Neville Dalton is a journalist with the BBC News website and a
I took a bit of a detour on my way home from the Beeb the other night.
Instead of rubbing shoulders with my fellow commuters on the 19.47 out of
Not a professional player in sight (though a few replica kits); no pitch; no chanting; no beers. Not even Bovril (do they still sell that at
But plenty of fans. Well, three or four dozen of them, scattered around a hall at the home of the Quakers (not Darlington, but the religious society), who had provided meeting space for the Football Supporters' Federation, the body that appears to be doing the most to try to resist the greedy ambitions of the Premier League.
And a diverse bunch they were, too. Out of the 40 or so present, 25 different clubs were "represented", from as far apart as
I counted four Pompey fans - about 10% of the audience.
Yet here was a bunch with a common cause. And there's nothing like a common enemy to galvanise football fans, no matter whom they support.
The
The FSF is recognised and respected by all sorts of official bodies, from the Government to the FA - and to attend one of its meetings, you can see why.
This was no bear-pit arena; no slanging match. Barely a raised voice throughout, but the air was thick with pithy argument, if somewhat thinner with consensus on the best way to go about combating it.
Here was a spectacle that barely got beyond the genteel in atmosphere, but was as passionate as any football match in sentiment and commitment.
It was hardly a balanced forum - you wouldn't have been there if you thought Richard Scudamore's plan to make the league season lop-sided and foreign (in many senses of the word) was a topping idea.
But the reasoning was measured; the speakers knowledgeable - and in some cases, exceptionally eloquent.
The thin end of the wedge; a stalking horse for a grosser or more spectacular bombshell involving the Premier League's elite and their increasingly familiar European rivals.
A slap in the face for football fans and a threat even to those outside the top division.
The FSF officials at the meeting were keen to get the message across that despite growing opposition among some influential figures, Game 39 was neither dead nor dying.
The likes of Sepp Blatter, whose nose had been put out of joint by the lack of consultation with FIFA beforehand, could just as easily change his mind when the benefits of the overseas game plan were explained to him.
Boycott
The odd dissenting owner would be easily brought to order. And what do managers care about extra fixtures, travel and fatigue when one of the most respected in the land welcomes the idea "because most of our fans are overseas anyway"?
The federation has a meeting with the Premier League pencilled in for next week (although that may have to be postponed because Mr Scudamore and co might be seeing officials from FIFA instead).
It plans to bring along a handful of ordinary fans - not even members of the FSF hierarchy - to make their points to Mr Moneybags himself.
And it is offering to "empower" fans the length and breadth of the country in a double weekend of action at the beginning of next month, providing advice and "materials" to help make their protests effective.
But what protests? And what is effective?
That remains a major sticking point, which was rammed home to me when my suggestion of a nationwide one-match boycott was shot down in flames by successive supporters, who, after all, were on my side.
Of all the suggestions I heard, I still believe a concerted, properly co-ordinated boycott could be one of the most effective.
No, I realise thousands of fans wouldn't take part. Yes, I know the damage to clubs would be minimal because most of us have already bought our season tickets.
It was never my intention to bankrupt our precious teams, but if just 1,000 fans failed to turn up at each Premier League ground on a given weekend, the message would be loud (though not as loud as usual) and clear - we fans are hurting; we're angry… and we don't want the 39th game at any price.
But when only 40 (no one could work out whether that was a good or poor turnout) bother to turn up in the centre of London - and the West Ham fan present says her fellow Hammers aren't even discussing the issue on their various websites - and even most of those at the meeting hint that they would refuse to join a boycott - I acknowledge such action could backfire spectacularly.
Instead there were lots of variations on waving placards. Apparently, red cards are passé now, but fake banknotes with Scudamore's mug on; banners and black balloons (no Manchester City fans present to comment on that one) are very much de rigeur.
My view, for what it's worth: it might get a few seconds' airtime on Saturday night telly and a pic in the papers, but it will hardly have club chairmen quaking in their boots.
More interesting was the idea of targeting sponsors. Not with petrol bombs and the like, but with boycotts, protests and making a general nuisance of ourselves.
Those wise heads among the gathering rightly questioned the value of persuading principal club sponsors to drop their deals or refuse to extend or renew.
After all, there would hardly be any clubs left to moan at if critical sources of cashflow were unplugged.
But it wouldn't hurt to let them know how unpopular the dratted Scudamore plan is with a few well-targeted letters.
Bankers
And there's always the big businesses - the ones owned or run by those mysterious people who own or run our clubs.
Maybe they'd sit up and take notice if they felt their core interests were being drawn into the affair. Of course, the same applies if Emirates suddenly had dozens of empty seats in Club Class because Gordon Gooner was deserting them for Singapore Airlines, or whoever.
The really attractive target seemed to be that bunch of bankers who sponsor that other bunch of - well, you know what I mean - at the Premier League.
Yes, Barclays could face the biggest mass-withdrawal of accounts since the days of Apartheid as thousands - if not millions - of fans hit those money monsters at the Premier League where it hurts.
Then again, they may not.
As a member of the Manchester United Supporters' Trust, a veteran of several attempts to fight off unwelcome club suitors - and probably the most eloquent football fan I have ever heard - pointed out, organising effective campaigns is really hard work.
It takes time - and it requires a commitment beyond all but the most dedicated and passionate among us.
But it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
And boosted by the reassurance from supporters much cleverer and committed than I that we have right on our side, I'm going to play my measly part in making sure Game 39 - and Game 40 and whatever other ridiculous plans these people have up their sleeves - is defeated.
I'm not against change.
But I am against transforming the whole ethos of our game; of sending players and fans halfway round the world to play matches in front of crowds who know little of most clubs' histories (and care still less) when they should be staged in front of the loyal many or few at Craven Cottage, Villa Park or the JJB.
I'm against doing anything that piles more fixtures on to our congested season or increases fatigue and reduces effectiveness of players, especially when our standing in European and international football is at stake.
The FSF says 13,000 have signed its petition. I'm not sure that's over-impressive among a potential fanbase of well over a million.
But the organisation was unfamiliar to many of us before this monster reared its head.
Officials describe the website response as phenomenal, and say it is the biggest it has ever had for a campaign.
Even the nation's media seems to be with us.
If they can all do their bit, I reckon we should, too, and support the FSF as we would our own teams.