable. The justification for this being shown during the match (rather than after the final whistle) is that dissent puts some pressure on the bloke in temporary charge ( any given LCFC manager under Milan) to try and change things - not an easy task I know.

 

[spionfox]

The point I'm making is not about what the FT said but the response to it.

We regularly have matches when people get on the backs of players before they've kicked a ball, or players who get picked on in particular.

This often leads to heated debates about whether it's the right thing to do, with people arguing on both sides.

But when the FT say it they end up with a load of abuse, when other people who say the same thing don't get the same response.

The response some people have given suggests they haven't even read the article and just see the FT as an easy target for abuse.

Reminds me of a similar point when someone inferred that certain players got picked on and others didn't because of their skin colour.

What skin colour are the FT anyway - might explain it :icon_wink

















For those who need such things spelling out, yes, I am being ironic.

 

[foxin_oz]

Reminds me of a similar point when someone inferred that certain players got picked on and others didn't because of their skin colour.

What skin colour are the FT anyway - might explain it :icon_wink




For those who need such things spelling out, yes, I am being ironic.

Surely you're not suggesting that people get treated differently because of their race, religion or sexuality Spion??? It can't be true ... :icon_roll

 

[spionfox]

Surely you're not suggesting that people get treated differently because of their race, religion or sexuality Spion??? It can't be true ... :icon_roll

Jes.., er, for Go..., er, for pity's sake you just gotta bring religion up at every opportunity haven't you f_o?

:icon_wink

 

[beaumontfox]

Whilst I understand the point the FT is trying to make, I agree that how they've worded it on the forums isn't going to impress fans who don't need telling something we all know.

But after travelling to Burnley, Ipswich and Hull, not to mention the countless home performances which have been substandard,and see no committed attitude we are expected to accept that they played crap and not voice our disappointment and disgust?( Though I notice you have posted later in the thread that you find that 'acceptable' at the end of the game)


As for getting some decisions go our way for a change.......what the feck was Hume's goal the other week then?


We have plenty of things go our way, especially the fact that Kisnorbo gets away with trying to rip the shirt off his oppo's back all the time. How many penalties he could've been guilty of IF the officials looked at shirt pulling seriously?

Same with players gobbing off to the officials, Hume does it constantly, so does Stearman, and Sheehan, all are lucky they don't go in the book more often.

Yes we have had some cack decisions go against us, but we ourselves have also gone very close to the line on many occasions, and have been lucky not to concede fouls.

We are NOT down at the bottom because of unlucky decisions, we are down there because we aren't good enough to be any higher.


And I give plenty of abuse to the blind tossers who the run the line and the idiot with the whistle! In fact, I would say that they get a lot more abuse than the players who probably deserve it more!

 

[foxin_oz]

Jes.., er, for Go..., er, for pity's sake you just gotta bring religion up at every opportunity haven't you f_o?

:icon_wink

Not every opportunity, Spion. :icon_wink







I notice you never mentioned race or sexuality though. :icon_bigg