I'm going to reply to this post, and maybe one or two others, in some respects against my better judgement. These discussions usually develop exactly as they have on this thread and it really does seem best to hide your opinion from many if it doesn't fit with theirs. However, I do think it is incorrect that an opinion can be misrepresented as it has been here, and on other threads, so want to address that at least.
I also don't like the "great post", "you showed em" type rubbish that follows and encourages people to think they are playing to some sort of audience.
But, on this thread alone it has been stated that anyone who doesn't think that a human being seeking to attach themselves to a random successful entity for reasons of self glorification is a positive thing, must be:
- a very angry person
- desperate to try to tell people what they can and cannot do
- an ignoramus, who fails to understand the complexities of business and economics
- someone who is desperate to feel significant and attempts to do that by limiting opportunities available to others
-someone who will get "left behind" in a changing world
- deluded
On a previous thread on a similar subject I was even accused, of obviously being a social inadequate who would not be able to converse and interact with people. Purely due to holding a different view on this subject to that person and addressing what I felt were flaws in their stance.
Now, it may be true that I am a social inadequate and the person throwing the accusations is some modern day Oscar Widle, beloved by all. The reverse may be true. But it doesn't really matter, does it? It has nothing to do with this argument whatsoever and cannot be deduced from someone's views on this topic.
Neither can any of the above accusations.
Just to be clear, despite accusations to the contrary, made without any evidence whatsoever, speaking solely for myself and no-one else, the following are my views:
-
a very angry person
Not at all. This issue does not effect me in the slightest and will not do until there comes a point where I might be priced out by an influx of wealthier, new fans. At present that isn't on the horizon for me. I can sympathise, a lot, with people who are at that point now. But anger isn't an issue and it is hard to imagine why, just by dint of expressing an opinion, that accusation is made. It seems very much like a cheap attempt to decredit an opinion.
-
desperate to try to tell people what they can and cannot do
About the last thing I would ever want to do or feel entitled to do. Especially regarding a subject as insignificant, in real terms, as this.
-
an ignoramus, who fails to understand the complexities of business and economics
Despite repeatedly saying that it is obviously in City's interests to exploit the 'gloryhunting' phenomenon, this one repeatedly reappears. I'm not sure why expressing distaste for the human individual choice that people make means that you don't recognise why it is good for City
-
someone who is desperate to feel significant and attempts to do that by limiting opportunities available to others
Not really worth addressing. Relies on the concept of people 'feeling significant' in their lives as a result of their football support. More applicable to the motives of the 'gloryhunter', surely?
-
someone who will be "left behind" in a changing world
Nothing more than a cliche. Someone's opinion on this subject is not going to result in them being either 'left behind' or whatever the opposite is. Whatever side of the argument they are on
-
deluded
Cheap insult in the absence of any ability to debate
All of the above are poor assumptions that have no way of being substantiated and no evidence to back them up. They also have nothing to do with this debate and don't address any of the points raised. Yet they form the centre piece of many people's arguments on here. Strange and a sad indication of where some people are coming from
Anyway, as the below has been addressed bit by bit, I'll do the same:
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
This sort of comment is generally followed with a sentence which begins with the word BUT and then goes on to explain that the previous sentence is exactly how you feel, thus exclaimimg to those unfortunate enough to be listening to you that you do indeed need sectioning....
Is this anything other than a cheap insult. I genuinely believe that anyone who judges a person as a whole on the strength of their football support has their priorities in life severely out of kilter. You've chosen to take that and, because it is followed by a negative opinion on motives that you support, you've chosen to give have a cheap dig. Doesn't bother me but makes a bit of a mockery of your claim latter in the thread that you have been perfectly polite and rational.
and what exactly is a glory hunter? Is your definition something along the lines of this.... "Somebody who makes a decision and choses to have an association with something that they ought not to be connected with for reasons relating to success". Well who decides whether they have a right to have this association? You? Me? Who?
So answer me this oracle, if you were to relocate to another country for whatever reason and settle there, would any future family that you had follow City. Are they then Glory Hunters as they themselves have no actual geographic attachment to Manchester? Or is this sort of association OK with you?
I wouldn't have thought that anyone 'decides' for definite whether someone has a 'right to association' but it does not take a man of super intelligence, when provided with a bit of background, to determine whether someone has some sort of geographical or family history that provides a link with a club or whether they have purely 'chosen' it as a more glamorous option than those clubs which they might have those connections to. True, each case is different but the above is couched in language designed to suggest that anyone with the opposite view to yours is trying to tell people what they can and cannot do.
Like somebody liking a band which comes from, lets say New York?
I'm confuesd... So us mancs are the only ones who can "really" appreciate the music of the The Stone Roses because we were the only ones who were there when it first kicked off? What about a band that you've followed since their genesis but who are from a different city? Is this OK? Just so long as we were there in the begining? What about people who were dead when we were born but whose music we have since heard and that we now appreciate, we're not allowed to like them are we? I take it this is how you feel? 'cause I'm getting more confused with your views by the second ...
As has already been pointed out to you, music is not made by people designed to represent locations. Manchester City were formed to, and do, represent Manchester. Despite whatever cliches people wish to dilute that with, it is just a hard and fast fact. Barcelona are a Catalan club and represent that area. It is central to their whole existence. Milan represent Milan. Rochdale represent Rochdale. I have never heard an argument that successful asserts that football clubs were not formed to represent geographical areas and do not represent geographical areas and its people. Any argument that seeks to do so seems to rely only on saying "this is the case in the 21st century" despite any tangible evidence pointing strongly to almost every sporting entity being a representation of an area. Indeed, those that do not, say, the Barbarians, specifically align themselves and their existence on not doing so and therefore being substantially different to 'the norm'.
The band argument is embarrassing in its simplicity and its attempts to equate two concepts that are entirely different.
I also have a low threshold, but mine is for bigotry, and yes, mine also applies to any area of life as well; I have no time for people who's opinions are simply that, their own thoughts, backed up with no background understanding of a subject and who's only retort when asked to explain their ideas is simply the line "..'cause that's what I think, tha'sall"
I genuinely am lost with this part. I get the bits that are supposed to suggest that my views are based on bigotry and no idea of what I am talking about. I'm genuinely baffled as to where that has come from but appreciate that such insults and suggestions might help as some sort of prop for what might loosely be called your 'argument'. Again, I'm sure this bit does wonders for your self perception of being polite and rational in your response.
but it does sound like you would like to have that control, wouldn't you? And you haven't answered the simple question posed to you earlier by another poster as to what you define as "Part of it"? Everybody can be part of it can't they? They may have different ideas as to what "part of it" means to them, but they can all still be "part of it" in their own way, however large or small, can't they? Or does this "part of it" you speak of have different levels of "part of it"-ness? Remind me again, was it you who scored the winner against QPR? Or did you supply the cross for the second? Or just stand in the crowd cheering making yourself feel like you were "part of it"?
If I wanted to 'have that control' I would say so. But another attempt to suggest that I am lying about this and actually mean the opposite isn't much of a surprise by this point. Although it is disappointing that taking what someone says, ignoring it and then suggesting the opposite is actually true is a basis for debate. Hey, what can you do though?
And, yes, for the record, I consider myself and others who either go to watch City or have done in the past, are certainly more 'part of it' than those who don't and have chosen to 'support' this faraway club purely because they have noticed the relative glamour attached to it. Just as I consider long standing fans who get to more away matches than I do to be a bit more 'part of it' than I am, purely on the basis of the years spent propping up the club and the time they give every weekend to travel around the country. But this is semantics. We all know the type of decisions and 'supporters' that this thread is talking about. Those who have no connections with the club, yet shun the options they have connections with in favour of a more glamorous option. And those who espouse that they are hugely passionate about this club when the extent of their support and connection to the club and Manchester extends no further than saying they are a City fan and buying the odd shirt. You know that too but prefer to muddy the water.
and you are convincing yourself that you are MORE "part of it" because you go to the games at the moment and you still have the same 1990s purple away shirt? Ego can cause some very ugly characteristics can't it? Some may even say that arrogance is a fairly negative characteristic and one which is both superficial and deluded. Not very admirable either.
More insults and projection, based on very little. This polite stance, addressing the points is really unravelling by this point.
Which one of us isn't thinking here?
Er?
Anyway, despite all the above being far too lengthy and no doubt attracting all sorts of criticism for being so (number of posts until someone suggests that this alone is a reason to discredit an argument), my opinion boils down to this question.
Regardless of whether we are talking about football.....
is someone attaching themselves to a glamorous and successful entity, for no reason other than the fact that they are attracted to this glamour and success, and then seeking to aggrandise themselves and boast about this attachment (as that is undoubtedly what all football fans do to varying extents), all whilst talking about this attachment as if it is a major part of and immensely important area of their life, a human trait that you admire or not?
I don't admire it. In football, or anything else. It really is as simple as that.
What's more, I don't believe that there are many people who think any differently to I do on that question. Until the question is asked about football support.
