Cool, an "I've supported City longer than you" post. I was there during the lower league years. So what? Also, you really, really don't get Bob. It's been at least 6 years, how are you not getting this?
On ? Did I guess correct? Love him Bob makes me giggle mostly. Especially yesterday, now that was hook line and sinker.
I thought he did ok, like I said, workmanlike. Puts himself about though and wants to be involved, needs to start a few more times and I think he'd do well.
I read that as "womanlike". Must be a hair thingy. Hope he never gets dropped, there'll be a non stop avalanche of allegations thrown at Slutty until something sticks & he gets fired off.
Glad I didn't go it looks a bit rowdy. The stewards need to start doing their job please log in to view this image
Not really, him and Meyler occupied centre and right midfield with Meyler dropping a bit deeper from time to time and Irvine going forward.
Timbuktu wa theres one bloke asleep in that pic. By the way there was another block that was the quiter section. I sat all game, which was nice in a West Stand Upper sort of way.
Timbuktu!!! I particularly like the fan right in the corner with the Jeff ratcliffe hat on. Wouldn't mind one of them
You've built yourself a reputation for sarcasm, which means I rarely treat any of your posts seriously, so at the risk of being whooshed I think you have brought up some interesting points such as: 1. Where would City be now if there had been continuous harmony between the owners and the supporters? Would we be where we are? Still struggling in the Prem? Or a decent mid table PL club with reasonable aspirations to climb higher? 2. Was there a less confrontational and more mature way to deal with the name change issue? For example if both sides had allowed the change for a specific trial period to test whether the Allam's theory of conquering Eastern markets actually had any legs. Of course if it was proved ineffective (which was pretty likely) there would have been no argument to keep it. 3. On balance what have we actually gained for the satisfaction of sticking two fingers up at the Allams? We're in the same place we were when he bought the club, except there's no real prospect of anyone putting serious investment in now. 4. How far are you willing to see City drop to pay for this great victory? League 1? League 2? Non-League? Non-existence?
Conquering Eastern markets was never the motivation for the name change. Even the Allams stopped pretending it was about three years ago.
1. You're entire argument is flawed if you're basing anything to do with supppprting your home club with the importance of league position only 2. I've never heard anything as ridiculous in my life. No one, not even you, can honestly think that if supporters had supported the name change for a 'trial period' that the Allams would have admitted it was ineffective and changed it back again later ?!?!?!?! 3. You don't have to 'gain' something by voicing your opinion. Some people voice their opinion because they have a set of moral values and they think it's important to stick to them. This often causes them to lose rather than gain, but guess what...it is still the right thing to do 4. League 2, although once there I'd probably reassess and accept lower
You start out by noting Bobs sarcastic leanings and then go on to make a post that his Bobness himself would have been proud of.
1. Most supporters want their club to do well. 2. Confrontation between two stubborn adversaries only goes one way. That's why we have diplomats and through diplomacy tough issues can be resolved. 3. The trouble is there was far more insults voiced than opinions. We let the school bullies handle the negotiations. 4. Well at least you'll be able to tell your Man U supporting grand kids you kept your principles.
Craigo 1. Most supporters want their club to do well. Yes-What relevance has that to you focussing on the effect of trying to keep the club's identity on league position? 2. Confrontation between two stubborn adversaries only goes one way. That's why we have diplomats and through diplomacy tough issues can be resolved. What relevance does this have to your laughable suggestion that supporters should have accepted the name of the club changing for a trial period? That's not diplomacy, is submissiveness 3. The trouble is there was far more insults voiced than opinions. We let the school bullies handle the negotiations. Regardless of your irrelevant opinions, let's focus on the one you originally posted, again. You asked what was gained. I don't necessarily think something has to be gained, but to be specific the 'gain' was the club playing name being unchanged and football authorities looking to make it more difficult in future for any other club owner to try the same 4. Well at least you'll be able to tell your Man U supporting grand kids you kept your principles Don't judge other people's families by the values of your own
