|
|
Post by NYR on Aug 26, 2020 0:36:13 GMT -5
But nothing will top the United treble winners, nobody seriously thinks they rank up there with them! I’m not denying that United side spent money, I’m not denying great teams don’t spend money but relatively, they didn’t spend anywhere near as much as City. I’m not talking as a United fan, I’m not even talking about them of late as they’ve been an utter joke but objectively speaking, City have come nowhere close to that level of achievement. That United side is based on the foundations of the Class of 92 - a compelling story. City? Sign this player and that player (and here’s a super sub too) for £60 million each. There’s no skill in that, there’s no admiration in that.It’s simply buying your success. And that success is hollow without any meaningful story behind it. Any City fan would trade their moments of success with United’s. And I will always find a way to tear them down like many football fans but there’s legitimate reasons for that. United’s finances, like Liverpool’s, is backed by their own commercial growth and I can’t criticise their success - they spend what they earn, and not through some foul despotic oil based regime like City’s. That’s only the surface of it remarkably. There’s nothing wrong with calling out the sportswashing of human rights abuse and instant gratification of success that City are proponents of. Its fair to despise these state sponsored projects and have genuine concerns about their role in football. You move the goalposts again. City can't be in the conversation of best English sides ever because they: spend too much money, don't play enough players from their academy, win meaningless trophies, don't have enough fans in the stadium, haven't won the Champions League, have a chequebook manager, are state owned (they're not), sportswash (wtf?), and didn't earn their money "the right way." But even if all of that were true, they still deserve a part of that conversation. Because they got 100 points while winning a double, then got 98 points while winning all four domestic competitions. No other club in England has broken the British transfer record more frequently than Manchester United. Ten times, in total. Five of those times were when Fergie was manager, and another two when he was a director. How many times has City broken the British transfer fee record? But then, Since your argument more or less comes down to old money hating on new money and you kind of get stuck in that hole, you move on to sportswashing. City not being state owned aside, please explain how the UAE has benefited through the alleged sportswashing over the last 10 years? Haven't all of what City Football Group has done with City and Sheikh Mansour's investments in East Manchester changed some opinions? Or is it simply a cheap argument to belittle City's achievements used by idiots on Twitter who just don't have the balls to publicly admit that they don't like rich foreigners owning football clubs… especially when they're brown. Again, I'm not criticizing or putting down United's treble. (Arsenal's Invincibles, too, while we're at it.) Those are two of the greatest sides in English football history, and deserve their place in the conversation. I say that as a City supporter who hates United. But City's Centurions and Fourmidables deserve to be included in the conversation too. Look beyond your anti-City bias and give credit where credit is due. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEscapist on Aug 26, 2020 8:29:30 GMT -5
The sportswashing thing is a tricky one. I do think it exists, but I don't think City is a good example of it. For one thing, they're not owned by the UAE. They're owned by the private business investment fund of Sheikh Mansour, the prince of one region of the UAE. Obviously, the two things aren't a million miles apart, but they are distinct. It's closer to Chelsea being owned by a Russian oligarch than it is to being a state-ran club. Secondly, it's hard to see how the UAE would be sportswashing in any serious way with City even if they did own the club - outside of a few friendlies in Abu Dhabi and a tourist slogan here and there, there's not much attempt to get the "forget about our human rights record" message across. And thirdly, it's just such an obviously bad idea. Sportwashing is usually done by hosting sporting events (like the Qatar World Cup), thus making the country itself seem glamorous while not riling anybody up. Taking over a club and committing to their investment, building up a massive competitor for the top trophies in the process, makes all the other clubs hate you. More people know about the UAE's poor human rights record now thanks to City's investment than before, for sure. If you wanted to wash it away, this would be one of the most obviously stupid ways to go about it.
So yeah, I don't think City's funds are what you'd call clean (far from it), but I think the whole "sportswashing for a dictatorship" thing is beyond the facts. Save that for things like Qatari World Cup, and what would have been a genuinely state-ran takeover of Newcastle.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 4, 2020 7:30:48 GMT -5
But nothing will top the United treble winners, nobody seriously thinks they rank up there with them! I’m not denying that United side spent money, I’m not denying great teams don’t spend money but relatively, they didn’t spend anywhere near as much as City. I’m not talking as a United fan, I’m not even talking about them of late as they’ve been an utter joke but objectively speaking, City have come nowhere close to that level of achievement. That United side is based on the foundations of the Class of 92 - a compelling story. City? Sign this player and that player (and here’s a super sub too) for £60 million each. There’s no skill in that, there’s no admiration in that.It’s simply buying your success. And that success is hollow without any meaningful story behind it. Any City fan would trade their moments of success with United’s. And I will always find a way to tear them down like many football fans but there’s legitimate reasons for that. United’s finances, like Liverpool’s, is backed by their own commercial growth and I can’t criticise their success - they spend what they earn, and not through some foul despotic oil based regime like City’s. That’s only the surface of it remarkably. There’s nothing wrong with calling out the sportswashing of human rights abuse and instant gratification of success that City are proponents of. Its fair to despise these state sponsored projects and have genuine concerns about their role in football. You move the goalposts again. City can't be in the conversation of best English sides ever because they: spend too much money, don't play enough players from their academy, win meaningless trophies, don't have enough fans in the stadium, haven't won the Champions League, have a chequebook manager, are state owned (they're not), sportswash (wtf?), and didn't earn their money "the right way." But even if all of that were true, they still deserve a part of that conversation. Because they got 100 points while winning a double, then got 98 points while winning all four domestic competitions. No other club in England has broken the British transfer record more frequently than Manchester United. Ten times, in total. Five of those times were when Fergie was manager, and another two when he was a director. How many times has City broken the British transfer fee record? But then, Since your argument more or less comes down to old money hating on new money and you kind of get stuck in that hole, you move on to sportswashing. City not being state owned aside, please explain how the UAE has benefited through the alleged sportswashing over the last 10 years? Haven't all of what City Football Group has done with City and Sheikh Mansour's investments in East Manchester changed some opinions? Or is it simply a cheap argument to belittle City's achievements used by idiots on Twitter who just don't have the balls to publicly admit that they don't like rich foreigners owning football clubs… especially when they're brown.Again, I'm not criticizing or putting down United's treble. (Arsenal's Invincibles, too, while we're at it.) Those are two of the greatest sides in English football history, and deserve their place in the conversation. I say that as a City supporter who hates United. But City's Centurions and Fourmidables deserve to be included in the conversation too. Look beyond your anti-City bias and give credit where credit is due. Money earned by Man Utd fair and square, better spent too by being champions of Europe and still, under the Fergie management and despite breaking transfer records, they didn't spend eye watering sums on every single player they bought. The average costs even adjusting for inflation much much lower than anything by City. But strip the argument back to the trophies and who is the greatest and its very easy - you can't claim to be the greatest when they haven't come close to winning the biggest prize. Man Utd were the best, City haven't even come close to winning it. Other than that, how can you insinuate I don't like them because the owners are 'brown'? That's taking leaps of logic that is unbelievably offensive. City quite evidently flagrate the rules and everyone knows it and it's nothing to do with their skin colour. David Conn, one of the top journalists and expert on the corruption of the modern game, from Hillsborough disaster, leveraged buyouts and sportswashing (and he's childhood City fan actually), absolutely goes to town on them constantly in their efforts to ruin the modern game. It's certainly no idiotic reason to hate the club. A toxic presence in the league for sure. www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/15/manchester-city-disrespect-uefa-misinformation-sweeping-allegationswww.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/30/manchester-city-human-rights-accusationswww.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/30/der-spiegel-claims-new-manchester-city-emails-cast-doubt-on-cas-verdict |
|
|
|
Post by TheEscapist on Sept 4, 2020 7:45:58 GMT -5
Could we see Messi in the EPL sometime soon?
|
|
|
|
Post by eva on Sept 4, 2020 8:32:20 GMT -5
Not until June 2021
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEscapist on Sept 4, 2020 8:55:21 GMT -5
Barca holding him hostage, it seems. Incredible that Bartomeu is exploiting the fact that Messi doesn't want to take the club he loves into a drawn-out legal battle to save face and not be the chairman who let him go. Barca are in one strange situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Sept 4, 2020 14:11:46 GMT -5
My heart fucking bleeds for him!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEscapist on Sept 4, 2020 14:29:37 GMT -5
My heart fucking bleeds for him! I don't think we need to put our lighters in the air for Leo, but come on, this is poor from Bartomeu. He's desperate not to be the chairman who let Messi go, so he refuses to negotiate for the £100-150m he'd get for him right now, pays his humongous wages for another year, just to get an emotionally disconnected player who might very well leave for free next year. Meanwhile the club's reputation is destroyed and Barto himself gets voted out in a few months, saying adios and leaving the club in the mess he created. |
|
|
|
Post by globe on Sept 4, 2020 14:34:37 GMT -5
My heart fucking bleeds for him! I don't think we need to put our lighters in the air for Leo, but come on, this is poor from Bartomeu. He's desperate not to be the chairman who let Messi go, so he refuses to negotiate for the £100-150m he'd get for him right now, pays his humongous wages for another year, just to get an emotionally disconnected player who might very well leave for free next year. Meanwhile the club's reputation is destroyed and Barto himself gets voted out in a few months, saying adios and leaving the club in the mess he created. I ken mate, I was just being facetious really. However I have completely disconnected myself from these guys that play for Barca, Madrid, Man City etc etc - I can't relate to them or their clubs in any way any longer. Rich men's play things so it is hard for me to have an sympathy for these players. No doubt Messi is an amazing player but there is a huge part of me that would love to see somebody wearing a pair of Adidas Copa Mundial with metal screw-in studs two-foot the kunt. |
|
|
|
Post by dampcottage on Oct 27, 2021 15:38:28 GMT -5
"Player of the match" beady? Ya wee rascal... |
|
Jun 21, 2022 17:52:43 GMT -5
Jun 21, 2022 17:52:43 GMT -5
