'Is tribalism a form of morality' feels a weightier question than we're really capable of in this thread.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Cancelo's potential was there to be unlocked because he was a very talented attacking fullback. And hence I used to make posts about why he should be bought by us. Cancelo was a fantastic fullback for the vertical positional play approach. And my posts from 2018 in the thread below attest to that.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/dio...ish-than-valencia.439051/page-9#post-22600314
Pep's style cannot be implemented effectively without a goalkeeper who provides the numerical superiority in the first first phase of the build up. The play style itself is a Dutch concept as far as popularising it around the world via Rinus Michels. And that play style needs to be understood and if you understand the play style, you understand the strategy.
You do know that Pep took over a City team that finished in the top 4, and were being coached by Manuel Pellegrini who coached a positional game at City (similar to Pep) and he had won the EPL?. Pep also inherited De Bruyne, Fernandinho, David Silva, Yaya Toure, Aguero, Sterling and a reserve keeper in Willy Caballero who was capable with the ball at his feet. A lot of the aforementioned players are among the best players that have ever played in the EPL imo. He was then given 500m on top of that in his first two seasons on top of the world class talent he had inherited.
How can you compare the Man Utd team EtH took over which lacked quality through out the squad to the likes of Aguero, David Silva, De Bruyne, Fernandinho, Yaya Toure, Sterling etc? Guardiola had a much better foundation to build from and was given 500m in his first two seasons. And his first season after spending 200m, he finished 3rd. The City owners then backed him further with another 300m. That kind of spend was unparalleled in the EPL at the time.
We (the fans) wanted the likes of Rodri, Haaland and many other players City signed unchallenged. But when you allow City to sign the likes of Rodri, Haaland, Aguero, David Silva, Fernandinho and Yaya Toure etc unchallenged and then hire the likes of Mourinho and Solskjaer to lead the vision on the football side of the club, then your idea as a football club is flawed to begin with and the advantage has been handed to a Man City team that are imo doing the most obvious thing by following the idea Cruyff planted at Barcelona.
Everyone wants the team to win do they not?
Yeah understood. Don't think it's anything of note really and if they all agree they want to sell to SJR then them all voting for him to buy class B shares is a formality. But it could potentially explain why the process is taking so long.
That would imply then that there are immoral teams, and that some teams are correct to follow and others are incorrect.
It gets to the heart of the matter. To those who talk about no morals in football, they need to consider what “support” actually means. They certainly don’t just follow United because it feels good. There are teams that would be much more enjoyable to follow over the last decade.
Why do you support one team? Why do people claim to “hate” our rivals? Why do we prefer when homegrown players feature?
That is all morals. It’s all football support is. You follow United because it’s the right thing to do.
On point 2, how are Ineos getting around that with Nice? And aren’t the Red Bull clubs in the same situation?
If we’re not winning fairly, or United winning is through countless pain caused to others - I’d rather not win.
Sure, mate - and that's what most of us do if we're honest.
We're the little guy, as it it were. But I don't have to tell you that if the little guy just keeps doing what he's doing...our grandkids are fecked.
Yes; that is right. Do you not dislike rival clubs? Why do you think people dislike Liverpool more than Southampton? Why do we sing about hating Leeds scum and not about Plymouth?
This feels like your exaggerating the point to get some engagement. There's morals there sure, it stops us abandoning ship to City at the first sign of misfortune but you've exaggerated it to make the point that supporting teams without morals makes us glory hunters?
Most football fans at the very least act as if this is true, do they not?
For me it's tribalism. I'd drop United at a drop of a hat if they were to move to a different part of the country outside the city region.
No, I’m just baffled by the “I don’t care about morals when I support a football team” crowd. That’s why the iPhones analogies fall flat. Your relationship with a football team is more than just a screen you post on. United should mean more. It’s a relationship based on morals.
Loyalty to a club has nothing at all to do with ethics.
Yep. Same. That’s what makes football so beautiful!
Choosing a team has nothing to do with morals, when you were a kid and "decided" to support United, you didn't arbitrate between the pros and cons of associating yourself with Manchester United, you didn't use moral values to determine which team was worth supporting. There is no moral prerequisites when it comes to supporting a sport team. Later in life when you are already supporting something, you may actively distance yourself on moral grounds but it's not compulsory and if we are being honest, it's not even common.
If it helps, you are not alone.
I think the argument is that if you can prove they are two, separate, stand alone organisations with different managements and Boards of Directors it’s marginally acceptable. It’s a fine line intended to ensure that one party can’t influence the other.
Out of curiosity I had a quick look to see what you'd said about Cancelo pre City and it wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Even the post you mention you were simply saying he'd be better than an over the hill Valencia. Which is my point. He'd earned a good reputation but Pep took him up a level.
And agreed regarding the rest. City had an amazing team pre Pep, like you said, but they were nowhere near. They had a good goalkeeper and manager, but we're nowhere near what they are now. Pep spent money on players he and the guys that know his philosophy identified. You're basically agreeing that it's not all about money. Ole spent a tonne on players and we saw nothing for it. So did others.
I'm not saying money isn't important, if you read my posts. I'm saying we spend as much as City but the difference is Pep. We're an example of what money achieves with poor management. They're an example of what money achieves with good management. We don't need more money to spend, we need better management.
How did you decide to support United? Did you just pick a team?
Do you look down on people who used to support United and now support City? Why? If it’s not the wrong thing to do- why would you look down on them?
You need to go for a lie down.
Feels like it might benefit the thread / forum to open a thread (maybe in the Generals?) for moral issues with Jassim vs Ratcliffe, and leave this thread for people to actually just talk about the sale itself.
For the World Cup there was a ‘Boycott’ thread for those of us who objected to FIFA and the Qatar government’s censorship, with the rest of the threads being mainly on topic for the football.
Seems like doing something similar here would be a good idea at this point.
@Sultan @mods
For the World Cup there was a ‘Boycott’ thread for those of us who objected to FIFA and the Qatar government’s censorship, with the rest of the threads being mainly on topic for the football.
Seems like doing something similar here would be a good idea at this point.
@Sultan @mods
Loyalty is not an inherently good trait. Loyalty to a football club, at its root it's driven by the same motivators as all the other tribalisms.
Plenty of very unethical/amoral people are die hard ultra loyal football fans.
In my case I loved Giggs, that's the first reason and I loved United style of play. So ended up rooting for them.
And I don't care about what others do.
I haven't disagreed with Pep being the reason there good. My point is simply City are good because of Pep, and the oil money
Liverpool were as good / almost as good with Klopp, but with far less money. If Klopp had Pep's money it's very likely he has at least another league title from the two they finished a point behind and possibly even one of the CL finals he lost. So you can't say it's just Pep when in other manager's are as good but had to do it with far less money
Algos routinely queue off of news reports so it’s entire possible that the recent share price spike is as a result of the recent propaganda campaign out of Qatar.
It does, thanks.
Knowing my luck, the news of the sale will finally break when I do not read the thread for a day.
So, to speed things up for you all, I’m making a concerted effort not to read this thread at all tomorrow.
I’ve asked for this time and time again. It’s exhausting.
Well, that's the question.
The Red Bull clubs got away with it because UEFA (effectively) decided that one and the same "entity" did not have "decisive influence" over both clubs. It is within the rules for an individual, company or state to have ownership of multiple clubs in the same competition as long as the owner does not have "decisive influence".
What those clubs did in order to comply with UEFA regulations was to remove all executive figures associated with both clubs - and various other machinations, I don't remember all the details.
I won't comment on the Red Bull thing as such - it seems fishy as feck and loopholey as feck.
But I suppose something similar could be done in the hypothetical case of United/Nice. Except that would play out on a much bigger stage with much more media scrutiny.
My guess would be that if Jimbo plans on having Nice in the CL on a regular basis, he also plans on UEFA changing the relevant rule(s).
Last edited:
Genuinely don’t get that response. I think it’s a valid point to make that supporting a football team is a deeply personal decision that comes with it appropriate behaviour. You are loyal, you support the team no matter what and you want your team to behave in a manner befitting the club.
That’s why so many of us are upset and baffled by the “I don’t care about morals” brigade.
I think Wumminator is a bit confused about the difference between emotions and morals.
I was pretty convinced by Cancelo as the post below indicates.
I'm not saying Guardiola isn't a great coach, he quite obviously is. And if you have a great driver and put him in the best car, then that driver will have the foundations to excel further. The competition can also have great drivers but if the car isn't the best, then the best driver with the best car will win more than he loses.
The issue here is that you're exaggerating your point to gain a reaction from an already divisive crowd.
I appreciate(and also share) your view that either option is akin to selling our soul and it makes me a little emotional. What's wrong here is that you know that the it's a hard divisive topic, and yet you continue to poke, irritate and push people's buttons, on a continued basis. It's not a stretch of the imagination to think you'd be doing this on purpose. There's a reason your name changed from Twigg to Wumm.
There are more empathetic and considerate ways of getting your point across.
Please tell me how Glazers behave in this manner? How Jim getting a loan, not paying off the debt, keeping the Glazers benefit the club?
I’m done with these parasites.
At the age of 8, me and a few mates in my street sat down in my garden and cross examined multiple research papers from the local library about the history and background of every club in the premiership.
After weeks of analysis and consultation we came to the conclusion that Man Utd was the morally right club to go with which tied in best with our moral compass and beliefs. Ever since then we just get pissed every game and celebrate every goal.
- Status