Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:02 pm  

Paul Youane wrote:

don't be suprised to see a welcoming committee waiting for the "Ultras" when you got back later this year.

Paul Youane wrote:

I wouldn't advise sticking them anywhere when you visit Warrington this season.

enough said really.

Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:08 pm  

Conroy wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh look. Exactly what I wrote.

What's your point? I wasn't disagreeing with you.

The word ultra has been used because the football groups use it. I don't see why people are getting their knickers in a twist because they can't accept that using the term is provocative and seem to be dying to contextualize it until it is just a meaningless word. If it was meaningless it wouldn't have been used.

Why use a label which (as has been mentioned by those including 'members') has been tainted by football groups when literally any could have been used? It just doesn't make any sense to me and seems to be deliberately chosen with either bad taste or bad intentions in mind; the balaclava's would provoke the same response in many.

Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:13 pm  

Some of the posts from Brigantes members on here take me back to Primary school and the days of having gangs. It seems that some are more than a touch sensitive to any form of criticism but at the same time are more than willing to accept any compliments that go their way. This along with talk of policing the Brigantes, the Brigantes brand etc and people wanting this thread locked just because there is criticism make it sound more like a communist dictatorship whose word is final than a group of supporters. The last time I looked this forum wasnt a vehicle for the Brigantes and was for Wigan Rugby League. I would have thought this thread was a cracking way of taking peoples concerns on board and trying to improve things. Instead though I think the hostility shown towards any criticism, no matter how minor, has simply served to alienate some Wigan fans even more.

On the term Ultras every person I know when asked about this thinks of this as being a hooligan term. Whether people in the Brigantes like it or not a large percentage of people think this way and importantly people from other clubs think this way. There is simply no need to use this word and there are plenty of alternatives that could be used. As posters from other clubs have said plastering oppostion grounds with Wigan Ultra stickers is just asking for trouble further down the line because as we know all clubs have idiots and things like this are just all the excuse they need. If fans from Warrington plastered Warrington stickers all over the JJB there would be outrage on this board. Again this is all needless so why not just drop the Ultra tag and use one of the many more firiendly alternatives. People are trying to defend it by saying Ultras in a Rugby League context means something else. Well for a start there is no Ultras in a Rugby League context because no one has used it before, for obvious reasons, and it is simply a term copied from other sports. It should be no shock to anyone if that meaning is also brought across too. Some people are also saying that Ultra isnt a hooligan term and means above the norm and supporting their club in extraordinary ways. If this doesnt mean they think they are better than the average fan then I dont know what does. I, and I know others, think some Brigantes members think they are somehow better than the average fan and if the Ultra term means this to Brigantes members then it just reinforces this even more.

Other non-Brigantes Wigan fans raise valid concerns about drumming etc and they are called a sad old men. Surely instead of replying with such hostility Brigantes should be trying to appeal to all Wigan fans and take peoples concerns on board. The Brigantes, who at the end of the day are a very small minority of Wigan fans, are certainly making it seem like it is a case of if you are not with them, and if you dont agree with everything they say and do, then you are against them. Surely this should not be the case and it definately isnt the best way of getting people on board.

Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:17 pm  

Smurf wrote:

What's your point? I wasn't disagreeing with you.

The word ultra has been used because the football groups use it. I don't see why people are getting their knickers in a twist because they can't accept that using the term is provocative and seem to be dying to contextualize it until it is just a meaningless word. If it was meaningless it wouldn't have been used.

Why use a label which (as has been mentioned by those including 'members') has been tainted by football groups when literally any could have been used? It just doesn't make any sense to me and seems to be deliberately chosen with either bad taste or bad intentions in mind; the balaclava's would provoke the same response in many.

This is why people shouldn't post about the 'ultra' thing when they don't have a clue about that particular scene.

Ultras are in many sports all across europe, these include... Basketball, Handball, Waterpolo, Rugby Union, Swimming, Ice-hockey, Speedway, Aussie Rules, Motor sports, Volleyball, Gaelic Football....

It is a way of supporting your team beyond the norm. That is all. It is not just a football thing, it was just birthed there. We wouldn't say Rugby League is just a Huddersfield thing.

Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:22 pm  

Odem wrote:

Why should we be forced not to bring a drum? Will you break it if we bring one and stand near you?

All this thread has shown is that yet again BK will moan about anything, a 15 year old latics fan was an idiot, and the Brigantes have improved the atmosphere at Wigan games.

Jeeeeeeesus christ you are bumming this "will you break the drum?" when you know he isnt going to do so. Stop milking it flower

Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:29 pm  

Smurf wrote:

What's your point? I wasn't disagreeing with you.

The word ultra has been used because the football groups use it. I don't see why people are getting their knickers in a twist because they can't accept that using the term is provocative and seem to be dying to contextualize it until it is just a meaningless word. If it was meaningless it wouldn't have been used.

Why use a label which (as has been mentioned by those including 'members') has been tainted by football groups when literally any could have been used? It just doesn't make any sense to me and seems to be deliberately chosen with either bad taste or bad intentions in mind; the balaclava's would provoke the same response in many.

So because the word Negro can be deemed as being offensive, the Spanish and Portuguese should change the word, or not use it at all?

A balaclava is a garment used to keep your head and face warm. A scarf is used to keep your neck, and often your chin and lower face warm, should they be banned from general sale because some chose to hide their faces with balaclavas and scarfs while breaking the law?

A hooker is a prostitute, or perhaps it's a position in Rugby...

Ultra is a football hooligan, or perhaps it's a group of die hard supporters in Rugby.


It this man a hooligan?
No, it was November 2010 in Germany, and temperatures were below freezing.


Is this man a hooligan?
No, he's wearing a fire proof balaclava to protect his face from being burned.


Are these people hooligans? Look at them. Disgraceful. Climbing on the advertising hoardings, invading the pitch holding flares too.

Oh wait, they're not flares, the stadium is on fire, they're not climbing on the advertising hoardings, they're trying to evacuate the stand. Of course, that is the Bradford Stadium fire.


What i've proven here is that what you perceive as X Y and Z, is often the complete opposite. If you saw the guy in the 1st picture stood in the stands of the DW Stadium, would you brand him a hooligan?

Looks can be deceiving, as can words, and their often unsubstansiated interpretations.

Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:34 pm  

My goodness. 'Knickers in a twist' probably didn't quite cover it.

Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:44 pm  

onedego wrote:

Snip

I don't think the issue is really with people thinking that the Brigantes are hooligans. It seems the issue is whether a term that is associated with hooliganism (wrongly, but there have been some incidents of violence from ultras which can present that impression) is necessary for the Brigantes or whether using it simply makes it harder to get across the intentions of the group.

If there are Wigan fans who feel that the term ultras has too much of a negative connotation and might be off putting, is it still essential to use the term ultras? Or is getting more people involved more important?

I know I've been asking about it on the Brigantes forum and can understand that it's very possible that dropping the use of the term might not make any difference whatsoever, I just don't see how it's an essential part of what the group is doing.

You can make displays, flags, support the team as loud as you want and do everything that's currently done without being called ultras. Those things aren't exclusively 'ultra'

Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:50 pm  

Smurf wrote:

My goodness. 'Knickers in a twist' probably didn't quite cover it.

Quite. I think some of the posts from Brigantes members have done far more damage to the Brigantes, and for that matter would have put people off joining, than any of the posts from people that have offered constructive criticism.

Re: So who... : Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:51 pm  

Make sure you take your face coverings next tuesday, the north stand at Barton faces directly into the prevailing wind and you will be very cold

Plus the low angle of the terracing means any rain will basically blow under and onto everybody in the stand, even the top rows will get drenched