Manchester Dan
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,580
- Supports
- Man City
That video is the absolute worst, but it’s easy not to care. Hopefully we don’t do it again when we win it next year!
So the fact that City are 128 years old isnt history or tradition ?
They won the FA cup in 1904 (not history I suppose)
In the 1930s, Manchester City reached two consecutive FA Cup finals, losing to Everton in 1933, before claiming the Cup by beating Portsmouth in 1934. During the 1934 cup run, Manchester City broke the record for the highest home attendance of any English club in football history, as 84,569 fans packed Maine Road for a sixth round FA Cup tie against Stoke City in 1934.
Twenty years later, a City team inspired by a tactical system known as the Revie Plan reached consecutive FA Cup finals again, in 1955 and 1956; just as in the 1930s, they lost the first one, to Newcastle, and won the second. The 1956 final, in which Manchester City beat Birmingham 3–1, is one of the most famous finals of all-time, and is remembered for City goalkeeper Bert Trautmann continuing to play on after unknowingly breaking his neck
United shared City's ground during the war.
in 1968, Manchester City claimed the League Championship for the second time, clinching the title on the final day of the season with a 4–3 win at Newcastle United and beating their close neighbours Manchester United into second place. Further trophies followed: City won the FA Cup in 1969, before achieving European success by winning the European Cup Winners Cup in 1970, beating Gornik 2–1 in Vienna.. City also won the League that season, becoming the second English team to win a European trophy and a domestic trophy in the same season.
None of the above of course is 'history or tradition' according to you ?
TBH you sound a wee bit bitter at City's success.
Congrats you blue nosed cheating and ffp dodging cnuts.That video is the absolute worst, but it’s easy not to care. Hopefully we don’t do it again when we win it next year!
United were a massive club before the Glazers arrived. City were a nothing club, that is the difference.People are quick to state that human rights are an issue.
Strange that because your club is owned by good old USA people.Now just tell me that the Sates are worse than UAE when they continually invade other peoples countries.Human rights !!
You go on about our owners and the human rights record, look at their official sponsorship partners and you'll find national banks of turkey, Qatar and UAE, all countries with questionable human rights records,but outrage is obviously linked to the size of the amount of money these countries contribute. Blinkered and bitter ?
No just hypocrites if you care to state that City are a problem due to their connections but he ho it must be OK if your club is connected to the same countries.
Double standards my friend.
I'd bet everything I own you won't be on here very long...People are quick to state that human rights are an issue.
Strange that because your club is owned by good old USA people.Now just tell me that the Sates are worse than UAE when they continually invade other peoples countries.Human rights !!
You go on about our owners and the human rights record, look at their official sponsorship partners and you'll find national banks of turkey, Qatar and UAE, all countries with questionable human rights records,but outrage is obviously linked to the size of the amount of money these countries contribute. Blinkered and bitter ?
No just hypocrites if you care to state that City are a problem due to their connections but he ho it must be OK if your club is connected to the same countries.
Double standards my friend.
Did you just cut/paste Wikipedia?So the fact that City are 128 years old isnt history or tradition ?
They won the FA cup in 1904 (not history I suppose)
In the 1930s, Manchester City reached two consecutive FA Cup finals, losing to Everton in 1933, before claiming the Cup by beating Portsmouth in 1934. During the 1934 cup run, Manchester City broke the record for the highest home attendance of any English club in football history, as 84,569 fans packed Maine Road for a sixth round FA Cup tie against Stoke City in 1934.
Twenty years later, a City team inspired by a tactical system known as the Revie Plan reached consecutive FA Cup finals again, in 1955 and 1956; just as in the 1930s, they lost the first one, to Newcastle, and won the second. The 1956 final, in which Manchester City beat Birmingham 3–1, is one of the most famous finals of all-time, and is remembered for City goalkeeper Bert Trautmann continuing to play on after unknowingly breaking his neck
United shared City's ground during the war.
in 1968, Manchester City claimed the League Championship for the second time, clinching the title on the final day of the season with a 4–3 win at Newcastle United and beating their close neighbours Manchester United into second place. Further trophies followed: City won the FA Cup in 1969, before achieving European success by winning the European Cup Winners Cup in 1970, beating Gornik 2–1 in Vienna.. City also won the League that season, becoming the second English team to win a European trophy and a domestic trophy in the same season.
None of the above of course is 'history or tradition' according to you ?
TBH you sound a wee bit bitter at City's success.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Points well made.United were a massive club before the Glazers arrived. City were a nothing club, that is the difference.
United are not being funded by the Glazers, United are funding the Glazers.
City have been funded by Arabs who have massive influence in the Middle East which is known for it’s human rights violations.
If they decided to pull the plug, City would sink back into obscurity in a few years.
I'd love to know what makes us less a football fan than your good self?Having Foden front and centre in that embarrassing video reeks of desperation on City's part and epitomises their laughable attempts at legitimisation within the footballing world. He's played, what, six games all season? Eight? Ten, at a push. Yet here he is, playing a starring role in an abysmal celebratory video as if he was their local 30-goal hero who propelled them to victory.
The whole City thing just stinks to the high heavens and any football fan who endorses them isn't really a football fan at all, and to borrow a phrase from a famous Italian sportsman, "You've got a rubbish bin in place of a heart."
Are you trying to turn the fact your owners are leeching from your club into a positive? Because the Glazers have been good for United but have they been as good as the Sheikh for City?United were a massive club before the Glazers arrived. City were a nothing club, that is the difference.
United are not being funded by the Glazers, United are funding the Glazers.
City have been funded by Arabs who have massive influence in the Middle East which is known for it’s human rights violations.
If they decided to pull the plug, City would sink back into obscurity in a few years.
1 - Our commercial records and finances seem to strongly imply the opposite.Points well made.
1 - There didn’t used to be any one person bigger than their club in football. Sadly in citys case this isn’t the case. One man walks and the club go back to being what they were.
2 - I don’t care what any city fan says, it cannot feel the same winning the league, knowing full well that their club does not have the commercial business model to even raise the revenue for just one of their top earners.
3 - It may sound bitter but for me it’s ruining the game, I’m not a big Madrid fan but by God I wanted them to beat PSG just for the good of the game.
4 - Hopefully one of the footballing bodies can intervene to sort this nonsense out, because in the end it also effects how much the fans have to pay to support their own team via tickets, merchandise etc, as their club try to compete with what is effectively a commercially unviable entity.
Hahaaa.Why don`t you as a club then use your local Barclays to put your money in, instead of putting it thousands of miles away in an off-shore account.I love the way Liverpool and United were financed by local people in the past, yes they were local. Didn't know Abu Dhabi was near Stockport.
Sorry but you really are very naive if you think City will fold if our Owner decides to "pull the plug" as you say.United were a massive club before the Glazers arrived. City were a nothing club, that is the difference.
United are not being funded by the Glazers, United are funding the Glazers.
City have been funded by Arabs who have massive influence in the Middle East which is known for it’s human rights violations.
If they decided to pull the plug, City would sink back into obscurity in a few years.
Can I therefore ask why as a Club you don`t put your monies into somewhere like Barclays in your local High Street instead of using an off shore account some thousands of miles away from Manchester ??I love the way Liverpool and United were financed by local people in the past, yes they were local. Didn't know Abu Dhabi was near Stockport.
Nah. If that was about to happen you'd get the Abu Dhabi Investment for Children Fund set up in one day and their very first action would be a charitable donation to FIFA's programme for childre in the developing world for half a billion. Or something of the like.Could about to be hit with a transfer ban:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-anxious-wait-possible-transfer-ban-benjamin/
They only have to make do with mediocre players like Aguero, D Silva, KDB, B Silva, Sterling, Sane, Walker, Mendy and Co then. Going to be so difficult for them.Could about to be hit with a transfer ban:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-anxious-wait-possible-transfer-ban-benjamin/
Yeah,a couple of million here and there.How is that not similar? The difference is like 4%. That's the definition of similar.
I neither defended nor agreed with the point made, I merely pointed out it was disingenuous to pretend one didn't understand the comparison being drawn. Without being drawn into the rights and wrongs of America's foreign policy and their treatment at home of certain groups, I believe there is a thread elsewhere covering that, I would agree it is unrealistic to lay the blame for that at the door of the owners of Manchester United, I assume they have little or no influence politically.Thing is, generalizing entire middle east as a regime that violates human rights is just wrong. Now of course, UAE is still a monarchy and there are violations of basic human rights time to time, it's a lot different story compared to, say, Qatar.
But just the fact that a football club is state sponsored is still ridiculous and that's a point that was being made. United is owned by Glazers not the national government of United States which makes the post that you're defending seem very idiotic.
Should be relegated to the Championship for that video alone.Ain't that the Addams Family song they ripped off? I suppose Pep's got the head for Uncle Fester...
It's IMO a great shame that across the board, football fans are now all, to one degree or another, 'financial experts', spending time talking with their friends & opposition fans alike about financial fairplay, football finances, wages, transfer caps, etc instead of just enjoying the game. It's the price of success (of the game as a whole) - it's brought money and with it, all these conversationsPoints well made.
I don’t care what any city fan says, it cannot feel the same winning the league, knowing full well that their club does not have the commercial business model to even raise the revenue for just one of their top earners.
It may sound bitter but for me it’s ruining the game, I’m not a big Madrid fan but by God I wanted them to beat PSG just for the good of the game.
Hopefully one of the footballing bodies can intervene to sort this nonsense out, because in the end it also effects how much the fans have to pay to support their own team via tickets, merchandise etc, as their club try to compete with what is effectively a commercially unviable entity.
"If you're angry and you know it, stamp your feet"Could about to be hit with a transfer ban:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-anxious-wait-possible-transfer-ban-benjamin/
Little surpriseNo transfer ban for City
A two year ban was a possibility but they’ve been cleared of an wrongdoing in the Benjamin Garré case.
Paul Hirst @hirstclass
MCFC found out this morning that CAS clear have cleared them of any wrongdoing over Benjamin Garré's transfer from Velez Sarsfield. They will therefore face no transfer ban.
2:21 am - 17 Apr 2018 From Manchester, England
I posted something above that they have supposedly not got a ban and have been cleared."If you're angry and you know it, stamp your feet"
Argh.I posted something above that they have supposedly not got a ban and have been cleared.
They will probably make another video to celebrate that as well.Argh.
I'd argue they do. A lot of fans of smaller clubs will still put an asterisk next to City's success.It's IMO a great shame that across the board, football fans are now all, to one degree or another, 'financial experts', spending time talking with their friends & opposition fans alike about financial fairplay, football finances, wages, transfer caps, etc instead of just enjoying the game. It's the price of success (of the game as a whole) - it's brought money and with it, all these conversations
In an ideal world, all clubs would have the same financial budget, all would compete on truly level terms. But we are way, way past all that and it won't change back
However are you seriously suggesting that when a city fan is celebrating winning the league the joy is watered down, because the way we have earned the money we have used is less honourable than the way other 'big clubs' have, or that we are even thinking about such factors, consciously or sub consciously, when we are celebrating ?
Indeed it's the sort of comment that would only come from the fan of another top 6 (or whatever you want to call it) club - do you think a typical fan of say Bournemouth or Bolton differentiates between United & City successes based on how they have respectively earned their money ?
Meanwhile with reference to your last point, United's owners were long taking advantage of their supporters before our oil money takeover came along, including IIRC, insisting on ST holders buying tickets to all home cup games ?
Every time I read this thread or the Bluemoon thread I see City fans using the Glazers as a rebuttal to legitimate questions about the City ownership. This kind of comparison is madness.
To anyone legitimately thinking this way, just ask yourself two simple questions: How much political influence do the Glazers have in DC? How much political influence do City's owners have in the UAE?
City have played magnificent football this season. Their fans will naturally celebrate and you can't hold that against them but as an opposing fan I'm not all too bothered about what they do. Anything they accomplish is off the back of a middle eastern dictatorship. It wasn't great management or loyal support that put them on the map and every football fan knows that.
On the other hand, if Liverpool were to make it in the Champions League this season, which is now looking like a real possibility, that would hurt far more because it would be a fantastic footballing achievement that they've earned the hard way. You'd never hear the end of it, it would be one hell of a party on Merseyside if it happens
Did anyone take your bet?I'd bet everything I own you won't be on here very long...