There are definitely clubs that I'd say have been historically popular for naturals for whatever reason. I never really get it, like Fulham always being people's "second club" whatever that means. You lot have never been that but you weren't hated until recently. Wear it as a badge of honour tbh.
Varchester City 18/19 discussion
- Thread starter Bergman
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I mean, probably because we take so much money from that part of the world. Or perhaps he didn't do his research as well as you, if you find some of your sponsors make you uncomfortable but he didn't look at them. Or maybe he found the material marketable to those who don't like cities success, or maybe he just doesn't have time to cover every issue in the world as he writes a dozen or so articles a year. There are a myriad of legitimate reasons why he chose City over United, but if you're suggesting that we can only focus on issues Ncgeehan writes about, we're going to miss one or two, he's not exactly prolific.
But I think the reason are getting mildly irritated is your holier than thou attitude, you seem to expect us not to support our club because of our owners whilst merely being uncomfortable with yours is enough. Most of us have an attachment to our clubs greater than their owners and aren't prepared to abandon 20+ years of commitment in order to take a political stand regardless of the issue involved. I'm sure we'd all love for city to be owned by local Beswick billionaires who made their money in green energy and recycling, but expecting us not to support our club because of our owners, regardless of asking whether or not people actually care about Human Rights (which they might not) whilst proclaiming to be merely uncomfortable because your club take money from similar sources comes across as a but mad.
Spot on. If it was just about the football, then many of us would’ve jacked it in years ago regardless of who we support.
Just a general thought: Why are ownerships/patronages seen so critical while sponsorships are generally okay for everyone? Football clubs are effectively advertising companies. They trade the attention of their audience for money. In that sense, are PSG, City and Chelsea not only more intense respectively different forms of sponsorships? In the end, the investors don't spend their money because they are kindheartened but because they want something in return and expect their expenses to pay out, just like any other sponsor. City is essentially a venture and it works. They did a brillant job during the last 5-6 years, partly even before that with the signings of Aguero, Silva, Kompany, Toure and so forth. They are arguably the best run club in the world so I think downplaying them to oil money is unfair.
Now you can still criticize them not for accepting money but for making a deal with the devil. I think this is a valid accusation but sadly the whole football world is okay by taking blood money from the gulf states. Barcelona has a sponsorship deal with them, Bayern regularly has training camps in Saudi Arabia and the likes, FIFA gives the WC to Quatar and the largest FAs do nothing, many top clubs accept lesser sponsorship deal with them, even fully likeable characters like Xavi or Zidane are linked to them and so forth. It's double standards if you criticize only City for it.
Another reasoning you often here, at least in in Germany, is that clubs like Leipzig, Hoffenheim and also Wolfsburg and Leverkusen get criticized because they are "artificial products". While I disagree I can at least see where people are coming from. It's not about generally accepting money but about clubs rich of history being pushed out by commercialization. But you can hardly say that about the likes of City, PSG or Chelsea which have a long history themselves.
Now you can still criticize them not for accepting money but for making a deal with the devil. I think this is a valid accusation but sadly the whole football world is okay by taking blood money from the gulf states. Barcelona has a sponsorship deal with them, Bayern regularly has training camps in Saudi Arabia and the likes, FIFA gives the WC to Quatar and the largest FAs do nothing, many top clubs accept lesser sponsorship deal with them, even fully likeable characters like Xavi or Zidane are linked to them and so forth. It's double standards if you criticize only City for it.
Another reasoning you often here, at least in in Germany, is that clubs like Leipzig, Hoffenheim and also Wolfsburg and Leverkusen get criticized because they are "artificial products". While I disagree I can at least see where people are coming from. It's not about generally accepting money but about clubs rich of history being pushed out by commercialization. But you can hardly say that about the likes of City, PSG or Chelsea which have a long history themselves.
Hopefully Pep gets bored soon and leaves to a different country.
It's a while since I've seen that one on here :-)
Our only hope that Liverpool don't win the league rests with these guys, and what a great feeling it is having to admit that reality already.
Even with KDB out they look like a better team than at the start of last season. Their first 3 games then were umimpressive. The big win vs Liverpool gave them confidence. Too early to tell what kind of a season they are going to have. Guardiola teams are relentless though. They might hit 95 pts. 100 pts are unlikely.
I think the team actually got a lot better as the season went on, in terms of understanding the system they’re in, so it’s to be expected that would happen. However to replicate last seasons start in points terms will be near impossible.
We’ve essentially now added Mahrez and Mendy to the mix as well; given his injuries last season. And our younger players are a year older.
Pep's Barca and Bayern were at their best in their third season with him. It's likely that this may well be the case for City as well.
Oh, oh, 6-1 against mighty Huddersfield, what a huge achievement for the history books 
When they have defeated Liverpool, Chelsea and us, then I'll believe they are favorites to win the second Prem in a row...
When they have defeated Liverpool, Chelsea and us, then I'll believe they are favorites to win the second Prem in a row...
Who do you consider as the favourites currently then?Oh, oh, 6-1 against mighty Huddersfield, what a huge achievement for the history books
When they have defeated Liverpool, Chelsea and us, then I'll believe they are favorites to win the second Prem in a row...
I mean that result aside, they're pretty much the big favourites anyway.Oh, oh, 6-1 against mighty Huddersfield, what a huge achievement for the history books
When they have defeated Liverpool, Chelsea and us, then I'll believe they are favorites to win the second Prem in a row...
Be seeing you on 8th December ;-)Oh, oh, 6-1 against mighty Huddersfield, what a huge achievement for the history books
When they have defeated Liverpool, Chelsea and us, then I'll believe they are favorites to win the second Prem in a row...
It a tenuous link by a poor journalist and all based on the untruth that he thinks the club is owned by the Sheikh's brother and not the Sheikh. There is zero evidence that the Sheikh's brother has anything to do with the club, and plenty to support it being Sheikh Mansour. I love the way he's such a respected journalist he has to try and promote his own kickstarter at the end. As guilty of using City as a PR vehicle as Abu Dhabi I'd say...
Also not a single City fan I know, says that human rights abuse doesn't go on it those regions, none. But I wouldn't be hypocritical enough to criticise one company for what I never call my own out on.
Its not refusing to acknowledge the point. I've acknowledged the financial doping argument at least 5 times and said its legit.
The bit I've bolded reads: "I will be a hypocrite about the fact my club are sponsored by regimes with equally as poor a record as Cities owners on human rights because I'm angry about financial doping". That to me makes no sense. People who constantly use that as an argument about City have nothing else, as if City can control the human rights situation in Abu Dhabi.
I don't get angry about football or anything to do with it, I just like a discussion.
How is it a lack of self awareness, are you another that knows nothing about United's history and how you got the best stadium in Europe, you are the very definition of a sugar daddy financially doped club since 1910. Yes, your club have done amazing things off the pitch but don't say you were never given a hand up. Not once but twice. Despite that I still admire much about how United were run because I look at these things without bias and you got lucky in 1910 (like us in 2008), got the best stadium in Europe out of it, of course were terribly unlucky and dealt with two major tradgedies. You were housed for 8 years by City following the first of those tragedies. You also do genuinely have a £700m squad so its complete awareness of your situation.
Yes, the next bolded part is exactly my point, you do deal with companies and shithouses and gladly take their money. I've no doubt the Glazers even are shitty people because generally most business tycoons are. Does that mean getting back to the original quote I posted "Manchester United have thrown away all their decency?". I beg to differ, Manchester City are a football club owned by a regime with shocking human rights records. Manchester United are a football club owned by and leech and sponsored by regimes with a shocking human rights record.
On the last last line, indeed we are a club who are probably a PR vehicle for said regime, but you are only too happy to accept money from the same regime and regimes like them whilst shouting about Cities situation and burying your head in the sand about your own.
You have been finanicially doped, you have been housed by City, you are the biggest club in the world (or one of) but don't pretend you never got any help along the way (granted not to the levels we have with the Sheikh). You also are quite happy to take money from human rights abusing regimes from the Middle East.
If you don't see the hypocrisy in the fact you are everything modern City are, then I give up. None of which btw are a stick to beat United, it just is what it is, like it is at City.
Tell me, had the Sheikh not made us into such a formidable team and we were still chasing midtable and you still winning the league, would this discussion even be happening? I say no, and its all down to jealousy.
Never said City fans deny this. Additionally, none of this is the fault of City fans, and I am not suggesting City fans should stop supporting their club, as someone else had suggested. Some of you seem to have taken this incredibly personally.
I'll say this one last time: You parroting on about United's partnerships from the same region doesn't make the two equivalent. There's no hypocrisy, the two are not even remotely the same. It's just obvious, and additionally quite telling that you've ignored much of the content of the article, instead just baselessly trying to discredit the journalist.
Also FYI with regards to the bold, he was being facetious, he wasn't really trying to raise money for an actual programme, guess that point was lost on you...
In any case, I give up and genuinely wish you well. No point either of us continuing to waste more of each others' time with this, it's clear we don't agree.
Last edited:
I think it’s a bit pathetic to bring in the owners country human rights record as a stick to beat any club. First of all it’s irrelevant to football and second of all you don’t seem to have any problem with the tv money which is the highest in the world due to the colonial past of the UK which had plenty of human rights abuses and is today responsible for problems all over the world.
Which country is not responsible for human rights abuses? American owners who pay tax to fund a war machine that kills millions all over the world or some emirate sheikh who doesn’t care about the lives of workers.
Welcome to the real world.
Which country is not responsible for human rights abuses? American owners who pay tax to fund a war machine that kills millions all over the world or some emirate sheikh who doesn’t care about the lives of workers.
Welcome to the real world.
So people are not allowed to criticize any owners in the league, purely because at some point everybody did something bad anyway? That's the argument you're going with? It's like arguing that somebody from Britain can't be disgusted by human rights abuses in North Korea, because Britain once did horrible things too, right? Also, how the feck is England having a colonial past decades ago the same as abuses taking place right now? What an odd equivalence to draw. Nobody is committing abuses right now when people watch the Premier League on TV. We can't do anything about the past.
It's not about the country he's born in, he's an active part of a disgusting system which is directly responsible for abuses within his country. It's not the fecking same as a US owner having to pay tax, or a British owner being born in a country which once conquered somewhere, not even remotely. Also, it's not irrelevant to the football world when you're directly being funded by the people committing atrocities, that's the definition of relevant. The entire club has been built on the Sheikh's money.
Honestly, the 'everybody is part of the system anyway so nobody can criticize' arguments are some of the worst around, in any scenario. They are utterly nonsensical, of course when a club is directly owned by a bunch of exploitative, dictatorial arseholes who are using City as a propaganda tool, fans are going to go ahead and have an issue with it. The owners of City are making it relevant to football, they're using them as a political tool ffs. Sorry if not everybody is cool with that and thinks it deserves a mention, but I guess I don't have the right to an opinion because one of my ancestors was born in the British Empire.
Before we proceed, are you comparing the atrocities of Colonial Britain which took place over a century ago, to current day UAE where they arbitrarily detain their citizens (in many cases disappearing them from the face of the earth) simply for criticizing the authorities, and who play a forward role in the Saudi-led coalition?
Would it be more hip if we compared it to the Blair led government that destroyed Iraq and destabilized the Middle East then? Or the western corporations that actively support and lobby their governments to support whichever brutal dictatorship makes them the most money?
Don't start in with the conspiracy theories.
You can criticize whoever you want and your opinions are your own but facts are facts. Clubs take money from anyone who will give it to them including sponsors where nobody cares what they have done to make their money.
So people are not allowed to criticize any owners in the league, purely because at some point everybody did something bad anyway? That's the argument you're going with? It's like arguing that somebody from Britain can't be disgusted by human rights abuses in North Korea, because Britain once did horrible things too, right? Also, how the feck is England having a colonial past decades ago the same as abuses taking place right now? What an odd equivalence to draw. Nobody is committing abuses right now when people watch the Premier League on TV. We can't do anything about the past.
It's not about the country he's born in, he's an active part of a disgusting system which is directly responsible for abuses within his country. It's not the fecking same as a US owner having to pay tax, or a British owner being born in a country which once conquered somewhere, not even remotely. Also, it's not irrelevant to the football world when you're directly being funded by the people committing atrocities, that's the definition of relevant. The entire club has been built on the Sheikh's money.
Honestly, the 'everybody is part of the system anyway so nobody can criticize' arguments are some of the worst around, in any scenario. They are utterly nonsensical, of course when a club is directly owned by a bunch of exploitative, dictatorial arseholes who are using City as a propaganda tool, fans are going to go ahead and have an issue with it. The owners of City are making it relevant to football, they're using them as a political tool ffs. Sorry if not everybody is cool with that and thinks it deserves a mention, but I guess I don't have the right to an opinion because one of my ancestors was born in the British Empire.
City’s owners have passed the ridiculous fit and right owner test for the PL. if you have a problem with that why don’t you take it up with the PL and see how much they care about it.
Jesus Christ mate.
Who's the 3rd choice keeperTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Angus Gunn?
He's at Southampton
True but we have only just finished off paying off the descendants of slave owners for having to give up their slaves. this was written into our tax contributions.
So people are not allowed to criticize any owners in the league, purely because at some point everybody did something bad anyway? That's the argument you're going with? It's like arguing that somebody from Britain can't be disgusted by human rights abuses in North Korea, because Britain once did horrible things too, right? Also, how the feck is England having a colonial past decades ago the same as abuses taking place right now? What an odd equivalence to draw. Nobody is committing abuses right now when people watch the Premier League on TV. We can't do anything about the past.
It's not about the country he's born in, he's an active part of a disgusting system which is directly responsible for abuses within his country. It's not the fecking same as a US owner having to pay tax, or a British owner being born in a country which once conquered somewhere, not even remotely. Also, it's not irrelevant to the football world when you're directly being funded by the people committing atrocities, that's the definition of relevant. The entire club has been built on the Sheikh's money.
Honestly, the 'everybody is part of the system anyway so nobody can criticize' arguments are some of the worst around, in any scenario. They are utterly nonsensical, of course when a club is directly owned by a bunch of exploitative, dictatorial arseholes who are using City as a propaganda tool, fans are going to go ahead and have an issue with it. The owners of City are making it relevant to football, they're using them as a political tool ffs. Sorry if not everybody is cool with that and thinks it deserves a mention, but I guess I don't have the right to an opinion because one of my ancestors was born in the British Empire.
"The government pledged in 1833 £20 million in order to reimburse the owners of slaves when slavery was abolished in Britain. The sum, while big now, was monstrous in 1833, and it took the British taxpayer 182 years to pay off."
I believe up until 2015, you and I were paying money to people like David Cameron's family for the pain of having to give up their property of human slaves. this was kept secret until the treasury accidently revealed in a tweet
"FridayFact - Millions of you helped end the slave trade through your taxes"
The UK government far from innocent today and.....he who has never sinned should cast the 1st stone, people who live in glass houses, yaddy yaddy yah.
Not great, but still nowhere near the same as directly contributing to atrocities happening here and now. Not just contributing either, the Sheikh is actively responsible and the problem itself, rather than merely an individual who pays tax towards a questionable U.S government for example. I'm not excusing what Britain has done in the past - or saying our government is entirely innocent now - but do I think it's the same as a repressive, dictatorial regime which actively punishes its citizens for stepping out of line? No.
City are owned by scumbags is the bottom line. Whatever the British or U.S government are guilty of doesn't excuse this fact.
true. I would argue that the U.S. war machine is responsible for far more global deaths, suffering and destabilisation than the Saudis. Obviously the Glazers are not responsible for these actions nor do they encourage them. Maybe some of our sponsors (cough, oil companies, cough) may have some dirt
They seemed so lucky with injuries last season, this season not so much.
Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe repressive dictatorial regimes are necessary in certain countries because the alternative is chaos and civil war?
Or do you just think every country should be a secular western democracy because that has worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan for example?
The people in UAE seem to be happy enough.
https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/en/the-u-a-e-is-the-happiest-country-in-the-arab-world/
Can we go back to football or do you still feel the need to impose western values to judge them?
Yes, because the people who aren't happy aren't allowed to vote. Helps with the result a bit, that does.
Oh my god you're a fecking parody. Is this serious or trolling?
Imposing Western values by thinking that it's probably not right that anybody inside the regime who speaks out goes 'missing'. Christ, can't imagine why they're saying they are happy when they get murdered for stepping out of line, proper head scratcher that. I can't quite work out if you're trolling .. surely nobody can honestly be using a 'happiness' article by forbes to justify repressing free speech through torture, murder, censorship, and feck knows what else.
Honestly, get a grip. The West isn't innocent but it's sure as hell better than the UAE and yeah we can apply values when they're as basic as don't kill people for having an opinion, think that's kind of OK.
If you’re so against them then why don’t you boycott the PL and CL until they kick City out? See if anyone else really cares enough about human rights in one of the richest countries in the world beyond using it as a stick to beat City. Are there human rights abuses in the UAE? Sure there are. But you’re talking about the UAE as if it’s North Korea or Somalia.
Oh my god you're a fecking parody. Is this serious or trolling?
Imposing Western values by thinking that it's probably not right that anybody inside the regime who speaks out goes 'missing'. Christ, can't imagine why they're saying they are happy when they get murdered for stepping out of line, proper head scratcher that. I can't quite work out if you're trolling .. surely nobody can honestly be using a 'happiness' article by forbes to justify repressing free speech through torture, murder, censorship, and feck knows what else.
Honestly, get a grip. The West isn't innocent but it's sure as hell better than the UAE and yeah we can apply values when they're as basic as don't kill people for having an opinion, think that's kind of OK.
Jesus Christ have you ever been to Dubai or Abu Dhabi? People are having a right laugh there the average person is paid $50k a year to basically do nothing and be happy. You’re actually going off about human rights abuses in a country where the average person makes more than they do in the UK. Save your crusade for a more deserving country this one is too rich and well taken care of for anyone to care about.
Can't be arsed with this. There's some rich people in the UAE so all their very well documented human rights abuses don't matter and shouldn't be cared about. Also the terrible argument where apparently I should be boycotting the Premier League because I think City's owners are scum.
Total fecking idiocy, get a grip of yourself. Just utterly clueless. The West is evil and worse than anybody, but the UAE is ok because some people earn good money and is 'well taken care of'.
Imagine 'going off' on the UAE's record on human rights, it's not like the UN have done so numerous times, though I suppose they should simply look at the average wage and decide the people being tortured and thrown in prison for speaking out should be laughing.
They have direction and a structure, so envious of them. Doing everything right when it comes to football and having a set philosophy.
This is the real reason why everyone hates them and are jealous of them. Because they have spent big money and spent it well and are very successful for it. I dislike them but I’m not going to be a hypocrite and say I wouldn’t be happy if the club I supported had been bought over by their owners instead of City.