Matthew Syed Hits Out At Roman Abramovich

Although I didn't agree with every word he said I found it quite refreshing that a guest on Sky Sports actually had an opinion that they had formed rather than the typical cliche rubbish.
If it wasn't before, I feel the bosses need to question the quality of presenter as they are clearly not very good when interviewing someone on live TV when they go off the party line. White and Gallagher's performance was laughable.
 
Blue Hefner said:
Although I didn't agree with every word he said I found it quite refreshing that a guest on Sky Sports actually had an opinion that they had formed rather than the typical cliche rubbish.
If it wasn't before, I feel the bosses need to question the quality of presenter as they are clearly not very good when interviewing someone on live TV when they go off the party line. White and Gallagher's performance was laughable.
Yeah I thought that as well.
 
Well, it fair makes you fill up how the Rags rose from the ashes to become the role model for the rest of us. All the club needs to do is kick everyone out of all the surrounding houses at Eastlands and flog tons of rancid meat to the local education authority and we're on our way to becoming 'iconic.'
Plus get one of the senior execs to peer under doors in the ladies bogs and our superclub status is assured.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Well, it fair makes you fill up how the Rags rose from the ashes to become the role model for the rest of us. All the club needs to do is kick everyone out of all the surrounding houses at Eastlands and flog tons of rancid meat to the local education authority and we're on our way to becoming 'iconic.'
Plus get one of the senior execs to peer under doors in the ladies bogs and our superclub status is assured.
We hardly hold the high ground on this with our former owner running around the world hiding on charges of fraud while he is also not known for his active support of human rights
 
Skashion said:
Why is no-one commenting on what this idiot said about Sheikh Mansour? What a steaming pile of turd. Sheikh Mansour bought City to protect himself from the fallout of a war between Iran and Israel? That is an unimaginably stupid statement.

1. Firstly, no-one needs protection from Iran anyway. Iran has not invaded anyone in hundreds of years. If it's the nuclear threat, there's no protection possible. A missile-launched nuke from Iran could hit Abu Dhabi in thirty seconds.

2. Secondly, it's bizarre to talk of fallout anyway as if they'd just happen to be affected by events that have nothing to do with them, because the UAE are one of the nations pushing (or have in the recent past pushed) for an attack on Iran, as revealed by the Wikileaks embassy cables. Moreover, they're going to the US for that, NOT Britain. If a conflict did happen (which is thankfully far less likely now Ahmadinejad has gone), and the UAE had to defend itself, it is armed with plenty of the most modern western equipment, as is Saudi Arabia, indeed more so, who likewise would respond in full-force to highly unlikely Iranian conventional aggression.

3. Thirdly, if they did want British protection they'd already have it. The UAE buys billions in British-manufactured arms on a regular basis. You think the British establishment aren't going to be more protective of billions of pounds of arms deals (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/</a>) and tens of thousands of British jobs, than a football club? Really?

What an utter moron. Wrong on every single possible count. I can only presume that to be a journalist you are required either to be ignorant, or a liar, because knowledgeable truthfulness is not something I associate with any publication bar Private Eye.

Although what you've written is right. You're being passive towards the logic.

Point 3 - Although true, would and will not provide serious impetus to social and therefore democratic support in the west. In fact it would be completely overlooked by media outlets in the event of conflict. Building an association with a sports brand however...

Not that I agree with what Syed stated (I feel it assumes a little too much and borders on being conspiratorial).
 
BoyBlue_1985 said:
Ancient Citizen said:
Well, it fair makes you fill up how the Rags rose from the ashes to become the role model for the rest of us. All the club needs to do is kick everyone out of all the surrounding houses at Eastlands and flog tons of rancid meat to the local education authority and we're on our way to becoming 'iconic.'
Plus get one of the senior execs to peer under doors in the ladies bogs and our superclub status is assured.
We hardly hold the high ground on this with our former owner running around the world hiding on charges of fraud while he is also not known for his active support of human rights
No-one on here is laying claim to that. The point, which is always conspicuously ignored by the media and united fans alike, are the sinister elements which punctuate that club's history.

The relationship between these two parties is like the Egyptian Plover and the crocodile.

crocodile-plover.jpg


The crocodile, in the form of the press, are perfectly content to keep peddling the same lies and bullshit about united's virtue as a club, in spite of their rise to preeminence being fueled by them promoting their own interests at others' expense, or "doing it the right way". They are happy to allow the bird, in the form of the united fans, to keep swallowing this propaganda as long as they keep buying their papers and paying their subscriptions like nodding dogs.

The fact that Syed has fallen in with this tissue of lies says everything about his levels of integrity, in spite of his sententious pontificating about morality in the English game.

What a ****.
 
Uwe's Stinky Trainers said:
Although what you've written is right. You're being passive towards the logic.

Point 3 - Although true, would and will not provide serious impetus to social and therefore democratic support in the west. In fact it would be completely overlooked by media outlets in the event of conflict. Building an association with a sports brand however...

Not that I agree with what Syed stated (I feel it assumes a little too much and borders on being conspiratorial).
You think I'm being passive to logic when you think wars are fought on the basis of 'democratic' rancour? Can you tell me the last time a British government went to war because the people demanded it?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
BoyBlue_1985 said:
Ancient Citizen said:
Well, it fair makes you fill up how the Rags rose from the ashes to become the role model for the rest of us. All the club needs to do is kick everyone out of all the surrounding houses at Eastlands and flog tons of rancid meat to the local education authority and we're on our way to becoming 'iconic.'
Plus get one of the senior execs to peer under doors in the ladies bogs and our superclub status is assured.
We hardly hold the high ground on this with our former owner running around the world hiding on charges of fraud while he is also not known for his active support of human rights
No-one on here is laying claim to that. The point, which is always conspicuously ignored by the media and united fans alike, are the sinister elements which punctuate that club's history.

The relationship between these two parties is like the Egyptian Plover and the crocodile.

crocodile-plover.jpg


The crocodile, in the form of the press, are perfectly content to keep peddling the same lies and bullshit about united's virtue as a club, in spite of their rise to preeminence being fueled by them promoting their own interests at others' expense, or "doing it the right way". They are happy to allow the bird, in the form of the united fans, to keep swallowing this propaganda as long as they keep buying their papers and paying their subscriptions like nodding dogs.

The fact that Syed has fallen in with this tissue of lies says everything about his levels of integrity, in spite of his sententious pontificating about morality in the English game.

What a ****.

That is some analogy there mate, a very good one indeed. I doff my cap to you.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
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.