Thorizaar, on May 14 2007, 16:44, said:
If you are a non-violent group it would be best to come up with a name other than "ultras" which is used by violent and nazi groups in other countries. I have to say that when I see Aberdeen fans or whoever with "ultras" banners, I think of them as folk intent on causing trouble, rather than good, positive supporters.
It might be the wrong conclusion, but that's the public image it has.
Also, there hasn't been any problem with the noise at away grounds this season. The away support has been tremendous all season.
Derby Saint, on May 14 2007, 16:48, said:
I have to say this is what springs to mind with the term 'Ultras' also. All for a positive colourful image of the Saints as long as nobody gets the wrong idea.....
This simply isn't true, it's just what the ill-informed media likes to write. Like the Roma Ultras who were supposedly throwing missiles at Man Utd fans - they were actually at the opposite end of the ground from the United fans!
The Red Ultras had similar problems in the beginning, the police confiscated their banner numerous times thinking they were hooligans until the club chief executive himself intervened on their behalf. With any display we do, we will have to get permission from the club and police. If we were violent hooligans, we would not be long in being found out!
I appreciate that some people might have the wrong idea and we will stress at every possible opportunity what an ultra actually is. As it is, we want to be a group of 'ultras' following the movement started in the 60s in Brazil and now commonplace in every European country except the British isles - that's to say fans who create displays, who get behind their team with as much noise and colour as possible and who are interested in having fun at the football. This is why we have kept the name so far. If sufficient numbers show interest in being part of such a group and the majority want to change the name, we'll do that.