How did GPC get away with it ?

Murph

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Aug 2008
Messages
4,593
Any ref who was considered to have had a poor game from utd's point of view wouldn't get another one of their games for ages back then, some went about a year with no rag games. Then when the refs did finally get rag games again, boy did they show their gratitude. The whole episode stunk.
 

Vienna_70

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Jun 2009
Messages
25,027
Location
100, 32, 106, +79, 19
Team supported
The Only Team in Manchester!
How did he get away with it? Maybe the following will give you a clue (and apologies in advance for going on at length)..

In February 2008, long before City were taken over by The Sheik, I entered into correspondence with a UK football journalist working for one of the Sunday 'quality papers'. This was and remains the only time I've ever done this. I'd sent an e-mail into the said sports writer (who shall remain anonymous, as I don't think it's fair to quote names in this instance and, this article apart, I've always enjoyed this writer's output and take on football matters). I'd sent it because I was pretty hacked off by a piece he'd written in advance of the Manchester 'derby' game that month, (in?)famously being chosen by the Premier League's computer to take place during the 50th anniversary week of the Munich Air Disaster.

The newspaper article suggested that there may be 'trouble' at the Old Trafford game and that City supporters might not be trusted to behave correctly during the pre-match commemoration of the Air Disaster, let alone the game itself, as, the article pointed out, us City fans were regularly guilty of singing 'Munich' chants and making all sorts of 'Munich' gestures when confronting our arch rivals. The article did not question the wisdom of the Premier League's decision to schedule the game as it had. Finally, there was no suggestion of any criticism of United and its handling of the Munich disaster aftermath down the decades, rather it emphasised that the 'problems' should they arise, were likely to be down to City supporters and City supporters alone.

I pointed out several things in my response to the articles:
(a) that the suggestion City fans wouldn't behave was based on no evidence
(b) that in fact, I expected City supporters to behave impeccably (as we did) as the Munich air Disaster was, actually, MANCHESTER's disaster, involving loss of life of City-connected people and people from other walks of life
(c) that I had attended the welcome home celebration for United after losing the 1958 Cup Final barely a few months after the disaster, being taken there by my parents (I was on my Dad's shoulders), aunts and uncles (all Blues) and our neighbours (season ticket holding Reds), all chanting 'We want Matt!' as the team appeared on the Town Hall balcony
(d) that throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s Manchester commemorated the disaster with dignity, especially when it came to the 'Evening News' edition with its 'In Memoriam' notices on 6 February each year; I can remember kids being chided by adults for speaking negatively about the disaster or making jokes about it
(e) that despite this, still there was a growing dissatisfaction about United's response to the disaster and especially the way players and their families were treated by the club, pushing them out of club houses, refusing to compensate them properly and so on (I gave the example of Albert Scanlon, who my mother would babysit for in Hulme when she was a young girl/woman and who I'd met on a couple of occasions when my parents would go to Sinclair's Oyster Bar in the 70s of a Saturday night, when Albert always spent time chatting with my Mum. He was very upset about his treatment)
(f) that United's callous behaviour post-disaster (apart from the clock at the ground) was compounded by its change of direction in the 90s onward, when suddenly 'Munich' seemed to become a marketing tool for the club post-Stock Market flotation.. yet still no proper compensation for its servants after the disaster..
(g) that the 40th anniversary commemoration in 1998 had put the tin lid on things for those of us who had been around when the crash happened, involving as it did the disgraceful payments to Eric Cantona and his entourage and, yet again, the fans being asked to stump up money for the compensation (finally, 40 years on) to any surviving players
(h) that overall, I believed that United had behaved dreadfully throughout the years since Munich; that, as above, originally what was MANCHESTER's disaster had become hijacked over time as part of the marketing legend that was underpinning the club; and that I'd love to know why our press never commented on any of the things I was pointing out to this particular journalist, never mind all of the problems that this club and a couple of others at the top of the English football hierarchy were causing for the rest of the game with their accretion of power post-Premier League..

The responses I got (we swapped a couple of e-mails) were quite clear. The journalist agreed with every point I made, as above, with the exception of one.. the last one, to tackle United over its practices and those of the other clubs they were in cahoots with both here and in Europe.

The reply came in words to the effect that 'If you think I, or any sports writer, is going to commit professional suicide by taking on Manchester United or Alex Ferguson, you've got another think coming..'

After the game had been played and our fans behaved impeccably before and after we won 2-0, the journalist wrote a final e-mail to apologise for taking the line that City fans might 'cause trouble/be a problem'. I just wrote back to say 'Thank you' but I did also suggest people in the sports media might grow a pair of collective cojones and take on the real issues in English football, rather than simply be the ciphers of the vested interests that ran the game.

Judging by events over the past 12 years, I think I've still got a long wait ahead of me..
Great post and very interesting.

I think we all had an idea that the pisscan held that sort of power and sway over UK sports journalists, but never had any proof.
 

LongsightM13

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 Jul 2009
Messages
12,849
Location
"If you can't be a good example, then be a horribl
His malign influence extended beyond the world of football.
When his son was convicted of booting his missus, the mother of the GPC’s grandchildren, up and down the driveway of purple nose’s house, sentencing was adjourned for four weeks for the preparation of pre-sentence reports.
When journalists turned up on the declared date, they found the hearing had already happened and had been mysteriously been brought forward 10 days or so to an administrative session which they knew no journalists would attend, so that the most damning details couldn't be reported.
I think the MEN complained to HM courts service at the time but were fobbed off with a wishy washy statement
 

jaigurugoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Mar 2011
Messages
3,319
Any other club would be ashamed of the way they cheated down the years but they wear it as a badge of honour.

Ferguscum had no discernible style of play and no real tactical nous, he just bullied and cheated his way to the top.
 

Kun T. B. Horlocks

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Mar 2020
Messages
121
Team supported
manchester city
How did he get away with it? Maybe the following will give you a clue (and apologies in advance for going on at length)..

In February 2008, long before City were taken over by The Sheik, I entered into correspondence with a UK football journalist working for one of the Sunday 'quality papers'. This was and remains the only time I've ever done this. I'd sent an e-mail into the said sports writer (who shall remain anonymous, as I don't think it's fair to quote names in this instance and, this article apart, I've always enjoyed this writer's output and take on football matters). I'd sent it because I was pretty hacked off by a piece he'd written in advance of the Manchester 'derby' game that month, (in?)famously being chosen by the Premier League's computer to take place during the 50th anniversary week of the Munich Air Disaster.

The newspaper article suggested that there may be 'trouble' at the Old Trafford game and that City supporters might not be trusted to behave correctly during the pre-match commemoration of the Air Disaster, let alone the game itself, as, the article pointed out, us City fans were regularly guilty of singing 'Munich' chants and making all sorts of 'Munich' gestures when confronting our arch rivals. The article did not question the wisdom of the Premier League's decision to schedule the game as it had. Finally, there was no suggestion of any criticism of United and its handling of the Munich disaster aftermath down the decades, rather it emphasised that the 'problems' should they arise, were likely to be down to City supporters and City supporters alone.

I pointed out several things in my response to the article:
(a) that the suggestion City fans wouldn't behave was based on no evidence
(b) that in fact, I expected City supporters to behave impeccably (as we did) as the Munich air Disaster was, actually, MANCHESTER's disaster, involving loss of life of City-connected people and people from other walks of life
(c) that I had attended the welcome home celebration for United after losing the 1958 Cup Final barely a few months after the disaster, being taken there by my parents (I was on my Dad's shoulders), aunts and uncles (all Blues) and our neighbours (season ticket holding Reds), all chanting 'We want Matt!' as the team appeared on the Town Hall balcony
(d) that throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s Manchester commemorated the disaster with dignity, especially when it came to the 'Evening News' edition with its 'In Memoriam' notices on 6 February each year; I can remember kids being chided by adults for speaking negatively about the disaster or making jokes about it
(e) that despite this, still there was a growing dissatisfaction about United's response to the disaster and especially the way players and their families were treated by the club, pushing them out of club houses, refusing to compensate them properly and so on (I gave the example of Albert Scanlon, who my mother would babysit for in Hulme when she was a young girl/woman and who I'd met on a couple of occasions when my parents would go to Sinclair's Oyster Bar in the 70s of a Saturday night, when Albert always spent time chatting with my Mum. He was very upset about his treatment)
(f) that United's callous behaviour post-disaster (apart from the clock at the ground) was compounded by its change of direction in the 90s onward, when suddenly 'Munich' seemed to become a marketing tool for the club post-Stock Market flotation.. yet still no proper compensation for its servants after the disaster..
(g) that the 40th anniversary commemoration in 1998 had put the tin lid on things for those of us who had been around when the crash happened, involving as it did the disgraceful payments to Eric Cantona and his entourage and, yet again, the fans being asked to stump up money for the compensation (finally, 40 years on) to any surviving players
(h) that overall, I believed that United had behaved dreadfully throughout the years since Munich; that, as above, originally what was MANCHESTER's disaster had become hijacked over time as part of the marketing legend that was underpinning the club; and that I'd love to know why our press never commented on any of the things I was pointing out to this particular journalist, never mind all of the problems that this club and a couple of others at the top of the English football hierarchy were causing for the rest of the game with their accretion of power post-Premier League..

The responses I got (we swapped a couple of e-mails) were quite clear. The journalist agreed with every point I made, as above, with the exception of one.. the last one, to tackle United over its practices and those of the other clubs it was in cahoots with both here and in Europe.

The reply came in words to the effect that 'If you think I, or any sports writer, is going to commit professional suicide by taking on Manchester United or Alex Ferguson, you've got another think coming..'

After the game had been played and our fans behaved impeccably before and after we won 2-0, the journalist wrote a final e-mail to apologise for taking the line that City fans might 'cause trouble/be a problem'. I just wrote back to say 'Thank you' but I did also suggest people in the sports media might grow a pair of collective cojones and take on the real issues in English football, rather than simply be the ciphers of the vested interests that ran the game.

Judging by events over the past 12 years, I think I've still got a long wait ahead of me..
What a fucking post
Needs to go viral
Firstly to all those social media shills purporting to be journalists
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
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.