The Official Manchester City Thread

[RickG16]

2 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Happy to. I'm from Bradford; the Etihad Stadium North stand is built on top of where our house was built.

Yeah I remember you said before.

 

OK then BREDBURY Blue... have a good day.  I've got important stuff to do. 

[Bredbury Blue]

2 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

As I said, it doesn't matter to me. They are my local league / and non league clubs respectively.

 

Alty have never claimed to be in Manchester.

 

And anyone saying Salford isn't Manchester (although technically it isn't) are just being pedantic aren't they. When you think of a Manchester accent you think Salford. Salford is the heart of Manchester in many ways. 

Obviously my comment wasn't aimed at Alty was it. But you knew that didn't you.

 

You're going to be upsetting an awful lot of Salfordians with that comment. Salford and Manchester are different cities. I'd delete while you can.

[RickG16]

1 minute ago, Bredbury Blue said:

You're going to be upsetting an awful lot of Salfordians with that comment. Salford and Manchester are different cities. I'd delete while you can.

I said technically it is a different city, but in reality not. Can't remember many Salford Reds asking for United's name to be changed.

 

And when these Salfordonians are off on holiday, I wonder whether they say they're from Manchester or Salford?

[Bredbury Blue]

6 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

Yeah I remember you said before.

 

OK then BREDBURY Blue... have a good day.  I've got important stuff to do. 

Sorry mate, i've got a day off today. I'll let you get on then. Y'all come back now, y'hear?"

Edited April 3, 2020 by Bredbury Blue

[Bredbury Blue]

2 hours ago, RickG16 said:

I said technically it is a different city, but in reality not. Can't remember many Salford Reds asking for United's name to be changed.

 

And when these Salfordonians are off on holiday, I wonder whether they say they're from Manchester or Salford?

Plenty of Blues however reckon ManU should change their name as they clearly are not situated within the boundaries of the City of Manchester (like ourselves) - misrepresentation that is mate!

 

You guys on here like to make this big distinction between Stockport and Manchester, which border each other, but Salford and Manchester that's no problem eh.

 

But why did you bring up Salford anyway? You do know that ManU are based in Trafford and not Salford don't you?

[RickG16]

5 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

But why did you bring up Salford anyway? You do know that ManU are based in Trafford and not Salford don't you?

Would that be Trafford, the borough of Greater Manchester?

 

Many of our fans are from Salford and it's a stone's throw away from OT. I thought that's what you were getting at?

[Bredbury Blue]

On 4/2/2020 at 5:06 PM, Bredbury Blue said:

 

The Mirror wrote about just 4 days ago. 

 

 

"Inside England's match fixing scandal that involved Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal"

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/inside-englands-match-fixing-scandal-21773882

 

 

The Guardian also wrote about it on 24 Mar 2020 in more detail. Interesting extract below:

 

When football played on during world war one and inflamed a London derby

 

The 1914-15 season, which was played out to the backdrop of a world war, is one of the most controversial in history

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/the-agony-and-the-ecstasy/2020/mar/24/when-football-played-world-war-one-north-london-derby

 

"Everton finished the 1914-15 season as champions, just one point above Oldham Athletic, but the real story was at the other end of the table. Chelsea and Tottenham finished 19th and 20th, respectively, and were due to be relegated. However, Manchester United had finished just one point above Chelsea and attention turned to their 2-0 win over Liverpool on Good Friday 1915.

 

Suspicions were raised by the referee about some of the Liverpool players’ lackadaisical approach. The Manchester Football Chronicle reporter was “surprised and disgusted” by the manner of United’s victory, with another reporter declaring the match as being “too poor to describe”. There were rumours that a group of players from both sides had met in a pub in Manchester beforehand to discuss the outcome, with bets placed at 8/1.

 

The Football League investigated and their findings were clear. Players from both teams had indeed placed substantial sums on the result. It was the first betting coup of its kind in English football and the punishments were suitably severe, with seven players – three United and four Liverpool – given lifetime bans.

 

When peace was declared in November 1918, the Football League agreed to restart with a new season in August 1919. But it was not immediately obvious which clubs should be relegated and which should be promoted.

 

Manchester United could easily have gone down given that their players had fixed a match, but the club argued that they were unaware of the players’ betting arrangements and were allowed to keep the points they won against Liverpool. That left Chelsea and, to a lesser extent, Tottenham facing a very harsh relegation to Division Two.

 

In February 1919, the Football League reached a compromise. The First Division was expanded from 20 to 22 clubs and Chelsea were allowed to retain their status. It was agreed that the top two from Division Two – Derby and Preston – should join them but that still left one place available. Even though they had finished bottom of the league, Tottenham felt they had a good claim. As did Barnsley and Wolves, the clubs who finished third and fourth in Division Two.

 

The outlier in this were Arsenal, who had finished fifth in Division Two in the 1914-15 season and on the surface did not seem to have any right to be considered. However, Arsenal chairman Sir Henry Norris wielded considerable power. He had moved the club from Woolwich to Highbury in 1913, which left them in debt to the tune of £60,000 (£30m in today’s money), and was desperate to get them back into the top division. Norris, a property developer and MP, cajoled the Football League with an argument partly based on Arsenal being one of the oldest League clubs, partly through his force of personality and sphere of influence, and most persuasively of all, as Simon Inglis describes in his book, League Football and The Men who Made It, “by offering handsome inducements to other clubs or individuals.”

 

In the end, Wolves received four votes, Barnsley five, Tottenham eight and Arsenal 18. Norris had his way and Arsenal became the first club to be promoted to the top division of English football not on merit. They have not been relegated since so now hold the record for the longest continuous run in the top flight. It still rankles with many, no more so than a neighbouring club who were forced to play their matches at Arsenal’s ground in 1914-15, only to be ultimately displaced by them five years later."

 

Poor old Spurs. Lucky lucky Arsenal. Cheating ManU and Liverpool.

 

[mrbojangles]

That's the one I was thinking of BB. Got my dates mixed up though

[Bredbury Blue]

Amazingly MUFC’s solicitor was part of the investigation team! Similar to UEFA's process.

[RickG16]

4 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Amazingly MUFC’s solicitor was part of the investigation team! Similar to UEFA's process.

Is that a David Gill reference... how hard is it to understand that it is near impossible to have a UEFA committee of people experienced in football, if you are going to strike anyone off with any previous club affiliations you don't like?

 

And I love the assumption that David Gill must somehow be suspicious of some wrong doing, when you are the ones in the dock! 

[Bredbury Blue]

7 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

Is that a David Gill reference... how hard is it to understand that it is near impossible to have a UEFA committee of people experienced in football, if you are going to strike anyone off with any previous club affiliations you don't like?

 

And I love the assumption that David Gill must somehow be suspicious of some wrong doing, when you are the ones in the dock! 

No it wasn't a reference to Gill but now you mention it.

 

It was simply referring to the fact that ManU were investigated for match fixing, ManUs solicitor was on the investigation panel, which surely can't be right. In UEFA, one UEFA body raises the investigation, and another UEFA body investigates, which surely can't be right.

[RickG16]

1 minute ago, Bredbury Blue said:

No it wasn't a reference to Gill but now you mention it.

 

It was simply referring to the fact that ManU were investigated for match fixing, ManUs solicitor was on the investigation panel, which surely can't be right. In UEFA, one UEFA body raises the investigation, and another UEFA body investigates, which surely can't be right.

In 1914 or whenever... when soldiers when into battle on horseback, and poison gas hadn't been banned.... get a grip!!!

[RickG16]

4 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

In UEFA, one UEFA body raises the investigation, and another UEFA body investigates, which surely can't be right.

You really are slow off the mark... it's no different from the police investigating something. You are playing in UEFA's competition, of course they have the right to investigate you. If you don't like it, don't play in the CL.

 

This is my fault for getting drawn into a debate with someone that has such a loosr grip on reality. 

[Bredbury Blue]

3 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

In 1914 or whenever... when soldiers when into battle on horseback, and poison gas hadn't been banned.... get a grip!!!

You saying it was ok to matchfix back then, if so it's you who needs to get a grip.

[RickG16]

1 minute ago, Bredbury Blue said:

You saying it was ok to matchfix back then

When did I say that? You were questioning the investigation process involving a MUFC solicitor... I am reminding you that things were a bit different in 19 <deleted> 14. Why does it have any relevance to today.

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

Burnley facing £50m loss if Premier League season isn’t completed.

 

No worries. Their 7 buddies, fellow members of the KANGAROO COURT CLUBS, will see them right.

[Bredbury Blue]

7 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

You really are slow off the mark... it's no different from the police investigating something. You are playing in UEFA's competition, of course they have the right to investigate you. If you don't like it, don't play in the CL.

 

This is my fault for getting drawn into a debate with someone that has such a loosr grip on reality. 

Huh? So you think there was nothing wrong in an investigation in to ManUs matchfixing having a ManUs solicitor on the investigation panel? 

 

The "it's UEFA's competition so if you don't like it don't join in" is a weak arguement and it's most likely that City will raise that anomaly in their case. But the more important point is UEFAs investigating panel is paid by UEFA - can you not see the potential problem that raises with impartiality?

[RickG16]

1 minute ago, Bredbury Blue said:

But the more important point is UEFAs investigating panel is paid by UEFA - can you not see the potential problem that raises with impartiality?

No. Because UEFA is the governing body of football in Europe, they are not affiliated with one club or another. What you are saying is that you don't think they are impartial. That's fine, so don't play in their competition. 

[mrbojangles]

1 hour ago, RickG16 said:

Is that a David Gill reference... how hard is it to understand that it is near impossible to have a UEFA committee of people experienced in football, if you are going to strike anyone off with any previous club affiliations you don't like?

That's the bladdy issue. Gill doesn't have a previous affiliation with United. He has a current affiliation with United as he is still a Director there and so if you think he can remain impartial to City you are deluded

[RickG16]

5 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

That's the bladdy issue. Gill doesn't have a previous affiliation with United. He has a current affiliation with United as he is still a Director there and so if you think he can remain impartial to City you are deluded

So you want everyone to retire from their current position before they can be on a UEFA Committee - which I am assuming is a voluntary position, or certainly doesn't pay a salary. That's deluded.

 

Your vision of UEFA committees would be like the House of Lords. People out of touch with today's game. 

[mrbojangles]

5 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

So you want everyone to retire from their current position before they can be on a UEFA Committee - which I am assuming is a voluntary position, or certainly doesn't pay a salary. That's deluded.

 

Your vision of UEFA committees would be like the House of Lords. People out of touch with today's game. 

Oh my god, you really are in cuckoo land Rick. Even a couple of years ago it was reported Gill was getting $300,000 a year at UEFA plus daily expenses and up to 35% bonus.

[mrbojangles]

16 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

which I am assuming is a voluntary position, or certainly doesn't pay a salary. That's deluded.

I've only just stopped laughing at the thought of those greedy, robbing gits at UEFA doing the job for free ????

 

Cefferin is on about $1.5m btw

[RickG16]

19 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

I've only just stopped laughing at the thought of those greedy, robbing gits at UEFA doing the job for free ????

 

Cefferin is on about $1.5m btw

I said committees you idiot. 300k is nothing really when you compare it to his salary as Chief Exec of United.

 

Do I want people with current experience of working with the top clubs in football making decisions at UEFA... yes?

 

This boils down to you implying David Gill is a dishonest man. He has never done anything to suggest he is a dishonest man, while you are the ones in the dock.

 

 

[mrbojangles]

3 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

I said committees you idiot. 300k is nothing really when you compare it to his salary as Chief Exec of United.

What are you going on about? You said they did it voluntarily. I told you he gets over 300k +bonuses. Then you say 300k is nothing and you call me an idiot.

 

He is also on FIFA and gets paid for that. These people don't do these jobs for free and I don't blame them. That isn't the point I'm making

[mrbojangles]

8 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

This boils down to you implying David Gill is a dishonest man.

I'm not implying that, I'm stating there is a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

[RickG16]

3 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

I'm not implying that, I'm stating there is a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

You are not living in reality. In an organisations which involves members, it is unavoidable that participants of committees etc will have affiliations with some of those members.

 

Don't like it? Don't play in the competition. 

Edited April 4, 2020 by RickG16

[RickG16]

4 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

I'm not implying that, I'm stating there is a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

And you think Gill is that powerful, that he could have the final say in all of this? Just understand he is one guy on the committee. He isn't sneaking around the Etihad at night tipexing your accounts and putting his own figures in.

[mrbojangles]

11 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

Don't like it? Don't play in the competition. 

Childish response. I expect better from you

[mrbojangles]

10 minutes ago, RickG16 said:

And you think Gill is that powerful, that he could have the final say in all of this? Just understand he is one guy on the committee. He isn't sneaking around the Etihad at night tipexing your accounts and putting his own figures in.

He's in one of the top positions in UEFA. Of course he has influence. Would love it to be the other way round and see if you thought it was right and proper.

[RickG16]

3 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

He's in one of the top positions in UEFA. Of course he has influence. Would love it to be the other way round and see if you thought it was right and proper.

Again... what are you suggesting? That no current UEFA committee member should have ongoing affiliations with member clubs on the basis they could be corrupt? What would that leave you with?