plattlaneregular said:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
58,000 people at the Charlton 5-1 say it was a fair comment.
I'm presuming you misunderstood what I was saying. I was backing Swales in this. There were huge crowds on many occasions. It appeared that de niro was mocking Swales v Sheikh Mansour by saying 32k if Swales in charge?
By the way the attendance v Charlton was 48k.
It's true to say that occasionally I get corrected on factual matters relating to City, but it's a rare occurrence and I'm sorry to inform you that this is not one such occasion, as by common consent, my attendance figure was considerably more accurate than yours.
I believe I can state with some confidence, that de niro was saying was that Swales would have declared the crowd at 32,000, less than the actual figure, something he routinely did, the most notable and well rehearsed example being the Charlton game, when the Kippax was dangerously over full and the aisles in the Platt Lane were chock-a-block. Where the missing money went from these anomalies one can only guess, but my experience of men like Peter Swales suggests it wasn't to the local dogs home.
You therefore presumed in a way that was wholly incorrect. I was fully aware that you were defending Swales and I was pointing towards the risibility of such a stance.
I'm sure Peter Swales convinced himself he loved City, much as a wife-beating husband convinces himself he loves his spouse. Actions speak louder than words. Swales was a small-time crook who used City as a vessel to feed his small-man syndrome and out of control ego. A man who consciously surrounded himself with yes-men who were hopelessly ill-equipped for the demands of being a director of a leading football club, in order to shore up his own position. All that would matter much less if he had displayed any discernible judgement or vision during the currency of his tenure.
To defend Swales is to defend the indefensible.
