You're not making a lot of sense Padre.
4- I'm somehow using point 3 to justify point 2 in your mind.
What is the actual point of your imaginary convoluted and numbered bullet points?
If you are agreeing that your owners and PSG's owners too are dispicable human rights abusers and murderers of innocents in Yemeni and who are lying and cheating our regulations to sportswash their brutal regime then why are you even comparing their unprecedented spending of billions of oil money with the hard earned football money of legitimate clubs?
Also why mouth off about the history of Italian football as if that typical weaponised kind of whataboutery somehow legitimises or softens or at the very least distracts from the brutal UAE PR racket ?
There are many good City fans who simply do not support the illegitimate, nation state PR project at the Etihad.
I think theyve made the right choice.
Now as for your good self Padre is concerned I appreciate that you are (in your support of the Etihad project ) indeed ethically compromised but if you do in fact agree with us about the owners and their dirty money project, then rather than wasting your valuable time indulging in such whataboutery fantasies of defence (United spend money so why can't we?, look at the bad Italians and so on..) and insulting United supporters on a United fan forum, why don't you simply refuse to support the club until the scum have been forced out.
Put simply, put your money where your mouth is.
yes I agree thats exactly what they are doing. You'll find no argument from me on Cities owners being absolute pieces of shit who bought the club for PR... none. If you remember back this very simple to follow thread was about inflation, and you dragged it off on the human rights curve, the nani guy has made zero claims to back up his bullshit, and I've not yet seen a single piece of anything even near remotely thought provoking never mind evidence to say City are guilty of inflating the market.
I was simply pointing out to said Nani guy, who said Italian football wasn't owned by "shady" individuals, exactly how wrong he was. My first port of call was Berlusconi who he said was an anomaly. I then pointed out that City aren't the start of this bullshit its been around forever. Giving the guy a history lesson on where he's clearly wrong is very different to using said shitty owners to justify Cities. There is no justification of Abu Dhabi's human rights record.
You seem to think that I think ADUG is some white knight who rode in too save football, far from it. I openly criticize them on everything they are guilty of. What I don't let slide is rubbish like "they pay players under the table", "they bribe Uefa". I also state that they weren't the first to use soccer to do this. I will also back up we are not the first football team to receive huge investment.
On why I defend City.. I only do when the argument is wrong...
The fact our owners are absolute shit houses has zero effect on the fact that so far at least, the Moores family pumping money into Liverpool in the 70's had a much bigger impact on english football than ADUG and CFG so far (6 titles in 8 years and a couple of CL's).
When it comes to it, I like to point out that other clubs shit stinks as badly as Cities even if they won't admit it, United for example being bailed out from extinction twice due to terrible management and done for match fixing (which relegated Chelsea). Where would United be without those today.. who knows, maybe still the biggest club in Europe, maybe they wouldn't exist. None of the fact that benefited United for example has any effect on the fact you were the best run club in the world for about 30 years until Woodward took over.
We've all got our own shit bag owners at times, we've all got skeletons in our closet. I will in no way defend Abu Dhabi's regime, never have and what goes on there can never be justified, but I will also call out falsities and stuff that is clearly conspiracy theories and just wrong (inflating the market, the only sportwashed club in the world, ruining football (all things that have been going on before City). City are not some super club in my eyes, we're everything we should stand against.
I hate to pick on Liverpool but are they really a self earned club when they were pretty much just another of many big clubs before the Moores money? And it was said money that pushed them to the massive status they now have? The arguments on financing and human rights are completely different ones. Cities owners are doing at City what has been done many times before financially (albeit on a different level). Why they are doing it has been done before. None of which makes what they are doing outside of football ok or inside football, but what they are doing in football has happened many, many times before.
Are City a morally worse club? Liverpool who ran off to Dubai throwing themselves at DiC to try and get their own tyrannical regime as owners? Exactly what makes a club like Liverpool a proper club in comparison to City. I'm only using Liverpool as an example of many...
They were just another of the many good but not hugely successful clubs in England before huge investment.. sounds familiar despite Cities previous 15 years they were still in the top 10 most successful english clubs of all time.
They went out of their way chasing investment from "shady" middle eastern business men. The difference being after 2 years of trying, Dubai didn't bite and Liverpool sold their club to a leech they had previously turned down.
Liverpool have a match fixing blot on their history (threw that game to United to relegate Chelsea) both clubs were also found guilty and had players banned for life.
Their supporters behavior is well known.
Their main sponsor was fined 1.1bn for money laundering and funding terrorism, Liverpool refused to cut ties with them.
Arsenal literally bribed their way into top level football and established themselves doing exactly what City did 100 years ago but are they a proper club in comparison because it all happened so long ago?
What exactly is a proper club? Because the examples I get of clubs that are "proper" in comparison to City are the Liverpools, Uniteds, Arsenal's, Juves, Milans and Real Madrids and all of those have a past history thats probably worse than Cities. I should add City as a club not Cities owners.
Why would I walk away, I support City, though thick and thin, good and bad. Just like you would stand by United though thick and thin good and bad. The owners are not the club, they are a shit stain on a club with over 100 years of history. A club that will still be here after all the controversy dies, just like every other club.
City are the ultimate symptom of a game that was broken long before Adug... we are pretty much football reaping what it sewed and its horrible but football has always been that way. It doesn't make us right or fair, its makes us the same as the hypocritical clubs who think they are better just because all their shady shit was in the past.
Sorry about the novel, but now you're being more civil we can actually talk with the need to trade insults.