by john68 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:39 am
Several points.
1...The term "RAGS" is the traditional name given to them and has been used (I believe) since the 1930s. Apparently it was originated by their own fans at that time to reflect their poverty and the state of the shirts they wore. City fans picked up on it, much to their displeasure.
2...@ Twosips. You are entitled to your opinion mate, as is King Kev. But while you were abusing KK for his use of the term, you never sought to ask why...why?
It may have explained why someone who I happen to know is a lovely, genuine and respectable person uses the term and it may also have opened up the debate on the use of the word a little bit wider.
3...I personally don't use the word. Not because I am holier than thou but simply because it never really figured in my generation. That does not mean that I am not angered by the manner in which the rags have used their disaster as a commercial asset. The manner in which they have demanded that the football World pays homage to their dead whilst the club itself treated some of those victims with far more disrespect than we ever have.
4...I am well aware that the rag favouring media will haul the reputation of City fans through the shit over this and it doesn't look good for us and by singing such songs, we make ourselves targets and leave ourselves open to criticism.
5...I am not taken in by a media that targets City fans but chooses to ignore the behaviour of the rags club to its own tragedy and the references by their fans to the 2 stabbed leeds fans, the Russian submariners or the memory of the great Bill Shankly.
I have no hatred of the rags for their football. my hatred is for what they have done, what they stand for, the corruption the blackmail, their lack of humanity, humility, their greed and arrogance. For me the term MUNICH doesn't go anyway far enough to cover the reasons I can't stand them.