G
Girl_Afraid
Guest
The Bolton Institute is an accredited academy (whatever that means). The term “university” is based on the amount of student/faculty population, curriculum and on-site housing offered. Sort of like the difference between a college and University in the United States. In any case, I spent a year there. Was not the best year of my life, but Bolton did have some charming shops and pubs. I would not, however, recommend anyone attend the Bolton Institute! If anyone out there has experienced an "education" at Bolton, I'd like to hear from you.
Incidentally O’Grady, Oasis at Reebok does sound a bit more inviting than a Wanderers game!
On to City ….:
I did some of my post graduate work at Oxford and one of my flat mates wrote a really interesting piece on mis-management in football. City merged as the archetypal “f*** up” club. And we’re not just talking about recent times – City has a long-standing history of ill-fated managerial decisions, poor player acquisitions, hooligan problems, poor public relations, etc. – dating back over 50 years. Not surprisingly this has resulted in often-atrocious play on the pitch. If football clubs are like living organisms, then Manchester City is a very dysfunctional, very unhealthy creature. Not surprisingly, City consistently emerges as one of the least liked clubs in the English Premier League (or the 1st/2nd Divisions as the case may be). While some City supporters see the club being ostracized as a clarion call for renewed support, it really exists as a reminder of how a legacy of dysfunction can perpetuate itself year after year.
While I could never be called a United fan, when I lived in Bolton I took frequent trips to Manchester and couldn’t help but notice (and admire) just how engrained the legacy of United was in Manchester. The club has weaved itself into the fabric of everyday life in Manchester – with City often seen as a mischievous f***-up operating on the margins of that society. I don’t think this has anything to do with the success or financial power of United, because that success and monetary clout did not always exist. It has to do with how Manchester United Football club perceives itself, how it perceives its fans, how it has historically perceived itself in the community, how it perceives and interprets its own place within Manchester culture and how it has created a mythos, a legacy, a clearly defined self-image. City does not seem to function with that same sort of clarity. To be fair to City however, ManU is somewhat of an aberration within the framework of English football these days. Most clubs do not enjoy he same support as ManU. Even in places like Liverpool with entrenched inner-community rivalries the balance is not as lopsided.
While travelling abroad I’ve always been rather amused (and annoyed) at the support Manchester United receives. Even in Los Angeles or Budapest one is confronted with glossy magazine covers of David Beckham or the United brand named emblazoned on the windows of sports shops. My theory was that these foreign supporters had simply bought a product, and wanted to associate themselves with this winning product (courtesy of ManU’s exhaustive global public relations campaigns).
I asked an American wearing a United scarf in New York why he liked ManU and he responded, “because they never give up”. Not the answer I had expected. How many times have you heard that said about City?
Growing up a Villa supporter I always disliked City, but not for conventional reasons. My mates and I always hated the sloppy play, the indignant nature of the fans, and how City always seems to be embroiled in some sort of controversy that undoubtedly saw them sinking either financially or down the table. Also, we were always rather bemused by the perverse willingness of City fans to seemingly celebrate relegation or defeat, as if it further confirmed and entrenched their feelings of exclusiveness. It wasn’t stubborn support, it seemed a vulgar hubris.
I must say that some of he ill-fate that has befallen City has also plagued Villa, but I never got the feeling that my club was screwing its fans, or teetering on the edge of disaster due to shady mis-management, or even worse, that they had simply given up.
Incidentally O’Grady, Oasis at Reebok does sound a bit more inviting than a Wanderers game!
On to City ….:
I did some of my post graduate work at Oxford and one of my flat mates wrote a really interesting piece on mis-management in football. City merged as the archetypal “f*** up” club. And we’re not just talking about recent times – City has a long-standing history of ill-fated managerial decisions, poor player acquisitions, hooligan problems, poor public relations, etc. – dating back over 50 years. Not surprisingly this has resulted in often-atrocious play on the pitch. If football clubs are like living organisms, then Manchester City is a very dysfunctional, very unhealthy creature. Not surprisingly, City consistently emerges as one of the least liked clubs in the English Premier League (or the 1st/2nd Divisions as the case may be). While some City supporters see the club being ostracized as a clarion call for renewed support, it really exists as a reminder of how a legacy of dysfunction can perpetuate itself year after year.
While I could never be called a United fan, when I lived in Bolton I took frequent trips to Manchester and couldn’t help but notice (and admire) just how engrained the legacy of United was in Manchester. The club has weaved itself into the fabric of everyday life in Manchester – with City often seen as a mischievous f***-up operating on the margins of that society. I don’t think this has anything to do with the success or financial power of United, because that success and monetary clout did not always exist. It has to do with how Manchester United Football club perceives itself, how it perceives its fans, how it has historically perceived itself in the community, how it perceives and interprets its own place within Manchester culture and how it has created a mythos, a legacy, a clearly defined self-image. City does not seem to function with that same sort of clarity. To be fair to City however, ManU is somewhat of an aberration within the framework of English football these days. Most clubs do not enjoy he same support as ManU. Even in places like Liverpool with entrenched inner-community rivalries the balance is not as lopsided.
While travelling abroad I’ve always been rather amused (and annoyed) at the support Manchester United receives. Even in Los Angeles or Budapest one is confronted with glossy magazine covers of David Beckham or the United brand named emblazoned on the windows of sports shops. My theory was that these foreign supporters had simply bought a product, and wanted to associate themselves with this winning product (courtesy of ManU’s exhaustive global public relations campaigns).
I asked an American wearing a United scarf in New York why he liked ManU and he responded, “because they never give up”. Not the answer I had expected. How many times have you heard that said about City?
Growing up a Villa supporter I always disliked City, but not for conventional reasons. My mates and I always hated the sloppy play, the indignant nature of the fans, and how City always seems to be embroiled in some sort of controversy that undoubtedly saw them sinking either financially or down the table. Also, we were always rather bemused by the perverse willingness of City fans to seemingly celebrate relegation or defeat, as if it further confirmed and entrenched their feelings of exclusiveness. It wasn’t stubborn support, it seemed a vulgar hubris.
I must say that some of he ill-fate that has befallen City has also plagued Villa, but I never got the feeling that my club was screwing its fans, or teetering on the edge of disaster due to shady mis-management, or even worse, that they had simply given up.
