They are actually pathetic. Some actual person actually counted the news items. Jesus Christ.
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
I didn't see the original post on that discussion so wasn't aware of context. In that case why were Liverpool rated in the second tier? That are still a very big club in terms of money and can certainly match transfer fees and wages that Arsenal or Chelsea can pay. They can also match the two Manc clubs as long as the Manc clubs are sensible and don't go stupid. There is a drop in income of over 200 million between Liverpool and Newcastle, Spurs are in the middle of that drop. I would therefore place Spurs alone in tier 2, followed by Newcastle, Everton, West Ham, Southampton and Aston Villa in tier 3.
As for your question and comment on Leicester and Spurs, I presume you are asking in the context of performance and not money. I think with Leicester it is very dependent on whether they can keep their main players and if not, who they replace them with. I'm not sure on what basis you can say there is a very good chance they won't repeat this seasons performances. To clarify that I don't think Leicester wil win it next season but they could well be up there making a nuisance of themselves, but as stated, that depends on keeping players/transfers. As for Spurs, I'm sure they will not lose any key players and will add some. I expect them to be a better team next time than this time. It's very dangerous making predictions/assumptions about next season. Nobody knows what transfers will take place, nobody knows how managers new to the PL will perform, some of the "top" teams need rebuilding, it's very much in the air and I would guess a bookies nightmare. I wouldn't be surprised if Guardiola and Conti have relatively poor seasons, Guardiola especially isn't used to intense competition coming at him from all angles as it is in the PL. Time will tell.
Aye, it’s funny how hurt they are over something so trivial. I couldn’t care less if journalists wrote 50% less or 50% more of United. Gossip’s fun but in general, who cares?
They are unable to grasp the concept that United sell papers and generate clicks. No one gives a shit about poor lickle Citeh
Yeah but as a United fan, I couldn’t care less if United is in the papers or not. They have some real issues if they focus on such a stupid thing.
Martial won the first round of the battle but it will be a marathon not aSo 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
One of the three biggest clubs in the world and Englands most succesfull club gets more press than a newly relevant sugardaddy club shocker.
How they can not see this just shows how far up their own ass they are. They actually believe that the lottery ticket and the two or so PL's they won lately should make them as relevant as us.
Come back in 20 or so years when you have a real trophy cabinet and a true worldwide fanbase, fecking sheikh-toys.
How they can not see this just shows how far up their own ass they are. They actually believe that the lottery ticket and the two or so PL's they won lately should make them as relevant as us.
Come back in 20 or so years when you have a real trophy cabinet and a true worldwide fanbase, fecking sheikh-toys.
Presumably for several reasons mate the main one being they can't or won't match United/City/Chelsea in terms of fees or wages offered. Their highest paid player is on around £120k per week. The aforementioned 3 clubs have squad players on as much or slightly less than that, with their highest earners making £200-300k. So Liverpool can't or are not willing to really compete financially with the big spenders.
Being in the north west and rarely in the CL and not having won the title in almost 3 decades will work against them also in the pursuit of the top players.
Regardless of whether Leicester keep their best players or not (they very likely won't) i still wouldn't envisage them coming in the top 4 again. They did great last season but it was a perfect storm of events that lead to them winning. I just don't see their players being as hungry for it this year. I reckon they will struggle to even make the europa league spots if they do lose Vardy and Mahrez.
Spurs could come in the top 4 again it's possible of course, but with United, City, Chelsea and Liverpool now having some of the worlds top managers and no doubt lots money to spend it will be very hard for them i think. As it will be for all the teams hoping to qualify for the CL or win the title.
I read, in a local newspaper, about a store implementing a new shelfsection for bread the other day. Some people might be interested in reading these kind of news, however this should not be a main story. Mainstories will be chosen by supply and demand. So one day Citysupporters might wake up and find themselves either surpassed United in reputation, or maybe even realise our current superior demand by the paying customers of the newspaper, and this way find peace. But I doubt it.
A history lesson from a bandwagon jumping Norwegian.
I am truly sorry that I am not born in Manchester. But you see, this is one of the things that necessarily follows being a huge and global club, you will inevitably get fans from other countries.
I am sure that somewhere in the future you guys will experience it as well.
Edit: If I am not mistaken the first English football match was broadcasted on Norwegian TV in 1969, I think we were the first country outside of the UK to start broadcasting English football. Naturally it got a big following in Norway and it became nearly like religion around here, that is why the memberships in fanclubs for nearly every PL and Championship club in Norway is the highest in the world compared with our population. The number of supporters you find for clubs like Leeds, Nottingham Forrest etc. over here is really crazy.
In the 80's when my brother grew up and chose his club Liverpool was all the craze, so naturally most of the 40 or so year olds in Norway are Liverpool fans. In the 90's when I grew up Manchester United was all the craze, so naturally most 27-35 year olds are Manchester United fans. Lately with the younger generations we have seen a big influx of Chelsea fans, and also the occasional Arsenal fan.
City just wasn't relevant for most of us growing up, it is just a facht as Rafa would say, and you cant deny that it is only the money influx from the Sheiks that has made you relevant now in the later years. I know it can be perceived as a slight, but it just is the way things are.
But if you win several CL's and 5-10 PL's in the next 10 years, who can say that things won't change?
The abscence of any real league or quality in domestic football here has made us consider English football as "our own", that is why we consider ourselves every bit as much of supporters as guys in England. We have generations of grandpas\fathers and sons supporting the same club. As an example due to our shit national team about every Norwegian I know supports England in the WC\EC and cheers as if it was our own national team.
Matches like Manchester United - Liverpool will get more than 650 000 viewers, mind you that is in a country with 4,8 million people and where a PL package on TV costs £45-50\month.
Last edited:
I'm actually rather chuffed that we've got only 67 less news items than Liverpool..........
Anyway, carry on mate
It's just really petty.
Probably a fair share of older Arsenal supporters too. And what might seem like a bizarre amount of Leeds supporters among the older guard, but not strange at all given Leeds' success in the late 60s and further into the 70s, precisely the era you refer to, when English football began to be broadcast in Scandinavia - a remarkable phenomenon, really, when one considers that regular live coverage didn't begin until over a decade later in the UK itself.
That said, City were right up there in those years - so there should be a share of City fans (not to mention Derby and Forest, plus usual suspects like Everton and Spurs) in that generation too.
Something similar is true for Denmark and Sweden as well, I believe, but not to quite the same degree - which may have something to do with the fact that those nations had better players who played for big clubs abroad (in Italy to begin with, not least), making it more natural for fans to take an interest in Italian, and later German and Spanish football.
I read not long ago that Scandinavian newspapers covered the English league as early as the 1920s - and when football pools became a thing after WWII the coverage was further increased.
A fascinating story - and an excellent reason to further derail this tedious Bluemoon lark.
I'd bet anything that he's done no such counting. He just made up some numbers, put United far and away at the top and City at the opposite end.
Nobody, not even the bitterest bertie on Bluemoon, is enough of a sad-act to count news stories every single day and tot them up per team to present as some sort of self gratifying evidence in exchange for backslaps on a forum. No. Human beings just don't do that, I am certain.
Nobody, not even the bitterest bertie on Bluemoon, is enough of a sad-act to count news stories every single day and tot them up per team to present as some sort of self gratifying evidence in exchange for backslaps on a forum. No. Human beings just don't do that, I am certain.
At least during all this shit City oil doping banter I learned that 'whataboutery' is just a Soviet way to say tu quoque.
Probably right, although I think fans of a certain club at Merseyside could do that, they do have the time when other people are working.
BBC bias against City thread is just another thread about 'Rags'.
I am truly sorry that I am not born in Manchester.
Apology accepted
But you see, this is one of the things that necessarily follows being a huge and global club, you will inevitably get fans from other countries.
Yes I see that but do you see that the success of United at the time you chose your team played a big part in your choice. Please acknowledge this. Unless you disagree with me then you are hitching a ride on the United bandwagon. When the sole criteria for your decision is to choose the winning most team of the time in the most exciting league it's little wonder that many millions of others have made he same choice.
I am sure that somewhere in the future you guys will experience it as well.
Well my friend you are probably well aware that City's global support is growing at a decent rate from a very low base. It will never reach United or Barca level and probably not even Liverpool or Arsenal's but frankly I give little of a damn. Counting Facebook and Twitter likes and shirt sales doesn't really interest me. If I enjoy my team, heir style of football and if we have a bit of success along the way that's me sorted.
Edit: If I am not mistaken the first English football match was broadcasted on Norwegian TV in 1969, I think we were the first country outside of the UK to start broadcasting English football. Naturally it got a big following in Norway and it became nearly like religion around here, that is why the memberships in fanclubs for nearly every PL and Championship club in Norway is the highest in the world compared with our population. The number of supporters you find for clubs like Leeds, Nottingham Forrest etc. over here is really crazy.
Yes I do admire the devotion of the fans that you mention.
In the 80's when my brother grew up and chose his club Liverpool was all the craze, so naturally most of the 40 or so year olds in Norway are Liverpool fans. In the 90's when I grew up Manchester United was all the craze, so naturally most 27-35 year olds are Manchester United fans.
It is natural that kids/youths gravitate towards the most successful teams. Shame more of them don't swim against the tide a bit.
PLately with the younger generations we have seen a big influx of Chelsea fans, and also the occasional Arsenal fan.
City just wasn't relevant for most of us growing up, it is just a facht as Rafa would say, and you cant deny that it is only the money influx from the Sheiks that has made you relevant now in the later years.
Relevant to who? They've always been relevant to me, many of my mates and hundreds of thousands of others. We have followed City through bad times and worse but follow them we have and the thrill of bouncing back from the despair of 98,99 and 06 seasons makes our recent success all the more rewarding.
I know it can be perceived as a slight, but it just is the way things are.
The fact that we are regarded as irrelevant by people who don't understand my above point bothers me little.
But if you win several CL's and 5-10 PL's in the next 10 years, who can say that things won't change?
Acquiring x Million new fans in China, Africa and the Middle East (City's bosses main target areas for fanbase growth) has limited interest to me. City diehards remember where we came from and if one day the wet dream of the United, Liverpool and Arsenal newbies comes true and the Sheik gets bored and does one then I'll still be an avid fan and will still keep rolling up every couple of weeks to watch my team.
The abscence of any real league or quality in domestic football here has made us consider English football as "our own", that is why we consider ourselves every bit as much of supporters as guys in England. We have generations of grandpas\fathers and sons supporting the same club. As an example due to our shit national team about every Norwegian I know supports England in the WC\EC and cheers as if it was our own national team.
Matches like Manchester United - Liverpool will get more than 650 000 viewers, mind you that is in a country with 4,8 million people and where a PL package on TV costs £45-50\month.
OK I get it. You're less plastic than most of the other plastic fans and Norway is a fine place to talk English Football. You seem a decent fella and it's been good discussing/bantering with you.
Stop killing whales though and if you come over here pillaging again we'll ram your horned helmets up your Nordic asses.
See you and have a good night
Probably doesn't help the resident 'ITK' on there has for some time been saying Pogba is on the verge of signing.
Which leads to tonnes of gifs being posted.
Holy Jesus, I used to come here for a bit of light relief. Now it's spending 10 minutes trawling through wall after wall of text just to find the odd funny quote from the actual website that the thread has been made for.
Pyrrhic victory is the state of City, the fanbase devoid of irony, the literal definition of hypocrisy - the citizens turned cold-blooded blood-money sponsors, the believers in false economics and a rise in profile that would make Pinocchio blush had he claimed the lie to be the truth, the looking glass through which even Alice would feel dizzy acknowledging. We're not really here, truly, they're still not. Pyrrhic victory - a win at costs above your means, a win that wasn't worth it. A falsehood and lie; a flagrant plagiarism of RAWKish language that once and for all says this, Everton can't be bigger than Liverpool, Liverpool can't be bigger than United. City can't be bigger because they're massive...
Every thread on that forum seems to be about 'Rags'
They are one paranoid bunch.
Bans to reporters cause of the negative stories about City.. Counting stories on United and City.
They don't have anything else to do in their lives or they're paranoid or both.
I mean, wow, one of the biggest club in England has many articles and stories and generates many clicks. More than a sugar daddy club.
That's a shock.
Poor little City. Nobody likes them. Boo hoo.
Bans to reporters cause of the negative stories about City.. Counting stories on United and City.
They don't have anything else to do in their lives or they're paranoid or both.
I mean, wow, one of the biggest club in England has many articles and stories and generates many clicks. More than a sugar daddy club.
That's a shock.
Poor little City. Nobody likes them. Boo hoo.
Yes. The team that finished behind them on goal difference doesn't have a chance.
They are one paranoid bunch.
Bans to reporters cause of the negative stories about City.. Counting stories on United and City.
They don't have anything else to do in their lives or they're paranoid or both.
I mean, wow, one of the biggest club in England has many articles and stories and generates many clicks. More than a sugar daddy club.
That's a shock.
Poor little City. Nobody likes them. Boo hoo.
The number of United stories compared to City stories doesn't bother me one jot - it is what it is.
However, calling people out for asking for bans when negative stories are being printed is a bit odd when you consider your most successful manager ever dished out bans whenever a journalist printed a negative United story, and of course he didn't speak to the BBC for something like 6 years.
I'm not a full-on "agenda-ist" but believe me, there have been some utterly disgusting stories published about City down the years yet the club still allow these cockroaches into our stadium on a match-day and full access to the hospitality which is regarded by many journalists as being the best in the league. Personally I think they should do a Ferguson and dish out a few bans and make it clear that constructive criticism is fine but unconstructive drivel is not.
Maybe they are afraid to ban them as that would only lead to more unfavourable stories written about City? City seem very PR conscious to me.
Ferguson banned journos because he knew he had 100% job security so he didn't care what they wrote about him, he also knew that most of those journalists needed access to him/United way more then he or United needed them so banning the odd one kept the others in line for the most part.
And he also you know probably just didn't give a feck.
This is exactly right as well. City fans need to realise it.
Also there is no shortage of hatchet job articles on United either but we are used to it and less sensitive because we're not really arsed what outsiders think of us.
Yeah, I don't disagree too much with that. Daft thing is, the club did once ban a BBC journalist for an article about Yaya Toure which wasn't anywhere near as bad as some of the other tripe I've seen written!
Ah that probably explains that one though mate. Judging by the birthday cake fiasco Yaya seems like high maintenance, he probably demanded the banning lol
what stories?
You might say articles like City are buying the title our City are using blood money. Those stories were written about Chelsea. Don't think there is any bias against City in the press.
You don't know the half of it mate. I could spend all day digging out stories but I'll give you just 2 examples. One journalist - Michael Calvin - was writing deliberately inflammatory articles on an almost weekly basis. He was saying that City's owner shouldn't be anywhere near an English football club yet in one article the weird fecker bizarrely said that he bought the wrong Manchester club and should've bought FC United instead. This from a man who said he shouldn't be in English football at all.
Then there was Ian Herbert in the Independent - not so much a disgusting article but a laughably biased one nonetheless when he said City's defence of the 2012 title was the most pathetic title defence ever. City finished 2nd that year. Yet Blackburn finished 7th the year after they won it and even United finished 3rd in 2004 after winning it in 2003. Funnily enough, there was no reference to either and no follow up article 12 months later when United finished 7th after winning it in 2013 or this year when Chelsea's PL title defence officially became the worst ever.
People writing extreme articles about your club is something you have to deal with when you become a big club. It's just the way it is.
This x1000, I don't think the bias is near as bad as alot of BM make it out to be and I think alot of City fans are just tetchy about criticism cause we went from being the lovable losers to not liked winners if that makes sense.
But we have to be honest we are going to get more stick than United because simply United have biggest fan base and are the most popular club. I think it suits the media to make City the bad guys when United are the worlds arguably biggest club. It creates a good media dynamic of the old traditionalist club who have always been successful having a hard time while their city rivals who used to be their whipping boys have sold their soul and become the bad guys to kick United while they are down. It makes sense when United fans bring alot more clicks and buy alot more papers than City fans simply because media need revenue.
But its not been near the amount of bias or deliberate tearing down BM thinks and reporters are just calling it as they see it with their maybe slightly traditionalist coloured glasses (United, Arsenal, Liverpool) etc... Its human nature to be biased against something that's come to take down what you love and I think City's rise has hit Liverpool and Spurs fans more than United because of CL qualification. Everyone needs a scapegoat for their own clubs failures and City's lotto win just happens to be it. United fans for what its worth seem to be more honest about it being their own teams and clubs doing than those other clubs who can't see their own faults.
Again, I agree to a certain extent. It doesn't bother me nearly as much as it used to but that doesn't mean I can't moan about it every now and then
I will add that United get negative press too - probably more since Ferguson retired - and some United fans are sensitive to it too. Indeed, there's a thread today about an article on Sky Sports stating van Gaal won 1 trophy in 3 years at United when of course he was only there for 2 years. Being the pedant that I am, I'd have been quick to point out that particular innacuracy too if I was a United fan.
Thread gone shit. Time to close it.
Agree! City feckers highjacking the Bluemoon thread. They'll probably post on there how they took it down.