Jump to content
IGNORED

CSF


Super
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

Some of them on this forum wouldn’t look out of place on netmums.com tbh it’s quite funny seeing them bite over issues that obviously don’t concern them if they just show up to watch the football then they won’t be affected 

Who's biting? They responded with their opinion and experiences about the 'CSF' on a thread about the 'CSF'... not rocket science.

The sooner the coked up brain dead thugs are no longer talked about the better 👍

39 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

 

 

Edited by !james
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, lenred said:

Most definitely.  My point was only that it’s still chanted whenever there is any hint of trouble. No doubt that it’s not followed through like it used to be! 

And Tbf mate, I don’t think we’re far off the same page. I don’t have an issue with a chant of CSF in theory (again, we may chant that Palmer can shag our wives, but that doesn’t mean we mean it). My point is that I have an issue with CSF actions not words. Apologies if that didn’t come through, that was the point I was making.

Inherently - Chants no issue. Justifying violence - issue. The problem is when the chant is intrinsically connected with the violence, and I think  CSF hits that.

Again, we’re all city. I don’t think protecting my kid from violence is wrong, and that’s why I’ll stand against CSF. I don’t expect agreement, but hope you understand the stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

Some of them on this forum wouldn’t look out of place on netmums.com tbh it’s quite funny seeing them bite over issues that obviously don’t concern them if they just show up to watch the football then they won’t be affected 

Tosser. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the day if your Club were known as a soft touch then every man and his dog would turn up to take the wotsits out of the place. Second or third rate FV mobs would see it as an opportunity to create mayhem and enhance their reputation among the like-minded.
 

Never forget Ipswich in one of our first home matches in Division 1 - who no doubt though we were going to be a load of country bumpkins - brought loads down, arrived early, decorated The Centre with spray paint (including the statues oddly) and made a bit of nuisance of themselves around the ground …and then got absolutely battered. 

The following season a few Ipswich OAP’s in bubblehats turned up and we never subsequently had any issues with them at The Gate. Indeed, having now taken Mark Ashton from us I suspect we will be buying them pints at their next visit.
 

At least in my view, particularly given at the time the Police were often worse than useless in controlling the mobs, the CSF and others saved the normal supporter and the local areas around AG a lot of hassle. They were a pretty decent deterrent from us having issues away from home as well.

Different times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

And Tbf mate, I don’t think we’re far off the same page. I don’t have an issue with a chant of CSF in theory (again, we may chant that Palmer can shag our wives, but that doesn’t mean we mean it). My point is that I have an issue with CSF actions not words. Apologies if that didn’t come through, that was the point I was making.

Inherently - Chants no issue. Justifying violence - issue. The problem is when the chant is intrinsically connected with the violence, and I think  CSF hits that.

Again, we’re all city. I don’t think protecting my kid from violence is wrong, and that’s why I’ll stand against CSF. I don’t expect agreement, but hope you understand the stance.

Again, I’ve not condoned any violence whatsoever, I have simply answered your point about the term ‘CSF’ being heard. It was a general comment to your point which you have taken way too far.  You’re fighting the wrong person. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, phantom said:

From a personal experience what you say above is wrong

Yes these people do / did often only come against like minded people but the point you are missing is that the coming to the defence of people is at times when we have been at away games and supporters of other clubs attack anyone in their way, I can personally vouch that at a number of games if these people had not been there things would have gotten a lot worse for many others

What are your thoughts on the City fans who went  the back of the East end to attack the remaining Rovers fans in the ground a few years back?

Edited by Miah Dennehy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, lenred said:

Again, I’ve not condoned any violence whatsoever, I have simply answered your point about the term ‘CSF’ being heard. It was a general comment to your point which you have taken way too far.  You’re fighting the wrong person. 

Tbf I’m not trying to fight you, and apologies if it comes across that way. I get very annoyed on the “csf” piece. They aren’t super fans, they’re worse fans  when you see the impact on the average joe. 
 

I think my bottom line is I can’t, and won’t, respect CSF or any other organisation that has hooligan tendencies. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, but I separate that from a “non intent” chant ( a la Lockyer)

I think we can agree that it would be a simpler world without CSF, and I think you agree that without them it’s better. What I don’t get is people (not you as far as I can see) being wedded to this sub-culture 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, richwwtk said:

I think you are missing the point.

Yes, innocent City fans may have been saved from a beating by other sides 'firms', but at the same time innocent fans of other clubs will have been in need of protection from the CSF.

Every 'firm' will claim that they do not pick on innocent fans, but in the end every single one of them does, and there is no reason to think any differently of CSF.

If there were no 'firms' then no innocent fans would need protecting and football would be all the better for it.

This is a naive statement.

There is always an element of this in basic society. Not expecting it in virtue as there are no 'firms'...?

Football tend to be a basic reflection of the culture of the football team in question. Firms always exist, as, unfortunately, there is an element at all clubs that engage in violence.

As for 'innocent fans'. I went to Cardiff and there was one incident where random 'Diff fan tried lobbing tools, i.e. wrenches at City fans. 

CSF members tackled him down and handed him over to the Heddlu.

Said tools could have cause serious harm (to innocents) and the Cardiff youth specified may have no criminal record, but he would be termed an 'innocent', i.e. no prev record. By the media.

Always depends on context.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fuber said:

This is a naive statement.

There is always an element of this in basic society. Not expecting it in virtue as there are no 'firms'...?

Football tend to be a basic reflection of the culture of the football team in question. Firms always exist, as, unfortunately, there is an element at all clubs that engage in violence.

As for 'innocent fans'. I went to Cardiff and there was one incident where random 'Diff fan tried lobbing tools, i.e. wrenches at City fans. 

CSF members tackled him down and handed him over to the Heddlu.

Said tools could have cause serious harm (to innocents) and the Cardiff youth specified may have no criminal record, but he would be termed an 'innocent', i.e. no prev record. By the media.

Always depends on context.

 

“The plural of anecdote is not data”

What you’ve done, inadvertently, is prove the point. 
 

You’ve said that a Cardiff “fan” (Speech marks intended) was stopped by CSF. Again, fair play to them.

But then to leap that CSF won’t do the same to other fans is naive at best. Again - were either the exception or we did it.

I don’t doubt your story occurred. But as data, it’s frankly bollocks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

“The plural of anecdote is not data”

What you’ve done, inadvertently, is prove the point. 
 

You’ve said that a Cardiff “fan” (Speech marks intended) was stopped by CSF. Again, fair play to them.

But then to leap that CSF won’t do the same to other fans is naive at best. Again - were either the exception or we did it.

I don’t doubt your story occurred. But as data, it’s frankly bollocks 

I agree with your point. But it's a self fulfilling cycle. It's an inverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fuber said:

I agree with your point. But it's a self fulfilling cycle. It's an inverse.

To add, just because we stop doesn't mean other clubs likewise will. Theres 22 other clubs in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

“The plural of anecdote is not data”

What you’ve done, inadvertently, is prove the point. 
 

You’ve said that a Cardiff “fan” (Speech marks intended) was stopped by CSF. Again, fair play to them.

But then to leap that CSF won’t do the same to other fans is naive at best. Again - were either the exception or we did it.

I don’t doubt your story occurred. But as data, it’s frankly bollocks 

Just to add to my previous point is simply that the both are true. 

All firms would need to be come to some sort of agreement. It comes down to basic perception.

The issue is again. Is that when I mention the Cardiff fan, is that, if this was AG, the roles could easily be inversed.

It's not the firms themselves that are the issue (for some part), the issue is that's there's a sub element within all who use the cover of the firm to perform the acts that are then perceived as wrongs - and the remaining element of sub firms simply don't know how to manage said situation.

It's simply the naivety of both sides of the argument that I am trying to highlight. Apologies if I've failed at that - I'm pretty wasted currently in the sunny Canaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Miah Dennehy said:

What are your thoughts on the City fans who went  the back of the East end to attack the remaining Rovers fans in the ground a few years back?

Probably the same thoughts as when Rovers fans attacked Braintree Players in the Conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wiltshire robin said:

Some of them on this forum wouldn’t look out of place on netmums.com tbh it’s quite funny seeing them bite over issues that obviously don’t concern them if they just show up to watch the football then they won’t be affected 

Its laughable mate. The bottom line is rightly or wrongly firms, violence and the casual culture are a part and parcel of football in this country and across Europe.
 

Am I condoning innocent fans being caught up in incidents of violence?  of course not but lets be brutally honest the match day experience for familys has become absolutely excellent in modern day football in the UK. The days of mass disorder at grounds in this country are done. When was the last time anyone can remember disorder at Ashton Gate that involved familys or innocent fans being involved and or hurt? Swansea at home for me was the last time i can remember disorder (if you can even call it that) on a largeish scale.. a few scuffles between like minded fans at the bottom of the Dolman all over within minutes and  some of perpetrators got handed custodial sentences.. people need to take into context how few and far between these incidents are now especially inside grounds, it’s almost unheard of. Disorder happens away from the ground so it baffles me as to why people even think the CSF has any effect on their life or match day experience, it’s odd that people on here are so passionate about a sub - culture that doesn’t effect them.

Firms and the casual culture will continue to exist in this country and across Europe as ultimately whether the left want to accept it or not football will always continue to be a working class tribal sport and will continue to attract that element of individual to follow it. People need to accept that fact IMO.

Edited by bris red
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RedRock said:

Back in the day if your Club were known as a soft touch then every man and his dog would turn up to take the wotsits out of the place. Second or third rate FV mobs would see it as an opportunity to create mayhem and enhance their reputation among the like-minded.
 

Never forget Ipswich in one of our first home matches in Division 1 - who no doubt though we were going to be a load of country bumpkins - brought loads down, arrived early, decorated The Centre with spray paint (including the statues oddly) and made a bit of nuisance of themselves around the ground …and then got absolutely battered. 

The following season a few Ipswich OAP’s in bubblehats turned up and we never subsequently had any issues with them at The Gate. Indeed, having now taken Mark Ashton from us I suspect we will be buying them pints at their next visit.
 

At least in my view, particularly given at the time the Police were often worse than useless in controlling the mobs, the CSF and others saved the normal supporter and the local areas around AG a lot of hassle. They were a pretty decent deterrent from us having issues away from home as well.

Different times.

Bang on, I am not or never have been any “member of a firm” but you were taking your life in your own hands when going to some away games in the ‘80s and on many occasion if you weren’t in a “mob” you’d be singled out scarfer or not, it’s the main reason why crowds hit rock bottom all over the country, I remember going to all sorts of relatively small teams who were happy to pick off a few City fans and trying to have a go like Hereford, Shrewsbury, Stockport, Northampton, Chesterfield etc,  it was just the way football was at the time, am I glad it’s behind us ? absolutely 100%.

Have the CSF released a statement on the shortage of HGV drivers yet? 🙂 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bris red said:

Its laughable mate. The bottom line is rightly or wrongly firms, violence and the casual culture are a part and parcel of football in this country and across Europe.
 

Am I condoning innocent fans being caught up in incidents of violence?  of course not but lets be brutally honest the match day experience for familys has become absolutely excellent in modern day football in the UK. The days of mass disorder at grounds in this country are done. When was the last time anyone can remember disorder at Ashton Gate that involved familys or innocent fans being involved and or hurt? Swansea at home for me was the last time i can remember disorder (if you can even call it that) on a largeish scale.. a few scuffles between like minded fans at the bottom of the Dolman all over within minutes and the some of perpetrators got handed custodial sentences.. what more do people want? 

Firms and the casual culture will continue to exist in this country and across Europe as ultimately whether the left want to accept it or not football will always continue to be a working class tribal sport and will continue to attract that element of individual to follow it. People need to accept that fact IMO.

It can be accepted as a fact that these tossers exist, nobody is disputing that.

But they should not be legitimised by the press the way the article that spawned this thread did.

Nobody cares if they are right wing, left wing, racist, bright pink, whatever. They are no mark thugs and deserve no credit or respect whatsoever. All they deserve is society's contempt.

Edited by richwwtk
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, richwwtk said:

It can be accepted as a fact that these tossers exist, nobody is disputing that.

But they should not be legitimised by the press the way the article that spawned this thread did.

Nobody cares if they are right wing, left wing, racist, bright pink, whatever. They are no mark thugs and deserve no credit or respect whatsoever. All they deserve is society's contempt.

Give it a rest... 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SuperDziek said:

I’m getting from this that CSF stands for Carefully Saving Fans. There’s was me thinking it was a hooligan firm. Silly me.

I’ve got a good idea what the C really stands for but I’ll get a ban for saying it . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an interesting article and a good discussion on here. I find it odd that a firm connected to Bristol City had talks with Mr Reece and it’s been openly talked about in the media. 
Passions run high when some people think of the fallen and their ultimate sacrifice to this country. 
I genuinely have never thought that All lives Matter slogan is racist , Black Lives Matter singles out one group, many other groups have suffered in this Country so something more inclusive all would be better …tin hat on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, richyy66 said:

Probably the same thoughts as when Rovers fans attacked Braintree Players in the Conference.

That's not really an answer though is it, saying 'your lot are just as bad'.  I know the bloke who punched the Braintree player and I also know a couple of those who attacked people- and a couple of women DID get punched in that nasty episode- in the East End that day. It kinda destroys the myth that 'firms' only get it on with other 'firms' and are there to protect their own supporters.

In the late 70s early 80s , me and all my mates fancied ourselves as hooligans, we were pretty shit at it and by the time we hit our 20s most of us grew out of it and I do understand there is a bond & camaraderie between those who were more heavily involved, it's only natural to look back and think 'those were the days'. I'm pretty friendly with a couple who would still consider themselves CSF and old Totenders and for the most part, they are good decent people, but it doesn't excuse beating the **** out of innocent people at a football match . Apparently the CSF 'condemn violence and vandalism'  yet I know I have seen more than one video of fans chanting 'CSF' while smashing the **** out of  a pub without a thought for the staff or owner.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Miah Dennehy said:

That's not really an answer though is it, saying 'your lot are just as bad'.  I know the bloke who punched the Braintree player and I also know a couple of those who attacked people- and a couple of women DID get punched in that nasty episode- in the East End that day. It kinda destroys the myth that 'firms' only get it on with other 'firms' and are there to protect their own supporters.

In the late 70s early 80s , me and all my mates fancied ourselves as hooligans, we were pretty shit at it and by the time we hit our 20s most of us grew out of it and I do understand there is a bond & camaraderie between those who were more heavily involved, it's only natural to look back and think 'those were the days'. I'm pretty friendly with a couple who would still consider themselves CSF and old Totenders and for the most part, they are good decent people, but it doesn't excuse beating the **** out of innocent people at a football match . Apparently the CSF 'condemn violence and vandalism'  yet I know I have seen more than one video of fans chanting 'CSF' while smashing the **** out of  a pub without a thought for the staff or owner.

 

 

 

 

 

We're probably of a similar age and I can relate to how you describe things in the late 70's through to the 80's when every club had a problem with football violence some worse than others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
27 minutes ago, Sixtyseconds said:

Did anybody try to buy their sandwiches?

Operator can you give me the number for?

What do you mean it doesnt exist theres an advert at Ashton Gate ...

To this day I can’t believe they got away with it 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

To be fair that was absolutely nothing compared to the ‘GHS’ attacking Swindon fans (including women) with baseball bats at the Inn on the Green.

Exactly . A totally cowardly act, just like the East End that day. It is a myth that violence at football is just amongst those that are looking for it.

I will say, it is far, far, far easier to avoid violence now than it was 40 years ago, but that doesn't get away from the fact that innocent people do get hurt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/10/2021 at 10:04, richwwtk said:

I don't deny it's a crime, people have been arrested for it. What I said was hardly the crime of the century. I agree that a Cenotaph is more than just a pile of stones, much more, but for a bit of protestors spray paint that can easily be washed away the next day to have left lasting damage would suggest extreme sensitivity. 

Have you tried to wash spray paint off anything? The Council have to buff it off many surfaces. It does not wash off stone. It will cause lasting damage. 

What you highlight is own world view not everybody’s. People are sensitive about what is sacred. You clearly do not share that sensitivity but again that is your world view.  Attacking a memorial is not a trivial crime for millions. Many people feel vandalising a war memorial is disgusting. It in my opinion should be a hate crime in the manner deliberately defacing a Temple would be.

Attacking memorials harms the perception people have of BLM. Negative actions create negative memories. The more negative the deeper internalised the memory becomes. Attacks on memorials are an attack on people’s families, community, status this is highly negative. That this does not include you does not change what is basic psychology. 

Your undeniable assertion earlier (All Lives Matter) was your opinion. It was not a fact and literal. It was deniable and logically so. Everybody is not you.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...