You are overwhelmingly referring to a 26 year period over the course of significantly more than a century, within which Liverpool were unquestionably imperious. My point, although arguably deficiently advanced in my previous post, is that over the course of that 100 years, for the vast majority of that time, 60 years at a guess, you’ve been ordinary, and lacking any real, or meaningful threat.
I state this not to belittle your club’s achievements, which were incredible from the mid-sixties to the late eighties, but to serve as a reminder that success, status and influence in football can be fleeting, and anyone who ascribes the title “nothing club” to a football institution that was formed in 1894, and has as much a story to tell as any other club, not only defiles that club, but every committed fan of any other club that just wants the club they support to be everything it can.
When Liverpool fans describe City in those terms (not saying you do btw) they defile so many other clubs by implication, which goes some way to explain why so many ‘neutrals’ want City to win the league.
History isn’t ultimately about trophies, it’s about people feeling that what they’ve invested in the past provides some sort of reward in the future; and there are no set of supporters in football who invested more in their club, relatively speaking, than Cty fans of a certain vintage.
We’ve got the stripes, and deserve every minute of what we’re now experiencing; and no Liverpool ‘fan’ from Bedford, who’s been to Anfield three times, and never had to properly dig deep as a supporter, can even begin to tell me otherwise.