Off Topic CITY SHOW THEIR CLASS -AND IT IS VERY LOW

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Treble said:
Before you even get to that, you have to show the players are singing in the first place. I've seen that clip several times and I can't see any doing so, except one person at the back in the cap and the quality is so poor not sure who it is.

The difference to twitter etc is there the individual is placing their own opinion in the public domain. Completely their account, their decision. Here they're on a jet in a private not public environment. It can be argued what they do in private is their business and I would be surprised if the video was published with consent.
Click to expand...
On an official club flight whoever is on that plane in that video is representing the club be they players, coaches, auxiliary staff or whatever. It's not individuals that anyone should be looking to reprimand, it's the club. The club has to take responsibility for the actions of its employees. And one of its employees released the video on, what amounts to, all of their behalf.

At the end of the day I think we both have a similar view on this <ok>
 
Last edited:
johnsonsbaby said:
On an official club flight whoever is on that plane in that video is representing the club be they players, coaches, auxiliary staff or whatever. It's not individuals that anyone should be looking to reprimand, it's the club.
Click to expand...

Yeh club is fair enough but people have been continuously posting 'players' and I just don't see it, not the ones on that video anyway.

I suppose the question for me is would the club be subject to any FA action in theory if a video hadn't been made or broadcast? If instead, someone had come off the flight and simply told a reporter for example. Would anyone be facing action in those circumstances, not sure. The only difference is that it's on video, neither made in a club capacity or broadcast with consent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sucky and johnsonsbaby
Treble said:
Not sure on what basis they can charge City tbh.

It's a chant on a video where you can't identify who's actually singing.

Not only that, but it's not like City are broadcasting it, it's someone recording it on a mobile on a private plane?

In what capacity would they charge them - they're not present in a professional capacity, at the time of the event they are private individuals.

And it's not directed at any one individual in particular.

At the end of the day, it's just bad taste and bad PR for the club.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Players are charged because of their tweets and instagram messages all the time. In all honesty, I wouldn't want City charged: it appears the FA don't either. But that is not down to their rules and precedent, or they would be charged.
 
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ity-defence-battered-song-misguided-liverpool

Manchester City’s defence of ‘battered’ song is seriously misguided

It was then startling to learn the club had issued a statement wholly defending the song, which glories in Liverpool misfortune, including their supporters being “battered in the streets” and being “victims of it all”.

“Any suggestion the lyrics relate to Sean Cox [the Liverpool supporter who was battered before last season’s Champions League semi-final with Roma at Anfield, suffering life-changing injuries] or the Hillsborough tragedy is entirely without foundation,” City’s statement said. As if that is enough to give the song official sanction, and can anyway be said so absolutely, when such needless offence has been caused.

The word “victims”, sung as a sneer at a match, does not just voice a cold lack of empathy for the victims of Hillsborough and their families. It is also aimed at doubting their genuineness as victims, which has been deeply hurtful given the 30-year justice process, with legal proceedings still continuing.

By issuing their statement totally defending the right of City staff to sing this song, the club is saying the phrase “victims of all that” relates only to this song, about Kyiv last season, celebrating Liverpool losing in the Champions League final, Sergio Ramos injuring Mohamed Salah and fans being “battered in the streets”.

Pearce’s point, and that of many Liverpool supporters, has been that they have put up with City fans singing this all season but to see staff take up the song and the club defend it has elevated all this to near-official approval.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sucky, johnsonsbaby, Uncle Colm and 1 other person
astro said:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ity-defence-battered-song-misguided-liverpool

Manchester City’s defence of ‘battered’ song is seriously misguided

It was then startling to learn the club had issued a statement wholly defending the song, which glories in Liverpool misfortune, including their supporters being “battered in the streets” and being “victims of it all”.

“Any suggestion the lyrics relate to Sean Cox [the Liverpool supporter who was battered before last season’s Champions League semi-final with Roma at Anfield, suffering life-changing injuries] or the Hillsborough tragedy is entirely without foundation,” City’s statement said. As if that is enough to give the song official sanction, and can anyway be said so absolutely, when such needless offence has been caused.

The word “victims”, sung as a sneer at a match, does not just voice a cold lack of empathy for the victims of Hillsborough and their families. It is also aimed at doubting their genuineness as victims, which has been deeply hurtful given the 30-year justice process, with legal proceedings still continuing.

By issuing their statement totally defending the right of City staff to sing this song, the club is saying the phrase “victims of all that” relates only to this song, about Kyiv last season, celebrating Liverpool losing in the Champions League final, Sergio Ramos injuring Mohamed Salah and fans being “battered in the streets”.

Pearce’s point, and that of many Liverpool supporters, has been that they have put up with City fans singing this all season but to see staff take up the song and the club defend it has elevated all this to near-official approval.
Click to expand...

And now officially endorsed by the FA too. They'll probably have Katherine Jenkins singing it before the cup final on Saturday instead of Abide With Me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saintanton
Rocky Raccoon said:
Nonsense. Players are charged because of their tweets and instagram messages all the time. In all honesty, I wouldn't want City charged: it appears the FA don't either. But that is not down to their rules and precedent, or they would be charged.
Click to expand...

No completely different. Twitter and instagram are accounts owned by the person putting their own views or those they support in the public domain making them directly responsible.
 
Treble said:
No completely different. Twitter and instagram are accounts owned by the person putting their own views or those they support in the public domain making them directly responsible.
Click to expand...


That wasn't your point though - you stated that as they were there as private individuals they could not be charged. Do try and keep up with yourself Trebs.
 
astro said:
Classless Pep says the only way they don't win the FA Cup is if the ref is bent

Doesn't the FA charge managers for commenting on referee performances before or after a match?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48248092
Click to expand...

only the ones they want to mate.

You can do just about anything right now cos the FA want to go on hols.

The like their committee expenses but not over having their hols.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
only the ones they want to mate.

You can do just about anything right now cos the FA want to go on hols.

The like their committee expenses but not over having their hols.
Click to expand...

Rule E3 covers just about anything, including players and staff singing derogatory and discriminatory songs on a flight home.
 
Mean Mr Mustard said:
Rule E3 covers just about anything, including players and staff singing derogatory and discriminatory songs on a flight home.
Click to expand...

yeah but its the summer hols... nobody wants to have to sit and have a meeting when you've scammed expenses all year and are now planning to party for 3 months on the algarve
 
astro said:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ester-city-plane-song-liverpool-juventus-uefa

Classless Pep says who the song isn't about, but doesn't give any answer who it is about

“Do you think for one second someone could imagine we would give offence about Hillsborough or the guy who was hurt against Rome? It’s incredible to think anyone could believe that."
Click to expand...
He's right. It's just some random verses advocating acts of violence to players and fans of a rival team. What's not to like?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rum & Black for 2, Zanjinho, Uncle Colm and 1 other person
saintKlopp said:
He's right. It's just some random verses advocating acts of violence to players and fans of a rival team. What's not to like?
Click to expand...

The dictatorship attitude permeates the entire club and has been exposed by the handling of the song and FFP allegations.

When accused of something they just offer denial. No acceptance, no apology, no alternative explanation. Just deny the accusation and hope there aren't any follow-up questions.

Unfortunately for City they can't just lock up their critics like they can in the UAE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Colm and johnsonsbaby
Why is Pep always whinging about what other people want? First it was how the media apparently wanted Liverpool to win the league, and now it's about people wanting to see City punished for their crimes:

“You are innocent until proved guilty and right now we are innocent. We’ll see in the future but I trust the club, I have spoken with the chairman and the CEO – I know what they did. If we did something wrong we’ll be banned, but at the moment we are innocent even if people are waiting for us to be guilty.”
 
Tbf I didn't get a Hillsborough reference from the words. It is time though that rival fans stopped with the 'victims' tag about anything and everything Liverpool related.

As for Pep, just apologise and be done with it. The more this goes on, the lack of class from seemingly the whole club is amplified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jenners04
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back