Personally I believe its due to the fan mentality nowadays. You can clearly see from the way some are on the boards towards each other that pretty much everyone revels in their fellow teams failing, especially rival teams. Back in the 70s and 80s fans were probably less interested in rubbing their successes in rival fans faces and might have a bit of banter after beating their mates team but after that left it at that.

I used to cheer on all the English teams in Europe up until a few years back when I thought "why should I when such n such fans are complete planks on here?" I feel if we didn't get so personal towards each other we would be more willing to back our national representatives more.

I'll give you an example, your team loses to a team whos fans are generally quite pleasant and never wum, nine times out of ten you would say well done you deserved it ect but if the are a bunch of wummers you would be less likely to.

Probably a simple answer is that most of the British teams were playing with British players.

It is the game that has become more mercenary now, not the fans. I, living in Edmonton have no allegiance to a team in Liverpool full of players most of whom I cannot even pronounce their names.

But my own team, with equal amounts of foreigners is still, just that, my team.

The game is too money orientated, with clubs able to buy success, even though buying and selling players has always been part of the game. It was just the odd player now and again back in the day. Now spending millions to make millions is the province of only the very richest.

I think I would be rather sad if I were a City or Chelsea fan with the background thought that unlimited amounts of money have been thrown at the team for their success.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

All very good points, particularly Ace's. It's quite telling that both Chelsea and Man City have pushed right to the front of the crowd with the money injections they have had, success in CL will only push them further forward I guess.

I pick those two out simply because until their benefactors arrived they were mid-table teams that had glimmers of success occasionally, not unlike Spurs to be fair.

They didn't have the consistent records of recent success that Arsenal, Liverpool or Utd have had, that's for sure.

There's only so much room at the table, if they get a seat I guess we can't.

I was always a bit more discerning with who I supported. Forest, United and Celtic yes, but I always supported anyone but Liverpool as my kid brother was a fan.

When you get to national games, I always supported the Brits...until I heard a Scot say they didn't want or need us, and a Welsh guy I knew said the same. Since then I always support the opposition and laugh when they lose....I still have a soft spot for the Irish after a drunken rugby chat with a pub landlord over there

Personally I always cheer on any British teams in Eurpean competition. I vividly remember cheering the might Tottenham on in their sole Chanpions League campaign in 2010-2011, following their triumphs over the likes of FC Twente and Young Boys, Berne. What a season to remember

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

"What do you think?"

Saturation. Both in terms of games and participants.

Didn't it used to be 4 league teams max across all UEFA tournaments (champions in Champions Cup, league #2/3 in UEFA Cup, FA Cup winner in CW Cup) ??

So yes, you got behind the other clubs more. Especially the Champions cup participants (who were representing the best of your domestic league) .

Even if I find myself with a dislike of another English team generally, I have always found I will still support them in Europe, if it doesn't affect Chelsea. For instance, when United played Barca in the 2011 final, I cheered massively when Rooney scored.

I even remember supporting Tottenham in their champions league run. There is no point having your experiences on an anonymous Internet forum change how you view a club, because as well all know, people are not the friendliest on the internet. I've no doubt some of the biggest WUMs on the site are completely different when you are chatting face to face.

Just the way it is I suppose.

The common view that I encounter is that Chelsea and City have 2 of the 4 places nailed down due to their mulit billionaire lottery wins. This leaves only 2 places for the clubs that try to balance the books and inevitably leads to extra annoyance.

That night we did City 0-1 at their place to qualify was superb but we all knew deep down they would be back in a major way.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Yes Crouch, what a night that was.

Of course having got us into the CL several months later in Madrid he got us out!!

PawlBawron

The common view that I encounter is that Chelsea and City have 2 of the 4 places nailed down due to their mulit billionaire lottery wins.

don't mind seeing city and united do well in the CL this season.

and am backing swansea in the europa league.


chaaavs and arsenal can faaack off though

There was also no forums like 606 to have a go at rival fans so the dislike did not boil over and abuse would be saved up and probably forgotten by the next time the two teams did battle. There was far less televised matches also so less scrutiny on the game, the officials & less pundits opinions Jimmy Hill aside.