The contributions regarding the recent comings and goings at City raise some more profound thoughts in my mind. It must be fifty years since I was first taken to Maine Road by Mum and Dad. Dad, now 95, had previously watched City at Hyde Road.
So supporting City is a tradition in our family. But what do we support?
Are we supporting a name? Well, if so, then does it matter who “owns” that name? Can we support the name without supporting them present owner / management? Are we perhaps supporting that group, or tribe, that associate themselves with that name, in which case the “ownership” is only relevant insofar as it maintains that name.
Are we perhaps supporting an ethos? To be a City fan and not be insane (and I’m conscious that may be an oxymoron) we cannot embrace the “winning is everything” philosophy that followers of a certain team in Stretford may adopt. Perhaps the ethos could be loyalty to a cause even when all seems lost – and residual Leeds fans must also hang onto that.
Maybe we represent the more thoughtful and fair minded element of football supporters; would that be lost by a change of ownership? Well, if we are successful and attract a different support base then maybe that would be the time to depart.
I think of myself as relatively liberal and certainly not a far left socialist but there is, for me, some truth in the saying “all property is theft” and when my Sunday paper tells me 25,000 African kids a day die for a lack of basics I don’t feel I can criticise others. I don’t like the thought of my City being bought by any wealthy person. That sadly is the way of football at present and maybe it contains the seeds of its own destruction. I don’t know how I will feel about City next year. I’d be pleased to see them rival United but whether the cost is worth it I don’t know.
For now I’ll just wait and see what happens next; perhaps we just support unpredictability!
First printed in: MCIVTA Newsletter #1340 on