Are City the only club to have received ‘controversial’ finance?

[cleavers]

Same here; saw the name but can't remember why I know it

Did he used to post on MCIVTA many years ago ? Name rings a bell for me too.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Did he used to post on MCIVTA many years ago ?

Yes. Ernie was a fixture on the MEN Online forum and in MCIVTA.

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

Did he used to post on MCIVTA many years ago ? Name rings a bell for me too.

Cheers.

 

[Thomas Hearns]

I would question the premise of the opening post.

I disagree with the notion of 'morally questionable'. I think it's a meaningless concept. All that matters is whether the funding is legal or not.

All else is neither here nor there.

This hits the nail on the head. Everything is morally questionable today in the tiny hypocritical minds of the snowflakes who shout loudest on social media.

Fuck em.

 

[M18CTID]

I would question the premise of the opening post.

I disagree with the notion of 'morally questionable'. I think it's a meaningless concept. All that matters is whether the funding is legal or not.

All else is neither here nor there.

Sorry Jack - we can't have Arsenal fans posting sensible comments on here ;)

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I would question the premise of the opening post.

I disagree with the notion of 'morally questionable'. I think it's a meaningless concept. All that matters is whether the funding is legal or not.

All else is neither here nor there.

This hits the nail on the head. Everything is morally questionable today in the tiny hypocritical minds of the snowflakes who shout loudest on social media.

UNfortunately yes. This is the case.
The governing bodies who run football domestically and internationally are themselves morally questionable if you think about it.
Said it pages back. The whole morality/human rights issue is tribal oneupmanship and totally cheapens the real issues of human rights.
That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Shirley]

Did he used to post on MCIVTA many years ago ? Name rings a bell for me too.

Yes I now recall his posts on MCIVTA which were a godsend for me in those days, Ernie if my memory serves me correct was exiled in the US, an ex merchant navy man?

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Tifo has done another video on City, with another bait-like Anti-City title(much like "Are City the dirtiest PL team?" which I pulled them up on and got them to change). Much like that video the actual video content is a lot more balanced than the title they gave it suggests. Shame really because they make good videos, with well researched data but they are clearly lowering themselves to click baiting and choosing subjects to pander to a certain demographic(City hating boneheads).



I've replied again(couldn't help myself, thank god I don't have a twitter account) and suggested some revisions such as UEFA's amendments to the rules after City had already submitted their accounts in accordance to the original rules. Also suggested they've overlooked that broadcasting views have a greater importance to a sponsor than shirt sales(that's what the kitmaker deal is all about, where City has been shafted the most and where the next revenue boost will hopefully come from) world class, record breaking, title winning players beamed to millions(and millions) of homes wearing the sponsors name vs porky united shirt wearing rags with their arses hanging out the back of their trousers? Which image do they think the shirt sponsors want? They could have offered a full breakdown of what sponsorship revenue other clubs are getting, which may suggest our current deal is possibly still undervalued. Do we even have confirmation how much the renegotiated deal is worth? We could do a United and invent new things to sponsor "short sponsor", "sock sponsor".

Worth a watch anyway, it even has some digs at UEFA in it but we know Rags and Dippers will cover their ears for those bits.

I think they’re the best kind of titles for the side of the argument we’re on. It’s he kind of title that would draw in the idiot side of the argument and when they watch it their whole argument falls down in front of them

 

[Metalartin]

I think they’re the best kind of titles for the side of the argument we’re on. It’s he kind of title that would draw in the idiot side of the argument and when they watch it their whole argument falls down in front of them

I think you are overestimating the attention span of some of these idiots, who will just read the title and use that to confirm their beliefs, ignoring the whole video.

Fair play to them for changing the dirtiest team one though, they even replied to me on that complaint so they do read the comments for feedback. I didn't like that because of the amount of potential leg breakers that were being ignored and that could have be used to alter perceptions and say that we bring it on ourselves for playing dirty. Tactical fouls are not dirty at all and that was definitely out of place and it looks like they agreed in the end.

I just made some suggestions for this one because "controversial" is not really anything to get too upset about, I understand that much and I doubt they do edits but it would have been nice to include the fast one UEFA pulled on the club after they submitted their accounts, would have been nice to talk about us being one of the most watched teams under Pep when talking about sponsorship worth.

Have you seen the Glazers tifo vid? Much more negative than ours in my book.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Have to say I'm not a fan of this thread title? Why does the poster assume we have received morally questionable finance? Sounds like the kind of stuff that a Liverpool keyboard warrior would post?