Liew claims in that article that, "City know that they’ll never be as big as United or as loved as Liverpool or as cool as Paris Saint-Germain."
How does Liew think Liverpool and Man Utd built their clubs if it was not through decades of winning trophies? Wasn't it just last week that City's Reports and Accounts showed that we had surpassed Man Utd in terms of revenue generation?
He regurgitates the "this means more" claim of Liverpool fans when he claims Liverpool are more adored. Liverpool fans are no better, or fanatical than any other football fan, in fact they are probably worse because they are fed this drivel on a daily basis.
I'd have thought that after a decade of being terrorised by City the smugness of the media supporters of Liverpool and Man Utd would be starting to wane but apparently not. I don't think that readers of the New Statesman which is a house journal of the pro-Capital 'Labour' party (what a misnomer that is) will be entirely comfortable with this elitist nonsense. Many of them would instinctively identify with the rebel and that certainly isn't Liverpool or Man Utd. Football is big business now. There is no such thing as a proletarian football club but such a defence of the hegemony of Liverpool and Manchester United in the footballing world seems rather misplaced. Manchester United's influence in the modern game is fading whilst Liverpool seem to be at the end of their current team's resurgence and return to prominence they have won relatively little.
He's right. Manchester City are deeply unpopular in the world he inhabits but it is the media cesspit that should be held to account and not Manchester City which sustains much of their parasitic existence.
How does Liew think Liverpool and Man Utd built their clubs if it was not through decades of winning trophies? Wasn't it just last week that City's Reports and Accounts showed that we had surpassed Man Utd in terms of revenue generation?
He regurgitates the "this means more" claim of Liverpool fans when he claims Liverpool are more adored. Liverpool fans are no better, or fanatical than any other football fan, in fact they are probably worse because they are fed this drivel on a daily basis.
I'd have thought that after a decade of being terrorised by City the smugness of the media supporters of Liverpool and Man Utd would be starting to wane but apparently not. I don't think that readers of the New Statesman which is a house journal of the pro-Capital 'Labour' party (what a misnomer that is) will be entirely comfortable with this elitist nonsense. Many of them would instinctively identify with the rebel and that certainly isn't Liverpool or Man Utd. Football is big business now. There is no such thing as a proletarian football club but such a defence of the hegemony of Liverpool and Manchester United in the footballing world seems rather misplaced. Manchester United's influence in the modern game is fading whilst Liverpool seem to be at the end of their current team's resurgence and return to prominence they have won relatively little.
He's right. Manchester City are deeply unpopular in the world he inhabits but it is the media cesspit that should be held to account and not Manchester City which sustains much of their parasitic existence.