Tottenham Hotspur v Chelsea <removed>s

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
paddygspur said:
Rubbish it's plain homophobic and we all know it is. Labeling them <removed>s is an offensive way of calling them gay. we can't pontificate on their anti semitism if we tolerate our own homophobia. we shouldn't sing it simple.
Click to expand...

You're probably right Paddy. It's more of a way of getting back at them for all their antic ( hissing etc). They are despicable arseholes and we all know this gets to them big time, so without much thought about what it really means, people will use it.. The name goes back to when one of their little heroes was caught in bed with a <removed> during an early morning raid..

It will always go on i'm afraid, the same as calling West Ham pikeys, Wenger a paedophile etc etc etc.
 
sammyspurs said:
All <removed>s arent gay.....its about them being prostitutes in the west end

They've been called it for decades, its not like we just came up with it
Click to expand...
Come on stop tying yourself up in semantics. <removed>s is a clear allusion to labelling them gay. using gayness as an insult implies that being gay is inferior state. a state that we can laugh at. it's homophobic it just plain is. That's why we should be better than them and not sing it.
 
Super Jan Fan said:
I sure hope so. Son on the bench in case we need a goal in the last half hour.

I think we ought to put out the most rested and physical team we can. I don't think many teams look forward to facing the likes of Dier, Dembele, Wanyama, Sissoko, Rose, etc. in any kind of physical game. I honestly don't think Chelsea like a physical game, their players just can't hack it. They're pampered lightweight pussy boys. Plus they could get a points reduction as punishment if they lose control of their players anyway.

Unlike most teams we can bring both physicality and ability and that's a winning combination in games like these. Let's fuck them up and take all three points.
Click to expand...

Lets put Hazard in row z
 
paddygspur said:
Come on stop tying yourself up in semantics. <removed>s is a clear allusion to labelling them gay. using gayness as an insult implies that being gay is inferior state. a state that we can laugh at. it's homophobic it just plain is. That's why we should be better than them and not sing it.
Click to expand...

I thought it meant they couldn't afford a mortgage. How naive am l?
 
SouthStand Billy said:
You're probably right Paddy. It's more of a way of getting back at them for all their antic ( hissing etc). They are despicable arseholes and we all know this gets to them big time, so without much thought about what it really means, people will use it.. The name goes back to when one of their little heroes was caught in bed with a <removed> during an early morning raid..

It will always go on i'm afraid, the same as calling West Ham pikeys, Wenger a paedophile etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

Never knew about the the actual <removed>, always assumed it was more to do with Abramovich and the club selling itself out.

I think the Wenger peado one is over the top.
 
paddygspur said:
Come on stop tying yourself up in semantics. <removed>s is a clear allusion to labelling them gay. using gayness as an insult implies that being gay is inferior state. a state that we can laugh at. it's homophobic it just plain is. That's why we should be better than them and not sing it.
Click to expand...

Yeah probably most sing it without a second thought, which is part of the problem I guess.

Ive never thought about calling them "gay boys" for example.....I just see it as a "a bunch of prozzies"..not much better mind you but not homophobic.

Anyway I see your point mate
 
Tomo said:
Never knew about the the actual <removed>, always assumed it was more to do with Abramovich and the club selling itself out.

I think the Wenger peado one is over the top.
Click to expand...

No, it started way before that, like I said due to an incident with one.. Word spread like wild fire. It's also been rubbished as well, but then it would.
 
SouthStand Billy said:
No, it started way before that, like I said due to an incident with one.. Word spread like wild fire. It's also been rubbished as well, but then it would.
Click to expand...

I bet on footballers wages quite a lot of prostitutes get used, I'd also imagine with the likes of John Terry Chelsea probably get through quite a lot. Probably more of the female variety but who knows.
 
Tomo said:
Never knew about the the actual <removed>, always assumed it was more to do with Abramovich and the club selling itself out.

I think the Wenger peado one is over the top.
Click to expand...
Double agree with this.

Didn't realise it was used prior to Abrahmovich, as I (along with others) simply associated it with money-for-favours.
I think it's easy enough to treat a chant with innocence if you yourself don't harbour any homophobic views.

Bearing that in mind, we need another two syllables to fill the 'we're coming for you' chant!
 
EighteenEightyTwo said:
Thoughts on the "Chelsea <removed>s, were coming for you" chant?

On first thoughts it seems like a fairly juvenile play on words and relatively harmless, but I remember the Proud Lilywhites group getting quite upset about it, calling it homophobic. Does it stigmatise prostitution? without question. But is it actually homophobic? Personally I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Agree and to them and the FUCKING <removed>S.
181.gif
 
Thin Lilywhite Duke said:
Double agree with this.

Didn't realise it was used prior to Abrahmovich, as I (along with others) simply associated it with money-for-favours.
I think it's easy enough to treat a chant with innocence if you yourself don't harbour any homophobic views.

Bearing that in mind, we need another two syllables to fill the 'we're coming for you' chant!
Click to expand...

I don't know 'Chelsea Wank Boys we are coming for you', although that probably is offensive to the teenage male constantly masterbating community. Can't really use the word 'cunts' either as that word drives women to anger. 'Whores' would encapsulate Chelsea selling out to the Russian gangster but that might be viewed as sexist.

It's so hard these days coming up with an offensive non-offensive chant.
 
Thin Lilywhite Duke said:
Double agree with this.

Didn't realise it was used prior to Abrahmovich, as I (along with others) simply associated it with money-for-favours.
I think it's easy enough to treat a chant with innocence if you yourself don't harbour any homophobic views.

Bearing that in mind, we need another two syllables to fill the 'we're coming for you' chant!
Click to expand...

"She's coming for yooo ooo oooo - Tarquin and Giles - your mum's coming for you".
 
Super Jan Fan said:
I sure hope so. Son on the bench in case we need a goal in the last half hour.

I think we ought to put out the most rested and physical team we can. I don't think many teams look forward to facing the likes of Dier, Dembele, Wanyama, Sissoko, Rose, etc. in any kind of physical game. I honestly don't think Chelsea like a physical game, their players just can't hack it. They're pampered lightweight pussy boys. Plus they could get a points reduction as punishment if they lose control of their players anyway.

Unlike most teams we can bring both physicality and ability and that's a winning combination in games like these. Let's fuck them up and take all three points.
Click to expand...
Agreed - Sissoko's physicality gives him an edge

If tragic Stoke can score 2 against this lot - we can certainly do a few better

Time to end the media darling reacharound
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom