Football 2020/2021

[squirrelarmy]

I know 10 games doesn’t make a season but I’m posting this image to finally disprove the myth of the “Bielsa Burnout” 

I’m looking forward to seeing what next season brings. 
 

[thetime]

7 hours ago, squirrelarmy said:

I know 10 games doesn’t make a season but I’m posting this image to finally disprove the myth of the “Bielsa Burnout” 

I’m looking forward to seeing what next season brings. 
 

You've still got a fighting chance for the Europa Confrence League.

[pink_triangle]

9 hours ago, eastynh said:

No one has a go at Arsenal for the Emirates sponsorship, no one has a go at Liverpool even though they are sponsored by terrorist money launderers, no one has a go at United for their Saudi sponsors, all the  negative media articles are directed at City.

 

 

So are you suggesting that if the city owners owned Arsenal, Liverpool or Man utd nobody would have said anything? I disagree and think the criticism would have been every bit as strong. I think people will always make a stronger link with the owner than a sponsor, but agree there is an element of hypocrisy, which isn't surprising as most football fans are hypocrites.

I think given the choice most football fans would prefer to be owned by an ethical billionaire, but the reality is very few are around looking to buy football clubs. I think fans do care about human rights abuses, but they care more about winning football matches. This has been seen with City and Newcastle fans, but there's no doubt fans of other clubs would act the same.

[eastynh]

33 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

So are you suggesting that if the city owners owned Arsenal, Liverpool or Man utd nobody would have said anything? I disagree and think the criticism would have been every bit as strong. I think people will always make a stronger link with the owner than a sponsor, but agree there is an element of hypocrisy, which isn't surprising as most football fans are hypocrites.

I think given the choice most football fans would prefer to be owned by an ethical billionaire, but the reality is very few are around looking to buy football clubs. I think fans do care about human rights abuses, but they care more about winning football matches. This has been seen with City and Newcastle fans, but there's no doubt fans of other clubs would act the same.

It would have been nowhere near as bad. The proof is in the pudding. Uniteds longest serving sponsor is Saudi Telecom, which is owned by the Saudi government. Where are all the negative media articles about that? Standard Chartered have been fined by both the USA and UK for laundering Iranian terrorist money. Again, not a peep. Arsenal's and Emirates are long time partners. Emirates is wholly owned by Dubai's government. No media outcry about that. Yet, there is constant negatively in the media regarding City's owners.

Then you get the likes of Neil with his faux outrage. Neil does not give a toss about what's happening in the UAE.

[Gnomicide]

26 minutes ago, eastynh said:

It would have been nowhere near as bad. The proof is in the pudding. Uniteds longest serving sponsor is Saudi Telecom, which is owned by the Saudi government. Where are all the negative media articles about that? Standard Chartered have been fined by both the USA and UK for laundering Iranian terrorist money. Again, not a peep. Arsenal's and Emirates are long time partners. Emirates is wholly owned by Dubai's government. No media outcry about that. Yet, there is constant negatively in the media regarding City's owners.

Then you get the likes of Neil with his faux outrage. Neil does not give a toss about what's happening in the UAE.

Of course it would be as bad, to say otherwise is ridiculous, if anything it would be worse. No-one gave a shit about City until the money was pumped in, Arsenal and Liverpool are already under intense scrutiny. 

The reason it's different with the sponsors you mention is exactly that, they are sponsors not owners. I was unaware of the sponsor you mention for Utd because they're not the main one, who knows about secondary sponsors of other clubs? There has been of criticism of Standard Chartered but generally that they fucked up with poor money laundering controls, they weren't exactly letting Bin Laden pay in over the counter. They were hit, rightly, with massive fines as a result.

But no. It's the world against poor little  City. 

[jyoung]

Big question is, do LFC stick the big man up top tonight?

[eastynh]

16 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

Of course it would be as bad, to say otherwise is ridiculous, if anything it would be worse. No-one gave a shit about City until the money was pumped in, Arsenal and Liverpool are already under intense scrutiny. 

The reason it's different with the sponsors you mention is exactly that, they are sponsors not owners. I was unaware of the sponsor you mention for Utd because they're not the main one, who knows about secondary sponsors of other clubs? There has been of criticism of Standard Chartered but generally that they fucked up with poor money laundering controls, they weren't exactly letting Bin Laden pay in over the counter. They were hit, rightly, with massive fines as a result.

But no. It's the world against poor little  City. 

If it is as bad, where are the negative media articles regarding the things I mentioned.

No one gave a fuck about Liverpool till the Moores family pumped money in. They were a tin pot 2nd division club who were going nowhere. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by eastynh

[Gnomicide]

15 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Big question is, do LFC stick the big man up top tonight?

Gonna need him against that defence. 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

It would have been nowhere near as bad. The proof is in the pudding. Uniteds longest serving sponsor is Saudi Telecom, which is owned by the Saudi government. Where are all the negative media articles about that? Standard Chartered have been fined by both the USA and UK for laundering Iranian terrorist money. Again, not a peep. Arsenal's and Emirates are long time partners. Emirates is wholly owned by Dubai's government. No media outcry about that. Yet, there is constant negatively in the media regarding City's owners.

Then you get the likes of Neil with his faux outrage. Neil does not give a toss about what's happening in the UAE.

Your not comparing like with like. Right or wrong there is more focus on owners than sponsors and always has been. This is nothing specific to city.

[squirrelarmy]

3 hours ago, thetime said:

You've still got a fighting chance for the Europa Confrence League.

I don’t mind if we miss out, we don’t have the biggest squad around. I wouldn’t mind us going for a cup run though next season. We’ve certainly proved we can beat anyone on the day. 

[eFestivals]

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

So are you suggesting that if the city owners owned Arsenal, Liverpool or Man utd nobody would have said anything? I disagree and think the criticism would have been every bit as strong. I think people will always make a stronger link with the owner than a sponsor, but agree there is an element of hypocrisy, which isn't surprising as most football fans are hypocrites.

I think given the choice most football fans would prefer to be owned by an ethical billionaire, but the reality is very few are around looking to buy football clubs. I think fans do care about human rights abuses, but they care more about winning football matches. This has been seen with City and Newcastle fans, but there's no doubt fans of other clubs would act the same.

No club owned by someone so horrible? When newc might have been bought by the Saudis there was a lot of similar comment.. but it's just about citeh hate and hate of their blind fans.

[jyoung]

1 hour ago, squirrelarmy said:

We’ve certainly proved we can beat anyone on the day. 

Hasn't every team...

[eastynh]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

No club owned by someone so horrible? When newc might have been bought by the Saudis there was a lot of similar comment.. but it's just about citeh hate and hate of their blind fans.

Who is worse, the people who don't give a fuck, or those who say they do and do nothing about it?

[Gnomicide]

5 hours ago, eastynh said:

If it is as bad, where are the negative media articles regarding the things I mentioned.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8415341/As-fears-Hong-Kong-rise-sponsorship-puts-sport-firing-line.html

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-fc-sponsors-standard-chartered-3336780

http://brandalism.ch/dodgy-banks-out-of-football-standard-chartered-banks-fossil-fuel-investments-liverpool-fc-billboards/

https://news.sky.com/story/standard-chartered-faces-treasury-fine-over-sanctions-breaches-11787218

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Gnomicide

[eastynh]

4 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8415341/As-fears-Hong-Kong-rise-sponsorship-puts-sport-firing-line.html

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-fc-sponsors-standard-chartered-3336780

http://brandalism.ch/dodgy-banks-out-of-football-standard-chartered-banks-fossil-fuel-investments-liverpool-fc-billboards/

https://news.sky.com/story/standard-chartered-faces-treasury-fine-over-sanctions-breaches-11787218

 

Only one of those articles is critical of Liverpool and it is a blog. 

[Gnomicide]

13 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Only one of those articles is critical of Liverpool and it is a blog. 

They're critical of the company and obviously have that they sponsor Liverpool front and center. 

But as I've said before, sponsors and owners are 2 completely different things. Guilt by association rather than guilt.

One fucked up their anti-money laundering checks, the other is royalty in a country that kills gay people. 

[thetime]

Unfortunately fans generally don't care who the owners are, which is a shame.

You think the majority of Liverpool or United fans would be upset if the Saudis took over? 

As long as they ploughed billions and billions into the club they wouldn't care.

 

[squirrelarmy]

Can’t remember where I got this from and I can’t take the credit for it but you can’t trust billionaires. 
 

Who wakes up in the morning with more than 100 million in the bank and decides that they still want to work. 
 

You have to be crazy or very corrupt to be a billionaire. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by squirrelarmy

[eastynh]

1 hour ago, Gnomicide said:

They're critical of the company and obviously have that they sponsor Liverpool front and center. 

But as I've said before, sponsors and owners are 2 completely different things. Guilt by association rather than guilt.

One fucked up their anti-money laundering checks, the other is royalty in a country that kills gay people. 

How are Manchester City responsible for issues in Abu Dhabi?

Unfortunately the Muslim religion is not very tolerant of homosexuality. Religion is a load of shite. The UK was not very tolerant of homosexuality either. One of its greatest ever citizens took his own life due to being chemically castrated not even 70 years ago. The UAE was still under British rule till 60's. There have been laws against homosexuality in Britain from the 1st century to the 20th century. The British can't really take the moral high ground when it comes to how it has treated it's homosexual community. I hope the UAE will take less than 2000 years to treat homosexuals in the correct manner.

Now Gnom, if you are so offended by the way UAE treats its inhabitants, why are you not doing anything about it?

 

[pink_triangle]

48 minutes ago, thetime said:

Unfortunately fans generally don't care who the owners are, which is a shame.

You think the majority of Liverpool or United fans would be upset if the Saudis took over? 

As long as they ploughed billions and billions into the club they wouldn't care.

 

I think some do, but agree the vast majority don't. I think Easty is trying to merge 2 separate discussions to make out city are singled out. In terms of owners there is no doubt in my mind the same questions would be asked if the City owners owned another big premiership team. Owners have always been scrutinized more than sponsors,this was no different before city got their windfall.

Whether the ethics of sponsors should be examined is a completely different question. They haven't been examined to the extent of owners in the past, doesn't mean they shouldn't in the Future.

[eastynh]

30 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think some do, but agree the vast majority don't. I think Easty is trying to merge 2 separate discussions to make out city are singled out. In terms of owners there is no doubt in my mind the same questions would be asked if the City owners owned another big premiership team. Owners have always been scrutinized more than sponsors,this was no different before city got their windfall.

Whether the ethics of sponsors should be examined is a completely different question. They haven't been examined to the extent of owners in the past, doesn't mean they shouldn't in the Future.

If Sheikh Mansour had bought United, there would have been nowhere near the same amount of negativety in the media. There would have been no ridicule of the club or its supporters. That Guardian piece that Neil posted pretty much label's City fans complicit in the bad things that happen in Abu Dhabi, just because they happen to name check Sheikh Mansour in a funny song.

Now I don't know what people want Manchester City fans to do. I have never been or want to vising Abu Dhabi on Dubai. I will never fly Emirates or Etihad. I have one long sleeved City top with Etihad on the front, which I bought for my mates funeral. I do not buy any other merchandise or anything from any of City's sponsors. I am not sure what the media or posters on here expect me and other City fans to do. So to the likes of Neil and Gnom, what exactly do you want and expect the likes of myself to do regarding issues in Abu Dhabi. If you want me to take the moral high ground them why have you not done it yourself in respect to your own clubs? Trying to distinguish between the sponsorship and ownership is absolute bollocks. Clubs getting funds from immoral sources is exactly the same.

[thetime]

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

If Sheikh Mansour had bought United, there would have been nowhere near the same amount of negativety in the media.

Has there been much negativity? There certainly would be more if he did buy united. 

[eastynh]

Just now, thetime said:

Has there been much negativity? There certainly would be more if he did buy united. 

It's been incessant.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, eastynh said:

If Sheikh Mansour had bought United, there would have been nowhere near the same amount of negativety in the media. There would have been no ridicule of the club or its supporters. That Guardian piece that Neil posted pretty much label's City fans complicit in the bad things that happen in Abu Dhabi, just because they happen to name check Sheikh Mansour in a funny song.

Now I don't know what people want Manchester City fans to do. I have never been or want to vising Abu Dhabi on Dubai. I will never fly Emirates or Etihad. I have one long sleeved City top with Etihad on the front, which I bought for my mates funeral. I do not buy any other merchandise or anything from any of City's sponsors. I am not sure what the media or posters on here expect me and other City fans to do. So to the likes of Neil and Gnom, what exactly do you want and expect the likes of myself to do regarding issues in Abu Dhabi. If you want me to take the moral high ground them why have you not done it yourself in respect to your own clubs? Trying to distinguish between the sponsorship and ownership is absolute bollocks. Clubs getting funds from immoral sources is exactly the same.

I think there would be as much (if not more) criticism if he joined Man Utd as they are a higher profile club who get more media attention.

Take the hypothetical situation where he bought Man Utd. Do you think City fans would take the view "what do you expect man u fans to do" or would they pile on about human right records?

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think there would be as much (if not more) criticism if he joined Man Utd as they are a higher profile club who get more media attention.

Take the hypothetical situation where he bought Man Utd. Do you think City fans would take the view "what do you expect man u fans to do" or would they pile on about human right records?

I would hope that Manchester City fans would think it would be hypocritical to lecture another country on human rights when the country they come from has been responsible for far worse acts throughout its history.

When the sheikh leaves, I am going to go back to supporting Chelsea anyway.