Absolutely correct.
If I may, one of my posts from 2020 supports the point you make (and apologies for going on about it at length but you get the drift..) particularly the section in bold below:
"In February 2008, long before City were taken over by The Sheikh, I entered into correspondence with a UK football journalist working for one of the Sunday 'quality papers'. This was and remains the only time I've ever done this. I'd sent an e-mail into the said sports writer (who shall remain anonymous, as I don't think it's fair to quote names in this instance and, this article apart, I've always enjoyed this writer's output and take on football matters). I'd sent it because I was pretty hacked off by a piece he'd written in advance of the Manchester 'derby' game that month, (in?)famously being chosen by the Premier League's computer to take place during the 50th anniversary week of the Munich Air Disaster.
The newspaper article suggested that there may be 'trouble' at the Old Trafford game and that City supporters might not be trusted to behave correctly during the pre-match commemoration of the Air Disaster, let alone the game itself, as, the article pointed out, us City fans were regularly guilty of singing 'Munich' chants and making all sorts of 'Munich' gestures when confronting our arch rivals.
The article did not question the wisdom of the Premier League's decision to schedule the game as it had.
Finally, the article made no criticism of United and its handling of the Munich disaster aftermath down the decades, rather it emphasised that the 'problems' should they arise, were likely to be down to City supporters and City supporters alone.
I pointed out several things in my response to the article:
(a) that the suggestion City fans wouldn't behave was based on no evidence
(b) that in fact, I expected City supporters to behave impeccably (as we did) as the Munich air Disaster was, actually, MANCHESTER's disaster, involving loss of life of City-connected people and people from other walks of life
(c) that I had attended the welcome home celebration for United after losing the 1958 Cup Final barely a few months after the disaster, being taken there by my parents (I was on my Dad's shoulders), aunts and uncles (all Blues) and our neighbours (season ticket holding Reds), all chanting 'We want Matt!' as the team appeared on the Town Hall balcony
(d) that throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s Manchester commemorated the disaster with dignity, especially when it came to the 'Evening News' edition with its 'In Memoriam' notices on 6 February each year; I can remember kids being chided by adults for speaking negatively about the disaster or making jokes about it
(e) that despite this, still there was a growing dissatisfaction about United's response to the disaster and especially the way players and their families were treated by the club, pushing them out of club houses, refusing to compensate them properly and so on (I gave the example of Albert Scanlon, who my mother would babysit for in Hulme when she was a young girl/woman and who I'd met on a couple of occasions when my parents would go to Sinclair's Oyster Bar in the 70s of a Saturday night, when Albert always spent time chatting with my Mum. He was very upset about his treatment)
(f) that United's callous behaviour post-disaster (apart from erecting the commemorative clock at the ground) in ignoring those affected most by the crash, was compounded by its change of direction in the 90s onward, when suddenly 'Munich' seemed to become a marketing tool for the club post-Stock Market flotation.. yet still no proper compensation for its servants after the disaster..
(g) that the 40th anniversary commemoration in 1998 had put the tin lid on things for those of us who had been around when the crash happened, involving as it did the disgraceful payments to Eric Cantona and his entourage and, yet again, the fans being asked to stump up money for the compensation (finally, 40 years on) to any surviving players
(h) that overall, I believed that United had behaved dreadfully throughout the years since Munich; that, as above, originally what was MANCHESTER's disaster had now become hijacked in recent times as part of the marketing legend that was underpinning the club; and that I'd love to know why our press never commented on any of the things I was pointing out to this particular journalist, never mind all of the problems that this club and a couple of others (Liverpool and Arsenal) at the top of the English football hierarchy were causing for the rest of the game with their accretion of power post-Premier League..
The responses I got (we swapped a couple of e-mails) were quite clear. The journalist agreed with every point I made, as above, with the exception of one.. the last one, to tackle United over its practices and those of the other clubs it was in cahoots with both here and in Europe.
The reply came in words to the effect that 'If you think I, or any sports writer, is going to commit professional suicide by taking on Manchester United or Alex Ferguson, you've got another think coming..'
After the game had been played and our fans behaved impeccably before and after we won 2-0, the journalist wrote a final e-mail to apologise for taking the line that City fans might 'cause trouble/be a problem'.
I just wrote back to say 'Thank you' but I did also suggest people in the sports media might grow a pair of collective cojones and take on the real issues in English football, rather than simply be the ciphers of the vested interests that ran the game, ie the 'Red Cartel'.
Judging by events over the past 12 years, I think I've still got a long wait ahead of me.."
