American looking for Premier League team to support

Status
Not open for further replies.


Something written on another forum has made me rethink my approach. It's quite daft, isn't it?

You may not be aware that, with the Premier League coming to American television, there have been pushes by clubs and the press to "choose a club", replete with guides and lists of pros and cons. I've seen them when I log into facebook, there are posts from people/pages that I don't follow in my feed, after I became a "fan" or "liked" some players I had seen in the World Cup. There have also been coupons for discounts in the club stores. Sometimes the recruitment efforts are couched in nominally independent articles similar to the Liverpool one I linked to.

Since I didn't like their listed pros and cons (being famous and/or with a good chance to win was a major recruitment point), I decided to make my own list of pros and cons.

Until I read that post, I didn't realize that, in doing so, I was falling into the trap of accepting their approach to team choosing as the best approach.

Still, I have to start somewhere, and for now, that "somewhere" is attending a game when I'm in England later this year. That forces the decision of what team to spend money on. If I'm going to spend a good deal of money on some tickets later this year, I at least hope to not support a noxious team.

My first basic criterion is that if they're assholes, they haven't manipulated everyone into thinking they're good, upstanding people. There are a ton of assholes in sports--and in the world. It's bad enough when you're an asshole and acknowledge it. It's even worse when you're an asshole and have such a good PR machine or have the media in your pocket that you come across as the good guy. Those situations are dangerous because they put you in a position where you can mistreat others, and no one will believe it. For example, Lance Armstrong is an asshole and has been for a long time. When people tried to speak out against him, he ruined their lives and careers. He was able to do this because he had crafted a perfect PR image. Same with the Duke basketball team.

My second basic criterion is that they play a fair game. That means not trying to bully the referees, minimal diving, etc.

What teams should be ruled on the basis of these two criteria alone? Please be honest.
 

PotentialFan said:
Something written on another forum has made me rethink my approach. It's quite daft, isn't it?

You may not be aware that, with the Premier League coming to American television, there have been pushes by clubs and the press to "choose a club", replete with guides and lists of pros and cons. I've seen them when I log into facebook, there are posts from people/pages that I don't follow in my feed, after I became a "fan" or "liked" some players I had seen in the World Cup. There have also been coupons for discounts in the club stores. Sometimes the recruitment efforts are couched in nominally independent articles similar to the Liverpool one I linked to.

Since I didn't like their listed pros and cons (being famous and/or with a good chance to win was a major recruitment point), I decided to make my own list of pros and cons.

Until I read that post, I didn't realize that, in doing so, I was falling into the trap of accepting their approach to team choosing as the best approach.

Still, I have to start somewhere, and for now, that "somewhere" is attending a game when I'm in England later this year. That forces the decision of what team to spend money on. If I'm going to spend a good deal of money on some tickets later this year, I at least hope to not support a noxious team.

My first basic criterion is that if they're assholes, they haven't manipulated everyone into thinking they're good, upstanding people. There are a ton of assholes in sports--and in the world. It's bad enough when you're an asshole and acknowledge it. It's even worse when you're an asshole and have such a good PR machine or have the media in your pocket that you come across as the good guy. Those situations are dangerous because they put you in a position where you can mistreat others, and no one will believe it. For example, Lance Armstrong is an asshole and has been for a long time. When people tried to speak out against him, he ruined their lives and careers. He was able to do this because he had crafted a perfect PR image. Same with the Duke basketball team.

My second basic criterion is that they play a fair game. That means not trying to bully the referees, minimal diving, etc.

What teams should be ruled on the basis of these two criteria alone? Please be honest.
Click to expand...

USMNT...honest hard working lads who are kinda crap at footy, but find a way to a result.

Maybe Stoke is for you? @ijjysmith
 
Hmm..based on that I would Say Liverpool are all those, Man Utd not far behind them. From your list I would go between Everton or if you prefer a London club Arsenal ( or Spurs if left with no other choice). Wise to go to a game first I guess and get a feel for "your" club.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top