The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,560
I’d be pissed off if it was the other way around tbf, but that would be because I was being a mard arse little **** who could give it out but not take it.Manchester City Disrespecting Football Once Again. Nothing Changes eh?
Guardiola Accused of Disrespect for Celebrating a Goalbitterandblue.sbnation.com
He’d have just flashed his arse at Pep like he did to the Kippax the fucking weirdo!
Shame Brian Laws didn’t do something to him that warranted a ten game ban.
Oh we did, very loudly and very clearly at the Maine Road FA Cup quarter final in 88 when they were 3 or 4 nil upAgree 100 per cent. It is just deflecting from our brilliant team and giving ammunition to our enemies. We should also ditch the "murderers" song. Heysel happened in 1986. We didn't sing anything about it till about five years ago so I don't think we should use it as a weapon almost 40 years after the event.
Heysel has managed to establish itself and become weaponised since 1985 (not 1986) for two principal reasons.Agree 100 per cent. It is just deflecting from our brilliant team and giving ammunition to our enemies. We should also ditch the "murderers" song. Heysel happened in 1986. We didn't sing anything about it till about five years ago so I don't think we should use it as a weapon almost 40 years after the event.
I knew I liked you for a reasonHeysel has managed to establish itself since 1985 (not 1986) for two principal reasons.
Firstly, Liverpool’s (club and supporters) inability to take responsibility or treat it solemnly enough: continued blame of extraneous, tenuous (at best) factors; refusal to refer to it in honest terms (‘collapsing wall’); lack of respect for its anniversary (in stark contrast with that for Hillsborough). They want to reshape the narrative, and extinguish the causes from history, and they shouldn’t be allowed to, which your approach would surely aid and abet.
Secondly, given their developing predilection for being unable to accept responsibility and blame for events in recent years, Heysel is the apotheosis of this, and provides the best platform to expose this trait to comical effect: Chelsea fans, Belgian skinheads, Juventus fans.
So , when you think about it, in actual fact, the rise in references to Heysel, are ultimately the fault of Liverpool fans…
How can you say that?Heysel has managed to establish itself and become weaponised since 1985 (not 1986) for two principal reasons.
Firstly, Liverpool’s (club and supporters) subsequent inability to take responsibility or treat it solemnly enough: continued blame of extraneous, tenuous (at best) factors; refusal to refer to it in honest terms (‘collapsing wall’); lack of respect for its anniversary (in stark contrast with that for Hillsborough). They want to reshape the narrative, and extinguish the actual cause from history, and they shouldn’t be allowed to, which your approach would surely aid and abet (not talking specifically about ‘murderers’ references, but more generally).
Secondly, given their developing predilection for being unable to accept responsibility and blame for events in recent years, Heysel is the apotheosis of this, and provides the best platform to expose this trait to comical effect: Chelsea fans, Belgian skinheads, Juventus fans.
So , when you think about it, in actual fact, the rise in references to Heysel, are ultimately the fault of Liverpool fans…