City - 4peat and maybe a double treble.
Liverpool 20
Which do you choose and why?
I, after 10 years of supporting City (once our chances had gone), am now at the tipping point of considering a Liverpool 20 the lesser of two very evil evils.
A 4peat and a double treble and Fergie could be perch-less in some eyes
EDIT: Or hopefully the Big Smoke will step in.
City or Liverpool
posted on 2/10/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
Sorry, I just don't think it makes sense to blame Liverpool and United for what doping clubs do. That's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know what you mean by doping clubs. That to one side though, it was the big five that pushed for the changes in ownership rules and distribution that led to rich owners and investors coming into the game in the first place. Had your ownership at the time not got greedy with it then not only would we not have the same owners around now, we also wouldn’t have ever been in the position where clubs could be laden with debt. We’d also still have fairer wealth distribution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, changing the rules is not to blame for City doping the fack out of football. They didn't have to be cheats and you can't use that rule change to Justin it. Can't you see this is something you've convinced yourself of?
posted on 2/10/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
Sorry, I just don't think it makes sense to blame Liverpool and United for what doping clubs do. That's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know what you mean by doping clubs. That to one side though, it was the big five that pushed for the changes in ownership rules and distribution that led to rich owners and investors coming into the game in the first place. Had your ownership at the time not got greedy with it then not only would we not have the same owners around now, we also wouldn’t have ever been in the position where clubs could be laden with debt. We’d also still have fairer wealth distribution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, changing the rules is not to blame for City doping the fack out of football. They didn't have to be cheats and you can't use that rule change to Justin it. Can't you see this is something you've convinced yourself of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn’t, I didn’t realise you’d transported yourself into the future to make your point. Assuming if it’s found we haven’t cheated then you’ve got no problem at all with us then?
That’s still a different perspective to line but fair enough.
posted on 2/10/23
*mine
posted on 2/10/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
Sorry, I just don't think it makes sense to blame Liverpool and United for what doping clubs do. That's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know what you mean by doping clubs. That to one side though, it was the big five that pushed for the changes in ownership rules and distribution that led to rich owners and investors coming into the game in the first place. Had your ownership at the time not got greedy with it then not only would we not have the same owners around now, we also wouldn’t have ever been in the position where clubs could be laden with debt. We’d also still have fairer wealth distribution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, changing the rules is not to blame for City doping the fack out of football. They didn't have to be cheats and you can't use that rule change to Justin it. Can't you see this is something you've convinced yourself of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn’t, I didn’t realise you’d transported yourself into the future to make your point. Assuming if it’s found we haven’t cheated then you’ve got no problem at all with us then?
That’s still a different perspective to line but fair enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the future? Holy crap? You're still waiting for that like there's any doubt your club are cheats? City fans man
posted on 2/10/23
comment by >💲Baz tard (U19119)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
I remember when Liverpool were respected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are over 90 years old?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, please show some respect.
posted on 2/10/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 3 hours, 7 minutes ago
Sorry, I just don't think it makes sense to blame Liverpool and United for what doping clubs do. That's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know what you mean by doping clubs. That to one side though, it was the big five that pushed for the changes in ownership rules and distribution that led to rich owners and investors coming into the game in the first place. Had your ownership at the time not got greedy with it then not only would we not have the same owners around now, we also wouldn’t have ever been in the position where clubs could be laden with debt. We’d also still have fairer wealth distribution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, changing the rules is not to blame for City doping the fack out of football. They didn't have to be cheats and you can't use that rule change to Justin it. Can't you see this is something you've convinced yourself of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn’t, I didn’t realise you’d transported yourself into the future to make your point. Assuming if it’s found we haven’t cheated then you’ve got no problem at all with us then?
That’s still a different perspective to line but fair enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the future? Holy crap? You're still waiting for that like there's any doubt your club are cheats? City fans man
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol
posted on 2/10/23
Mamba's still in Full Meltdown Mode.
posted on 2/10/23
The delusion is palpable. Football can really sway the view if City fans still think they're not cheats. Amazing actually.
posted on 2/10/23
Give us the evidence the PL can't or won't provide then.
posted on 2/10/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
The delusion is palpable. Football can really sway the view if City fans still think they're not cheats. Amazing actually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, I’ve not said whether I think we’re cheats or not, I can’t possibly know that given I haven’t seen what evidence the PL have got as it hasn’t been made public. All I can say is some of it is illogical but that doesn’t mean wrongdoing hasn’t happened.
Secondly, I never thought I’d see a Liverpool fan of all people putting full faith in either authorities or journalists. That’s the ultimate example of football swaying the view surely…