Response to Bayern Munich fans banners for next week

Very strange how fans from the German club that have won 10 league titles on the bounce, try and make a political point out of owners of two English clubs - one of which has won the PL title 5 times during the past 10 years and another club that has won it once during the past 10 years.
Exactly what is their point?
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Very strange how fans from the German club that have won 10 league titles on the bounce, try and make a political point out of owners of two English clubs - one of which has won the PL title 5 times during the past 10 years and another club that has won it once during the past 10 years.
Exactly what is their point?
Click to expand...
Same as our own English rags who only think a competition is fair and competitive if they win it every year. Best response to those banners is to play well in the next leg and dump them out the competition. If we get sucked in to some sort of banner/sponsorship pissing contest it could easily be spun by the media to backfire.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
German football is for (the rich) people?

Click to expand...

The responses to various comments on his post where Delaney desperately back tracks nonsensically when many people point out that Bayern has a similar wage bill and higher booked revenue than City (much of it from same party sponsorship) is true comedy in motion.

He went from implicitly stating that a financial chasm explained the difference in competitive outcomes to claiming he was only talking about the “sporting chasm”.

At which point several people asked why that is an indicator of anything, given that is cyclical (we won’t always dominate as we are) and how football has always worked.

Delaney simple stops responding at that point.

He obviously didn’t actually research his main thesis and is now been back in to a corner. After lashing out, he’s gotten timid and has decided to hide under the blanket he took with him.
 
SebastianBlue said:
The responses to various comments on his post where Delaney desperately back tracks nonsensically when many people point out that Bayern has a similar wage bill and higher booked revenue than City (much of it from same party sponsorship) is true comedy in motion.

He went from implicitly stating that a financial chasm explained the difference in competitive outcomes to claiming he was only talking about the “sporting chasm”.

At which point several people asked why that is an indicator of anything, given that is cyclical (we won’t always dominate as we are) and how football has always worked.

Delaney simple stops responding at that point.

He obviously didn’t actually research his main thesis and is now been back in to a corner. After lashing out, he’s gotten timid and has decided to hide under the blanket he took with him.
Click to expand...
Lol. Delaney properly seen his arse there.
 
SebastianBlue said:
The responses to various comments on his post where Delaney desperately back tracks nonsensically when many people point out that Bayern has a similar wage bill and higher booked revenue than City (much of it from same party sponsorship) is true comedy in motion.

He went from implicitly stating that a financial chasm explained the difference in competitive outcomes to claiming he was only talking about the “sporting chasm”.

At which point several people asked why that is an indicator of anything, given that is cyclical (we won’t always dominate as we are) and how football has always worked.

Delaney simple stops responding at that point.

He obviously didn’t actually research his main thesis and is now been back in to a corner. After lashing out, he’s gotten timid and has decided to hide under the blanket he took with him.
Click to expand...
Yep, basically claiming "someone else wrote that bit" and then saying it's been changed. Now I know it's not unusual for a journalist not to write their own headlines or subheadings, but you have to wonder why, if as he claims he was purely talking about sporting merit, someone else would have read his article and thought that was an appropriate thing to add.

Could it be that...
1. He's such a shit writer that another professional writer reading his material can't understand his main message?
2. He's spent so much of the past 5 years ranting about City's finances that anyone with the job of writing his headlines just assumes that must be what he's talking about?
3. He's a fucking liar who fully intended to write an article whinging about City's unfair financial advantage as is his agenda in every article, and then had to backtrack when everyone pointed out that he'd done no research whatsoever and got basic facts wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'm With Stupid said:
Yep, basically claiming "someone else wrote that bit" and then saying it's been changed. Now I know it's not unusual for a journalist not to write their own headlines or subheadings, but you have to wonder why, if as he claims he was purely talking about sporting merit, someone else would have read his article and thought that was an appropriate thing to add.

Could it be that...
1. He's such a shit writer that another professional writer reading his material can't understand his main message?
2. He's spent so much of the past 5 years ranting about City's finances that anyone with the job of writing his headlines just assumes that much be what he's talking about?
3. He's a fucking liar who fully intended to write an article whinging about City's unfair financial advantage as is his agenda in every article, and then had to backtrack when everyone pointed out that he'd done no research whatsoever and got basic facts wrong.
Click to expand...
Can I have multiple votes?
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Yep, basically claiming "someone else wrote that bit" and then saying it's been changed. Now I know it's not unusual for a journalist not to write their own headlines or subheadings, but you have to wonder why, if as he claims he was purely talking about sporting merit, someone else would have read his article and thought that was an appropriate thing to add.

Could it be that...
1. He's such a shit writer that another professional writer reading his material can't understand his main message?
2. He's spent so much of the past 5 years ranting about City's finances that anyone with the job of writing his headlines just assumes that must be what he's talking about?
3. He's a fucking liar who fully intended to write an article whinging about City's unfair financial advantage as is his agenda in every article, and then had to backtrack when everyone pointed out that he'd done no research whatsoever and got basic facts wrong.
Click to expand...
Actually all three of those are equally plausible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top