Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)

YesButNoButYes said:
Man City are like tramps that won the lottery.

A club with unlimited funds thanks the wealth of politically motivated desires of their rich owner state.

I am not really surprised they are doing well.

What's surprising me is how the English football league still hasn't learned the lessons on the impact of football ownership on competition.

Abramovich pioneered it in 2003.
Glazers followed with an American, capitalistic version in 2005 by loading United with debt while pocketing £19m a year since doing very little.
The wealth Muslims next seized the global appeal of football by investing in City and PSG. The difference is this is obscene level of money that cannot be topped.

People hated the wealth of United, and secondly of Arsenal and Liverpool before but at least there it was self generated.

Now it's like cheat mode on Football Manager.

Only once the Premier League turns into Scottish Football in the next few years I think the FA will wake up (if they aren't bribed out by these owners).
Click to expand...

Firstly you are coming across as very bitter. They're a team that are using excellent tactics with excellent players outperforming others. Simple as that.

Second, I don't know if PSG/City owners are muslims or not since I haven't checked their personal lives but why are they identified as such? Will you also call out Glazers and Abramovich for the wealthy "whatevers"?
 
Racism:
a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

I have not criticised any race in my point.

Go read some commentary on the drive to invest in football by political and influential figures as a way to protect and promote their ideas and you will know what I mean.

Educate yourself before spouting out easy words like "racism" when you can't come with other more suitable words to understand what I am saying.
 
Using the term wealthy Muslim is now racist? That's essentially what the royal families of those various states are for feck sake (you might question their religious zeal, though, as they're not exactly model Muslims).
 
shamans said:
Second, I don't know if PSG/City owners are muslims or not since I haven't checked their personal lives but why are they identified as such?
Click to expand...
They're self professed Muslims. Try ruling those particular states and being secular (which they are to all intents and purposes, but have to appear otherwise). Not going to derail the thread, but what the other guy said wasn't in the least racist.
 
vamos_nadal said:
Apart from the spending, what I am most impressed by is the improvement of players under Pep.

How is Fabian Delph such a versatile and competent left back all of a sudden?

And Sterling? Its unreal. He couldn't finish to save his life at Liverpool, and now he's turning into an assasin. The kid is on track to break 30 goals across all competitions this season. Ditto Sane. The improvement is spectacular.

I appreciate that Pep has spent a lot of funds to address issues in his squad, but he is fantastic at improving players. Another year of this and Sterling will be most productive winger in world football at this rate. I never thought that was possible, and I doubt any other manager could bring that out of him. Special stuff.
Click to expand...

I almost made a thread to ask the question. Delph has been very good this season, but was he a clown elsewhere before? Why the astonishment over his performances, or a refusal to acknowledge how good he has been? For all the talk about him being the weak link, the only game he's looked shaky was the United game. Chelsea and Tottenham got no joy on his side of the pitch. Only limitation is that Sane has little support on that flank going forward.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Using the term wealthy Muslim is now racist? That's essentially what the royal families of those various states are for feck sake (you might question their religious zeal, though, as they're not exactly model Muslims).
Click to expand...

Nothing racist in itself, but against the present backdrop of widespread Islamophobia it seems suspicious when someone refers to people like City's and PSG's owners simply as 'Muslims'. Comes across as pejorative, especially when it's in the context of a clearly negative post about their impact/role in football. If I came on here and referred to Abramovich or the Glazers simply as a Jew/the Jews (I believe they're Jewish, happy to be corrected if not), I'd fully expect people to accuse me of anti-Semitism.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
They're self professed Muslims. Try ruling those particular states and being secular (which they are to all intents and purposes, but have to appear otherwise). Not going to derail the thread, but what the other guy said wasn't in the least racist.
Click to expand...

I didn't even say it was racist so you're the one that thought of it it seems not me.

Point is if he is saying "City that is owned by the wealthy Muslim", he should also say "Chelsea that is owned by the wealthy Jew". As for your "try ruling those states" only talk to me about "those states" (which in this case are two VERY different countries) if you've lived in either one of them. I have so I'm definitely more qualified than you to give an answer.
 
Yep, guess it wouldn’t be weird at all for me to say that City are competing for the league with those two Jews.

Sounds perfectly normal, that, doesn’t it...
 
The fact that they are Muslims is totally irrelevant and meant to be inflammatory isn’t it? I mean rich scumbags come from all creeds and segments of society.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Using the term wealthy Muslim is now racist? That's essentially what the royal families of those various states are for feck sake (you might question their religious zeal, though, as they're not exactly model Muslims).
Click to expand...
YesButNoButYes said:
Racism:
a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

I have not criticised any race in my point.

Go read some commentary on the drive to invest in football by political and influential figures as a way to protect and promote their ideas and you will know what I mean.

Educate yourself before spouting out easy words like "racism" when you can't come with other more suitable words to understand what I am saying.
Click to expand...

Muslim wealth as its said in your post is 100% racist. Why is there a need to bring up there religion at all, if not to be derogatory?

Had you been refering to say for example Jews and said Jew wealth then you'd already be banned for racism.

Also your lotto winning tramps comment is hugely embarrassing. Only person to comment in this thread making tramp like comment was you.

Maybe you're just a new user storming in to show you're an uber united supporter by calling city tramps and spouting keyboard warrior shite like "Muslim wealth" about the place but if so its terribly embarrassing. Even the united fan who quoted me called you out on it.

Had one of our resident city fans posted something like that about the Glazers I'd call them out on it too.
 
padr81 said:
Also on your earlier post United had no mitigating circumstances vs us, nor did Spurs. So you're also lying there or please explain what they were. You can use you fake City support and Mane/Morata but give me the mitigating circumstances when we comfortably beat your team at OT and Spurs at home.
Click to expand...

Utd missing their first choice CB's & also Pogba not mitigating enough for you!! I know many on Bluemoon say these players are crap but i'm not that dense to believe this. We wouldn't have scored the goals we did against Jones & Bailly. They would also have carried more threat going forward with Pogba. They would also likely have played Fellaini over Herrera. This mirrors our defeat by Utd in last years LC. We were nowhere near full strength in that game & we let everyone know it. It's extremely churlish to then come out & say that the Utd we faced at OT was anything other than Utd lite.
 
Last edited:
BobbyManc said:
Nothing racist in itself, but against the present backdrop of widespread Islamophobia it seems suspicious when someone refers to people like City's and PSG's owners simply as 'Muslims'. Comes across as pejorative, especially when it's in the context of a clearly negative post about their impact/role in football. If I came on here and referred to Abramovich or the Glazers simply as a Jew/the Jews (I believe they're Jewish, happy to be corrected if not), I'd fully expect people to accuse me of anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...

Not the same thing at all.

One is the politically correct term to use when referring to a follower of the Islam religion (you could also refer to them as Islamics if you are uncomfortable with using Muslim). The other is a derogatory term used when referring to a follower of the Judism religion.

The key here is common usage.
 
“The Wealth Muslims” as a concept is just really bizarre. I think the wealth atheists will really take it to the next level.
 
YesButNoButYes said:
Man City are like tramps that won the lottery.

A club with unlimited funds thanks the wealth of politically motivated desires of their rich owner state.

I am not really surprised they are doing well.

What's surprising me is how the English football league still hasn't learned the lessons on the impact of football ownership on competition.

Abramovich pioneered it in 2003.
Glazers followed with an American, capitalistic version in 2005 by loading United with debt while pocketing £19m a year since doing very little.
The wealth Muslims next seized the global appeal of football by investing in City and PSG. The difference is this is obscene level of money that cannot be topped.

People hated the wealth of United, and secondly of Arsenal and Liverpool before but at least there it was self generated.

Now it's like cheat mode on Football Manager.

Only once the Premier League turns into Scottish Football in the next few years I think the FA will wake up (if they aren't bribed out by these owners).
Click to expand...

It all goes back to the big 5 (united, Liverpool, Everton, spurs, Arsenal) stopping split attendances in the early 80's as they wanted more cash, then threatening to break away to form the prem as they wanted more money, then spurs director Sugar telling sky to up their bid (as itv could have won prem rights) so he could get more money for spurs and sell more skybox receivers to make more money then the money went up and up with TV rights, and then the CL was formed to make even more money for these top clubs so yeah it was self generated at the expense of most other clubs so these 5 Frankenstein clubs have ended up creating Frankenstein's monster, tough titty.

Also using the term 'the wealthy muslims' altogether not racist certainly reads as xenophobic
 
Random Task said:
Not the same thing at all.

One is the politically correct term to use when referring to a follower of the Islam religion (you could also refer to them as Islamics if you are uncomfortable with using Muslim). The other is a derogatory term used when referring to a follower of the Judism religion.

The key here is common usage.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean here. It's perfectly fine to refer to a Jewish person as a Jew. Context is what matters.
 
Random Task said:
The term "Jew" is commonly used in a derogatory manner, we both know this.

Like I said the key here is common usage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and in the same way, and with increasing regularity, so is the term 'Muslim'. As with all language, it's context that matters above all. It's bizarre to refer to City's and PSG's owners simply as 'Muslims', especially in a post disparaging their involvement in football. That doesn't strike you as a little odd?
 
The fact is, in a negative post about ownership of certain football clubs, he only brought the religion of the owners of one of those clubs into it. It’s not racist per se but it’s pretty obvious what the intention was. A bit like that negative story about Sterling in the Daily Mail a while back where they referred to him as being Jamaican-born. As irrelevant to the story as the religion of City’s owner.
 
BobbyManc said:
Yeah, and in the same way, and with increasing regularity, so is the term 'Muslim'. As with all language, it's context that matters above all. It's bizarre to refer to City's and PSG's owners simply as 'Muslims', especially in a post disparaging their involvement in football. That doesn't strike you as a little odd?
Click to expand...

They are Muslims, referring to them as such cannot be considered a racial slur no matter which way you slice it.

A Jew, on the other hand, is most certainly used in a derogatory sence, at least among common folk such as you and I. From a political perspective perhaps the term Jew is perfectly acceptable. I have no idea.
 
I guess the press will now decide that Raheem is English again, given his good form & the World Cup coming up.
 
M18CTID said:
The fact is, in a negative post about ownership of certain football clubs, he only brought the religion of the owners of one of those clubs into it. It’s not racist per se but it’s pretty obvious what the intention was. A bit like that negative story about Sterling in the Daily Mail a while back where they referred to him as being Jamaican-born. As irrelevant to the story as the religion of City’s owner.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be relevant but it absolutely is I'm afraid.

Were the owners of City born of English descent, or any other nation from Western civilization, they would never have come under such scrutiny. Their ownership and the means in which they acquired it would be without question. That's the way it is.
 
Random Task said:
They are Muslims, referring to them as such cannot be considered a racial slur no matter which way you slice it.

A Jew, on the other hand, is most certainly used in a derogatory sence, at least among common folk such as you and I. From a political perspective perhaps the term Jew is perfectly acceptable. I have no idea.
Click to expand...

I live in north London where there is a large Jewish population (Hendon, Finchley, Golders Green...etc). The word 'jew' is definitely not a derogatory term. Have a look at the Jewish Chronicle and its used to describe someone of that religion. If someone uses the word as a derogatory term then that tells you everything about them, in the same way that the poster above clearly used 'Muslim' as a derogatory term.
 
Random Task said:
It shouldn't be relevant but it absolutely is I'm afraid.

Were the owners of City born of English descent, or any other nation from Western civilization, they would never have come under such scrutiny. Their ownership and the means in which they acquired it would be without question. That's the way it is.
Click to expand...

The means in which they acquired it? What, like the way in which all clubs and businesses are bought? You make it sound like it was a brown envelope job at Knutsford services:lol:
 
Random Task said:
They are Muslims, referring to them as such cannot be considered a racial slur no matter which way you slice it.

A Jew, on the other hand, is most certainly used in a derogatory sence, at least among common folk such as you and I. From a political perspective perhaps the term Jew is perfectly acceptable. I have no idea.
Click to expand...

You've completely contradicted yourself here. Referring to someone by their religion, whatever that may be, can be offensive or innocuous depending on the context. Again, I'll add, there is nothing inherently offensive in the term 'Jew', nor in 'Muslim', but in a certain context they both can become so.
 
shamans said:
I didn't even say it was racist so you're the one that thought of it it seems not me.

Point is if he is saying "City that is owned by the wealthy Muslim", he should also say "Chelsea that is owned by the wealthy Jew". As for your "try ruling those states" only talk to me about "those states" (which in this case are two VERY different countries) if you've lived in either one of them. I have so I'm definitely more qualified than you to give an answer.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have to live in a country to comprehend the religious and political composition of its ruling class. If you do however, then let's burn centuries of historical commentary based on the precondition that observers haven't lived in the places they've analyzed.
 
It's the association between 'Jew' and 'wealth' that would be the problem.
 
BobbyManc said:
Nothing racist in itself, but against the present backdrop of widespread Islamophobia it seems suspicious when someone refers to people like City's and PSG's owners simply as 'Muslims'. Comes across as pejorative, especially when it's in the context of a clearly negative post about their impact/role in football. If I came on here and referred to Abramovich or the Glazers simply as a Jew/the Jews (I believe they're Jewish, happy to be corrected if not), I'd fully expect people to accuse me of anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, though there is a clear distinction here which should be drawn. Firstly, there isn't a centuries' old trope about money and Muslims. There have always been rich sultans, but the stereotype was never the same as it was with Jewish people. Secondly, I don't have a problem with what City's owners are doing but what they're doing is quite evident (using football as a political shield of legitimacy into the mainstream global market and to protect themselves via publicity, the same reason Abrahmovich bought Chelsea). I.e., if you have a corrupt/dodgy history on human rights (or whatever), pump billions into the economy of a leading member of NATO, the UN, etc.

They aren't in it for the love of the game, which is fair comment.
 
M18CTID said:
The means in which they acquired it? What, like the way in which all clubs and businesses are bought? You make it sound like it was a brown envelope job at Knutsford services:lol:
Click to expand...

Oh you know, the whole Abu Dhabi regime using Manchester city as a name laundering machine following human rights abuse accusations. Buying out a once proud and respected football club and turning them in to nothing more than a branding vehicle. Those means.
 
el magico said:
I live in north London where there is a large Jewish population (Hendon, Finchley, Golders Green...etc). The word 'jew' is definitely not a derogatory term. Have a look at the Jewish Chronicle and its used to describe someone of that religion. If someone uses the word as a derogatory term then that tells you everything about them, in the same way that the poster above clearly used 'Muslim' as a derogatory term.
Click to expand...

Appreciate that, thanks.

I always thought the term "jew" was a racial slur, if I'm wrong about that so be it.
 
Random Task said:
Appreciate that, thanks.

I always thought the term "jew" was a racial slur, if I'm wrong about that so be it.
Click to expand...

I think you’re getting mixed up with “Yid” to be honest. Now that most certainly is derogatory.
 
:lol:
 
BobbyManc said:
Also, it's nice to see the captain has been spending his time injured productively.
Click to expand...

Something odd in the way Pep has talked about Kompany & his injuries, IMHO. Get the impression they want the player to accept he is done at City and move on ahead of his contract running out.

I also think the Inigo Martinez move would be a good move - versatile, physical and similar fee to Danilo while being a much better defender
 
Well that was a brief Caf career for YesButNoEtc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.