It’ll go on forever, this. I’m not as arsed as I was the last time was posting as it’s obvious we have a section of fans of a Liverpool ilk, who are offended by everything.
I’ve heard enough from rival supporters to smile when they claim bias for us and against them, as it just confirms we are now treated like their club, the top clubs. I’d rather that than be signing Gerry Creaney and our club is loved by everyone out of sympathy. We are the elite, if not THEE elite. It comes at a cost. A cost worth paying and that is the last I’ll post on this thread. This season has shown how we are favoured, accepted and now taken over all the the other elite clubs. If you listen closely you’ll hear it too.
Enjoy.
I'm reluctant to join the queue of posters jumping down your throat because you dare to disagree but I would like to make one point, if I may....
I think it might have been our second home game of the season when an opposing forward launched himself into the air, caught our goalkeeper in the face and rendered him in urgent need of medical attention.
To be fair to the attacker, I don't believe anybody thought there was any malice in his actions. The ball was in play, he felt he had to go for it and, when he didn't get it, everybody else felt he had to go. That should have been the end of it. Except, as you know, it wasn't.
The two clowns in the Sky TV commentary box set forth a theory that a great injustice had been perpetrated, not on the goalkeeper who needed eight stitches, a stretcher and an oxygen mask but on the forward who had (most probably not maliciously, as I say but) inarguably led with his foot several feet off of the ground without any care or consideration for the well-being of his opponent.
They proceeded to spend the remainder of the game ignoring some scintillating football from our team and, instead, urging the viewer to believe that every City transgression was worthy of review with an eye to issuing a post-dated red card. All interviews after the game concentrated upon the sending-off with a clear inference that a great injustice had cost the visitors dearly.
The printed media, seeing the value of playing up to this narrative, in many cases seized upon it, in others, at the very least, validated it - despite the clear and obvious fact that it was utter, utter bollocks.
So, why am I rehashing this, you might be wondering?
This chain of events was not, even in the wildest of imaginations, a manifestation of some greater, clandestine conspiracy. It stemmed from two individuals in the commentary box - neither of whom have ever liked City, I suspect - putting their tainted view of an action, front and centre and other outlets realising some commercial value in acknowledging it rather than simply dismissing for the petty, deluded bollocks it rather was.
The trouble is, the story doesn't just end there. It continued to have ramifications throughout the season. Time after time, opposition players left nasty, vicious tackles in on City players, throughout the remainder of the season. Largely, they did so with impugnity.
Undoubtedly, many other clubs' fans will point to seriously violent challenges upon their players that went without due punishment. That's part of football.
I doubt though that they could point to Match of the Day pundits urging opposition players to assault theirs - and I doubt too that they could realistically argue, as we City fans can, that, having witnessed the shitstorm arising from such a blatant red card in September, referees were intimidated with regard to sending off any further players for foul play against us. So much so, in fact, with the exception of the final minute of extra time v "plucky Cardiff" (the BBC's description, not mine), after 90 minutes of employing tactics that more resembled British Bulldog than Association Football, I cannot recall any other opposition player being sent off against City for the rest of the season, despite some entirely vicious assaults masquerading as tackles in about ten occasions.
So, yeah, I get it. You work with United fans and they tell you every day that Fernandinho leads a charmed existence and you somewhat believe it - or, if not, you at least, think that the argument somehow negates any claims of bias made by City fans.
That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion - and yes, some of the tin foil helmet stuff floating about can be embarrassing.
You're wrong though. City have undoubtedly been the victims of a loosely orchestrated campaign of bias. The tale set out above is just one example. There have been others - some of it quite blatant - from Sky displaying doctored statistics to BT accidentally forgetting to include City in its Champions League promotions to the BBC saluting "Bertie" and so on...
Again, I don't think it's a particularly well thought out campaign. Hating on City is more a flag of convenience for hacks wishing to appeal to both of the big red tribal bases.
It undoubtedly exists though and - in one manifestation of it at least - our players are being put at very real physical risk because of it.
Supporters have every right to call it out when they see it. They don't deserve to be ridiculed or spoken down to for expressing an opinion about it. They might get carried away in their interpretation of its origins but let's not pretend it's a figment of the imagination. It's very real.
