well done City, thinking of the high prices in football they've taken the generous step in giving away free tickets. This has nothing to do with all the empty seats.....
said no-one ever - shocking!
said no-one ever - shocking!
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
Yeah, classic. There's a thread here:
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/buy...ague-tickets-only-12-50-each-2027060#comments
My favorite posts over there:
The record attendance...from 1934
A classic though
Struggling to fill the stadium that night because it's bonfire night
In regards to a comment saying "shit club"
Comedy gold.
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/buy...ague-tickets-only-12-50-each-2027060#comments
My favorite posts over there:
The record attendance...from 1934
A classic though
Struggling to fill the stadium that night because it's bonfire night
In regards to a comment saying "shit club"
Comedy gold.
What a micky mouse club..
Would Old Trafford be full for a group match against CSKA Moscow?
We still had over 70k attendance for a dead rubber CL match against Cluj couple years back.
That's not really the point. It's not a one off attendance issue where you can just say "Oh it's because they're playing CSKA Moscow".
Inter-rivalry sex, he could be the next Juliet.
Rags and their bum chums will be foaming at the mouth
How can they live with themselves? That crackpot on the third page talking nonsense about BT and Sky and Malaysia rags. And the moderator lapping it up Ah yes, June, when City's real season begins.
Nice.
The delusion is strong with this one.
On Balotelli,
I'm confused by the theory above but I'll try and break it down to make sense of it:
- Sky didn't show replays of the Aguero incident because they have no reason to get him banned, as they don't have rights to the game.
- When Sky show lots of replays of bad incidents, the FA are more likely to take action.
- If Sky did have rights to the game, they'd have used their influence to get Aguero banned.
- They'd have got him banned so that United fans from Malaysia too scared to watch the game would change their minds as they'd think we have a better chance against an Aguero-less city.
- This proves there is an agenda in football, despite the fact it's just a theory based on what would've happened should Sky have had the rights to the game.
So to summarize, Sky are using corruption to increase viewing figures in Malaysia, despite the fact they don't operate any business there.
Well, I can't argue with that logic.
- Sky didn't show replays of the Aguero incident because they have no reason to get him banned, as they don't have rights to the game.
- When Sky show lots of replays of bad incidents, the FA are more likely to take action.
- If Sky did have rights to the game, they'd have used their influence to get Aguero banned.
- They'd have got him banned so that United fans from Malaysia too scared to watch the game would change their minds as they'd think we have a better chance against an Aguero-less city.
- This proves there is an agenda in football, despite the fact it's just a theory based on what would've happened should Sky have had the rights to the game.
So to summarize, Sky are using corruption to increase viewing figures in Malaysia, despite the fact they don't operate any business there.
Well, I can't argue with that logic.
My god that website is a pile of shit. Completely dominated by advertising banners and autoplay videos on every page.
I agree wholeheartedly: the website is an abomination, however, you don't get the autoplaying videos if you're a full member (apparently).
Not to mention threads with 5 replies on each page, makes it a hassle to browse that thing.
It's got to be funded somehow. If you create an account, you don't get the advertisements.
Do you post there, Bob?
A work colleague of mine has an account there and is constantly referencing it in football conversations we have. He maintains that he doesn't post, however, but his increase in the usage of the term "Rag" is really getting on my tits lately.
We're no saints here, but I'd like to think that we're some little bit welcoming towards fans of rival teams.
I used to post there but gave up in the end.
A huge problem I have with Bluemoon is that any rival poster, with a few exceptions, is always hounded off, even if they try and post in good faith; this forum is completely different in that sense. The main problem, and not wanting to flame the debate that only City fans are from Manchester etc, I think is that a lot of bluemoon's posters are people from in and around Manchester whereas this forum attracts people from all around the world because of United's global image. Therefore, the Manchester derby to many is a recent phenomenon, as it's only recently we've become relevant to you, whereas that isn't the case for us fans who've had to put up with you picking trophies up left right and centre while our striking options consisted of Bernardo Corradi and Giorgos Samaras. Naturally, City fans grew to hate United, while we remained merely a source of entertainment for you.
It's like Liverpool fans I know have no bad feeling towards Everton because they don't live there. Bluemoon, for every good poster, has one who has to mention the 'rags' in every comment and even in the off-topic forum an unhealthy amount of threads have references to rags. When discussing City only, it is generally a decent enough forum with many level-headed people.
Surely you've all seen the agenda thread thy have on there? It's over 380 pages long now!
http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=303393&sid=2c5f4b0224cf18d25ca8abb0484be646
I made a huge post in there that none of them could really respond to, as usual:
In the end it comes down to perspective.
I've never once said that we don't get a rough deal with the press, because I think we do more than most teams sometimes. The treatment of Balotelli is something I would have previously buried my head over to prove a point, but his transformation from unreliable bastard to the adopted son he is now with the press signifies some subconscious favouritism from some members of the press towards Liverpool (but with Carragher, Souness, Redknapp, Hansen, Lawrenson, Murphy, Barnes, Owen and Colin Murray in the press I'm hardly surprised). Now I wanted Balotelli gone when we did let go of him, but some leopards don't half change their spots.
Yet with that being said, I think we've shot ourselves in the foot a little bit with how the media can treat us. There's always been something going at City. Dramatic events to talk about which can put the club in the bad light without the press needing to put much effort in themselves. Training ground scuffles, poor man-management, Carlos Tevez, even the Yaya Toure saga this summer. It's always there and we're interesting to talk about. So when the press do bring it up it can come across as a deliberate smear campaign.
My main problem with those who believe in a specific agenda against Manchester City is their ignorance of the wider world of sports reporting. I can absolutely guarantee anyone reading this that if they were to only read news stories and opinion pieces about Charlton Athletic & Leyton Orient for a week they'd find several quotes similar to those posted in here that are used as evidence in support of the agenda's existence. If you only read stories about one team you're only going to see negative comments about one team.
Which takes me on to my next point about extreme tribalism linking with perspective. If someone dislikes Manchester United enough to find it hard to praise them (which some people do on here) they're also going to find it hard to listen to other people praise them. This means that if an Aguero goal, assisted by Di Maria, is reported as "Di Maria spectacularly assisting an Aguero tap in", it's seen as anti-City and a "Rag wankfest". Positive words about things we hate are very difficult to hear, and that means that any comment that looks down upon City is viewed in the same extreme. If Martin Tyler doesn't explode like we fans do when Aguero scores, some people don't understand his apparent ambivalence and confuse it with hatred.
I've been on numerous football forums of different teams and there is a thread just like this one on every single one of them. Wigan, Liverpool, Wolves, even Manchester United, I've been all over the place looking around. I think [user] posted a link to a handful a few pages back. Now they could all be wrong, and I could be wrong, but the chances are that they're all correct. Every club gets what's deemed to be a rough deal in the press sometimes about various different subjects.
Liverpool fans are convinced that Suarez was hounded out of the Premier League by the press after his various displays of abhorrent behaviour. I once knew someone who thought referees were biased in favour of Manchester teams and used City's two penalties against Aston Villa (5-0 in 12/13) as conclusive evidence of that "fact". We're all in the same boat, and we all love our clubs so much that anything challenging them is seen as an enemy without trial.
And that's why I can't get on board with the agenda. Do I think FFP is designed to maintain a cosy cartel? It's entirely possible. Do I think Martin Tyler wanted Liverpool over City to win the league last season? It's likely. But do I think that every newspaper columnist, UEFA executive, referee employed by the FA, editor of every online and print magazine and all the others are against Manchester City? I don't think that's possible at all.
http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=303393&sid=2c5f4b0224cf18d25ca8abb0484be646
I made a huge post in there that none of them could really respond to, as usual:
In the end it comes down to perspective.
I've never once said that we don't get a rough deal with the press, because I think we do more than most teams sometimes. The treatment of Balotelli is something I would have previously buried my head over to prove a point, but his transformation from unreliable bastard to the adopted son he is now with the press signifies some subconscious favouritism from some members of the press towards Liverpool (but with Carragher, Souness, Redknapp, Hansen, Lawrenson, Murphy, Barnes, Owen and Colin Murray in the press I'm hardly surprised). Now I wanted Balotelli gone when we did let go of him, but some leopards don't half change their spots.
Yet with that being said, I think we've shot ourselves in the foot a little bit with how the media can treat us. There's always been something going at City. Dramatic events to talk about which can put the club in the bad light without the press needing to put much effort in themselves. Training ground scuffles, poor man-management, Carlos Tevez, even the Yaya Toure saga this summer. It's always there and we're interesting to talk about. So when the press do bring it up it can come across as a deliberate smear campaign.
My main problem with those who believe in a specific agenda against Manchester City is their ignorance of the wider world of sports reporting. I can absolutely guarantee anyone reading this that if they were to only read news stories and opinion pieces about Charlton Athletic & Leyton Orient for a week they'd find several quotes similar to those posted in here that are used as evidence in support of the agenda's existence. If you only read stories about one team you're only going to see negative comments about one team.
Which takes me on to my next point about extreme tribalism linking with perspective. If someone dislikes Manchester United enough to find it hard to praise them (which some people do on here) they're also going to find it hard to listen to other people praise them. This means that if an Aguero goal, assisted by Di Maria, is reported as "Di Maria spectacularly assisting an Aguero tap in", it's seen as anti-City and a "Rag wankfest". Positive words about things we hate are very difficult to hear, and that means that any comment that looks down upon City is viewed in the same extreme. If Martin Tyler doesn't explode like we fans do when Aguero scores, some people don't understand his apparent ambivalence and confuse it with hatred.
I've been on numerous football forums of different teams and there is a thread just like this one on every single one of them. Wigan, Liverpool, Wolves, even Manchester United, I've been all over the place looking around. I think [user] posted a link to a handful a few pages back. Now they could all be wrong, and I could be wrong, but the chances are that they're all correct. Every club gets what's deemed to be a rough deal in the press sometimes about various different subjects.
Liverpool fans are convinced that Suarez was hounded out of the Premier League by the press after his various displays of abhorrent behaviour. I once knew someone who thought referees were biased in favour of Manchester teams and used City's two penalties against Aston Villa (5-0 in 12/13) as conclusive evidence of that "fact". We're all in the same boat, and we all love our clubs so much that anything challenging them is seen as an enemy without trial.
And that's why I can't get on board with the agenda. Do I think FFP is designed to maintain a cosy cartel? It's entirely possible. Do I think Martin Tyler wanted Liverpool over City to win the league last season? It's likely. But do I think that every newspaper columnist, UEFA executive, referee employed by the FA, editor of every online and print magazine and all the others are against Manchester City? I don't think that's possible at all.
Last edited:
I would daresay that BM probably has a similar number of match goers as the Caf, we used to have more but a lot of them don't seem to post as regularly anymore. They also have a large number of overseas fans as part of their forum regulars. And BM is still the only place where I've seen people commonly call us rags.
Bluemoon has become a very unusual place at the moment.
Because of who the moderators are and what they believe, it's become a haven for those whose politics veer to right. This means that any attempts to criticise Israel, or call out blatant bigotry, are shouted down. The moderators are using fascist "disappearing" tactics by banning users and removing any evidence of their protests. For example, I was banned for praising your acquisitions this summer. That was it. Nothing more, no less.
It's a place full of uniformed drones run by control freaks who stand over them with whips at the ready.
Because of who the moderators are and what they believe, it's become a haven for those whose politics veer to right. This means that any attempts to criticise Israel, or call out blatant bigotry, are shouted down. The moderators are using fascist "disappearing" tactics by banning users and removing any evidence of their protests. For example, I was banned for praising your acquisitions this summer. That was it. Nothing more, no less.
It's a place full of uniformed drones run by control freaks who stand over them with whips at the ready.
That's a very sensible post tbh.
Fooled you good and proper then. It's just the OOTers on Bluemoon have to fake it if they don't want to be banhammered, as you pointed out. Which is a source for comedy gold as people from Wisconsin or Oslo struggle to pepper their posts with references to meeting plastic rags at the Trafford Centre.
It's also probably the reason why you quit that forum.
It's not though. I'm not saying City have more fans in Manchester than United or anything like that, but because City were quite frankly shite prior to Mansour's takeover it means a much higher proportion of our supporters are from Manchester and its surrounding areas; we had no global appeal and are only just beginning to get one. This forum is much more diverse in the posters. That means Bluemoon is mainly made up of posters from in and around Manchester with fewer fans attracted from elsewhere.
I think that accounts for most of the paranoia City fans share about United too.
They've spent so long feeling insecure about United's ubiquity from the epicenter that they feel completely suffocated by it.
They've spent so long feeling insecure about United's ubiquity from the epicenter that they feel completely suffocated by it.
This is fair. United fans don't need to be defensive about this.
Absolutely agree in general. The Mansour takeover was five years ago, though.
Regarding Bluemoon as a forum specifically -- it's just a defence mechanism, I suppose, because I don't want to believe more mancs on a forum automatically means it descends into the swamp of Bluemoon discourse.
I get what you're saying, but I think more than the demographics of any given site, the moderators determine the culture more. I mean, compare RAWK with other Liverpool sites, for example.
There was a post in the RAWK thread not long ago that summarised the typical posts you would find on RAWK and Bluemoon.
Didn't realise until now that he wasn't exaggerating the Bluemoon bit.
They're batshit mental.
Didn't realise until now that he wasn't exaggerating the Bluemoon bit.
They're batshit mental.
Aguero one of the great City youth players!
I'm not saying we're better on here, we're all idiots in this together.
I'm just saying it isn't an axiom that the more mancs you have on a forum, the more absolutely out-of-this-world idiotic posts written in text-speak that wouldn't even pass as ridiculous parody of the internets with your gran you will get.
For a must win game in our group? Yes NQAT
Oh no, I do hear that, as I said. I'm just putting my emphasis on how these forums are moderated and not on who populates them. And though I might appear an out-of-towner, and certainly am nowadays, I'm still a Manc at heart, with all the civic pride that entails.
