I assume you're fishing?Royal Rother wrote:If it means the chances of being able to take children to the games without risking the chance of them getting getting drenched with the rabid spittle from pissed up neanderthals screaming obscenities at the players throughout the game then yes, it's a good idea.
'greed. How can anyone get pissed on that watered down piss water?!Jerry St Clair wrote:I assume you're fishing?Royal Rother wrote:If it means the chances of being able to take children to the games without risking the chance of them getting getting drenched with the rabid spittle from pissed up neanderthals screaming obscenities at the players throughout the game then yes, it's a good idea.
Shame the thought about encouraging families wasn't a big part of their thoughts when they abolished the U12 rate!Royal Rother wrote:If it means the chances of being able to take children to the games without risking the chance of them getting getting drenched with the rabid spittle from pissed up neanderthals screaming obscenities at the players throughout the game then yes, it's a good idea.
I thought Spacey deserved a reply to get the thread going. I'm a very forgiving chap.Jerry St Clair wrote:I assume you're fishing?Royal Rother wrote:If it means the chances of being able to take children to the games without risking the chance of them getting getting drenched with the rabid spittle from pissed up neanderthals screaming obscenities at the players throughout the game then yes, it's a good idea.
This is what's wrong with the game, football was so much better in the 80's and early 90's.Royal Rother wrote:If it means the chances of being able to take children to the games without risking the chance of them getting getting drenched with the rabid spittle from pissed up neanderthals screaming obscenities at the players throughout the game then yes, it's a good idea.
Disagree - the kids brought along today by parents will be the vocal supporters of tomorrow.Royalshow wrote:Familys or some sort of atmosphere! You can't have both Madejski.
But you don't know where the neanderthals are going to be week in week out. They don't all have STs and neither do many of the occasional attendees with children like myself.I think it's a good idea to encourage children to come to football, but if you're going to take them to a more 'hardcore' section of fans, you're going to have to expect aggression and swearing.
I beg to differ.Royalshow wrote:Familys or some sort of atmosphere! You can't have both Madejski.
Youngsters should be kept away from the more 'hardcore' support if the parents aren't happy with what happens there. When I first went to Elm Park with my dad, I was made fully aware that if I took any of the colourful language home, it wouldn't be acceptable. Why can't parents who want to protect their kids' ears just take them into the South Stand or the Lower west? Then they can count down the clock and try to get the attention of the mascot by screaming, while the rest of us watch the match. That way, inappropriate language in those parts of the ground could be stamped down on.royalexile wrote:The kids making the announcement on the PA did happen at the D&R game. Did it prevent the abuse of S Hunt - no. It will also not kill any chanting or vitriol aimed at players. It's all part of the game. Personally directed and OT swearing should be limited around youngsters, but this is a judgement call by individuals. If you swear like a trooper as a matter of course then i feel it won't drastically alter some supporters. I got caught like this at the Fulham game last season but i coverd the youngsters ears who was sat near me, and apologised to his dad. At least it raised a laugh but i felt slightly embarrassed.
Have you read the website? The campaign is about keeping foul / abusive language away from the family areas. That rather implies that they accept that the East Stand is not going to be changed?Winchester Royal wrote:
Youngsters should be kept away from the more 'hardcore' support if the parents aren't happy with what happens there. When I first went to Elm Park with my dad, I was made fully aware that if I took any of the colourful language home, it wouldn't be acceptable. Why can't parents who want to protect their kids' ears just take them into the South Stand or the Lower west? Then they can count down the clock and try to get the attention of the mascot by screaming, while the rest of us watch the match. That way, inappropriate language in those parts of the ground could be stamped down on.
I have read it. But I don't feel that enough is done to encourage families to move to these areas of the ground.West Stand Man wrote:Have you read the website? The campaign is about keeping foul / abusive language away from the family areas. That rather implies that they accept that the East Stand is not going to be changed?Winchester Royal wrote:
Youngsters should be kept away from the more 'hardcore' support if the parents aren't happy with what happens there. When I first went to Elm Park with my dad, I was made fully aware that if I took any of the colourful language home, it wouldn't be acceptable. Why can't parents who want to protect their kids' ears just take them into the South Stand or the Lower west? Then they can count down the clock and try to get the attention of the mascot by screaming, while the rest of us watch the match. That way, inappropriate language in those parts of the ground could be stamped down on.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests