When should Swales have left?

[petrusha]

No problem if you think it's pointless to debate it further.

Not everyone's as much of a sad City geek as you and me, mate ;-)

;-)

It did occur to me how desperately sad I was being a few days ago when I was trying to analyse insignificant aspects of the kit to pinpoint which of two potential fixtures almost four decades ago a particular photo came from. Then I went ahead and posted anyway. Sad City geek. Like it. I might put that on my profile on here.

 

[Gary James]

No problem if you think it's pointless to debate it further.

Not everyone's as much of a sad City geek as you and me, mate ;-)

;-)

It did occur to me how desperately sad I was being a few days ago when I was trying to analyse insignificant aspects of the kit to pinpoint which of two potential fixtures almost four decades ago a particular photo came from. Then I went ahead and posted anyway. Sad City geek. Like it. I might put that on my profile on here.

Ah, but we need this commitment to ensure we remain a 'proper' football club. The most frustrating element of football today for me is that not enough people know or care about clubs' histories and, for City, this has led to a downgrading of how we are viewed. We're now perceived as a club with 'no history' and are, as that interview I did with Turkish TV showed, the 'b@stards with the money!'

As fans we know this is baloney and so your attempts to analyse aspects of the kit to pinpoint games is the kind of dedication we need. Look after the minor points and the rest will be okay (look after the pennies.....). My hope is that football begins to realise what City are, were and how this club shaped Mancunian football, afterall it was City that gave Manchester its football identity - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/aANmWZWHfKvHe52NHQ9h/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/aANmW ... NHQ9h/full</a> (sorry, no longer free to download, but if you have access via a library or university/further education college then it will probably still be free).

Swales is one part of City's story but, as with Thatcher, it was a defining period for us (might be a theme here - Albert Alexander as Harold Wilson; Thaksin as Blair; but who'd be the Sheikh?).

 

[petrusha]

Ah, but we need this commitment to ensure we remain a 'proper' football club. The most frustrating element of football today for me is that not enough people know or care about clubs' histories and, for City, this has led to a downgrading of how we are viewed. We're now perceived as a club with 'no history' and are, as that interview I did with Turkish TV showed, the 'b@stards with the money!'

As fans we know this is baloney and so your attempts to analyse aspects of the kit to pinpoint games is the kind of dedication we need. Look after the minor points and the rest will be okay (look after the pennies.....). My hope is that football begins to realise what City are, were and how this club shaped Mancunian football, afterall it was City that gave Manchester its football identity - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/aANmWZWHfKvHe52NHQ9h/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/aANmW ... NHQ9h/full</a> (sorry, no longer free to download, but if you have access via a library or university/further education college then it will probably still be free).

Swales is one part of City's story but, as with Thatcher, it was a defining period for us (might be a theme here - Albert Alexander as Harold Wilson; Thaksin as Blair; but who'd be the Sheikh?).

That's right, I remember those Turks: ""Liverpool have the fans; United the history and City - the b@st@rds - have the money", wasn't it? Yes, the 'no history' line is irksome. We don't have the most illustrious history, but it's a lot more illustrious than most people seem to realise, and most of the time it's been a lot more interesting than many clubs'.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

We don't have the most illustrious history, but it's a lot more illustrious than most people seem to realise, and most of the time it's been a lot more interesting than many clubs'.

There isn't a club with a more interesting and compelling narrative imo, especially given where we've ended up.

 

[petrusha]

We don't have the most illustrious history, but it's a lot more illustrious than most people seem to realise, and most of the time it's been a lot more interesting than many clubs'.

There isn't a club with a more interesting and compelling narrative imo, especially given where we've ended up.

I think so, too. I remember a United fan I know, who's normally quite knowledgeable and sensible about most things including football, telling me that their history was more interesting than ours. It's more glamorous, granted, but interesting? Never! I pointed this out to her at great length, which will surprise no one who's read my contributions on this thread.

 

[M18CTID]

We don't have the most illustrious history, but it's a lot more illustrious than most people seem to realise, and most of the time it's been a lot more interesting than many clubs'.

There isn't a club with a more interesting and compelling narrative imo, especially given where we've ended up.

I think so, too. I remember a United fan I know, who's normally quite knowledgeable and sensible about most things including football, telling me that their history was more interesting than ours. It's more glamorous, granted, but interesting? Never! I pointed this out to her at great length, which will surprise no one who's read my contributions on this thread.

I think the vast majority of fans will claim that their club is more "special" than any other - it's only natural really to big up the club you support - and while I totally agree that we have a very colourful and interesting history, I can't blame fans of other clubs for not showing much interest in it. Some rival fans will be so bitter and twisted that they're not worth bothering with. However, others will be willing to listen and I think Gary does some amazing work in educating both our own fans and fans of other clubs when it comes to dispelling certain myths, etc. I like to take an interest in other clubs and their histories regardless of whether I like them or not and am always happy to stand corrected by opposition fans if I get my facts wrong because I know how miffed I get when fans of other clubs spout ill-informed rubbish about City! Recently on this forum Bayern Munich were getting absolutely slaughtered by some of our own - given the comments aimed at our own club by certain prominent figures associated with Bayern, it's not exactly surprising that they're not well thought of amongst City fans but I felt more than a little uncomfortable because the Bayern fans that post on here are decent posters who have offered up extremely helpful info when City have played them away in CL games. Anyway, a couple of City posters went as far as to imply that they were the club of choice for the Nazis. It was somewhat surprising and refreshingl to learn from one of the Bayern fans on here that this couldn't really be further from the truth and that they have strong links to the Jewish community. Kurt Landauer was Jewish and served as president of the club on 4 separate occasions, and to date he remains the Bayern president who has served the longest time in that position.

 

[petrusha]

There isn't a club with a more interesting and compelling narrative imo, especially given where we've ended up.

I think so, too. I remember a United fan I know, who's normally quite knowledgeable and sensible about most things including football, telling me that their history was more interesting than ours. It's more glamorous, granted, but interesting? Never! I pointed this out to her at great length, which will surprise no one who's read my contributions on this thread.

I think the vast majority of fans will claim that their club is more "special" than any other - it's only natural really to big up the club you support - and while I totally agree that we have a very colourful and interesting history, I can't blame fans of other clubs for not showing much interest in it. Some rival fans will be so bitter and twisted that they're not worth bothering with. However, others will be willing to listen and I think Gary does some amazing work in educating both our own fans and fans of other clubs when it comes to dispelling certain myths, etc. I like to take an interest in other clubs and their histories regardless of whether I like them or not and am always happy to stand corrected by opposition fans if I get my facts wrong because I know how miffed I get when fans of other clubs spout ill-informed rubbish about City! Recently on this forum Bayern Munich were getting absolutely slaughtered by some of our own - given the comments aimed at our own club by certain prominent figures associated with Bayern, it's not exactly surprising that they're not well thought of amongst City fans but I felt more than a little uncomfortable because the Bayern fans that post on here are decent posters who have offered up extremely helpful info when City have played them away in CL games. Anyway, a couple of City posters went as far as to imply that they were the club of choice for the Nazis. It was somewhat surprising and refreshingl to learn from one of the Bayern fans on here that this couldn't really be further from the truth and that they have strong links to the Jewish community. Kurt Landauer was Jewish and served as president of the club on 4 separate occasions, and to date he remains the Bayern president who has served the longest time in that position.

Valid point about all fans liking to feel that their club is special. Whisper it on here, but United do have a post-War history that makes for a unique and compelling narrative (even if we Blues feel that the culture surrounding their club has become ever more rancid as the years have gone by). I just object to the assumption of many of their fans, among others, that trophies - especially recent - are a marker of history. All clubs have a history, and even where it isn't esepcially illustrious, they have their moments of relative success (even if it's just the odd promotion here and there), best players and cult favourites.

Anyway, can't really disagree with anything you say there. I think it's always worth remembering that even when you dislike a given club (and I have no great love for Bayern), a lot of its fans have a similar emotional bond with it to ours with City. Actually, this is getting far too reasonable - strike that. United and Bayern fans are all ****s. Every single last one of them! ;)

 

[NPBlue]

I know City were in a mess financially when Lee took over. What City fan didn't?

I'm not saying Swales was a saint either, but I knew him from my teenage years, and on the odd occasions we met, he always remembered me warmly, and if that constitutes an unfairly rosy recollection of him, then I'd be less than human if I said I didn't like him.

You seem to resent that, and if that's the case, then so be it.

City were a basket case. I don't see how Lee being in charge changed much. We had a few chairmen after he left, even an owner, a supposed billionaire to boot, who didn't have a pot to piss in.

We were days away from entering administration when the Sheikh took over.

Like I wrote, it doesn't matter anymore.

Dickov scored his goal, which cost nothing, changed the course of our history, and here we are enjoying success that none of us ever thought possible.

Swales v Lee.

Do we really care anymore?

I don't.

None of it really matters, of course, but it's stuff we all cared deeply about at the time and some people find it vaguely interesting to bat around issues like this to pass the time on a dull day at work. I don't resent your view of Swales, but I think it didn't take account of the fact that he took plenty out of the club. I thought you were misguided in your view of Lee. I explained why. No problem if you think it's pointless to debate it further.

No. it's not a lack of debate that intrigues me, and I read your post and found it interesting and informative. I'm not so closed that I can't change my mind about things, but Lee did give us Alan Ball as our manager. Surely that on it's own is enough for a fan like me, who is not privy to the inner workings of our club, to think our chairman at the time was a bit unhinged.

Jobs for the Boys and all that.

Yes, I cared as much about City then as I do now, but Lee wasn't perfect.

 

[petrusha]

No. it's not a lack of debate that intrigues me, and I read your post and found it interesting and informative. I'm not so closed that I can't change my mind about things, but Lee did give us Alan Ball as our manager. Surely that on it's own is enough for a fan like me, who is not privy to the inner workings of our club, to think our chairman at the time was a bit unhinged.

Jobs for the Boys and all that.

Yes, I cared as much about City then as I do now, but Lee wasn't perfect.

Lee made a number of mistakes and I'd never say he was perfect. He was very self-confident and believed he'd be successful, in part I think because he felt that his background would be a big help to him in terms of understanding the football side. Yet in fact, he made some bad football decisions that undermined the rest of what he was trying to achieve. I actually think he was too indecisive with Brian Horton, who should have been either sacked in the summer of 1994 or properly backed, rather than left in post with constant speculation about his tenure and half-hearted statements of support from the club (along the lines that "the board hasn't discussed the manager's position").

Anyway, there's a book, Blue Moon Rising, that tells the story of City in the 1990s up to winning promotion back to the PL in 2000: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Moon-Rising-Fall-Manchester/dp/0953084744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Moon-Rising- ... 0953084744</a>

The two authors were two local journalists who covered the club in those days, and it has a lot of interviews with key protagonists. It also doesn't make judgements - it pretty well lets the parties involved speak for themsleves (or Swales's widow speak for him, in his case) and leaves readers to make up their own minds. It suggests that Lee had someone else lined up to replace Horton but was let down. That's almost certainly Brian Kidd, IMO. There have been threads about it in the past on here (I may see if I can find one at some point, but something has just happened that means I must dash off the rest of this post and then get to it). Apparently, United wouldn't release Kidd from his contract and he wasn't prepared to walk out.

Kidd would have been hailed as a top appointment at the time, because popular opinion had him down as a major influence on United's success. However, a couple of years later, he took over a better group of players at Blackburn than he'd have had at City, had more money to spend there than we'd have given him, and bombed anyway, taking them down. This all suggests that he'd probably have struggled with us.

The difference with Ball was that most fans were underwhelmed with the appointment when it happened, which wouldn't have been the case with Kidd. I remember trying to look for the positives and suggesting there was hope in the fact that Ball had joined Southampton at more or less the time Lee joined City, had assumed control with them in severe relegation trouble, avoided the drop and finished mid-table the following year. But no, like loads of others I always feared the worst from that appointment. I personally was advocating Mick McCarthy, then in his first job at Millwall, or Martin O'Neill, who'd taken Wycombe to the greatest heights in their history.

Both a risk, admittedly, having never managed at the top level. However, there were no real proven managers available that summer and I felt that an up-and-coming young coach would have been a better bet than someone with Ball's rather chequered managerial past.

 

[Big Swifty]

Isn't all this getting away from the topic of Peter Swales?

Let me tell you a true story of my meeting Swales. It was 1983, and City were drawn at Brighton in the FA Cup. I got a ticket and decided to fly down to Gatwick, get the train to Brighton and be in good time. However, the plane was much delayed and there was no way I'd get my connections and be there for kick-off. On the plane, though, were P Swales and a gaggle of City directors. When it eventually took off I rather cheekily approached Swales's seat and explained that I had paid for a ticket, but was now unlikely to make the match in time, and would the club refund the price as this was not my fault?

Swales said to me "Don't worry, son (yes, he called me "son"), there's a minibus meeting us at Gatwick to take us as fast as possible to the ground. You're welcome to a lift with us." I thanked him, fair enough, and so I sat at the back of the vehicle and wisely kept my own counsel. I listened to the Chairman and the directors talking football, and I assure you I was shocked by the total garbage they were talking - not just factual errors (there were plenty) but the opinions and ideas of people who were running our club, and especially as Swales was an influential FA Committee member responsible, with others, for selecting the England manager. I couldn't believe it.

PS was decent enough to offer me a lift back to Gatwick, but I don't think decency in offering a lift qualifies people for top football jobs.

As I recall, John Bond resigned after that match (we lost 4-0), John Benson took over, and we went down. But the memory of that football chat in the minibus has remained with me for over 30 years. It was a grim weekend.

Not too many BM posters have dealt with Mr Swales, as I have. I may have it on my gravestone.