Ruining Football Since 2008 Flag Trouble?

rogdogblue said:
I was at the Irish club at Spurs when it was unfurled. The chant that started in the club from us was "Killing football, and we don't care".
It's very similar to the "We'll buy your club, and burn it down" chant.
The problem with the banner is that it can be easily misconstrued as a protest. It happened on this forum in the original thread about it. That's why they were asked to take it down. Imagine the Sheik clocking that after spending all that money.
I know that the media are giving us plenty but the club are maintaining a dignified silence and getting on with the job of winning that trophy.
We should get on with supporting our club and not gloating how rich our club is.

This ^^
spot on.
 
jayfx said:
rogdogblue said:
I was at the Irish club at Spurs when it was unfurled. The chant that started in the club from us was "Killing football, and we don't care".
It's very similar to the "We'll buy your club, and burn it down" chant.
The problem with the banner is that it can be easily misconstrued as a protest. It happened on this forum in the original thread about it. That's why they were asked to take it down. Imagine the Sheik clocking that after spending all that money.
I know that the media are giving us plenty but the club are maintaining a dignified silence and getting on with the job of winning that trophy.
We should get on with supporting our club and not gloating how rich our club is.

This ^^
spot on.

This is definitely my last say on the topic.

When the flag appeared on here for the first time the person who thought it was done by rival fans got laughed at for being stupid.

We aren't gloating, quite the opposite. We are highlighting how ridiculous the claims that we are "Killing Football" are. It's nonsense and any right minded individual knows that and will realise the flag is ironic.

The person who ordered this to be taken down needs to have a long hard look at himself because he's got this one BADLY wrong.

Jobsworth.
 
Jesus they will stop us singing"we never win at home and we never win away"
Its a joke and every level headed fan knows it.
 
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
warpig said:
and what about fans chanting then JMA? are all fans who sing song that arent officially approved by mcfc to be thrown out. get real.

Are you suggesting that any club in the world is able to police chanting in the same way that they police banners?

Because more or less every club in the world controls banners in their stadium and removes any they deem inappropriate. Yet not many can control chanting in anything like approaching the same manner.

(Although, they obviously do attempt to remove people who chant things that are not wanted)

Also, consider that any chants that are embarrassing to the club tend to be, at most, talked about as hearsay and/or background noise on television. Whereas a banner, if part deemed part of a news story by a section of the press, will be flashed all over the world in pictures for as long as people want it to be.

I can't see it as a fair comparison

Doesn't the 34 Year Banner at the swamp show them up as petty, vindictive, small-minded and obsessed about their local rivals? And, following your logic, should be removed?

Wouldn't that paint the rags in a better light if they weren't associated with banners like that?

Or is it just a piss-take? And one that their fans, and the CLUB, approve of?

What's the difference with our banner?
 
I love this club because supporters never leave the club even in the hard times.
If the big 4 are still the same as before for next 2 or 3 years,that is the true ruining of football.
 
Soulboy said:
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Are you suggesting that any club in the world is able to police chanting in the same way that they police banners?

Because more or less every club in the world controls banners in their stadium and removes any they deem inappropriate. Yet not many can control chanting in anything like approaching the same manner.

(Although, they obviously do attempt to remove people who chant things that are not wanted)

Also, consider that any chants that are embarrassing to the club tend to be, at most, talked about as hearsay and/or background noise on television. Whereas a banner, if part deemed part of a news story by a section of the press, will be flashed all over the world in pictures for as long as people want it to be.

I can't see it as a fair comparison

Doesn't the 34 Year Banner at the swamp show them up as petty, vindictive, small-minded and obsessed about their local rivals? And, following your logic, should be removed?

Wouldn't that paint the rags in a better light if they weren't associated with banners like that?

Or is it just a piss-take? And one that their fans, and the CLUB, approve of?

What's the difference with our banner?

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.
 
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Soulboy said:
Doesn't the 34 Year Banner at the swamp show them up as petty, vindictive, small-minded and obsessed about their local rivals? And, following your logic, should be removed?

Wouldn't that paint the rags in a better light if they weren't associated with banners like that?

Or is it just a piss-take? And one that their fans, and the CLUB, approve of?

What's the difference with our banner?

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.

What a load of astronomical bullshit.

You're one of them people who hate us singing at games...one of them people who will tell someone at an away match to sit down...

You are so, so miserable.
 
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Soulboy said:
Doesn't the 34 Year Banner at the swamp show them up as petty, vindictive, small-minded and obsessed about their local rivals? And, following your logic, should be removed?

Wouldn't that paint the rags in a better light if they weren't associated with banners like that?

Or is it just a piss-take? And one that their fans, and the CLUB, approve of?

What's the difference with our banner?

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.


Erm... but it's not just "banter" between the fans. The Rags authorise it. So the club themselves support the banner they have taking the piss out of City.

And the "Welcome to Manchester" stuff has little to do with the Rags. It is not directed specifically at them.

I take your point that the club can do as it sees fit, so we have to live with it.

But I wonder if you would be so generous in your support of the owners' stance had it been Thaksin Shinawatra clamping down on banners?
 
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Soulboy said:
Doesn't the 34 Year Banner at the swamp show them up as petty, vindictive, small-minded and obsessed about their local rivals? And, following your logic, should be removed?

Wouldn't that paint the rags in a better light if they weren't associated with banners like that?

Or is it just a piss-take? And one that their fans, and the CLUB, approve of?

What's the difference with our banner?

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 drink 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 again. End of.
 
jrb said:
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.


spot on jrb , the guy whose banner it is is a top guy an all. Just hope it gets sorted !!!
 

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.