Aren't they supposed to be everyone's loveable losers who now deserve their success for all the heartache they have been through and for sticking by their team?
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
Ah the old history started in 1992 point of view story.
1904 City win first honour
1908 United win first honour (largely with City's squad from a few years earlier).
Shove your respect, history, tradition and non sacking bluster up your anal fin Mr Shark.
That's one tradition we lost that ain't never coming back.
*sobs*
You're the most boring poster on this forum.
This is a fair point. They've just as much history and tradition as any big club, it's an unfair stick to beat them with. Even won a couple of titles in the 70s if I'm not mistaken.
Doesn't make them a big club mind, and it definitely doesn't make them bigger than Barcelona like their fans always seem to have thought throughout my lifetime!
A thorough (self rated) gentlemen though, tbf.
I wouldnt say they have no history but its the manner of how they became successful which means I don't have much respect for them. They were basically a mid-table club and then overnight, they became massively wealthy and just spent hundreds of millions on players that would have never have came to them beforehand. A lot of fans seem to forget that the club was lucky to get a takeover of that magnitude. Now that may be the way it works with some clubs these days but it wouldn't be how I would like my club to rise to success.
We were in the top four most successful English clubs in terms of League titles, FA Cups and European Cups before 1992 though.
The sheikhs only chose City because United were in the same City. Manchester was already famous.
The respect for Liverpool comes from what they achieved prior to 1992. Why would United fans restrict themselves to the Premier league years?
United's rise to the top really started post World War 2. We will never forget Sir Matt, the Busby Babes, Charlton, Law, Best.
United's supposed failures between 1969 and 1989 did include 3 FA Cups and we were always near the top of the league.
Compare that to City's 35 year drought. Not just no trophies, they even failed to get to the final of any major trophies for 30 years.
Looking at United's trophy famine 1910/11 - 1947/48 (37 years) and City's 1975/76 - 2010/11 (35 years) here's some points.
1) United's includes 11 seasons lost to the World Wars, meaning 26 seasons cupless. You can't blame United for not winning cups if none were played.
2) Each season United could only win 2 major trophies (League, FA Cup) while City could have won 4 (League, FA Cup, League Cup, Europe).
City's drought was more than twice as bad as United.
Yes both clubs have a history, but history can be success or failure.
Wibble.
I wonder how Pep is going to play Gundogan +Silva +KDB....
One of them has to be dropped in my opinion.
One of them has to be dropped in my opinion.
At least one of them is bound to be injured at any given time based on recent events.
Wrong thread
Feckin' rags ruining the thread.
Really Philip, as chief cuntstable of the grammar police, you should be ashamed of yourself!
Last edited:
Moderators, this thread is getting derailed!
Did you really just post that?
Right to tell.
Or the ones who dressed as Pharaohs
Nothing new there then.
You'll get done after.
For real?Or the ones who dressed as Pharaohs
Lol yep, they dressed as Pharaohs and then did the hieroglyphics dance outside the council houseFor real?
Hang on a minute, are you guys trying to suggest Bluemoon is a real site run by actual City fans? I'm pretty sure it's a parody site set up by a bunch of rags pretending to be City fans in order to give them a bad name. We all know that they are really kind hearted, lovable rogues!
Or is it a site set up by City fans masquerading as rag fans setting up a site to make City fans look like bitter and twisted fools? Ragception...
Lads you've changed this into a bitter rivals thread rather than mocking a 10 year old fanbase.
No, they actually wanted Liverpool and got turned down
They're claim after always going out early was 'it's not as big a deal as the League, I just can't get excited about it'. Which probably changed this year when they weren't in for the league and made it out the group and had a little run.
No, they actually wanted Liverpool and got turned down
They're claim after always going out early was 'it's not as big a deal as the League, I just can't get excited about it'. Which probably changed this year when they weren't in for the league and made it out the group and had a little run.
What is a rag?
Also what is bacon face?
Also what is bacon face?
First one you and second one Fergie.
Second that.
Every office I've worked in in Manchester has had its very own bitter blue, I think management place them there in a kind of court jester capacity.
.
Last edited:
I think he was asking why united fans are referred to as rags, moreover what does rag actually mean?
That is totally unnecessary.
I very much doubt that in 1998, let alone any year, that any City fan thought they were "bigger" than Barcelona.
@Steve the Red and @U99ted
The "world of football started in 1992", was purely tongue in cheek, responding to a nipper from Kildaire with a complete whitewash of fact braincell.
The stuff steve posted is accurate.
Oops! Not really worth risking a ban was it?
Good for you. You don't know any City fans.
Were you a City fan in 98? And are you a Manc?
They call us rags, as they depict us as being scruffy.
Not sure how mocking the head garb of a group of slavers and civil rights abusers is worse than mocking the football strip of some millionaire footballers?
I don't think he was being racist at all, humour has it's fine lines I suppose.