Rag post of the day

[Wooders]

New Year greetings from a Manchester United fan who just HAPPENED to stumble upon this post. Let me assure you that cockney red is really a manc blue, sorry to spoil your fun folks!

A lot of you guys seem to be obsessed with United 'glory hunters'. You can be certain that you will not have to worry about it at City because before glory hunters can be attracted, a club has to achieve some glory. City has been unable to do that in over a century!

Happy New Year"

@ SORTED, I certainly cannot disagree with your call for respect. If you go back to my very first post it had respect written all over it except to point out the obvious fact that City has never achieved any glory for them to attract 'glory hunters'

Opinions can be disputed mate but Facts are set in stone. Comparing City with United is just as dumb as comparing the Spice Girls with U2

Best wishes for 2011

do you know how long a century is ?

And DO NOT google it, we can tell if you google it.

[saulman]

......................... TOTALLY WRONG and here's the big difference. City are merely a local Manchester club while United belongs to the WORLD, they simply happen to be located at Old Trafford.
.

Quite possibly the gayest thing I've ever read anywhere on the internet, ever.

[Cikku]

Cikku wrote:
......................... TOTALLY WRONG and here's the big difference. City are merely a local Manchester club while United belongs to the WORLD, they simply happen to be located at Old Trafford.

Quite possibly the gayest thing I've ever read anywhere on the internet, ever.

Don't know what you mean by 'gayest' in this context Saulman, it may only make sense to gays but 30million plus fans across the world makes United far more than simply a little Manchester club like City is forever destined to remain.

[Im_Spartacus]

Cikku wrote:
......................... TOTALLY WRONG and here's the big difference. City are merely a local Manchester club while United belongs to the WORLD, they simply happen to be located at Old Trafford.

Quite possibly the gayest thing I've ever read anywhere on the internet, ever.

Don't know what you mean by 'gayest' in this context Saulman, it may only make sense to gays but 30million plus fans across the world makes United far more than simply a little Manchester club like City is forever destined to remain.

And how many of those 30m (is this an audited figure btw) supported United pre-1993? You might want to reflect on the fact that when Ferguson started his tenure, and coincidentally maintained the long held tradition of United spending more than any other club on transfers, that it took him over 3 years to win his first trophy, and 7 years to win his first league title. In the year prior to the title season, you couldn't even sell out Old Trafford so clearly the 30m fans weren't all that keen on you back then.

Can you hand on heart tell me that you do not see City winning the league within the same timescale as under Fergie's revolution (this is our 3rd season), and given the time and money that were spent to lay the foundations of 18 years of subsequent unparralelled success, is it not unreasonable to expect that Manchester City COULD enjoy great success over the next decade, and with it would automatically come the badwagon jumpers and global following that only a successful side could have.

Is that really too far fetched for you to consider?

nb.....Not that I particularly want people from Malaysia with no connection to Manchester supporting the club, but I accept it is an inevitable consequence of being a successful side - but don't tell me that all them cunts in Asia and the US were United fans before you started winning things. The explosion in international support for United coincided with the birth of the Premier League, when English football for the first time became a heavily marketed, sexy new product for TV viewers around the world. United happened to be winning at the time. Do the maths

[Ted Hughes]

Cikku wrote:
......................... TOTALLY WRONG and here's the big difference. City are merely a local Manchester club while United belongs to the WORLD, they simply happen to be located at Old Trafford.

Quite possibly the gayest thing I've ever read anywhere on the internet, ever.

Don't know what you mean by 'gayest' in this context Saulman, it may only make sense to gays but 30million plus fans across the world makes United far more than simply a little Manchester club like City is forever destined to remain.

And how many of those 30m (is this an audited figure btw) supported United pre-1993? You might want to reflect on the fact that when Ferguson started his tenure, and coincidentally maintained the long held tradition of United spending more than any other club on transfers, that it took him over 3 years to win his first trophy, and 7 years to win his first league title. In the year prior to the title season, you couldn't even sell out Old Trafford so clearly the 30m fans weren't all that keen on you back then.

Can you hand on heart tell me that you do not see City winning the league within the same timescale as under Fergie's revolution (this is our 3rd season), and given the time and money that were spent to lay the foundations of 18 years of subsequent unparralelled success, is it not unreasonable to expect that Manchester City COULD enjoy great success over the next decade, and with it would automatically come the badwagon jumpers and global following that only a successful side could have.

Is that really too far fetched for you to consider?

nb.....Not that I particularly want people from Malaysia with no connection to Manchester supporting the club, but I accept it is an inevitable consequence of being a successful side - but don't tell me that all them cunts in Asia and the US were United fans before you started winning things. The explosion in international support for United coincided with the birth of the Premier League, when English football for the first time became a heavily marketed, sexy new product for TV viewers around the world. United happened to be winning at the time. Do the maths

Seeing as he's not replying I'll attempt to reply on his behalf, just help in the interests of fairness.

'Ahem'

'My dad, is bigger than your dad'.

[Dameerto]

New Year greetings from a Manchester United fan who just HAPPENED to stumble upon this post. Let me assure you that cockney red is really a manc blue, sorry to spoil your fun folks!

A lot of you guys seem to be obsessed with United 'glory hunters'. You can be certain that you will not have to worry about it at City because before glory hunters can be attracted, a club has to achieve some glory. City has been unable to do that in over a century!

Happy New Year

Tick.. and indeed... Tock. Did you find the count down to New Year a bit ironic last night? That long hand slowly creeping round to midnight.

[Fish111]

Don't know what you mean by 'gayest' in this context Saulman, it may only make sense to gays but 30million plus fans across the world makes United far more than simply a little Manchester club like City is forever destined to remain.

Right, fuck off now you munich cunt. Trying to reason with a dick like you is like trying to swim in treacle. It's fuckin twats like you that is the reason you are the most fuckin hated set of twat fans in the world, your fuckin arrogance is tedious and when your empire crashes and disintegrates there will be a lot more fans around the world celebrating than there will be crying.

[Cikku]

johnpb78 wrote - "Can you hand on heart tell me that you do not see City winning the league within the same timescale as under Fergie's revolution (this is our 3rd season), and given the time and money that were spent to lay the foundations of 18 years of subsequent unparralelled success, is it not unreasonable to expect that Manchester City COULD enjoy great success over the next decade, and with it would automatically come the badwagon jumpers and global following that only a successful side could have"

Let me make it clear that I DO NOT intend to stay here forever but johnpb78 wrote one of the more coherent comments and deserves to at least get a reply. As for the others cretins like Ted Hughes, King Kev, Fish 111 and so many others here, they have absolutely nothing to offer except the usual frustrated, bitter and envious banal comments.

Absolutely right johnpb78, ONLY a successful side can attract a global following, hence my original comment which seems to have infuriated the above guys. Quite aside from United, think Liverpool in the eighties. Yes, City COULD - and it's good that you put an emphasis on 'could' because while there cannot be any guarantees, nothing can be counted out in football either.

Here's my argument. You're absolutely correct, it took Ferguson a number of years to build his success BUT crucially, he first built a solid foundation before constructing his house which was then followed by it's roof. City is doing the precise opposite. The policy has been to build the roof first, follow it with the house and the foundation can wait for another day! In other words, stability with a capital S is what City requires first and foremost. Can you hazard a guess as to how long Mancini is likely to remain at Eastlands in order to provide that essential requirement? Truthfully, can you see him still being there in five years time? If he is, then yes, City COULD obtain long term success rather than an odd trophy but history suggests otherwise. That desperately desired global following to match United COULD be a long way off yet!

[Wooders]

just skimmed it - but was that last post mostly the word "could" ?

[Ted Hughes]

This

is it not unreasonable to expect that Manchester City COULD enjoy great success over the next decade, and with it would automatically come the badwagon jumpers and global following that only a successful side could have"

& this

. Yes, City COULD - and it's good that you put an emphasis on 'could' because while there cannot be any guarantees, nothing can be counted out in football either.

are the opposite to this

a little Manchester club like City is forever destined to remain.

Typical lying, forked tongue bullshitting, rag cunt. Full of fucking shit & double talking through the arse as usual. Just like the one eyed pissed up cunt of a manager. Fuck off back to your piss stained moronic, sheep brained mates & stop mithering real football fans.

[gillie]

How many managers did you have Cikku in your 28 year barren spell of not winning the league?

[spiv]

Dimitar Berbatov, the leading goalscorer in the Premier League and the same man who would not even bother to speak to City once he knew that Sir Alex wanted him. A highly intelligent man when compared to your Argentine midget

We didn't even want him, we just rattled the cage just to bump the price up and your lot ended up paying about £12 million pounds over the top for him.

[avoidconfusion]

Dimitar Berbatov, the leading goalscorer in the Premier League and the same man who would not even bother to speak to City once he knew that Sir Alex wanted him. A highly intelligent man when compared to your Argentine midget

Oh wow... Flopatov finally "somewhat" lives up to his ridiculous 30m pricetag when he is approaching 30? Congratulations... but hey, let's wait until the season is over okay? I'd take Tevez over him any day of the week.

[Im_Spartacus]

Couple of interesting little things I picked up on over the last few days re: United's loyal unwavering support........and particularly pertinent to cikku's 30million fans.....

On New Years Day 1992, Man Utd played QPR at home, and the attendance was 38554 - at a time when the capacity was 48000. I looked this up as some smarmy red prick who clearly doesnt know his history commented on there being "a few empty seats" around the ground yesterday. Incidentally, United were top of the league on the day of the QPR game, which makes it all the more bizarre.

This game is relevant, as it was really the first time United under Ferguson had put a proper challenge together, and thus I think it is an extremely fair comparison to where we are now.

Other notable attendances that season were in the league cup (29,543 vs Pompey) and cup winners cup - (35,023 vs athanaikos), which I mention purely because rags seem to delight in our low attendances in the lesser cups, wheras of course their version of history would have you believe that the ground was a sell out every week since 1903

So, it is interesting to see that the Utd fans weren't quite as loyal to the cause as they like to make out - and despite showing my mune friend the evidence of those attendances, after screaming that "the ground must have been being rebuilt" (no, that was the season after), he simply decided "I'm not having it". What a typical deluded fucking tool!!!

[saulman]

Cikku wrote:
......................... TOTALLY WRONG and here's the big difference. City are merely a local Manchester club while United belongs to the WORLD, they simply happen to be located at Old Trafford.

Quite possibly the gayest thing I've ever read anywhere on the internet, ever.

Don't know what you mean by 'gayest' in this context Saulman, it may only make sense to gays but 30million plus fans across the world makes United far more than simply a little Manchester club like City is forever destined to remain.

Y'see that's exactly what I mean. 'United belongs to the world'? What a load of fuckin bollocks. Do you have any idea how that makes the friends of mine who are real United fans cringe inside? Do you have any idea what they've seen their club turn into thanks to the likes of yourself spouting bollocks like that? United is a football club, just like any other. It belongs to whoever decides to follow them but the simple fact is that if they had not won what they've won, you would not be here posting because you would be on another forum arguning the case for whoever was winning, you bullshitting, glory-seeking tit.

......little Manchester club like City is forever destined to remain

How can you possibly get so much wrong with so few words?

Firstly, City are not a little club. Just because a purple nosed alcholic happens to use terminology like that in the build up to important games, doesn't make it right. It makes him look like a disprespectful cunt and that goes for anyone else who speaks like that, including yourself. There's banter and there's bollocks and you're speaking bollocks.

Secondly, to me City will remain who they are. With our new found wealth we will win titles, trophies, accolades and very probably have a sustained spell at the very top. With that will come a whole new army of millions of 'fans' such as yourself. People from around the world will latch on and take notice and cheer for us from the other side of the globe, but don't ever imagine that these people aren't following success. And when this happens and I hear Australian blues belittling great, extablished clubs with such destain whilst spoiling for a fight on other fans message boards, I'll cringe inside too.

Now fuck off back to where you came from on some rag message board and talk some more bollocks with the likes of yourself.

[King Kev]

johnpb78 wrote - "Can you hand on heart tell me that you do not see City winning the league within the same timescale as under Fergie's revolution (this is our 3rd season), and given the time and money that were spent to lay the foundations of 18 years of subsequent unparralelled success, is it not unreasonable to expect that Manchester City COULD enjoy great success over the next decade, and with it would automatically come the badwagon jumpers and global following that only a successful side could have"

Let me make it clear that I DO NOT intend to stay here forever but johnpb78 wrote one of the more coherent comments and deserves to at least get a reply. As for the others cretins like Ted Hughes, King Kev, Fish 111 and so many others here, they have absolutely nothing to offer except the usual frustrated, bitter and envious banal comments.

Absolutely right johnpb78, ONLY a successful side can attract a global following, hence my original comment which seems to have infuriated the above guys. Quite aside from United, think Liverpool in the eighties. Yes, City COULD - and it's good that you put an emphasis on 'could' because while there cannot be any guarantees, nothing can be counted out in football either.

Here's my argument. You're absolutely correct, it took Ferguson a number of years to build his success BUT crucially, he first built a solid foundation before constructing his house which was then followed by it's roof. City is doing the precise opposite. The policy has been to build the roof first, follow it with the house and the foundation can wait for another day! In other words, stability with a capital S is what City requires first and foremost. Can you hazard a guess as to how long Mancini is likely to remain at Eastlands in order to provide that essential requirement? Truthfully, can you see him still being there in five years time? If he is, then yes, City COULD obtain long term success rather than an odd trophy but history suggests otherwise. That desperately desired global following to match United COULD be a long way off yet!

To be called a cretin by somebody like you is a huge compliment IMO. You are a typical rag who outright refuses to accept anybody else's points or answer their questions.

You think you are superior because you chose to 'support' a team on the other side of the world and they happen to have won more silverware than my local team that I support. It's not big or clever to pick a team that wins everything, indeed I could have done that myself, but I have more dignity, integrity and self-respect than to take the easy option.

I activated your account because, on seeing your age, I had hoped that you would be capable of having a decent debate rather than churning out the usual monotonous shite we get from your lot. Unfortunately you are just as pathetic as rest of the scum who adopt the my dad's bigger than your dad attitude whenever somebody tries to reason with them.

Maybe it's time to grow up eh pops?

[Beefymcfc]

So, basically, the so called Super Rag fan has added nothing to the debate apart from trying to big-up his own ego and try and somehow belittle our own club for coming up through the ranks (or should I say 'arrived').

Another typical Rag Glory Hunting Twat who can't get over the fact that may seem some changes in their comfy top 4 dictatorship. Some Rags are OK, but some, like this Cikku (what does that stand for by the way?) just go to prove that a lot of their support aren't there for the club but to follow a club just to bask in the reflected light.

He's had his chance, now he should be put humanely out of his misery; hung, drawn and quartered should suffice.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Yes King Kev, winning the Carling Cup was pretty good last season because we had the pleasure of beating City along the way AND it continued a streak of winning title after title. Do you remember the last time City was able to do that?

So winning the Rumbelows Trophy continued a streak of winning title after title did it? How does that work then?

No, I don't remember the last time my club won a trophy.. but I still support them. Does that make me a worse fan or a better fan than you? Think before reply now (or get your carer to help you).

The 'other side of the planet' is not as far away as you think mate.The world does not begin and end at Eastlands, Old Trafford or Maine Road. I probably know more about YOUR club than even you do.

The other side of the planet might not be so far away these days because we have internet and satellite TV. My question was how did you 'follow' your club in the 50s?


On a side note, you seem to have quite an unhealthy interest in Liverpool FC as well as the rags*. Is this in case utd stop winning stuff and you can jump ship or are you BITTER towards them as well as City?

Happy New Year


* it's amazing what you can learn from somebody's hard-drive isn't it! Whenever your computer starts making a whirring sound in the future, think of me ;o)

That's extremely valid question and one that deserves an answer imo.

I mean, I was born 1978 and started following City 1984/85 season. It was hard enough struggle back then. We got single game every saturday during the season. I bought Match and Shoot magazine's and read match summaries in book store from English newspapers (The Guardian had best stories about City games back then). HOWEVER, while that seems like lot of bother for younger people who are used to Internet and everything (I mean, I learned English by reading football magazines with a dictionary!), for someone who has been following united from across the globe since 50's, that must sound really easy.

Now there are few things that I find somewhat confusing here. My dad (RIP) was born 1950. He remembered that they started showing English 1st division on telly here 1964 (the season Match of the Day started in England). That's the reason why English football has such huge following in Scandinavia. Anyway, that's whole six years after Munich. Before that there was no televised football sent outside Britain (apart from FA Cup final I believe). Now let's pretend you bit your fingernails for six years to see united finally play, literally not having heard anything about them. Now, I find it strange that you would've got English football in Australia even in 1964 because of the broadcasting technique. Before the satellite techonology in late 70's, tv stream was sent basically the same way as radio still does. Now since earth is round and you aross the globe, I find it mathematically impossible for you to get games on saturday there back then. Just the same way as it's still impossible for you to get AM/FM radio programs there from Britain these days. In fact, one of the reasons they started showing football in Scandinavia (that's thousands of miles closer to Britain than Australia and on the same side of the globe) WAS for European Public Broadcasting Companies (BBC, Swedish SVT, Finnish YLE etc) to test and improve long distance live broadcasting.

So I doubt you would've followed united on telly until 70's and on radio when Internet streams came around late 90's. What about newspapers. Now I am only guessing here but while there has always been loads of Brit immigrants in Australia, I find it hard to believe they would've sent copies of newspapers by planes back in the 50's and early 60's simply because of the costs. So the papaers would've come by a ship. That's a long time to wait to read about games. I admire your commitment.

While I'm not calling you liar, I would really love you to share us how it was following united in Australia in 50's.

[Im_Spartacus]

Is this about football or cricket. Who cares about the Ashes? I have been in Aussie for 55 of my 67 years and have Never Ever been anywhere near a cricket ground. Don't talk to me about such boredom.

Your answer Antti?

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Is this about football or cricket. Who cares about the Ashes? I have been in Aussie for 55 of my 67 years and have Never Ever been anywhere near a cricket ground. Don't talk to me about such boredom.

Your answer Antti?

Ok, let's assume he moved there when he was 12 year old united supporting Manc kid when he moved to australia 55 years ago. That's 1955. Think my question is still valid. He is rag twat so I'm not trying to really prove him fool..... being a rag is embarrasing enough.... I would just love to hear how he did it in 50's and 60's.