conn having a dig again

[john@staustell]

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.

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

Yes, he doesn't seem to think mcfc should be open to non-Manchester players. And why shouldn't we be writing with our blue-tinted specs on? That's why we're here!

 

[stonerblue]

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.

Sums it up perfectly, the last para' being spot, and indeed, on.

 

[moomba]

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.

When Chelsea was taken over I thought it was fantastic. When Portsmouth was taken over I was jealous, wished it was us.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

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.

Hi david :)

Thanks Cleavers. Yes and David / David's mate, it is pretty piss poor to use the race card. Misuse of this undermines people's credibility and signifies a lost argument.

Londonblue20. I was a fan of David's writing but have just got irritated by his one trick pony anti City "new money" writings. It seems to signify a wider "let's take the easy money" path of least resistance journalism.

Credit to David for doing good work on Hillsborough and I would have more faith if he did something similar for the Heysel victims. If Mr Conn has already had a campaign on this that I have missed then please let me know.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Who has referred to his race?

Not saying this hasnt happened. Just havent seen anything concerning this.

Whenever Conn or Shindler get mentioned there's always at least one cretin who comes up with the "he's Jewish isn't he so he must hate Arabs/Muslims" line. There's a few in this thread alone.

It's a level of argument that the word facile isn't even remotely adequate for. And with that, I'm off to Wembley.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

When Chelsea was taken over I thought it was fantastic.

Me too. Anything that represented a challenge to united's hegemony was to be welcomed in my eyes.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

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.

Who has referred to his race?

Not saying this hasnt happened. Just havent seen anything concerning this.

Whenever Conn or Shindler get mentioned there's always at least one cretin who comes up with the "he's Jewish isn't he so he must hate Arabs/Muslims" line. There's a few in this thread alone.

It's a level of argument that the word facile isn't even remotely adequate for. And with that, I'm off to Wembley.

Already in London . I think FC Utd fan living in Yorkshire is enough to go at.

My sense is that very few people on here are interested in race (although a very few seem to be so don't bother quoting them).

I will do some more research and I hope to find that David has championed some worthy but unpopular causes in recent years - for the good of the game as well as his bank balance. His Wikipedia page smacks of a self promoting CV.

 

[Lucky Toma]

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.

When Chelsea was taken over I thought it was fantastic.

Me too. Anything that represented a challenge to united's hegemony was to be welcomed in my eyes.

This for me too. Additionally I was vicariously excited by the influx of world class stars such as Mutu, Veron, and Crespo into the PL.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

When Chelsea was taken over I thought it was fantastic.

Me too. Anything that represented a challenge to united's hegemony was to be welcomed in my eyes.

This for me too. Additionally I was vicariously excited by the influx of world class stars such as Mutu, Veron, and Crespo into the PL.

Chelsea's success may have also encouraged the Sheikh's people to see what was possible. In short, Ambramovich might have helped us get our owners so no gripes against the Chavs.

They do have some shit fans though. R Kid locked a couple in his taxi after the cup win until they paid up. He played a Chas n Dave CD to keep them company

 

[jaiguruKun]

Who has referred to his race?

Not saying this hasnt happened. Just havent seen anything concerning this.

A highly esteemed poster (and ITK) pointed out that both Colin Schindler and Conn are Jewish, implying that this was the reason for them being critical of City post takeover.

I have read Conn's book and it is just as critical,if not more so, of the Jewish family that own the Trafford club. So this kind of blows his theory out of the water.