Ok, I have been bottling this up. Time to vent.
The whole thing is a fucking paradox. The people having a pop at City are the very people who have created the conditions of postmodern football. I am tired of constantly reading and hearing about the ethically problematic and immoral nature of City and the billions, the cheap way of creating ourselves as a big tophy winning club, how we will never have the 'history' of Utd, Liverpool and so on. The constant anti-city media discourse by the Murdoch press, all part of the current global elite which are intent on doing all they can to keep the status quo. It is as a result of the socio political climate which they have created, which has led to the inevitable situation which we have found ourselves in.
Liverpool fans constantly tell me, how dare we throw these millions at football and expect to be a huge club, winning trophies over night, how we lack the class of their history etc. Are these self deceived plebs really expecting a middle rank club which a title or two, a few FA cups, to suddenly appoint a scott (as they did when relegated to division 2 in 1959) and build a dynasty on a shoe string? These clubs, Liverpool, Utd etc, were a product of the 50's, and it needs putting into a socio-political context. Football was about modernity. It was about progress. But there was to a certain extent, a level playing field. Clubs had a chance. Fast forward 30 years, on the back of the acceleration of globablisation, post thatcher politics, the taylor report, BSkyB, formation of the Premier League, Champions League, Bosman era, we have gone past the point of ethical progress to a certain extent. Global capitalism has accelerated at such a rate, that the only way a middle rank club can obtain any form of power, is through a ridiculous amount of investment.
Then City come along. And provide that investment example. What is the alternative? Stay 12th like Sunderland forever? Based on the ethics of not interupting the top 4 'historical' clubs? We hear these stupd arguments, why would Torres move to a club like City? not for football reasons? Torres should ask himself, who are more likely to win the PL in the next few years? City or Liverpool? who are more likely to play CL football in the next two years? City or Liverpool? Then the argument again turns to, why would Torres join a club with no history? Its pathetic. Do these supporters, and the idiots at Sky, honestly expect an Everton with no money, a Villa, to win the PL? To constantly qualify for CL football? They might get close on occasions, but it isnt sustainable without huge investment.
All City are doing, is what is required in order to break into the global elite. Anyone arguing alternatively are fooling themselves. I empathise with the Marxist critics, I do. But when did Utd fans become Marxists? As a result of City's takeover? They protest against the very existence they have been too happy to create and support over the past 20 years. Add to that the point that these clubs have been spending these sums of money over a 10 year sustainable period, whilst we spend it in two seasons. I have given them far too much of my time today, but had to get it off my chest. As City fans, there will be some things about it we don't like. Just as there are things about capitalism I don't particularly like. But it is the acceleration of globablisation and the political football elite who have created the very conditions out of which we now emerge. And ironically, it is those who don't like us very much.
As Keegan proclaimed, I would love it if we beat them to a trophy this season. Love it!
