Rags Thread

[mancunian_red_84]

Re: Rags Grind My Gears

State is also a bit far fetched. I was hoping you'd gather that.

United... are... called... Manchester... so... deal... with... it... child.

-- Fri May 27, 2011 11:15 am --

Besides, as I stated above, I didn't name the fucking team, I just support them, so deal with it.

Exactly, 'Manchester' in name only. That's all we've been trying to point out to you.

Would you have preferred if i stated that the Bronx is not actually New York City Or Queens is not a part of New York City itself, but a separate borough? Would that have made things easier to interpret? It's the assumption i'm pointing out here, and the more you refuse to accept this the more we have to use other examples for you to understand. Because you seem to be shouting down every comparison as being illogical only to the nature of it's size, but the concept is correct.

We're not validating your reason for supporting United, far as i'm concerned anyone can support whoever the hell they like, but your insistance that united are from Manchester, that Greater Manchester boroughs are a part of Manchester, is incorrect.

So....deal....with....it....child.

But United are FROM Manchester, Newton Heath and ok you could say in 1878 Newton Heath hadn't been incorporated into the city but I could say the same about Gorton where your club originates from.

United then played on north road, now northampton road where central park is now, they moved to clayton opposite where you guys play and then in 1910 in a stroke of genious moved out into what you delightfully call the swamp.

A person heavily behind the move Ernest Mangnall then joined your club and pushed for you guys to do the same thing.

The only difference here is we moved out of the city limits and you stayed inside them

Both clubs will always have huge mancunian roots, shared legends and a large local support which divides the city.

Thing that gets me is city fans fascination with the limits of the city of manchester, yet a huge number of the lads and lasses who were there week in week out when you were in division 2 are from outside those limits, whether its the overspills like darnhill, langley, hattersley, benchill or natives of the lancashire/cheshire towns like rochdale, bury, oldham, stockport etc.

Surely the whole support your local team and united are from trafford dictates that these supporters should support their local teams and not the bigger city team.

 

[samharris]

Re: Rags Grind My Gears

State is also a bit far fetched. I was hoping you'd gather that.

United... are... called... Manchester... so... deal... with... it... child.

-- Fri May 27, 2011 11:15 am --

Besides, as I stated above, I didn't name the fucking team, I just support them, so deal with it.

Exactly, 'Manchester' in name only. That's all we've been trying to point out to you.

Would you have preferred if i stated that the Bronx is not actually New York City Or Queens is not a part of New York City itself, but a separate borough? Would that have made things easier to interpret? It's the assumption i'm pointing out here, and the more you refuse to accept this the more we have to use other examples for you to understand. Because you seem to be shouting down every comparison as being illogical only to the nature of it's size, but the concept is correct.

We're not validating your reason for supporting United, far as i'm concerned anyone can support whoever the hell they like, but your insistance that united are from Manchester, that Greater Manchester boroughs are a part of Manchester, is incorrect.

So....deal....with....it....child.

But United are FROM Manchester, Newton Heath and ok you could say in 1878 Newton Heath hadn't been incorporated into the city but I could say the same about Gorton where your club originates from.

United then played on north road, now northampton road where central park is now, they moved to clayton opposite where you guys play and then in 1910 in a stroke of genious moved out into what you delightfully call the swamp.

A person heavily behind the move Ernest Mangnall then joined your club and pushed for you guys to do the same thing.

The only difference here is we moved out of the city limits and you stayed inside them

Both clubs will always have huge mancunian roots, shared legends and a large local support which divides the city.

Thing that gets me is city fans fascination with the limits of the city of manchester, yet a huge number of the lads and lasses who were there week in week out when you were in division 2 are from outside those limits, whether its the overspills like darnhill, langley, hattersley, benchill or natives of the lancashire/cheshire towns like rochdale, bury, oldham, stockport etc.

Surely the whole support your local team and united are from trafford dictates that these supporters should support their local teams and not the bigger city team.

+1

 

[Metal Biker]

Re: Rags Grind My Gears

But United are FROM Manchester, Newton Heath and ok you could say in 1878 Newton Heath hadn't been incorporated into the city but I could say the same about Gorton where your club originates from.

United then played on north road, now northampton road where central park is now, they moved to clayton opposite where you guys play and then in 1910 in a stroke of genious moved out into what you delightfully call the swamp.

A person heavily behind the move Ernest Mangnall then joined your club and pushed for you guys to do the same thing.

The only difference here is we moved out of the city limits and you stayed inside them

Both clubs will always have huge mancunian roots, shared legends and a large local support which divides the city.

Thing that gets me is city fans fascination with the limits of the city of manchester, yet a huge number of the lads and lasses who were there week in week out when you were in division 2 are from outside those limits, whether its the overspills like darnhill, langley, hattersley, benchill or natives of the lancashire/cheshire towns like rochdale, bury, oldham, stockport etc.

Surely the whole support your local team and united are from trafford dictates that these supporters should support their local teams and not the bigger city team.

If you admit that Gorton could not be from Manchester because Gorton was not incorporated at the time of St Mark's formation then that means you admit to what we've been saying all along and that united therefore cannot be connected to Manchester either, doesn't it.

Truth is neither Newton Heath OR St Marks were established football clubs of Manchester...however, and this is the BIG defining difference.....St Marks were SEMI professional. City became a professional club when they became Ardwick in 1887 as there were some who wanted to challenge for the top honours. There are links between the current City outfit and the St Marks, West Gorton club, but we are more established from ARDWICK FC. Newton Heath L&YR FC turned professional in 1888 as Newton Heath FC, still before Newton Heath was incorporated into Manchester as part of the Industrial Expansion.

The inescapable fact is that united were formed by a scouser, in a town in Lancashire and for over 100 years of their 133 year existance United have had no connection with the city of Manchester. This isn't about where the fans come from, that doesn't matter to me, this is about a club portraying itself as THE club of Manchester when it's connections are gossamer thin.

United's Mancunian 'roots' are non existant. They weren't formed for the benfit of the people of Manchester, they were formed by businessmen wanting to take advantage of the new football craze sweeping the nation. There are even strong indications to suggest that the reason united moved to Trafford was to avoid paying back taxes to the Manchester City Council.

 

[Ricster]

Re: Hypocracy by the rags?

Am I the only one who sees something a bit wrong with this??

<a class="postlink" href="http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1421929_video-manchester-united-stars-take-to-the-skies-to-feature-in-turkish-airlines-pre-flight-safety-film#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://menmedia.co.uk/manchesterevening ... m#comments</a>

I hope so, I really hope you're the only one who's made that, quite ludicrous, assessment.

Just because we lost players due to an earlier crash? Is that a reason to not do airline safety commercials for a sponsor?

Let me guess, this would be under the category of "Still milking the Munich Disaster"?

-- Fri May 27, 2011 11:23 am --

yes, but if we had an airline disaster that made the mere mention of a certain City an offense warranting being removed from CoMS & the swamp well over 50 years later, as well as possibly being charged for inciting a riot, would we be making a light hearted comedic saftey video for an airline?

You'd hope so, really. Or should United just avoid planes altogether now?

Light hearted and comedic references to plane crashes is ok then?

How about some light hearted songs or comedic songs about plane crashes?<br /><br />-- Fri May 27, 2011 6:46 pm --<br /><br />

I really hoped that wasn't the hypocrisy you were referring to, OP, but it appears it is. I'll say this blue to blue. There is clutching at straws and clutching at straws. You, my friend, are clutching at a whole fistful of the things with this 'dig' at United. What are they supposed to do, never ever associate themselves with any airline again, ever? The video is for one of their sponsors, and whilst being full of cheese it's got an element of comedy about it. If it had been a video about how to pick dead bodies up off a freezing, German runway then yeah, it would be in bad taste. It's not though.

And no, before the 'rag sympathiser' comments come out, i'm not. It's just sometimes this forum will sink to pathetic depths to have a dig, and when those pathetic attempts are made out of the flimziest of material to have those digs, it looks bitter, twisted and like we, (or I should say some of us), just can't stop thinking about United.

Poor. So very very piss poor.

So you don't think it one bit in bad taste that they do this as comedy, as a joke, as a laugh? I think it would've been better if they did the thing but not to make a joke of it. Sorry, but if they're still going to be overly concerned with the word MUNICH, they should at least not make any light hearted joking videos illustrating airline safety. That, Mr Pigeon, is what's piss poor.
Look, I don't look for digs at that lot. I hate them, yes, but i don't need to feed that hate by looking for shit to complain about. I just happened to see this article, and think it's a bit out of order for them. That is all. No clutching of straws here. My opinion & I'm damn sure entitled to it.

Course its clutching at straws! You've linked them doing a joke ad for their sponsor to an even that happened 54 years ago! Like I say, what are they supposed to do, never do anything to do with airlines ever again?

Pige, not making a joke out of air crashes would be a start. Look back to the 50th Anniversary and how much merchandise there was for sale, yet all the focus was on lil City and whether we'd observe a minutes silence. They have milked it for 50 yrs and will continue to milk it.

 

[Ducado]

In here please

 

[Pigeonho]

Re: Hypocracy by the rags?

I hope so, I really hope you're the only one who's made that, quite ludicrous, assessment.

Just because we lost players due to an earlier crash? Is that a reason to not do airline safety commercials for a sponsor?

Let me guess, this would be under the category of "Still milking the Munich Disaster"?

-- Fri May 27, 2011 11:23 am --


You'd hope so, really. Or should United just avoid planes altogether now?

Light hearted and comedic references to plane crashes is ok then?

How about some light hearted songs or comedic songs about plane crashes?

-- Fri May 27, 2011 6:46 pm --

So you don't think it one bit in bad taste that they do this as comedy, as a joke, as a laugh? I think it would've been better if they did the thing but not to make a joke of it. Sorry, but if they're still going to be overly concerned with the word MUNICH, they should at least not make any light hearted joking videos illustrating airline safety. That, Mr Pigeon, is what's piss poor.
Look, I don't look for digs at that lot. I hate them, yes, but i don't need to feed that hate by looking for shit to complain about. I just happened to see this article, and think it's a bit out of order for them. That is all. No clutching of straws here. My opinion & I'm damn sure entitled to it.

Course its clutching at straws! You've linked them doing a joke ad for their sponsor to an even that happened 54 years ago! Like I say, what are they supposed to do, never do anything to do with airlines ever again?

Pige, not making a joke out of air crashes would be a start. Look back to the 50th Anniversary and how much merchandise there was for sale, yet all the focus was on lil City and whether we'd observe a minutes silence. They have milked it for 50 yrs and will continue to milk it.

The focus was only on that from people on here, paranoid people who were adamant that the fixture was fixed for that date to put us in a bad light. It was a fixture which happened to be on that date. We have been praised for how we observed it that day, as have United fans.

 

[mancunian_red_84]

Re: Rags Grind My Gears

But United are FROM Manchester, Newton Heath and ok you could say in 1878 Newton Heath hadn't been incorporated into the city but I could say the same about Gorton where your club originates from.

United then played on north road, now northampton road where central park is now, they moved to clayton opposite where you guys play and then in 1910 in a stroke of genious moved out into what you delightfully call the swamp.

A person heavily behind the move Ernest Mangnall then joined your club and pushed for you guys to do the same thing.

The only difference here is we moved out of the city limits and you stayed inside them

Both clubs will always have huge mancunian roots, shared legends and a large local support which divides the city.

Thing that gets me is city fans fascination with the limits of the city of manchester, yet a huge number of the lads and lasses who were there week in week out when you were in division 2 are from outside those limits, whether its the overspills like darnhill, langley, hattersley, benchill or natives of the lancashire/cheshire towns like rochdale, bury, oldham, stockport etc.

Surely the whole support your local team and united are from trafford dictates that these supporters should support their local teams and not the bigger city team.

If you admit that Gorton could not be from Manchester because Gorton was not incoprporated then that means you admit to what we've been saying all along, doesn't it.

Truth is neither Newton Heath OR St Marks were established football clubs of Manchester...however, and this is the BIG defining difference.

St Marks were SEMI professional. City became a professional club when they became Ardwick in 1887 as there were some who wanted to challenge for the top honours. Newton Heath L&YR FC turned professional in 1888 as Newton Heath FC, still before Newton Heath was incorporated into Manchester as part of the Industrial Expansion.

The inescapable fact is that united were formed by a scouser, in a town in Lancashire and for over 100 years of their 133 year existance United have had no connection with the city of Manchester. This isn't about where the fans come from, that doesn't matter to me, this is about a club portraying itself as THE club of Manchester when it's connections are gossamer thin.

United's Mancunian 'roots' are non existant. They weren't formed for the benfit of the people of Manchester, they were formed by businessmen wanting to take advantage of the new football craze sweeping the nation. There are even strong indications to suggest that the reason united moved to Trafford was to avoid paying back taxes to the Manchester City Council.

Simple question easily clears this all up, when the name was changed in 1902 from Newton Heath to Manchester United what city did united play in?

Coz I believe it was bank street, clayton, city of manchester.

Now if you wanna say well you should have changed your name when you moved out of the city of manchester, fair doo's but don't forget to remind the following clubs to change their names,

Chelsea do not play in the london borough of chelsea and kensington but that of hammersmith and fulham.

Millwall no longer play in the area but moved to bermondsey.

I could knock a few more off.

You say it isnt important where the fans come from but to me thats your lifeblood right there and the local supporters are the most important.

The 20 odd thousand who kept united afloat during the yo-yo years of the 30's were mancunian people from the same areas you are and I are from.

Thats your mancunian roots right there, and those roots still exist in every little shithole estate around this great city.

Check the old newspaper archieves to see how the manchester media viewed united, it certainly wasn't in the same way they viewed Bury. United has, is and will continue to be viewed as a manchester club.

City boundaries change, they have done since both our clubs were formed and will do in the future no doubt. But what always remains and what ignores borders is a clubs sphere of influence.


Why are leyton orient so bothered about the west ham move.

United when named, Manchester United played in the city of Manchester and since that time has drawn huge support from the city.......thats what counts here fella.

 

[Blue Smarties]

This now the thread where all the stuff on them goes? Title is confusing.

 

[Gar]

I'm no longer speaking to my Dad. When he took me to Old Trafford when I was 5 years old he failed to mention it was technically a part of Greater Manchester and not the city of Manchester itself. Shameless bastard never trust a Spurs fan.

 

[Metal Biker]

Re: Rags Grind My Gears

Simple question easily clears this all up, when the name was changed in 1902 from Newton Heath to Manchester United what city did united play in?

Coz I believe it was bank street, clayton, city of manchester.

Now if you wanna say well you should have changed your name when you moved out of the city of manchester, fair doo's but don't forget to remind the following clubs to change their names,

Chelsea do not play in the london borough of chelsea and kensington but that of hammersmith and fulham.

Millwall no longer play in the area but moved to bermondsey.

I could knock a few more off.

You say it isnt important where the fans come from but to me thats your lifeblood right there and the local supporters are the most important.

The 20 odd thousand who kept united afloat during the yo-yo years of the 30's were mancunian people from the same areas you are and I are from.

Thats your mancunian roots right there, and those roots still exist in every little shithole estate around this great city.

Check the old newspaper archieves to see how the manchester media viewed united, it certainly wasn't in the same way they viewed Bury. United has, is and will continue to be viewed as a manchester club.

City boundaries change, they have done since both our clubs were formed and will do in the future no doubt. But what always remains and what ignores borders is a clubs sphere of influence.

Why are leyton orient so bothered about the west ham move.

United when named, Manchester United played in the city of Manchester and since that time has drawn huge support from the city.......thats what counts here fella.

So, if for example Bolton was added as a district of the City of manchester, you would state that Bolton have ALWAYS played in Manchester? Your logic is flawed. You called yourself united to latch onto the popularity of Manchester City FC as your owners who bailed you out decided a "rebrand" was required in order to attract more attention to yourselves.

the old newspaper articles often referred to united as "moneybags united" due to their wealth, and we're talking 1909 here. when they lost it all and City grew from strength to strength and in popularity City were simply known as "Manchester", especially in the 30's., but now we're getting away from the original point aren't we, talking about which club is bigger etc.

United were formed as Newton Heath in the Lancashire town of the same name. The boundary changed, but Newton Heath rejected all association to the city, instead preferring to remain as a solitary club representing themselves. After the rebrand the club moved to an entirely new area outside the city limited (remember this in early 20th century Manchester, 1 mile was a BIG difference back then)

Why does this bother united fans so much to know that their club has a flippant association with the City of Manchester at best?
You can argue about fanbases, growing popularity til you're blue in the face, it still does not change the fact that united were formed OUTSIDE the city, has no interest in Manchester and only have any association at all because the boundaries changed around them and then after 8 years they STILL moved out of the area completely.