RAGS on Northern Ireland Forum.........Quality!!!!

[Anonymous]

They went 37 yrs without a Trophy.
LYR Newton Heath,the Y iYorkshire they are partly a Yorkshire team.
They have been a non-Manchester team for 99yrs.
Grimbsy hold the swamp attendence record.
The rags defied the FA by playing in Europe in the 1950's after Chelsea had refused to play because it was detrimental to the English game.
Denis Law did relegate them as the game was abandoned 10 mins from time with the game awarded to us,a full 10 mins before any other score was known.
They started the disaster chants at Cardiff in 1974 with the ABERFAN chants that caused a mass riot.
The River Mersey is on the Trafford Coat of arms.
Post these rag facts on that forum & watch them squirm

You are bound to surpass our 37 years in 3 years time.
We are not partly a Yorkshire team you cock, it stood for Lancashire and yorkshire railway.
We were the first Manchester team, founded 2 years before city.
The season we were relegated to division 2 we had an average attendance of 48,000, whilst City in the first division had average attendance of 32,000.
I don't give a fuck if the River Mersey is on the Trafford Coat of arms and I don't give a fuck that we have been playing our home games in the 'metropoliton borough of Trafford' (for the geeks) since 1910.

Why you so angry my scum loving poster? At the end of the day your posting on a Manchester City forum.... See the irony!

No fuckin chance.Ever.

 

[bronco]

i love the rags playing the "our attendance is bigger than yours " - try this one on them ;- citys current average gate is 4000 higher than uniteds was in 89 before taggart won anything ? strange but true !

That wont work because in 89 the rags still had the 2nd highest attendance,And if you study the figures further it states that the rags had the biggest support going back to 1947 pre m*****h,pre sky & pre baconface,I tried this argument on my rag mate & ended up with egg on my face: source <a class="postlink" href="http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm</a>

thats not the point though - the accusation thrown at city is we are shit fans who cannot fill our ground , they have NEVER sold out every game year in / year out(according to ragworld every match is over subscribed and hs always been ) - they have struggled to sell out several games this season . if they had won FA for 30 years plus they would be getting 76 k every week ? - WOULD THEY FUCK

 

[BimboBob]

Don't care.Really i don't.I support City and pay no attention to them apart from on Derby days.Just another team in the Premiership.

 

[whp.blue]

Don't care.Really i don't.I support City and pay no attention to them apart from on Derby days.Just another team in the Premiership.

just another away day visit to a different town!

 

[M18CTID]

i love the rags playing the "our attendance is bigger than yours " - try this one on them ;- citys current average gate is 4000 higher than uniteds was in 89 before taggart won anything ? strange but true !

That wont work because in 89 the rags still had the 2nd highest attendance,And if you study the figures further it states that the rags had the biggest support going back to 1947 pre m*****h,pre sky & pre baconface,I tried this argument on my rag mate & ended up with egg on my face: source <a class="postlink" href="http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm</a>

On the face of it, it looks like your mate has got you by the short and curlies but that doesn't tell the full story though. Immediately after WW2 they were using our ground which had a bigger capacity than theirs as we all know. Back in those days it was a friendly rivalry and it's widely recognised people would watch City one week and them the next. And as City were in the second division immediately after the war, they were naturally getting the bigger crowds. With Busby taking over as manager and their team doing the business on the pitch their attendances went up but if you look at those 10 years or so after the war it wasn't as though they were topping the attendance charts every season - looking at some of those stats, they were as low as 8th in the average attendance stakes in some seasons. It was only really after M*nich that they consistently began to get the highest attendances season in, season out.

What you should've said to your Rag mate is that football didn't begin in 1947 and masses of people in Manchester and the surrounding areas didn't just suddenly wake up after the second world war and decided to support the Rags and then ask him to check out their crowds from the 20's and 30's. Then ask him why City's lowest ever league crowd at Maine Road of 8015 is still more than DOUBLE their lowest ever league crowd at The Swamp.

My grandad, despite being a blue, would never talk about them with the same kind of bitterness that we do today but he lived through all this and was always insistent that the M*nich air disaster was the single most important event that made them as big as they are today and I've absolutely no reason whatsoever to disbelieve him. It wasn't just that they attracted support from other parts of the country and beyond - plenty of people who beforehand considered themselves City fans also switched allegiance out of sympathy. Remember that the hatred between both sets of fans didn't really exist back then so it was probably much easier to switch your support from one club to the other, something which would be almost unheard of today. The crowds they were getting for the 10 years or so pre-M*nich were impressive but most of that was comparable to how well they were doing on the pitch. Wolves were arguably an equally good side in the 1950's and it shows in their attendances too.

 

[Johnno's sicknote]

FACT:GEORGE BEST, WIFE BEATING,DEGENARATE DRUNK !!
..................IS THAT WHAT THEY CALL A LEGEND ??
RODENT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER !!

 

[JOGAMIGMOG]

i love the rags playing the "our attendance is bigger than yours " - try this one on them ;- citys current average gate is 4000 higher than uniteds was in 89 before taggart won anything ? strange but true !

That wont work because in 89 the rags still had the 2nd highest attendance,And if you study the figures further it states that the rags had the biggest support going back to 1947 pre m*****h,pre sky & pre baconface,I tried this argument on my rag mate & ended up with egg on my face: source <a class="postlink" href="http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm</a>

On the face of it, it looks like your mate has got you by the short and curlies but that doesn't tell the full story though. Immediately after WW2 they were using our ground which had a bigger capacity than theirs as we all know. Back in those days it was a friendly rivalry and it's widely recognised people would watch City one week and them the next. And as City were in the second division immediately after the war, they were naturally getting the bigger crowds. With Busby taking over as manager and their team doing the business on the pitch their attendances went up but if you look at those 10 years or so after the war it wasn't as though they were topping the attendance charts every season - looking at some of those stats, they were as low as 8th in the average attendance stakes in some seasons. It was only really after M*nich that they consistently began to get the highest attendances season in, season out.

What you should've said to your Rag mate is that football didn't begin in 1947 and masses of people in Manchester and the surrounding areas didn't just suddenly wake up after the second world war and decided to support the Rags and then ask him to check out their crowds from the 20's and 30's. Then ask him why City's lowest ever league crowd at Maine Road of 8015 is still more than DOUBLE their lowest ever league crowd at The Swamp.

My grandad, despite being a blue, would never talk about them with the same kind of bitterness that we do today but he lived through all this and was always insistent that the M*nich air disaster was the single most important event that made them as big as they are today and I've absolutely no reason whatsoever to disbelieve him. It wasn't just that they attracted support from other parts of the country and beyond - plenty of people who beforehand considered themselves City fans also switched allegiance out of sympathy. Remember that the hatred between both sets of fans didn't really exist back then so it was probably much easier to switch your support from one club to the other, something which would be almost unheard of today. The crowds they were getting for the 10 years or so pre-M*nich were impressive but most of that was comparable to how well they were doing on the pitch. Wolves were arguably an equally good side in the 1950's and it shows in their attendances too.

I was reading about the Rags being allowed to play at Maine Road in Gary James' book 'Manchester a Football History' only tonight as it happens. Basically it seems we dropped a major bollock in allowing them to play at our ground. They didn't even pay us (it is commonly presumed) for the priviledge! Their crowds obviously increased as a result and many City fans felt like the club had let them down in that when it was Derby day for a Rag home game, regular City fans had to vacate their seats to let a fuckin dirty Rag sit in it. Not only that but the Rag flag would be flown above the Kippax. Imagine how we'd feel? Many Blues became extremely pissed off I bet.

To top it all off, due to the increase in the Rag attendances many fans were 'new' fans eager for a football fix after 6 years of war, only attracted to the game as they (the Rags) were playing in a bigger and better stadium. Many of these fans followed the Rags to the Swamp when it was rebuilt. These were fans who would otherwise have been natural City fans.

The moral of the story is we should have told the filthy twats to FUCK OFF!

Fuckin typical City!

 

[Gary James]

We were the first Manchester team, founded 2 years before city.
quote]

Neither City nor Utd were the first Manchester club, however this myth about Newton Heath playing football before the Blues has to be cleared up.

Newton Heath claim formation as 1878 but no evidence from that period whatsoever exists that they played football until November 1880 - the same month that we have hard evidence that St. Marks (City) played football. In fact the St. Mark's first known game is exactly 1 week prior to the game recognised as Newton Heath's first game.

Prior to 1880 Newton Heath were known as a works sports club but again little evidence exists of actual competitive sport, whereas St Marks are known to have been playing cricket as early as 1875 possibly earlier (again match reports exist).

The Blues evolved into MCFC in 1894 and Newton Heath became MUFC in 1902.

So on what terms do we measure 'oldest'? First known to have played competitive football - City (as St. Mark's). First known to have played competitive sport - City (as St. Mark's). First to have become 'Manchester' - City. First to claim a date in the 1870s - Utd (but in many authorised football books made pre-1990 Utd's formation is bizarrely recorded as 1885 - check out "There's Only One United - the Official Centenary History of MUFC" by Geoffrey Green). Green also states that the History of the Lancs FA says: "the club was founded in 1878,though no evidence seems available as precise proof of this".

All of this hardly matters, but it does prove that 'oldest' has to depend on hard evidence from the period - there are match reports from 1880, but no documentary evidence from the 1870s of football for either club produced pre-1880. For more info on the development of the game in our region (including comparisons on support etc.) check out "Manchester A Football History".

 

[Belfastblue]

has anybody posted the forum site address which all this shit is about. Being from Northern Ireland and a City fan i would like to defend City in what the arseholes are talking about.

 

[The InvisiBLUE Man]

i love the rags playing the "our attendance is bigger than yours " - try this one on them ;- citys current average gate is 4000 higher than uniteds was in 89 before taggart won anything ? strange but true !

That wont work because in 89 the rags still had the 2nd highest attendance,And if you study the figures further it states that the rags had the biggest support going back to 1947 pre m*****h,pre sky & pre baconface,I tried this argument on my rag mate & ended up with egg on my face: source <a class="postlink" href="http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm</a>

thats not the point though - the accusation thrown at city is we are shit fans who cannot fill our ground , they have NEVER sold out every game year in / year out(according to ragworld every match is over subscribed and hs always been ) - they have struggled to sell out several games this season . if they had won FA for 30 years plus they would be getting 76 k every week ? - WOULD THEY FUCK

agree fully...they'd probably all go back to supporting their local team (probs crystal palace).