Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
If Liverpool can't be bothered to try to beat Hull, I think Sunderland would be better off in the Championship... at least you can rely on Leeds and Notts Forest to turn up. 

I always feel sorry for the third placed team in the Championship.... they slog all season and then some team miles behind them all season has a couple of good games and gets promoted. Still if the Smoggies are worth their place they'll get through.
For a team trying for a Champions League spot they were poor. looked like their fans couldn't be bothered to turn up either. I know there was a boycott but Liverpool sold all their allocation, so whats the point in buying a ticket if you're not going to turn up? Especially at £50 each.If Liverpool can't be bothered to try to beat Hull, I think Sunderland would be better off in the Championship... at least you can rely on Leeds and Notts Forest to turn up.![]()
Still all to play for in the Scottish League 1, and I'll be making the trip to Station Park next Saturday to hopefully see Forfar win the league - but that will require either loads of goals or Morton to get beaten by Peterhead.
Someone didn't bother to read the facts before jumping in with his big feet on this one!For a team trying for a Champions League spot they were poor. looked like their fans couldn't be bothered to turn up either. I know there was a boycott but Liverpool sold all their allocation, so whats the point in buying a ticket if you're not going to turn up? Especially at £50 each.
Not a great game to watch, but at least our effort and organisation paid off.
I'm on a very slow net connection on a ship (amounts to a 256k line shared with 15 other blokes) and have better things to do (work) than spend loading more than the first article that comes up on the boycott (I'm not spending any time searching for it again) - it didn't give your version. I'm better informed now thanks, may have been different with a broadband connection at home.Someone didn't bother to read the facts before jumping in with his big feet on this one!
The tickets most bought and didn't use were £10 children's tickets; that way, we maintained our loyalty (for future tickets) while maximising the numbers of empty seats and drawing attention to the situation. Burnley and Stoke City were charged £16 per ticket, to sit in the same seats, so why was it that Liverpool fans were charged £48 (not £50 as you erroneously claim) to sit in the same seats?
Ball's in your court now, Piemaster.
But that doesn't make sense as it ignores the reasons for the warranted boycott and doesn't address the justified cause behind it. Are we supposed to believe that fans of certain clubs have more disposable income than fans of other clubs based on their comparative league positions?I'm on a very slow net connection on a ship (amounts to a 256k line shared with 15 other blokes) and have better things to do (work) than spend loading more than the first article that comes up on the boycott (I'm not spending any time searching for it again) - it didn't give your version. I'm better informed now thanks, may have been different with a broadband connection at home.
Hull has a variable pricing policy for tickets, Liverpool, Arsenal, Man U etc =£50, Burnley, Stoke=£16. The pricing isn't any different for home fans either for a single match but looks less averaged over all home games over the season. Someone didn't bother to read the facts before jumping in with his big feet on this one!
Chelsea (admirably) subsidised their fans tickets by £10 when they came to Hull. Of course, they were worth watching
£48/£50 I was 4% out, or 1/2 a stadium pie. You're right, I'm wrong - hope you're happy now.
I didn't say I liked the policy or agreed with it. I don't. I don't run the Club either. I suspect it's aimed more at 'home fans' the ones who will turn up for the Liverpool game, because it's Liverpool, wearing half-and-half scarves, but won't be there the following week because "it's only Burnley" if the tickets were all the same price. Even though there is probably a better chance of a result against the cheaper ticket clubs.But that doesn't make sense as it ignores the reasons for the warranted boycott and doesn't address the justified cause behind it. Are we supposed to believe that fans of certain clubs have more disposable income than fans of other clubs based on their comparative league positions?
But that doesn't make sense as it ignores the reasons for the warranted boycott and doesn't address the justified cause behind it. Are we supposed to believe that fans of certain clubs have more disposable income than fans of other clubs based on their comparative league positions?