Quantcast
Man City - the new bitters? - Page 146 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Naz17

Man City - the new bitters?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Alex_K said:

First time I've looked at that forum -- I took all the jibes at it with a pinch of salt, as its the internet and I presumed that -- it being City -- half the lunacies being ascribed to them are probably just juvenile writings of 10-16 year olds. Funniest thing about that thread posted above is that many of the writers have join dates of the mid-late 00s -- which means they both arrived on the scene before the millions got quite so cranked up, and also are presumably in their 20s and upwards. Which really does make one step back and think just what the fuck do they put in the water over there.

If they're from the mid 2000s, that's the time they were gifted a spanking brand new stadium for the derelict Maine Road. If they're late 2000s that's when mansour and his filthy money rocked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

If anyone would like to read the most embarrassing thread on the internet then have a look through some of the posts on here.

 

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/anti-uefa-demonstration-at-madrid-game.344661/

 

"injustice" "Klanfield" it goes on. They honestly think anyone looks at them other than the lottery winning shitebag no-marks that they actually are. 

 

 

gordondaviesmoustache

Joined:
19 Oct 2010
Messages:
56,308
Location:
Any borough in England and Wales
We should boo their anthem.
 
 

 

That'll fucking learn 'em!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bewildered

Joined:
30 Jul 2017
Messages:
263
We should all take white handerchief's and wave them duriung the "anthem", impossible to stop them being taken into the ground, no 'regulations' being broken
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't Manchester City usually boycott their games anyway? They are always advertising tickets on the radio even on match days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Anubis said:


Fair play. They’ve collected nearly £5k for banners when they don’t even know what they’ll say.

Should buy them a few more flat screens, then they can each have a go at drawing something and putting it on a slide show so they all get a turn. 

1581861433742.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/17/manchester-city-backers-are-not-the-sort-to-take-punishment-lying-down?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Manchester City backers are not the sort to take punishment lying down

 

There is resentment among City fans about their treatment and word is that Abu Dhabi will be fighting back against Uefa

 

 

In 2011 Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the emir of Abu Dhabi and president of the United Arab Emirates, received a letter. It came from a group of Emirati intellectuals inspired by the recent wave of pro-democracy protests sweeping through the Middle East and north Africa, and requested a range of modest reforms, including an extension of the voting franchise which at the time encompassed just 2% of the country’s population.

 

No marching on the streets. No popular unrest. Certainly no disorder of any kind. Just a letter. Nonetheless, with a regime petrified to the point of paranoia by the spectre of political Islamism, the reprisals would be swift and merciless.

 

Within weeks the arrests had begun, rounding up most of the 160 letter’s signatories, who were designated as “terrorists” plotting to overthrow the regime. Citizenships were revoked. Hefty prison sentences were dished out. In 2014, Abu Dhabi enacted Terrorism Law No 7, reclassifying peaceful opposition as a terrorist act punishable by death, and criminalising a whole range of hazily-defined acts, from “antagonising the state” or “stirring panic among a group of people” to “carrying explosive crackers for a terrorist purpose”.

 

Now: does this strike you as a group of people that is going to be intimidated by the fine print of Article 56, section (a) of the 2018 edition of Uefa’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations?

 

Does a regime serially defying a United Nations arms embargo in Libya – according to the UN’s own reports – strike you as the sort that places a high premium on bureaucratic process? Does the family that bought itself the world’s largest super-yacht – a $600m behemoth two-thirds the size of the Titanic and reportedly equipped with its own missile defence system – strike you as the sort to take a swingeing punishment with humility and good grace?

 

These are just some of the ways of understanding Manchester City’s current dispute with Uefa, one that for all its clear footballing repercussions carries far more sinister overtones. Trawl the City messageboards in the wake of Uefa’s decision to ban the club from the Champions League for two seasons, and it won’t take you long to stumble across the rhetoric of scorched earth: of traitors and revolutionaries, violence and purgation, shady cartels and subhuman scum.

 

This is the language of existential threat, the register of total warfare, and it is fed by the incendiary invective coming out of the club. One little snippet to emerge is the fact City’s appeals to the court of arbitration for sport have been dubbed “Cas One” and “Cas Two”, as if they were military campaigns, rather than ringbinders being delivered to a courtroom by clerks in TM Lewin suits. Witness, too, the assertion of the club’s lawyer Simon Cliff in the Der Spiegel leaks of 2018 that “Uefa doesn’t respond to anything other than aggression”, that a lawsuit against their auditor could “destroy the entire organisation within weeks”. City talk about their footballing enemies the way Abu Dhabi talks about its real ones.

 

This, perhaps, was the most persuasive argument against allowing cherished footballing institutions to fall under the control of entire states. It wasn’t the lack of transparency or the potential for financial distortion, grave as those are. But in hindsight it was perhaps inevitable over time clubs would come to resemble state actors in their own right, that sporting problems would impel geopolitical solutions, that the cut and thrust of footballing sabre-rattling would increasingly take on the character of the real thing.

 

There has always been a slight misconception about the concept popularly known as “sportswashing”, the attempt by autocratic regimes to embed their soft power through sport. It is never purely a PR exercise: there are PR firms for that, and they tend not to go to the trouble of spending £1.5bn on footballers or rebuilding large parts of east Manchester.
 

Rather, it helps to think of the sportswash as some vast, pointless infrastructure project: a man-made glacier, a giant bridge to nowhere, a Nando’s visible from space. The objective is to create something so iridescently perfect that it generates its own innate shock and awe, a timeless monument to beauty, wealth and the power to do whatever the hell you want.

 

And so there is a rich double irony at work here. Firstly, for all the eye-watering sums lavished on the brilliant Guardiola sides, it is instead the years of faltering ascent, the 2012-16 era, for which City are being punished: not the years of £50m full-backs, but your Mangalas and Rodwells and Wilfried Bonys. Secondly, that one of the world’s most meticulously-crafted sporting projects could be undone by simple naivety: an apparent belief the rule of law could be subverted by force of will alone, a failure to build any sort of political or diplomatic contingency against it. While the Qataris at Paris Saint-Germain made it a priority to infiltrate the corridors of power, City find themselves adrift: friendless and alone, with only their money and their hubris to protect them.
 

It may yet be enough. The word is City are stockpiling a cache of inflammatory evidence against other clubs, in anticipation of an epic fight. Perhaps, armed with a battery of lawyers and accountants, they will get their ban overturned. Perhaps, as some of the more bellicose voices insist, they will even destroy the apparatus of football as we know it, which definitely feels like a proportionate response to not being allowed to sign Stevan Jovetic. Either way, you sense for City the ends will always justify the means. After all football, like geopolitics, is very much a results business.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sugar Ape said:

the world’s largest super-yacht – a $600m behemoth two-thirds the size of the Titanic and reportedly equipped with its own missile defence system

 

Well no wonder FSG hate their guts

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aventus said:

Should buy them a few more flat screens, then they can each have a go at drawing something and putting it on a slide show so they all get a turn. 

1581861433742.jpg

Am I the only person who had no idea about this? I'm looking at that thinking "nah, no way" but I'm guessing it's real. Seriously? Jesus. Placcy flags is bad (Norwich last weekend anybody?) but LED screen flags is a whole new world of excruciating. 

 

When we got into the stadium at Kiev a couple of years ago, seeing the LFC banners draped over the stands, covering at least 2/3rds of the perimeter, was gobsmacking. Like "wow". And then I see those City banner sceens up there? Please. Never. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Josef Svejk said:

"A few thousand ref whistles will drown out their jingle. And a few thousand Catalan flags will show that twat from Madrid that we do not accept non-democratic bodies - that includes UEFA and the Spanish fascists (I'm sure Pep would like it too ;-)"

 

Absolute fucking lunacy.

 

6 hours ago, Sugar Ape said:

In 2011 Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the emir of Abu Dhabi and president of the United Arab Emirates, received a letter. It came from a group of Emirati intellectuals inspired by the recent wave of pro-democracy protests sweeping through the Middle East and north Africa, and requested a range of modest reforms, including an extension of the voting franchise which at the time encompassed just 2% of the country’s population.

 

No marching on the streets. No popular unrest. Certainly no disorder of any kind. Just a letter. Nonetheless, with a regime petrified to the point of paranoia by the spectre of political Islamism, the reprisals would be swift and merciless.

 

Within weeks the arrests had begun, rounding up most of the 160 letter’s signatories, who were designated as “terrorists” plotting to overthrow the regime. Citizenships were revoked. Hefty prison sentences were dished out. In 2014, Abu Dhabi enacted Terrorism Law No 7, reclassifying peaceful opposition as a terrorist act punishable by death, and criminalising a whole range of hazily-defined acts, from “antagonising the state” or “stirring panic among a group of people” to “carrying explosive crackers for a terrorist purpose”.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s a great article from the Grauniad. Sort of sums up exactly what City are about these days.

Their attitude stinks of what a dictatorial regime would be like, the “We’re Manchester City, we’ll do what we like” stance that United had not so long ago, but with more threat.

Cross us and we’ll fuck you over, if you like.

Over the the last few days I’ve heard more than a few pundits and commentators say how much they sympathise with City, including ex-reds who should know better, because they could only break into the elite by doing exactly what they’ve done, thrown money and resources in gigantic amounts at becoming an elite club.

All missing the point completely that while the FFP “laws” have been broken, it’s the manner of the subterfuge and lying to UEFA that’s been the main problem, and that once Der Spiegel put it into the public domain, UEFA had to act or be seen as a toothless body deferring to power and privilege.

Add to that the implicit threat from City that they would bankrupt UEFA through costly legal challenges if they dared to impose punishment and UEFA could do nothing else but take the course of action they have done.

The sanctions could have been greater, or lesser, but are still defeatable in a court where mitigation might be claimed and so I wouldn’t hold my breath about a two year ban being served, more likely some kind of agreed suspended sentence, which might explain why Guardiola has insisted he’ll be staying regardless of the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Red said:

I did like the idea on bluemoon of "aggressive yodelling"

 

Promising to deliver dogshit through your letterbox but failing to turn up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s the point though, not everyone does.

Danny Murphy was asked about it on MOTD the other night and he said they were unlucky to get the ban.

There’s loads who don’t see them as cheats, but just a poor club that is trying its best to break into the elite and who are being barred by the likes of us, United, Bayern etc.

It’s scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Aventus said:

Should buy them a few more flat screens, then they can each have a go at drawing something and putting it on a slide show so they all get a turn. 

1581861433742.jpg

Fuck me, that's bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Last Match Report

  • Latest Posts

    • The contracts might have a force majeure clause for that kind of thing.  Or some other catch all clause.
    • So a player is one goal or appearance away from triggering a clause in his contract for either performance-related bonuses or even an extra year added to his contract. The season is then voided, ie the player is effectively denied millions through no fault of his own.    Can he then sue the club for potential lost earnings? Or break from the contract? If that's possible, imagine dozens of such cases of varying degrees and it's another layer to the shitstorm waiting for the higher-ups should the season be cancelled. 
    • That is probably too early but i wouldn't be surprised if its back by late May. I think the government would allow it too. 
    • The Premier League are working on an ambitious plan to restart the season behind closed doors on the first weekend of May with a scheduled finish date of Sunday July 12. The proposals, which will be discussed in detail on a conference call of the 20 clubs on Friday, would need to be endorsed by the Government, public health bodies and the PFA. But they are seen as the best way to mitigate the financial losses and potential legal threats caused by the coronavirus shutdown. The Premier League's best-case scenario of a May resumption stems largely from their obligations to and financial reliance on broadcasters, who have a watertight £3billion-a-year deal which expires on July 31, with next season's deal kicking in the following day.    The Premier League want to restart the season at the beginning of May and finish it by July 12   Sky Sports and other broadcasters could demand as much £762m if the season is not finished It is understood that under the terms of the TV contracts the cut-off point to finish this season is July 16, and if the campaign is not completed by that date Sky Sports, BT Sport and the international rights-holders could demand rebates totalling as much as £762million.   The broadcasters are pushing the Premier League to provide clarity as soon as possible, as they are losing subscribers at a rapid rate and want to know when they can expect their schedules to return to normal. During informal talks between club executives over the last few days, July 12 has emerged as the optimum finish date, and a restart at the beginning of May would build in the potential for more down-time if individual clubs are hit by more cases of the virus.  It remains unclear whether such a timetable is realistic, however, given that the deputy chief medical officer Jenny Harries warned on Sunday that the country could remain in varying degrees of lockdown for up to six months. A restart in May is seen as vital as that is when the clubs are due to receive their final tranche of television money for the season, without which many will struggle to pay the players' wages. The £762m of combined income under threat is not divided equally and would range from £57m for the Premier League winners to £20m for the team who finish bottom. Ironically, the bigger clubs stand to lose more than usual this season if those payments are withheld following last year's changes to the distribution of the overseas television deal, which, unlike the domestic deal, is no longer divided equally but determined by league position The new plan would see games played behind closed doors due to the coronavirus outbreak BT Sport are another of the broadcasters who could be in line for a rebate worth millions The Premier League are aware of the challenges they face in completing the season but until they are told otherwise by the Government that remains their intention. Having suspended the season twice until April 4 and then April 30 they do not want to announce a further delay. The clubs are also conscious that there may have to be changes in order to finish the season. One of the main topics of conversation between executives recently has been about waiving the rules regarding weakened teams.  A number of solutions have been mentioned, including increasing squad sizes from 25 to 29 to enable them to cope with more absences due to illness. One club also raised the question of whether they would be permitted to field a youth team. A more radical idea has been completing the season without promotion and relegation on the grounds that the integrity of the competition is threatened, and there is also no guarantee that the EFL campaign will be completed.    Clubs at the top of the Championship have begun making preparations to take legal action if they are denied promotion, although if the competition is not completed that would weaken their case. The Premier League will continue to liaise with the Government, who have indicated that they are eager for football to resume in some form as soon as it is not considered a public risk and a drain on resources.  If given the go-ahead, matches would be staged with a skeleton broadcasting crew, minimal security and no media, although an ambulance presence would be required at the stadium. One of the problems the league will face is convincing players to return to action after it emerged that they are not insured for coronavirus as it is not listed as a critical illness. A number have sought clarification but are being advised they are not covered. Many players forgo critical illness cover because it can cost £5,000 per year. But Sportsmail knows of a number who have improved their policies since the outbreak.   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8169229/Premier-League-plan-resume-season-closed-doors-start-MAY.html#comments
  • Latest Round Up

  • Popular Contributors

  • Football Betting Site Betway
  • Online Bingo
×