He was an even worse player than he is a pundit. On my list of great strikers he is down at no.35,896, and that's being generous.
Media Thread - 2021/22
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,288
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Can‘t be that privately, can it?
Ed Woodentop briefed the press on his departure. Asked about the huge transfer spending he said: "We had to keep up with the state owned clubs." Keep up???
Last edited:
James Gheerbrant (who?!) in the Times, took a swipe at City yesterday by comparing us unfavourably to Shane Warne. He said "Manchester City embody an entirely different, almost opposite, mode of excellence: a team with no outsize individuals, little of that magic charisma; serial winners driven by process, not personality."
He then goes on to describe how we dominate games, using some stats to demonstrate how much better we are at it than "Sir Alex Ferguson-era" rag teams, but says "football was never meant to look like this."
He then has a swipe at Jack; "Grealish was, in many ways, the closest thing English Football had to a Warne; the wildly lovable folk-cherub, with that playfulness, that innate swagger, the ability to bend a game to his will and have fun doing it... yet the player who was perhaps the most compelling in the league last season feels almost irrelevant now; denuded of some vital quality, it feels like we've lost his 'Grealishness'."
He finishes the article by droning on about how our brilliance is impossible not to admire, but is not enjoyable or fun to watch.
Most tellingly, his article is below a 2 page puff-piece with a "Trent" headline; the difference in emphasis is clear and obvious!
He then goes on to describe how we dominate games, using some stats to demonstrate how much better we are at it than "Sir Alex Ferguson-era" rag teams, but says "football was never meant to look like this."
He then has a swipe at Jack; "Grealish was, in many ways, the closest thing English Football had to a Warne; the wildly lovable folk-cherub, with that playfulness, that innate swagger, the ability to bend a game to his will and have fun doing it... yet the player who was perhaps the most compelling in the league last season feels almost irrelevant now; denuded of some vital quality, it feels like we've lost his 'Grealishness'."
He finishes the article by droning on about how our brilliance is impossible not to admire, but is not enjoyable or fun to watch.
Most tellingly, his article is below a 2 page puff-piece with a "Trent" headline; the difference in emphasis is clear and obvious!
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
This line will have been fed to him by Neil Ashton. Stone is a willing stooge.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
It begins
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
The notion that united’s business model is good for anyone other than the Glazers and the likes of Woodward is utterly comical. Their performance in the league for the last nine years through the prism of the money they generate (and have spent) is irrefutable proof of that.
To any sane, rational and objective observer their business model is undeniably wank - as the mass disposal of players this coming summer will suitably demonstrate. Their lack of foresight and planning is comical. The shambolic replacement of Ferguson, the subsequent succession of managers, the number of failed big name signings, the state of the stadium, the disharmony in the dressing room, the (relative) lack of success on the pitch all stridently support this.
Stone (once again) marks himself as an utter fool for implicitly endorsing that ‘thought’. The bloke is an absolute fucking clown.
horlock_was_super
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 3,545
- Location
- In complete despair at 93:19
- Team supported
- Manchester City F.C.
Then of course every media outlet would refer to the top 21
M
M
mat
Guest
- Status