Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

Correct me if i'm wrong blues but I see as this; City are still reliant on the investment of an outside company to maintain their current status as a leading club in European football. United are not. United rely on their worldwide fanbase and the advertising and sponsorship money this attracts for the brand. Citys owners vision is to take them to a similar point, or further, in the future.

They build MCFC into an successful international brand, along the way they become more international and less dependent on their traditional local working class match going support, just like United.

When there's 200k applications for every matchday ticket at the etihad all of a sudden 'bert from ancoats' say for eg, who has been going City for 50 years, suddenly finds demand has driven the value of his season ticket to an unaffordable price. The stadium is filled with people from all over england and abroad. Lifelong blues watch the game in the pub. All for the sake of City having a world class team and being able to maintain it themselves financially. The more success City have, the quicker this will materialise.

This is the only outcome I see for City down the road. That or ADUG continue to pump their own funds into the club forever.

I guess my point is it seems like City fans attack what United have become, but in front of their own eyes their club are following the same blue print, or taking it a whole new level! Both on the pitch in terms of attempting to develop their own teams and off it with global interest, advertising, sponsorship, etc. I'm sure City fans have discussed this. Are you selling your soul for the price of trophies?

Edit: Probably the wrong thread though so apologies.
 
M18CTID said:
Wow, calm down flower ;) I might get a bit prickly about the hackneyed comments from time to time but I let most of them go over my head.

You can't expect football fans of any club not to get defensive in some way when they feel their club is being attacked by those who appear to be lacking in self-awareness. As it happens, a good debate could be had about alleged human rights abuses in Abu Dhabi but it's unlikely to end well on a rival's football forum - in fact it didn't end well for a United fan on here a while back who was getting all moralistic over City's owner but ended up with a rather large dollop of egg on his face when one of the 2 City fans he was debating with rifled through his post history and found that he was supportive of a rumoured Qatari takeover of United.

Fact is that no football club is perfect and every club has baggage so it's a pointless dick-waving contest in all honesty. Tell you summat though, I'm a right bad bastard - not only do I follow City, I also support Lancashire County Cricket Club who are sponsored by Emirates, plus I've worked in oil and gas for 26 years and we do business with a fair few companies in the UAE.
Click to expand...

I broadly think we're in agreement here. I, also, have become accustomed to hackneyed cliches delivered without self awareness for longer than 8 years and I fear we are both guilty of understandably adopting accustomed defensive positions. The presence of rival fans having sensible conversations is one the main reasons I like Red Cafe. Nor is it surprising, though it is disappointing, that a football fan would criticise city's owners and then support a Quatari take over. It's all to easy for people to adopt faux moral positions that they're happy to jettison as soon as it suits them. I think we pretty much all do it to a greater or lesser extent. I get it. But we can make points without adding anti-hypocrisy caveats to every post surely?

Also,the Peter Fear line was quite good...

But still...

City are owned by multi billionaire dictators who enact laws in their country including the death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy. The Glazers are corporate scum but they're not fascist ideologically driven murderers. I agree a good debate could be had about these "alleged" human rights abuses, but not in this thread. To your point, would you be using the word alleged about the human rights abuses of Abu Dhabi if it weren't for your owners? Would I care if you weren't good and were still (endearingly?) shit?

Either way, I think it's fair to say that these issues might occasionally get brought up on a rival club's chat room (in the same way we can expect football fans will get defensive about their clubs as you rightly point out)...fortunately we're not in a country where I would get imprisoned and fined for criticising the Abu Dhabi government as I would be in, say, Abu Dhabi. If I wasn't already stoned to death for blasphemy (I am an athiest, the worst of all things) , or lashed to insensibility for kissing in public that is.

Some of us will probably try to defend Mourinho being a dick when we shouldn't, some of you will try to defend the human rights record of Abu Dhabi when maybe you shouldn't. Maybe it's tribalism that makes me think the former is easier to live with.

Football has changed, but fans are still tribal .... and we'll always have Ian "Ian Bishop" Bishop.

Oh ....and Bluemoon is rubbish, just to stay on topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KM
SkeppyRed said:
Correct me if i'm wrong blues but I see as this; City are still reliant on the investment of an outside company to maintain their current status as a leading club in European football. United are not. United rely on their worldwide fanbase and the advertising and sponsorship money this attracts for the brand. Citys owners vision is to take them to a similar point, or further, in the future.

They build MCFC into an successful international brand, along the way they become more international and less dependent on their traditional local working class match going support, just like United.

When there's 200k applications for every matchday ticket at the etihad all of a sudden 'bert from ancoats' say for eg, who has been going City for 50 years, suddenly finds demand has driven the value of his season ticket to an unaffordable price. The stadium is filled with people from all over england and abroad. Lifelong blues watch the game in the pub. All for the sake of City having a world class team and being able to maintain it themselves financially. The more success City have, the quicker this will materialise.

This is the only outcome I see for City down the road. That or ADUG continue to pump their own funds into the club forever.

I guess my point is it seems like City fans attack what United have become, but in front of their own eyes their club are following the same blue print, or taking it a whole new level! Both on the pitch in terms of attempting to develop their own teams and off it with global interest, advertising, sponsorship, etc. I'm sure City fans have discussed this. Are you selling your soul for the price of trophies?

Edit: Probably the wrong thread though so apologies.
Click to expand...

Are you saying United sold it's soul for the price of trophies?? Feck that!

And yeah this is the wrong thread. What has all this chatter got to do with Bluemoon??
 
Before I joined this forum as a I was lurking, this and the Rawk threads were the best places to be to just laugh at them. There are more than enough places for rational discusions on the forum. Why would people spoil the fun by having discusions here? Really?? Some of you are more of a buzz kill than Buzz Kilington.

Anyways..I love how at the begining of every season on bluemoon all of them are convinced that the race is only between City and Arsenal for the league. It has started again even before the signings. All you read are posts like ..honestly this season its btn Asenal and us. The Rags are not relevent anymore..:D

Yeah right. This only lasted until we unlished Rashford on them then we were back to being relevant cnuts. I can't wait to read the meltdown after Mourinho dances on their tuff:drool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: KM
Fingeredmouse said:
I broadly think we're in agreement here. I, also, have become accustomed to hackneyed cliches delivered without self awareness for longer than 8 years and I fear we are both guilty of understandably adopting accustomed defensive positions. The presence of rival fans having sensible conversations is one the main reasons I like Red Cafe. Nor is it surprising, though it is disappointing, that a football fan would criticise city's owners and then support a Quatari take over. It's all to easy for people to adopt faux moral positions that they're happy to jettison as soon as it suits them. I think we pretty much all do it to a greater or lesser extent. I get it. But we can make points without adding anti-hypocrisy caveats to every post surely?

Also,the Peter Fear line was quite good...

But still...

City are owned by multi billionaire dictators who enact laws in their country including the death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy. The Glazers are corporate scum but they're not fascist ideologically driven murderers. I agree a good debate could be had about these "alleged" human rights abuses, but not in this thread. To your point, would you be using the word alleged about the human rights abuses of Abu Dhabi if it weren't for your owners? Would I care if you weren't good and were still (endearingly?) shit?

Either way, I think it's fair to say that these issues might occasionally get brought up on a rival club's chat room (in the same way we can expect football fans will get defensive about their clubs as you rightly point out)...fortunately we're not in a country where I would get imprisoned and fined for criticising the Abu Dhabi government as I would be in, say, Abu Dhabi. If I wasn't already stoned to death for blasphemy (I am an athiest, the worst of all things) , or lashed to insensibility for kissing in public that is.

Some of us will probably try to defend Mourinho being a dick when we shouldn't, some of you will try to defend the human rights record of Abu Dhabi when maybe you shouldn't. Maybe it's tribalism that makes me think the former is easier to live with.

Football has changed, but fans are still tribal .... and we'll always have Ian "Ian Bishop" Bishop.

Oh ....and Bluemoon is rubbish, just to stay on topic.
Click to expand...

Oh, I was impressed with you knowing who Peter Fear is - I just didn't see the connection between old City/new City and Wimbledon/MK Dons. What's happened at City is no different to what's happened to many other clubs since the sport turned professional - a rich person has come along and pumped a lot of money into a club in order for it to grow. Granted, it's a huge amount of money though that's a symptom of modern day football but the basic principle remains the same in that people have been doing it since the late 19th century.

I've never once defended the human rights record of Abu Dhabi but I'll say this about City's owner - the governments and businesses of western countries are happy to do business with him, including the UK and USA. Manchester City Council are more than happy to be associated with him as well. This is a man who bought a chunk of shares in Barclays at the height of the banking crisis which in turn saved it from being bailed out by the UK government and costing the taxpayer money. Not that he did it for those reasons alone of course - in fact, he sold those shares about 12 months later for a £2 billion plus profit (an act which makes his overall investment in City seem modest in comparison).

Homosexuality being punishable by death is of course beyond the pale but let's not forget that it was still illegal in this country less than 50 years ago, and as recent as the 1950's one of Manchester's most famous icons - a man that is credited with saving millions of lives during WW2 - was chemically castrated for being a homosexual. And I'll point out again that your own club receives and has received sponsorship money direct from the governments of Russia and Turkey via their national airlines. Liverpool's second biggest sponsor is the national airline of Indonesia. Arsenal's biggest sponsor is the national airline of Dubai which is run by a relative of City's owner, Barcelona have received money from Qatar, plus of course there's PSG, so for anyone to single out City and City alone (not aimed at you by the way) is rather silly.
 
SkeppyRed said:
Correct me if i'm wrong blues but I see as this; City are still reliant on the investment of an outside company to maintain their current status as a leading club in European football. United are not. United rely on their worldwide fanbase and the advertising and sponsorship money this attracts for the brand. Citys owners vision is to take them to a similar point, or further, in the future.

They build MCFC into an successful international brand, along the way they become more international and less dependent on their traditional local working class match going support, just like United.

When there's 200k applications for every matchday ticket at the etihad all of a sudden 'bert from ancoats' say for eg, who has been going City for 50 years, suddenly finds demand has driven the value of his season ticket to an unaffordable price. The stadium is filled with people from all over england and abroad. Lifelong blues watch the game in the pub. All for the sake of City having a world class team and being able to maintain it themselves financially. The more success City have, the quicker this will materialise.

This is the only outcome I see for City down the road. That or ADUG continue to pump their own funds into the club forever.

I guess my point is it seems like City fans attack what United have become, but in front of their own eyes their club are following the same blue print, or taking it a whole new level! Both on the pitch in terms of attempting to develop their own teams and off it with global interest, advertising, sponsorship, etc. I'm sure City fans have discussed this. Are you selling your soul for the price of trophies?

Edit: Probably the wrong thread though so apologies.
Click to expand...

What is this soul you speak of? Believe me mate, when Pearce was boring most of us to death during his second season there was very little soul about the place. Most long-standing blues can accept being shit but more fans were turned off watching the team that season than the year we were relegated to the 3rd tier. There was far more camaraderie when that happened compared to the 06-07 season. It wasn't too bad for me as I went to a fair few away games and we were better to watch on the road but at home it was more forgettable than any relegation season - after the 2-1 win over Everton on New Year's Day we didn't score another goal at home in the league.

You raise some other points that are interesting and it's been a concern of many fans that the club could alienate much of the core support base if ticket prices keep rising. Our ST prices went up 6 years in a row and the fans largely accepted this as a trade-off for watching a good team but there's only so far a club can push that and this coming season has seen ST prices frozen but only because, IMO, a lot of fans made enough noise about it. City will never be able to fill the stadium with tourists and JCL's alone and anyone at the club thinking they can is deluding themselves so it's in their own interests to keep the traditional fanbase largely onside while attracting new support - it is possible to do both without alienating either group.
 
I see they have signed the worlds greatest young defender, been a rag since the day he was born obviously.
Click to expand...

A total of 72 proffesional appearances.

15 international appearances.

Surely at 22 that's not 'outstanding' enough for a work permit?
Click to expand...

GPC will ensure it goes through....The knight of the realm must have perks?

Wouldn't be surprised if he had a word to block Mariga(?) from signing for us back in the day.
Click to expand...

30 Million reported so we all know that's 35 million + add ons
Click to expand...
 
M18CTID said:
Oh, I was impressed with you knowing who Peter Fear is - I just didn't see the connection between old City/new City and Wimbledon/MK Dons. What's happened at City is no different to what's happened to many other clubs since the sport turned professional - a rich person has come along and pumped a lot of money into a club in order for it to grow. Granted, it's a huge amount of money though that's a symptom of modern day football but the basic principle remains the same in that people have been doing it since the late 19th century.

I've never once defended the human rights record of Abu Dhabi but I'll say this about City's owner - the governments and businesses of western countries are happy to do business with him, including the UK and USA. Manchester City Council are more than happy to be associated with him as well. This is a man who bought a chunk of shares in Barclays at the height of the banking crisis which in turn saved it from being bailed out by the UK government and costing the taxpayer money. Not that he did it for those reasons alone of course - in fact, he sold those shares about 12 months later for a £2 billion plus profit (an act which makes his overall investment in City seem modest in comparison).

Homosexuality being punishable by death is of course beyond the pale but let's not forget that it was still illegal in this country less than 50 years ago, and as recent as the 1950's one of Manchester's most famous icons - a man that is credited with saving millions of lives during WW2 - was chemically castrated for being a homosexual. And I'll point out again that your own club receives and has received sponsorship money direct from the governments of Russia and Turkey via their national airlines. Liverpool's second biggest sponsor is the national airline of Indonesia. Arsenal's biggest sponsor is the national airline of Dubai which is run by a relative of City's owner, Barcelona have received money from Qatar, plus of course there's PSG, so for anyone to single out City and City alone (not aimed at you by the way) is rather silly.
Click to expand...

You've "never once defended the human rights record of Abu Dhabi" but then go on, in a textbook display of whataboutery, to do just that.

The fact that the west do business with this despot means bugger all as does the fact that the abomination that is Manchester City Council don't mind sharing a bed with him. There's money to be made. palms to be greased, pockets to be lined and that is the height of it. That council in particular are a bunch of self serving gangsters who have largely presided over the wholesale destruction of Manchester's identity in the last 20 years by property developers and all for the making of a quick buck. The repurcussions will be felt for decades whilst they reside in leafy Cheshire getting fat off the back of it. Good referees they are not. And your mention of the Barclays deal simply highlights this - that the man who owns City has no interest in the wellbeing of the British taxpayer any more than he does that of his own citizens.

As for your riff on homosexuality - "one of Manchester's most famous icons" I presume is an ill thought out reference to Alan Turing? (who, for a start, was a Londoner) Remarkable that you would seek to excuse the behaviour of a regime today on the basis of how people in this country were being treated half a century ago. What's your point here? That we can hardly criticise when our society here has been guilty of violating people's rights in the past? On that basis none are in a position to judge and it's a free for all for abusers of human rights everywhere to go unchallenged. We used to hang people too. The point is we used to. This rhetoric you're spinning here is the kind of classic whataboutery that get's spouted time and again by City supporting Abu Dhabi apologists who seem unable to simply say that there are things about the owners that they're not comfortable with.

And for the record this United fan is not happy about Russian state sponsorship or suspect financing of United in any way shape or form and would much rather we took a more ethical approach to how we do business. What I'm not having is taking your line of defence of responding to criticism by pointing out the faults in others.
 
Barca84 said:
You've "never once defended the human rights record of Abu Dhabi" but then go on, in a textbook display of whataboutery, to do just that.

The fact that the west do business with this despot means bugger all as does the fact that the abomination that is Manchester City Council don't mind sharing a bed with him. There's money to be made. palms to be greased, pockets to be lined and that is the height of it. That council in particular are a bunch of self serving gangsters who have largely presided over the wholesale destruction of Manchester's identity in the last 20 years by property developers and all for the making of a quick buck. The repurcussions will be felt for decades whilst they reside in leafy Cheshire getting fat off the back of it. Good referees they are not. And your mention of the Barclays deal simply highlights this - that the man who owns City has no interest in the wellbeing of the British taxpayer any more than he does that of his own citizens.

As for your riff on homosexuality - "one of Manchester's most famous icons" I presume is an ill thought out reference to Alan Turing? (who, for a start, was a Londoner) Remarkable that you would seek to excuse the behaviour of a regime today on the basis of how people in this country were being treated half a century ago. What's your point here? That we can hardly criticise when our society here has been guilty of violating people's rights in the past? On that basis none are in a position to judge and it's a free for all for abusers of human rights everywhere to go unchallenged. We used to hang people too. The point is we used to. This rhetoric you're spinning here is the kind of classic whataboutery that get's spouted time and again by City supporting Abu Dhabi apologists who seem unable to simply say that there are things about the owners that they're not comfortable with.

And for the record this United fan is not happy about Russian state sponsorship or suspect financing of United in any way shape or form and would much rather we took a more ethical approach to how we do business. What I'm not having is taking your line of defence of responding to criticism by pointing out the faults in others.
Click to expand...

Oh look who's appeared - it's the United fan who has been a member of Amnesty International since 1978, and whose faux moral outrage was hilariously exposed when another City fan went through his post history and found he was actually in favour of the rumoured Qatari takeover of United, yet you still have the neck to come on here and pontificate. I seem to remember you spat your dummy out to such an extent that you disappeared off all City related threads for about 6 months after that little episode! Now you think you can weedle your way back in and hope that nobody remembered. Well unlucky mate - I suggest you take your sanctimonious claptrap elsewhere or step off your fake moral high ground and actually make an attempt to debate with the City fans on here for a change, something that you've completely and utterly failed to do at any point in the past.
 
Last edited:
M18CTID said:
Oh, I was impressed with you knowing who Peter Fear is - I just didn't see the connection between old City/new City and Wimbledon/MK Dons. What's happened at City is no different to what's happened to many other clubs since the sport turned professional - a rich person has come along and pumped a lot of money into a club in order for it to grow. Granted, it's a huge amount of money though that's a symptom of modern day football but the basic principle remains the same in that people have been doing it since the late 19th century.

I've never once defended the human rights record of Abu Dhabi but I'll say this about City's owner - the governments and businesses of western countries are happy to do business with him, including the UK and USA. Manchester City Council are more than happy to be associated with him as well. This is a man who bought a chunk of shares in Barclays at the height of the banking crisis which in turn saved it from being bailed out by the UK government and costing the taxpayer money. Not that he did it for those reasons alone of course - in fact, he sold those shares about 12 months later for a £2 billion plus profit (an act which makes his overall investment in City seem modest in comparison).

Homosexuality being punishable by death is of course beyond the pale but let's not forget that it was still illegal in this country less than 50 years ago, and as recent as the 1950's one of Manchester's most famous icons - a man that is credited with saving millions of lives during WW2 - was chemically castrated for being a homosexual. And I'll point out again that your own club receives and has received sponsorship money direct from the governments of Russia and Turkey via their national airlines. Liverpool's second biggest sponsor is the national airline of Indonesia. Arsenal's biggest sponsor is the national airline of Dubai which is run by a relative of City's owner, Barcelona have received money from Qatar, plus of course there's PSG, so for anyone to single out City and City alone (not aimed at you by the way) is rather silly.
Click to expand...

I think I'm in pretty much full agreement here. Most people have selective morality when it suits them and corporations doubly so. Whilst UTD aren't owned by a fascistic regime and I have no doubts we're happy to trade with them and that's thoroughly depressing. Football is about money...and to finish off on this, that's kind of the point I think Colin was making in reference to Ian Bishop.

Still means you'll get ribbed for your owners and hoe this changed your fortunes on this site though and you'll do you best to defend your club, as per human nature.

So, to conclude, in the proper spirit of modern football and this thread in general:

You won the lottery and your owners are evil and your fans smell. Emptihad. Lolz.

I rest my case.
 
M18CTID said:
Oh look who's appeared - it's the United fan who has been a member of Amnesty International since 1978, and whose faux moral outrage was hilariously exposed when another City fan went through his post history and found he was actually in favour of the rumoured Qatari takeover of United, yet you still have the neck to come on here and pontificate. I seem to remember you spat your dummy out to such an extent that you disappeared off all City related threads for about 6 months after that little episode! Now you think you can weedle your way back in and hope that nobody remembered. Well unlucky mate - I suggest you take your sanctimonious claptrap elsewhere or step off your fake moral high ground and actually make an attempt to debate with the City fans on here for a change, something that you've completely and utterly failed to do at any point in the past.
Click to expand...

Well that touched a nerve :lol:

And no response to my points?

To be expected.
 
Guys, can you not start a new thread for your discussion rather than derailing this one.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
I think I'm in pretty much full agreement here. Most people have selective morality when it suits them and corporations doubly so. Whilst UTD aren't owned by a fascistic regime and I have no doubts we're happy to trade with them and that's thoroughly depressing. Football is about money...and to finish off on this, that's kind of the point I think Colin was making in reference to Ian Bishop.

Still means you'll get ribbed for your owners and hoe this changed your fortunes on this site though and you'll do you best to defend your club, as per human nature.

So, to conclude, in the proper spirit of modern football and this thread in general:

You won the lottery and your owners are evil and your fans smell. Emptihad. Lolz.

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Fair enough mate. Anyway, I think it's time you reds reclaimed this thread ;)
 
Barca84 said:
Well that touched a nerve :lol:

And no response to my points?

To be expected.
Click to expand...

It didn't touch any nerves. Just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in your posts so why should I respond? It's like Ryan Giggs moaning that one of his mates has been cheating on his wife and calling him all the names under the sun.

Anyway, changing subject slightly - have you decided to start attending United games again now that van Gaal has been flirted?
 
M18CTID said:
It didn't touch any nerves. Just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in your posts so why should I respond? It's like Ryan Giggs moaning that one of his mates has been cheating on his wife and calling him all the names under the sun.

Anyway, changing subject slightly - have you decided to start attending United games again now that van Gaal has been flirted?
Click to expand...

You're getting confused here but blues rewriting history isn't a new phenomena. I've repeatedly stated that there are elements of the financing of United that I find unethical and unpalatable and would be happier if this was tackled. I'd also like to see the Glazers out. Your defense of City's owner and financing is lame whataboutery at it's finest and I've made several valid points in my thread that you're choosing to avoid. Instead some childish swipe at me not attending to watch LVG's borefest is all you've got?

A bluemoon meltdown in the bluemoon meltdown thread indeed :lol:
 
Barca84 said:
You're getting confused here but blues rewriting history isn't a new phenomena. I've repeatedly stated that there are elements of the financing of United that I find unethical and unpalatable and would be happier if this was tackled. I'd also like to see the Glazers out. Your defense of City's owner and financing is lame whataboutery at it's finest and I've made several valid points in my thread that you're choosing to avoid. Instead some childish swipe at me not attending to watch LVG's borefest is all you've got?

A bluemoon meltdown in the bluemoon meltdown thread indeed :lol:
Click to expand...

You've not made any valid points because they were all negated when you were exposed as a total hypocrite after it was revealed you were in favour of a Qatari backed takeover of United. Therefore, there's nothing more to discuss with you regarding this matter.
 
M18CTID said:
You've not made any valid points because they were all negated when you were exposed as a total hypocrite after it was revealed you were in favour of a Qatari backed takeover of United. Therefore, there's nothing more to discuss with you regarding this matter.
Click to expand...

I stated that I liked the idea of a Cof92 takeover and replacing the Glazers with ex players who would have more of the club's interest at heart. Whether or not this was going to be Qatari backed never formed part of that sentiment.. In hindsight the idea was good and bound to appeal to fans but the reality wasn't and, besides, it never transpired so we never had to cross that bridge of shelving reservations about where the money was coming from.

As has been posted previously in this thread if you continue to post excuses and justifications re City's owners simply becasue they are good for your club, as you did in the post I responded to, then people will take you up on it whether you get your keks in a twist or not.
 
Barca84 said:
I stated that I liked the idea of a Cof92 takeover and replacing the Glazers with ex players who would have more of the club's interest at heart. Whether or not this was going to be Qatari backed never formed part of that sentiment.. In hindsight the idea was good and bound to appeal to fans but the reality wasn't and, besides, it never transpired so we never had to cross that bridge of shelving reservations about where the money was coming from.

As has been posted previously in this thread if you continue to post excuses and justifications re City's owners simply becasue they are good for your club, as you did in the post I responded to, then people will take you up on it whether you get your keks in a twist or not.
Click to expand...

You imply that you didn't know who was behind the proposed takeover yet all the reports clearly stated it was Qatari backed - more spin than Shane Warne there.

The only person really taking me up on anything happens to be the biggest hypocrite on the issue - funny that.

As for meltdowns and getting keks in a twist, that's a bit rich coming from someone who called a City fan a "fecking tit" on another thread and said you didn't care if you copped a ban or not.

I look forward to the day that you can engage in some constructive debate with our fans but I won't be holding my breath.
 
As a newbie, I am using the second of my 5 a day privilege posts here to appeal to u main members.

If you want a serious conversation, start a new thread . This is, to my understanding, a schedenfraude themed thread. Let's laugh at their misfortune and forget for a minute how life sucks for us too( moyes and Van Gaal).

So here I go: I also love the way initially they were all joining in on the Martial vs Sterling debate but now anyone who acknowledges that Martial won that one hands down is labeled a scum supporter:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveJ
The BlackGaijin said:
As a newbie, I am using the second of my 5 a day privilege posts here to appeal to u main members.

If you want a serious conversation, start a new thread . This is, to my understanding, a schedenfraude themed thread. Let's laugh at their misfortune and forget for a minute how life sucks for us too( moyes and Van Gaal).

So here I go: I also love the way initially they were all joining in on the Martial vs Sterling debate but now anyone who acknowledges that Martial won that one hands down is labeled a scum supporter:D
Click to expand...

You sound like a cool guy. tell these feckers what's what.
 
M18CTID said:
You imply that you didn't know who was behind the proposed takeover yet all the reports clearly stated it was Qatari backed - more spin than Shane Warne there.

The only person really taking me up on anything happens to be the biggest hypocrite on the issue - funny that.

As for meltdowns and getting keks in a twist, that's a bit rich coming from someone who called a City fan a "fecking tit" on another thread and said you didn't care if you copped a ban or not.

I look forward to the day that you can engage in some constructive debate with our fans but I won't be holding my breath.
Click to expand...

I said nothing for or against the Qatari backers and simply stated that I could see the Glazers selling and why wouldn't they. I was wrong there. What happened then, as now, is that any criticism of your club gets met with rabid whataboutery and evasion of the actual subject.

As for your fellow City fan that's because he spends all his time here wumming...no more and no less.

Now...answer my entirely reasonable points and deconstruction of that waffle you posted in defence of your owner if you can? That will be the start of some constructive debate. Here let's do this one at a time:

Do you think it's reasonable to suggest that criticism of Abu Dhabi's stance on homosexuality can't come from citizens of a foreign country that half a century ago also punished homosexuality as a crime?

Off you go...
 
I must admit that following PEG's arrival and the signings of Bailly and potentially Ibra, I'm beginning to get concerned about the amount of records he might break. Here are a few obvious ones:


Their first manager ever to select a squad without a youth team player

The first to eye gouge Sir Booby

The first to be taken to a tribunal by the whole physio department

The first to be sent off more time than the players

And whose resulting club fines will repay his salary

The first to need a separate parking space for his ego

Then find Ibra's ego is already parked there when he arrives at work every day

The first to open contract talks with Stagecoach, National Express and Bullocks about signing a new bus to park

The first to blame the tea lady for results after working through the players, the board, the physios, the fans, the ref, Pep, the media and John Terry

On the day he’s sacked, the first to plant a Chelsea flag in the centre circle
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what they're concerned about...
To be fair, think some on here share similar sentiments
 
The actual meltdowns over there are incredibly boring, which is probably why the thing gets so easily derailed.

They have nothing of RAWK's genuine madness, it's just bog standard City style rag-this-rag-that bile combined with a brand of paranoia that isn't entertaining at all. They don't have a single character worth quoting either. A fitting forum for the club in question, in all sorts of ways, but even the Arsenal "meltdown" thread is more likely to make you chuckle.
 
stevoc said:
Can Spurs compete with United, City, Chelsea or Arsenal for players in terms of transfer fees and the wages they can offer?
Click to expand...
It depends what is meant by "major players". I would interpret that as meaning what happens on the pitch and that isn't always in line with transfer fees and wages. Atletico can't match Real or Barcelona for fees and wages but they certainly can on the pitch. Speaking currently, last season both spurs and Leicester were "major players" on the pitch. Remains to be seen if they can keep it up.
 
Gentleman Jim said:
All teams, good bad or indifferent have fan favourites.
I work on the railways and hear groups of fans heartily chanting the name of some jabroney I've never heard of but the expression on their faces as they do it tells me that they are true football fans. Maybe Maidstone fans once did that for Smalling, Tranmere fans did it for Coppell, Millwall for Gordon Hill and Fleetwood did it for Vardy?
Some on here are so quick to dismiss the role that the other 91 clubs in the English leagues play.
Click to expand...
Spot on, but it's not just Man Utd fans, all clubs have a percentage of fans with the same attitude. They think that football exists because of their club, rather than the other way round. If it wasn't for the other 91 clubs, their own club wouldn't exist because they wouldn't have anyone to play.
 
Vicar of Dibbly said:
It depends what is meant by "major players". I would interpret that as meaning what happens on the pitch and that isn't always in line with transfer fees and wages. Atletico can't match Real or Barcelona for fees and wages but they certainly can on the pitch. Speaking currently, last season both spurs and Leicester were "major players" on the pitch. Remains to be seen if they can keep it up.
Click to expand...

Well you would probably be in a minority of people who do so mate. I would be certain that 99 times out of 100 when someone talks about the major players/teams in the context of football they are referring to the biggest and/or richest clubs.

In the post below that started this line of discussion it was said in the context of which clubs have the most money.

Red Bug said:
The major players in English football now are Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City and Man Utd. Then in the tier below that we have Liverpool, Spurs, Everton. Then there's the rest.

That's my view on it anyway. Like I mentioned in the Aubamayang thread, money is the biggest deciding factor in football now and Man City have loads of it.

I personally welcome the challenge, I love how unpredictable our league is compared to the likes of Bundesliga, Serie A and La Liga.
Click to expand...

@Vicar of Dibbly

Out of interest mate what about Leicester finishing 1st or Spurs finishing 3rd when theres a very good chance they will not repeat those finishes, makes them major players within english football in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
stevoc said:
Out of interest mate what about Leicester finishing 1st or Spurs finishing 3rd when theres a very good chance they will not repeat those finishes, makes them major players within english football in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Not for me. Leicester and Spurs are both great clubs in their own right but can they compete with the other clubs I mentioned when signing players? I don't think so.

Finishing in a particular place in the league one season doesn't change that. Spurs don't consistently finish in the CL places, neither do Leicester. And the pull of huge historic clubs like Man Utd or Arsenal always trumps the likes of Leicester or, let's say, Everton in my opinion.
 
Red Bug said:
Not for me. Leicester and Spurs are both great clubs in their own right but can they compete with the other clubs I mentioned when signing players? I don't think so.

Finishing in a particular place in the league one season doesn't change that. Spurs don't consistently finish in the CL places, neither do Leicester. And the pull of huge historic clubs like Man Utd or Arsenal always trumps the likes of Leicester or, let's say, Everton in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate just realized i formatted my last post poorly i was directing that question at the other guy. Only quoted your post for context.

I do agree though, one good league finish doesn't change the landscape of english football. Leicester and to an extent Spurs just can't compete with the likes of United, Chelsea and City when it comes to attracting players.
 
stevoc said:
Sorry mate just realized i formatted my last post poorly i was directing that question at the other guy. Only quoted your post for context.

I do agree though, one good league finish doesn't change the landscape of english football. Leicester and to an extent Spurs just can't compete with the likes of United, Chelsea and City when it comes to attracting players.
Click to expand...

It's ok :)

And yes I agree.
 
Feck sake this thread has turned to piss. It's a sad state of affairs when we've allowed a few City fans to derail the 'all things bad about City' thread and actually civilise it! :lol:

That would never happen in their United thread!
 
From ”BBC bias against City” thread (1071 replies):

City fan #1:
BBC gossip column has no mention of the leading football story on the back of most papers, leading story on Sky and on Goal. Strange! Could it be because it's a positive City story? Surely not?

In the past some posters have excused the lack of City stories saying the papers/media are full of United stories, and the BBC are just highlighting the news from other sources. No such excuse in this case. Their obvious bias of the BBC is blatant and pathetic.
Click to expand...

City fan #2:
Which would be fair enough, if it wasn't the first story in the gossip column.
Click to expand...

City fan #1:
Are you a Rag or someone connected to the BBC?
Click to expand...

There’s also a member who’s counting the amount of stories each ”top” club:

My numbers since 1 Nov last year are now at:

City - 434 stories
Liverpool - 501 stories
Arsenal - 539 stories
Chelsea - 719 stories
Rags - 1055 stories
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.