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

bobom said:
The answer to the question you've asked is pretty clear. Obviously other clubs have. But as a moral statement, that's not much of a conclusion. It doesn't make it better that plenty of other clubs have also received morally dubious investment. It's still broadly dodgy.

Don't get me wrong, I love our club, and i'd rath erthe club was rich and successful than poor and underperforming. But I'd rather still we were rich and successful and that the money came from another source. There's no looking past that, and it does make me uncomfortable, to be honest.

Whether other clubs are in the same boat is neither here nor there.
Click to expand...
You could say that about ANY club, successful or not. At some stage in it's history, there will be skeletons in the cupboard of each club that officials don't want you to know about.
How many clubs are sponsored by betting companies, breweries, etc, which pander to human misery? The list is endless.
I find the final sentence very strange in that respect. You're saying it's fine for other clubs to have "questionable " means of raising money, but not us? Give over, and don't apply dual standards.
 
Let me put it another way: am I and millions of others in this country morally questionable because I happily fill up their car with oil from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE et al instead of cycling about or using electric transport?

It's the hypocrisy from the majority that annoys me.
 
As someone born in 1960, I probably ate some of the meat supplied by a certain Mr Someone - horse meat/condemned meat. His son takes over the club and is discovered to be a filthy, dirty, voyeur, peeping tom pervert.
 
Social media arguments about City's owners/empty seats/FFP generally follow this pattern:

"The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building"
"George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think we can be entirely absolved from blame on the imperialistic front."
"Mad as a bicycle!" (With a swift "And if you don't agree, you're deluded" thrown in.)

Not worth bothering trying to educate an idiot who thinks he knows it all already.
 
crazyg said:
You could say that about ANY club, successful or not. At some stage in it's history, there will be skeletons in the cupboard of each club that officials don't want you to know about.
How many clubs are sponsored by betting companies, breweries, etc, which pander to human misery? The list is endless.
I find the final sentence very strange in that respect. You're saying it's fine for other clubs to have "questionable " means of raising money, but not us? Give over, and don't apply dual standards.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we shouldn't use the fact that other clubs' sources of funding are dodgy, too, as an excuse. And this whole thread suggests that if some other clubs aren't squeaky clean either, that excuses the investment from City's morally questionable owners.
 
Football is a reflection of the society we live in ,it is easy to construct 'moral' arguments left right and centre. Personally football and Manchester City in particular is an escape from all that so my advice would be stop the self flagelation and enjoy the ride!
 
Think the senior Glazer was a slum lord. And Glazers are absolutely shady bunch over here in America.

There are no ethical Premier League ownership. It is what is is and people attacking CFG makes me laugh.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.