National League / OCL

O-League 2012/13

283 replies · 63,141 views
almost 13 years ago · edited almost 13 years ago · History

31 degrees and raining at kick off in Tahiti.  That'll be fun.  Though, they're quite use to it now.


Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

 On the bright side... ACFC are now champions of the A League.

And the SPL now that Celtic have wrapped up the title there.

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago


Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

What's the story on the write up about a broken shoulder? How do you do that? Is he ok?

Check the youtube video. Seemed to be this own fault.

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

So let's move on to Paul Temple's thoughts on the season ending broken collarbone injury to Gustavo Souto by Tim Myers.

Youtube video suggests otherwise.

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

2ndBest wrote:

So let's move on to Paul Temple's thoughts on the season ending broken collarbone injury to Gustavo Souto by Tim Myers.

Youtube video suggests otherwise.

Myers even hangs around and gives him a pat as he heads off on the stretcher...nice touch imo.

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

2ndBest wrote:

So let's move on to Paul Temple's thoughts on the season ending broken collarbone injury to Gustavo Souto by Tim Myers.

Youtube video suggests otherwise.

Its ALWAYS the oppositions' fault when it comes to ACFC...........

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Jerzy Merino wrote:

Hard News wrote:

 Wow.  I thought they had Mont-Dore to play, not Dragon.

That's a whole lot trickier.

 

Especially with 3 strikers out crocked.

I think the disappointing thing with that is really, other than Ivan, Tamati, and Pritch, Kiwi players no longer feature at your club. Yeah Danko gets classed as a 'Kiwi' but looking at the starting line on the weekend, it was all imports. Not a dig at the posters currently here but back when the catch cry was that the Phoenix were bad for NZ football because of the Aussies, I ask how ACFC are good in that same manner for NZ football. On the flip side, Waitakere have had their number this year with predominantly Kiwi players so what does that imply about the level of these 'superstar' imports?


I'm interested in an ACFC view on what needs to change to get back to the top because the answer can't be 'throw more import at it' It becomes extremely unsustainable. It's also questionable whether thes ones they have are actually as good as others think.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago


Well, let's see... the ACFC youth squad are all Kiwis, but though they're develloping so well they can win the Youth League they're still too young for the O-League, where it's all about results. And we can't pinch any more Kiwis from other clubs because that's frowned upon. And as you've said previously guys like Feneridis and McGeorge have been found wanting at a higher level than the ASB. So imports are kind of necessary if one aspires to the World Club Champs. And of course we all know those that are with the ACFC are very far from being 'superstars'. They get talked up because it's what the followers of a Club do: talk up their players. Well, unless you're from Waitakerie, when you never talk at all - at least not on this forum. As for ACFC getting back to the top, maybe a fit Tade, White and Souto would go some way towards it. But that ain't gonna happen for a while. But if we're still in it by December then hey, we're back on top! Speaking in local terms, i.e. in competition with Waitak, of course. Because who else is there? And that's the real question. Why is it that ASB teams outside Auckland can't raise their game? Christchurch Utd were a power. The big disapointment is Wellington, as we all know. And we can all guess the reason for that.

"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...

I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...

Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Guess it depends on what the clubs are for?

Phoenix play in the Aussie league under the we are developing players for NZ but have to play in Aussie because there's not Pro league in NZ?

What is the national league for? 

To develop players? Promote the game? Or just entertainment?

Probably all 3, depends how much enphasis you put on each on I guess


Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Reggie wrote:

Guess it depends on what the clubs are for?

Phoenix play in the Aussie league under the we are developing players for NZ but have to play in Aussie because there's not Pro league in NZ?

What is the national league for? 

To develop players? Promote the game? Or just entertainment?

Probably all 3, depends how much enphasis you put on each on I guess


 

Hey Reggie, this is a football fan forum, not Sociology 101.

"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...

I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...

Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

Jerzy Merino wrote:

Hard News wrote:

 Wow.  I thought they had Mont-Dore to play, not Dragon.

That's a whole lot trickier.

 

Especially with 3 strikers out crocked.

I think the disappointing thing with that is really, other than Ivan, Tamati, and Pritch, Kiwi players no longer feature at your club. Yeah Danko gets classed as a 'Kiwi' but looking at the starting line on the weekend, it was all imports. Not a dig at the posters currently here but back when the catch cry was that the Phoenix were bad for NZ football because of the Aussies, I ask how ACFC are good in that same manner for NZ football. On the flip side, Waitakere have had their number this year with predominantly Kiwi players so what does that imply about the level of these 'superstar' imports?


I'm interested in an ACFC view on what needs to change to get back to the top because the answer can't be 'throw more import at it' It becomes extremely unsustainable. It's also questionable whether thes ones they have are actually as good as others think.

Wow I didn't know Simon Arms and Adam McGeorge were imports. Danko has also been here since 98 which pretty well makes him a Kiwi. But I would like more NZers in the team, shame that Chad and Daniel Morgan moved across town (both Kiwis who features in the 09 triumph) and Adam Thomas went elsewhere.

If Waitakere have ACFC's number this year as you so often boast how did 10-man ACFC come within a few minutes of beating them away in the final and then do it 3-1 in the O League? They also drew earlier in the season. Hardly "having their number" JV, but then, like Fox News, "fair and balanced" is said tongue in cheek. 

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

2ndBest wrote:

I'm not taking side (I've barely heard anything concrete from either side), but the term 'monkey' has a particular significance for football games. So if it wasn't meant to be racist, probably not the greatest choice of insulting word.

Guess the context matters. While it may have been directed at one person, if another person of darker complexion was close by, then I could see why people might put 2 and 2 together.

It's kind of sad that things are so touchy on this subject. Is calling a player a 'donkey' or a 'monkey' really any different? I understand the old racist implications but shouldn't players have thick enough hides to just ignore stupid abuse. Things are said in the heat of the game that shouldn't be taken too seriously. I've heard some crude things shouted at players but it only drags down the thrower of the insult. 

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Trueblue wrote:

2ndBest wrote:

I'm not taking side (I've barely heard anything concrete from either side), but the term 'monkey' has a particular significance for football games. So if it wasn't meant to be racist, probably not the greatest choice of insulting word.

Guess the context matters. While it may have been directed at one person, if another person of darker complexion was close by, then I could see why people might put 2 and 2 together.

It's kind of sad that things are so touchy on this subject. Is calling a player a 'donkey' or a 'monkey' really any different? I understand the old racist implications but shouldn't players have thick enough hides to just ignore stupid abuse. Things are said in the heat of the game that shouldn't be taken too seriously. I've heard some crude things shouted at players but it only drags down the thrower of the insult. 


Miles apart.

Racial slurs have no part of the game. End of.

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Trueblue wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

Jerzy Merino wrote:

Hard News wrote:

 Wow.  I thought they had Mont-Dore to play, not Dragon.

That's a whole lot trickier.

 

Especially with 3 strikers out crocked.

I think the disappointing thing with that is really, other than Ivan, Tamati, and Pritch, Kiwi players no longer feature at your club. Yeah Danko gets classed as a 'Kiwi' but looking at the starting line on the weekend, it was all imports. Not a dig at the posters currently here but back when the catch cry was that the Phoenix were bad for NZ football because of the Aussies, I ask how ACFC are good in that same manner for NZ football. On the flip side, Waitakere have had their number this year with predominantly Kiwi players so what does that imply about the level of these 'superstar' imports?


I'm interested in an ACFC view on what needs to change to get back to the top because the answer can't be 'throw more import at it' It becomes extremely unsustainable. It's also questionable whether thes ones they have are actually as good as others think.

Wow I didn't know Simon Arms and Adam McGeorge were imports. Danko has also been here since 98 which pretty well makes him a Kiwi. But I would like more NZers in the team, shame that Chad and Daniel Morgan moved across town (both Kiwis who features in the 09 triumph) and Adam Thomas went elsewhere.

If Waitakere have ACFC's number this year as you so often boast how did 10-man ACFC come within a few minutes of beating them away in the final and then do it 3-1 in the O League? They also drew earlier in the season. Hardly "having their number" JV, but then, like Fox News, "fair and balanced" is said tongue in cheek. 

You totally took this out of context and I guess it just validates my point I make over and over again.

Since you chose to give a twat answer to a serious question, allow me to retort. Have Arms and McGeorge been consistent regular starters have they? I think McGeorge was at TW  this summer yes? Fail. Arms came in only after Berlanga left. Is he starting now? Fail.

4 wins to Waitakere, 1 to ACFC and 1 draw. I'd call that having their number. Fail.

 

Lets ignore the fact that it was an opportunity for you to talk about your club in an open manner and that I was interested in your lots take on your own team. You just instead put spin on it which is flawed. If you want to repost and take the question at a serious face value then you'll get less of these sarcastic responses above continuously poking holes in your theories.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

2ndBest wrote:

Trueblue wrote:

2ndBest wrote:

I'm not taking side (I've barely heard anything concrete from either side), but the term 'monkey' has a particular significance for football games. So if it wasn't meant to be racist, probably not the greatest choice of insulting word.

Guess the context matters. While it may have been directed at one person, if another person of darker complexion was close by, then I could see why people might put 2 and 2 together.

It's kind of sad that things are so touchy on this subject. Is calling a player a 'donkey' or a 'monkey' really any different? I understand the old racist implications but shouldn't players have thick enough hides to just ignore stupid abuse. Things are said in the heat of the game that shouldn't be taken too seriously. I've heard some crude things shouted at players but it only drags down the thrower of the insult. 


Miles apart.

Racial slurs have no part of the game. End of.



donkey = slur at one's ability, fairly light hearted

monkey = slur at one's genetic composition, fairly hateful

360footballnews.com

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

I think True Blues last comment kinda validates the initial point. That the person who made the comment it a complete twat.

I would ask the question of others how they would feel, if for example, I stood at Kiwitea st and chanted some anti Croatian things (not that I actually know any). I know exactly what would happen and considering the term 'monkey' has an extremely well known connotation (and not just in football) then I fail to see how there is a difference.

I understand it was directed at a person that was not black, but the connotation still remains. I guess its the same if I called someone a 'slope' and they were not Asian. The connotation still remains.

Of all the insults that could be thrown (muppet would have been the first one I would have used) monkey gets chosen *facepalm*

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

My insult of choice is "Zadkovic, you're not very good!".



Yellow Fever - Misery loves company

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

2ndBest wrote:

So let's move on to Paul Temple's thoughts on the season ending broken collarbone injury to Gustavo Souto by Tim Myers.

Youtube video suggests otherwise.

Its ALWAYS the oppositions' fault when it comes to ACFC...........

Groan - dog and bone JV.

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Trueblue wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

2ndBest wrote:

So let's move on to Paul Temple's thoughts on the season ending broken collarbone injury to Gustavo Souto by Tim Myers.

Youtube video suggests otherwise.

Its ALWAYS the oppositions' fault when it comes to ACFC...........

Groan - dog and bone JV.

And again you deflect and ignore the video evidence.....

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

Trueblue wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

2ndBest wrote:

So let's move on to Paul Temple's thoughts on the season ending broken collarbone injury to Gustavo Souto by Tim Myers.

Youtube video suggests otherwise.

Its ALWAYS the oppositions' fault when it comes to ACFC...........

Groan - dog and bone JV.

And again you deflect and ignore the video evidence.....

 

I was there. I don't recall any ACFC supporters shouting out for a card. More, there seemed to be a prolonged silence. Souto was in obvious and considerable pain.

"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...

I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...

Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

I think True Blues last comment kinda validates the initial point. That the person who made the comment it a complete twat.

I would ask the question of others how they would feel, if for example, I stood at Kiwitea st and chanted some anti Croatian things (not that I actually know any). I know exactly what would happen and considering the term 'monkey' has an extremely well known connotation (and not just in football) then I fail to see how there is a difference.

I understand it was directed at a person that was not black, but the connotation still remains. I guess its the same if I called someone a 'slope' and they were not Asian. The connotation still remains.

Of all the insults that could be thrown (muppet would have been the first one I would have used) monkey gets chosen *facepalm*



When I played in the National League for Manawatu, I received racist abuse at two particular grounds on my travels and was utterly disgusted by it, obviously. 

I've also experienced that level of abuse in the Northern Premier League at one ground on the North Shore.

At the time, during the game, I just got on with it, but if I took racist abuse from an opponent, my response was usually to get said opponent in the next 50-50 that popped up.

My feelings on the subject after matches were usually one of surprise, shock and disappointment, that in grounds with barely 100-300 people, in a sport that attracted few participants from ethnic backgrounds other than Kiwi (back then), that there was this type of ignorance doing the rounds.

There is no room for this sort of behaviour, and thinking players should just "get on with it" and not have significant views on the matter, is to simply condone it. 

It damages our game, sends people away from the sport, and is just too distasteful and embarrassing for words. 

Down the track, you also reduce the talent pool we draw our next generation of players from.

If I hear racism at a football ground these days, I shake my head. 

I also happen to know of one family of pacific island descent who attended a football match last season but left at halftime because of the level of racist abuse dished out to an opponent of the team they came to support. 

Is that sort of thing acceptable? Who does it help? Should a middle New Zealand family, looking to get their kids into football, really have to make that type of decision at a football ground in our country?
Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

2ndBest wrote:

I'm not taking side (I've barely heard anything concrete from either side), but the term 'monkey' has a particular significance for football games. So if it wasn't meant to be racist, probably not the greatest choice of insulting word.

Guess the context matters. While it may have been directed at one person, if another person of darker complexion was close by, then I could see why people might put 2 and 2 together.



I think its fine to quote Twitter on this forum, as the media also use the social media platform for quotes.

If David White was called a "monkey", as in "organ grinder", that is he is a bellhop-style assistant to Paul Marshall, fine, but if Roy Krishna or Ryan de Vries were within earshot, then the insult becomes a very poor choice of words indeed.

I've been reading this thread from the last post counting backwards, so have slid into this debate around the wrong way, but I get the gist now!
Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

It's a difficult subject because some words have connotations when applied to one individual that they don't have for another. So if you shout "monkey" at a European player it's okay but not at a darker skinned player. I understand why but isn't it a bit silly in this day and age when the most powerful man in the world is an African-American. It's like not being able to say the slightest thing that could be perceived as an insult by a devout Islamist or orthodox Jew or raving Catholic. If John Terry calls another player a "c**t" then that's just football, but if he calls him a "black c**t" then all hell breaks loose.

Football isn't tiddlewinks and while I'm all for good manners, things get said in the heat of a game and we should just get over it.I've been known to hurl the odd (relatively mild) insult during moments of frustration watching City, but fortunately being a smug and high and mighty supporter of the best football club in the land those are few and far between (cue sound of JV furiously tapping on his computer keyboard). Having said that I get fed up with the abusive sods on the sidelines who never have anything good to say. You know who you are so stop it you *#@"<>&#!

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

What we haven't talked about are the three 'staff' who were somewhat 'aggressive' towards the linesman and ref when they thought Krishna might get sent off, very late in the game.  Some of the crowd were upset by that.  We chimed in with ' sit down shut up'.  But obviously others were disgusted with the behaviour towards the ref and vented in other ways.

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

edward l wrote:

What we haven't talked about are the three 'staff' who were somewhat 'aggressive' towards the linesman and ref when they thought Krishna might get sent off, very late in the game.  Some of the crowd were upset by that.  We chimed in with ' sit down shut up'.  But obviously others were disgusted with the behaviour towards the ref and vented in other ways.

Careful Ed, the anti City brigade will accuse you of blaming "the staff".

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Trueblue wrote:

It's a difficult subject because some words have connotations when applied to one individual that they don't have for another. So if you shout "monkey" at a European player it's okay but not at a darker skinned player. I understand why but isn't it a bit silly in this day and age when the most powerful man in the world is an African-American. It's like not being able to say the slightest thing that could be perceived as an insult by a devout Islamist or orthodox Jew or raving Catholic. If John Terry calls another player a "c**t" then that's just football, but if he calls him a "black c**t" then all hell breaks loose.

Football isn't tiddlewinks and while I'm all for good manners, things get said in the heat of a game and we should just get over it.I've been known to hurl the odd (relatively mild) insult during moments of frustration watching City, but fortunately being a smug and high and mighty supporter of the best football club in the land those are few and far between (cue sound of JV furiously tapping on his computer keyboard). Having said that I get fed up with the abusive sods on the sidelines who never have anything good to say. You know who you are so stop it you *#@"<>&#!



The way I perceive that is if someone wanted to go me on a football pitch, or from the sidelines, and attack my heritage, race or colour, then I would seek them out and sort that situation out. 

Like on this forum, when you confront somebody face to face about something they've said, most times they either p*ss off and run away, or they shrink. I've had some positive dialogue with some people after similar scenarios, and I respect those folks for their willingness to discuss things afterwards, its the cowards who scuttle off that strike me as pathetic. 

I would say if you think its ok to call somebody a "black c**t" and you get your nose broken, then its your own fault. 

I recall playing in a game where an opponent called me a "black b*stard" and my family was on the sideline, including my nieces  mother and family friends. At the after match function, my club coach, unprompted, waited to be asked to make his post-match speech, then said something to the effect, "You can keep your man of the match awards, we're leaving." 

As a player, I could certainly "take it", and dish it out, but why should, say, a player's family be subjected to that treatment? 

If you flip the argument on its head, you could suggest that instead of saying something ambiguous and potentially offensive, say something else? Or is there a deep seated need, desire, to 'ride the lightening' of good taste for greater effect? 

By the way, if Paul Temple heard something racist, specifically targeted at one of Waitakere United's players, I would support any restorative action taken by the competition's governing body. If it happened. 

Why would any New Zealand club, and its supporter base, want to legitimise racism in its own stadium, when ten of the 11 OFC member association countries belong to other ethnic groups? 

It's a sordid, unwise, reprehensible aspiration for any club, particularly when you can set your team up for a very hostile reception at away venues as a result of a reputation that goes before you. 

I work for Auckland City as their media manager and I'm very proud of that role, and proud of being involved with a club I have always had great respect and admiration for. I enjoy the company of the coaching and backroom staff, and the players are also excellent to deal with both on and off the park. The diversity of the group is one of its most attractive qualities. 

Football is a universal language that transcends colour, religion, culture and difference, and for that reason alone its a quality to be cherished, not abused or sullied with something as embarrassing and moronic as racism or bigotry of any type.

We can get precious about what language we employ these days, but there should always be boundaries of good taste we should strive not to cross. 


Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago



Football is a universal language that transcends colour, religion, culture and difference, and for that reason alone its a quality to be cherished, not abused or sullied with something as embarrassing and moronic as racism or bigotry of any type.

We can get precious about what language we employ these days, but there should always be boundaries of good taste we should strive not to cross. 




Well said, I agree with that
Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Trueblue wrote:

It's a difficult subject because some words have connotations when applied to one individual that they don't have for another. So if you shout "monkey" at a European player it's okay but not at a darker skinned player. I understand why but isn't it a bit silly in this day and age when the most powerful man in the world is an African-American. It's like not being able to say the slightest thing that could be perceived as an insult by a devout Islamist or orthodox Jew or raving Catholic. If John Terry calls another player a "c**t" then that's just football, but if he calls him a "black c**t" then all hell breaks loose.

Football isn't tiddlewinks and while I'm all for good manners, things get said in the heat of a game and we should just get over it.I've been known to hurl the odd (relatively mild) insult during moments of frustration watching City, but fortunately being a smug and high and mighty supporter of the best football club in the land those are few and far between (cue sound of JV furiously tapping on his computer keyboard). Having said that I get fed up with the abusive sods on the sidelines who never have anything good to say. You know who you are so stop it you *#@"<>&#!



Yeah, you clearly don't get it.
Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

I think True Blues last comment kinda validates the initial point. That the person who made the comment it a complete twat.

I would ask the question of others how they would feel, if for example, I stood at Kiwitea st and chanted some anti Croatian things (not that I actually know any). I know exactly what would happen and considering the term 'monkey' has an extremely well known connotation (and not just in football) then I fail to see how there is a difference.

I understand it was directed at a person that was not black, but the connotation still remains. I guess its the same if I called someone a 'slope' and they were not Asian. The connotation still remains.

Of all the insults that could be thrown (muppet would have been the first one I would have used) monkey gets chosen *facepalm*



When I played in the National League for Manawatu, I received racist abuse at two particular grounds on my travels and was utterly disgusted by it, obviously. 

I've also experienced that level of abuse in the Northern Premier League at one ground on the North Shore.

At the time, during the game, I just got on with it, but if I took racist abuse from an opponent, my response was usually to get said opponent in the next 50-50 that popped up.

My feelings on the subject after matches were usually one of surprise, shock and disappointment, that in grounds with barely 100-300 people, in a sport that attracted few participants from ethnic backgrounds other than Kiwi (back then), that there was this type of ignorance doing the rounds.

There is no room for this sort of behaviour, and thinking players should just "get on with it" and not have significant views on the matter, is to simply condone it. 

It damages our game, sends people away from the sport, and is just too distasteful and embarrassing for words. 

Down the track, you also reduce the talent pool we draw our next generation of players from.

If I hear racism at a football ground these days, I shake my head. 

I also happen to know of one family of pacific island descent who attended a football match last season but left at halftime because of the level of racist abuse dished out to an opponent of the team they came to support. 

Is that sort of thing acceptable? Who does it help? Should a middle New Zealand family, looking to get their kids into football, really have to make that type of decision at a football ground in our country?


When was this? 


Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Gordy was there in the early 2000s.... If nothing else, he can back up his statement in having actually played at that level. A strapping CB if I recall?

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

2ndBest wrote:

Trueblue wrote:

It's a difficult subject because some words have connotations when applied to one individual that they don't have for another. So if you shout "monkey" at a European player it's okay but not at a darker skinned player. I understand why but isn't it a bit silly in this day and age when the most powerful man in the world is an African-American. It's like not being able to say the slightest thing that could be perceived as an insult by a devout Islamist or orthodox Jew or raving Catholic. If John Terry calls another player a "c**t" then that's just football, but if he calls him a "black c**t" then all hell breaks loose.

Football isn't tiddlewinks and while I'm all for good manners, things get said in the heat of a game and we should just get over it.I've been known to hurl the odd (relatively mild) insult during moments of frustration watching City, but fortunately being a smug and high and mighty supporter of the best football club in the land those are few and far between (cue sound of JV furiously tapping on his computer keyboard). Having said that I get fed up with the abusive sods on the sidelines who never have anything good to say. You know who you are so stop it you *#@"<>&#!



Yeah, you clearly don't get it.

 

Absolutely 2B ,,,he should wait till some twat tweets it ,then repeat as gospel ....isnt that the way ..."to get it "

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

2ndBest wrote:

Trueblue wrote:

It's a difficult subject because some words have connotations when applied to one individual that they don't have for another. So if you shout "monkey" at a European player it's okay but not at a darker skinned player. I understand why but isn't it a bit silly in this day and age when the most powerful man in the world is an African-American. It's like not being able to say the slightest thing that could be perceived as an insult by a devout Islamist or orthodox Jew or raving Catholic. If John Terry calls another player a "c**t" then that's just football, but if he calls him a "black c**t" then all hell breaks loose.

Football isn't tiddlewinks and while I'm all for good manners, things get said in the heat of a game and we should just get over it.I've been known to hurl the odd (relatively mild) insult during moments of frustration watching City, but fortunately being a smug and high and mighty supporter of the best football club in the land those are few and far between (cue sound of JV furiously tapping on his computer keyboard). Having said that I get fed up with the abusive sods on the sidelines who never have anything good to say. You know who you are so stop it you *#@"<>&#!



Yeah, you clearly don't get it.
In all fairness, I disagree.

We can flap our gums all we want but GGW played at that level. If nothing else, he can say he has been there and done that, and as he also states, he is part of ACFC. Given his opinion in the previous post, his position at ACFC, having played that level, I think its a fair comment that his opinion is fairly well grounded in 'without bias'

I happen to agree with GGW's previous statement. Again, there are thousands of insults to choose (and yes, we all do say things in the heat of the moment) but as much as I can be a twat, there is no way I would ever go to the point of racial abuse or implied racial abuse using words in a different context. To simply sit idly by do nothing means you condone those words - regardless of the context they were used in.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Trueblue wrote:

It's a difficult subject because some words have connotations when applied to one individual that they don't have for another. So if you shout "monkey" at a European player it's okay but not at a darker skinned player. I understand why but isn't it a bit silly in this day and age when the most powerful man in the world is an African-American. It's like not being able to say the slightest thing that could be perceived as an insult by a devout Islamist or orthodox Jew or raving Catholic. If John Terry calls another player a "c**t" then that's just football, but if he calls him a "black c**t" then all hell breaks loose.

Football isn't tiddlewinks and while I'm all for good manners, things get said in the heat of a game and we should just get over it.I've been known to hurl the odd (relatively mild) insult during moments of frustration watching City, but fortunately being a smug and high and mighty supporter of the best football club in the land those are few and far between (cue sound of JV furiously tapping on his computer keyboard). Having said that I get fed up with the abusive sods on the sidelines who never have anything good to say. You know who you are so stop it you *#@"<>&#!



The way I perceive that is if someone wanted to go me on a football pitch, or from the sidelines, and attack my heritage, race or colour, then I would seek them out and sort that situation out. 

Like on this forum, when you confront somebody face to face about something they've said, most times they either p*ss off and run away, or they shrink. I've had some positive dialogue with some people after similar scenarios, and I respect those folks for their willingness to discuss things afterwards, its the cowards who scuttle off that strike me as pathetic. 

I would say if you think its ok to call somebody a "black c**t" and you get your nose broken, then its your own fault. 

I recall playing in a game where an opponent called me a "black b*stard" and my family was on the sideline, including my nieces  mother and family friends. At the after match function, my club coach, unprompted, waited to be asked to make his post-match speech, then said something to the effect, "You can keep your man of the match awards, we're leaving." 

As a player, I could certainly "take it", and dish it out, but why should, say, a player's family be subjected to that treatment? 

If you flip the argument on its head, you could suggest that instead of saying something ambiguous and potentially offensive, say something else? Or is there a deep seated need, desire, to 'ride the lightening' of good taste for greater effect? 

By the way, if Paul Temple heard something racist, specifically targeted at one of Waitakere United's players, I would support any restorative action taken by the competition's governing body. If it happened. 

Why would any New Zealand club, and its supporter base, want to legitimise racism in its own stadium, when ten of the 11 OFC member association countries belong to other ethnic groups? 

It's a sordid, unwise, reprehensible aspiration for any club, particularly when you can set your team up for a very hostile reception at away venues as a result of a reputation that goes before you. 

I work for Auckland City as their media manager and I'm very proud of that role, and proud of being involved with a club I have always had great respect and admiration for. I enjoy the company of the coaching and backroom staff, and the players are also excellent to deal with both on and off the park. The diversity of the group is one of its most attractive qualities. 

Football is a universal language that transcends colour, religion, culture and difference, and for that reason alone its a quality to be cherished, not abused or sullied with something as embarrassing and moronic as racism or bigotry of any type.

We can get precious about what language we employ these days, but there should always be boundaries of good taste we should strive not to cross. 


I wholeheartedly agree with everything in this post.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

Trueblue wrote:

It's a difficult subject because some words have connotations when applied to one individual that they don't have for another. So if you shout "monkey" at a European player it's okay but not at a darker skinned player. I understand why but isn't it a bit silly in this day and age when the most powerful man in the world is an African-American. It's like not being able to say the slightest thing that could be perceived as an insult by a devout Islamist or orthodox Jew or raving Catholic. If John Terry calls another player a "c**t" then that's just football, but if he calls him a "black c**t" then all hell breaks loose.

Football isn't tiddlewinks and while I'm all for good manners, things get said in the heat of a game and we should just get over it.I've been known to hurl the odd (relatively mild) insult during moments of frustration watching City, but fortunately being a smug and high and mighty supporter of the best football club in the land those are few and far between (cue sound of JV furiously tapping on his computer keyboard). Having said that I get fed up with the abusive sods on the sidelines who never have anything good to say. You know who you are so stop it you *#@"<>&#!

I want to play devils advocate for just a moment to throw something at you to think about. Its not an attack on you, I just want to give you a different perspective so please read it for what it is in the spirit of conversation around this.

If I was to come up to you at Kiwitea street, as 1 fan to another and call you a cunt, from what I take from above, you have no issue with that (although I suspect you probably might be a bit bothered)
Now if I add some context to that word cunt and said 'hey you rapist cunt' or 'hey you kiddie fiddler cunt', I suspect you would go ape shit. Whether I meant no offense or not, I would expect you as the person on the receiving end, would not like that.

Not for one second would I ever do that or is something I am saying to you. The point I am trying to make is that you say above that if someone calls another person a cunt, thats just football. Put something else in front of that to change that meaning slightly and we should still accept that.

Offense is not caused by the person saying the statement. Its cause by the person receiving and how they perceive it. You can state above that its not tiddlywinks but I ask you honestly, if I stood at Kiwitea st and started calling the Croatian contingent '******* cunt' as a slur to their ethnicity, I would get the shit beaten out of me. Again, not something I would ever do, just context to the point.

As another example, would you make a joke in your office about the secretary being a slut and say 'hey I mean no offense, its just a common word we throw around'. I suspect whether you mean no offense or not, its the person on the receiving end that decides if there is any offense caused.

To use the word monkey, regardless of the background of the word, is a bloody stupid move and look at the stir its caused here. If it meant nothing, we would not be talking about it. Yeah I can respect we say stuff and get passionate but again, there are a few other words that can be chosen before that one.

Fundamentally, I ask you seriously, regardless of how it was meant to be used, can you really condone that?

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago


I dont think he's condoning anything ... I however , think you should  come to Kiwitea Str and behave as youve indicated...would be most hilarious...!!

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

FU BLU wrote:


I dont think he's condoning anything ... I however , think you should  come to Kiwitea Str and behave as youve indicated...would be most hilarious...!!

There is no way I would do that because its not something I would ever do either on a forum or in real life. Its not me and I did state, it was more about a point. I would honestly expect, that if I did do that stuff I mentioned, I would expect a bit of a beating and to be jettisoned and fair enough too.

I do ask if I did come along and do that, what would your reaction be? Would you do something about it or would you say 'well its not my problem'. If you choose the latter option, you condone it.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago · edited almost 13 years ago · History

FU BLU wrote:


I dont think he's condoning anything ... I however , think you should  come to Kiwitea Str and behave as youve indicated...would be most hilarious...!!

In thinking about this, how do you mean hilarious? Its raised all sorts of ugly thoughts but I would like you to clarify your point before I speak on the offchance I perceive this wrong.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

So what GGW is saying is that calling someone a pom is unacceptable?

Isnt that to do with there heritage?

All depends on what each individual finds offensive I guess

Agree with him on the race thing  thats unacceptable but please dont bring heritage into it!!

And it's all too easy to play the racism card like Temple did.

Interesting that someone in previous post said maybe calling White a muppet might of been a better choice of word than a Monkey, Try telling that to Billy Harris who was accused of racism by Hamilton Wanderers a few years back for calling a player a muppet

The did a Temple and stirred up shit and played the race card

Permalink Permalink
almost 13 years ago

I was the person that said use the word muppet. I am surprised that someone would find the word muppet as racist. Offensive (if you take it that way) yes, but racist? I would be interested in some context on that.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink