Jump to content

City fan here. No one likes us, we don't care!


GKA_mcfc

Recommended Posts



People hate success. Simples.

If Chelsea or City had spent the sort of money they have and were floundering in mid table nobody would bat an eyelid but because of the recent success City and far moreso Chelsea have had it has lead to extreme jealousy.

Most people are more accepting of Chelsea because in the 90s we had a very good side and were challenging for trophies before the money, we only really had to usurp Arsenal to get where we are today, I'd say we're on a level playing field with United now after a few topsy turvy battles, the first of which we dominated, and the latter they dominated. City were a bottom half side and were closer to relegation than the title before the big money which has lead to bad feeling amongst Premier League teams across the board. Particularly Villa, Spurs, Everton and Liverpool all of whom they have leapfrogged. It's just something you'll have to deal with, you are fresh meat for the haters now.

It doesn't surprise me at all that most of the criticism aimed at City comes from North London as opposed to the red tops of the North West. Spuds would probably be permenant fixture in the CL were it not for City and Arsenal would have been able to keep hold of some of their better players. I don't care what any Arsenal fan says, Kolo Toure, Clichy and maybe even Adebayor would all walk into the Arsenal side even now.

I think because Liverpool and United have both had decades of continuous success therefore have become accustomed to challenge across the nation, they are far more accepting of the likes of Chelsea and City, not just that but given the money both Liverpool and United have spent it would make them a tad hypocritical and foolish to slate Chelsea or City.

Edited by Myles_91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't argue with that.

I remember when Jack Walker took over Blackburn who were then in the old second division averaging 6,000 crowds I was split 50/50.

Yep, I was envious of their astonishing wealth (£550M) and thought they were 'cheating', but on the other hand I thought it was refreshing.

Never thought in my wildest dreams it would happen to us!

Yes, it appears the majority of the flack is coming from Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs fans/clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



People hate success. Simples.

If Chelsea or City had spent the sort of money they have and were floundering in mid table nobody would bat an eyelid but because of the recent success City and far moreso Chelsea have had it has lead to extreme jealousy.

Most people are more accepting of Chelsea because in the 90s we had a very good side and were challenging for trophies before the money, we only really had to usurp Arsenal to get where we are today, I'd say we're on a level playing field with United now after a few topsy turvy battles, the first of which we dominated, and the latter they dominated. City were a bottom half side and were closer to relegation than the title before the big money which has lead to bad feeling amongst Premier League teams across the board. Particularly Villa, Spurs, Everton and Liverpool all of whom they have leapfrogged. It's just something you'll have to deal with, you are fresh meat for the haters now.

It doesn't surprise me at all that most of the criticism aimed at City comes from North London as opposed to the red tops of the North West. Spuds would probably be permenant fixture in the CL were it not for City and Arsenal would have been able to keep hold of some of their better players. I don't care what any Arsenal fan says, Kolo Toure, Clichy and maybe even Adebayor would all walk into the Arsenal side even now.

I think because Liverpool and United have both had decades of continuous success therefore have become accustomed to challenge across the nation, they are far more accepting of the likes of Chelsea and City, not just that but given the money both Liverpool and United have spent it would make them a tad hypocritical and foolish to slate Chelsea or City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing that none of us can understand is 'Why City?'

As outsiders looking in, what do you reckon.

Surely the club to buy would have been united, these Arab chaps (peace be upon them) could have bought out the lovely Glazers with money found down the back of the couch!

Back in the 90's it wasn't a surprise that Abramovich picked you lot

.

Why us though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be because they wanted to establish a legacy at City that wasn't previously there. United has been successful, so they would just be another set of "owners". Where at City, they could become legends in the fans eyes because they are the ones that interjected the funds necessary to establish City as one of the premier clubs in the World. The history books would never forget that.

It could also be that no other clubs were available at the time. Maybe they just liked the sky blue color? ;)

I know, like us, that you're happy that you have the ownership that you have. Like or dislike what they do on a day-to-day basis, they have proven that they want City to succeed and will put up the cash to make it happen.

Cheers, and good luck this upcoming season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



It could also be that no other clubs were available at the time.

Or they were the best out of the ones that were available. The theory about them wanting to make their own success story sounds plausible.

And had they bought United, they either wouldn't have a say in which players would be signed or if they did, they would piss off Fergie. Usually when someone irritates Fergie, he gets rid of that person, but he can't get rid of the club owners, can you? And if they would get rid of Fergie, all hell would break loose. I mean we've seen the Anti Glazer folk and their hissy fits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks pal.

I hope this coming season has more twists and turns than last season.

I'm now 50, debut at the Bridge was 1985, been there about 10 times. That old uncovered end was painful, miles from the pitch, always raining, poor game and we usually lost!

How times have changed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d say it was because of United. They could have gone for any of several clubs that have a decent fan base such as Newcastle, Spurs, Villa or Everton. But I think that they chose City because England’s biggest club are next door. Simple as that really.

My only beef with City is that as I live up near Manchester I had City fans all around me going on about how Chelsea had bought everything, ruined football etc. It’s funny how their attitude to spending large sums of foreign owner’s cash has changed. And it amuses me to hear them getting annoyed while trying to justify it when talking to fans of other clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Agreed. Some city fans are getting on my nerves with their gobbiness, most of the hobby ones don't go.

My view is that when you'be been rock bottom, ie eating humble pie in the lower divisions getting beat off the likes of Wycombe, York and Lincoln arrogance is impossible.

United were minted in the 90's due to share issues (Martin Edwards walked off with £105M!). They could buy anyone they wanted until Abramovich showed up.

In recent times there have only been two fat cats at the table, now there are three.

If you can't beet them join them!

But from a football purists point of view it ain't right.

Ho hum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Envious. But you can't help but get on a moral high horse when your clubs skint.

However, it dawned on me about six years who that your team will win nowt in the Premiership unless your minted.

A sobering fact.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



In recent times there have only been two fat cats at the table, now there are three.

Remember after shelling out big on Sheva, there were a few seasons where teams such as Wolves and West Ham spent more in the window. I know since Roman we have spent big, but it hasn't all been 'spend out every year'. It seems since Torres, that was about to change again and we looked to spend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a problem for some of our fans. Because we've spent big in the past, because we spent over £75 million in January, they have a sense of expectation that we'll continue to spend big, and a sense of disappointment when we don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a problem for some of our fans. Because we've spent big in the past, because we spent over £75 million in January, they have a sense of expectation that we'll continue to spend big, and a sense of disappointment when we don't.

fantasy football fans!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You're late to the "no one likes us and we don't care" party - we've been raving and dancing since 2003!! Nearly 10 years now... but I'm sure Roman will bugger off in 2004...2006...2007...2009... ahh sod it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing that none of us can understand is 'Why City?'

As outsiders looking in, what do you reckon.

Surely the club to buy would have been united, these Arab chaps (peace be upon them) could have bought out the lovely Glazers with money found down the back of the couch!

Back in the 90's it wasn't a surprise that Abramovich picked you lot

.

Why us though?

Investors look at opportunity for growth.

RA choose us because he saw an opportunity expand us into what we are today.

Eastlands is a fantastic vicinity and City have a fairly big and loyal following in a very cosmopolitan city (2nd only to London). Unlike us, you are a two club City so it is easier to attract drifting fans.

Without wanting to offend you I think the fact you share the same name as United is also another thing that would put you on the map.

I believe there are only certain clubs that have the potential to expand globally and City and Chelsea are some of them, others would probably be Newcastle, Leeds, Forest, Everton and possibly West Ham and QPR, they still wouldn't be anywhere close to Chelsea in terms of fanbase, only Leeds would come close domestically and even then we have a much bigger worldwide fanbase.

Unlike with us, I believe the only way City will expand as a brand is if they get out of United's shadow, and I think they have already taken one big step out of it by winning the FA Cup and beating them along the way, another big step will be to win the title, which I feel they HAVE to win this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Investors look at opportunity for growth.

RA choose us because he saw an opportunity expand us into what we are today.

Eastlands is a fantastic vicinity and City have a fairly big and loyal following in a very cosmopolitan city (2nd only to London). Unlike us, you are a two club City so it is easier to attract drifting fans.

Without wanting to offend you I think the fact you share the same name as United is also another thing that would put you on the map.

I believe there are only certain clubs that have the potential to expand globally and City and Chelsea are some of them, others would probably be Newcastle, Leeds, Forest, Everton and possibly West Ham and QPR, they still wouldn't be anywhere close to Chelsea in terms of fanbase, only Leeds would come close domestically and even then we have a much bigger worldwide fanbase.

Unlike with us, I believe the only way City will expand as a brand is if they get out of United's shadow, and I think they have already taken one big step out of it by winning the FA Cup and beating them along the way, another big step will be to win the title, which I feel they HAVE to win this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But from a football purists point of view it ain't right.

Bollox in my view.

Since the abolition of the minimum wage early 60s there has been nothing to stop any club in England paying any player what they want/feel he is worth.

If that money comes from replica shirt sales, from the gate or from a philanthropic owner what difference does it make? If I had the wedge of Bill Gates I would buy cfc (as Roman has) and plough my personal fortuned into the club as a hobby like Jack Walker did, as the owner that would be my prerogative to do with my money what I see fit.

All this "football purism" is nonsense, United, L-pool, Spuds, goons and everton (the so called big 5) were the main forces behind scrapping gate sharing in 1983 (so they could keep their bigger gates) and the formation of the Prem in 1992. Now little old Chelsea and Man City have ruffled their feathers they want to act as if Romans and Sheiks money has runied the game, lol hypocritical muppets.

DO ME A FAVOUR, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Investors look at opportunity for growth.

Without wanting to offend you I think the fact you share the same name as United is also another thing that would put you on the map.

I agree about the united bit. Juxtaposition I think is the word best suited.

We've a lot to thank them for.....

1. Contributing to the Commonwealth Stadium via council tax.

2. Filling up their cars with petrol which has a 10% chance of coming from our owners (peace be upon them).

3. And being part of the equation why city got lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Modern English football changed at a secret meeting held in London back in 1991. Only four clubs were there by invitation only. Man u, arsenal, Liverpool and Everton

This meeting was instigated by LWT Chairman and man u fan Greg Dyke who proposed clubs should keep 100% of gate receipts as opposed to sharing and control future Tv deals. Alan Sugar also had a vote and surprise surprise the vote instigated a breakaway league. Alan Sugar company, Amstrad sold all the satellite boxes and dishes.

I seem to remember both scouse clubs voted against, probably because they had enjoyed success throughout the 80's and didn't fancy change.

The remaining First Division clubs not invited to the meeting were then invited to join them in a new league called The Premiership.

Manchester United won it a year later for the first time in 26 years. So, yes, morals and dignity started to drift from then on.

Edited by GKA_mcfc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern English football changed at a secret meeting held in London back in 1991. Only four clubs were there by invitation only. Man u, arsenal, Liverpool and Everton

This meeting was instigated by LWT Chairman and man u fan Greg Dyke who proposed clubs should keep 100% of gate receipts as opposed to sharing and control future Tv deals. Alan Sugar also had a vote and surprise surprise the vote instigated a breakaway league. Alan Sugar company, Amstrad sold all the satellite boxes and dishes.

I seem to remember both scouse clubs voted against, probably because they had enjoyed success throughout the 80's and didn't fancy change.

The remaining First Division clubs not invited to the meeting were then invited to join them in a new league called The Premiership.

Manchester United won it a year later for the first time in 26 years. So, yes, morals and dignity started to drift from then on.

Wrong, league gate receipt sharing was abolished in 1983. At the time the bigger clubs threatened to breakaway from the football league unless their demands were met, their demands were met but still the first division clubs resigned en masse from the football league a decade later in the early 90s thus paving the way for the formation of the premier league.

The main flaw of the FA and the Football league during this time was that they didnt legislate against the growing power of the bigger clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the title of this thread, and I must protest, since I like Citeh, and if some team other than Chelsea is to win the title this upcoming season, I would much rather it be Citeh than Liverpool, Arsenal, United, or Tottenham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up