Soccer Club Info

[SunDancer]

Growing more interested and involve with the soccer world through the US's success and FM/CM sim, I always wondered about the names of European clubs. Where do they get them. Do new teams come abroad, and how does that happen? How is Manchester United so globally, and are any teams even close to the global and financial market of them? What are the worth's of European teams compared to those sport franchises stateside?

[SirFozzie]

Real Madrid is bigger then ManYoo globally.

Remember, most footy clubs are 100 years old+, so that's why you see a bunch of goofy names

[Crapshoot]

Man Utd is probably the most valuable sports team in the world- I think its value is estimated close to 1 billion pounds, or about 1.8-1.9 billion dollars. Real Madrid probably has the potential to be worth more, especially with its close ties to the Spanish government and its rapid recent growth.

[condors]

there was an article on espn/soccernet a 2-3 years ago(before the first US tour of the big clubs) Celtic had the largest worldwide following, followed by Manutd which i find hard to believe, hopefully someone with better google skills than myself can find it someplace. There was an article about Arsenal's Wenger refusing to leave Europe for offseason friendlies hurts the global growth of the club. It is definatly something the big clubs are aware of. In Philadelphia i saw alot of other people Manchester United jerseys/kits. I myself have 2 Roy Keane jerserys a red one and the black one(my wife bought me both of them). There is certainly room to grow and money to be made in the United States. I would prefer to see more D.C. United kits but i think the next Adu jersery will be my first(although i do live in philly, we don't have a team ourselves but i have gone to DC United and Columbus Crew games).

[Ramzavail]

Norwich City Canaries - case closed.

[tanglewood]

Man Utd, as most large British clubs are, is a PLC trading on the stock market. It's current worth in market capitalization (share price X numer of shares in circulation) is £695m or $1.3bn. However, this is FAR in excess of any other English club, as Man U is a true global marketing phenomenon. For comparison, Tottenham (the first club to go PLC in the late 80's) are worth £33m, Newcastle £59m and Birmingham £15m.

On the continent, having a publicly owned company is rarer, the majority of them being privately owned (e.g. AC Milan) or collectively owned by the fans (most famously, FC Barcelona). Some large European clubs quoted on the stock exchange are Juventus ($220m), Lazio ($34m) and Dortmund ($52m).

Realistically, the only football clubs that are as financially big as an NFL franchise are Man Utd and Real Madrid, both of which are probably biger than any single NFL franchise. However, below these two even clubs that are their equals on the pitch and historically such as Millan, Juve, Liverpool, Arsenal and Bayern Munich have either a lack of resources or desire to expand into becoming a global brand as the two aformentioned giants. Man Utd and Real have always been the two most glamourus clubs in Europe, it has just always been that way since the 50's due to their unique histories. Even when Utd and Real were not even competing for thophies for years at a stretch, those two retained a sense of history and speciallness that other clubs can only aspire to reach one day. It is this factor that aids them so much in their marketing abroad and in the far east.

[CraigSca]

One team I am personally not interested in is "Young Boys". I've noticed them in some international play in FM - I think they're from Sweden.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Man Utd, as most large British clubs are, is a PLC trading on the stock market. It's current worth in market capitalization (share price X numer of shares in circulation) is £695m or $1.3bn. However, this is FAR in excess of any other English club, as Man U is a true global marketing phenomenon. For comparison, Tottenham (the first club to go PLC in the late 80's) are worth £33m, Newcastle £59m and Birmingham £15m.

On the continent, having a publicly owned company is rarer, the majority of them being privately owned (e.g. AC Milan) or collectively owned by the fans (most famously, FC Barcelona). Some large European clubs quoted on the stock exchange are Juventus ($220m), Lazio ($34m) and Dortmund ($52m).

Realistically, the only football clubs that are as financially big as an NFL franchise are Man Utd and Real Madrid, both of which are probably biger than any single NFL franchise. However, below these two even clubs that are their equals on the pitch and historically such as Millan, Juve, Liverpool, Arsenal and Bayern Munich have either a lack of resources or desire to expand into becoming a global brand as the two aformentioned giants. Man Utd and Real have always been the two most glamourus clubs in Europe, it has just always been that way since the 50's due to their unique histories. Even when Utd and Real were not even competing for thophies for years at a stretch, those two retained a sense of history and speciallness that other clubs can only aspire to reach one day. It is this factor that aids them so much in their marketing abroad and in the far east.

What Chelsa, with the new owner, they seem ready to grow big-time.

[3ric]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

One team I am personally not interested in is "Young Boys". I've noticed them in some international play in FM - I think they're from Sweden.

Close, but no cigar - they are from Switzerland.

http://www.uefa.com/FootballCentral/...ry/Club=50031/

[CraigSca]

Ah, thanks for the clarification, 3ric

[CraigSca]

UIC - click on the website that 3ric references...in "other news", 5th line down: "Brazilian Blow for Young Boys".

[tanglewood]

As for names, well each club has their own story as to how they got theirs. Just a few quick ones of the top of my head.

Sheffield Wednesday for example, was formed by the members of The Wednesday Cricket Club (so called because, well, they always played on a Wednesday....) who fancied playing a bit of footie to keep fit and active in the winter when they couldn't play cricket.

My team, Tottenham Hotspur, took their name from Harry Hotspur, a nobleman who died fighting aganist Henry IV after he usurped Richard II from the throne in *looks this bit up* 1403. Tottenham is a place in London in case you're wondering about that bit.

Any Spanish club with 'Real' in its name means that at one time or another it asked for and recieved a royal charter from a member of the Spanish royal family. This event is not as uncommon as it sounds and usually happened because a royal was a supporter of the club. To seen to be given the title 'Real' comes with a certain stigma however, as it is to be seen as part of the establishment, connected with the powers that be. This contrasts greatly with FC Barcelona and Athletic* Bilbao who are symbols for their regions (Catalonia and Basque respectively) against the historically opressive Castillian majority in Spain.

*Yes, Athletic spelt the English way as the club was founded by British ex-pats.

[SunDancer]

Can teams build a global fanbase and marketing brand and profit machine?

Having a top-level team that is a top-flight competitor is a must, but what else do you have to do?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ramzavail

Norwich City Canaries - case closed.

Now, now... I don't think they are 'case closed' certain of relegation . Oh wait... you were praising them!

*runs*

[SirFozzie]

ISiddiqui: When I think of Canaries, I think of the ones they take into a mine to determine how bad the monoxide level is etcetera.. the saying is "If the canary dies, RUN!"

Wonder what that says about the Premiership...

[ISiddiqui]

LOL! Well against Villa this weekend, the Canaries definitely looked half dead . Though I shouldn't kid. I do like Norwich, especially Huckerby.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

One team I am personally not interested in is "Young Boys". I've noticed them in some international play in FM - I think they're from Sweden.

I bet you secretly like Young Boys. Maybe the one man who can't get enough of Young Boys.

[3ric]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOL! Well against Villa this weekend, the Canaries definitely looked half dead . Though I shouldn't kid. I do like Norwich, especially Huckerby.

Matt Svensson is my favorite for the Canaries. When he was playing in the Swedish League, I thought he was a dork, but I've come to respect the guy - he's a starting forward (when he's not injured) in the Premier League, which few (if any) Swedish forwards managed before him.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by 3ric

Matt Svensson is my favorite for the Canaries. When he was playing in the Swedish League, I thought he was a dork, but I've come to respect the guy - he's a starting forward (when he's not injured) in the Premier League, which few (if any) Swedish forwards managed before him.

The legacy of Tomas Brolin perhaps ?

And Johanssson started for Charlton for a while, and Allback did for a little while as well...

[3ric]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The legacy of Tomas Brolin perhaps ?

And Johanssson started for Charlton for a while, and Allback did for a little while as well...

Brolin was a disaster - lazy, fat and injured. Johansson is Finnish, actually. Allback did play a little, but he never was the starter when everybody was healthy. Dahlin failed with Blackburn as well. There was a Hans Jeppson who played for Charlton, but that was back in 1951!

Speaking of Brolin, here's how he looks now:


compared to his playing days:


Ugh.

[MIJB#19]

Sweden with Brolin and Dahlin assisted by Limpar, those were the days. The days I knew nothing about any sport in the world and amzingly played Sensible Soccer a lot.

Time for a game of SWOS right now, later!

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

One team I am personally not interested in is "Young Boys". I've noticed them in some international play in FM - I think they're from Sweden.

Thought you guys might appreciate this: no word of a lie, Young Boys of Berne play at the Wankdorf Stadium

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Now what does the ''United'' in Manchester United mean?
What about Bayernin Bayern Munchen?

[3ric]

Bayern = region in southern Germany where Münich (Munchen) is, called Bavaria in English.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Growing more interested and involve with the soccer world through the US's success and FM/CM sim, I always wondered about the names of European clubs. Where do they get them. Do new teams come abroad, and how does that happen? How is Manchester United so globally, and are any teams even close to the global and financial market of them? What are the worth's of European teams compared to those sport franchises stateside?

The names come from the areas/towns they're in commonly, nicknames are very historic generally (at least in England) - ie. Everton are "The Toffee's" because the club was originally based near a toffee shop (http://www.toffeeweb.com/club/folklo...ns.asp#Toffees).

There are quite a few 'global' teams such as Manchester United, Real-Madrid, Barcelona while some others are 'waning', eg. Liverpool were the Man U of the 70's and 80's and Chelsea are definitely on the rise (grrrr ... not my favourite club ).

Football tends to 'cycle' and once great clubs can fall down the divisions while others rise and take their place, for instance in recent years (last 25) my team, Brighton have been in every professional division in English Football (believe it or not in the 80's we were a 'glamour club' ala Chelsea for a short while before our cash ran out).

Abroad things differ slightly with some clubs being backed by banks etc. which helps keep them more stable than happens generally in England (where traditionally teams are backed by individuals if they aren't plc's and so when one leaves or decides not to invest in so much in the club it can change the teams fortunes hugely).

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The names come from the areas/towns they're in commonly, nicknames are very historic generally (at least in England) - ie. Everton are "The Toffee's" because the club was originally based near a toffee shop (http://www.toffeeweb.com/club/folklo...ns.asp#Toffees).

There are quite a few 'global' teams such as Manchester United, Real-Madrid, Barcelona while some others are 'waning', eg. Liverpool were the Man U of the 70's and 80's and Chelsea are definitely on the rise (grrrr ... not my favourite club ).

Football tends to 'cycle' and once great clubs can fall down the divisions while others rise and take their place, for instance in recent years (last 25) my team, Brighton have been in every professional division in English Football (believe it or not in the 80's we were a 'glamour club' ala Chelsea for a short while before our cash ran out).

Abroad things differ slightly with some clubs being backed by banks etc. which helps keep them more stable than happens generally in England (where traditionally teams are backed by individuals if they aren't plc's and so when one leaves or decides not to invest in so much in the club it can change the teams fortunes hugely).

Thanks Marc. Is soccer in a new era though, with the globalization, television, and corporate dollars fueling the sport? Does this change the way business is done?

[ZXTT]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Now what does the ''United'' in Manchester United mean?

Means exactly what it says in the dictionary. Remember, these names are old and reflect the image that people wanted their club to convey back then. They weren't looking to the attributes of animals so much as something serious sounding and that would differentiate them from another local team.

Hence the following sampling of suffixes (because they're not really nicknames): United, City, Town, County, Albion, Wanderers, Rovers (hmm, a different kind of wanderer?), Athletic. In some cases, there are unique suffixes: North End (can't be confused with those Sound-Enders), Park Avenue, Wednesday, Forest.

[Desnudo]

Where does Portsmouth's "Pompey" come from? Apparently Chelsea can also be referrred to as "The Pensioners."

I found an interesting site that explains some of the nicknames in English football.

http://www.footballculture.net/teams/names_nick4.html

Personal favorite:

"Toffees
Everton, England
Reason: Everton mints, produced in the Liverpool district of Everton, are a popular mint toffee. Before every game at Goodison Park free toffees are thrown into the crowd by the famous Toffee Lady, dressed in a traditional skirt, shawl and hat."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Cool link Desnudo, there's a lot of quick fun little tidbits there. Nothing that would keep me awake at night not knowing, but an enjoyable site with some interesting stuff that ought to grab the attention of at least those who have more hours invested in playing CM than they do in following the real thing.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by ZXTT

Means exactly what it says in the dictionary. Remember, these names are old and reflect the image that people wanted their club to convey back then. They weren't looking to the attributes of animals so much as something serious sounding and that would differentiate them from another local team.

Hence the following sampling of suffixes (because they're not really nicknames): United, City, Town, County, Albion, Wanderers, Rovers (hmm, a different kind of wanderer?), Athletic. In some cases, there are unique suffixes: North End (can't be confused with those Sound-Enders), Park Avenue, Wednesday, Forest.

Thanks for the info makes a lot more sense now.

[sovereignstar]

Interesting thread. There is some neat info in between SunDancer's wretched grammar.

[Desnudo]

I have a question: why have Celtic and Rangers never joined the EPL?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Thanks Marc. Is soccer in a new era though, with the globalization, television, and corporate dollars fueling the sport? Does this change the way business is done?

Its hard to say at the moment because its still 'early days' for soccers 'industrial revolution' and as such no one knows if corporate might can sustain title challenges or not ...

Abroad some teams such as Real Madrid have sustained success on the back of considerable investment for many years, but they still have 'lean' years despite this (for instance this season they're not looking very likely to win much).

With Real Madrid also they aren't run as a profit making enterprise, for those clubs such as Man Utd which are now effectively a corporate machine they have a hard balance between investment and profit.

For instance if they don't qualify for the Champions League they lose a huge revenue source, however investing £30m in the team via. transfers can't guarentee they'll do it anyway and unlike normal business plans in sports have to be flexible and are much more prone to failure.

The way I believe things will go is that the 'soccer' side of plc's like Man Utd will continually recieve investments in the same manner that Real Madrid etc. recieve them, the club as such will NOT be run by the Plc as a profit making venture. Rather they will use the prestige from the club to help with their other investments by attracting backers or using the prestige to help sales of products via. branding.

As far as 'achievements' go for the larger clubs I think they'll be more stable than has traditionally been the case because they'll be backed by huge amounts of cash continually flowing in from the corporate machine, however I don't think this will guarentee success and indeed if enough clubs get to such positions then the league will truly open up again (if you doubt this can be done I personally believe that 3-4 years consistent CL competition would be enough for any club to raise the capital to setup a reasonably sucessful Plc, however this is a risky proposition because you're effectively gambling the clubs future on that consistency - in a parallel universe somewhere perhaps Leeds Utd made it into the Champions League one more time than irl and are now on a par with Chelsea instead of languishing in the Championship ...).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I have a question: why have Celtic and Rangers never joined the EPL?

This is something thats been 'mooted' many times, however its not something which English clubs are particularly fond of the idea of obviously .... a new club in England has to start at the bottom of the pyramid and work their way up through the divisions - as such them jumping into the Premiership wouldn't be fair on the teams placed below them.

You've also got added complications from the fact that Scotland recieve their own allowance of Champions League & EUFA cup spots as such Rangers and Celtic are guarenteed revenue from these competitions each year - something which its unlikely they'd get if they competed in the Premiership.

Incidentaly if you're interested we ran a simulation around a year and a half ago for a national newspaper in Scotland to see how they'd fair in the Premiership.

Rangers finished outside of the relegation places but in the lower end of the table, Celtic managed a EUFA Cup spot as I recall.

This isn't too suprising if you look at their squads, simply put because of the lack of competition in Scotland nether team has real depth of quality players to call upon should they recieve injuries.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This is something thats been 'mooted' many times, however its not something which English clubs are particularly fond of the idea of obviously .... a new club in England has to start at the bottom of the pyramid and work their way up through the divisions - as such them jumping into the Premiership wouldn't be fair on the teams placed below them.

You've also got added complications from the fact that Scotland recieve their own allowance of Champions League & EUFA cup spots as such Rangers and Celtic are guarenteed revenue from these competitions each year - something which its unlikely they'd get if they competed in the Premiership.

Incidentaly if you're interested we ran a simulation around a year and a half ago for a national newspaper in Scotland to see how they'd fair in the Premiership.

Rangers finished outside of the relegation places but in the lower end of the table, Celtic managed a EUFA Cup spot as I recall.

This isn't too suprising if you look at their squads, simply put because of the lack of competition in Scotland nether team has real depth of quality players to call upon should they recieve injuries.

I thought the Euro places might be an issue. But wouldn't the revenue from EPL TV rights, finishing positions, and attendance at cup matches make up for gap in revenue from automatic Euro spots? BTW, do teams really receive such a large sum of money for finishing in top positions in the English league? I'm sure they do since FM strives for accuracy, but where does the money come from?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I thought the Euro places might be an issue. But wouldn't the revenue from EPL TV rights, finishing positions, and attendance at cup matches make up for gap in revenue from automatic Euro spots? BTW, do teams really receive such a large sum of money for finishing in top positions in the English league? I'm sure they do since FM strives for accuracy, but where does the money come from?

Yes and no ....

The revenue from Champions League football is HUGE and you have to remember that the old firm get a filled capacity at home regardless of whom they play (so that wouldn't change if they joined the Premiership).

They'd also potentially lose a lot of revenue from the Scottish Cup competitions as generally speaking they do extremely well in them which brings in considerable revenue from home games and obviously the finals, in England it'd be very unlikely that they'd be involved is as many domestic cup-finals.

In balance it'd probably be slightly more profitable for the clubs if they went to England, not least because of the raised profile they'd recieve. However for Rangers at least there would be the real risk of possible relegation from the Premiership which would be devastating income-wise to the club, plus the fact that their supporters might turn on the clubs somewhat because they'd be unlikely to win as much as they are used to doing ...

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I have a question: why have Celtic and Rangers never joined the EPL?

I think the more obvious answer is that the Celtics are a basketball team and the Rangers are a hocky team; neither would likely fare well in an English soccer league.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I have a question: why have Celtic and Rangers never joined the EPL?

On top of all what the others said, there is also a huge issue regarding countries and their representation in the Euro and World Cup.

Glasgow is, by all accounts, in Scotland. If they joined the English Premier League, that would shoot down Scotland 's legimity as a soccer country. I'm sure other european countries would then push strongly to get the 4 British teams (England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland) united under one banner, the UK. That would of course get rid of 3 bothersome teams while at the same time not giving England that much of a boost.

I for one think it would make a lot of sense, at least on a geographical level. Unlike Rugby where nations battle it out, soccer is an affair of countries and when you get down to it, Enland, Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland are nothing more than regions of the UK. We might as well have Catalonia and Bavaria compete in the Euro...

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

On top of all what the others said, there is also a huge issue regarding countries and their representation in the Euro and World Cup.

Glasgow is, by all accounts, in Scotland. If they joined the English Premier League, that would shoot down Scotland 's legimity as a soccer country. I'm sure other european countries would then push strongly to get the 4 British teams (England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland) united under one banner, the UK. That would of course get rid of 3 bothersome teams while at the same time not giving England that much of a boost.

I for one think it would make a lot of sense, at least on a geographical level. Unlike Rugby where nations battle it out, soccer is an affair of countries and when you get down to it, Enland, Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland are nothing more than regions of the UK. We might as well have Catalonia and Bavaria compete in the Euro...

I'd like to see the chances of the UK.
England + Ryan Giggs will be awesome.

But honestly, and I don't mean to offend the Brits around here, but it seems a bit strange that these countries haven't been forced to unite as 1 national team yet. Even the IOC has a UK as country, why would the soccer and rugby associations (for example) stick with the four-way seperation?

Why not demand Belgium to seperate into Flech (sp?) and Wallone (sp?) then, which are probably as much devided as the UK countries.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

Enland, Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland are nothing more than regions of the UK.

Oh yes they are.

There are also a number of UK teams that play in leagues outside their own country, so Rangers and Celtic moving to England wouldn't be breaking any barrier. Berwick are English but play in the Scottish league, Gretna are Scottish but until recently played in the English league, Cardiff/Swansea/Wrexham are Welsh but play in the English league, Derry City are Northern Irish but play in the Republic of Irelands league. There's probably more that I can't think of.

The main opponent to Rangers and Celtic moving is UEFA. If they allowed them to move to a different league, they couldn't stop other teams moving to superior leagues where they could get more money. That would break the whole structure of national leagues and damage the European club tournaments that UEFA makes it's money from. Once you break the national league structure, you're opening the door to super-leagues that pick and choose clubs from different nations. UEFA have already blocked Monaco trying to move up in the world from the French leagues to Italian, allow Rangers and Celtic to move and opposition to moves like that would crumble.

The other main opponents are some English clubs. If you're in the English leagues, why vote in somebody who might compete with you, or take your place forcing you down a division? But they'd roll over if the TV stations wanted them to, just like usual.

[Butter]

Unfortunately, none of this explains "Real Salt Lake" or "CD Chivas USA".

I mean, wtf?

[Critch]

Real Salt Lake is terrible, how could they come up with that? Salt Lake City, now that's a good name.

[KeyserSoze]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Any Spanish club with 'Real' in its name means that at one time or another it asked for and recieved a royal charter from a member of the Spanish royal family. This event is not as uncommon as it sounds and usually happened because a royal was a supporter of the club. To seen to be given the title 'Real' comes with a certain stigma however, as it is to be seen as part of the establishment, connected with the powers that be. This contrasts greatly with FC Barcelona and Athletic* Bilbao who are symbols for their regions (Catalonia and Basque respectively) against the historically opressive Castillian majority in Spain.

*Yes, Athletic spelt the English way as the club was founded by British ex-pats.

I think some things are innacurated. Both castillas have a population of 6 millon of 40 millions. With Madrid (where mostly of the people is inmigrant or son of inmigrant) it would be 12 millions.

I dont think that Real is a Stigma, just for the Madrid that is acussed (sometimes right, sometimes wrong) to be the government team. But the nowadays president is a Barsa fan . I dont think that the Real Union or the Real Burgos (RIP) are part of the stablishment.

Real Sociedad is as important in Euskadi (Basque Country)as Athletic nowadays. Athletic was as important as Real or Barcelona 25 years ago, but he chooses the politic of only take basques players. By the way, do you imagine that the Yankees has a politic to not take oriental players?

Real Club Espanyol is the second most important club of Cataluña.

The Real Madrid has an annual budget of 300 M€ (350-400 M€). I dont know the numbers of MUTD, Milan, Barcelona....

The advantage of soccer against the US sports is that it is worldwide. Around the world what american sportsmen are really known around the world? Jordan probably. Shaq or Kobe Bryant aren´t as knew Zidane, Beckham, Rooney or Shevchenko.

So even they have a less rich base, the soccer teams have marketing around the world.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Unfortunately, none of this explains "Real Salt Lake" or "CD Chivas USA".

I mean, wtf?

Real Salt Lake means that they're just a bunch of Eurosnob posers. I prefer Imitation Salt Lake myself.

CD Chivas USA is just an American division of CD Chivas, which is a club in the Mexican league. I think it stands for something like Club Deportivo or somesuch. There's actually a good reason for that, the owner of Chivas in Mexico has invested in MLS and is interested in leveraging the Chivas brand identity in an American team. We'll see how well it works... there are some xenophobic undertones that might be a little disturbing (and all the moreso to caucasian bigots since it's pro-Mexican...).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

when you get down to it, Enland, Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland are nothing more than regions of the UK. We might as well have Catalonia and Bavaria compete in the Euro...

I wouldn't let any Irish, Scottish or Welsh people hear you say that

[MIJB#19]

On a bit replated note: people call the Netherlands "Holland" all the time, about 80 percent of our entire population could feel offended for feeling left out. I wou'ldn't, I'm living in Holland and agree that Holland is what it's all about.

[ZXTT]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

On a bit replated note: people call the Netherlands "Holland" all the time, about 80 percent of our entire population could feel offended for feeling left out. I wou'ldn't, I'm living in Holland and agree that Holland is what it's all about.

Well, since the step-father of a distant ancestor of mine came from Leeuwarden, I'm happy to call the place the Netherlands (alas, the ancestor himself is somewhat of a mystery, as his documentation apparently states "vader onbekend" and his place of origin is unknown, although he was presumably Dutch).

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

On a bit replated note: people call the Netherlands "Holland" all the time, about 80 percent of our entire population could feel offended for feeling left out. I wou'ldn't, I'm living in Holland and agree that Holland is what it's all about.

Holla-snob.