conn having a dig again

[squirtyflower]

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.

When did a question of faith become racist?

 

[Tim of the Oak]

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.

When did a question of faith become racist?

I think the term "playing the race card" can be loosely applied to both.

Let's get back to Conn's ability / agenda as a journalist please!

 

[bluevengence]

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.

Why is it not right ?

 

[bluesoup]

Regardless of faith, Conn enjoys a good old moan. Let's leave this just about the person guys - it's got nothing to do with the red herring of religion or country of origin. Conn just hankers for the nostalgic days when things were oh so much better in his opinion. As opinions go, I disagree with him because I'm loving this part of the roller coaster city ride - this is a tale for the next generation ... Enjoy today!

 

[1972Bramhall_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.

Why is it not right ?

Exactly, why is it not right? Going right back to the foundation of the league rich men have put money into football (Preston's invincible s with their recruiting of top Scots for example), all that's changed is that the rich men need to be a lot richer. When Abramovich bought Chelsea my thoughts were 'good luck to them' and 'good someone else who might stop the Rags!'

 

[Londonblue20]

Just a final posting from me on this subject before I head off to Wembley. Lots of responses to my posting. I agree with most posters on here. I don't hanker after the old days and love every minute of the success the money has delivered to us. I also sat through the shite of Wycombe and Gillingham away, traveled to Preston and down to Charlton (outside of prem league) + many, many others, so I have been on the journey. My main gripe with many posters on here is their inability to see it from both sides and accept there is an alternate view. I accept some people saw the Chelsea money and thought I'd love to get the money too. I didn't and know that at the time many City supporters did not like what was happening at Stamford Bridge. Now we're there there's no turning back and I will go on the ups (last minute QPR) and the downs (last minute Wigan). David Conn is entitled to his views just like any one on here and he takes the criticism as a thick skinned journalist has to do. He could write benign pieces like many journalists do but they're instantly forgettable and do not draw in people like us to have a debate. I don't agree with some of his views but that doesn't mean he is not entitled to express them.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

You getting vicariously excited, gets me excited.

Vicariously, obviously.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

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.

No he didn't, he actually asked if both men were Jewish?

I chose my words very carefully and also invited the mods to pull it if they felt it crossed any line, they didn't.

I''m pretty comfortable with what I attempted to introduce, that an upbringing/faith could perhaps influence and help form opinion?

I feel it most certainly can.

On the matter of David Conn, Prestwich Blue, who knows him, was able to settle that score.

 

[petrusha]

I don't know Conn personally, but some years back I used to correspond with Shindler and I've also worked with his brother in the past. My own view is that their opinion of what's happening at City has nothing to do with where our owner and key stakeholders come from. In my opinion, they'd both feel exactly the same if we were owned by a Russian like Roman Abramovich, who's also Jewish.

I disagree with them both implacably over pretty much everything to do with the club in its current incarnation. However, while I think it would misrepresent their respective views to treat them as mirroring one another exactly, I think they both do have a tendency to over-romanticise the past, which is why Blue Since Hyde Road's post some way back in the thread was so on point.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

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.

I've just read his Wikipage and can't see anything wrong with it.. the fact he's won awards (and a signficant bunch of them) should be up on there, just as City's titles & cups should be listed on any summation of our club.

People are entitled to their opinions, and I find Conn's writing worth reading - and it doesn't upset me.

I've never seen him as anti-City, although I don't empathise with his diminishing sense of satisfaction I can respect his perspective (not so much with Colin Schindler but that's another story) and I can't quite understand the level of vitriol on this thread.

Conn is a journalist. I think he accomplishes his work with great credit. What's on his Wikipedia page would seem to justify this conclusion, although I fully recognise for others on here this doesn't seem to be a widely held opinion.