Mancheater City: 115

[Toby]

Cool story !

I know I might make an enemy or two, but what is this? City is your soft spot, right. But most of this discussion is not about City as a club, but about the sheiks and how you as a fan respond to that. And you're apparently the kind that doesn't give a **** if that dirty money buys you a shiny, big trophy. And being aware of what's being written in this thread, this kind of answer is your go to option if criticism of, or humour directed towards City, comes up. But what is it? It's not cynicism, it's not sarcasm and it's neither clever nor witty, nor is it any answer to the very valid questions regarding the owners of your club and their dealings.
You just sound like that little ****** in school who's dad just bought him the favour of a couple of teachers, and now you're above everyone and any reckoning. And when called out, you cannot even defend yourself by reasonable discussion, but say "haha nice joke" in some sort of senseless, bellend way. Get out, mate.

 

[A Lighter Shade of Blue]

I know I might make an enemy or two, but what is this? City is your soft spot, right. But most of this discussion is not about City as a club, but about the sheiks and how you as a fan respond to that. And you're apparently the kind that doesn't give a **** if that dirty money buys you a shiny, big trophy. And being aware of what's being written in this thread, this kind of answer is your go to option if criticism of, or humour directed towards City, comes up. But what is it? It's not cynicism, it's not sarcasm and it's neither clever nor witty, nor is it any answer to the very valid questions regarding the owners of your club and their dealings.
You just sound like that little ****** in school who's dad just bought him the favour of a couple of teachers, and now you're above everyone and any reckoning. And when called out, you cannot even defend yourself by reasonable discussion, but say "haha nice joke" in some sort of senseless, bellend way. Get out, mate.

I don't bother replying to the posts about the owners any more because I already have, and it's boring going over the same stuff all the time.

Why is it dirty money?

Oh, and there's nothing to call out, so I have no idea wtf you are talking about there, read my first line as to why I cannot be bothered responding most of the time.

Be honest, you're just bitter about City being ahead of Arsenal in every aspect of the game, on and off the pitch, and you simply cannot handle it.

What did you moan about before the recent stuff on our owners? Face facts, it's just given you some ammunition to fuel your jealousy and anger. Quite amusing to see how similar Sp**s and arsenal fans are on the subject, birds of a feather, in fact. It's greeneye, pure and simple.

Get over it. See you at Wembley soon, if you can make it over

 

[Rosso]

 

[El Granit-Coq]

Be honest, you're just bitter about City being ahead of Arsenal in every aspect of the game, on and off the pitch, and you simply cannot handle it.

What did you moan about before the recent stuff on our owners? Face facts, it's just given you some ammunition to fuel your jealousy and anger. Quite amusing to see how similar Sp**s and arsenal fans are on the subject, birds of a feather, in fact. It's greeneye, pure and simple.

Get over it. See you at Wembley soon, if you can make it over

You keep trying to force this narrative that other clubs/fans are jealous of you... Aside from maybe UTD who are your local rivals, most people are indifferent about your team. Even your local rivals have the benefit of building their success rather than buying it.

The manner in which you attained your recent success is not one anyone can seriously envy. Your team is literally the greatest example of money buys everything. Without that, there isn't much to your team. No identity, very little history and a fanbase that is mostly all over the place. You can't banter against UTD, Arsenal or Liverpool fans because for majority of their club history, your club has been irrelevant.

- Only time your team made me feel some sort of way was the threat to the unbeaten run. And only because your team achieving it would cheapen the whole thing.

 

[Kobi]

Exactly, if we were clearly the second best team in the country it would be much more annoying being denied trophies by a bunch of Arabs and their hired chemist.
As it is we're miles away so it's denying teams like Sp**s, Man United and Chelsea trophies, all of whom we can't stand and as such it doesn't really bother us.
Most people see it for the farce that it is.

 

[A_G]

Without that, there isn't much to your team. No identity, very little history

I'm sure their fans will be gutted about that when they're lifting the PL trophy in May.

Also saying they have no history is odd, I mean every club has history theirs just isn't as successful as others. 50 years from now they'll be looked at as a successful team with an attractive style of play. There won't be an n.b. in the record books saying they bought trophies or whatever.

 

[Toby]

50 years from now they'll be looked at as a successful team with an attractive style of play.

Depends on the sheikh. Could decide to **** off tomorrow and they'll have a successful spell of about 10 years in all of their long history. (I don't think he will though, it's too big of a political, marketing and financial asset). If their investors decided to step away and no one comparably eager and willing to spend came in, no top player would seriously consider joining them, because while they don't lack tradition, they lack successful history. Those last years would become a blip in their history.

 

[A_G]

If their investors decided to step away and no one comparably eager and willing to spend came in, no top player would seriously consider joining them, because while they don't lack tradition, they lack successful history. Those last years would become a blip in their history.

Yeah of course it would depend on who buys their club, but people who are looking to invest in football would definitely look at City with their stadium and football complex in place. They have the infrastructure in place which would make them attractive to prospective buyers. If Roman Abramovich were to sell Chelsea tomorrow it'd be a different story with their stadium situation.

 

[Toby]

Yeah of course it would depend on who buys their club, but people who are looking to invest in football would definitely look at City with their stadium and football complex in place. They have the infrastructure in place which would make them attractive to prospective buyers. If Roman Abramovich were to sell Chelsea tomorrow it'd be a different story with their stadium situation.

You're right, it was just a very extreme example used by me. Neither do I think their owner will jump ship, nor do I think they wouldn't attract serious new investors.
And you're also right with Chelsea, if Abramovich suddenly lost interest, they could get into quite a dire situation.

 

[M18CTID]

You're right, it was just a very extreme example used by me. Neither do I think their owner will jump ship, nor do I think they wouldn't attract serious new investors.
And you're also right with Chelsea, if Abramovich suddenly lost interest, they could get into quite a dire situation.

While the stadium is an issue, Chelsea still have a lot going for them with their prime London location and their significant global fanbase so I think they'd still be a very attractive proposition for any prospective buyers.

Anyway, any chance we can get this thread back on topic in some way instead of pointless mud-slinging about each other's clubs?

On a somewhat sombre note, and while it isn't just City related, something that is well worth discussing is that the remaining verdicts have been reached today in the Barry Bennell case so reporting restrictions have been lifted. And by all accounts it doesn't reflect well on City (or Crewe). It seems there's strong evidence that multiple warnings and claims of abuse were either ignored or swept under the carpet. And while none of this happened under the watch of the current ownership/management structure, the club are still liable if indeed they are guilty of not following through on the complaints.

This is the statement released by City earlier this afternoon: https://www.mancity.com/news/club-news/club-news/2018/february/club-statement - it doesn't read well (actually, that's a gross understatement - it's horrific) and amongst other things suggests City face the possibility of large-scale legal action. Also, here's a link to an article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...r-city-barry-bennell-warning?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[El Granit-Coq]

I'm sure their fans will be gutted about that when they're lifting the PL trophy in May.

Also saying they have no history is odd, I mean every club has history theirs just isn't as successful as others. 50 years from now they'll be looked at as a successful team with an attractive style of play. There won't be an n.b. in the record books saying they bought trophies or whatever.

No one is saying they shouldn't be happy, they should celebrate their success like most fans would. However, it something that was easily predictable.

They would not be looked at on the same level as some other giants. You put City, UTD, Bayern, Madrid and Barca (excluding Juve and PSG for obvious controversies) in the same category and the odd one out is City. The point is that they want to be held and seen as one of the European giants while only having one aspect that these greats have - extreme financial backing. There is no substance to their success nor is it a sustainable model to achieve said standing.

History doesn't often exclude context. We still remember how Arsenal became Arsenal, how we had to move to North London and basically bully our new neighbours. 50 years from now Cities rise to glory will be contextualised. People aren't going to miraculously right off the injection of funds into the club simply because they play attractive football.

You will remember Leicester as that anomaly before you remember City's rise to success. Look at Chelsea, they did what City did and they are forever branded as such.

 

[Jury]

Been reading some of stories about Bennell. Jimmy Savile levels of sick. What an appalling ****.

 

[A_G]

They would not be looked at on the same level as some other giants. You put City, UTD, Bayern, Madrid and Barca (excluding Juve and PSG for obvious controversies) in the same category and the odd one out is City. The point is that they want to be held and seen as one of the European giants while only having one aspect that these greats have - extreme financial backing. There is no substance to their success nor is it a sustainable model to achieve said standing.

History doesn't often exclude context. We still remember how Arsenal became Arsenal, how we had to move to North London and basically bully our new neighbours. 50 years from now Cities rise to glory will be contextualised. People aren't going to miraculously right off the injection of funds into the club simply because they play attractive football.

United have had outside investment, also mentioning Real Madrid is bizarre considering the shady deal they made for their training ground with the City of Madrid. Barcelona have also been accused of receiving state financing from the Catalonia government, nobody is 'clean' in that regard.

You will remember Leicester as that anomaly before you remember City's rise to success. Look at Chelsea, they did what City did and they are forever branded as such.

Leicester will only be remembered for upsetting the odds, people will remember that Man City changed the landscape of English football, for better or for worse.

 

[El Granit-Coq]

United have had outside investment, also mentioning Real Madrid is bizarre considering the shady deal they made for their training ground with the City of Madrid. Barcelona have also been accused of receiving state financing from the Catalonia government, nobody is 'clean' in that regard.

Leicester will only be remembered for upsetting the odds, people will remember that Man City changed the landscape of English football, for better or for worse.

No team or global organisation is built on clean dealings, even in this thread Arsenal's shady dealings have been outlined. There are no saints and I doubt anyone needs reminding of that.

I mention Madrid, UTD and Barca because the former have a long successful history (whereby they can be judged as top clubs). Their controversial dealings or past dealings have nothing on what City is at now.

City have not changed the landscape of English football, that is reaching of the highest form. Their spending habits are not new nor is their brand of football. They have done nothing revolutionary in terms of affecting the premier league.

 

[A_G]

No team or global organisation is built on clean dealings, even in this thread Arsenal's shady dealings have been outlined. There are no saints and I doubt anyone needs reminding of that.

Clearly some need reminding based on the sanctimony in this thread.

I mention Madrid, UTD and Barca because the former have a long successful history (whereby they can be judged as top clubs). Their controversial dealings or past dealings have nothing on what City is at now.

And years from now City will boast about the successful history they're currently in the process of writing, which was my whole point.

City have not changed the landscape of English football, that is reaching of the highest form

Are you kidding me? Of course they changed English football, for years there was an established order of clubs in the PL. Leeds and Newcastle made fleeting appearances towards the top of the table but in the early-mid 2000's the 'Sky 4' had a stranglehold on the game. Man City broke through there and have since outperformed Manchester United, which would have been unthinkable years ago.

 

[M18CTID]

Been reading some of stories about Bennell. Jimmy Savile levels of sick. What an appalling ****.

Absolutely. What makes it worse is that there are clearly people who turned a blind eye to the allegations which in turn enabled Bennell to abuse more children. The fact that some of those people worked for the club I support is something that saddens me deeply and if the present day MCFC has to take a hit in terms of legal action taken against the club then so be it - I don’t want to see any stone unturned on this, no matter how bad it may reflect on the club.

What seems to have slipped under the radar of the wider public is that Bennell was convicted of several offences of this nature about 20 years ago - linked to his time working with Crewe - but as much as I like to think I’ve got a good memory I can’t honestly remember any reports about his trial at the time. No doubt it would’ve been reported but it wasn’t anywhere near as prominent as these latest convictions and the current wide-ranging investigations into child sex abuse in football. If the coverage of his abuse back then had been more high-profile then that may have come to the attention of more of his victims, hence encouraging them to come forward, and meaning further justice could’ve been achieved nigh on 2 decades earlier than it was.

 

[Toby]

Clearly some need reminding based on the sanctimony in this thread.

I wholeheartedly agree that no big international business or organisation, including all big football clubs, no matter where they're from, have shady things going on, some more open, some behind closed curtains.

But...if you look at the list of things that UAE ruling family is up to, or at least allegedly up to, they definitely are the icing on the cake. Slave labour, human trafficking, distressing human rights violations in general, one of the brothers getting away with filmed torture of a business partner.
In no way do I think these things happen exlusively in UAE, in no way do I think that there's no human trafficking or anything like it in western countries or that no high ups are involved in shady or right out illegal dealings. And I know that a lot of that stuff happens down there cause our states/societies/leaders turn a blind eye on it.

But comparing torture and continous human rights violations, which the people either in responsible positions at the club's holding company or in close relation to them know about or even are responsible for, and a slightly shady deal between the city of Madrid and Real about real estate, is, to me, a touch off.

 

[A_G]

I wholeheartedly agree that no big international business or organisation, including all big football clubs, no matter where they're from, have shady things going on, some more open, some behind closed curtains.

But...if you look at the list of things that UAE ruling family is up to, or at least allegedly up to, they definitely are the icing on the cake. Slave labour, human trafficking, distressing human rights violations in general, one of the brothers getting away with filmed torture of a business partner.
In no way do I think these things happen exlusively in UAE, in no way do I think that there's no human trafficking or anything like it in western countries or that no high ups are involved in shady or right out illegal dealings. And I know that a lot of that stuff happens down there cause our states/societies/leaders turn a blind eye on it.

But comparing torture and continous human rights violations, which the people either in responsible positions at the club's holding company or in close relation to them know about or even are responsible for, and a slightly shady deal between the city of Madrid and Real about real estate, is, to me, a touch off.

I'm not saying what they did was better or worse, I'm not even really interested in comparing whose hands are dirtier. I was just arguing that most peoples' perception of City's achievements on the pitch won't be influenced by their owners, as nobody uses that standard for Chelsea, PSG or anyone else.

 

[Toby]

as nobody uses that standard for Chelsea, PSG or anyone else.

Anyone I talk to about football is very aware of those three teams buying success and it does influence the perception of their success on the pitch. The tolerance that these teams are big players is definitely there, can't change it, can you, but everyone is aware that it's mainly because of money.

But you're probably right in the way that it stops with money, and people won't look further beyond to the dirty hands we have been talking about. In that way the owners won't change the perception.

 

[Kobi]

Blood cells are red
Veins are all blue
Our players aren't on EPO
How about you?