Talksport now

[Pigeonho]

unless he qualified it with something like "in recent history", then it just sounds like a typical ignorant comment served up by a clueless arsenal fan - in which case it is bollocks

Okeedoke.

Nice one.

Did we not rival for trophies in the 50/60/70's?

You're just digging now. Why would he talk about that when the point he's making is that we have only recently become rivals for trophies now, or rivals for trophies again then if that makes it easier to understand? Challenging for things in the 50's, 60's and 70's means zilch in what we are challenging for now.

 

[Rammyblues]

I have not heard it, but from what I can see off here it is yet another example of a presenter believing that football began with the premiership. Easy mistake to make for those under the age of 30. :-)

 

[Groke]

Okeedoke.

Nice one.

Did we not rival for trophies in the 50/60/70's?

You're just digging now. Why would he talk about that when the point he's making is that we have only recently become rivals for trophies now, or rivals for trophies again then if that makes it easier to understand? Challenging for things in the 50's, 60's and 70's means zilch in what we are challenging for now.

The key part that was missed and the point I am making - typical of the "no history" remarks of your average scouse, arse, spurs etc fans.

 

[Lucky13]

I heard Parlour say it and didn't think anything of it.

 

[Pigeonho]

Nice one.

Did we not rival for trophies in the 50/60/70's?

You're just digging now. Why would he talk about that when the point he's making is that we have only recently become rivals for trophies now, or rivals for trophies again then if that makes it easier to understand? Challenging for things in the 50's, 60's and 70's means zilch in what we are challenging for now.

The key part that was missed and the point I am making - typical of the "no history" remarks of your average scouse, arse, spurs etc fans.

You're taking it too literal. If you went on radio and got into a discussion, there is every chance you might say something that is interpreted the way you have interpreted what Parlour said. It was crystal clear what he meant, if you didn't look into it word for word.

 

[marcoboogers]

Honest question to the people that listen, have a gripe, then listen again, why do it? This isn't me having a pop, its a genuine question.

 

[manchester blue]

You're just digging now. Why would he talk about that when the point he's making is that we have only recently become rivals for trophies now, or rivals for trophies again then if that makes it easier to understand? Challenging for things in the 50's, 60's and 70's means zilch in what we are challenging for now.

The key part that was missed and the point I am making - typical of the "no history" remarks of your average scouse, arse, spurs etc fans.

You're taking it too literal. If you went on radio and got into a discussion, there is every chance you might say something that is interpreted the way you have interpreted what Parlour said. It was crystal clear what he meant, if you didn't look into it word for word.

Exactly. Arguing over minor semantics is quite silly. In any 24 hour talk radio station someone will say something whilst not meaning it literally most reasonable people would understand the point.

 

[chesterguy]

The issue is there are a lot of "mistakes" made by so called experts and pundits when it comes to City. I believe there is a general view of down playing City and at the same time bigging up our rivals. I can understand it as our rivals have more established fanbases and so are more likely to tune in or phone in than those of us who support City

To deny that these things don't exist though is naïve in my opinion. Until City have established themselves over a number of years it will be the way and I don't think Sky will ever change as they make too much money on their tie in with United.

It has been shown that no recent City player or anyone that would be thought of as City through and through is used as a pundit whereas other teams have plenty as been seen in other threads

Is it important to us fans...no is it important to the club then I would say yes as they are trying to change perceptions and attitudes and the stereotypical comments like those of Parlour reinforce those attitudes

 

[Pigeonho]

The issue is there are a lot of "mistakes" made by so called experts and pundits when it comes to City. I believe there is a general view of down playing City and at the same time bigging up our rivals. I can understand it as our rivals have more established fanbases and so are more likely to tune in or phone in than those of us who support City

To deny that these things don't exist though is naïve in my opinion. Until City have established themselves over a number of years it will be the way and I don't think Sky will ever change as they make too much money on their tie in with United.

It has been shown that no recent City player or anyone that would be thought of as City through and through is used as a pundit whereas other teams have plenty as been seen in other threads

Is it important to us fans...no is it important to the club then I would say yes as they are trying to change perceptions and attitudes and the stereotypical comments like those of Parlour reinforce those attitudes

Do you think Parlour was given instructions to say 'recently challenging with United' instead of 'recently challenging for trophies again with United'? Or do you think it was just a general way of him saying what his point was? I got his point because it's clear as day what he meant. He meant we have only recently been challenging United for trophies, with the 'again' being missed out. It can't even be a slip of the tongue as it's that much of a nothing. If people think he was trying to do City down then I would say that people are vvery thin-skinned and that the paranoia is alive and well.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The issue is there are a lot of "mistakes" made by so called experts and pundits when it comes to City. I believe there is a general view of down playing City and at the same time bigging up our rivals. I can understand it as our rivals have more established fanbases and so are more likely to tune in or phone in than those of us who support City

To deny that these things don't exist though is naïve in my opinion. Until City have established themselves over a number of years it will be the way and I don't think Sky will ever change as they make too much money on their tie in with United.

It has been shown that no recent City player or anyone that would be thought of as City through and through is used as a pundit whereas other teams have plenty as been seen in other threads

Is it important to us fans...no is it important to the club then I would say yes as they are trying to change perceptions and attitudes and the stereotypical comments like those of Parlour reinforce those attitudes

Well said mate.