Media Discussion - 2023/24

[halfcenturyup]

Now, now, it's been bad enough with all this 'Theseus's Ship' and 'Trigger's Broom' malarkey..don't be starting up any more philosophy.. next, you'll be on the 'Descartes/Cartesian Dualism' stuff.. and you'll have this lot here at Bluemoon on the likes of 'Occam's Razor' and 'Schrodinger's Cat' before you know it!

Mind, in the event of such an FA Cup draw between City and Grimsby it would be interesting to see if the crowd turned up to watch both teams being there but not there.. positive (Kantian?!) could be we might not have to pay for it.. and for once us singing 'We're not really here!' could be true..?!

Forget all this philosophical stuff, I have never forgiven Grimsby for beating Droylsden in the first round of the FA Cup in the 70s. The bastards.

 

[big gaz]

When I was younger the Guardian was my daily paper of choice. At that time it felt more neutral and balanced than the others (plus the fact that Tuesday was Education jobs day ;-)) and I enjoyed doing the Quick Crossword as my evening wind down after work.
Nowadays I just do the crossword online and leave the rest!! How the mighty have fallen. Once the proud MANCHESTER GUARDIAN, now the slimy Guardian. JMHO

My old man was International distributer for the Guardian back in the 60'S hey ho
Never kidnapped a city player ;-)

 

[jim tolmies perm]

I'll help you.

He's trying to say Manchester City are owned by vulgar, brown-skinned people, who made their fortune from the carbon products that the Guardian and its readers hates. The fact that these vulgar brown-skinned people have actually done a rather good job of that ownership makes it worse, because they're supposed to be uncultured people who just throw money at things.

Rather than being owned by a white-skinned guy who made his money renting out TV's, making bog roll or selling over priced leisurewear. Or an American chancer, who doesn't risk putting in his own money but uses money from others and takes out dividends or consultancy fees. Neither do they enrich the community around their stadium.

And because we're owned by these vulgar, uncultured Arabs, we can't enjoy our successes as much, compared to if we were owned by a white Anglo-Saxon/Jewish businessman.

Hope that explains things.

Stunning PB

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

You can change man city to man utd, maine Road to OT. It still works with regards to ownership and links to the past..

Except the bit about holidays in the Middle East... seems he doesn't like certain owners

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Now, now, it's been bad enough with all this 'Theseus's Ship' and 'Trigger's Broom' malarkey..don't be starting up any more philosophy.. next, you'll be on the 'Descartes/Cartesian Dualism' stuff.. and you'll have this lot here at Bluemoon on the likes of 'Occam's Razor' and 'Schrodinger's Cat' before you know it!

Mind, in the event of such an FA Cup draw between City and Grimsby it would be interesting to see if the crowd turned up to watch both teams being there but not there.. positive (Kantian?!) could be we might not have to pay for it.. and for once us singing 'We're not really here!' could be true..?!

Ooooooh a mid-winter return to the Findus Fish finger stand ..oh yes please...but without the 4-1 drubbing please blues ;)
Maybe it's been renamed the
"Sir Marcus of Rashford" stand...

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Daily Mail article about ‘tragedy chanting’ leading to arrests & bans, yep you’ve guessed it, pics of the dippers and mentions of the Munich disaster, with a pic underneath of City players approaching Taylor after he gave that pen at the emirates (you know, the one that’s never been given before or since) when separately talking about surrounding officials, two for one right there for the Fail, the irony is it was those two clubs singing it to each other for 20+ years that got us to this point yet they’re the apparent victims

 

[Tracking back]

Daily Mail article about ‘tragedy chanting’ leading to arrests & bans, yep you’ve guessed it, pics of the dippers and mentions of the Munich disaster, with a pic underneath of City players approaching Taylor after he gave that pen at the emirates (you know, the one that’s never been given before or since) when separately talking about surrounding officials, two for one right there for the Fail, the irony is it was those two clubs singing it to each other for 20+ years that got us to this point yet they’re the apparent victims

Alls fair in love and football.

If the British Broadcasting media and written Press can bombard MCFC and it's fans with vitriol slander based purely on their racism, then a bit of tragedy chanting is grist for the mill.

 

[bluemanchester]

The Grimsby chairmans insecurity comes about because he is Chairman of a football club in a town, Grimsby, that is forever in the shadow of Hull and they can't even talk properly in Hull so no wonder he is a little bitter. I bet his father in law laughs his socks off at his son in laws inadequacies.

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

That's because it's an entirely false narrative.

In order for this article to make any sense a false reality has to be constructed to accommodate it, one
where a fans attachment to a club is underpinned by wider considerations, considerations that Stockwood believes are self evident, paramount, universal and unquestionable. Without this false reality the central premise of the argument folds, that's why you and I struggle to understand what point he's making.

It's not so much the point he's making is nonsensical, assuming one can discern what it is, it's that it can only exist in Stockwood's alternate reality.

This is the sort of narrative employed when the actualité is at variance with the writer's ideology.

To disguise the unreality, Stockwood tries to hoodwink the reader with a bit of history and a dollop of terrace cred, before making a clumsy dash for his political point by way of Greek mythology and gobbledegook...

"If an object’s constituent parts are completely replaced, does it retain its original essence and continuity?
Although there may not be a definitive answer to the question of what endures, it appears that the threads guiding us through the labyrinth of time are either weakened or strengthened based on our alignment with our own identity and values. As the physical infrastructure of a football club undergoes upgrades and changes, it becomes increasingly challenging to establish a direct line connecting today’s achievements with the club’s past. It is crucial to recognise that while our relationship with a club is rooted in a shared story and collective memories, there is also a need to align with our present-day values and that is where ownership plays a significant role."

"crucial"...."need"...."align with our present day values"

The big flaws in his argument, such as it is, are easy to spot. Stockwood makes no attempt to explain why any of the above is "crucial", beyond his confection of nostalgic whimsy and references to Greek fairy tales, and as a consequence "need" falls off the table, and as for ""align with our present day values", the question arises why?

Why should my support be conditional on Sheikh Mansour's values being aligned with "present day values"? Values left mysteriously undefined. One suspects that was quite deliberate, because what Stockwood means is his values, liberal western values, progressive values, the values everyone should aspire to, you know, the only ones that count.

Sounds like a retread of the white man's burden to me.

Very good post. Wonder why he doesn't use the Rags where the fans have been campaigning against the owners as soon as they stopped winning?

 

[The perfect fumble]

I'll help you.

He's trying to say Manchester City are owned by vulgar, brown-skinned people, who made their fortune from the carbon products that the Guardian and its readers hates. The fact that these vulgar brown-skinned people have actually done a rather good job of that ownership makes it worse, because they're supposed to be uncultured people who just throw money at things.

Rather than being owned by a white-skinned guy who made his money renting out TV's, making bog roll or selling over priced leisurewear. Or an American chancer, who doesn't risk putting in his own money but uses money from others and takes out dividends or consultancy fees. Neither do they enrich the community around their stadium.

And because we're owned by these vulgar, uncultured Arabs, we can't enjoy our successes as much, compared to if we were owned by a white Anglo-Saxon/Jewish businessman.

Hope that explains things.

That's why it's essential for the football establishment that the 115 charges stick. Manchester city's success has to be framed as one huge con job, because if it isn't the spot light swings back on them.