You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City Ownership
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
bluemoon1078
Well-Known Member
Bluemoon115 said:See now that's a post that probably breaks the CoC.bluemoon1078 said:Spot on fella! Only a complete dick would start a thread like this!!!jrb said:Maybe be because it's a 'good day to bury bad news'.
You do know what I'm getting at don't you?
First trophy in 35 years.
FA Cup
3rd place in the PL
Bobby tears the banner down
The day after the parade and party at COMS
And we end up with a negative thread about our possible owners
Great! Only on BM.
PULL IT!
This whole thread is about accusing the club of lying about their ownership and accusations of human rights abuse??????? Yet calling some shit stirring no mark a dick is worse?? Strange rules!
JohnMaddocksAxe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,854
Haven't had the time to read every post on this thread but judging from the first half dozen pages and selected others, it is a complete embarrassment in parts.
Complete and utter bed wetting clowns are getting their knickers in a twist because a blue dares to have a completely valid, independent thought about something that was suggested last night.
Personally, having thought, and still thinking, that the fact that Shinawatra was the biggest stain ever on the history of this club, I have few concerns regarding the current owners. I also would have thought that Sheik Mohammed would have some sort of input into the strategy of the purchase at some point, even if it is not in an official manner.
What is a joke and a disgrace though are those clowns who have so little regard for the history of this club and so little about them that they see a legitimate question (and one that is very, very, very unlikely to draw negative repercussions, even if it turned out to have some basis) as something that should never be uttered and should be brushed under the carpet by all blues, lest it turn up something they don't like.
These are probably the same disgraces who "couldn't give a fuck" about Thaksin, the most odious man ever to be involved in English football, being associated with our club because they thought, rather stupidly it turns out, that this bastard might have a chance of leading us to success.
The irony is, lots with that attitude think that not giving a fuck about stuff like that makes them "massive blues". To me, not having any concern for the reputation of the club and what it stands for makes you nothing more than a rag-esque, glory hunting, spineless plastic clown, with no feel for the club and the city.
If Sheik Mohammed was proven to be an integral part of the ownership team, nothing bad is likely to come of it anyway. But to give someone grief for raising the question and bleating on about "the press getting hold of this" is pathetic ostrich stuff.
"Don't tell me, don't ask, I might not like the answer."
Complete and utter bed wetting clowns are getting their knickers in a twist because a blue dares to have a completely valid, independent thought about something that was suggested last night.
Personally, having thought, and still thinking, that the fact that Shinawatra was the biggest stain ever on the history of this club, I have few concerns regarding the current owners. I also would have thought that Sheik Mohammed would have some sort of input into the strategy of the purchase at some point, even if it is not in an official manner.
What is a joke and a disgrace though are those clowns who have so little regard for the history of this club and so little about them that they see a legitimate question (and one that is very, very, very unlikely to draw negative repercussions, even if it turned out to have some basis) as something that should never be uttered and should be brushed under the carpet by all blues, lest it turn up something they don't like.
These are probably the same disgraces who "couldn't give a fuck" about Thaksin, the most odious man ever to be involved in English football, being associated with our club because they thought, rather stupidly it turns out, that this bastard might have a chance of leading us to success.
The irony is, lots with that attitude think that not giving a fuck about stuff like that makes them "massive blues". To me, not having any concern for the reputation of the club and what it stands for makes you nothing more than a rag-esque, glory hunting, spineless plastic clown, with no feel for the club and the city.
If Sheik Mohammed was proven to be an integral part of the ownership team, nothing bad is likely to come of it anyway. But to give someone grief for raising the question and bleating on about "the press getting hold of this" is pathetic ostrich stuff.
"Don't tell me, don't ask, I might not like the answer."
JoeMercer'sWay said:Skashion said:Oh dear, we're even getting criticisms that Damocles can dissect your posts because he's intelligent enough to spot a logical fallacy. What a twat.
excuse me? no, you know exactly what I mean. Damocles steams in with a "you're a...", voices his opinion like it's conclusive fact and talks down to everybody then dissappears off again.
I think you should hold your tongue.
"I think you should hold your tongue".[/quote]
Sheriff of nottingham said that to Robin hood once.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
Skashion said:Damocles is one of the most consistent, logical and knowledgeable posters on here. Yes, he does go over the top. I've been on the receiving end but he is prepared to debate and provide evidence for his points.JoeMercer'sWay said:Skashion said:Oh dear, we're even getting criticisms that Damocles can dissect your posts because he's intelligent enough to spot a logical fallacy. What a twat.
excuse me? no, you know exactly what I mean. Damocles steams in with a "you're a...", voices his opinion like it's conclusive fact and talks down to everybody then dissappears off again.
I think you should hold your tongue.
Oh really? Why is that? Because you've told me to?
because you're just sniping like you normally do.
Damocles is very staunch in his views, the way he goes about expressing them I don't always appreciate.
Whether either of those points makes him right or wrong, "evidence" or no evidence, is an entirely different matter and such judgement should be made on an individual thread basis.
JohnMaddocksAxe said:These are probably the same disgraces who "couldn't give a fuck" about Thaksin, the most odious man ever to be involved in English football, being associated with our club because they thought, rather stupidly it turns out, that this bastard might have a chance of leading us to success.
As one of the "disgraces" that didn't have a problem with Shinawatra, I'm happy to say that we are in a much better position as a football club for his involvement.
I just hope we don't get into the position again where politics and not football becomes the main talking point on a football message board.
1.618034
Well-Known Member
Skashion said:and why's that?1.618034 said:The good thing about the thread is that if anyone actually reads the whole thing, they'll realise that there isn't a problem at all about what Mancini said...
Because it has been explained to me why Roberto said the words he did... And that there isn't really a problem with the UAE's record on human rights. No more than anywhere else in the World like, oh let's say... the USA..?
The reference to Sheik Mohammed is nothing to worry about, despite the best efforts of some people to stir it up into a political storm. It was fair enough to ask the question but have a listen to the answers before going off on one about alleged human rights issues.