Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Local children are growing up wanting to play for Bristol City, not Chelsea or Liverpool anymore. That shows the effectiveness of pillars 1 and 2 imo
  2. Anyone can rewrite their own definitions. Nationalism and racism are two separate things. Anyway major, your original point is moot and irrelevant as Italian football has been this way for decades. Racism within Italian football is not on the rise, it has decreased, a lot.
  3. Racism and nationalism are two completely separate things. Please, do not misconstrue this.
  4. I rather simplified it and assumed each fan would pay a blanket £900k every year, no more, no less. And that sums gifted would only inflate.
  5. So, 306,800 fans donate £900,000 for 22 years. That's £6.075 Trillion (£6,074,640,000,000.00). Since 1999, the average total PL transfer spend is up roughly 720%, so using that as an inflation marker, after 22 years the club will have £43.75 Trillion (£43,737,408,000,000.00 - double the US' current GDP) Real Madrid (the richest club in the world currently with an estimated £4.25 Billion) would have inflated to £30.6 Billion after 22 years, which would be eclipsed 1429.73 times by lil old Bristol City. That would've saved Bury... but wouldn't have won us the world cup!
  6. Have got to remember that the singing section and Section 82 are two different entities. What happens within the SS is sometimes, but not often, the responsibility of S82. The club know this and there is constant dialogue, when necessary, with club officials and S82
  7. The whole of the EFL is under scrutiny for persistent standing. A smoke bomb, not flare, was detonated and thrown toward the pitch. The offender has been dealt with by Police and it would've been included in a Referee's match report. It was not as major an event as OTIB has made it out to be. No club - other than a small non-league club with a persistent 'issue' - has ever been fined in England for pyrotechnics, despite what the press may lead people to believe. It was sung a couple of times by a minority, if it was even noted then there may have been a text to S82 from the stadium management. There hasn't been. You're trying to make a ski resort out of molehill, good forbid you ever see anyone consuming alchohol within view of a regulated sports fixture!
  8. At least you'd have a choice...
  9. It was nothing to do with Randolph. The people singing it knew what they were singing. We have no more of an affiliation with Rangers than any of the other 89 EFL clubs (Milwall and Chelsea not included). It was being sung as a stance against UEFA/ SFA and various other football governing bodies for their mistreatment of Rangers fans recently, particularly the Union Bears group Also, **** the pope and the IRA.
  10. Some quality pictures on Section 82's instagram From flag day
  11. The club and police view the unreserved area as the most ‘high risk’ area in the ground.
  12. No one is disputing a disabled fan’s right to be a part of the section. I’m highlighting the fact that putting a disabled section DIRECTLY in front of a small ‘high risk’ corner as if it were a cork on a bottle was idiotic from the club. In the Atyeo, disabled seating was slightly to the side of a full stand, the same with the eastend. The south stand is a small area with a focal point of the disabled section. Anyone with half a brain would understand this and realise highlighting this isn’t anti-disabled or whatever has been claimed. Yes, people should behave themselves, however the club are aware that if anyone in the ground is going to ‘offend’ they will likely be in the designated section. Therefore, it was ridiculous forward planning from Bristol Sport
  13. Someone also died going for a swim whilst it was hot. Shit happens in life, if you live it avoiding anything that may harm you, you probably won’t enjoy it. anyway, smoke is healthy
  14. The club had no intention of accommodating an unreserved/ singing section. They realised there was a need for one so housed it in the ‘eastend’ or rather the south east end. This happened to be directly behind a disabled section and, given the apparent issues the club had with us in the last season of the Atyeo, this was extremely poor forward planning from the club. However, all of these incidents add up for BS to eventually say no ‘singing section’
  15. No, I’m saying positioning a disabled section directly in front of the highest risk area - in the club’s eyes - was poor forward planning.
  • Create New...