Media Thread 2017/18

Status
Not open for further replies.
Same as Barca-6/1..but you could get 8/1 yesterday,
Can imagine if we won the Boo Cup,the morning headline would read scum/dipper/spuds etc their chances off wining it next year.
& fk all about us being champs..


barca has a game to play - so if they win today they will drop below city i would expect - probably 4.5/1 and maybe city will go up to 7/1
 
Be interesting to see how they cope without him for a spell. I must admit I think Eriksen is a fantastic player also and they did have a decent goal distribution amongst players with Alli, Son, Eriksen bagging a few.


I rated Erikson so highly - the best crosser in the league imo , the best passer , intelligent , but a bit weak - however he is slippery so can get into space.


anyway- until last night - he totally bottled it. He had 9 corners and duffed them all bar one. He had space on the right on about 7 occasions with kane tracking his position and running into loads of space in the box and erikson fluffed all the passes.

Eriksons saved shot at the end was a 1 in 30 effort at going in - normally he would be on the look out and assess all his options - instead he blasted it.

Kane was in plenty of space and just a few yards on rather than a rash blast and then a simple pass in between a defender and the goalie had kane in on an open goal as the keeper was so far left.

RM left so many gaps in that defense - erikson would normally exploit it - but he lost the plot completely under the pressure or was ill!. Never seen him play like that - although all the pundits stated he does it often in the big games. So know i kind of understand why there is barely any speculation from other clubs. With Alli available he would have taken more control of the space given and is the best presser - interceptor/tackler in the opposition's half.
 
I like honesty mate . if you can realise the truth but admit it and not give a sh1te still I can respect that . My brain however does not operate in that way.

too many fans are deluded and think its just them that get picked on.
I'm one of them if I'm honest. I just think we don't get the credit we deserve because of the way we've won things, and I'm bored to back teeth of hearing the phrase "oil money" when people/journalists/fans talk about us.
In my eyes we'll never get credit in the way other teams get credit because we have rich owners.
And I really wish that if people are going to take cheap shots at us then they'd do their homework and realise that this "oil money" has transformed the area, created 100's of jobs and changed people's lives forever.
And then and only then will people realise what bitter, jealous and tedious idiots they sound when slagging off my club.
 
I agree with that it is everyone. Just the way they work. Bit tough on Spurs. Agreed Madrid have not reached the heights so far this year but won 4 on the bounce including an away win at Dortmund. I think Spurs deserve a lot of credit for that result. We would be the first to moan if the press belittled such a result, eapecially you
Dortmund could beat the Dog and Duck in the CL last night.
 
Ok you have laid it out for me with sources to look for . The argument now makes a bit more sense. we are all brainwashed to a degree, and the media does that

The BBC are subtle with a centrist left angle(which is just centrist capitalism that promotes the 'peacefull way' of getting divearse and cheap labour- i mainly read politics fromall sources, fabien left, extreme left, left, centre, right, hard right from britain and different regions and natios within, france, german, russia, usa, china, spain and not just through google news as it can bring up filtered content), however they don't over verbalise, they don't report on anything until its fact checked. they dont go overboard on phrases which can end up meaning different things to different people. they don't utilize hyperbole, they don't produce fake news, they may right two sides to a story in opinion pieces. but they don't portray it as news as the daily mail might that write conflicting hyperbole that click baits both or all sides that are susceptible. The bbc are not standard left like the guardian or further left like the new statesman ir even further like sputnik(russian propaganda), or right like the mail or further right like brietbart or further right which is harder to find as much has been taken down but vpns and or tor will get you content.
I check out fox - christ that is supposedly a kind of normal thing in america - yes some laugh at it. but its every day life yet its so racist its beyond belief.

The bbc are not without fault however in many things (despite its political agenda) its as balanced with current affairs as can be - if something happens it just states details in the news with no bias or agenda, just facts only - no opinions. . Yes they may have opinion pieces like all media sources do- but people need to understand what that means. opinion pieces are clearly marked.

I would have assumed the BBC would have plenty of sports writers - some pro certain clubs and others not pro certain clubs, and the editors mis the omissions without caring as its not really that relevant.

TAKE NOTICE OF WHAT NEATRALS SAY ABOUT YOUR CLUBS play not the papers.. ok.


a link to a man city article full of praise and real journalistic integrity from Saj Chowdhury- a art of the article is added below the link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41534300

"Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola suggested, inadvertently or otherwise, that title rivals Tottenham were a one-man teambecause of Harry Kane's goals this season. He has scored 13 of their 22 goals in all competitions this season."

no other media source would do that - they would just say pep called tottenham the harry kane team - or something similar - with no explanation of doubt as to how it was phrased \9english is not his first language)

However tparts of the BBC have been part of evil doings in the past and probably to this day as its a huge power structure and i do not forgive them for it - but the truth is you will find different angles on sports from different journos. and its the most strictly non partisan news source which is highly moderated before making public.

Yes that one journo you speak of may have a beef with City, and the editors publish his stuff. But its really not a big deal. There are much more worrying stuff going on in corruption in football and major corruption in the world to get wrapped up in that.
I disagree with you on one fundamental issue
I I don't like the editorial set up of a media organisation I either won't pay for it nor will I give them clicks in order to gain more advertising revenue.
Hence I buy no newspapers except the Sunday Times and I have previously cancelled Sky and refused a BT box even when I could have it for free.

However the BBC doesn't allow me to exercise my right of freedom of choice and I forced to pay its tax without recourse. I rarely watch TV but I still have to pay the same tax as someone who watches it all day every day.

Hence my disagreement with your assessment. The BBC should be impartial, and if they wish to give up the founding principles of the organisation then that's fine, but I should be able to opt out from it. No taxation without representation.
 
I dont really care - most clubs are corrupt, man city and PSG get sponsorships that do not represent the value to the company - but its a loop hole that FFP seem to allow.


Chelsea's money comes from seriously dodgy sources that is not ethical. Abromowitch is a major criminal at best.

But la liga is no better

athletico on its own owe 1 bill, yet not pestered by the spanish banks. they made a huge mistake on buying land before the spanish economy went bankrupt and land values fell to the power of 30 . yet never investigated by FFP - yet have huge losses on the books, bnk rolled loans that have no repayment dates!! - the spanish local governments allow it (even though its against EU law) as they value football as beneficial to the morale of the population.



the others are even more dodgy. same scenario with free money of the banks (yeah supporter owned my ass - the bank has stake holdings of 4 times what the fans do(that we know of).And they just ask for more and get it - the problem is its getting risky to keep paying up half the transfer fees in brown paper bags (like in neymars case) and that is the only way to move lots of money , but they can still use cash for certain staff wages of books , scouts, consultants, give to sponsorships to then repay back! they can spend without breaking FFP regs - the la liga are also in no darkness as to what goes on - yet they come at PSG and Man City with accusations. Its hypocrisy of the highest order - but is it - no La liga are crapping themselves in their nations economic climate and the soon to be retired messi and ronaldo which will lose sponsorship in bundles and tv revenues and merch sales.

The sick irony is that we have paid for their players as we(along with a few other EU nations) bailed the spanish banks out billions out of our tax money. yet they then give it to there football teams that have won 6 CL's since then!!!



On another note the La liga sides are also becoming less and less relevant in the transfer market - PSG stitched up barca legally (well we will see about the ffp implications later i suppose) by just matching the buy out clause and neymar wanting out. Mbabbe was supposed to be garranted to go to madrid - by all sources - yet last minute he just goes to PSG.. They stitched the big two up hardcore.

Even liverpool have the cash to say fck of to barca with a 130 mill offer for coutinho.

the 3rd and 4th teams are getting results in spain as well. Despite city and united being above them in the league...

Barca need to get another short lad and do experiments on him and quick before its too late.
 
I disagree with you on one fundamental issue
I I don't like the editorial set up of a media organisation I either won't pay for it nor will I give them clicks in order to gain more advertising revenue.
Hence I buy no newspapers except the Sunday Times and I have previously cancelled Sky and refused a BT box even when I could have it for free.

However the BBC doesn't allow me to exercise my right of freedom of choice and I forced to pay its tax without recourse. I rarely watch TV but I still have to pay the same tax as someone who watches it all day every day.

Hence my disagreement with your assessment. The BBC should be impartial, and if they wish to give up the founding principles of the organisation then that's fine, but I should be able to opt out from it. No taxation without representation.


They are impartial on news (more than any other source in the world) and create amazing Documentaries and some great Dramas.

You do not need to pay the tv license if you do not want to.

But like i said there are huge issues in the world and within the bbc on other levels- if this is your 'big' issue you have you have one dam great life mate!!
 
They are impartial on news (more than any other source in the world) and create amazing Documentaries and some great Dramas.

You do not need to pay the tv license if you do not want to.

But like i said there are huge issues in the world and within the bbc on other levels- if this is your 'big' issue you have you have one dam great life mate!!
You can get the news from anywhere, and most of it more impartial than Auntie

Regardless of my life, the post was in response to you 'telling' us why we should let the abuse ride. My answer was why some of us don't.
 
I dont really care - most clubs are corrupt, man city and PSG get sponsorships that do not represent the value to the company - but its a loop hole that FFP seem to allow.


Chelsea's money comes from seriously dodgy sources that is not ethical. Abromowitch is a major criminal at best.

But la liga is no better

athletico on its own owe 1 bill, yet not pestered by the spanish banks. they made a huge mistake on buying land before the spanish economy went bankrupt and land values fell to the power of 30 . yet never investigated by FFP - yet have huge losses on the books, bnk rolled loans that have no repayment dates!! - the spanish local governments allow it (even though its against EU law) as they value football as beneficial to the morale of the population.



the others are even more dodgy. same scenario with free money of the banks (yeah supporter owned my ass - the bank has stake holdings of 4 times what the fans do(that we know of).And they just ask for more and get it - the problem is its getting risky to keep paying up half the transfer fees in brown paper bags (like in neymars case) and that is the only way to move lots of money , but they can still use cash for certain staff wages of books , scouts, consultants, give to sponsorships to then repay back! they can spend without breaking FFP regs - the la liga are also in no darkness as to what goes on - yet they come at PSG and Man City with accusations. Its hypocrisy of the highest order - but is it - no La liga are crapping themselves in their nations economic climate and the soon to be retired messi and ronaldo which will lose sponsorship in bundles and tv revenues and merch sales.

The sick irony is that we have paid for their players as we(along with a few other EU nations) bailed the spanish banks out billions out of our tax money. yet they then give it to there football teams that have won 6 CL's since then!!!



On another note the La liga sides are also becoming less and less relevant in the transfer market - PSG stitched up barca legally (well we will see about the ffp implications later i suppose) by just matching the buy out clause and neymar wanting out. Mbabbe was supposed to be garranted to go to madrid - by all sources - yet last minute he just goes to PSG.. They stitched the big two up hardcore.

Even liverpool have the cash to say fck of to barca with a 130 mill offer for coutinho.

the 3rd and 4th teams are getting results in spain as well. Despite city and united being above them in the league...

Barca need to get another short lad and do experiments on him and quick before its too late.
You said City get sponsorships that do not reflect the value to the company........can you spell that out? I think that's just prejudice - unless you have some evidence I don't know about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.