Best decision City have ever made?

[gordondaviesmoustache]

We're going to be one of the greats in europe in the next few decades but "typical city" will never die.

"Typical City" will never die because you can interpret almost anything we do as being "typical City".

Winning the title in the manner we did last year could be regarded as "typical City", but if we'd dropped points in that game and lost out after being so close, that would also have been "typical City".

Similarly, it was "typical City" to beat Gillingham in the way we did, but it would also have been "typical City" to lose in the penalty shoot-out. Or in extra time. It would even have been "typical City" to get to the play-off final and then just lose 2-0. Or to pull one goal back and then lose 2-1.

It would have been "typical City" to lose to Stoke in the FA Cup final, but in a way it was also "typical City" to win the game without major drama, when we all expected a "typical City" situation.

I'm sure we can all think of dozens of other examples in which some of us would claim "typical City" on almost every possible outcome. It's also not that hard to think of tons of examples where other clubs fit the "typical City" stereotype.

Whilst the thrust of this post has some merit, it is almost entirely undermined by the last sentence. To suggest, as it seems to, that the narrative of this football club isn't unusual displays a complete lack of appreciation for City's extraordinary history.

Ten promotions and relegations in under two decades; only Champions to be relegated and the procession of managers since Joe Mercer was moved "upstairs" are all examples that support the view that our enduring capacity to create drama is uncommon and out of the ordinary. It is why our reputation in this regard extends well beyond our own supporters.

As the the OP: Moving to Maine Road in 1923 and leaving it in 2003. Both events made our club all that it was and all that it is today.

 

[jayblue]

not the best but a good one was selling one joseph barton

 

[Sheikh Rattle n Roll]

Not the best, but a very, very good decision, John Bond signing Tommy Hutchison, Gerry Gow and Bobby McDonald, the three of them revitalised the team.

 

[Bluemoon dan]

Signing Morrison while in division 2 has already been mentioned but I'd also say Terry Cooke at around the same time was important. Anything that got us out of that league has to be considered up there!

 

[SaddleworthBlueRhino]

Junior Blue's
Social Club
And free tickets to Manchester schools

All of these helped us retain our support during troubled times. Helped us stay a "Massive" club throughout.

Anybody else remember how the single word "Massive" continuosly upset our Euston Travelling Neighbours.

ET go home.

 

[gaudino4]

Joe Hart. £600,000 was it?

Definitely agree with the Andy Morrison one too. He was exactly what we needed at that time, along with the Goat etc.

 

[NorCalBlue]

We're going to be one of the greats in europe in the next few decades but "typical city" will never die.

"Typical City" will never die because you can interpret almost anything we do as being "typical City".

Winning the title in the manner we did last year could be regarded as "typical City", but if we'd dropped points in that game and lost out after being so close, that would also have been "typical City".

Similarly, it was "typical City" to beat Gillingham in the way we did, but it would also have been "typical City" to lose in the penalty shoot-out. Or in extra time. It would even have been "typical City" to get to the play-off final and then just lose 2-0. Or to pull one goal back and then lose 2-1.

It would have been "typical City" to lose to Stoke in the FA Cup final, but in a way it was also "typical City" to win the game without major drama, when we all expected a "typical City" situation.

I'm sure we can all think of dozens of other examples in which some of us would claim "typical City" on almost every possible outcome. It's also not that hard to think of tons of examples where other clubs fit the "typical City" stereotype.

Whilst the thrust of this post has some merit, it is almost entirely undermined by the last sentence. To suggest, as it seems to, that the narrative of this football club isn't unusual displays a complete lack of appreciation for City's extraordinary history.

Ten promotions and relegations in under two decades; only Champions to be relegated and the procession of managers since Joe Mercer was moved "upstairs" are all examples that support the view that our enduring capacity to create drama is uncommon and out of the ordinary. It is why our reputation in this regard extends well beyond our own supporters.

I'm afraid you've displayed a complete lack of appreciation for the facts, and have fallen for the fallacy of exceptionalism.

Yes, we have had some colorful exploits in our history, and are towards the high end of the distribution for such events as manager turnover and relegation/promotions, but to suggest there aren't lots of other clubs that have a similar or far worse history of "typical City" syndrome is laughable. It almost seems to be a secret source of pride to many fans to think of us as some sort of calamity-attracting entity, but we really aren't that exceptional.

Here's what I turned up with about five minutes of online research;
Watford have been promoted/relegated 11 times in 25 years, spanning all four divisions and losing an FA Cup in the process.
Brighton have been relegated/promoted 19 times in the last 58 years.
During the 1980s, Wolves moved divisions seven times in eight seasons.
Birmingham have been promoted/relegated between the top two divisions 24 times (the most of any club, oh, and they got relegated the same year they won the League Cup), Leicester are second on 22, and there are 7 other teams with at least 15. Although City are third in this list, on 21, we only have two other movements in the lower divisions whereas almost all of the other teams have large numbers of additional promotion/relegations in the lower divisions.

There are lots of examples from other countries as well;
Drogheda United swapped Divisions every season between 1993/94 and 2000/01 and starting in 1979 and ending in 1987, SK Brann (Norway) were promoted in every odd-numbered year and relegated in every even-numbered year. This is the world record for consecutive promotion/relegations.

How about managers? Well, we've had 10 (including caretakers) in the Premier League era, which puts us a distant 6th behind Newcastle (19), Spurs (18), Chelsea (15), Southampton (12), and Aston Villa (11).

So, despite the stereotype (apparently perpetuated by many of our own fans), we're a long way from being unique in our quirky history, and in fact, many teams are more worthy of the expression; "Typical ______".

 

[George Hannah]

"Typical City" will never die because you can interpret almost anything we do as being "typical City".

Winning the title in the manner we did last year could be regarded as "typical City", but if we'd dropped points in that game and lost out after being so close, that would also have been "typical City".

Similarly, it was "typical City" to beat Gillingham in the way we did, but it would also have been "typical City" to lose in the penalty shoot-out. Or in extra time. It would even have been "typical City" to get to the play-off final and then just lose 2-0. Or to pull one goal back and then lose 2-1.

It would have been "typical City" to lose to Stoke in the FA Cup final, but in a way it was also "typical City" to win the game without major drama, when we all expected a "typical City" situation.

I'm sure we can all think of dozens of other examples in which some of us would claim "typical City" on almost every possible outcome. It's also not that hard to think of tons of examples where other clubs fit the "typical City" stereotype.

Whilst the thrust of this post has some merit, it is almost entirely undermined by the last sentence. To suggest, as it seems to, that the narrative of this football club isn't unusual displays a complete lack of appreciation for City's extraordinary history.

Ten promotions and relegations in under two decades; only Champions to be relegated and the procession of managers since Joe Mercer was moved "upstairs" are all examples that support the view that our enduring capacity to create drama is uncommon and out of the ordinary. It is why our reputation in this regard extends well beyond our own supporters.

I'm afraid you've displayed a complete lack of appreciation for the facts, and have fallen for the fallacy of exceptionalism.

Yes, we have had some colorful exploits in our history, and are towards the high end of the distribution for such events as manager turnover and relegation/promotions, but to suggest there aren't lots of other clubs that have a similar or far worse history of "typical City" syndrome is laughable. It almost seems to be a secret source of pride to many fans to think of us as some sort of calamity-attracting entity, but we really aren't that exceptional.

Here's what I turned up with about five minutes of online research;
Watford have been promoted/relegated 11 times in 25 years, spanning all four divisions and losing an FA Cup in the process.
Brighton have been relegated/promoted 19 times in the last 58 years.
During the 1980s, Wolves moved divisions seven times in eight seasons.
Birmingham have been promoted/relegated between the top two divisions 24 times (the most of any club, oh, and they got relegated the same year they won the League Cup), Leicester are second on 22, and there are 7 other teams with at least 15. Although City are third in this list, on 21, we only have two other movements in the lower divisions whereas almost all of the other teams have large numbers of additional promotion/relegations in the lower divisions.

There are lots of examples from other countries as well;
Drogheda United swapped Divisions every season between 1993/94 and 2000/01 and starting in 1979 and ending in 1987, SK Brann (Norway) were promoted in every odd-numbered year and relegated in every even-numbered year. This is the world record for consecutive promotion/relegations.

How about managers? Well, we've had 10 (including caretakers) in the Premier League era, which puts us a distant 6th behind Newcastle (19), Spurs (18), Chelsea (15), Southampton (12), and Aston Villa (11).

So, despite the stereotype (apparently perpetuated by many of our own fans), we're a long way from being unique in our quirky history, and in fact, many teams are more worthy of the expression; "Typical ______".

I prefer neither account, case dismissed.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

"Typical City" will never die because you can interpret almost anything we do as being "typical City".

Winning the title in the manner we did last year could be regarded as "typical City", but if we'd dropped points in that game and lost out after being so close, that would also have been "typical City".

Similarly, it was "typical City" to beat Gillingham in the way we did, but it would also have been "typical City" to lose in the penalty shoot-out. Or in extra time. It would even have been "typical City" to get to the play-off final and then just lose 2-0. Or to pull one goal back and then lose 2-1.

It would have been "typical City" to lose to Stoke in the FA Cup final, but in a way it was also "typical City" to win the game without major drama, when we all expected a "typical City" situation.

I'm sure we can all think of dozens of other examples in which some of us would claim "typical City" on almost every possible outcome. It's also not that hard to think of tons of examples where other clubs fit the "typical City" stereotype.

Whilst the thrust of this post has some merit, it is almost entirely undermined by the last sentence. To suggest, as it seems to, that the narrative of this football club isn't unusual displays a complete lack of appreciation for City's extraordinary history.

Ten promotions and relegations in under two decades; only Champions to be relegated and the procession of managers since Joe Mercer was moved "upstairs" are all examples that support the view that our enduring capacity to create drama is uncommon and out of the ordinary. It is why our reputation in this regard extends well beyond our own supporters.

I'm afraid you've displayed a complete lack of appreciation for the facts, and have fallen for the fallacy of exceptionalism.

Yes, we have had some colorful exploits in our history, and are towards the high end of the distribution for such events as manager turnover and relegation/promotions, but to suggest there aren't lots of other clubs that have a similar or far worse history of "typical City" syndrome is laughable. It almost seems to be a secret source of pride to many fans to think of us as some sort of calamity-attracting entity, but we really aren't that exceptional.

Here's what I turned up with about five minutes of online research;
Watford have been promoted/relegated 11 times in 25 years, spanning all four divisions and losing an FA Cup in the process.
Brighton have been relegated/promoted 19 times in the last 58 years.
During the 1980s, Wolves moved divisions seven times in eight seasons.
Birmingham have been promoted/relegated between the top two divisions 24 times (the most of any club, oh, and they got relegated the same year they won the League Cup), Leicester are second on 22, and there are 7 other teams with at least 15. Although City are third in this list, on 21, we only have two other movements in the lower divisions whereas almost all of the other teams have large numbers of additional promotion/relegations in the lower divisions.

There are lots of examples from other countries as well;
Drogheda United swapped Divisions every season between 1993/94 and 2000/01 and starting in 1979 and ending in 1987, SK Brann (Norway) were promoted in every odd-numbered year and relegated in every even-numbered year. This is the world record for consecutive promotion/relegations.

How about managers? Well, we've had 10 (including caretakers) in the Premier League era, which puts us a distant 6th behind Newcastle (19), Spurs (18), Chelsea (15), Southampton (12), and Aston Villa (11).

So, despite the stereotype (apparently perpetuated by many of our own fans), we're a long way from being unique in our quirky history, and in fact, many teams are more worthy of the expression; "Typical ______".

Where have I said we were unique? I made no such claim. On that basis your subsequent post is dishonest in its construction, as you are trying to shoehorn me into a position that I have never assumed.

I am well aware that there will be other clubs who can match and exceed our numbers on relegation and promotion (although some of the ones that you referred to had a lower proportion than we did, but that isn't the point). So let's look at those ten promotions and relegations which, in fact, I haven't had to do any online research at all to muster up:

1983 - relegated by our fellow strugglers Luton with a goal eight minutes from the end of the last game of the season. Only time we'd been in the bottom three all season btw.
1985 - promoted on the last day against Charlton
1987 - relegated on the last day v West Ham
1989 - promoted on the last day v Bradford with an equalising goal in the last ten minutes
1996 - relegated on the last day when drawing with Liverpool - a game which included several 'typical City' moments.
1998 - relegated on the last day in spite of beating Stoke 5-2 with our best performance of the season.
1999 - Gillingham. Say no more.
2000 - promoted on the last day by beating Blackburn 4-1 despite being battered for the first half.
2001 - relegated - a bit of a damp squib, I'll grant you.
2002 - promoted - no last day drama as such, although Stuart Pearce missing a penalty in the last minute for his 100th ever goal had a certain typical City air to it.

So eight of the ten promotions/relegations were secured/endured on the last game of the season. Perhaps you could point to some of the examples you have used with a record that even begins to compare with that for drama.

You add to that the fact that we have been to the third tier of English football in recent history and are now (barely) Premier League Champions and you have a narrative that is unusual and replete with drama. I make no claim about us being "unique" as to do so would be arrogant and preposterous and there are other clubs who have a history which is just as engaging. I would suggest Napoli and Swansea could be examples of this. The fact that you have used Birmingham and Wolves to support your argument suggest a complete failure to grasp what the term "colourful history" actually means, as they are both a by-word for the mundane in the main, at least as far as I'm concerned. Fuck me, Birmingham City have to be the most atypical example out of the 91 other clubs you could have chosen to attempt to bolster your assertion.

So in summary, (and for the avoidance of doubt) I maintain that we aren't unique, but we are most certainly unusual. To suggest that "many teams are more worthy of the expression typical......" is absurd. There might be a handful, but Wolves and Birmingham most certainly don't form part of that group. I haven't fallen for any fallacy. I am more than capable of arriving at my own conclusions and unlike you I don't have to make disingenuous representations about others' arguments in order to justify my position.

 

[SaddleworthBlueRhino]

Only club to have been relegated the year after being champions. I also think we scored the most goals while being relegated. Thats typical City