Yeah but at the end it’s down the club, I doubt anyone is checking these things.
2 Likes
Which ground are they looking at…
Just out of curiosity, what minute in the match was this taken?
Given the commentators banner is n screen, it will be early first or second half.
In which case I think that screenshot is a little unfair. I could take a screenshot seconds into the second half and Anfield will be a ghost stadium too.
I would be more interested in what the stadium looks like mid first half as that’s a better indication.
2 Likes
If it’s early first then it’s a bit baffling, Second makes sense.
Are you watching that on a dodgy stick? 
A City fan trying to justify their ownership:
Absolutely risible.
5 Likes
You know its lies when he claims to have taken an interest in them in 2002…
2 Likes
By 2002, I was living in the Middle East and feeling homesick. I began to follow City more obsessively, as a bizarre soap opera. This was the era when Stuart Pearce was manager, the owner was Thailand’s fugitive politician Thaksin Shinawatra
So obsessive that he can’t even get the dates right. Pearce was manager in 2005-07 and Shinawatra owned them from I think 2007 to 2009
Guardian 
After foaming at the mouth regarding Q22, here they are piping for a bigger bunch of cunts.
Thats a very poorly written ‘article’, not just from a content point of view…
5 Likes
“Abu Dhabi has the third richest state fund in the world but, unlike Qatar’s ownership of Paris Saint-Germain or Saudi Arabia’s holdings in Newcastle, City are not owned by the state.”
Filed under: deluded
4 Likes
Qatar has not yet shown any interest in football as a sustainable business
He’s suggesting City are a sustainable business?
City are becoming the new Chelsea fans: Totally delusional about their ownership, how their club have been circumventing the rules for years and in the same breath suggesting state owners of other clubs trying to replicate what they’ve done are somehow lesser than.
4 Likes
Translation: “One big difference between PSG, Newcastle and Man City is that I support Man City”.
4 Likes
Fify
2 Likes
No, he described it as a start up - a company that tears through someone else’s money with no requirement to worry about sustainability.
I like the argument that says “ok, so we didnt address issues with Abramovic’s dirty money and problematic political connections so lets also pretend there are no issues with a billionaire #2 of the richest of the Emirates “personally” buying city. There are definitely no lessons to be learned from the lack of concern over those earlier purchases that are relevant to this situation.”
2 Likes
Was his reference to Thaksin meant as a " I supported City before these new guys took it over, so I’m clearly being fair in my assessment here" or “We’ve always been run by crooks and no-one has ever complained before…”