Eastlands
Well-Known Member
Mike N said:Jesus, let it go!
I certainly will, but don't call me a horrible rag just because you dislike my opinions
Mike N said:Jesus, let it go!
Prestwich_Blue said:We've always questioned the motives of the owners and should continue to do so. We forced Swales out, Franny Lee took plenty of stick and I was at the forefront of the questioning of our direction under Wardle and that self-serving cock Mackintosh. They all had self-interest at the very top of their agenda.
We're the fans and while we may not own the club in any legal sense, it is very much "our" club. The major difference with these owners is that, as well as their self-interest, we've got something out of it this time. That's why I may question what people like David Conn, Colin Shindler and posters like Eastlands say, I fully accept their right to say it. We should always be vigilant about the future of our club.
Actually that's not true! Swales had ten shares when he became chairman and only bought a significant shareholding in the 80s when City's value was extremely low because of the relegations and debt that he had brought to the club - City was mainly profitable for the previous 4 decades or so before Swales and started making heavy losses during his time.Eastlands said:One last point, successful or not, Peter Swales who loved this club, put thousands of pounds of his personal wealth into Manchester City before he died. Ask yourself how much you have contributed?
Gary James said:Actually that's not true! Swales had ten shares when he became chairman and only bought a significant shareholding in the 80s when City's value was extremely low because of the relegations and debt that he had brought to the club - City was mainly profitable for the previous 4 decades or so before Swales and started making heavy losses during his time.Eastlands said:One last point, successful or not, Peter Swales who loved this club, put thousands of pounds of his personal wealth into Manchester City before he died. Ask yourself how much you have contributed?
When he sold his shares in City they were worth much more than when he bought them.
He was never the majority shareholder either
I'm afraid the same thing crossed my mind as well reading the "Bert Trautman, a Nazi trooper" comment. Bert Trautmann was a German Paratrooper, that doesn't make him a Nazi.Sky Blue said:Mike N said:.I've looked back at your previous posts and I sticking with the racist tag. There's something decidedly odd about your posts. .
I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday Mike after reading his bilge.
Mike N said:
Jesus, let it go!
Gary James said:Actually that's not true! Swales had ten shares when he became chairman and only bought a significant shareholding in the 80s when City's value was extremely low because of the relegations and debt that he had brought to the club - City was mainly profitable for the previous 4 decades or so before Swales and started making heavy losses during his time.Eastlands said:One last point, successful or not, Peter Swales who loved this club, put thousands of pounds of his personal wealth into Manchester City before he died. Ask yourself how much you have contributed?
When he sold his shares in City they were worth much more than when he bought them.
He was never the majority shareholder either
So Eastlands the truth is that I said:I hold my hands up to my lack of knowledge regarding Peter Swales financial input into City. I had got this impression on Bernard Halford's visit to an MCSC branch meeting when he was praising Swales on how much he loved City and how much he had put into the club. He obviously meant effort rather than money. I appologise for that mistake but I would not consider myself as having contributed more to City than Swales
I am also aware that Bernard Halford himself was disrepected as a 'Swales Lackey' in another thread on this site but I don't wish to enter that argument so I will finish with the point I originally tried to make and for which I was accused of being a 'Rag':
In a speech at United Arab Emirates University, Sheikh Mansourold his audience that the Blues were the club of the Arab world and that his tenure had raised the profile of Arab ownership overseas. The Deputy Prime Minister of the UAE also added that feasibility is the most important aspect of his ownership and thanks his involvement City’s popularity has soared in the UAE. He also told those gathered: “This is your club.”
WELL NO IT'S NOT - IT'S OUR CLUB That was my point Bye, Bye!
Eastlands said:ive been watching city for 50 years,i love this club with a passion,and am completely obsessed,but I don't feel I own it ,the alexander family did ,swales and bowler and co did,like wise wardle and now sheik Mansour,the man in the uae who has been a fan for 5 years has the same,ownership claim as me i,e sweet f.a,its now his club just as much as its mine,So Eastlands the truth is that I said:I hold my hands up to my lack of knowledge regarding Peter Swales financial input into City. I had got this impression on Bernard Halford's visit to an MCSC branch meeting when he was praising Swales on how much he loved City and how much he had put into the club. He obviously meant effort rather than money. I appologise for that mistake but I would not consider myself as having contributed more to City than Swales
I am also aware that Bernard Halford himself was disrepected as a 'Swales Lackey' in another thread on this site but I don't wish to enter that argument so I will finish with the point I originally tried to make and for which I was accused of being a 'Rag':
In a speech at United Arab Emirates University, Sheikh Mansourold his audience that the Blues were the club of the Arab world and that his tenure had raised the profile of Arab ownership overseas. The Deputy Prime Minister of the UAE also added that feasibility is the most important aspect of his ownership and thanks his involvement City’s popularity has soared in the UAE. He also told those gathered: “This is your club.”
WELL NO IT'S NOT - IT'S OUR CLUB That was my point Bye, Bye!