It gave the Daily Mail what they wanted. A chance to promote what should have been a very positive story about City by using a negative slant and so reaching a bigger audience of LFC and MUFC fans. Throwing beer on an elderly man is not impressive.Good, actions have consequences
Do you understand the meaning of the word "hatred" ?. Quinn is not "completely anti-City", far from it, like any civilised human being he can be critical at times but by and large he has mostly positive things to say. Maybe do a little research and not join the sheep. Hinchcliffe may seem negative at times but he has a job to do, give his opinion on what he sees. Just because they don't fawn over City does not mean they hate City and your ott suggestion that they do reflects more on your mindset than theirs.exactly it’s ironic that both Tyler & Quinn were the sky commentating team that day & both are completely anti City although Quinn’s antipathy came years earlier probably something to do with his last season & eventual exit, it’s strange really because obviously i love the commentary of that day, but i cannot stand the two absolute clowns Quinn & Tyler due to the hatred for us the both have, you can throw Hinchcliffe into the mix too, the snideness from them to us is beyond obvious and us Blues we see & hear it on the regular, so we’ve got long memories so i’m glad Tyler got booed.
Funny you should mention rags and scousers, "city must have known that him turning up may cause anger" , that sounds like the scouser blaming Juve fans for attending the game at the Heysel. Individual choice to be a moron indeed, City didn't cause him/her to behave like a moron, his "individual choice did" and decent civilised fans are fully entitled to feel let down.Because that is each persons individual choice, city fans have always let the club know when they don't like something, would people prefer we were happy clapping sheep like rags and scousers
Those that booed were perfectly in their right to, as I have said city must have known (I mean read our media thread) that him turning up may cause anger.
Last night's event was 100% about "THAT day".We get that about Tyler, but it's not about THAT day, is it?
Like UEFA, it's not the Chumps League, in particular, it's what they've done/ said about us since then.
give over lad, Quinn’s been snidey against us for donkeys years most blues see it, i loved him as a player i’m of a decent vintage not some daft kid, it’s a long time since the “Disco Pants” song, my personal view is when he went to Sunderland he couldn’t contain himself from lauding the amazing support of the Mackams every five minutes saying “they were the best around” “most loyal” “second to none” never gave our support for him the same press, and this was before he was involved in the consortium to buy them, never interested in a consortium to buy city when we were on our arse, it’s obvious when he smashed his leg up for us he’s bitter at the treatment from the club to him was even bitter at the love and support Uwe got when he signed for us, he’s bitter beyond belief, him and Hinchcliffe are embarrassing just do a straw poll of blues and you’ll see more agree with me than you lad, i’m just voicing what most decent blues see, we see the sniping & snideness from former players rival players in the media and journalism & im gonna call it out when i see it, not keep me blinkers on like some.Do you understand the meaning of the word "hatred" ?. Quinn is not "completely anti-City", far from it, like any civilised human being he can be critical at times but by and large he has mostly positive things to say. Maybe do a little research and not join the sheep. Hinchcliffe may seem negative at times but he has a job to do, give his opinion on what he sees. Just because they don't fawn over City does not mean they hate City and your ott suggestion that they do reflects more on your mindset than theirs.
Sky are by far the best of all the football channels when it comes to City. They have two pundits on there who do despise us, and Tyler does like to cosy up to them both. But the rest of them are all sound about City, and Sky have done some proper mint documentaries on us.Sky despise City. Our arrival as a competitive force disrupted the cosy cabal and blew the wheels off of their gravy train.
They despise City not only for that, but equally because as a fan base - unlike the two red cash cows - we cannot be monetised (milked) to anything like the same extent. The impact on their revenues since 2008 will be significant and getting worse as every year of our domestic dominance continues. They despise us simply because we threaten their business model.
If we had the commercial reach of the rags or liverpool, the Sky narrative would be the polar opposite of the snide indifference that we see today.
So what of Martin Tyler? He is a decent family man and a consummate professional, highly respected in his industry. Unfortunately for him, as an employee of Sky, he represents (with great skill alongside the dick Neville) the narrative of bitterness and hatred of Manchester City.
His gritted-teeth commentary of 93:20 was good but not at the same level as say Guy Mowbray who was able to bring to his commentary what Tyler absolutely could not - human empathy.
So inviting him to this celebration was such a stupid idea. Much better Mowbray himself, or perhaps someone like Martin Samuel who, after Sergio's winner, wore a smile as big as ours and has been an advocate of our Club for many years since.
Thankfully other than Tyler and the Hot Dogs - it sounds like they organised a great night for everyone!