A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Damocles said:
moody - fascist, correct
talk about kettle of fish!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
munich and the truth
- Thread starter crizack
- Start date
moody - fascist, correct
talk about kettle of fish!
southern muppet
Well-Known Member
Care? Let them go on with their illegitimate lunge for sympathy and contrived, morbid faux-mourning for something most don't personally relate to. We'll just carry on winning football matches without a subtext.
Why should it be our job as City fans to go around being the 'Man United police' and trying to bring their every flaw to public attention? Can't we just get on with supporting City.
There's always going to be rivalry and local rivals will never be entirely 'just another club' to us nor should they be, but in the main I think there's a section of City fans that need to relegate United to something much closer to that.
Why should it be our job as City fans to go around being the 'Man United police' and trying to bring their every flaw to public attention? Can't we just get on with supporting City.
There's always going to be rivalry and local rivals will never be entirely 'just another club' to us nor should they be, but in the main I think there's a section of City fans that need to relegate United to something much closer to that.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
hooter said:It was a very different era, It was the 50s, have a look back at your history, things was very different, can't you understand this?oakiecokie said:This is such a coincidence !!
It was only a few days ago that I was arguing with a Rag over this same thing.
I told him that United evicted some of the widows and players and families,from houses owned by the Club,.but would he have it.
Its well reading all 4 or 5 pages was it !!
Brilliant piece and clearly shows what a twat of the highest order Fred The Butcher really was !
Things were different. There was a heightened level of morality than there is today, so it makes it even worse. I read that book when it came out and lent it to my Rag son-in-law. I particularly thought the Albert Scanlon experience was typical. A Rag taxi driver offers Scanlon free rides, MANUre get to hear of it, think they are paying, and try to put a stop to it! TWGC- The World's Greatest Cunts!
hooter said:I've been a Union man since the 70s, paid my dues to fight against the Man, been on strike against rich bosses that stamp down on the working man, so I know how hard life is.....Damocles said:1. It was the 50s, so what? That isn't long enough ago to forget morality.
2. What exactly "was different" then that made this acceptable?
3. What is our history compares to evicting the families of dead players?
4. Why haven't United, with all of their billions of success rectified this huge mistake?
You're a one trick pony argument, trying to excuse the inexcusable.
Some people have a agenda against United, I wonder why, it was a common practice at the time, new players needed to be housed.back then Football teams were poor, unlike now.
wow. just wow thats all i can say at that!
Bill
Well-Known Member
and the widows did'nt?hooter said:I've been a Union man since the 70s, paid my dues to fight against the Man, been on strike against rich bosses that stamp down on the working man, so I know how hard life is.....Damocles said:1. It was the 50s, so what? That isn't long enough ago to forget morality.
2. What exactly "was different" then that made this acceptable?
3. What is our history compares to evicting the families of dead players?
4. Why haven't United, with all of their billions of success rectified this huge mistake?
You're a one trick pony argument, trying to excuse the inexcusable.
Some people have a agenda against United, I wonder why, it was a common practice at the time, new players needed to be housed.
back then Football teams were poor, unlike now.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Fascism can be left or right now, interesting...
D
D
Deleted member 14625
Guest
mat said:Can we put this in the classics section please?
I don't think we can because "things were different back then"!
Gary James
Well-Known Member
The opening post is about a book Called "The Lost Babes" and it did an awful lot to highlight the plight of the familes and surviving players. Some were treated disgracefully but some were not. The book delves into various issues and should be a must read for all Utd fans and anyone with an interest in understanding the years that followed the tragedy.
Did United behave appallingly? Most Utd fans I've interviewed/spoken with as part of my own research (mostly for "Manchester A Football History") tend to think they did but, and this is important, we all have to remember it was a different era. Would any other football club have behaved the same? Who knows?
There are a few points I have to correct/highlight though because the one thing the tragedy needs is for people to stop using it either to promote myths or to denigrate those involved. The 2008 derby match was the point when I think Utd finally acknowledged their mistakes of the past and City fans were seen accurately (and not that ridiculously hyped up bunch of thugs the media suggested they would be).
So.... 1950s United were a very wealthy club (as were City). Both sides were profitable and neither side had to borrow money to fund player purchases etc. So they could afford to help the players however they saw fit and I don't believe any footballing authorities would have objected. Similarly, I'm sure Salford & Manchester councils would have helped house any new players who needed housing if Utd had wanted that.
Some players were well looked after by Utd ("The Lost Babes" gives a verdict why, but I won't go into it because I've not done the research and cannot possibly say) but others were not. Even in the last decade a newspaper has reported the story that one of the survivors (who has since passed away) had to sell his medals to buy a TV for his council flat!
Then there was the Testimonial and who was given most money from it - again it's covered in "The Lost Babes".
The story about First Div clubs wanting Utd thrown out of the League in 1955 is a gross exaggeration. The FA put pressure on Chelsea to pull out of Europe in 1954-5 - which they did despite many discussions between Chelsea and the FA (at a time when it appears no other side backed Chelsea's interest in playing in Europe). The year after, Utd ignored the FA and accepted the offer to play in Europe. By that time Scottish teams were competing and Chelsea had fought many of the battles causing public opinion to back Utd's bid for European football. Utd knew they had support; the year earlier Chelsea were alone. It should be remembered though that Wolves (who missed out on the title in 1955 to Chelsea) had been the biggest supporters of European competition and would undoubtedly have taken part in 1955 had they been Champs.
Utd should rightly be applauded for ignoring the FA, but to say the rest of football was against Utd is totally inaccurate. The general public and the majority of forward looking clubs backed Utd.
Of course Hibernian had reached the semi-finals in 1955-56 of the European Cup (the year before Utd became the first English Club to compete) and that had a major bearing on decisions made by English clubs as well. Utd were not the first British team to compete.
The FA were totally out of line with public opinion (sounds like nothing's changed!) and in 1958 after the crash City were asked by UEFA to take Utd's place in the competition as Manchester's representatives if Utd were unable to field a team. City said they would do all they could to help Utd and that it was for Utd to determine what action they would take, while the FA stubbornly said words to the effect of 'What's it got to do with UEFA. We're the FA, we decide which team takes Utd's place and that team will probably be Spurs' (they were runners up in 1957). Some Utd writers have incorrectly claimed City were desperate to take Utd's European place - totally inaccurate!
In my book "Manchester A Football History" I have tried to explain Munich, the after effects and how City & United worked closely together.
There are so many angles to it. Before commenting, any fan of Utd or City should take time to read the different angles to it, but above all else everyone should remember that this was a tragedy that killed 23 people - 8 of them were from United's playing staff and that's significant, but more significant is the fact that 23 people who died left behind children, wives, girlfriends, partners, parents, siblings and so on. This was a tragedy that affected many people.
Did United behave appallingly? Most Utd fans I've interviewed/spoken with as part of my own research (mostly for "Manchester A Football History") tend to think they did but, and this is important, we all have to remember it was a different era. Would any other football club have behaved the same? Who knows?
There are a few points I have to correct/highlight though because the one thing the tragedy needs is for people to stop using it either to promote myths or to denigrate those involved. The 2008 derby match was the point when I think Utd finally acknowledged their mistakes of the past and City fans were seen accurately (and not that ridiculously hyped up bunch of thugs the media suggested they would be).
So.... 1950s United were a very wealthy club (as were City). Both sides were profitable and neither side had to borrow money to fund player purchases etc. So they could afford to help the players however they saw fit and I don't believe any footballing authorities would have objected. Similarly, I'm sure Salford & Manchester councils would have helped house any new players who needed housing if Utd had wanted that.
Some players were well looked after by Utd ("The Lost Babes" gives a verdict why, but I won't go into it because I've not done the research and cannot possibly say) but others were not. Even in the last decade a newspaper has reported the story that one of the survivors (who has since passed away) had to sell his medals to buy a TV for his council flat!
Then there was the Testimonial and who was given most money from it - again it's covered in "The Lost Babes".
The story about First Div clubs wanting Utd thrown out of the League in 1955 is a gross exaggeration. The FA put pressure on Chelsea to pull out of Europe in 1954-5 - which they did despite many discussions between Chelsea and the FA (at a time when it appears no other side backed Chelsea's interest in playing in Europe). The year after, Utd ignored the FA and accepted the offer to play in Europe. By that time Scottish teams were competing and Chelsea had fought many of the battles causing public opinion to back Utd's bid for European football. Utd knew they had support; the year earlier Chelsea were alone. It should be remembered though that Wolves (who missed out on the title in 1955 to Chelsea) had been the biggest supporters of European competition and would undoubtedly have taken part in 1955 had they been Champs.
Utd should rightly be applauded for ignoring the FA, but to say the rest of football was against Utd is totally inaccurate. The general public and the majority of forward looking clubs backed Utd.
Of course Hibernian had reached the semi-finals in 1955-56 of the European Cup (the year before Utd became the first English Club to compete) and that had a major bearing on decisions made by English clubs as well. Utd were not the first British team to compete.
The FA were totally out of line with public opinion (sounds like nothing's changed!) and in 1958 after the crash City were asked by UEFA to take Utd's place in the competition as Manchester's representatives if Utd were unable to field a team. City said they would do all they could to help Utd and that it was for Utd to determine what action they would take, while the FA stubbornly said words to the effect of 'What's it got to do with UEFA. We're the FA, we decide which team takes Utd's place and that team will probably be Spurs' (they were runners up in 1957). Some Utd writers have incorrectly claimed City were desperate to take Utd's European place - totally inaccurate!
In my book "Manchester A Football History" I have tried to explain Munich, the after effects and how City & United worked closely together.
There are so many angles to it. Before commenting, any fan of Utd or City should take time to read the different angles to it, but above all else everyone should remember that this was a tragedy that killed 23 people - 8 of them were from United's playing staff and that's significant, but more significant is the fact that 23 people who died left behind children, wives, girlfriends, partners, parents, siblings and so on. This was a tragedy that affected many people.
laserblue
Well-Known Member
as i posted on an earlier thread one reason for the lack of financial compensation for the survivors & families of the dead is that to cut corners the rags underinsured their players.
another disgraceful episode is that when the 40th anniversary came round in 1998 it was planned to have a testimonial for the victims & their families. creepy toilet pervert martin edwards then combined it with a farewell game for cantona & switched the game from february to later in the year & hey presto the focus shifted away from the original objective. on top of that the greedy heartless **** cantona took £90,000 out of the proceeds as "expenses".
manchester united - bullshit, hypocrisy, inhumanity & commercial greed since 1958.
another disgraceful episode is that when the 40th anniversary came round in 1998 it was planned to have a testimonial for the victims & their families. creepy toilet pervert martin edwards then combined it with a farewell game for cantona & switched the game from february to later in the year & hey presto the focus shifted away from the original objective. on top of that the greedy heartless **** cantona took £90,000 out of the proceeds as "expenses".
manchester united - bullshit, hypocrisy, inhumanity & commercial greed since 1958.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Great post as usual,Gary.
I have an issue with Sky and their continual marketing of the disaster as much as I have with united.
The way they hyped the anniversary derby,for example...dragging in ex-"legends" backed by sombre Hollywood-style music to reminice on something thay happened when they were mostly in nappies...sickening.
You could argue-Twisted.
It has become an easy way to stir the emotion from afar in the armchair fan...they treat it all like a real-life movie-club faces tragedy,club comes back from great adversity to "greatness.."...it's perfect,fits the profile for the armchair sympathiser.He can show his "respects" from the comfort of his Wetherspoons pub chair,without actually ever being involved.Perfect.
Won't even sup his pint during the minutes silence...that's how much it means.
The tragedy has long been overtaken as a Mancunian issue and used by the media marketing men,Diana-style,as a tool to sell matches and reinforce a "brand" around the world.
Nothing more,nothing less.
I have an issue with Sky and their continual marketing of the disaster as much as I have with united.
The way they hyped the anniversary derby,for example...dragging in ex-"legends" backed by sombre Hollywood-style music to reminice on something thay happened when they were mostly in nappies...sickening.
You could argue-Twisted.
It has become an easy way to stir the emotion from afar in the armchair fan...they treat it all like a real-life movie-club faces tragedy,club comes back from great adversity to "greatness.."...it's perfect,fits the profile for the armchair sympathiser.He can show his "respects" from the comfort of his Wetherspoons pub chair,without actually ever being involved.Perfect.
Won't even sup his pint during the minutes silence...that's how much it means.
The tragedy has long been overtaken as a Mancunian issue and used by the media marketing men,Diana-style,as a tool to sell matches and reinforce a "brand" around the world.
Nothing more,nothing less.
JoeMercer'sWay said:hooter said:If United was unsuccessful would you be so upset.
Irrelevant, as I have disdain for other clubs like Liverpool who also play the victim card for their own commercial gain.
Only last weekend did I appeal to the BBC for air time on 606 to raise awareness for the Neil Young Appeal, something I have worked on quite a lot without any attention or fuss for the past month, and get turned down, probably because the cause wasn't such a big story for them.
The Appeal has now raised what we believe to be about £17,000, if the scarves estimation is correct.
We've done that, in 1 month, for 1 player and a cancer trust.
Puts you lot to absolute fucking shame.
Hear! Hear!
Cogently Expressed mate!
BertTrautmann'sParachute
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find that was originally Wolverhampton Wanderers.hooter said:But we had an agenda in the 50s, United with Sir Matt dragged English football into Europe, did you know, at the time some clubs wanted United banned from playing in the 1st div, they thought playing in Europe was beneath English clubs, have a search on the net.mat said:Like the rags are the greatest team ever since football started in 1992 for example?
blue dallas
Well-Known Member
Vermin ! everyone and anyone connected to this vile 'Brand'
they have the devil on the badge too ..says it all.
they have the devil on the badge too ..says it all.
gymshoe
Well-Known Member
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpzTv5fHgn0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpzTv5fHgn0</a>
Sums it up.
Sums it up.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
But they used to charge him to go into the museum to look at the articles that he himself had donated.hooter said:Albert had a free card as a ex player, you think we are the devil, you just believe the boogeyman stories you're Dads told you.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
The rags opposed anyone playing in Europe right up to the year they qualified to do so.hooter said:But we had an agenda in the 50s, United with Sir Matt dragged English football into Europe, did you know, at the time some clubs wanted United banned from playing in the 1st div, they thought playing in Europe was beneath English clubs, have a search on the net.mat said:Like the rags are the greatest team ever since football started in 1992 for example?
Whoda thunk it?
Bill
Well-Known Member
aphex said:hooter said:Because the last time I did i was banned, don't forget, I'm a RAG.
if you ignore a question on a debate about your team, and then claim this get out clause, well..
only someone like damocles or denro will ban you, the other mods are not fascist
spit it out lad.
that make me sound fascist. you of course dont mean that do you?
malg
Well-Known Member
To be perfectly honest, I don't believe there are any Blues out there who don't know that the Rags have commercially raped the Munich Disaster. Also, there's probably not may Rags who don't know it either (I'm pretty sure every single one of them knows about the Cuntona story).
However, I don't think that we, as Man City fans, cover ourselves in any glory whatsoever when we post comments on here about it. We should be bigger than this now, we should have moved on from it all....so let's do just that. Let the Rags do their thing, and we can just do our thing - sign more players and steadily eat away at them....TICK, TOCK, TICK, TOCK (I believe this winds them up even more than the Munich stuff - so let's just stick to that).
However, I don't think that we, as Man City fans, cover ourselves in any glory whatsoever when we post comments on here about it. We should be bigger than this now, we should have moved on from it all....so let's do just that. Let the Rags do their thing, and we can just do our thing - sign more players and steadily eat away at them....TICK, TOCK, TICK, TOCK (I believe this winds them up even more than the Munich stuff - so let's just stick to that).
badmash
Well-Known Member
What a c**ts trick that was from Cantona
And they all still sing his name
Only at the Rags
And they all still sing his name
Only at the Rags