United thread 2017/18

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leto said:
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057834962/430?

From an Irish forum with no hint of irony:
Click to expand...

"...a stadium which they were given for free." Absolutey no sense of irony bearing in mind that City weren't given a stadium for free but the rags were. Sugar Daddy John Henry Davies paid 100% of the construction cost of the swamp and gave it to the club. But tell any rag (and I mean any rag) that and they simply won't have it. So to back up the fact I checked the official United website (I know, I know) and plucked from it this quote. "Davies himself paid for the building work which commenced in 1908." Quoting that really shuts the fuckers up.
 
laserblue said:
"...a stadium which they were given for free." Absolutey no sense of irony bearing in mind that City weren't given a stadium for free but the rags were. Sugar Daddy John Henry Davies paid 100% of the construction cost of the swamp and gave it to the club. But tell any rag (and I mean any rag) that and they simply won't have it. So to back up the fact I checked the official United website (I know, I know) and plucked from it this quote. "Davies himself paid for the building work which commenced in 1908." Quoting that really shuts the fuckers up.
Click to expand...
And a total redevelopment of a stand was funded either by the FA or Manchester council so the swamp could be used for the 1966 World Cup
 
Wesley Sneijer has announced his retirement from international football - presumably to extend his club career so there is hope for this summers transfer market rumour mongers yet......to the rags for £3trillion on £1bn pw?
 
laserblue said:
"...a stadium which they were given for free." Absolutey no sense of irony bearing in mind that City weren't given a stadium for free but the rags were. Sugar Daddy John Henry Davies paid 100% of the construction cost of the swamp and gave it to the club. But tell any rag (and I mean any rag) that and they simply won't have it. So to back up the fact I checked the official United website (I know, I know) and plucked from it this quote. "Davies himself paid for the building work which commenced in 1908." Quoting that really shuts the fuckers up.
Click to expand...

I like the next page where one gambled because he was bored. I 'bet' half his house is in cash converters.
 
denislawsbackheel said:
Lovely two page spread in today’s Times about the crisis the scum are facing as their Under 23 team are bottom of the league and 5 points off safety, facing almost certain relegation.
It mentions that even the scum management accept they are crap. One of them was farmed out on loan to S****horpe but came back because he could only get one game for th3m before being dropped.
Click to expand...

5 pts with a game in hand though against the side above them. 13 goals in 17 games though...
I assume that City still play youth teams in higher age groups, but we're not much better this season. Liverpool appear to have raced off to start with and have lost 4 of the last 5.

http://www.sportstats.com/soccer/england/premier-league-2/
 
manimanc said:
G5THrpq.jpg

Can we cross any off?
Click to expand...

1112222.png
 
laserblue said:
"...a stadium which they were given for free." Absolutey no sense of irony bearing in mind that City weren't given a stadium for free but the rags were. Sugar Daddy John Henry Davies paid 100% of the construction cost of the swamp and gave it to the club. But tell any rag (and I mean any rag) that and they simply won't have it. So to back up the fact I checked the official United website (I know, I know) and plucked from it this quote. "Davies himself paid for the building work which commenced in 1908." Quoting that really shuts the fuckers up.
Click to expand...
Is there a set of supporters that know less about the bulk of their club's history than united fans? I'm not basing this merely on postings on the internet, but real life encounters. Most have never heard of John Henry Davies, James Gibson and many have not even heard of Louis Edwards, in spite of being intimately aware of his son. That absence of knowledge is not something that would ordinarily be worthy of criticism, but conflated with a tedious tendency to pontificate about history, it creates a target that is far too difficult to ignore.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Is there a set of supporters that know less about the bulk of their club's history than united fans? I'm not basing this merely on postings on the internet, but real life encounters. Most have never heard of John Henry Davies, James Gibson and many have not even heard of Louis Edwards, in spite of being intimately aware of his son. That absence of knowledge is not something that would ordinarily be worthy of criticism, but conflated with a tedious tendency to pontificate about history, it creates a target that is far too difficult to ignore.
Click to expand...
I believe it's called selective memory.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Is there a set of supporters that know less about the bulk of their club's history than united fans? I'm not basing this merely on postings on the internet, but real life encounters. Most have never heard of John Henry Davies, James Gibson and many have not even heard of Louis Edwards, in spite of being intimately aware of his son. That absence of knowledge is not something that would ordinarily be worthy of criticism, but conflated with a tedious tendency to pontificate about history, it creates a target that is far too difficult to ignore.
Click to expand...

might as well call them the NRA, National Rags Association.

  • Fed a diet of heavily targeted and censored propaganda and bile from selected news sources.
  • Believe they have a right to their position regardless of the changing times.
  • When someone else buys a star player for a lot of money and beats them, the solution is not a fairer system for all to ensure competition but to state there's nothing wrong with spending money as long as it's only them and people like them who spend it, and that the problem is that people like them need more money whereas the pesky foreigners coming in and lower class upstarts who've got money have got too much of it and they need to be penalised to ensure that they stay in control.
  • Promote their biggest supporters and advocates into positions of power across the governance of football to ensure they are protected, can influence policy and punish their rivals.
  • Have the rest of the authorities turn a blind eye to their misdemeanours and generally undesirable behaviour both on-and-off the pitch and when incidents occur, make sure it's brushed over and a suitable narrative is formed. When one of their own does a dastardly deed, these authorities are pressured and cajoled into making sure that they are defended with a suitable narrative such as "it wasn't as bad as it looked, he didn't really mean it, it's just part of his game, he was provoked" whereas if a far less severe "incident" occurs involving one of their rivals it's immediately blown out of all proportion and serious sanctions imposed, because they're "oil rich, foreign, aggressive thugs who cry wolf but are set to destroy our game and the way things should be, what did you expect? they won the lottery and were always lower class and that's how they behave, just listen to the way they talk".
fits them like a glove.
 
Ashley Young says that the Scum never talk about City in an interview where he talks about City. :-)
 
BJL_City said:
might as well call them the NRA, National Rags Association.

  • Fed a diet of heavily targeted and censored propaganda and bile from selected news sources.
  • Believe they have a right to their position regardless of the changing times.
  • When someone else buys a star player for a lot of money and beats them, the solution is not a fairer system for all to ensure competition but to state there's nothing wrong with spending money as long as it's only them and people like them who spend it, and that the problem is that people like them need more money whereas the pesky foreigners coming in and lower class upstarts who've got money have got too much of it and they need to be penalised to ensure that they stay in control.
  • Promote their biggest supporters and advocates into positions of power across the governance of football to ensure they are protected, can influence policy and punish their rivals.
  • Have the rest of the authorities turn a blind eye to their misdemeanours and generally undesirable behaviour both on-and-off the pitch and when incidents occur, make sure it's brushed over and a suitable narrative is formed. When one of their own does a dastardly deed, these authorities are pressured and cajoled into making sure that they are defended with a suitable narrative such as "it wasn't as bad as it looked, he didn't really mean it, it's just part of his game, he was provoked" whereas if a far less severe "incident" occurs involving one of their rivals it's immediately blown out of all proportion and serious sanctions imposed, because they're "oil rich, foreign, aggressive thugs who cry wolf but are set to destroy our game and the way things should be, what did you expect? they won the lottery and were always lower class and that's how they behave, just listen to the way they talk".
fits them like a glove.
Click to expand...
Or alternatively, most of them could just be a bit thick.
 
Many of their fans seem to be happy basking in the illusion that our runaway season was created by unfair means.
They are resigned to fighting for a best of the rest trophy effectively elevating us to belong with the RM and Barca status of yesteryear.

I am happy to accept their version of congratulation and understand their disappointment that their expensively assembled team of individuals has been unable to even challenge for the PL title.
May I wish them well in their quest to keep hold of runners up to City but the media will ensure that concentration on that secondary race will have maximum exposure so they can keep up the illusion of success that their history richly deserves.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Is there a set of supporters that know less about the bulk of their club's history than united fans? I'm not basing this merely on postings on the internet, but real life encounters. Most have never heard of John Henry Davies, James Gibson and many have not even heard of Louis Edwards, in spite of being intimately aware of his son. That absence of knowledge is not something that would ordinarily be worthy of criticism, but conflated with a tedious tendency to pontificate about history, it creates a target that is far too difficult to ignore.
Click to expand...
There certainly isn't, I schooled a Rag tosser in the pub yesterday about Davies and Gibson, and he'd never heard of them.
You get this tedious 'No History' claptrap incessantly, point out 1936/7 league champions were City, and the crackpot says,
'That was donkey's years ago!' So it seems it's alright to bang on about history, as long as someone doesn't mention the past.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
There certainly isn't, I schooled a Rag tosser in the pub yesterday about Davies and Gibson, and he'd never heard of them.
You get this tedious 'No History' claptrap incessantly, point out 1936/7 league champions were City, and the crackpot says,
'That was donkey's years ago!' So it seems it's alright to bang on about history, as long as someone doesn't mention the past.
Click to expand...
It's the same as united fans who talk about their game with Liverpool having 'always' been their biggest game. It could only make any meaningful claim to such a title since the mid-1970's, which means it covers less than a third of each club's....errr....history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top