West Stand Man I suspect that you can tell how new most of the fan base is from the weight of opinion in favour of the more recent relegations. No one who experienced 71 would be voting in favour of the 21st century options.
< 42 years is not "new"

by Ouroboros » 02 May 2013 14:27
West Stand Man I suspect that you can tell how new most of the fan base is from the weight of opinion in favour of the more recent relegations. No one who experienced 71 would be voting in favour of the 21st century options.
by West Stand Man » 02 May 2013 14:31
OuroborosWest Stand Man I suspect that you can tell how new most of the fan base is from the weight of opinion in favour of the more recent relegations. No one who experienced 71 would be voting in favour of the 21st century options.
< 42 years is not "new"
by Ouroboros » 02 May 2013 14:33
by P!ssed Off » 02 May 2013 15:02
West Stand Man I suspect that you can tell how new most of the fan base is from the weight of opinion in favour of the more recent relegations. No one who experienced 71 would be voting in favour of the 21st century options.
by West Stand Man » 02 May 2013 15:07
Ouroboros You've missed the point.
That's a less-than sign.
by winchester_royal » 02 May 2013 15:12
West Stand ManOuroboros You've missed the point.
That's a less-than sign.
I have certainly missed the point then. If 'less than 42' is not new that rather implies that 'more than 42' isnew. That logic fails me I am afraid!
by Ouroboros » 02 May 2013 15:19
winchester_royalWest Stand ManOuroboros You've missed the point.
That's a less-than sign.
I have certainly missed the point then. If 'less than 42' is not new that rather implies that 'more than 42' isnew. That logic fails me I am afraid!
Errrr, nope. He's saying that < 42 =/= new. Nowhere does he suggest/imply that there is not a subset of < 42 that does = new, just that the entire group cannot be called new.
by West Stand Man » 02 May 2013 15:25
Ouroboros
That's the one.
Calling someone who is, say, 46, and has gone to every game since they were 5 a "new" fan seems a bit perverse.
by winchester_royal » 02 May 2013 15:31
by P!ssed Off » 02 May 2013 15:35
West Stand ManOuroboros
That's the one.
Calling someone who is, say, 46, and has gone to every game since they were 5 a "new" fan seems a bit perverse.
In which case I refer my learned friend to my comment above. You are not most fans, and neither is the set of fans who have followed the club for 41 ish years most fans. Thus, my assertion stands as originally posted, the fact that the most recent relegations are getting most votes tends to show that the fan base is relatively new and that they did not experience the 71 relegation. If you came along in 72 you also missed it, which only adds to my case that no one who experienced it would vote for another option!
by Fox Talbot » 02 May 2013 20:08
by Ascotexgunner » 02 May 2013 20:57
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 207 guests