City - big club or not ?

bobbyowenquiff said:
You are right of course. I suppose all the original football clubs were "new money" in the face of the traditional establishment sports of Cricket and Rugby. But at some point a new money club becomes part of the establishment and LFC and MUFC have been part of the establishment as long as I can remember. It is also true that football goes in cycles and the latest cycle is the growth of globalisation. I have no idea where it will end up. Perhaps City will be a bastion of a new establishment in which case it will not be as much fun supporting them. I think most City fans like being "outsiders." It would be impossible for me to ever support a club like Liverpool precisely because of their history. If I had been brought up in Merseyside I would have picked Everton...or even Tranmere. I picked City because I lived in Withington.
Click to expand...
Definitely.

I don’t want to be liked by the media, I don’t want to have a global fanbase, I don’t want locals priced out… I like being the cooler sub-culture club in the face of the mainstream.

The only thing I’d want to change is the way United and Liverpool are portrayed by the media. Make the media view them as they should be, but that doesn’t mean they should start to love us, I’d prefer them not to.
 
bobmcfc said:
Hate this big club bullshit. A term coined by the snobby elite wankers to try and keep the rest of us down.

No thanks, I'd rather carry on being little old city mopping up the silverware.
Click to expand...
Apart from our crowds in the early 60s and our 80s+90s league standings, by no measure have we ever been a little club.
 
Tuearts right boot said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Just ONE PER CENT of Manchester City's supporters actually live in UK

Forget domestic disputes over Chelsea fans who live in the West Country or Man United supporters who have never left Basingstoke; they are now positively local compared to the majority of fans.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
Ridiculous, united’s Dominance in early days of premier league and dating back to Munich, saw fans from all ove4 the world gravitate to them and in the case of the premier league, young ones growing up chose united , as they were winners.now we are winners , young ones will choose city and in the future we will command huge following.At this momen5 in time it is slowly changing , but our core base of 35,000 to 40,000 is still there.If you compare numbers we will always be behind United and Liverpool just due to years of success as I explained. So yes we are a big club in the sense that no one wants to draw us and they all see our success, but until this young fan base raises our average crowd nu bears we will always come up short. I think in 10 years time we will outnumber united fans if we keep on with our success.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
Apart from our crowds in the early 60s and our 80s+90s league standings, by no measure have we ever been a little club.
Click to expand...
Of course but does that stop rival fans claiming we were invented in 08 ? Never. I'm past giving a shit about this debate because it's all jealousy and fear talking. They hate being pushed down and being made irrelevant
 
This debate says nowt about City but says it all about those debating ;)

Pure status behaviour, or cock comparison if you like. I find it quite childish but as long as nobody gets hurt, why not.

Question: are there also "big clubs" from small towns with limited infrastructure, fan base and budget? Would be a quite arrogant debate if not.
 
St.Pauli support said:
This debate says nowt about City but says it all about those debating ;)

Pure status behaviour, or cock comparison if you like. I find it quite childish but as long as nobody gets hurt, why not.

Question: are there also "big clubs" from small towns with limited infrastructure, fan base and budget? Would be a quite arrogant debate if not.
Click to expand...
Yes, Sunderland and Blackburn are big clubs from small places.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
Neither United nor Liverpool are traditional old money clubs though.

They were both new money compared to Villa Sunderland Everton SheffWeds Newcastle Blackburn and Preston who were the original big clubs in English football. They were even new money compared to City who were much bigger than both United and Liverpool pre-WW2.
Click to expand...
Assuming that you are talking about big in terms of success on the pitch, rather than numbers of supporters, it's fair enough to say Utd were well behind City between the two world wars, when Utd won no major trophies. But before the First World War it was the other way around, with United winning the FA Cup and two First Division titles to City's one FA Cup. As for Liverpool, they also won two First Division titles before the First World War, plus two more between the wars, so I think that betters City's single title and two FA Cups over the same period.
However, you are quite right about the original big clubs.
 
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.