conn having a dig again

The part of his article that makes me smile is the"remarkable acceptance" of our ownership! The very owners whose fantastic backing of our club is sending me on yet another trip to wembley on sunday.The man is totally deluded.
 
I haven't got the time to go as in depth as i would like on this but i too was there in 1976 i was 18 years old.If you would have told me i would be 53 years of age before i saw us win another trophy i would have thought you were insane.

Football,like life has moved on.It is utter stupidity to hark back 35 years and more.As Glady's Knight sang in her song,''Can it be that it was all so different then,or has time rewritten every line?''

No club is going to compete at the top table in football without spending a lot of cash and hasn't for years.We were lucky enough to squeeze in through the door before the panic stricken elite slammed it shut forever.

Build a club through a youth policy?Again it isn't going to happen as all the top clubs are snapping up all the top youngsters worldwide,missing only the odd few here and there,which proves no problem as they just buy them later.SWP being snapped up by Chelsea was a perfect example of that.

I also say fuck off Conn,your constant whining about the old days being re-hashed whenever we achieve some long overdue success or are on the threshold of it are tantamount to treachery of the highest order.We have enough snipers in the media without a supposed one of our own jumping on the bandwaggon!
 
I read the article and really don't see why people have a problem with it, or him. As far as I can see the piece is simply a "contrast and compare" of two eras.

I read "Richer than God" and found it quite interesting, although I agree that his fascination with FCU was strange.

Conn has developed a special interest in football finance which cuts through much of the romanticism that attracts us to the game and our team and I think that some find this unsettling (I do). I dont perceive him as "having a go at City", he just tells it as it is.

Whilst I do think there is an anti City agenda in much of today's sports writing and coverage I dont think that Conn is part of that. He's certainly not out of the same stable as Colin Schindler.
 
Rodney said:
I read the article and really don't see why people have a problem with it, or him. As far as I can see the piece is simply a "contrast and compare" of two eras.

I read "Richer than God" and found it quite interesting, although I agree that his fascination with FCU was strange.

Conn has developed a special interest in football finance which cuts through much of the romanticism that attracts us to the game and our team and I think that some find this unsettling (I do). I dont perceive him as "having a go at City", he just tells it as it is.

Whilst I do think there is an anti City agenda in much of today's sports writing and coverage I dont think that Conn is part of that. He's certainly not out of the same stable as Colin Schindler.


Ok, David.
 
Rodney said:
I read the article and really don't see why people have a problem with it, or him. As far as I can see the piece is simply a "contrast and compare" of two eras.

I read "Richer than God" and found it quite interesting, although I agree that his fascination with FCU was strange.

Conn has developed a special interest in football finance which cuts through much of the romanticism that attracts us to the game and our team and I think that some find this unsettling (I do). I dont perceive him as "having a go at City", he just tells it as it is.

Whilst I do think there is an anti City agenda in much of today's sports writing and coverage I dont think that Conn is part of that. He's certainly not out of the same stable as Colin Schindler.


yep the only thing I question is this £1 billions spent on players its a total LIE
 
I find David Conn to be 'Thought Provoking' and there is nothing wrong with that.

Some might see his writings as moans and bitter digs at modern day City. I prefer to consider them to be the sharp contrasting blacks in our modern colourful appearance. In short, they actually add to the overall mosaic of what is the story of Manchester City!

Like most I prefer to look at the brighter more colourful parts of the picture but we still need the darker shades. Amongst all his darker tones are important themes however such as the changing age of the average football supporter now being a mid 40's middle income man. This worries me and should worry everyone as much as it worries Conn.
 
Clevers said:
Anyone who believes the world will not change is deluded and condemning themselves to a life time of disappointment.

As for building a future with a youth policy, if you don't have money that's a joke, because the clubs that do have money poach your product.

F###ing good post. At 71 for me today is the best day of my life and you know what I think tomorrow will be better, if I did not think that then what is the future for the next generation, people like Conn who go on about "the good old days" have a Peter Pan like brain.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Rodney said:
I read the article and really don't see why people have a problem with it, or him. As far as I can see the piece is simply a "contrast and compare" of two eras.

I read "Richer than God" and found it quite interesting, although I agree that his fascination with FCU was strange.

Conn has developed a special interest in football finance which cuts through much of the romanticism that attracts us to the game and our team and I think that some find this unsettling (I do). I dont perceive him as "having a go at City", he just tells it as it is.

Whilst I do think there is an anti City agenda in much of today's sports writing and coverage I dont think that Conn is part of that. He's certainly not out of the same stable as Colin Schindler.


Ok, David.

I find him a bit raggy in his outlook actually. What he’s basically saying is that when city were successful in his youth it was better than it is now. It smacks of jealousy to me.

He needs to make the success he saw somehow better than the success we are enjoying now because it gives him a sense of superiority. Much in the same way the rags will somehow try to make their success seem superior to ours.

He’s out of touch, a dinosaur and no longer relevant. It’s the ramblings of a very bitter man.
 
I picked him up on the £1bn figure on twitter, this was his response.

David Conn ‏@david_conn · 20m
@motoroffencelaw How is it misleading; it's an accurate figure of the money Mansour has put in to City, principally to amass the team.


What he conveniently ignores is the money spent on improving infrastructure and facilities. Even the most dewy eyed sentimentalist would not want to turn the clock back to the 70s and 80s surely?
 
The Flash said:
Fuck him.

He's a dinosaur. He doesn't represent modern day football fans, he is not the voice of MCFC. No need to get angry at an old codger who refuses to move with the times.

He merely deserves our contempt and pity.

Bollocks. There's nothing wrong with this article.
Yes, it may be a little stuck in the past, but even on Blue Moon there are plenty of oldsters reminiscing about the good old days. He doesn't say anything bad about the modern City team; just that's our team and the modern game is a world away from the one we grew up with. You want to know something....IT IS!
 

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.