Don't assume everyone thinks the same way as you do. And if you have real, solid political beliefs, that can often provide a very good reason to stop supporting a team whose sole remaining connection with the city and fans it purports to represent boils down to the name and the physical location of their stadium.
And that's the sound of someone whose argument has completely run out of steam.
I'm a bit tired. Have you got any more bedtime stories about this editor of a website who was sinking under the weight of his own altruism?
Perhaps. But you do know that almost nobody actually does this, don't you?
When you say 'whatever they are mixed up in', you actually mean what is the owner of citeh directly responsible for. Things like this:
www.independent.co.uk
He isn't directly responsible for it. For all we know he might have doubts about most things that happen in Abu Dhabi. Or he might not. It isn't, as I said, in his personal power to change the whole set-up any more than it's within the powers of an individual minister in any other government.When you say 'whatever they are mixed up in', you actually mean what is the owner of citeh directly responsible for. Things like this:
United Arab Emirates | Country Page | World | Human Rights Watch
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) invests in a strategy to paint the country as progressive, tolerant, and rights-respecting while carrying out repression against dissent. Many activists and dissidents remain detained for exercising their rights to free expression and association. Prisons hold...www.hrw.org
Plenty aren't thankfully.
They didn't buy their way out of anything; they put together an expensive legal team to fight against spurious accusations, trumped up from a targeted and co-ordinated attack on the club and pressure on UEFA to punish the club again for matters already settled on the part of a cabal of establishment clubs. It is simply what typically happens in the world when t comes to this sort of thing.
Irrelevant when you consider that if approached by the same people who own City, or anybody else who promised to invest massively, they would undoubtedly listen, and, in doing so, would be urged on by a majority of their club's supporters. Why? Because, as I said, when it comes down to it they want success, and put it above all other considerations even when they deny to themselves that they are doing so. That's football. See what's going on currently at Newcastle for example. And as i said above, see the long-term links of certain other clubs with the likes of the Saudis and elements of the Russian state.
So the decision is corrupt because the whole football business is corrupt etc? Fine , if you had said that at the beginning I wouldn't have needed clarification, originally I thought you were just singling out Man City's appeal success.
Liverpool have SouthamptonUm... Chelsea have three feeder clubs. Man City have 5. Man Utd have 11!
List of feeder teams in football - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Not sure why you think you have the authority to project your own set of moral-free "success at any cost" ethics on to every other supporter.
If it was all 'trumped up' then why not readily co-operate and show just how jolly unfair the charge was?
Read the thread , or better still read some of the articles linked to, and stop trying to waste my time.
So - to get this straight - if it had been Man Utd facing the same charges, your argument wouldn't have changed one bit and you'd be defending them with equal rigour, insisting that they charges were all trumped up and that UEFA and FIFA are all corrupt?
If people want to go and watch non-league football, even if out of some kind of spurious sense of self-righteousness, nobody is stopping them, but it is absurd to imagine that this is what the majority of fans of most League clubs, high and low, will ever do.
I can think of many actually. Thousands, in fact.
Again, stop trying to second-guess me and read the thread.
And?
Well it does, because modern football is all about lucrative TV rights and creaming cash from faraway fans.
Answer the question, please.
Yet again, what has this got to do with the specifics of the City case? Simply spouting well-worn cliches and peddling ineffectual nostrums adds nothing to the debate.
