|
Post by santy on Dec 11, 2018 12:55:33 GMT
your a fucking idiot get back onto onevilefan Perhaps he should of come from the directors box and speak to these people appealing to their better nature to stop it and behave themselves. I’m sure they would take note I think they would take note. But then I worry they'd talk him into joining them, bringing out a deep seated bloodlust Peter never knew he had. While the fans on the terraces would be smashing up the standard toilets, Peter Coates would be skulking off mid-game to smash up the fancy toilets in the executive suites.
|
|
|
Post by colinroberts1 on Dec 11, 2018 13:01:39 GMT
Flea your inspiring me with your wisdom! Is that you Norman?
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Dec 11, 2018 13:14:33 GMT
If he intended to do that then why not make a statement to say so, it smacks of burying his head in the sand. Shocking PR from Stoke again! If he does pay or has paid imho he should keep as quiet as possible about it, why would the board or 90% of other Stokies want to be publicly associated with some dick who dances on car roofs?? There's only one person who should be paying for this, hopefully in decent silence too, and that's the berk who did the damage. He (presumably) knows who he is.
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Dec 11, 2018 13:15:17 GMT
Whilst I think many would support the principle of that, in practice it is highly unlikely to be a viable way of paying for other than a very small proportion of the damage. Given the scale of the damage, e.g the number of seats ripped out, it is unlikely that all, or even a majority, of the perpetrators will be charged and found guilty, and, on past form, there is also a high probability that most of those who are will not have the means to pay for the damage in anything other than a long timescale. You may be better positioned to know the answer, but in the event of ground troubles are the club of the fans in question then liable to pay for damages? We've seen various bits and pieces down the years in the away end at Stoke, so if its standard business for the opposition to pay then it's probably not too rough because undoubtedly little bits of money have been swapping hands between clubs regularly for years. I would've assumed though that this is something more under the remit of a clubs insurance, and that the insurers will presumably be the ones taking any attempt at reclamation of money since to them even if it takes someone 20 years they're happy to sit back and keep the small amount coming in monthly. I'm not sure they are, santy. The cost to the insurers to employ someone to constantly have to chase up non-payment would probably be more than the amounts being reclaimed. As ever, it's the law-abiding public who ultimately end up paying time and again through increased insurance premiums.
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Dec 11, 2018 13:33:36 GMT
I may have dreamed this but I'm sure I heard that Coates was / is sending his own workmen to carry out the work? Sure I heard someone mention it on Knot FM? Or I might be talking complete bollocks. Sorry.
Even so, to completely cockblock the situation and not make any sort of statement about it, about banning those responsible or even paying a percentage is a massive shithouse move in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Dec 11, 2018 13:42:44 GMT
Come on Peter Coates do the decent thing... buy the Vale and close it down.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Dec 11, 2018 14:15:50 GMT
Can't believe our Chairman hasnt made a phone call and instantly agreed to pay for the mindless damage. It also baffles me that he didnt come out before the game to say that any troublemakers would receive life bans, this would have solved a lot of the shocking events at the game. Peter Coates was at the game to witness this for himself and yet his silence on this appauling. Show some class Peter and dig deep!!!
Does he have to do this any time a Stoke fan causes damage somewhere in the world? I hate to break this to you, but Peter Coates isn't responsible for what I do in my life. Should a toilet look at me the wrong way, or a sink vex me in a way that cannot be resolved through words it is not Peters job to replace them when I take my retribution. Fortunately, he hasn't had to even consider it is as me and most inanimate objects get on quite well. I've heard you go into a rage when confronted with traffic cones!
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Dec 12, 2018 13:51:44 GMT
Whilst I think many would support the principle of that, in practice it is highly unlikely to be a viable way of paying for other than a very small proportion of the damage. Given the scale of the damage, e.g the number of seats ripped out, it is unlikely that all, or even a majority, of the perpetrators will be charged and found guilty, and, on past form, there is also a high probability that most of those who are will not have the means to pay for the damage in anything other than a long timescale. You may be better positioned to know the answer, but in the event of ground troubles are the club of the fans in question then liable to pay for damages? We've seen various bits and pieces down the years in the away end at Stoke, so if its standard business for the opposition to pay then it's probably not too rough because undoubtedly little bits of money have been swapping hands between clubs regularly for years. I would've assumed though that this is something more under the remit of a clubs insurance, and that the insurers will presumably be the ones taking any attempt at reclamation of money since to them even if it takes someone 20 years they're happy to sit back and keep the small amount coming in monthly. There is not, as far as I know, any requirement in football's rules for away clubs to cover the cost of such damage. My point was not about football's rules or a legal requirement, but about what would be the right thing to do in these particular circumstances i.e the scale of the damage caused by people to whom Stoke sold tickets; the fact that Stoke are a much richer club having just come out of the PL, and the fact that it's another cloub from the same City. It's what I would do if I were running Stoke City, and if they have taken some action even if it hasn't been publicised, then good for them. Just my opinion. Obviously, if it is covered by insurance, that's a different matter. It's not my area of knowledge or expertise, but I wouldn't be surprised if a club cannot get insurance cover for this either at all or at an affordable price.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Dec 12, 2018 14:03:18 GMT
Peter Coates has maybe remembered that Vale fans trashed the concourse and toilets on three successive visits to the Britannia Stadium in 2000/01 and 2001/02 with no recompense from their club. Then again he and the board may be considering their next step. Who knows? Personally, Dave, I don't think what happened nearly a generation ago is very relevant. So much has changed. It's a long time ago; both clubs are now under different ownership; the relative financial position of the clubs is very different; and the scale of the damage is different. Also, I think you do what you think is right, even if others didn't do so years ago.
|
|
|
Post by santy on Dec 12, 2018 14:09:07 GMT
That's fair enough Malcolm just an idle thought and wondered if it was the kind of information that came to light in your role.
Entirely off at a tangent, and already clearly at opposing views to your own I don't see why Stoke should help at all. It would be a nice gesture, and indeed there's a moral argument to be made. Having read some of your other posts though I certainly agree with the sentiment not to bear any ill will towards fans of Port Vale but I genuinely would not mourn or regret their ceasing involvement in football. Not for any malicious reasons towards them, nor for anything negative.
I've come to the conclusion that Stoke-on-Trent simply shouldn't sustain two teams. It's been an issue that has paralysed the council for years in its attempts to be fair but also try and capitalise on football to rejuvenate the city. It has cost the council money in various ways (written off loans, inability to truly cash in because of bias, holding back investment because of bias) and caused issues to impede on what the councils goal has to be which is to make Stoke-on-Trent a better place to be. It's horrible reasons on one hand I admit, but it would be nice if we had a city that was able to unite behind one club and make that a centrepiece.
I always feel like its been a missed opportunity down the recent years to truly capitalise on what has happened with Stoke, for me there's no pride in being the smallest city to host two professional football clubs. It's just evidence of the kind of stupidity that often negatively holds the city back. Cynical I know, but imagine a team in a city with significantly closer to 40,000 and maybe even edging up towards 50,000 there on match days rather than 30,000 in the premier league. Historically, had that been the case when attendance truly mattered to club incomes it would have provided the club with a much better footing. The fact the city has been split across two clubs has only ever been to its detriment from what I can see.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Dec 12, 2018 14:17:04 GMT
They should pay but they wont be able to afford it , probably all scrounging from the state! Time for PC to step up and sort out the mess of his loyal boneheads! so due to them being poor it means that Coates should pay? wobble your head admin get this in the shitbin I think most would agree with the principle that those responsible should pay for the damage they have caused. But the point is not a moral one about levels of income, but a realistic one about whether this could prove to be a viable way of recompensing Port Vale. I don't think it could. Apart from ability to pay meaning that in many cases a court order is quite likely to mean no more than a prolonged but slow drip feed, you can only be required to pay for the specific damage which it is proved you have caused. The scale of seats ripped up etc means that, almost certainly, many, probably most, of those responsible will not be charged. This is an important topic, so why should it go to the so-called "shitbin" ? If you don't like it, you are not obliged to read it, let alone contribute to it.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Dec 12, 2018 14:28:07 GMT
so due to them being poor it means that Coates should pay? wobble your head admin get this in the shitbin I think most would agree with the principle that those responsible should pay for the damage they have caused. But the point is not a moral one about levels of income, but a realistic one about whether this could prove to be a viable way of recompensing Port Vale. I don't think it could. Apart from ability to pay meaning that in many cases a court order is quite likely to mean no more than a prolonged but slow drip feed, you can only be required to pay for the specific damage which it is proved you have caused. The scale of seats ripped up etc means that, almost certainly, many, probably most, of those responsible will not be charged. This is an important topic, so why should it go to the so-called "shitbin" ? If you don't like it, you are not obliged to read it, let alone contribute to it. Malcolm, this was originally on a separate thread from somebody on a wind up who hadn't posted here for over 3 years, it was truly a wind up, i bit, admin merged this with other threads, that ok for you sir?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Dec 12, 2018 14:37:04 GMT
That's fair enough Malcolm just an idle thought and wondered if it was the kind of information that came to light in your role. Entirely off at a tangent, and already clearly at opposing views to your own I don't see why Stoke should help at all. It would be a nice gesture, and indeed there's a moral argument to be made. Having read some of your other posts though I certainly agree with the sentiment not to bear any ill will towards fans of Port Vale but I genuinely would not mourn or regret their ceasing involvement in football. Not for any malicious reasons towards them, nor for anything negative. I've come to the conclusion that Stoke-on-Trent simply shouldn't sustain two teams. It's been an issue that has paralysed the council for years in its attempts to be fair but also try and capitalise on football to rejuvenate the city. It has cost the council money in various ways (written off loans, inability to truly cash in because of bias, holding back investment because of bias) and caused issues to impede on what the councils goal has to be which is to make Stoke-on-Trent a better place to be. It's horrible reasons on one hand I admit, but it would be nice if we had a city that was able to unite behind one club and make that a centrepiece. I always feel like its been a missed opportunity down the recent years to truly capitalise on what has happened with Stoke, for me there's no pride in being the smallest city to host two professional football clubs. It's just evidence of the kind of stupidity that often negatively holds the city back. Cynical I know, but imagine a team in a city with significantly closer to 40,000 and maybe even edging up towards 50,000 there on match days rather than 30,000 in the premier league. Historically, had that been the case when attendance truly mattered to club incomes it would have provided the club with a much better footing. The fact the city has been split across two clubs has only ever been to its detriment from what I can see. I can see where you're coming from in theory, but these things and the tribal loyalties which go with them go back many generations, don't they ? Didn't the leader of the City Council once suggest that the two clubs could share a new ground and got pretty short shift from both sets of supporters ? And that was just ground-sharing not just one club. In fact, many cities have more than one club, sometimes several, in the football pyramid, because it goes so deep. If they hit hard times, it is unlikely that Vale would cease to exist, more likely that they would drop out of the EFL and settle at some point lower in the pyramid. If that happened, I personally don't think it would make that much difference to Stoke's gates, as I don't even if Vale ceased to exist, at least in the short/medium term. People's loyalties are not usually transferable in that way. I am old enough to remember Robert Maxwell trying to create the "Thames Valley Royals" from a merger of Oxford and Reading, and getting nowhere fast.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Dec 12, 2018 14:39:53 GMT
I think most would agree with the principle that those responsible should pay for the damage they have caused. But the point is not a moral one about levels of income, but a realistic one about whether this could prove to be a viable way of recompensing Port Vale. I don't think it could. Apart from ability to pay meaning that in many cases a court order is quite likely to mean no more than a prolonged but slow drip feed, you can only be required to pay for the specific damage which it is proved you have caused. The scale of seats ripped up etc means that, almost certainly, many, probably most, of those responsible will not be charged. This is an important topic, so why should it go to the so-called "shitbin" ? If you don't like it, you are not obliged to read it, let alone contribute to it. Malcolm, this was originally on a separate thread from somebody on a wind up who hadn't posted here for over 3 years, it was truly a wind up, i bit, admin merged this with other threads, that ok for you sir? OK. I thought you meant the whole thread and the topic.
|
|
|
Post by ursemboys on Dec 12, 2018 14:42:08 GMT
That's fair enough Malcolm just an idle thought and wondered if it was the kind of information that came to light in your role. Entirely off at a tangent, and already clearly at opposing views to your own I don't see why Stoke should help at all. It would be a nice gesture, and indeed there's a moral argument to be made. Having read some of your other posts though I certainly agree with the sentiment not to bear any ill will towards fans of Port Vale but I genuinely would not mourn or regret their ceasing involvement in football. Not for any malicious reasons towards them, nor for anything negative. I've come to the conclusion that Stoke-on-Trent simply shouldn't sustain two teams. It's been an issue that has paralysed the council for years in its attempts to be fair but also try and capitalise on football to rejuvenate the city. It has cost the council money in various ways (written off loans, inability to truly cash in because of bias, holding back investment because of bias) and caused issues to impede on what the councils goal has to be which is to make Stoke-on-Trent a better place to be. It's horrible reasons on one hand I admit, but it would be nice if we had a city that was able to unite behind one club and make that a centrepiece. I always feel like its been a missed opportunity down the recent years to truly capitalise on what has happened with Stoke, for me there's no pride in being the smallest city to host two professional football clubs. It's just evidence of the kind of stupidity that often negatively holds the city back. Cynical I know, but imagine a team in a city with significantly closer to 40,000 and maybe even edging up towards 50,000 there on match days rather than 30,000 in the premier league. Historically, had that been the case when attendance truly mattered to club incomes it would have provided the club with a much better footing. The fact the city has been split across two clubs has only ever been to its detriment from what I can see. I can see where you're coming from in theory, but these things and the tribal loyalties which go with them go back many generations, don't they ? Didn't the leader of the City Council once suggest that the two clubs could share a new ground and got pretty short shift from both sets of supporters ? And that was just ground-sharing not just one club. In fact, many cities have more than one club, sometimes several, in the football pyramid, because it goes so deep. If they hit hard times, it is unlikely that Vale would cease to exist, more likely that they would drop out of the EFL and settle at some point lower in the pyramid. If that happened, I personally don't think it would make that much difference to Stoke's gates, as I don't even if Vale ceased to exist, at least in the short/medium term. People's loyalties are not usually transferable in that way. I am old enough to remember Robert Maxwell trying to create the "Thames Valley Royals" from a merger of Oxford and Reading, and getting nowhere fast. Think it was a guy named Smith who suggested the ground share ,didnt he suggest Etruia where the vodaphone place is ,personally though it was a cracking place build a new stadium
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Dec 12, 2018 14:44:51 GMT
I can see where you're coming from in theory, but these things and the tribal loyalties which go with them go back many generations, don't they ? Didn't the leader of the City Council once suggest that the two clubs could share a new ground and got pretty short shift from both sets of supporters ? And that was just ground-sharing not just one club. In fact, many cities have more than one club, sometimes several, in the football pyramid, because it goes so deep. If they hit hard times, it is unlikely that Vale would cease to exist, more likely that they would drop out of the EFL and settle at some point lower in the pyramid. If that happened, I personally don't think it would make that much difference to Stoke's gates, as I don't even if Vale ceased to exist, at least in the short/medium term. People's loyalties are not usually transferable in that way. I am old enough to remember Robert Maxwell trying to create the "Thames Valley Royals" from a merger of Oxford and Reading, and getting nowhere fast. Think it was a guy named Smith who suggested the ground share ,didnt he suggest Etruia where the vodaphone place is ,personally though it was a cracking place build a new stadium Yes, that's right, Ted Smith, wasn't it ? Well it would at least have been quicker to get away from Etruria than it is from the South car park
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Dec 12, 2018 14:49:32 GMT
Malcolm, this was originally on a separate thread from somebody on a wind up who hadn't posted here for over 3 years, it was truly a wind up, i bit, admin merged this with other threads, that ok for you sir? OK. I thought you meant the whole thread and the topic. nooooo the original thread this was on was a windup from the other side of the city i believe!
|
|
|
Post by santy on Dec 12, 2018 14:56:22 GMT
I can see where you're coming from in theory, but these things and the tribal loyalties which go with them go back many generations, don't they ? Didn't the leader of the City Council once suggest that the two clubs could share a new ground and got pretty short shift from both sets of supporters ? And that was just ground-sharing not just one club. In fact, many cities have more than one club, sometimes several, in the football pyramid, because it goes so deep. If they hit hard times, it is unlikely that Vale would cease to exist, more likely that they would drop out of the EFL and settle at some point lower in the pyramid. If that happened, I personally don't think it would make that much difference to Stoke's gates, as I don't even if Vale ceased to exist, at least in the short/medium term. People's loyalties are not usually transferable in that way. I am old enough to remember Robert Maxwell trying to create the "Thames Valley Royals" from a merger of Oxford and Reading, and getting nowhere fast. You are absolutely correct of course, but there has been 2 or 3 major stays of execution in my lifetime alone (30 years) and looking back on the history of the club they have had some desperate luck to keep them as an entity beyond the 60's & 70's akin to Crewe. Had they been allowed to drift away back then, or even in the 90's I think it would have filtered down. To an extent, even with them in League One and Two while we were in the Premier League it did because Stoke could simply offer free tickets at schools. I'm not suggesting it should be a merger, just in hindsight having looked back it should have just been let go many years ago. It wouldn't have gotten the highs but without there having been as much to keep so many anchored to Vale from 2000 onwards when we did get into the Premier League it would have likely converted a lot more who had kids wanting to see Stoke and there not being a Port Vale alternative to offer. Other cities do indeed support multiple professional clubs, but unless its changed recently one thing I've always seen trotted out is we are the smallest. Considering how heavily our catchment area is cut into by nearby clubs outside of the city we aren't even ideally positioned for it in that regards geographically. It's all could've and should've I appreciate, but a scenario in the 70's where there was just one team in Stoke to get behind? Had there been the attendances then who knows who the club could've achieved with that extra money. Following on then through the darker times, had there been 5-10,000 more during those years that followed again it could have been painting a much brighter picture. To me it will always feel like unlike the cities of Leeds, Newcastle, Sunderland, Southampton, Portsmouth etc that we're going to have it much harder, because some of what could have been focused behind one club whether it be fanbase or local council supporting efforts will never truly come to fruition. In recent times especially arguably the same has been limiting factors for both Liverpool & Everton, once it gets past 2 or 3 teams as in Manchester and London it doesn't seem to be such an issue (but then London has regional councils independent of one another) it's just something that's resonated with me for a while. Both Stoke and Vale are lesser than they could be, because of the existence of the other. So to me, for no better reason other than that I'm a Stoke fan, I'd opt for being rid of Vale than vice-versa. But I am fully aware it's hypocritical of me!
|
|
|
Post by Scouse on Dec 12, 2018 18:18:39 GMT
Now on Vale official site / twitter feed etc - Stoke have agreed to donate their share of the net proceeds of the gate ... ( believe that’s 45%) .. Vale have thanked Stoke for the kind gesture
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 18:28:44 GMT
Get your popcorn out, the unwashed have risen from their sofas.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Dec 12, 2018 19:25:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Dec 12, 2018 20:06:07 GMT
Get your popcorn out, the unwashed have risen from their sofas.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Dec 12, 2018 22:32:38 GMT
Boooooooo booooooooooooooooooo
|
|
|
Post by SamB_SCFC on Dec 12, 2018 23:58:11 GMT
That's fair enough Malcolm just an idle thought and wondered if it was the kind of information that came to light in your role. Entirely off at a tangent, and already clearly at opposing views to your own I don't see why Stoke should help at all. It would be a nice gesture, and indeed there's a moral argument to be made. Having read some of your other posts though I certainly agree with the sentiment not to bear any ill will towards fans of Port Vale but I genuinely would not mourn or regret their ceasing involvement in football. Not for any malicious reasons towards them, nor for anything negative. I've come to the conclusion that Stoke-on-Trent simply shouldn't sustain two teams. It's been an issue that has paralysed the council for years in its attempts to be fair but also try and capitalise on football to rejuvenate the city. It has cost the council money in various ways (written off loans, inability to truly cash in because of bias, holding back investment because of bias) and caused issues to impede on what the councils goal has to be which is to make Stoke-on-Trent a better place to be. It's horrible reasons on one hand I admit, but it would be nice if we had a city that was able to unite behind one club and make that a centrepiece. I always feel like its been a missed opportunity down the recent years to truly capitalise on what has happened with Stoke, for me there's no pride in being the smallest city to host two professional football clubs. It's just evidence of the kind of stupidity that often negatively holds the city back. Cynical I know, but imagine a team in a city with significantly closer to 40,000 and maybe even edging up towards 50,000 there on match days rather than 30,000 in the premier league. Historically, had that been the case when attendance truly mattered to club incomes it would have provided the club with a much better footing. The fact the city has been split across two clubs has only ever been to its detriment from what I can see. Everything you say there is true but there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it because the loyalties to each club have been entrenched for well over 100 years and you can't just undo that. Even if Vale went bust tomorrow and were unable to reform as a phoenix club because Vale Park had been sold for housing and there was nowhere suitable for the new club to play, you wouldn't get many if any Vale fans switching allegiance to Stoke. They'd watch a local non league club or just give up altogether and find something else to do on a Saturday. They'd be more likely to start following one of the glory teams than support Stoke. Eventually over many years, maybe 30 plus years once the memories of Vale had faded and a new generation grew up only knowing of Stoke City, we would start to see a gradual filtering in of fans who otherwise would have supported Vale had they still existed. But it would take a very long time and the process would be so slow and gradual as to barely be noticeable. Had Vale never existed we'd have a similar fan base to Sunderland and would be getting over 40,000 when in the Premier League. That's from adding in Vale's hardcore 5000 or so and then including their wider fan base that turn out when they're doing better. Vale would get around 12-15,000 a week in the Premier League, up to 20,000 for the big teams and if they played Stoke so add that to our fan base and you'd be into the 40,000s. It's a shame Vale exist but they do and it's impossible to undo the generations of loyalties that tie whole families and areas to their respective clubs.
|
|
|
Post by future100 on Dec 13, 2018 8:14:05 GMT
Just been announced on BBC news that Stoke City are giving their share of the gate receipts for the game at the Vale back to the club to enable them to carry out essential work before their game on Saturday, well done Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by sheds1862 on Dec 13, 2018 8:31:40 GMT
Just been announced on BBC news that Stoke City are giving their share of the gate receipts for the game at the Vale back to the club to enable them to carry out essential work before their game on Saturday, well done Stoke. Good gesture. Ought to get the cabbages who did it rushed through court and be made to do the work. No Stone Island or CP Company coats allowed, just get on with it in a Tshirt in the biting wind. Karma .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2018 9:03:02 GMT
That's fair enough Malcolm just an idle thought and wondered if it was the kind of information that came to light in your role. Entirely off at a tangent, and already clearly at opposing views to your own I don't see why Stoke should help at all. It would be a nice gesture, and indeed there's a moral argument to be made. Having read some of your other posts though I certainly agree with the sentiment not to bear any ill will towards fans of Port Vale but I genuinely would not mourn or regret their ceasing involvement in football. Not for any malicious reasons towards them, nor for anything negative. I've come to the conclusion that Stoke-on-Trent simply shouldn't sustain two teams. It's been an issue that has paralysed the council for years in its attempts to be fair but also try and capitalise on football to rejuvenate the city. It has cost the council money in various ways (written off loans, inability to truly cash in because of bias, holding back investment because of bias) and caused issues to impede on what the councils goal has to be which is to make Stoke-on-Trent a better place to be. It's horrible reasons on one hand I admit, but it would be nice if we had a city that was able to unite behind one club and make that a centrepiece. I always feel like its been a missed opportunity down the recent years to truly capitalise on what has happened with Stoke, for me there's no pride in being the smallest city to host two professional football clubs. It's just evidence of the kind of stupidity that often negatively holds the city back. Cynical I know, but imagine a team in a city with significantly closer to 40,000 and maybe even edging up towards 50,000 there on match days rather than 30,000 in the premier league. Historically, had that been the case when attendance truly mattered to club incomes it would have provided the club with a much better footing. The fact the city has been split across two clubs has only ever been to its detriment from what I can see. Everything you say there is true but there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it because the loyalties to each club have been entrenched for well over 100 years and you can't just undo that. Even if Vale went bust tomorrow and were unable to reform as a phoenix club because Vale Park had been sold for housing and there was nowhere suitable for the new club to play, you wouldn't get many if any Vale fans switching allegiance to Stoke. They'd watch a local non league club or just give up altogether and find something else to do on a Saturday. They'd be more likely to start following one of the glory teams than support Stoke. Eventually over many years, maybe 30 plus years once the memories of Vale had faded and a new generation grew up only knowing of Stoke City, we would start to see a gradual filtering in of fans who otherwise would have supported Vale had they still existed. But it would take a very long time and the process would be so slow and gradual as to barely be noticeable. Had Vale never existed we'd have a similar fan base to Sunderland and would be getting over 40,000 when in the Premier League. That's from adding in Vale's hardcore 5000 or so and then including their wider fan base that turn out when they're doing better. Vale would get around 12-15,000 a week in the Premier League, up to 20,000 for the big teams and if they played Stoke so add that to our fan base and you'd be into the 40,000s. It's a shame Vale exist but they do and it's impossible to undo the generations of loyalties that tie whole families and areas to their respective clubs. All true but it doesn't mean I don't want them to cease to exist either.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Dec 13, 2018 9:34:54 GMT
Get your popcorn out, the unwashed have risen from their sofas. have they been sucking lemons over there? the long and short is we have come out of this laughing a lot, which was the aim of it
|
|
|
Post by adi on Dec 13, 2018 11:21:50 GMT
Mock outrage? Thank Christ people are outraged by this type of behaviour. Imagine what the world would look like if people didn't speak out against the behaviour of these absolute scumbags. If animals behaved in such a way they'd be put down. Well thank god we've got you and your fellow Dail Mail readers on here to express that outrage for us. You'll probably get a medal or something from Tideswell and his Stoke-hating cronies in the local media. And I dare bet that you would be one of the first to moan if someone vandalised your car or put something through your window? Your reply is so biased and bitter, not to mention assumptive. I echo the disdain of the other sensible posters.
|
|
|
Post by kjpt140v on Dec 13, 2018 12:50:27 GMT
Malcolm, The main Legacy from Tuesday's match is that the vast majority of what we are now talking about could have been prevented with some better foresight from the powers that be. Had you attended the match you would have been as gobsmacked as me upon entering the ground and seeing Vale fans within 15 yards of Stoke fans in the corner of the Railway Paddock. Police and Stewards watched Vale fans rip down netting to get closer to us. It was niaeve of PVFC and Staffs Police to allow this to happen. The events on Tuesday were horrific and cannot in any way be condoned, but had the powers that be come up with three simple changes; a) Close the Railway Stand completely. b) Issue tickets with designated seats for Stoke supporters that were traceable. c) No alcohol sales in the away end. Then we would not be in the position we are now. I think many people would disagree with your views in regard to us being the 'richer club' and therefore should pay for the damage. When Port Vale fans have caused damage at other grounds, and they most definitely have, should the bank books come out to work out which of the 2 clubs was 'richer' and who should pay for what? I can safely say that if Port Vale were to go into administration, again, not many Stoke supporters would bat an eyelid. I have to say that Martin Smith has reflected the views of many supporters and not just 'tut, tutted' in regard to what took place on Tuesday. Malcolm people like you,maybe me, will never get the message across. There are always those that look for blame and excuses. The fact is that if people chose not be violent there wouldn’t be violence. My choice is to walk away, it’s not cowardice, it’s not being a snowflake it’s about making the correct choices.
|
|