conn having a dig again

Does anyone know a fellow City fan who shares the views of Conn? I know hundreds and their all over the moon with the current ownership.

If he wasn't a self-proclaimed City fan the Guardian wouldn't print such shit. It's just another stick to try and beat us with.
 
I don't see any 'dig' here at all when you read it objectively. Conn is commenting on the changes in the wider game rather than specifically at city. The last paragraph is key, where he questions whether the game will continue to change at he rate it has.

I liked Conn's book and think he's a good writer, although he's becoming a bit of a one-trick pony when it comes to writing about City. I don't at all share his feeling of 'distance' from modern City, and I don't think many blues do. To get things in perspective here, he admits in his book that he felt no emotion when City best Gillingham. That was arguably the most emotional match of the last twenty years, and it certainly wasn't fuelled by oil money. He was lost to city a long time before the Sheikh came in,

Having said that, all this Pavlovian raging at Conn and Shindler is a touch hollow when many of the people doing it harp on regularly on here about ticket prices, lack of atmosphere etc. He's entitled to his views. To be honest it's his loss. Imagine going through all that shite and not being able to enjoy these glorious days.
 
It is clear from Conn's piece that he does not think much of the changes football has undergone and that he resents what has happened to City in particular. It is clear in his other writings that he he resents the role of Sheikh Mansour especially. For those who are duped by the one sided picture of football and the ludicrous naivety of a trained accountant, converted lawyer and investigative journalist who reached the age of 27 before he realised his beloved club was not actually a club, but could be bought and sold like any other company, consider the reactions of this fan to the win against QPR to seal our first title in 44 years,

"I wanted them all to go home happy just this once, for a great football story to happen, however compromised by all the money. The way the team had done it, so close to failure for so long, had reminded people who City really were, the fallible Manchester team, and made it feel more that Manchester City had won the Premier League, rather than Abu Dhabi United. I was glad for all the people who still felt the same about it, as I did not...I couldn't help thinking what moral this sent to them: reach for the stars, work hard, always keep going to the very end - and get a Sheikh to put in £1bn" (Richer than God pp411-2.

But, of course, Conn is simply pointing out how football and City have changed since 1976 in the Guardian - maybe that's why he's so careful to forget so many of the changes.
 
From a crowd that habitually scowled its resentment of the old chairman, Swales, who sat and took it, hangs a banner at the Etihad Stadium thanking Sheikh Mansour, who has attended only once.
Click to expand...

How many fucking commas does this guy need to complete a sentence? Wanker.
 
Read lots on here but rarely posted but have to now. I will declare my interest straight away. I know David Conn personally. The reason I need to comment is the number of people on here writing with their blue tinted spectacles on is quite staggering. I will be at Wembley tomorrow as I have been for every final and semi since 1969. I love it. I loved it in 69, 70, 76; hated 74 and 81...you get the gist. When Chelsea were taken over by the Russian money in 2003, what did most people on here really think? When they were successful did you all say "Oh well done" or did not one of the people having a dig at Conn's journalism have the slightest feeling it was just a tiny bit not quite right? Answer honestly.

We all know football changed in the early 90's with the EPL and Champions League money. Certain clubs benefited because they hit the jackpot at the right time; others like City and Chelsea needed a rich benefactor to play catch up. It's not right but it is the only way. Conn has regularly criticized other teams too so don't just think of him as anti City....it does not mean as much to him as it did 38 years ago but he still wants the team to do well and will be wanting victory on Sunday too.

His journalism on other aspects of money in sport, his support for the Hillsborough victims, his investigations into corruption in sport show him to be a good journalist.

We all have different views and are entitled to use these forums to write them, although some of the comments on here border racism. If you wish to criticise his journalism do so, but please try to do it without referring to his race or religion and there's no need to use abusive language to describe him. Now use it to pull me to pieces :-)

Chill and enjoy the game.
 
Londonblue20 said:
Read lots on here but rarely posted but have to now. I will declare my interest straight away. I know David Conn personally. The reason I need to comment is the number of people on here writing with their blue tinted spectacles on is quite staggering. I will be at Wembley tomorrow as I have been for every final and semi since 1969. I love it. I loved it in 69, 70, 76; hated 74 and 81...you get the gist. When Chelsea were taken over by the Russian money in 2003, what did most people on here really think? When they were successful did you all say "Oh well done" or did not one of the people having a dig at Conn's journalism have the slightest feeling it was just a tiny bit not quite right? Answer honestly.

We all know football changed in the early 90's with the EPL and Champions League money. Certain clubs benefited because they hit the jackpot at the right time; others like City and Chelsea needed a rich benefactor to play catch up. It's not right but it is the only way. Conn has regularly criticized other teams too so don't just think of him as anti City....it does not mean as much to him as it did 38 years ago but he still wants the team to do well and will be wanting victory on Sunday too.

His journalism on other aspects of money in sport, his support for the Hillsborough victims, his investigations into corruption in sport show him to be a good journalist.

We all have different views and are entitled to use these forums to write them, although some of the comments on here border racism. If you wish to criticise his journalism do so, but please try to do it without referring to his race or religion and there's no need to use abusive language to describe him. Now use it to pull me to pieces :-)

Chill and enjoy the game.
Click to expand...
Hi david :)
 
pride in battle said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
pride in battle said:
He states that Sheik Mansour has only attended 'once'....
Click to expand...
And is that wrong?
Click to expand...

No he is actually correct, what is wrong is that he is supposed to be a City fan, all that statement does with all the other crap regarding money, oil etc is give other fans a stick to beat us with....for a change why doesn't he write about what Sheik Mansour has done for the community, for East Manchester in particular? No because that's what people DON'T want to read...all adding to the 'British Disease' JEALOUSY.....
Seriously P.B why are you standing up for him again?
Click to expand...

well said

it could be a rag pushing those buttons

he professes to be a Blue and maybe he was once

but now he hates what we have become

therefore he is no longer a Blue

and he sounds like a rag...because he prefers to woman about City rather than the obvious excuse for a club that infested football with the money disease in the first place
 
Londonblue20 said:
Read lots on here but rarely posted but have to now. I will declare my interest straight away. I know David Conn personally. The reason I need to comment is the number of people on here writing with their blue tinted spectacles on is quite staggering. I will be at Wembley tomorrow as I have been for every final and semi since 1969. I love it. I loved it in 69, 70, 76; hated 74 and 81...you get the gist. When Chelsea were taken over by the Russian money in 2003, what did most people on here really think? When they were successful did you all say "Oh well done" or did not one of the people having a dig at Conn's journalism have the slightest feeling it was just a tiny bit not quite right? Answer honestly.

We all know football changed in the early 90's with the EPL and Champions League money. Certain clubs benefited because they hit the jackpot at the right time; others like City and Chelsea needed a rich benefactor to play catch up. It's not right but it is the only way. Conn has regularly criticized other teams too so don't just think of him as anti City....it does not mean as much to him as it did 38 years ago but he still wants the team to do well and will be wanting victory on Sunday too.

His journalism on other aspects of money in sport, his support for the Hillsborough victims, his investigations into corruption in sport show him to be a good journalist.

We all have different views and are entitled to use these forums to write them, although some of the comments on here border racism. If you wish to criticise his journalism do so, but please try to do it without referring to his race or religion and there's no need to use abusive language to describe him. Now use it to pull me to pieces :-)

Chill and enjoy the game.
Click to expand...

Who has referred to his race?

Not saying this hasnt happened. Just havent seen anything concerning this.
 
Londonblue20 said:
Read lots on here but rarely posted but have to now. I will declare my interest straight away. I know David Conn personally. The reason I need to comment is the number of people on here writing with their blue tinted spectacles on is quite staggering. I will be at Wembley tomorrow as I have been for every final and semi since 1969. I love it. I loved it in 69, 70, 76; hated 74 and 81...you get the gist. When Chelsea were taken over by the Russian money in 2003, what did most people on here really think? When they were successful did you all say "Oh well done" or did not one of the people having a dig at Conn's journalism have the slightest feeling it was just a tiny bit not quite right? Answer honestly.

We all know football changed in the early 90's with the EPL and Champions League money. Certain clubs benefited because they hit the jackpot at the right time; others like City and Chelsea needed a rich benefactor to play catch up. It's not right but it is the only way. Conn has regularly criticized other teams too so don't just think of him as anti City....it does not mean as much to him as it did 38 years ago but he still wants the team to do well and will be wanting victory on Sunday too.

His journalism on other aspects of money in sport, his support for the Hillsborough victims, his investigations into corruption in sport show him to be a good journalist.

We all have different views and are entitled to use these forums to write them, although some of the comments on here border racism. If you wish to criticise his journalism do so, but please try to do it without referring to his race or religion and there's no need to use abusive language to describe him. Now use it to pull me to pieces :-)

Chill and enjoy the game.
Click to expand...
I think you have a downright cheek to accuse posters in here of racism
Perhaps you need to look a little closer at your friend for that
 
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.