Yes - we've not helped ourselves much by often talking about 1997-99. It's an absolutely important era but uncharacteristic of the club. Sadly, the wider world believes we were (at best) a third tier club who got lucky with money. I was interviewed about 3 years ago by a Turkish TV company who wanted to understand what City was. I spent ages with them and did loads of stuff (like take them to the site of Maine Road) and spell out what the club was. Then we did an interview and the interviewer said "you'll have to forgive me for how we start but it's important to set the context." I thought that was odd but was prepared (I've done loads of interviews where they've said MCFC has no history so I have a few stock phrases ready). Anyway she opened with: "In Turkey there is a saying amongst football fans. 'It goes Liverpool have the history, Manchester United the success and City - the bastards - they have the money!' How do you feel about that?" My response was "Well, if we're talking about history.... City won a major trophy years before United, Arsenal, Chelsea. They won a major European trophy before Liverpool. City hold record attendances that those clubs cannot match. If we're talking about success, City were the first Manchester side to win major trophy and prior to 1945 they were the undisputed giants of Manchester football. If we're talking money.... Liverpool was created by a man who owned a ground and wanted to make money out of it; United received considerable investment to transform their club - twice! - and Ferguson's 1989 squad was the most expensive ever assembled in Britain at that time."
They were actually happy with that because it allowed them to get the right message across. If only we could do the same with all other media, especially those in Britain who still go on about the investment as if City have never been a giant club.
Indeed, indeed, indeed.. Agree with all the points you raise but to to pick up on one element, namely the financial side of football.. In my lifetime following City I’ve seen, just for examples (and there are many others besides)
- Sunderland’s ‘Bank Of England’ club
- Everton’s ‘Millionaires’ club (made possible by John Moores’s personal guarantee of underwritten transfer dealings, plus an initial loan of £56k to finance new players, including ‘The Golden Vision’, Alex Young.. a boost to Everton’s finances of at least 25% of their earnings at the time)
- Similar investment at Liverpool by the Moores family when they were still a 2nd Division outfit, kick-starting the Shankly era
- Nottingham Forest breaking the world record buying a goalkeeper and the first £1M player on the way to their European success
- United’s late 80s spending under Ferguson, as you point out
- Arsenal’s spending to kick-start the Wenger era, a la Shankly, only with noughts on..
- Newcastle’s splurge under Sir John Hall in the mid-90s
- Leeds’s disastrous attempt to compete in Europe under Ridsdale..
Then Chelsea and City do the same, only on a bigger scale as the costs of entry have skyrocketed post- Premier and Champions Leagues, and get vilified for ‘ruining football’ when it’s always been the same story down the ages that, as Dylan wrote, ‘Money doesn’t talk, it swears’
I hope that the dignified way our owners have done business since the takeover will continue and all of us Blues behave in similar fashion as successes and failures occur. If we can pass that on to future Blues, then the good fortune/success we’ve enjoyed since the investment came in will be even sweeter still in my view!
