halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,748
"Longest serving champions in the history of English football, excluding the suspension due to the second world war,
You'll never sing that!"
I suspect we won't, either. Shame ....
Media Discussion - 2023/24
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
"Longest serving champions in the history of English football, excluding the suspension due to the second world war,
You'll never sing that!"
I suspect we won't, either. Shame ....
Rochdale Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 3,382
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Maybe not but, it'd be fucking funny.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Could the winners of the 1938-39 season (Everton) be properly said to be Champions in 1946 when competitive football resumed, as the 1939-40 season did commence, albeit for three games?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,748
"You'll never sing that. You'll never sing that.
Longest serving champions in the history of English football, excluding the suspension due to the second world war, and even then that is disputed as the pre-war season was abandoned after only three games.
You'll never sing that."
It gets better and more catchy every time :)
I rarely comment on this thread - too much paranoia, particularly about things like Ally McCoist's commentary, but I've just caught up on the Jonathan Liew article.
It's sheer poison. And clever. What City fan could read this
"There is a school of thought out there that City is a club driven by grudges and enmities, fuelled by antagonism and spoiling for scraps at any opportunity. Perhaps this is true at a boardroom level, or on the wild frontiers of the internet, where City fans remain unrivalled in their capacity to nurture conspiracy theories and illusory slights, desperate to be hated."
and not scream that that's the sort of crap that shows that the "slights" are not "illusory"!
John Crace though really is funny (in a piece about Spurs fans not wanting to hand Arsenal the title) and the matchday thread suggests there's some truth in this:
"City are also a hard team to love these days. They and their supporters have changed from the perennial underdogs of 15 years ago. They have become bloated on the success bought with petrodollars. They have lost their charm. Become just another footballing mega corp. They now think they deserve what they have got. Sad, really."
I don't think it is true, but I'm sure part of wanting more and more success is because every achievement is diminished by "they're not a great team until ..." and they don't like it when we then do it.
www.theguardian.com
www.theguardian.com
It's sheer poison. And clever. What City fan could read this
"There is a school of thought out there that City is a club driven by grudges and enmities, fuelled by antagonism and spoiling for scraps at any opportunity. Perhaps this is true at a boardroom level, or on the wild frontiers of the internet, where City fans remain unrivalled in their capacity to nurture conspiracy theories and illusory slights, desperate to be hated."
and not scream that that's the sort of crap that shows that the "slights" are not "illusory"!
John Crace though really is funny (in a piece about Spurs fans not wanting to hand Arsenal the title) and the matchday thread suggests there's some truth in this:
"City are also a hard team to love these days. They and their supporters have changed from the perennial underdogs of 15 years ago. They have become bloated on the success bought with petrodollars. They have lost their charm. Become just another footballing mega corp. They now think they deserve what they have got. Sad, really."
I don't think it is true, but I'm sure part of wanting more and more success is because every achievement is diminished by "they're not a great team until ..." and they don't like it when we then do it.
Is this a real Premier League title race or a skilfully maintained illusion? | Jonathan Liew
Intrigue, mind games and a credible chance of Manchester City slipping up are all missing from this supposedly epic battle
www.theguardian.com
The ultimate dilemma for United and Spurs fans: what if winning hands your rivals the title?
In Manchester, City’s fiercest rivals can do them a favour. In north London, a Tottenham victory could gift the Gunners the title. Two Guardian writers’ reflect on the worst of both worlds
www.theguardian.com
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,748
I rarely comment on this thread - too much paranoia, particularly about things like Ally McCoist's commentary, but I've just caught up on the Jonathan Liew article.
It's sheer poison. And clever. What City fan could read this
"There is a school of thought out there that City is a club driven by grudges and enmities, fuelled by antagonism and spoiling for scraps at any opportunity. Perhaps this is true at a boardroom level, or on the wild frontiers of the internet, where City fans remain unrivalled in their capacity to nurture conspiracy theories and illusory slights, desperate to be hated."
and not scream that that's the sort of crap that shows that the "slights" are not "illusory"!
John Crace though really is funny (in a piece about Spurs fans not wanting to hand Arsenal the title) and the matchday thread suggests there's some truth in this:
"City are also a hard team to love these days. They and their supporters have changed from the perennial underdogs of 15 years ago. They have become bloated on the success bought with petrodollars. They have lost their charm. Become just another footballing mega corp. They now think they deserve what they have got. Sad, really."
I don't think it is true, but I'm sure part of wanting more and more success is because every achievement is diminished by "they're not a great team until ..." and they don't like it when we then do it.
Is this a real Premier League title race or a skilfully maintained illusion? | Jonathan Liew
Intrigue, mind games and a credible chance of Manchester City slipping up are all missing from this supposedly epic battle
The ultimate dilemma for United and Spurs fans: what if winning hands your rivals the title?
In Manchester, City’s fiercest rivals can do them a favour. In north London, a Tottenham victory could gift the Gunners the title. Two Guardian writers’ reflect on the worst of both worlds
Sorry, but it's bollocks. "They now think they deserve what they have got. Sad, really."
How can you not read that and think "absolute bollocks". Which fanbase has ever said after winning anything "we don't deserve it, we are not worthy".
And what is it with all these journalists explaining to everybody how we feel / should feel about winning. Seriously, they can all fuck off. A Spurs fan telling us how we should feel about winning anything at all. What the fuck would he know? The ****.
Sorry, rant over. Otherwise a good post.
BringBackSwales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 31,785
Liew is talking utter bollocks, as usual the red ****. I don’t know a single City fan who talks in terms of we deserve it - everyone I know says how much they are living the dream and how FORTUNATE we are having the best owners and the best manager in the world. Jonathan Liew you know fuck all about our fanbase you thick lying ****I rarely comment on this thread - too much paranoia, particularly about things like Ally McCoist's commentary, but I've just caught up on the Jonathan Liew article.
It's sheer poison. And clever. What City fan could read this
"There is a school of thought out there that City is a club driven by grudges and enmities, fuelled by antagonism and spoiling for scraps at any opportunity. Perhaps this is true at a boardroom level, or on the wild frontiers of the internet, where City fans remain unrivalled in their capacity to nurture conspiracy theories and illusory slights, desperate to be hated."
and not scream that that's the sort of crap that shows that the "slights" are not "illusory"!
John Crace though really is funny (in a piece about Spurs fans not wanting to hand Arsenal the title) and the matchday thread suggests there's some truth in this:
"City are also a hard team to love these days. They and their supporters have changed from the perennial underdogs of 15 years ago. They have become bloated on the success bought with petrodollars. They have lost their charm. Become just another footballing mega corp. They now think they deserve what they have got. Sad, really."
I don't think it is true, but I'm sure part of wanting more and more success is because every achievement is diminished by "they're not a great team until ..." and they don't like it when we then do it.
Is this a real Premier League title race or a skilfully maintained illusion? | Jonathan Liew
Intrigue, mind games and a credible chance of Manchester City slipping up are all missing from this supposedly epic battle
The ultimate dilemma for United and Spurs fans: what if winning hands your rivals the title?
In Manchester, City’s fiercest rivals can do them a favour. In north London, a Tottenham victory could gift the Gunners the title. Two Guardian writers’ reflect on the worst of both worlds
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Crace’s observation is more considered, nuanced, founded in truth and worthy of reasoned debate - although it fails to appreciate that City supporters in their mid twenties will have spanned the whole of those 15 years as the entirety of their active support of the club; so their football supporting personalities have been forged in wholly different circumstances from those that preceded them. The changing of personnel is something that is frequently overlooked when asserting that a club’s support has ‘changed’, as ours unquestionably has. That said, I think much of our older supporter ‘deserves’ this as much as any other supporters and his failure to distinguish in that way still suggests a somewhat simplistic approach to his argument.I rarely comment on this thread - too much paranoia, particularly about things like Ally McCoist's commentary, but I've just caught up on the Jonathan Liew article.
It's sheer poison. And clever. What City fan could read this
"There is a school of thought out there that City is a club driven by grudges and enmities, fuelled by antagonism and spoiling for scraps at any opportunity. Perhaps this is true at a boardroom level, or on the wild frontiers of the internet, where City fans remain unrivalled in their capacity to nurture conspiracy theories and illusory slights, desperate to be hated."
and not scream that that's the sort of crap that shows that the "slights" are not "illusory"!
John Crace though really is funny (in a piece about Spurs fans not wanting to hand Arsenal the title) and the matchday thread suggests there's some truth in this:
"City are also a hard team to love these days. They and their supporters have changed from the perennial underdogs of 15 years ago. They have become bloated on the success bought with petrodollars. They have lost their charm. Become just another footballing mega corp. They now think they deserve what they have got. Sad, really."
I don't think it is true, but I'm sure part of wanting more and more success is because every achievement is diminished by "they're not a great team until ..." and they don't like it when we then do it.
Is this a real Premier League title race or a skilfully maintained illusion? | Jonathan Liew
Intrigue, mind games and a credible chance of Manchester City slipping up are all missing from this supposedly epic battle
The ultimate dilemma for United and Spurs fans: what if winning hands your rivals the title?
In Manchester, City’s fiercest rivals can do them a favour. In north London, a Tottenham victory could gift the Gunners the title. Two Guardian writers’ reflect on the worst of both worlds
Liew, on the other hand, made a bald assertion that our supporters possess a characteristic more extensively than any other, which is objectively wrong. Liverpool supporters are far better exemplars. He also did so without providing any supporting evidence or ancillary argument to back up his claim. So, it isn’t quite as clever as you suggest as he has expressly and definitively nailed his colours to a mast that is much easier to argue against than what Crace has said.
As both will doubtless appreciate, words are powerful weapons but they can also make you a hostage to fortune, especially in the age we live. Liew has always struck me as far smarter than the most of his Whatsapp cohort, but I wouldn’t say what he has written there in that paragraph is at all clever; and the fact he appears to have unilaterally cut off the oxygen of at least some of his self-publicity in the last 24 hours suggests that in some way he may recognise that. Seems too much of a coincidence to me.
Making such a definitive assertion, without anything to back it up is not clever. Making yourself a hostage to fortune is not clever. And inviting ridicule upon yourself for being a spineless **** isn’t clever either.
Clever people don’t always do clever things.