city books

[Balti]

Despite the stick I give him for the shit he comes out with now about City I did enjoy Schindler's 'Fathers, Sons and Football' about the three generations of footballing Summerbee's and how the game has so dramatically changed in so many ways. I'd put Lows, Highs and Balti Pies up there with Down among the dead men. Kinkladze the Perfect 10 by David Clayton a good light holiday read. I read Denis Laws book The King which again is a good throwback to the days when £4 per week was a dcent wage in football and a fry up a good footballing brekkers. Obviously a big red section in it too but with two stints at City and the demise of Manure still an interesting read.Quinny's was hugely enjoyable as has been mentioned. Psycho's too. Gary James is hugely educational and I love Manchester - A football history which at least tries to be impartial (but fails miserably lol ;-). I have a treasured first edition of Steppes to Wembley the Trautmann autobiog and this is a fantastic read. Lakey's next and this thread just reminded me to order Blue Blood.

None City related seventies football read try Steak... Diana Ross: Diary of a Football Nobody. Brilliant read.

 

[Gary James]

Mancini books - with the 2 mentioned in this thread that makes 3 I'm aware of coming out this year!

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I don't have to agree with someone to enjoy their book.

In that case, it is fair to assume you already have the Mancini biography on pre-order . . .

I'll definitely buy one if one comes out, without a doubt! Where did you get conn's book from?

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

£50 is a shit fee for copy editing mate

I wasn't bothered about that, it's nice and sunny here, and in the absence of work, it passed the time away and paid for a few beers along the way.
And as Gary James will testify, it's probably the first time anyone has actually been paid by Empire!!

 

[LongsightM13]

I don't have to agree with someone to enjoy their book.

In that case, it is fair to assume you already have the Mancini biography on pre-order . . .

I'll definitely buy one if one comes out, without a doubt! Where did you get conn's book from?

There's a copy kicking around at work. Flicked through parts of it, but after reading some of his articles in advance of publication, and some reviews on here, including references to him being cavalier with certain facts, I shan't be interrupting the other books I'm reading at the minute to give it any further consideration.

 

[Soulboy]

Where? The fan comments at the end?

I'm in Farewell to Maine Road.

No, one of the diary items about a hilarious snide City shirt made from blue polkadot material discovered in a 'sports shop' in Africa. Sent a picture off to the forerunner of ManC magazine, they printed it and the story eventually found its way into the book.

There's a whole chapter in that book about one of this forum's best posters. Seriously.

Aw shucks Dave, you'll have me sniffling... ;-)

Anyway, isn't it time you wrote a book? You could become even more hated than Colin Schindler or David Conn!

But I'd buy it...

 

[petrusha]

There's a copy [of Conn's book] kicking around at work. Flicked through parts of it, but after reading some of his articles in advance of publication, and some reviews on here, including references to him being cavalier with certain facts, I shan't be interrupting the other books I'm reading at the minute to give it any further consideration.

There are certainly references to him being cavalier with facts regarding the move. However, I, working as a lawyer in Manc in the 1990s, was involved in issues leading up to the stadium being built. I had the opportunity to discuss the move at length with Chris Bird, and on a separate occasion, with David Bernstein. I've also read Sport England's post-2002 reviews of the Games legacy on the website.

I'd be intrigued to know what sources of information are available to these people who claim so emphatically that City paid for the stadium to be converted from an athletics venue to a football stadium. This contradicts everything I've ever read or heard about the issue.

More likely, I suspect, is that they're simply confusing the fact that City had to pay to fit out the stadium. In other words, we footed the bill for adding in concessions (food stands and so on), corporate suites and boxes, offices and so on. But that's a totally different thing.

I have issues with all kinds of things Conn writes. In particular, I think he takes his romanticism to a place that strays a considerable distance over the border into naivety.

However, intellectually dishonest is the one thing he isn't. He's meticulous in his research, and can at least be relied on to get his facts right. It's really a bit embarrassing when people like those on here that you're inclined to believe effectively accuse him of being a liar despite not actually seeming to know what they're talking about.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

There's a copy [of Conn's book] kicking around at work. Flicked through parts of it, but after reading some of his articles in advance of publication, and some reviews on here, including references to him being cavalier with certain facts, I shan't be interrupting the other books I'm reading at the minute to give it any further consideration.

There are certainly references to him being cavalier with facts regarding the move. However, I, working as a lawyer in Manc in the 1990s, was involved in issues leading up to the stadium being built. I had the opportunity to discuss the move at length with Chris Bird, and on a separate occasion, with David Bernstein. I've also read Sport England's post-2002 reviews of the Games legacy on the website.

I'd be intrigued to know what sources of information are available to these people who claim so emphatically that City paid for the stadium to be converted from an athletics venue to a football stadium. This contradicts everything I've ever read or heard about the issue.

More likely, I suspect, is that they're simply confusing the fact that City had to pay to fit out the stadium. In other words, we footed the bill for adding in concessions (food stands and so on), corporate suites and boxes, offices and so on. But that's a totally different thing.

I have issues with all kinds of things Conn writes. In particular, I think he takes his romanticism to a place that strays a considerable distance over the border into naivety.

However, intellectually dishonest is the one thing he isn't. He's meticulous in his research, and can at least be relied on to get his facts right. It's really a bit embarrassing when people like those on here that you're inclined to believe effectively accuse him of being a liar despite not actually seeming to know what they're talking about.

I must have missed that. I assume the demonisation of David Conn has entered the Blue Moon Groupthink lexicon. Presumably he's dared to express some kind of opinion which goes against said Groupthink, so is deemed to be 'slagging off' the club.

Noone can credibly condemn a book without having read it, of course. I'd clocked that one alright ;-)

 

[Walkbustaxi]

David Conn's previous book 'The Beautiful Game' was a genuine eye opener to me as a football supporter. So the combination of investigative journalist also a City fan made me pre order this book. I read it this week and tbh it left me disappointed, bewildered and angry.

In my opinion Conn has taken too much on in this book. As the title implies, the book is a potted history of City, an exposé on the 'business' of modern football and an account of being a City fan rolled into one. These three strands are enough to follow without him throwing in Government cuts, poverty, human rights (of Thailand and Abu Dhabi) etc let alone Engels, Thatcher, and Boris Yeltsin! I know the author would say these are integral to the background of the story but even he would admit the linking Chesterfield FC and the miners strike was a tenuous one. It's instances like this that result in the book being nearly 450 pages long.

He repeats himself on a number of occasions throughout the book and this gives a feeling that you are not reading separate chapters of one book but different previously published columns or stories. This leads to him often attacking the same issue just from a different angle and makes the book feel stop start at times. Some chapters I enjoyed while others were a struggle to get through.

Conn does brings up many key City moments from wherever he was at the time and captures the parks and fields of Greater Manchester perfectly for anyone who's ever dared to play football on them. He also reminded me of forgotten sights, sounds and smells from around Maine road that only a City fan from that era could. However in the books latter parts, where you can see he has fell out of love with City, does the author have to become involved with FC United of all clubs let alone as mentioned in the previous post, say we are being overestimated by our owners to become a global force because simply we are not Manchester United.

However I'll save my biggest issue till last. FACTS! David Conn is an investigative journalist, has a degree and on top of this is a qualified lawyer. Again as mentioned before, he gets it wrong on 'the council house' deal as well as Anna Connell but the two biggest mistakes I read were that we beat Charlton 4-1 in 1985 and that it rained on our 1999 Play Off Winners parade. For me, the Charlton and Gillingham games constituted the only success I saw as a fan between the Luton relegation and the FA Cup final last year (I didn't go to Bradford or Blackburn). To get facts about both of them wrong is unforgivable to me.

In the end, other than Guardian readers, I don't know who the book is aimed at as it's neither a City book nor a real eye opener like his previous work. Simply the worlds a bad place, some people are poor, some people are rich, people own companies and companies own things. Our club was a company in a poor area owned by a succession of dodgy characters that was purchased by a rich 'owner', who then proceeded to spend money on people and facilities and this has so far led to winning the FA Cup and Premier League. And on top of that his chairman and board are professional and seem to understand the club, fans and former players better than anyone previous. Damn them to hell, 'tis an outrage.

Don't know if it's the done thing to quote yourself?

Long story short. Interesting book but authors motives questionable and lots of factual errors, some of the schoolboy variety.

 

[LongsightM13]

Yawn... here we go again.
1. Petrusha. The people who have questioned Conn's conclusions and interpretations of certain facts can speak for themselves, I'm sure. That said, perhaps they have also spoken to/interviewed/are friendly with people intimately involved in certain deals and processes? Perhaps they were even privvy to some stuff, just like yourself? I shouldn't think you are the only person in Manchester who was.
2. 'Free thinking maverick' Dave. No, I haven't read the whole book. I've read parts of it. I've also read the articles Conn wrote summarizing/promoting it in advance of publication, and reviews in other sources. That was enough to get a fair grasp of his "Shindler for the Baggy Generation" stance. I wasn't interested in reading any more of it.
Just because he went to a few away games in the 80s with a mate of yours doesn't make him right. Just look at his past canonisation of the cowardly splitters and attention-seeking empire builders behind FCUM for an example of his confused grasp on the idea of loyalty and identity.
No 'Groupthink' involved here. Once again, you've jumped to your usual conclusion that anyone who doesn't share your view is intellectually inferior, instead of grasping the chilling fact that occasionally, people will disagree with you. Sometimes they might even be right.
The fact you've tried to have a pop at me for not reading Conn's book in its entirety before deciding I don't like it - and then sneeringly insult and patronise posters in a thread you admit you haven't even read yourself - is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
Being a habitual contrarian doesn't necessarily make you a radical, Dave. It could even make you predictable.