Odd criticism on the Blue Moon forum

[Red-Robbo]

42 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

To be fair to them Man City held the english record home attendance for 82 years which was over 84,000 for a game in 1934. If we are looking to be nuanced then the last part of your comment doesn't ring true either.

 

Before-the-war attendances were massive at lots of grounds. Under circumstances you'd never be able to get folk in nowadays. I was talking about post-war attendances. It was almost like a different sport pre-1939.  Charlton got 75K and Huddersfield 67K.  Now, their stadium holds 24,000. 

But just to make clear:

• Things I haven't said:
   

Man City have small attendances

Bristol City have large attendances

Bristol City attendances have been higher than Man City (at least in my lifetime)

All Man City fans are dicks. We mostly seem to have good encounters with them

I'm sure they are all happy for fans love-in with them here... 

 

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, ManCunian56 said:

In the third tier of English football Manchester City sold out Maine Road, <>30K I hardly think that those are low crowds 
"filthy oil money" Why is oil money filthy? Clearly a racist term 
"despotic state" Literally yes it is a despot state run by a ruler with absolute power but there is a system of government in the UAE with an executive committee 
Manchester City's fanbase at core is very much Mancunian but, a decade of success has attracted fans from around the globe, also influenced by the number of international players, this season Haaland has attracted even more. The PL is an international league and is watched around the world it's only natural that clubs have non-local fans They are all Manchester City fans regardless and just as dedicated as local fans 

 

OK A) At no point did I say Man City have low crowds, although I did point out in one season in the 90s they averaged 22K.  The context was Man City fans thinking we "never get 20k usually". Since the ground has been rebuilt to allow this, that figure has been exceeded on a fair few occasions.  BCFC does OK for a Championship club.

B) Criticising oil producers is "racist" is it? They aren't all in the Middle East, so don't talk bollocks. 

C) It's a despotic state, no ifs or buts, and one that funds some very dodgy causes and has some very unpleasant laws. 

D) The rest of your post is what I've said here and I don't dispute it.

I'm getting rather bored with people selectively reading what I've written. Still the array of Bristolian arsekissers like "2015" on here must warm the, er, cockles of every Sky Blue heart. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Red-Robbo

[Baba Yaga]

4 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Before-the-war attendances were massive at lots of grounds. Under circumstances you'd never be able to get folk in nowadays. I was talking about post-war attendances. It was almost like a different sport pre-1939.  Charlton got 75K and Huddersfield 67K.  Now, their stadium holds 24,000. 

But just to make clear:

• Things I haven't said:
   

Man City have small attendances

Bristol City have large attendances

Bristol City attendances have been higher than Man City (at least in my lifetime)

All Man City fans are dicks. We mostly seem to have good encounters with them

I'm sure they are all happy for fans love-in with them here... 

 

My issue was you said 'any time in their history' whilst also complaining about them lacking nuance and 'being wrong'.

There is no love towards Man City from me, nobody wants a situation where clubs come to Ashton Gate win 3-0 and get a pat on the back for doing so. But now the dust has settled I have no issues calling it how I see it.

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

My issue was you said 'any time in their history' whilst also complaining about them lacking nuance and 'being wrong'.

There is no love towards Man City from me, nobody wants a situation where clubs come to Ashton Gate win 3-0 and get a pat on the back for doing so. But now the dust has settled I have no issues calling it how I see it.

 

I take offence at Billy Big Bollocks Man City fans posting on their forum that we never get 20K, which is obviously nonsense. 

The Mancunians I met before the match, and some I've worked with, are fortunately not like that. I haven't tried to tar all their fans with the daft assertions of a few.

I've also written that most Bristol City fans would love their level of success, however I personally would prefer it if it doesn't come at the cost of being owned by an autocratic state and having spent so much that even the Premier League feels the need to launch a FFP investigation.  

My apologies for not knowing what their attendances were in the 1930s.    Transfermarkt only goes to 1949. 

[ManCunian56]

57 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

OK A) At no point did I say Man City have low crowds, although I did point out in one season in the 90s they averaged 22K.  The context was Man City fans thinking we "never get 20k usually". Since the ground has been rebuilt to allow this, that figure has been exceeded on a fair few occasions.  BCFC does OK for a Championship club.

B) Criticising oil producers is "racist" is it? They aren't all in the Middle East, so don't talk bollocks. 

C) It's a despotic state, no ifs or buts, and one that funds some very dodgy causes and has some very unpleasant laws. 

D) The rest of your post is what I've said here and I don't dispute it.

I'm getting rather bored with people selectively reading what I've written. Still the array of Bristolian arsekissers like "2015" on here must warm the, er, cockles of every Sky Blue heart. 

a) 90s they averaged 22K Yeah because the Kippax Stand was being rebuilt and that was the capacity of the ground Strange because it holds the crowd record for outside Wembley 84,569 v Stoke City probably because of he years of mismanagement under Swales I would criticise any club's crowd attendances The only point I would make is that when a PL club plays at a ground its a sell out yet the following game its back to normal that must disappoint you 
Bristol should have a PL club the city and region is big enough to support it and hopefully one day City will put that right I've been interested in the  "project" for awhile and now the right manager is in place I hope he stays and gets the club into the PL I know that Pep  has a lot of respect for him and that was evident on Tuesday 
b) No criticism of oil producers by me, my point was the term "dirty oil money" is a disguised racist term for an Arab we see it all the time 
c) Yes it is a despotic state in the literal meaning 

[MCFC OK]

On 01/03/2023 at 14:10, Red-Robbo said:

Their average attendance in the Premiership 1994-95 22K.

They are a bigger club. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just pointing out that if their online fans reckon we never get above 20K apart from when we play them, they've also had some real dips in decades past and now many of their fans have come out of the woodwork for the glory years.

The Kippax Stand was being rebuilt at that point. I’d also point to the 40k - 47k we averaged pre takeover many of which were relegation threatened years.

Majority of City fans were complimentary about Bristol, Ashton Gate, your team and fans the other night. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the odd one who goes against the grain.

All the best for the rest of the season and hopefully we’ll see you in the Premier League one day.

[MCFC OK]

On 01/03/2023 at 14:23, Open End Numb Legs said:

There were some nice words from Pep and the players in TV interviews post match but if the supporters think attendance gives them credibility they might want to read the news more often:-

'The Premier League charged City with more than 100 alleged breaches of financial regulations on Monday and has referred the findings to an independent commission. The charges relate to a nine-year period from 2009.........'

Innocent until proven guilty.

A high number of those charges have already went to the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport, who found no evidence of wrongdoing. That is an independent and fair body and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous.

The charges were brought on the back of illegally obtained (hacked) emails. Out of millions hacked, seven were used and when reviewed these were found to be spliced together or taken out of context to misrepresent the club.

With the vast majority of commentary on the charges being anti-City I can see why people believe what they do but there are two sides to this and the charges brought will be fully contested.

*Apologies for spamming your forum

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, ManCunian56 said:

a) 90s they averaged 22K Yeah because the Kippax Stand was being rebuilt and that was the capacity of the ground Strange because it holds the crowd record for outside Wembley 84,569 v Stoke City probably because of he years of mismanagement under Swales I would criticise any club's crowd attendances The only point I would make is that when a PL club plays at a ground its a sell out yet the following game its back to normal that must disappoint you 
Bristol should have a PL club the city and region is big enough to support it and hopefully one day City will put that right I've been interested in the  "project" for awhile and now the right manager is in place I hope he stays and gets the club into the PL I know that Pep  has a lot of respect for him and that was evident on Tuesday 
b) No criticism of oil producers by me, my point was the term "dirty oil money" is a disguised racist term for an Arab we see it all the time 
c) Yes it is a despotic state in the literal meaning 

 

You had a stand out then, just as we had an Edwardian ground that wasn't fit for purpose until our current owner allowed a rebuild with increased capacity. As I say, we do OK for a Championship club. I doubt we'd ever attain Man City style crowds even if we gained promotion and consolidated on it, but you can perhaps understand why jibes about crowd sizes from the likes of some of your supporters win you no friends.

Re: oil. I was referring to the business ethics and environmental impact of oil. The substance itself, not the people who live in oil-producing countries, which, let's face it, includes us!

You support your club, are passionate about it and fair play to you. Your user-name suggests its local to you and perhaps, as BCFC is for me, a matter of birthright. Five generations of Robbos have all watched City.

However, the cash you've splashed to gain your success means I'll never want Man City to win anything. I suspect most other neutrals feel the same. That's partly a thing about cheering for underdogs: who doesn't want Brighton to do well this season? But also, it's a riches thing. I didn't like when Chelsea bought their way to titles - or Blackburn Rovers either, for that matter. 

Sorry if that irks you. I'd have imagined you get used to it on your travels. Console yourself with all the success and the knowledge that it is the club folk don't like much, not its fans.  Or its players come to that; it was nice to see such incredibly skillful, athletic footballers at Ashton Gate. 

[Bristol Oil Services]

I don’t mind Man City at all. I'd rather they were using overseas money to win everything in sight than Chelsea, for example. I'd prefer it if it was still Peter Swales there, and the Chelsea owners prior to Ken Bates there, but that world has long gone. 

There's still something "Man City" about Man City, for me, that makes them ok - John Stones at the back, for example. And when they used that Leeds lad in midfield, forget his name now, but he was terrible. And not winning in Europe (yet). Losing to crappy Wigan in the cup final. Even this season, they are blowing a very good chance to be Champions of England. They could've been more dominant.

I rather warm to their ground not being rammed for every home game, their lack of atmosphere at times: rather like us, or they would be were it not for their large away crowd, following them everywhere. Liverpool irritate me with their rammed home games, incredible atmosphere and unwavering enthusiasm and loyalty - I just can't relate to this.

The booing of the Champions League theme - marvellous! 

Craig Cash, Man City fan: says it allall a lot, really. Who was the gormless lad in Corrie years ago? Man City, too. Their away crowd in the late 80s/early 90s was large, and seemed to have a sense of humour about it. It looked like fun in there.

Don't mind them, better them than Chelsea. 

 

 

[Oh Louie louie]

Nick leeson is also a man city fan, now he knows all about financial regulation's 

[cidered abroad]

4 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Before-the-war attendances were massive at lots of grounds. Under circumstances you'd never be able to get folk in nowadays. I was talking about post-war attendances. It was almost like a different sport pre-1939.  Charlton got 75K and Huddersfield 67K.  Now, their stadium holds 24,000. 

But just to make clear:

• Things I haven't said:
   

Man City have small attendances

Bristol City have large attendances

Bristol City attendances have been higher than Man City (at least in my lifetime)

All Man City fans are dicks. We mostly seem to have good encounters with them

I'm sure they are all happy for fans love-in with them here... 

 

Just one error. The biggest attendances were post WW Two.

Before that war, attendances would not have been really high due to lots of financial ups and downs in the British and world economies. 

I'll give you an example. My Welsh father was out of work in the mining industry in mid 1930's, walked to Cornwall to get work on farms. So many with the same idea. He walked back!

( Before I was born)

Edited March 3, 2023 by cidered abroad

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Just one error. The biggest attendances were post WW Two.

Before that war, attendances would not have been really high due to lots of financial ups and downs in the British and world economies.

Yeah, probably true on average, but the huge Man City attendance that was quoted, along with the Charlton and Huddersfield records (and our record attendance if it comes to that) were all in the 1930s.  It seems like the absence of H&S legislation meant that when clubs pre-war had a big game, they could really pack 'em in. 

I was one of 39,000 in Ashton Gate in '77 to watch us play Liverpool (probably quite a lot more than that there, actually, considering that half the attendance money used to get pocketed quietly at the turnstiles) and it was both awesome and a bit terrifying for a 13-year-old. 

[cidered abroad]

6 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Yeah, probably true on average, but the huge Man City attendance that was quoted, along with the Charlton and Huddersfield records (and our record attendance if it comes to that) were all in the 1930s.  It seems like the absence of H&S legislation meant that when clubs pre-war had a big game, they could really pack 'em in. 

I was one of 39,000 in Ashton Gate in '77 to watch us play Liverpool (probably quite a lot more than that there, actually, considering that half the attendance money used to get pocketed quietly at the turnstiles) and it was both awesome and a bit terrifying for a 13-year-old. 

I was 15 in 1959 and 42,000 in Ashton Gate against Blackpool/ Stan Matthews in FA Cup and over 50,000 in Cardiff when I was 7 or 8.

Awesome yes but never thought about negatively about size of crowd. But you are right that there were some really big crowds at times in 1930's.

Edited March 3, 2023 by cidered abroad

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, cidered abroad said:

I was 15 in 1959 and 42,000 in Ashton Gate against Blackpool/ Stan Matthews in FA Cup and over 50,000 in Cardiff when I was 7 or 8.

Awesome yes but never thought about negatively about size of crowd.

It did get a bit lairy after the 'Pool game. Blokes jumping up and down on vehicles and denting car roofs, police horses did a mini charge at one time.  I wasn't used to seeing that in those days. 

[Bazooka Joe]

3 hours ago, MCFC OK said:

Innocent until proven guilty.

A high number of those charges have already went to the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport, who found no evidence of wrongdoing. That is an independent and fair body and any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous.

The charges were brought on the back of illegally obtained (hacked) emails. Out of millions hacked, seven were used and when reviewed these were found to be spliced together or taken out of context to misrepresent the club.

With the vast majority of commentary on the charges being anti-City I can see why people believe what they do but there are two sides to this and the charges brought will be fully contested.

*Apologies for spamming your forum

If the authorities dig deep enough, they'll find that all the big, successful clubs in the Prem (and also some not-so-uccessful ones) are/have been breaking regulations. both financial and non-financial.

That's the way of modern £ootball.

All are/have been equally guilty.

 

All the best to Man City for the remainder of this season. It's unlikely that anyone will beat Arsenal to the title, unless they implode.

 

 

[PooPants]

24 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

If the authorities dig deep enough, they'll find that all the big, successful clubs in the Prem (and also some not-so-uccessful ones) are/have been breaking regulations. both financial and non-financial.

That's the way of modern £ootball.

All are/have been equally guilty.

 

All the best to Man City for the remainder of this season. It's unlikely that anyone will beat Arsenal to the title, unless they implode.

 

 

It’s Arsenal. Implosion is guaranteed haha.

[MCFC OK]

52 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

If the authorities dig deep enough, they'll find that all the big, successful clubs in the Prem (and also some not-so-uccessful ones) are/have been breaking regulations. both financial and non-financial.

That's the way of modern £ootball.

All are/have been equally guilty.

 

All the best to Man City for the remainder of this season. It's unlikely that anyone will beat Arsenal to the title, unless they implode.

 

 

Agree on all points. Thinly veiled financial rules were brought in to keep the same three clubs at the top of English football year after year, no other reason. The same three clubs also happened to be the ones who were behind the decision to keep home gate receipts back in the early 80’s, the same three clubs in the self serving G14 group, the same three clubs who were behind formation of the Premier League and the same three clubs who were secretly meeting US financiers to form a  breakaway European Super League. So really it’s no wonder clubs have been creative in circumventing the rules. I’m sure MCFC haven’t been the only clubs to do so, but we’re the only club under investigation due to the hacked emails.

Agree on Arsenal as well, we’ll do well to stop them this year.

Edited March 3, 2023 by MCFC OK

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Bazooka Joe said:

If the authorities dig deep enough, they'll find that all the big, successful clubs in the Prem (and also some not-so-uccessful ones) are/have been breaking regulations. both financial and non-financial.

That's the way of modern £ootball.

All are/have been equally guilty.

 

This article suggests it's a bit more serious than breaking fair play rules, Joe. It's about financial fraud. The club could find themselves in deep shite if any of these allegations are proved - and remember, Uefa as well as the Premier League seem to believe in the wrongdoing.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-ffp-fraud-news-premier-league-b2279693.html

[MCFC OK]

44 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

This article suggests it's a bit more serious than breaking fair play rules, Joe. It's about financial fraud. The club could find themselves in deep shite if any of these allegations are proved - and remember, Uefa as well as the Premier League seem to believe in the wrongdoing.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-ffp-fraud-news-premier-league-b2279693.html

Financial fraud, meaning exaggeration of sponsorship income, or disguised equity funding.

These were already contested at CAS (UEFA charges) and the panel could not find evidence to conclude there was any breach of rules.

Not only would this have required collusion between around four parties. MCFC would have had to have misled BDO, Deloitte, Ernst and Young and KPMG.

Don’t you think this seems far fetched?

[Red-Robbo]

4 hours ago, MCFC OK said:

Financial fraud, meaning exaggeration of sponsorship income, or disguised equity funding.

These were already contested at CAS (UEFA charges) and the panel could not find evidence to conclude there was any breach of rules.

Not only would this have required collusion between around four parties. MCFC would have had to have misled BDO, Deloitte, Ernst and Young and KPMG.

Don’t you think this seems far fetched?

 

TBH @MCFC OK I have no idea, and neither do you. That Indy story suggests that the earlier hearing just looked at whether Man City had broken the terms of entry to the Champions League and found they hadn't. It didn't adjuticate on whether they'd swerved PL (and for that matter HMRC) rules. And as to how can a financial entity "fool" international auditing firms; do you think the world financial crisis would have happened without that?  I know these guys - it's "pay us the money and we'll sign whatever. We are too big and too connected to fail".

For the sake of you and other Man City fans I hope it doesn't come to the worst predicted outcome.

I'm a big supporter of my hometown club too. I realise if something dodgy has gone on at boardroom level it has nothing to do with the masses paying to watch: but they are the people who suffer from any penalty. 

[MCFC OK]

10 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

TBH @MCFC OK I have no idea, and neither do you. That Indy story suggests that the earlier hearing just looked at whether Man City had broken the terms of entry to the Champions League and found they hadn't. It didn't adjuticate on whether they'd swerved PL (and for that matter HMRC) rules. And as to how can a financial entity "fool" international auditing firms; do you think the world financial crisis would have happened without that?  I know these guys - it's "pay us the money and we'll sign whatever. We are too big and too connected to fail".

For the sake of you and other Man City fans I hope it doesn't come to the worst predicted outcome.

I'm a big supporter of my hometown club too. I realise if something dodgy has gone on at boardroom level it has nothing to do with the masses paying to watch: but they are the people who suffer from any penalty. 

I think that’s fair. I wish everyone would take an open minded approach to the charges (that’s all they are right now) instead having us down as guilty when in reality they don’t know this. The majority of people believe what City haters in the media like Delaney, Panja, Harris, Ziegler put out there. Let’s face it these ‘journalists’ aren’t impartial in any way and don’t write or report as such.

For me, I have confidence that serious businessmen in high positions won’t make such grave mistakes, knowing what the potential consequences would be. I think we will be found guilty of some charges though, but even if these are relatively minor indiscretions (the Mancini charge was less than 1% of revenue at that time), it will still be twisted that this was an action that changed the course of history.

I probably sound like a tinfoil hat wearer but hearing accusations and assumed guilt from every angle is tiresome after a while and you get a sense of what the vast majority of commentators want the outcome to be.

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, MCFC OK said:

I think that’s fair. I wish everyone would take an open minded approach to the charges (that’s all they are right now) instead having us down as guilty when in reality they don’t know this. The majority of people believe what City haters in the media like Delaney, Panja, Harris, Ziegler put out there. Let’s face it these ‘journalists’ aren’t impartial in any way and don’t write or report as such.

For me, I have confidence that serious businessmen in high positions won’t make such grave mistakes, knowing what the potential consequences would be. I think we will be found guilty of some charges though, but even if these are relatively minor indiscretions (the Mancini charge was less than 1% of revenue at that time), it will still be twisted that this was an action that changed the course of history.

I probably sound like a tinfoil hat wearer but hearing accusations and assumed guilt from every angle is tiresome after a while and you get a sense of what the vast majority of commentators want the outcome to be.

 

Perhaps Bristol City fans are a bit more sympathetic because of the memories of 1982, when our club was hours away from disappearing forever due to boardroom incompetence and greed. Owners and CEOs come and go but us fans are always there - and if it isn't us, it's our kids and grandkids. We are the club, no matter what executives may or may not have done.