Whats your point?
Do you remember when City fans hated foreign day trippers?
- Thread starter bsc
- Start date
Whats your point?
Right so we're cheating because the FA could create a rule that we would now be breaking? I suppose by that logic the entire league is cheating because the FA could outlaw forward passes.
Dealt with a group of 20 kids from Las Vegas at work last week. 15 of them were wearing City shirts.
No, you're cheating because you're breaking what clearly would be the rules in club football but for the delightful combination of corruption and apathy that so completely dominates the footballing authorities worldwide.
That delightful combination was in place a century ago when you were known as Moneybags united. What's so different now?
Ah this old myth. A bit like the one that Fergie bought his way to the title in 92/93 yet he spent less than city if you dont count the signing of Mark Hughes.
There's no valid historical comparison for City's actions over the last 4 years or so
TypicalI live in a small town called whitehaven in west cumbria, I have never seen so many city shirts up here in my life, there is even now a west cumbrian manchester city supporters club that meet up in one of the local pubs. This as well is something that has never happened & i thought city fans only came from manchesterBut But only Mancunians support city
Well, 100 years ago, the FA launched an investigation into United as they were concerned that JH Davies was using the club to make money. They thought that his gift of the new ground at Old Trafford was too favourable so they forced United to remortgage it and reduced Davies power at United by making him sell most of his shares to other board members.
Old Trafford cost £90,000 - the equivalent of £8.5m today. Players were all on a maximum wage of about £4 per week (£380 in today's money).
Now, do you really need the differences explaining?
I live and work in Manchester and I can honestly say that I have never seen so many City-shirted kids in my life until this summer. The City fans at work say the same, too. The bandwagon has started.
correct
Not until after he'd bankrolled your promotion, FA cup and title win. But that would have happened naturally right?
Inflation within football has far surpassed that of the rest of the country, so it's a bit silly to use national inflation to calculate this kind of thing.
City have to take a large slice of credit for that to be fair to them. Had they not paid their players under the table and got caught (when Billy Meredith blew the whistle), we'd not have signed the players who helped us to those titles for peanuts (Meredith himself - City's talisman - signed for free!). Care to tell us how many transfer records United broke at that time?
Also, I was comparing tangible things - a maximum wage - and land/building costs to what they would have been nowadays. Fair enough, no top class stadiums will be built nowadays for £8.5m, but the fixed maximum wage is comparable to an average to just below average workers wage today.
Anyway, the point was that that FA stopped that level of investment back in 1910 for fear of it becoming something other than football. Your owner has invested far more than that and the FA have not batted an eyelid 100 years on.
It's funny how dave disappeared for a while, and suddenly came back in time for City winning the league. Some coincidence, that.
'The existence of a minimum wage has clearly convinced some historians that we know more about footballers' pay than we actually do. Those who are more familiar with the source material are aware of its limitations.'Despite the fact that there was a maximum wage and maximun transfer fee?
http://www.pierretristam.com/pdfs/wc9.pdf
From your own link. Interesting link nonetheless, I've always been happy to see a maximum wage/transfer budget introduced.
First of all, fair play mate you're an interesting poster. I am genuinely interested in hearing your next post.
Also the link thegregster posted, seems to suggest you paid Meredith in a similar fashion 'as much as £598 in a four month window alone'...'other leading players were more fortunate in escaping detention'. I've no idea how many transfer records you broke, because it appears they could've been under the table.. I joke but I think its fair to say that official figures probably didn't mean much around this time, and a nickname like 'moneybags United' stuck for a reason.
Aye I guess you're right. But really, if we're talking about measures like maximum wages and transfer fees they should've come in long before there were blokes in tea towels dancing round the COMS chanting about Robinho.
Also sorry if I'm not responding in full, giving this link a good read. Very illuminating.
Seeing as though I had an op, had been ill and had exams it is not really a coincidence.
That £598 may well have been in relation to this quote from Meredith:
"The City club put a transfer of £600 on my head and United were prepared to pay it, but I refused to let them pay a halfpenny. I had cost no fee and I was determined that I would have no fee placed on my head... I was prepared to fight the matter. The City club were not. I was given a free transfer as a result I got £500 from a gentleman to sign for Manchester United and he also paid the £100 fine to the FA."
The reason for the £600 figure was probably because that it what City owed Meredith for a testimonial he was promised but never happened due to his suspension.
You are right about the state of football at the time - apparently they were all at it with special bonuses, signing on fees and sweeteners and such. Only, unluckily for City (but to United's favour) only City were punished - due largely to the actions of their hero Billy Meredith.
The trouble with modern football is that the cat was let out of the bag with regard to maximum wages due to the efforts of the Players Union (co-founded by a certain W. Meredith!).
Aye, it's only really since the maximum wage was lifted that clubs were able to really dominate. With yourselves and Liverpool winning around half the titles since the measures were brought in (27 of the 50ish years if my maths are correct), where as before then the most titles won was 7 by Arsenal, that in 70 years of football.
Why did Newtonheathdave make this thread all about him?
The point was made about City fans embracing what they proclaimed to hate before they became rich. In jumps Dave "I've never done that". Well good for you Dave, but swathes of your fellow blues did. All United fans were glory hunters from London, or Asia.
You may not have done it Dave, but the thread was aimed at the many City fans who did. It's not all about you.
The point was made about City fans embracing what they proclaimed to hate before they became rich. In jumps Dave "I've never done that". Well good for you Dave, but swathes of your fellow blues did. All United fans were glory hunters from London, or Asia.
You may not have done it Dave, but the thread was aimed at the many City fans who did. It's not all about you.
Yeah - look at the league tables of the 1920s to 50s - far more teams were in contention for titles, it was far more competitive.
Its a shit thread. Who really gives a toss about where someone lives?
As for your point about swathes. Thats wrong as the vast majority do not want day trippers. They are too blind to see yet that in order to compete long term, we need to attract out of town fans.
Now please show me where these swathes of blues are that are welcoming oot fans. I take it you are in contact with a lot of Mancunian blues?
How so? City's owner is rolling in it. You've got no debt, a stadium on the cheap, and you could afford to open the gates for free on matchday.
I know a few blues and they're nonplussed about the new wave of support. According to one, it's a small price to pay for stepping out of United's shadow after so long.
With United though, it's a different story. I was going to matches 40 years ago and the car park was full of coaches from Wales, London, and all points of the compass. Even when we were dropping down into the second division, they still came. City, even under Mercer and Allison, weren't attracting as many to Maine Road for a top-of-the-table clash as we were for a relegation battle. That's always rankled and it's morphed into the "all United fans come from Surrey" dig that's bandied about by our blue cousins.
Personally, I don't like a lot about the modern game but I won't go into that here. I also don't care where a person comes from but it's irritating when a day-tripper can get a ticket, spends the game filming it, and makes less noise than a two-bob brass. When that sort of thing starts at the council house, I reckon you'll be just as irritated.
I was just about to post something similar
Well said except the part about being happy for them
Guys, Dave doesn't speak for all city fans - just himself. No point attacking him for his thoughts!
That's unfortunate, Dave. Hope you're well and your exams were easy!
So you base this little rant on nothing at all really? You seem to measure how much you love our club by how much you 'hate' what you consider not of it.Bollocks. Absolute bollocks.
Stop rewinding history. Don't for a minute try and say you never resented how United's brand grew and left your club behind.
I bet you mocked the Koreans, the Irish, the Americans, all landing at Piccadilly lost, looking for Old Trafford, appearing lost, sniggering into your cuff as they boarded the trams.
Scurrying to Mary Ds to tell the fellas you go to matches with how diluted the swamp has become with JCLS and day trippers. How your support is more wholesome and Mancunian because you stayed true to your roots, being the only true representative of the city.
Well, do you know what, it's fecking hilarious watching you all scramble to your life rafts, citing anecdotes about how you were not that City fan, how you love multiculturalism and how the game has moved on.
Anything not to be a hypocrite.
It's fecking desperate
We welcome supporters of other clubs on these boards while lately you seem to have nothing but belligerence for anyone with a different view to yours, even fellow reds. Dave is a blue, and a gent. You are a red and an angry clown. Wind down or find somewhere else to post.
And hypocrisy works both ways. Our club, even not including the Glazers are guilty of being corporate whores.
Not sure if this has been posted or not
http://sportwitness.ning.com/forum/...anchester-united-are-better-supported-than-ma
http://sportwitness.ning.com/forum/...anchester-united-are-better-supported-than-ma
To be fair , they have become big in Poznan
You won't get away with using that one again this season.
Maybe the Olympics have opened their eyes. They're a City, we're United. They're The Daily Mail, we're Mo Farah. From Manchester to New York to Tokyo, we feel no shame in where we come from, only pride in what we represent.
One love, one club: United.
One love, one club: United.
Don't be daft, you're all creaming at the thought of having more fans and being 'popular'.
Newtonheathdave is alright lads, don't tarnish him with the same brush as all City supporters just because of the team he supports.