Ruud Gullit’s Sexy Football 2023/2024 Domestic Only Thread

[mim731]

6 hours ago, SuperBacon said:

Absolutely embarrassing that. Sure everyone's club will do it at some point, but yeah embarrassing. 

Embarrassing how? The club supporting the manager and backing him seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm not sure I totally agree with his point of view in terms of the Newcastle game, but to call the club backing the manager "embarrassing" feels like I'm missing something?

EDIT: I should say I get why the overreaction to a marginal decision is embarassing, as per every club, football fans online are generally the worst, but I also feel backing the manager is 100% fine by the club. 

Edited November 5, 2023 by mim731

[Devon Malcolm]

I think it's unusual for a club to issue an official statement about a manager's comments on officiating. Unless they're trying to catch up to United for number of official statements released this season.

[hallicks]

I think there’s a political element to this, the more they carp on about the officiating, the less focus there is on how crap we were and the ongoing team selection/transfer debacle. The reaction to it all is embarrassing, but not really much beyond what we’ve already seen this season. Replaying the Spurs-Liverpool game, much?

We got 3 points from a superior City side in a game of extremely fine margins just a few weeks ago. And now, an inferior Newcastle side has taken 3 points from us in a game of extremely fine margins. It happens. In a game like that, there must be an element of creating your own luck, and we never looked like doing that. 

[Mr_Danger]

If Arsenal were the real deal they’d already have the bibs of solidarity on order.

[SuperBacon]

1 hour ago, mim731 said:

Embarrassing how? The club supporting the manager and backing him seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm not sure I totally agree with his point of view in terms of the Newcastle game, but to call the club backing the manager "embarrassing" feels like I'm missing something?

EDIT: I should say I get why the overreaction to a marginal decision is embarassing, as per every club, football fans online are generally the worst, but I also feel backing the manager is 100% fine by the club. 

I just find the whole thing embarrassing to be honest mate, as I do a lot of top flight football and the crap that surrounds it.

This isn't limited to Arteta (although I think he is an absolute tit of the highest order) and like I say, I'm sure Spurs would do something similar. 

It just smacks of entitlement, and it's really patronising, and probably isn't even in the top 20 decisions that have gone against Arsenal in the last couple of seasons, so no idea why now is the time for Arteta to wet his pants so badly.

It's probably Klopps fault. Rent free those teeth.

[SuperBacon]

I'm really pleased the club and the Spurs LGBT group have gone to such lengths to address this.

In my younger days, I have absolutely chanted "Chelsea rent boys" when I've been to the fixture, with no idea as to the context behind it. 

I knew/know rent boy was used as a slur when I was younger towards queer people, but honestly I never put two and two together and just thought it was something to do with them being "bought" and therefore "paid for" and I assume most people used it in that way and with no homophobic intent...

...however. Meaning changes, times change (CANT EVEN USE A GAY CHANT ANYMORE ???) and stories like this matter. Representation matters and we should listen to people who are affected by it.

If you watch this and STILL sing it, well I dunno what to say. There are so many others song we could sing (The David Bowie song from Extras about Poch for example---- PUG PUG! PUG PUG!) so why would you choose to sing about "rent boys"? It's a bit weird.

I'm sure this will bring up the "yid" debate again, and I'm happy to sensibly debate that as always, and think it's about time that was knocked on the head as well, but I guarantee that will be a tougher ask.

Anyway, love Ange, up the Spurs, fuck Chelsea.

 

[air_raid]

Yeah, all of this. In my youth I thought nothing of chanting anti-Chelsea songs questioning the sexuality of one of their players... in my own stupid brain even though I held/hold no prejudice against any particular orientation, I suppose it seemed funny to call someone gay when they so publicly purported to be straight. Not that "gay" was the insult, but that "fake" was the insult. Either way, time to knock it on the head. So what if he was/is gay? It's not an insult, and though I'm ashamed of it now, I won't deny it. Only in the context of football fandom has much of this behaviour endured, I feel.

Edited November 6, 2023 by air_raid

[mim731]

2 hours ago, SuperBacon said:

I assume most people used it in that way and with no homophobic intent...

 

I think you're being very kind/generous there Bacon to believe that most people used it like yourself without that intent, and I don't think that specifically applies to just Spurs fans either. I definitely have heard plenty of homophobic abuse towards players over the years, in stadiums and in pubs from a variety of "fans" of different clubs, frequently towards Chelsea and using that specific chant on plenty of occasions. 

There's a mob mentality that is slowly, finally being marginalised out of the game that definitely carried a vocal undercurrent of homophobia. About time it was removed too, seems farcical that in modern memory that was even a thing. Yet, the number of openly gay footballers at the top of the game is very small, presumably in part because we aren't quite there yet with inclusion and acceptance of sexual orientations that are deemed outside the norm (they really aren't, but the Sun-reading general public modernise at a glacial speed). So yeah, stuff like this definitely helps. 

2 hours ago, SuperBacon said:

I'm sure this will bring up the "yid" debate again, and I'm happy to sensibly debate that as always, and think it's about time that was knocked on the head as well, but I guarantee that will be a tougher ask.

Yeah, especially in the current climate given everything happening with Israel and Palestine, and the somewhat polarising reactions to that conflict, that's something I can't see being tackled in a productive fashion at the moment. 

[SuperBacon]

3 minutes ago, mim731 said:

Yeah, especially in the current climate given everything happening with Israel and Palestine, and the somewhat polarising reactions to that conflict, that's something I can't see being tackled in a productive fashion at the moment. 

It's the intent as well isn't it? Spurs fans will, as always, say they're reclaiming the word (which is actually correct) and using it in the 'positive' whereas there is zero justification for the "rent boy" chant. Its such a loaded emotive subject.

In other news, catching up with MOTD at lunch, Darwin Nunez is still the most hilarious player around. Absolutely dreadful/delightful to watch.

And lol at Emi Martinez. Mate.

[Carbomb]

50 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

It's the intent as well isn't it? Spurs fans will, as always, say they're reclaiming the word (which is actually correct) and using it in the 'positive'

With all due respect, whilst I don't doubt your honesty in the slightest, I don't think that's a claim for any gentile to make. There are still plenty of Jews, both Spurs fans and not, who have a problem with it.

You're a hip-hop head - you understand the issues around use of the N-word; you know the debate surrounding all those white people who, for some reason, really want to use it and try to justify it without taking into account the historicity and culture of it, and, most importantly, what black people think about it.

One of my oldest friends is Jewish. He's not a football fan, but he has no time whatsoever for the Spurs argument, in any shape or form, for using the Y-word - he also feels the same about Ajax, their claim to being the Netherlands' "Jewish club", and their use of the Dutch equivalent word. I also know Jews who are happy to use it in a football context, but are not happy for gentiles to use it, similar to how there are plenty of black people who will use the N-word but will not tolerate white people using it, regardless of intent.

It just strikes me that, as long as there are significant numbers of people with a problem with it, Spurs really should just drop it, regardless of who's OK with it. Is it really a hill worth dying on, in the wider context?

Edited November 6, 2023 by Carbomb

[SuperBacon]

41 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

With all due respect, whilst I don't doubt your honesty in the slightest, I don't think that's a claim for any gentile to make. There are still plenty of Jews, both Spurs fans and not, who have a problem with it.

I didn't claim that there isn't a problem with it? I said that the word was/is used by Spurs fans who reclaimed the word. That just cannot be denied, as it's literally why Spurs fans started identifying as "yids" or the "yid army" to combat what opposing fans were saying about us/Tottenham/Jews and showing solidarity. It wasn't chosen on a whim, there is history behind it, rightly or wrong.

I absolutely get where Jewish  people are coming from, and their opinion is the one that matters the most.

Again, I have shouted and sung it thousands of times, and wouldn't now as an adult. Would I condemn someone that does? I honestly don't know if I'm being honest. Sorry, but that's my stance and if that makes me a hypocrite, then I suppose I am.

I can't remember if I told this anecdote when I took my youngest for the first time this summer, but before we went I wanted to explain to her that she might hear people shouting "YIDS" or "Yid army"  explained a brief history and I said its considered quite a horrible word.

"Why sing it then?" Well, exactly.

Edit: Also, the club have tried to address it a couple of times, but always fairly half heartedly. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by SuperBacon

[Carbomb]

1 minute ago, SuperBacon said:

I didn't claim that there isn't a problem with it? I said that the word was/is used by Spurs fans who reclaimed the word. That just cannot be denied, as it's literally why Spurs fans started identifying as "yids" or the "yid army" to combat what opposing fans were saying about us/Tottenham/Jews and showing solidarity. It wasn't chosen on a whim, there is history behind it, rightly or wrong.

I absolutely get where Jewish  people are coming from, and their opinion is the one that matters the most.

Again, I have shouted and sung it thousands of times, and wouldn't now as an adult. Would I condemn someone that does? I honestly don't know if I'm being honest. Sorry, but that's my stance and if that makes me a hypocrite, then I suppose I am.

I can't remember if I told this anecdote when I took my youngest for the first time this summer, but before we went I wanted to explain to her that she might hear people shouting "YIDS" or "Yid army"  explained a brief history and I said its considered quite a horrible word.

"Why sing it then?" Well, exactly.

Sorry, I'll clarify: I'm not saying you said there was no problem with it, just the bit about Spurs fans reclaiming the word. The vast majority of Spurs fans are gentiles, and, as such, it's not for them to reclaim it, especially as long as there are Jews who have a problem with its use.

It would be like a club historically being known as the "Wog Army", and its majority white fanbase trying to reclaim the word "wog". 

Like I say, I don't doubt your sincerity - you've always struck me as a thoroughly decent person - but until there's a majority consensus and discourse that the Y-word is no longer considered problematic by the people it's aimed at, Spurs fans' attempts to reclaim the word will just ring hollow at best, and dishonest at worst.

[SuperBacon]

2 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Sorry, I'll clarify: I'm not saying you said there was no problem with it, just the bit about Spurs fans reclaiming the word. The vast majority of Spurs fans are gentiles, and, as such, it's not for them to reclaim it, especially as long as there are Jews who have a problem with its use.

Gotcha. So what is it then? As the word was adopted to show solidarity with the large Jewish contingent within our support, and the Jewish community that existed in Tottenham when the word was used as a slur against them. So it's not reclamation?

I understand the complexities and I'm not trying to legitimise bigotry against Jewish people as not as important as other forms (after all I'm not David Baddiel) and I understand your argument completely about the substitution of the word.

As someone who has two Indian sisters, I wouldn't exactly stand there shouting "P*ki army!!!" in a football ground.

It's a complex issue and I don't have a definitive answer to it. I just have my opinion and the fact that I wouldn't use it now, but absolutely have in the past. 

 

[Keith Houchen]

1 hour ago, Carbomb said:

he also feels the same about Ajax, their claim to being the Netherlands' "Jewish club", and their use of the Dutch equivalent word

They aren’t really. They were originally based in the Jewish Quarter of Amsterdam so it was used as a pejorative against the club despite having no connection other than where they were based. Instead of taking offence, they embraced it, especially later on, so that’s why the Israeli flag started featuring more in the stands. In modern times, a common chant directed at them, particularly by Rotterdam, is “Hamas, Hamas, gas the Jews”. How lovely. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Keith Houchen

[Carbomb]

3 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

Gotcha. So what is it then? As the word was adopted to show solidarity with the large Jewish contingent within our support, and the Jewish community that existed in Tottenham when the word was used as a slur against them. So it's not reclamation?

No - as long as there are Jews who reject it as reclamation and/or solidarity, it shouldn't be considered such, at least not by the gentile portion of the population. Put it this way: even if there are Jewish Spurs fans who recognise that intent and welcome it, it's probably best to act according to the sensibilities of those Jews who don't. As my friend put it when I asked him about the subject when it hit the news: "We can do without that kind of support, thanks very much". He's pretty religious, from a community that's tightly-knit around its synagogue. Not to lean too much on the anecdote, but I don't imagine he's the only one who thinks that way.

Put it another way: Spurs fans using it, for whatever reason, tells other people it's OK to use it. Simply best to drop it altogether. Just because its use in the context of Spurs existed for as long as the Jewish community in Tottenham, and, indeed, London has, doesn't mean they were OK with it. Plenty of people from discriminated-against minorities keep silent or go along with something they don't like because they want a quiet life - like South Asians who had to put up with jokes about curry and cornershops for decades.

The fact that you wouldn't use it now kind of highlights my point: we're in an era where anyone with any claim to decency and respect for others will just recognise what the "slur-ees" will say about the slurs, and drop them, regardless of what was tolerated before. Like with the N-word or the P-word, there's been too much damage done for the reclamation argument to stick - best to leave it.