Something written on another forum has made me rethink my approach. It's quite daft, isn't it?
You may not be aware that, with the Premier League coming to American television, there have been pushes by clubs and the press to "choose a club", replete with guides and lists of pros and cons. I've seen them when I log into facebook, there are posts from people/pages that I don't follow in my feed, after I became a "fan" or "liked" some players I had seen in the World Cup. There have also been coupons for discounts in the club stores. Sometimes the recruitment efforts are couched in nominally independent articles similar to the Liverpool one I linked to.
Since I didn't like their listed pros and cons (being famous and/or with a good chance to win was a major recruitment point), I decided to make my own list of pros and cons.
Until I read that post, I didn't realize that, in doing so, I was falling into the trap of accepting their approach to team choosing as the best approach.
Still, I have to start somewhere, and for now, that "somewhere" is attending a game when I'm in England later this year. That forces the decision of what team to spend money on. If I'm going to spend a good deal of money on some tickets later this year, I at least hope to not support a noxious team.
My first basic criterion is that if they're assholes, they haven't manipulated everyone into thinking they're good, upstanding people. There are a ton of assholes in sports--and in the world. It's bad enough when you're an asshole and acknowledge it. It's even worse when you're an asshole and have such a good PR machine or have the media in your pocket that you come across as the good guy. Those situations are dangerous because they put you in a position where you can mistreat others, and no one will believe it. For example, Lance Armstrong is an asshole and has been for a long time. When people tried to speak out against him, he ruined their lives and careers. He was able to do this because he had crafted a perfect PR image. Same with the Duke basketball team.
My second basic criterion is that they play a fair game. That means not trying to bully the referees, minimal diving, etc.
What teams should be ruled on the basis of these two criteria alone? Please be honest.
We play hard at times but we play honestly...something we pride ourselves with. Something you wont find at many other teams is the team spirit Everton has. Our PR are not amongst the best out there but it is increasing with RM now as everyone seems to like him in the media (with reason). I also attach a video for you...one of my Favorited to watch at times...dating back to '85. I am shamelessly quoting the one poster on that video (the videos site)..."No one even does things like this as good as Everton. What an amazing and unique Club. You can have your Liverpools, your Man Uniteds, your Tottenham Hotspurs, no one can touch the Blues, NO ONE!"
Holy cow! 
We have an old stadium who just will give you a feeling people go there to enjoy watching football, we have likeable prices of tickets. We are usually hated by media, who usually think we are a club who is lucky that exists. We don't have a lot of money, but we are trying to compete in this hard times for fans, where money can buy you almost everything. We are a friendly club who is doing a lot of special thing for community in Liverpool (try to look after all the things we have done for Liverpool FC with Hillsborough tragedy) and all-around the world as well (just look for the name of Richard Wee). Unlikeable things about us? Well, it is not "cool" to be our fan for an international fan, as it is ''cool'' to be a fan of a "Sky Sports' Big 6" club. But that seems not to be a problem for you... Try to give us a chance, watch a game... and you will probably enjoy hearing a song like this even on your TV, as our fans are so loud...