Niall Quinn

It wasn't though. He said we were fortunate whilst in the same breath lauded utd for some supposed 'stardust' on offer in their 2-0 home win against a terrible Southampton.
I thought what Quinn said about City was reasonable, though the 'stardust' comment was a bit odd. We looked good for 55 mins, ok for 35. His point was we'll get better and more consistent every week, which is what I'd hope and expect.
 
I thought what Quinn said about City was reasonable, though the 'stardust' comment was a bit odd. We looked good for 55 mins, ok for 35. His point was we'll get better and more consistent every week, which is what I'd hope and expect.
If we look good for 55 minutes and ok for 35 every game I reckon we'll be alright.
 
It wasn't though. He said we were fortunate whilst in the same breath lauded utd for some supposed 'stardust' on offer in their 2-0 home win against a terrible Southampton.

Well that's the bit I heard so if there was anything else I missed then apologies. if he wants to wax lyrical about pogba and ibrahimovich fine. They are box office names and new signings. Not got a problem with that. Let's see how they are both doing in January.
 
Over the weekend I saw a lot on social media comparing Drogba and Aguero's stats: Drogba 254 games, 104 goals
Aguero 151 games, 105 goals.
Most neutrals that were commenting were saying they preferred Drogba to Aguero. I appreciate it is social media and to take those things with a pinch of salt but as you have mentioned, we have won a lot in the last 5 years and also have the best record for finishing in the top 2. For no one connected to City to have won any of the big prizes, or at least be nominated is a disgrace and quite frankly it points to something more sinister at play.

I like Quinn and having met him and discussed City with him not long ago I have no doubt he's still got a lot of time for the club and the fans. But that "stardust" comment does highlight the difference in the coverage united have received over their summer spending compared to ours. There seems to be this glorification of united's latest overhaul. They've got the special one (only available because he got sacked by Chelsea), they've re-signed the world's most expensive player (who they sold for a nominal fee only a few years earlier) oh and they've signed Zlatan (a 35 year old, blocking Rashford's game time) yet somehow the money in all this plays second to the "Manchester United" myth, that this is all great for the game. City on the other hand continue to be labelled big spending etc and whilst Pep has received a lot of attention, there is an undercurrent of a willingness for him to fail. Not many pundits praised the win against Stoke, instead preferring to talk about the result being flattering. While the wankfest over united's Friday night game was quite sickening.

The contrast in attitudes towards City as opposed to other clubs is frustrating, but it's something we are used to and even if the media coverage or individual accolades don't acknowledge City it is an incredible time to be a blue and the football we play is a joy to watch. Without going all Keegan I will love it if Aguero hits 25+ goals this season and we win the league. It may not be what the pundits want but it will do for me!

and also in the stoke game on skysports the commentator made a quote that stones cost manchester city £50million that's 3 seasons worth of stokes signings WHAT THE FUCK. sky think they can say what the like about manchester city HOLD ON THEY CAN we just let it go and the club just don't want to bring sky court. its really gets my goat up that they say shit like that knowing the watching public are listening and the non man city fans take it in as real and will use it to try and banter but £50million for stones is a bargain and in today market looks a very good deal but sky had to use the money tag
 
I thought what Quinn said about City was reasonable, though the 'stardust' comment was a bit odd. We looked good for 55 mins, ok for 35. His point was we'll get better and more consistent every week, which is what I'd hope and expect.

That certainly wasn't his point.
 
and also in the stoke game on skysports the commentator made a quote that stones cost manchester city £50million that's 3 seasons worth of stokes signings WHAT THE FUCK. sky think they can say what the like about manchester city HOLD ON THEY CAN we just let it go and the club just don't want to bring sky court. its really gets my goat up that they say shit like that knowing the watching public are listening and the non man city fans take it in as real and will use it to try and banter but £50million for stones is a bargain and in today market looks a very good deal but sky had to use the money tag


Too fucking true when WBA are demanding £30 million for Johnny Evans!
FFS
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.