Liverpool bus damaged on journey back from Etihad Stadium today

[cheekybids]

Your entire argument is that everyone else should forget the long publicised history of the song being associated with Hillsborough before 2017 because you decided to sing it for another reason and anyone who doesn't understand your top secret new meaning behind the song is out of order.

No it’s not.

You are only listening to the Dippers argument about why they don’t like the song. Why is the song now being sung by every teams fans?

The song is consistent & highly appropriate. Maybe if the dippers took it on board, admitted their fans are & club are often at fault & not always the victim the song will stop being sung.

 

[Blue Mist]

Your entire argument is that everyone else should forget the long publicised history of the song being associated with Hillsborough before 2017 because you decided to sing it for another reason and anyone who doesn't understand your top secret new meaning behind the song is out of order.

You twist everything and anything around to suit your corrupted narrative.
I've explained why I sing it. I can also explain why I will not sing that very funny song about Ryan Giggs. It cannot be sung without a reference to a terrible tragedy so I won't sing it. Always the Victims is NOT about Hillsborough so I can.

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

You twist everything and anything around to suit your corrupted narrative.
I've explained why I sing it. I can also explain why I will not sing that very funny song about Ryan Giggs. It cannot be sung without a reference to a terrible tragedy so I won't sing it. Always the Victims is NOT about Hillsborough so I can.

Same boat on the family man's song

 

[Chris in London]

Your entire argument is that everyone else should forget the long publicised history of the song being associated with Hillsborough before 2017 because you decided to sing it for another reason and anyone who doesn't understand your top secret new meaning behind the song is out of order.

No it isnt

Your entire argument is that a song consisting of two lines, one of which is sung three times, has one immutable meaning.

My argument is that you are talking bollocks. I am not asking anybody to forget the long publicised history of the song. I am asking anybody who is interested to accept that what was going through my mind, when I sang that song, was nothing to do with Hillsborough. And that is a claim I feel able to make on behalf the crowd who sang that particular song at that particular moment on that particular day because I was part of it.

There is, by the way, nothing top secret about it. The meaning was abundantly clear to anyone who heard the away fans booing Ederson while he was being stretchered off. I don’t have a problem with anyone who doesn’t understand that unless I’ve explained it to them and they are being arseholes about it. All I ask is that people don’t tell me I’m wrong about what I intended the song I was singing to mean when I explain what I meant to them.

 

[domalino]

You twist everything and anything around to suit your corrupted narrative.
I've explained why I sing it. I can also explain why I will not sing that very funny song about Ryan Giggs. It cannot be sung without a reference to a terrible tragedy so I won't sing it. Always the Victims is NOT about Hillsborough so I can.

I didn't twist anything. You admit it's not a song invented by City fans. It's a United song, that got widespread condemnation from clubs, supporters groups and the league for being about Hillsborough years before anyone at City sang it.

You cannot pretend none of that happened, you can't ignore that history and decide to adopt a controversial song and suddenly decide it's about something else and then not only that, but get upset that people think you're singing a song for the reason it's in the press and controversial before you picked it up - and get angry that the club condemns it and it draws criticism from the press.

You and @Chris in London and everyone else can all keep singing it and getting angry, but the club is going to keep condemning you, the league is going to take increasingly strong action and the papers will keep calling it a Hillsborough chant as they have done since it was started back in 2012 and long before anyone to do with City sang it.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Your entire argument is that everyone else should forget the long publicised history of the song being associated with Hillsborough before 2017 because you decided to sing it for another reason and anyone who doesn't understand your top secret new meaning behind the song is out of order.

Yet again you know everything and everyone else is wrong. There’s self opinionated and then there is you. Bluemoon’s very top know all without a doubt

 

[cheekybids]

I didn't twist anything. You admit it's not a song invented by City fans. It's a United song, that got widespread condemnation from clubs, supporters groups and the league for being about Hillsborough years before anyone at City sang it.

You cannot pretend none of that happened, you can't ignore that history and decide to adopt a controversial song and suddenly decide it's about something else and then not only that, but get upset that people think you're singing a song for the reason it's in the press and controversial before you picked it up - and get angry that the club condemns it and it draws criticism from the press.

You and @Chris in London and everyone else can all keep singing it and getting angry, but the club is going to keep condemning you, the league is going to take increasingly strong action and the papers will keep calling it a Hillsborough chant as they have done since it was started back in 2012 and long before anyone to do with City sang it.

Your quite right City will come out & condemn City fans. Now can you tell me a time LFC or Spirit if Shankly have come out & condemned their fans?

 

[Chris in London]

I didn't twist anything. You admit it's not a song invented by City fans. It's a United song, that got widespread condemnation from clubs, supporters groups and the league for being about Hillsborough years before anyone at City sang it.

You cannot pretend none of that happened, you can't ignore that history and decide to adopt a controversial song and suddenly decide it's about something else and then not only that, but get upset that people think you're singing a song for the reason it's in the press and controversial before you picked it up - and get angry that the club condemns it and it draws criticism from the press.

You and @Chris in London and everyone else can all keep singing it and getting angry, but the club is going to keep condemning you, the league is going to take increasingly strong action and the papers will keep calling it a Hillsborough chant as they have done since it was started back in 2012 and long before anyone to do with City sang it.

Maybe they will, maybe they won’t.

The press will report it in whatever way they think will make them the most money.

The club will keep on issuing statements that prevent worse consequences from following.

The action the league will take very much depends on whether the same regulatory structure remains in place, because a regulator might be less interested in accepting that whenever the song is sung it is a Hillsborough reference based solely on LFC’s word for it

But in the meantime, when City fans tell you what they meant when they sang that particular song you might do them the courtesy of accepting it.

Or do you seriously think that the meaning of a song, or a story, or a poem, cannot change depending on the context in which it sung, or read, or recited?

 

[Half time draw tickets]

Still no pics of that damage ey?

They wanted to scuff it up a bit more first for effect. Klopp put Nunez on the job but he’s not managed to hit it yet :(

 

[BringBackSwales]

It’s what they do, look at the club. They threaten & lobby using their influence of being major contributors of the prem leagues wealth.

Then they use their influence over the media. They are cunts.

You’re last 3 words are particularly pleasing