Manchester City 22/24

[B.I.G]

View attachment 379118

So never then. Blue moon is a cesspool.

Bin dipper references abide. Thought you hated liberals. Turns out you hate the poor.

 

[belboid]

But, as I said, if sportwashing was more than a concept coined by de-facto client journalists of clubs who thought they were guaranteed a place in the money-spinning elite for ever more, than it has had the opposite effect to the one said to be intended. Hasn't it?

very obviously not, no.

So you can't have a feudal state, or any other kind of state said to be objectionable, run by people who are successful at what they do? And which feudal state have I praised, and how did I word it?

I don't count be successful at being a brutal dictatorship to be praiseworthy, no.

Anyway, it would be interesting to read why you so obviously have an such an axe to grind for Liverpool, complete with the obligatory assumed moral high ground and persecution complex, when you've spent years banging on about Tranmere Rovers. Because last time I looked, most LFC fans had either forgotten Tranmere or treated them, at best, condescendingly. Have you been condescended to?

I haven't mentioned Liverpool. Tho your mention of 'persecution complex' is nice extra bit of tory twaddle you're quoting. Funny how you keep doing things like that.

Keep on trolling tho. It clearly gives you a stiffie.

 

[RD2003]

very obviously not, no.


I don't count be successful at being a brutal dictatorship to be praiseworthy, no.


I haven't mentioned Liverpool. Tho your mention of 'persecution complex' is nice extra bit of tory twaddle you're quoting. Funny how you keep doing things like that.

Keep on trolling tho. It clearly gives you a stiffie.

The bogus and ill-thought out sportwashing narrative has indeed failed to consider that almost nobody, least of all the average TV football fan and forum dweller would have known where Abu Dhabi is had the Sheikh not invested in City. Thus, it would have received only a fraction of the adverse publicity it gets from those jealous of City. Moreover, as already pointed out, AD has no need of sportwashing, as the world's governments and business elites have always been more than happy to deal with it. And as was in the past, so will it be in the future, no matter what journalists write.

It's obviously that it's Liverpool's recent failings that animate you most in all this, for some reason. And if you think it's only Tories who snigger at the persecution complex, then I don't know where you've been all your life.

I get accused of trolling for answering those who keep coming back and accusing me of saying things I haven't and calling me a cunt, among other things?

If you don't like what you get in this thread, you and others can always retreat to their approved clubs threads.

 

[editor]

But, as I said, if sportwashing was more than a concept coined by de-facto client journalists of clubs who thought they were guaranteed a place in the money-spinning elite for ever more, than it has had the opposite effect to the one said to be intended. Hasn't it? In any case, when did you become the one who decides what everybody ought to do? Who appointed you?

So you can't have a feudal state, or any other kind of state said to be objectionable, run by people who are successful at what they do? And which feudal state have I praised, and how did I word it?

Anyway, it would be interesting to read why you so obviously have an such an axe to grind for Liverpool, complete with the obligatory assumed moral high ground and persecution complex, when you've spent years banging on about Tranmere Rovers. Because last time I looked, most LFC fans had either forgotten Tranmere or treated them, at best, condescendingly. Have you been condescended to?

You don't give a fucking shit about football so long as your club is scooping the big prizes.

How many Man City games did you attend last year?

 

[RD2003]

You don't give a fucking shit about football so long as your club is scooping the big prizes.

How many Man City games did you attend last year?

When other clubs were scooping up the big prizes, not least through engineering a de-facto closed shop and so being able to monopolise the money, I suppose their fans didn't 'care about football' either? What does it mean exactly anyway?

Especially when you consider that the vast majority of supporters will always stay with their clubs no matter who the latest owners are, as evidenced time and time again. Ownership of their club is something they have as much power over as most other areas of their lives, which is to say none.

 

[editor]

When other clubs were scooping up the big prizes, not least through engineering a de-facto closed shop and so being able to monopolise the money, I suppose their fans didn't 'care about football' either? What does it mean exactly anyway?

Especially when you consider that the vast majority of supporters will always stay with their clubs no matter who the latest owners are, as evidenced time and time again. Ownership of their club is something they have as much power over as most other areas of their lives, which is to say none.

You didn't answer my question: how many Man City games did you attend last year/season?

 

[RD2003]

You didn't answer my question: how many Man City games did you attend last year/season?

That's because you've asked me this more than once before, and I've answered each time iirc. I'll waste another sentence or two, and then perhaps we can put the matter to bed. I went to three games last season. Yes, only three (two at home, one away.) It's comparable to most seasons in recent years. That is because I no longer live in Manchester, and haven't for some time, and have many responsibilities. When I still lived in Manchester, and life was easier, I went much more often.

Not that any of this proves anything, as most of those who follow a football club do so without attending many games. I doubt if Belboid, for instance, goes to Anfield much (don't know about Prenton Park), or you to Old Trafford. The overwhelming majority of purported supporters of the self-entitled clubs quite clearly don't attend their games at all. If they did, those clubs would need multi-million capacity stadiums.

Still interested in what you think 'caring about football' means.

 

[B.I.G]

That's because you've asked me this more than once before, and I've answered each time iirc. I'll waste another sentence or two, and then perhaps we can put the matter to bed. I went to three games last season. Yes, only three (two at home, one away.) It's comparable to most seasons in recent years. That is because I no longer live in Manchester, and haven't for some time, and have many responsibilities. When I still lived in Manchester, and life was easier, I went much more often.

Not that any of this proves anything, as most of those who follow a football club do so without attending many games. I doubt if Belboid, for instance, goes to Anfield much (don't know about Prenton Park), or you to Old Trafford. The overwhelming majority of purported supporters of the self-entitled clubs quite clearly don't attend their games at all. If they did, those clubs would need multi-million capacity stadiums.

Still interested in what you think 'caring about football' means.

You don’t care about people that much. You can’t even keep track of who they support.

 

[RD2003]

You don’t care about people that much. You can’t even keep track of who they support.

Oh, but I can dear boy...

 

[editor]

That's because you've asked me this more than once before, and I've answered each time iirc. I'll waste another sentence or two, and then perhaps we can put the matter to bed. I went to three games last season. Yes, only three (two at home, one away.) It's comparable to most seasons in recent years. That is because I no longer live in Manchester, and haven't for some time, and have many responsibilities. When I still lived in Manchester, and life was easier, I went much more often.

So a big, big fan of watching football on TV then rather than seeking out a local non league team to physically support? That figures. Go Sky TV!

If you care about football why aren't you supporting the grassroots as well? Or is it only the big glamourous $$$$ ties you're interested in?

 

[B.I.G]

Oh, but I can dear boy...

So editor supports a team that plays at Old Trafford?

 

[editor]

So editor supports a team that plays at Old Trafford?

I've no idea why he thinks I'd want to go there when I've got The Menace Arena on my doorstep!

 

[B.I.G]

I've no idea why he thinks I'd want to go there when I've got The Menace Arena on my doorstep!

Because they can’t win an argument unless it about Man United spending money or calling you a red enthusiast.

They can’t ever accept they are for something bad.

 

[planetgeli]

Capitalism really started getting its teeth into football in 1991. City/UAE are just beating the Americans at their own game. Things'll get worse not better. Yanks will push for franchises sooner or later.

One day people will be harking back to the good old days of American franchises. Late results coming in from Riyadh - Saudi Toon 3 Abu Dhabi MC 1

When other clubs were scooping up the big prizes, not least through engineering a de-facto closed shop and so being able to monopolise the money, I suppose their fans didn't 'care about football' either? What does it mean exactly anyway?

Especially when you consider that the vast majority of supporters will always stay with their clubs no matter who the latest owners are, as evidenced time and time again. Ownership of their club is something they have as much power over as most other areas of their lives, which is to say none.

Maybe my memory goes back further than yours and twistedAM . For sure, TV money changed football in the 90s, when football began with the Premier League. Notts who?

But prior to that the class system in football always existed, Directors ripped off profits, paid players peanuts, and were generally universally hated by fans and players alike, who still doffed their caps to them.

In those dinosaur days, clubs could still, hell compete in, let alone win, major trophies. Through good recruitment, good managers (come back Clough all is forgiven - not you Revie, you can always rot in hell).

You seem to pay no acknowledgement to the MASSIVE acceleration in inequality provided by American and Middle Eastern playboys using football as their plaything. Or their 'financial restructuring'.

It is still possible to support, hell yes if that's your thing or you're actually from Manchester, your team - AND be critical of the owners, all they represent, and acknowledge the obvious concept of sportswashing without coming out with some of the utterly ridiculous mealy-mouthed shite you've put forward on here.

You make more sense (sometimes) on the Ukraine war threads. Your stupid point making here makes me doubt now your reasons for posting the stuff you do there.

 

[RD2003]

So a big, big fan of watching football on TV then rather than seeking out a local non league team to physically support? That figures. Go Sky TV!

Why would I seek out a local non-league team, when I have no background in the area I now live in or affiliation with any of such clubs?*

Have never had Sky, and never will. How hard is it for you to swallow what I said about why I go so infrequently to City nowadays? Do you want me to sell up for Manchester and leave everything behind just to qualify as somebody's idea of a superfan?


* I do hope you realise that this is basically the answer you'd get from the overwhelming majority of those who follow any club. But then, most of these don't have your clear psychological compulsion to contantly try to take the moral high ground no matter how foolish and absurd it makes you look.

 

[B.I.G]

Why would I seek out a local non-league team, when I have no background in the area I now live in or affiliation with any of such clubs?*

Have never had Sky, and never will. How hard is it for you to swallow what I said about why I go so infrequently to City nowadays? Do you want me to sell up for Manchester and leave everything behind just to qualify as somebody's idea of a superfan?


* I do hope you realise that this is basically the answer you'd get from the overwhelming majority of those who follow any club. But then, most of these don't have your clear psychological compulsion to contantly try to take the moral high ground no matter how foolish and absurd it makes you look.

You have no affiliation with your local area??

What about CSKA moscow?

 

[editor]

Why would I seek out a local non-league team, when I have no background in the area I now live in or affiliation with any of such clubs?*

Because you love football? Er, no, Obviously not. Stick to your big TV screen.

 

[RD2003]

One day people will be harking back to the good old days of American franchises. Late results coming in from Riyadh - Saudi Toon 3 Abu Dhabi MC 1


Maybe my memory goes back further than yours and twistedAM . For sure, TV money changed football in the 90s, when football began with the Premier League. Notts who?

But prior to that the class system in football always existed, Directors ripped off profits, paid players peanuts, and were generally universally hated by fans and players alike, who still doffed their caps to them.

In those dinosaur days, clubs could still, hell compete in, let alone win, major trophies. Through good recruitment, good managers (come back Clough all is forgiven - not you Revie, you can always rot in hell).

You seem to pay no acknowledgement to the MASSIVE acceleration in inequality provided by American and Middle Eastern playboys using football as their plaything. Or their 'financial restructuring'.

It is still possible to support, hell yes if that's your thing or you're actually from Manchester, your team - AND be critical of the owners, all they represent, and acknowledge the obvious concept of sportswashing without coming out with some of the utterly ridiculous mealy-mouthed shite you've put forward on here.

You make more sense (sometimes) on the Ukraine war threads. Your stupid point making here makes me doubt now your reasons for posting the stuff you do there.

Yes, you only have to look at how the ability to win major trophies was narrowed down with the hijacking of the game by the PL and CL. It's all about the money, and is why the self-appointed elite are constantly trying to stifle new competition.

As I said, most supporters, who have no say in who gets to own their clubs, would stick with their club no matter what. If the Sheikh had taken over some other club, you lot would be saying all this stuff to somebody else instead of me. That said, City's owners are associated with a regime no worse than most others in the world, many of whom the governments we all regularly elect have friendly relations and do business with (not to mention sell armaments to). And while operating over here, City's owners have been fantastic for the club while transforming one of the previously most impoverished areas in Europe.

 

[RD2003]

Because you love football? Er, no, Obviously not. Stick to your big TV screen.

Like most people who follow football, I love the game only in as much as I have an emotional attachment to, and background in, a particular club.

What about you? Are you some kind of self-appointed guardian and rule-writer for football in the abstract?

 

[B.I.G]

Yes, you only have to look at how the ability to win major trophies was narrowed down with the hijacking of the game by the PL and CL. It's all about the money, and is why the self-appointed elite are constantly trying to stifle new competition.

As I said, most supporters, who have no say in who gets to own their clubs, would stick with their club no matter what. If the Sheikh had taken over some other club, you lot would be saying all this stuff to somebody else instead of me. That said, City's owners are associated with a regime no worse than most others in the world, many of whom the governments we all regularly elect have friendly relations and do business with (not to mention sell armaments to). And while operating over here, City's owners have been fantastic for the club while transforming one of the previously most impoverished areas in Europe.

And yet now the game has been hijacked by a state its ok as its your team.

But the rules to keep thing fair don’t matter because City cheated but they will be held to account and ne stripped if their titles.

However, in the future there will only be competition between clubs owned by states.

Maybe Putin can buy one closer to your home.

 

[editor]

Like most people who follow football, I love the game only in as much as I have an emotional attachment to, and background in, a particular club.

What about you? Are you some kind of self-appointed guardian and rule-writer for football in the abstract?

You've really become quite unhinged in your blind support for your team. Any writer who dares criticise them or their dodgy owners is immediately dismissed as a hack or a worthless troll, and you're unable to take on board - or even comprehend - why football fans may be deeply alarmed at the worrying precedent Man City are setting.

But so long as they're lifting trophies, then that's all your interested in.

You're unable to grasp the concept that you can support a team while still being deeply critical of their owners, their funding or the wildly uneven playing field they're created with the near-unlimited wealth of their backers. And you can't even see why all this is bad for football in the first place.

 

[RD2003]

You've really become quite unhinged in your blind support for your team. Any writer who dares criticise them or their dodgy owners is immediately dismissed as a hack or a worthless troll, and you're unable to take on board - or even comprehend - why football fans may be deeply alarmed at the worrying precedent Man City are setting.

But so long as they're lifting trophies, then that's all your interested in.

You're unable to grasp the concept that you can support a team while still being deeply critical of their owners, their funding or the wildly uneven playing field they're created with the near-unlimited wealth of their backers. And you can't even see why all this is bad for football in the first place.

I haven't dismissed 'any hack' (although hack is more usually the correct term these days when it comes to sports journalism); I, in fact, dismissed the two hacks mentioned in this thread.

The precedent City are setting is no worse than that already set by those clubs who hijacked the game in the early '90s and, as PG says above, narrowed down its possibilities for 'lesser' clubs. In fact, it was in doing this, and turning the English league into a worldwide brand, that they opened the way for bigger and better investors to get involved.

Most supporters of any club would hardly be unhappy about hoovering up trophies. It is, after all, the purpose of competing. I can grasp the concept of being critical of a club's owners. I was critical of most of the owners City have had in my lifetime, particularly the one who set the club back decades from the late 70s onwards. City's current owners might have unlimited wealth, but it seems to have escaped your notice that they are subject to so-called FFP like everybody else, and, since the massive and necessary initial investment, have scaled down the spending and made the club self-sufficient. Just look at the transfer stats from the past few seasons.

You are a perfect example of why your idea of adopting random clubs is a non-starter for most people: you may believe you've taken the moral high-ground, but your hatred of City proves that you are still subject to your emotions (I don't believe for a moment that you'd be favourable or indfferent to City if not for the current owners)-because it's a game inevitably driven (for the fans) by emotion.

 

[Wilf]

RD2003 would you like to give an actual justification for the vice president and deputy PM of the UAE owning Manchester City? Ideally, without reference to the Prem League, the Big 6, Sky TV, Britain's colonial systems, the schools various writers went to, ownership of newspapers and all the relativism. You are winning loads of trophies and will continue to do so, but have you got anything else to say when it comes to a straightforward, simple take on it?

 

[RD2003]

RD2003 would you like to give an actual justification for the vice president and deputy PM of the UAE owning Manchester City? Ideally, without reference to the Prem League, the Big 6, Sky TV, Britain's colonial systems, the schools various writers went to, ownership of newspapers and all the relativism. You are winning loads of trophies and will continue to do so, but have you got anything else to say when it comes to a straightforward, simple take on it?

You'll find anything you want contained in my posts written today.

 

[Wilf]

You'll find anything you want contained in my posts written today.

I know Newcastle supporters, for example, who are able to answer this question - variations on 'fuck it, I don't care, at last we've got a team who might win something'. Your position, with all it's twists and turns, all the relativism and deflection, is far far worse. You go beyond not giving a shit, into an elaborate attempt at justification. Not an actual direct justification mind, more a labyrinth of 'realism', relativism and bluster. To be honest, I wish you'd just say I don't give a shit.

 

[RD2003]

I know Newcastle supporters, for example, who are able to answer this question - variations on 'fuck it, I don't care, at last we've got a team who might win something'. Your position, with all it's twists and turns, all the relativism and deflection, is far far worse. You go beyond not giving a shit, into an elaborate attempt at justification. Not an actual direct justification mind, more a labyrinth of 'realism', relativism and bluster. To be honest, I wish you'd just say I don't give a shit.

Fine.

 

[Wilf]

Can anybody help RD2003? Let's say just 100-200 words on
'Why I support the takeover of Manchester City by the vice president and deputy PM of the UAE'.

 

[RD2003]

Can anybody help RD2003? Let's say just 100-200 words on
'Why I support the takeover of Manchester City by the vice president and deputy PM of the UAE'.

I've already said that I support it, and why, in multiple posts, as I told you only a few minutes ago. As would the vast majority of fans of any other club they might have taken over instead, including yours.

 

[tommers]

I don't get the particular vitriol for City tbh. They're just the latest manifestation of a process that has been going on for the last thirty years. Chelsea were probably a turning point I guess and the concentration of wealth into a few clubs has definitely become more pronounced over that time. That will carry on with Newcastle and whoever else gets taken into similar ownership.

FFP is absolutely a way to limit who can join the club, but is still less perfidious than the direct lobbying by the big clubs (and Spurs for some reason) which determines how competitions themselves are structured. The Euro Super League thing is the ultimate product of that and the sooner they get on with it the better.

Would I want similar for West Ham, no fucking way. I think that at the heart of that kind of success is an empty soul-destroying void which renders it all meaningless. It's bad enough that we're owned by a porn baron twat tbh, and he's small fry in comparison.

City are a symptom rather than a cause,and it is quite funny to see the clubs who were traditionally in their place get all upset about it.

 

[twistedAM]

"and Spurs for some reason"