FC United - Oral Hearing - judge rejects appeal (p 82)

[Tueartsoverhead kick]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

Come on, I think we all know the real reason City fans can't stand FCUM. For a while in 2005 many City fans lapped FC up, thinking it was a great way to get at United, but then two things stopped this in its tracks.

First, it became apparent that FC fans hadn't stopped being United fans - they still sang United songs, in that their protest songs were against Glazer and the corporate control of football, rather than against MUFC per se. This was a disappointment to many City fans.

Secondly, City were becoming more and more a part of that corporate world that FC fans were against, and more tellingly, that City had for a long time said they were against. Now, the existence of FC is not just an embarrassment to United, but also to City, whose fans are trying to get on with reveling in their club's recent success, and don't like the idea of a football club on their doorstep that is based on values that fly in the face of the current reality of Manchester City.

So it's that hypocrisy, between what City fans say they are all about, and what the reality reveals to the world, that is the problem. Highlighting the perceived hypocrisy of FCUM, gleaned from individual fans' choice of phrasing on social networking sites, might provide a handy argument to hide behind, but City fans simply can't hide from the fact that their club is not what they like to believe it is, and for most objective observers, there's only one football club that represents the interests of the working class fan in Manchester, and it's about to get a home just down the road from 'The Etihad'.

luddite, working class fans???? are you having a laugh?
I've seen on your website the jobs that your board members have - working class?
More like middle class men going through a mid life crisis....
and your chief executive or whatever he is called mugs you all for 35K a year!

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

Come on, I think we all know the real reason City fans can't stand FCUM. For a while in 2005 many City fans lapped FC up, thinking it was a great way to get at United, but then two things stopped this in its tracks.

First, it became apparent that FC fans hadn't stopped being United fans - they still sang United songs, in that their protest songs were against Glazer and the corporate control of football, rather than against MUFC per se. This was a disappointment to many City fans.

Secondly, City were becoming more and more a part of that corporate world that FC fans were against, and more tellingly, that City had for a long time said they were against. Now, the existence of FC is not just an embarrassment to United, but also to City, whose fans are trying to get on with reveling in their club's recent success, and don't like the idea of a football club on their doorstep that is based on values that fly in the face of the current reality of Manchester City.

So it's that hypocrisy, between what City fans say they are all about, and what the reality reveals to the world, that is the problem. Highlighting the perceived hypocrisy of FCUM, gleaned from individual fans' choice of phrasing on social networking sites, might provide a handy argument to hide behind, but City fans simply can't hide from the fact that their club is not what they like to believe it is, and for most objective observers, there's only one football club that represents the interests of the working class fan in Manchester, and it's about to get a home just down the road from 'The Etihad'.

Oh dear, talk about delusional ideas of self importance.......
''on the door step of City''?
It's hardly Stanley Park with a stadium at either end is it? The objection isn't about FC United, (as you know, though we also know that it suits your ''Infamy, infamy, everyone has it infamy'' agenda that likes to think it's all about FC United) but the site of the stadium on a green field. But don't let that stop you informing Blues just how embarrassed FC United have made City fans feel...... (I feel it is embarrassing having to read that line)
Oh, please tell me again how much FC United got for switching the FA Cup game against Rochdale to a Friday night for live TV?
Ahhhhh, not quite as principled as you try and portray are we?
How does the song go again????
''I am an FC fan, I am a Mancunian (snigger)
I know what I want and I know how to get it
I wanna destroy Glazer and Sky.........''

Obviously ESPN on a Friday night is alright then?
Seriously, cut out the ''holier than though'' nonsense.

 

[underthemoonlight]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

Come on, I think we all know the real reason City fans can't stand FCUM. For a while in 2005 many City fans lapped FC up, thinking it was a great way to get at United, but then two things stopped this in its tracks.

First, it became apparent that FC fans hadn't stopped being United fans - they still sang United songs, in that their protest songs were against Glazer and the corporate control of football, rather than against MUFC per se. This was a disappointment to many City fans.

Secondly, City were becoming more and more a part of that corporate world that FC fans were against, and more tellingly, that City had for a long time said they were against. Now, the existence of FC is not just an embarrassment to United, but also to City, whose fans are trying to get on with reveling in their club's recent success, and don't like the idea of a football club on their doorstep that is based on values that fly in the face of the current reality of Manchester City.

So it's that hypocrisy, between what City fans say they are all about, and what the reality reveals to the world, that is the problem. Highlighting the perceived hypocrisy of FCUM, gleaned from individual fans' choice of phrasing on social networking sites, might provide a handy argument to hide behind, but City fans simply can't hide from the fact that their club is not what they like to believe it is, and for most objective observers, there's only one football club that represents the interests of the working class fan in Manchester, and it's about to get a home just down the road from 'The Etihad'.

luddite, working class fans???? are you having a laugh?
I've seen on your website the jobs that your board members have - working class?
More like middle class men going through a mid life crisis....
and your chief executive or whatever he is called mugs you all for 35K a year!

Deserves every penny. dont forget his PA as well.

 

[underthemoonlight]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

No comment on "twenty is plenty" topic?? you seem to pick the topics you wanna reply too? well.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

No comment on "twenty is plenty" topic?? you seem to pick the topics you wanna reply too? well.

I actually started the ''twenty is plenty'' topic on Blue Moon thank you very much :)
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=276063" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=276063</a>

Now remind me how much FC United received from ESPN for shifting the Rochdale cup game to the Friday evening (and the reason for justifying it) - or are you just picking comments you wish to reply to?

 

[Tueartsoverhead kick]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

No comment on "twenty is plenty" topic?? you seem to pick the topics you wanna reply too? well.

I actually started the ''twenty is plenty'' topic on Blue Moon thank you very much :)
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=276063" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=276063</a>

I think thats called OWNED lol :)<br /><br />-- Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:24 am --<br /><br />

No comment on "twenty is plenty" topic?? you seem to pick the topics you wanna reply too? well.

I actually started the ''twenty is plenty'' topic on Blue Moon thank you very much :)
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=276063" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=276063</a>

I think thats called OWNED lol :)

 

[luddite]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

Mad Eyed Screamer, it's quite sad to see someone who for a long time stood up for the match-going fan using such weak arguments to try to undermine an independent supporter movement. Your 'middle class' vs 'working class' argument merely plays on a populist belief that only people working on the factory floor or down a mine can be considered working class, and that anyone else therefore can't represent working class interests. A weak and anti-intellectual argument that serves the neoliberal agenda of dividing working people - well done.

The ESPN point is a fair one to make, though does rest on a lack of understanding of what FC United was and was not set up to do. It is possible to be against Sky and its owners in particular, and against the sidelining of match-going fans interests in favour of the tv viewer, without necessarily being against having football on telly at all. The club and it's member-owners discuss and debate things like this, and decides - on an ongoing basis - what is right for the club's supporters and the other team involved. On that occasion it was decided that a game with Rochdale was very different than say a game with Portsmouth (FC told the FA it would refuse a rearranged for tv evening game had we gone through the subsequent round to play Portsmouth at home - in the interests of their traveling fans). So while a fair argument can be made that the wrong decision was made by FC in that case, it is in the end merely an example of football supporters organising themselves and trying to do what's best, and perhaps getting things wrong sometimes. What you are trying to do is claim that it was hypocritical, based purely on your own caricatured and deliberate misunderstanding of both the club and the issue of televised football.

Finally, if the issue is purely about a building being planned on a field in a residential area, and not about football, then why is this campaign being played out on a Manchester City fans' internet forum? What's it got to do with everyone on here? You're not deliberately playing on City fans' existing antipathy towards anything United-related are you, in this non-football issue?

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

Mad Eyed Screamer, it's quite sad to see someone who for a long time stood up for the match-going fan using such weak arguments to try to undermine an independent supporter movement. Your 'middle class' vs 'working class' argument merely plays on a populist belief that only people working on the factory floor or down a mine can be considered working class, and that anyone else therefore can't represent working class interests. A weak and anti-intellectual argument that serves the neoliberal agenda of dividing working people - well done.

The ESPN point is a fair one to make, though does rest on a lack of understanding of what FC United was and was not set up to do. It is possible to be against Sky and its owners in particular, and against the sidelining of match-going fans interests in favour of the tv viewer, without necessarily being against having football on telly at all. The club and it's member-owners discuss and debate things like this, and decides - on an ongoing basis - what is right for the club's supporters and the other team involved. On that occasion it was decided that a game with Rochdale was very different than say a game with Portsmouth (FC told the FA it would refuse a rearranged for tv evening game had we gone through the subsequent round to play Portsmouth at home - in the interests of their traveling fans). So while a fair argument can be made that the wrong decision was made by FC in that case, it is in the end merely an example of football supporters organising themselves and trying to do what's best, and perhaps getting things wrong sometimes. What you are trying to do is claim that it was hypocritical, based purely on your own caricatured and deliberate misunderstanding of both the club and the issue of televised football.

Finally, if the issue is purely about a building being planned on a field in a residential area, and not about football, then why is this campaign being played out on a Manchester City fans' internet forum? What's it got to do with everyone on here? You're not deliberately playing on City fans' existing antipathy towards anything United-related are you, in this non-football issue?

Sorry, can you point me in the direction of a post where I said anything about working v middle class?
I'll answer the rest when I get back from work, just setting off now :)

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

Come on, I think we all know the real reason City fans can't stand FCUM. For a while in 2005 many City fans lapped FC up, thinking it was a great way to get at United, but then two things stopped this in its tracks.

First, it became apparent that FC fans hadn't stopped being United fans - they still sang United songs, in that their protest songs were against Glazer and the corporate control of football, rather than against MUFC per se. This was a disappointment to many City fans.

Secondly, City were becoming more and more a part of that corporate world that FC fans were against, and more tellingly, that City had for a long time said they were against. Now, the existence of FC is not just an embarrassment to United, but also to City, whose fans are trying to get on with reveling in their club's recent success, and don't like the idea of a football club on their doorstep that is based on values that fly in the face of the current reality of Manchester City.

So it's that hypocrisy, between what City fans say they are all about, and what the reality reveals to the world, that is the problem. Highlighting the perceived hypocrisy of FCUM, gleaned from individual fans' choice of phrasing on social networking sites, might provide a handy argument to hide behind, but City fans simply can't hide from the fact that their club is not what they like to believe it is, and for most objective observers, there's only one football club that represents the interests of the working class fan in Manchester, and it's about to get a home just down the road from 'The Etihad'.

I don't usually pay the remotest bit of attention to the comedy club which is FC united but that post is the most deluded thing I've ever seen on bluemoon. "Many city fans lapped FC up"? What planet do you live on? I don't think I've ever heard a city fan even mention FC united at a match or in the pub, because no one cares.

"There is only one club that represents the interests of the working class fan in Manchester" is frankly fucking funny. You have a head full of magic mate. The working class people of Manchester care nothing for your little united-lite outfit. No one is interested apart from a few hundred clowns who appear to like going to small towns and bullying the locals in the tradition of their tartan clad fathers in the 70s.

 

[The Flash]

Re: FC United - Judicial Review day 2 (pg 61)

Finally, if the issue is purely about a building being planned on a field in a residential area, and not about football, then why is this campaign being played out on a Manchester City fans' internet forum? What's it got to do with everyone on here? You're not deliberately playing on City fans' existing antipathy towards anything United-related are you, in this non-football issue?

The fact is luddite is that your club wants to directly affect the lives of some of the posters on here by building a stadium in their backyard. They are opposed to it, and as such, they have voiced their disquiet on this forum.