tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Tell them the Beatles had their first number one hit four years before Liverpool won a fucking FA Cup!
This would be my preferred option as an 11 year old.Nah cut out all the bullshit - tell your lads to give em a good hard crack and when they go down a solid kick in the bollocks - always worked back in the day when they came to Maine Road
I’ve posted quite a bit on my website in recent weeks that may help. Some of this is freely available and some just for subscribers. Here’s a few links:Thanks everyone but I’m specifically looking for the post or tweet (was it @Gary James ?) that condensed everything into one.
great information will keep all that for futureIf you look at the History section of this very marvellous fan forum, there is a City timeline which I found quite useful in brushing up on our history. You may be able to pick stuff out of there.
I also have this saved for opportune moments. It was a post on here that I particularly liked and can be customized for other clubs with just a little research.
As for Liverpool - it's important to note that Liverpool's run of success in the 70s and 80s was off the back of major investment from the Moore's family of Littlewood's pools fame. They were a 2nd Division club who invested heavily in the playing squad to kick-start their period of success and then the club was managed very well for the following decade through a series of managers. Similar to City, really.
United went on a spending splurge never before seen in English football after the cash injection of floating on the stock market in the early 90s (equity funding, not commercial revenue) and they broke the British transfer record 3 times in 5 years before Fergurson had won the league. In fact, in 1989, Fergurson took charge of the most expensive team ever assembled in the history of football, this 4 years in to the job and before he'd even won a trophy, remember.
Leeds were a similar sized club to City pre-2008. Leeds had won 3 titles to City's 2, but City had won more FA Cups and more League Cups, and the same amount of European trophies, (although City's was more prestigious). City's attendances have tended to be a touch higher than Leeds'. Prior to the takeover, City's average was 42k and Leeds 26k. Last time both teams were in the top flight at the same time, City's was 2004 - Leeds average attendance was 36k and City's 46k.
When City went down to the 3rd tier, our average attendance was 28k. Leeds average in the 3rd tier was around 24k, with their highest season average being 26k.
So what is it that makes Leeds more "proper" to City in your view? Is it just the lack of success over the last 12 years, or are there some other factors I'm perhaps missing?
Leicester, I assume was some kind of joke, so maybe I'll leave that one out?
So to conclude, I don't blame you for having the ignorances and misconceptions. Unfortunately, the way social media works, negativity seems to spread far more easily than truth. That's not your fault.