Harry Kane

[gilzeantheking]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

Thanks for articulating with such clarity exactly what a lot of people think. Not enough that I can "winner" this only once

 

[Albertbarich]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

This is such a great post.

It also hammers down the hypocrisy of thr footballing world that they ignore it all whilst talking endlessly about diversity and racism.

I guess it only matters if it doesn't affect their money.

The media should be relentless with this. The Qatar thing too. Barely a peep.

 

[SpartanSpur]

This is such a great post.

It also hammers down the hypocrisy of thr footballing world that they ignore it all whilst talking endlessly about diversity and racism.

I guess it only matters if it doesn't affect their money.

The media should be relentless with this. The Qatar thing too. Barely a peep.

They really seem keen to avoid that conversation at all costs. I wonder if it's through fear of what would happen if they did.

 

[Tucker]

They really seem keen to avoid that conversation at all costs. I wonder if it's through fear of what would happen if they did.

I have a feeling it’s likely against the right deal the likes of sky, bbc and bt have got. They likely can’t be critical of the leagues stakeholders beyond footballing reasons. I also imagine most of the sports journalists are afraid of losing access to the club etc. They are generally pretty tame with all the clubs about most issues. It’s a shame a few more of them don’t have a bit of integrity and go for the jugular though.

 

[bigfrooj]

It almost needs a siren to alert everyone. As ever when Graeme Souness, Gary Neville and Micah Richards gather to debate issues pitchside or in the studio, the audience is royally entertained and richly informed. Sky’s insistence on continued social distancing between the feisty trio appears advisable as hackles rise. So it was on Sunday at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium when Harry Kane’s future was again on the agenda with noisy pundits knocking seven decibels out of each other.

Souness and Neville were born bristling, the pugilist trait underpinning their glittering careers. Richards is mellower but still fights his corner with a forthright passion. When Paul Pogba’s name and his future were lobbed into the Kane discussion, it was like the first time nitro and glycerine were introduced to each other. Sparks flew.


Souness has a pronounced problem with Pogba and his perceived commitment levels, slightly overlooking his four assists for Manchester United the day before, let alone the Frenchman’s World Cup medal. Neville considers anyone contemplating quitting United as a renegade requiring challenging, even counselling, possibly confining. Red Nev also has an issue with Pogba’s agent, Mino Raiola, whose name alone causes palpitations inside Carrington.

Richards, a confident, welcome new voice among such media monarchs, argued that double standards were at play over the respective headline treatment of Pogba and Kane. Richards wasn’t playing the race card, although many on social media do. Richards simply articulated the view that Kane was getting off lightly. “Kane’s not turned up for training and we call him a saint,” Richards said. “Pogba’s never said he wanted to leave and he’s getting abuse.” Pogba, arguably, has even more cause to ponder his future with one year remaining on his contract. Kane has three.
It made for great television, but also required further analysis. The situations, and personalities, are slightly different. Raiola operates as a lightning conductor, taking the heat off his client. Pogba just goes about his work, training and playing, as Raiola goes about his, plotting and negotiating. With Kane, all the focus is on him. Those who believe England captains get the clichéd “easy ride” ignore the history of David Beckham, John Terry and Wayne Rooney, frequently vilified, their personal and professional lives splashed, often trashed, across front and back pages.

This hypothesis that foreign players are more harshly critiqued is a seized-on narrative simply not borne out by fact. Eric Cantona and Luis Suárez were voted footballer of the year by the nation’s writers after their respective kung-fu and racist controversies. Terry’s hopes of a smooth entry into management are, rightly, still questioned for his offensive comment to Anton Ferdinand. People blur social issues with footballing. The English media have not voted for an Englishman for the esteemed Ballon d’Or since Michael Owen 20 years ago.
When Kane originally floated the idea of exiting Spurs, during an Instagram chat with Jamie Redknapp in March 2020, The Times savaged him for daring to focus on his future when the whole country was fighting for its future, during the first ravages of a pandemic.

Kane’s wish for trophies is understandable, but he should be showing the club that nurtured him greater respect

The Times highlighted yesterday that all of England’s starting Euro 2020 finalists reported for duty in time for the Premier League. Kane didn’t. He’s heavily scrutinised and his behaviour rightly slated. Wait for the press to get stuck into Gareth Southgate and Kane before next month’s World Cup qualifiers. Kane is England captain, an inspiration for a fine generation of young players and a role model for millions, and has to remember to start behaving like a leader.
If Kane is to leave for Manchester City, and his wish for trophies is understandable, then he should make sure he leaves through the front door, head held high, not skulking sheepishly down the fire exit at the back. Leave with dignity and reputation intact.



Hitherto lauded as the ultimate pro, and a decent guy with principles, Kane cannot seriously be enjoying acting so selfishly, disrupting, distracting, developing a saga to force a move, as if Spurs’ streetwise chairman Daniel Levy would ever fall for that. Kane must squirm at hearing those who once cheered his name now jeer it, and having his fabulous body of club work over the past decade denigrated, those 222 goals in 336 appearances devalued. “Are you watching, Harry Kane?” Are you watching your legacy diminished?
Kane cannot appreciate reading the debate about how Spurs could even possibly be better off without him in the quick-moving new world of Nuno Espírito Santo. Even if he now backtracks, and commits to honouring at least the next year of his contract, Kane’s conduct will never be forgotten. Who ate all the humble pie? That difficult-to-digest dish for Kane will still not be enough to win back many Spurs fans angered by his stance.

The articulate Richards was forthright in his views on the Kane situation

His desire to upgrade to City cannot be held against an ambitious footballer. He’d be working with Pep Guardiola. He’d learn even more about the game. Also, it’s now or never. The “stay one more year” narrative is still strange. Erling Haaland, 22 next July, comes properly on the market next summer (with a £65 million release clause) and the prolific Borussia Dortmund striker will be an even more attractive proposition than a 29-year-old Kane. Kylian Mbappé, 23 in December, will be a free agent (unless PSG have convinced him to stay). Kane has to move now.
Fair enough. But treat Spurs with more respect. They are the club that nurtured him, that worked on his puppy fat, that provided a platform for his ferocious will to win. Kane has done great things for Spurs, but so have they for him. So has Son Heung-min. So did Mauricio Pochettino. So has Levy with past contracts. So have the fans with their unconditional backing for “one of our own” until now. As the siren screams, Kane needs to rethink his strategy.

Upgrade to Manchester City? I can’t get my head around this view from the media. They are a football franchise and we are a Football Club. The fans in fact are the Football Club. We see our team through tough times and bad times, we sing our hearts out, we get behind our youngsters, we even get behind our struggling heroes. We don’t sit quietly in the away end texting about Harry Kane having earned his move to their money club. The differences are so marked between the two clubs and I know who I would love to play for more - particularly if I’ve got a £60m contract in my pocket anyway. Go away Harry - sell your soul if you really want to.

 

[Nebby]

It almost needs a siren to alert everyone. As ever when Graeme Souness, Gary Neville and Micah Richards gather to debate issues pitchside or in the studio, the audience is royally entertained and richly informed. Sky’s insistence on continued social distancing between the feisty trio appears advisable as hackles rise. So it was on Sunday at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium when Harry Kane’s future was again on the agenda with noisy pundits knocking seven decibels out of each other.

Souness and Neville were born bristling, the pugilist trait underpinning their glittering careers. Richards is mellower but still fights his corner with a forthright passion. When Paul Pogba’s name and his future were lobbed into the Kane discussion, it was like the first time nitro and glycerine were introduced to each other. Sparks flew.


Souness has a pronounced problem with Pogba and his perceived commitment levels, slightly overlooking his four assists for Manchester United the day before, let alone the Frenchman’s World Cup medal. Neville considers anyone contemplating quitting United as a renegade requiring challenging, even counselling, possibly confining. Red Nev also has an issue with Pogba’s agent, Mino Raiola, whose name alone causes palpitations inside Carrington.

Richards, a confident, welcome new voice among such media monarchs, argued that double standards were at play over the respective headline treatment of Pogba and Kane. Richards wasn’t playing the race card, although many on social media do. Richards simply articulated the view that Kane was getting off lightly. “Kane’s not turned up for training and we call him a saint,” Richards said. “Pogba’s never said he wanted to leave and he’s getting abuse.” Pogba, arguably, has even more cause to ponder his future with one year remaining on his contract. Kane has three.
It made for great television, but also required further analysis. The situations, and personalities, are slightly different. Raiola operates as a lightning conductor, taking the heat off his client. Pogba just goes about his work, training and playing, as Raiola goes about his, plotting and negotiating. With Kane, all the focus is on him. Those who believe England captains get the clichéd “easy ride” ignore the history of David Beckham, John Terry and Wayne Rooney, frequently vilified, their personal and professional lives splashed, often trashed, across front and back pages.

This hypothesis that foreign players are more harshly critiqued is a seized-on narrative simply not borne out by fact. Eric Cantona and Luis Suárez were voted footballer of the year by the nation’s writers after their respective kung-fu and racist controversies. Terry’s hopes of a smooth entry into management are, rightly, still questioned for his offensive comment to Anton Ferdinand. People blur social issues with footballing. The English media have not voted for an Englishman for the esteemed Ballon d’Or since Michael Owen 20 years ago.
When Kane originally floated the idea of exiting Spurs, during an Instagram chat with Jamie Redknapp in March 2020, The Times savaged him for daring to focus on his future when the whole country was fighting for its future, during the first ravages of a pandemic.

Kane’s wish for trophies is understandable, but he should be showing the club that nurtured him greater respect

The Times highlighted yesterday that all of England’s starting Euro 2020 finalists reported for duty in time for the Premier League. Kane didn’t. He’s heavily scrutinised and his behaviour rightly slated. Wait for the press to get stuck into Gareth Southgate and Kane before next month’s World Cup qualifiers. Kane is England captain, an inspiration for a fine generation of young players and a role model for millions, and has to remember to start behaving like a leader.
If Kane is to leave for Manchester City, and his wish for trophies is understandable, then he should make sure he leaves through the front door, head held high, not skulking sheepishly down the fire exit at the back. Leave with dignity and reputation intact.



Hitherto lauded as the ultimate pro, and a decent guy with principles, Kane cannot seriously be enjoying acting so selfishly, disrupting, distracting, developing a saga to force a move, as if Spurs’ streetwise chairman Daniel Levy would ever fall for that. Kane must squirm at hearing those who once cheered his name now jeer it, and having his fabulous body of club work over the past decade denigrated, those 222 goals in 336 appearances devalued. “Are you watching, Harry Kane?” Are you watching your legacy diminished?
Kane cannot appreciate reading the debate about how Spurs could even possibly be better off without him in the quick-moving new world of Nuno Espírito Santo. Even if he now backtracks, and commits to honouring at least the next year of his contract, Kane’s conduct will never be forgotten. Who ate all the humble pie? That difficult-to-digest dish for Kane will still not be enough to win back many Spurs fans angered by his stance.

The articulate Richards was forthright in his views on the Kane situation

His desire to upgrade to City cannot be held against an ambitious footballer. He’d be working with Pep Guardiola. He’d learn even more about the game. Also, it’s now or never. The “stay one more year” narrative is still strange. Erling Haaland, 22 next July, comes properly on the market next summer (with a £65 million release clause) and the prolific Borussia Dortmund striker will be an even more attractive proposition than a 29-year-old Kane. Kylian Mbappé, 23 in December, will be a free agent (unless PSG have convinced him to stay). Kane has to move now.
Fair enough. But treat Spurs with more respect. They are the club that nurtured him, that worked on his puppy fat, that provided a platform for his ferocious will to win. Kane has done great things for Spurs, but so have they for him. So has Son Heung-min. So did Mauricio Pochettino. So has Levy with past contracts. So have the fans with their unconditional backing for “one of our own” until now. As the siren screams, Kane needs to rethink his strategy.

I imagine this article would have been completely different had we got a drubbing by City at the weekend.

 

[GMI]

Listening to the Athletic podcast this morning and all the journalists are similarly unconvinced that Kane will be at City in a fortnight. Pitt-Brook and Ornstein both taking the view that Kane has unsuccessfully played his hand and that City are unlikely to bid to the level Levy wants.

 

[Pochie]

I think the city game showed one thing, 3 pacy attackers and we can breach defences without a long ball. Kane is phenomenal but he needs to pick a role otherwise team set up struggles a bit in 1 up top formation. If he is the focal point of attack he can't be on the halfway line to receive the ball.

Nuno will sort that imo.

As it's Nuno's team now.

 

[NorthSide]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

I agree, and I really hope our club will not be playing at the Qatar Airline Stadium in the future.

 

[tobi]

It just occurred to me that if I had to describe what sort of player Harry Kane is I’d have to say he’s a cross between De Bruyne and Lewandowski. Then it occurred to me that you can’t really put a value on that. I’d welcome him back to the team with open arms.

He's evolved into a more clinical and physical version of Francesco Totti.

 

[SpartanSpur]

I think the city game showed one thing, 3 pacy attackers and we can breach defences without a long ball. Kane is phenomenal but he needs to pick a role otherwise team set up struggles a bit in 1 up top formation. If he is the focal point of attack he can't be on the halfway line to receive the ball.

Wolves were a counter attacking beast with Jimenez as the focal point, there is definitely a place for Kane in this team if he gets his head down and works hard. In games like City I agree the fluid 3 can be superior but that's a pretty niche situation, most of the time you'll need a bit of variation and hold up play to mix things up. If anything it will help Kane having pace either side of him and not spending the whole game playing as additional full backs.

Kane was a big part of our transitional play under Mourinho, Nuno's gameplan still has emphasis on that but also gives the players superior fitness and more confidence (and an actual plan) when in possession.

 

[Ashley1974]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

Outstanding post! Welcome back Rez

 

[TheWook]

Listening to the Athletic podcast this morning and all the journalists are similarly unconvinced that Kane will be at City in a fortnight. Pitt-Brook and Ornstein both taking the view that Kane has unsuccessfully played his hand and that City are unlikely to bid to the level Levy wants.

It’s strange that the Athletics Man City bloke Sam Lee? Seems to think it is still on and pretty much done, the Man Shitty side seem to think that the ‘London’ people are just being fed info from the club, but can’t believe that their own club would do that, strange lot them!
Edit: Prime example here ?

 

[McFlash]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

Boom!

Rez is back, dropping knowledge bombs.
Articulating what so many of us feel in a way that we wish we could.

Top post. ?

 

[soflapaul]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

With all due respect to SC, this needs to be published somewhere more prominent. It's a great summation of the divorce from decency that is modern football

 

[pablo73]

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.

Absolutely brilliant post. How did they ever pass the PL 'fit and proper' test? What a joke that is, as always money talks.

 

[soflapaul]

Wolves were a counter attacking beast with Jimenez as the focal point, there is definitely a place for Kane in this team if he gets his head down and works hard. In games like City I agree the fluid 3 can be superior but that's a pretty niche situation, most of the time you'll need a bit of variation and hold up play to mix things up. If anything it will help Kane having pace either side of him and not spending the whole game playing as additional full backs.

Kane was a big part of our transitional play under Mourinho, Nuno's gameplan still has emphasis on that but also gives the players superior fitness and more confidence (and an actual plan) when in possession.

Sonny's goal was 3 v 5 or 3 v 6 depending on how you count with a 4th trailer. HK could occupy that abandoned space to devastating effect.

 

[olliec]

Listening to various radio snippets and podcasts yesterday, there does seem to have been a shift in some of the reporting on this, with the lack of a ‘serious’ bid being mentioned by most of the journos close to Spurs, and a number of people now questioning how much City really want Kane.

That’s what makes Kane’s behaviour a little bit bizarre - he’s throwing away his legacy at Spurs when City haven’t really come to the table yet. Maybe it’s closer than everyone thinks and Spurs are leaking otherwise to help with negotiations for our transfer targets, but if City are as far away from meeting our valuation as we’re being led to believe, then H and his brother have had a mare and couldn’t have played this much worse.

I think it’s closer than everyone thinks but won’t be announced until we have concluded our business otherwise teams will charge us a lot more if they know we have an extra 150m to spend. The total blackout on social media is certainly hinting at him going, same happened with Bale and Modric before they left.

 

[cjbyid]

Training with the 1st team this morning.

 

[philll]