|
|
|
Moderator
I just heard a bit between Jim "Manc" White & Simon Jordan.
White said Jurgen Klopp is responsible for the Hillsborough & Heysel chants at the game because he made the atmosphere toxic by calling out Man City's unlimited spending power in the pre-match presser.
I understand their model is to spout enough controversial shit to get listeners and advertising money but surely this is crossing a line? The vitriol in his voice was unbelievable. It felt like a narrative he believed. He was also suggesting that City spends less (net) then Liverpool.
What an utter c**t.
"...and my inch is like a freight train, so I only use it in self defence"
First Team
The first bit was lies to begin with Klopp simply said "you don't want to hear it" we can't compete financially. he only responded to a question. so white has that wrong and secondly Hes justifying the hateful mocking of the deaths of masses of innocent human beings.Man-city are scumbag club full stop.
Cleaning up the Scots since the 13th century
Koala tea
The reason people don't like city is because of their owners, for me it's about their circumventing the rules.Originally Posted by vin
Cheating FFP and escaping their CL ban thanks to the cunts at CAS. Would have had a big impact on them.
They'd had to have shifted on a fair few bigger players and weaken their squad depth. They'd have been missing a near 200 mill a season in income, for 2 seasons and be under pressure to comply.
That was reduced to 1 season iirc, then CAS overturned it.
Since Klopp arrived we are 6th on net spend, well below spurs, then Chelsea close to spurs. Then arsenal a bit above those 2 and a bit behind the mancs in the clear lead.
Manu have spent the most but like arsenal they've been playing catch up. City had a pretty impressive squad when Pep walked into the club and he's been backed only less than manu, where fergie left a kitty for his successor.
In the media, city's owners spend a fair bit advertising their companies, it rarely ever gets mentioned.
Then again, talkshite is a good description for the media, and their standing in the publics mind.
First Team
Its become obvious they have paid journos and stations to back them up.
We need more James Richardsons/Horncastles on tv not the likes of Richards/Neville who act like they are down the pub.
I only watched interviews the other day for Klopp and the fume from pundits.
First Team
RedNoodle mentioned bluemoon so i popped over a couple of years ago to read some of the comments. some of the stuff was sickening. stuff like i would go to Liverpool and spread covid just to stop LFC winning. and things like they wish the police would find stuff on Jurgens computer (you know what i mean) don't want to go into it.
Ive been on here 11 years now and NEVER have we ever had anything that vile. and i sometimes read the other LFC forums
Nothing like that either.
Just shows a different class of fans. and some dickhead on Talkshite justifying their chants is beyond ridiculous
Cleaning up the Scots since the 13th century
Moderator
I've also just seen that City put out an official statement stating that they feel Klopp's comments are "xenophobic."
Clearly they are nuts!
"...and my inch is like a freight train, so I only use it in self defence"
Koala tea
It's the cultureposted a thread from one of their forums about their chants, and the title was updated to include: and misogynistic chants from Liverpool fans - over Fodens mom.
First Team
Man City are a spoilt child that got a pony at the age of just 4 from Mummykins and win everything because Daddy can afford the best tutors/coaches, so just can't hack it when someone else is more popular or has more talent.
Sincerely though, it's quite clear they have paid so many journos their 30 pieces of Silver. Watch them sell a youth goalkeeper for £5m in the Summer and sign Oblak on a "free" (huge wages) as back-up only for us to see the articles about "net spend Champions, how do they do it?"
When the day comes that Man City win the Champion's League (and they will, eventually) it will all be about how "plucky Daredevils Man City upset the establishment of Europe" - with nothing about their sinister, financially doped path as to how they actually arrived at that point.
It's pathetic. Ironically enough the Daily Mail (of all bloody papers!) had our back moreso than the likes of the Grauniad or the BBC.
Hopefully Bayern Munich dump the twats out of Europe. Their fans will still find a way to blame it on a bottle of Kopparberg thrown at a bus by a Scouser.
Koala tea
Not one transman on the pitch, or a wheelchair user and football isn't body positive etc etc
First Team
Massive credit to Miguel Delaney from the Independent -
"The recent reports that figures at Manchester City believe Jurgen Klopp’s comments could be construed as bordering on xenophobic and racist is not the first time that this bogus argument has been broached.
It was first raised by club chairman Khaldoon al Mubarak at the end of the 2018-19 season. He at the very least made the comments publicly, when responding to Liga president Javier Tebas’ comments on state-owned clubs, although they were no less wrong.
“There’s something deeply wrong in bringing ethnicity into the conversation,” Khaldoon had said. “This is just ugly. The way he is combining teams because of ethnicity, I find that very disturbing to be honest.”
Tebas had not of course brought in ethnicity. He had merely mentioned “state-run clubs” and “petrol money and gas money”.
While the vast majority of people can see past this line of defence, and refused to even give it credence on Sunday evening, it is worth addressing why it is wrong - especially since it threatens to grow.
There is a very specific reason that Klopp mentioned “three clubs in world football who can do what they want financially”. It certainly isn’t anything to do with ethnicity.
It is that there are currently only three states that own clubs. They are Abu Dhabi through Manchester City, Qatar through Paris Saint-Germain and now Saudi Arabia through Newcastle United.
No other state owns a club, no other ownership group is on that scale. These clubs cannot go bust, because they have oil economies behind them. This is what Klopp was getting at.
And there are even more specific reasons why it is so far only these states that own clubs. It is all related to the politics of the Gulf blockade and a longer-term rivalry, where Qatar have been on the opposite side to Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates they form part of and Saudi Arabia.
It is essentially an arms race with soft weapons, where they can see the benefits of such strategies. Abu Dhabi were the first to realise the immense benefits of owning a western European football club in 2008, through the purchase of City, which led Qatar to immediately seek to respond. The Qatari royal family tried to buy Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Roma, before eventually winning this hugely controversial 2022 World Cup in 2010, and then settling on PSG. Saudi Arabia finally followed with Newcastle, using Abu Dhabi’s playbook.
No other state has yet pursued that route because it is something so particular to a regional political rivalry.
An irony is that Klopp was not getting at anything more than financial disparity, but the claims also warrant rebuttal for more serious reasons.
The long-held view of all human rights groups and academics on the area is that these states own these clubs as “sportswashing projects”. That is in part that they can continue business and economic pursuits despite hugely criticised human rights records.
Most of those human rights issues, as goes without saying, concern their own citizens. According to Amnesty, the UAE - of which Abu Dhabi form the most influential emirate - continue to “arbitrarily detain Emirati and foreign nationals”.
“They’ve moved from limited basic rights to basically full-on no civil or political rights whatsoever, mass arrests of political opposition,” Adam Coogle of Human Rights Watch told the Independent in 2020. “Some really insidious practices have started coming to the fore: forced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture…”
They do not have a free press, something that makes these attempts at media spin all the more relevant.
“The UAE’s approach to criticism of its various human rights abuses and ruinous foreign interventions is to deny or ignore, and to smear and discredit its critics,” FairSquare’s Nick McGeehan said.
Such facts make the accusations of xenophobia or racism all the more absurd, but also all the more serious.
It looks little more than a disgraceful attempt to suppress discussion on one of the most serious issues in football, that has a wider moral dimension.
The implication of some of Sunday’s reports is all the more troublesome: if you even deign to comment on this - especially ahead of a fixture where it is never more relevant - you run the risk of abuse, and references to tragedies?
It is actually why it is all the more important that Klopp raised these issues. For all the limited discussion of sportswashing in the media, most of football has danced around one of the most serious issues of the game. Without proper discussion, ludicrous defences like claims of “xenophobia” can take hold.
They must be immediately seen for what they are: attempts at suppressing the most badly required criticism.
This is what is really ugly here."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks