JohnMaddocksAxe said:
The banner you mention is 'banter' between fans, and that is the difference.
The banner here is referring to the fundamental modus operandi of the club and the people who own it.
The subject matter are entirely different. City allow banners referring to United (Welcome to Manchester, etc) to be displayed at the game and will continue to do so unless they are grossly offensive.
What they don't need is individuals (even if it is a view shared by a lot of others) making a critique of the owner's behaviour and people's reaction to it.
If the club or the owner want to come out and launch an attack on criticism in the press then they will do. But they don't because they realise how inevitable it all is and how counter productive it would be.
So, my question is, if the club and the owner portray one attitude and a specific plan/tactic regarding media coverage (and they definitely do), then why are there so many people getting their knickers in a twist because they are not able to portray an opposite (and petty) attitude that will, whether they like it or not, reflect, or be used to misconstrue, the attitude of the club.
To be honest, I am staggered that people cannot see that it could/would be used as a stick with which to beat the club (given that they would be 'authorising' it). City's spending is the biggest story in world football. It would not be ignored like other snide banners elsewhere.
Yet because their shit 'joke' isn't allowed some people are seething and would rather their own petty persecution complex is aired than what is best for the club.
I wasn't going to post on this topic again, as it's going round in circles, but I've just read that.
Another do-gooder. Perhaps you should ask the club if you can have a PR job.
Let's look at this (awful) banner in it's basic form. It's not ridiculing our owner, his staff, the players or the club. It's aimed 'soley' at those people(the press and the pundits) who have accused City, over a long period of time, of ruining football.(in whatever shape or form)
Now regardless of the politics involved, even the people running City can't deny that hasn't happened, and one would think that a simple, but straight to the point, ironic banner/gesture by a city fan towards those people, wouldn't bother our owners. Obviously, and for some reason it does. Why? (what is the great masterplan?)
As I stated yesterday, which never got a reply form those people supporting the club on this issue.
When was the last time a reporter who has criticized the club(remember the torrid time Gary Cook got 'LIVE' on Sky Sports News), had his or her laptop removed and was forcibly escorted form the stadium by 3 stewards? The answer. 'NEVER'. (Just think about that for one minute)
While those fans, sorry trouble makers, were being forcibily removed, those reporters were either sat on padded seats or were tucking into the best food and drinks City could offer. Double standard. I f***ing think so!
We're not talking about fans who have been swearing, fighting or causing any problems. THEY JUST PUT A SMALL BANNER UP, WITH INOFFENSIVE WORDS. To say the actions of the club were OTT, is an understatement. Whoever authorised this, should be ashamed of themselves.
In my own opinion, Gary Cook should invite those fans to COMS and he should apologise to them on behalf of the club, for the clubs behavior. He should then explain to those supporters exactly why the flag was removed, and why the club won't allow them to put it up. End of.