OneTonyHenry
Well-Known Member
This one for me was the precise moment I knew we had landed in the proverbial S#&%Show. If you believe that playing Garry could have given us just one more goal or one more point, then why the hell would you countenance a sale? Blind to the fact that we weren't too good to go down.But who would benefit from the deterioration of City's finances? Swales was hardly responsible for asset stripping in his first few years as the only top player to go to a top team was Francis Lee IIRC.
Getting rid of Gary Owen and Peter Barnes has always been blamed on Malcolm Allison. The selling of Trevor Francis, Michael Robinson and one or two others may indicate the dead hand of Swales, but after that the club was in decline so decent players wanted to leave.
The one that always puzzled me was selling Garry Flitcroft near the end of the 95-96 season when his ability could have helped us gain the point we needed for survival. - But that was another chairman wasn't it?
The powers that be said that the bank were making threats and threatening to pull in the loans (Coop I think). Well if thats the case how about mobilising the fan base across Manchester and ask them to threaten to close every account they have if the bank goes ahead. Watching their customer base fly away would have the bank management see their arses.
As it was we had a very worthy but incredibly slow midfield labour towards relegation and beyond - missing out on an estimated 50M in Premier League income - all for short term cash flow of 3M and a total lack of leadership at any level of our beautiful club. (All these years later and I still can't be calm about it!)
Last edited: