Media Discussion - 2023/24

Blueboy73 said:
BBC Sport is nothing more than a Rag Fanzine.
The sooner the nonce protecting wankers are defunded the better. the quarter finals of the woman's world cup is more important than the start of the Premier League.
Click to expand...
Apparently the quarter final of the woman's world cup is more important than the start of the Premier League!
 
mancboy said:
I fucking knew it, graphic of how much city have spent compared to burnley, u will never see that 4 arsenal, chelsea, liverpool or united
Click to expand...
No chance they will ever say “90m Anthony”, “106m Enzo” or “111m Caceido”. The money spent on defenders is over Pep’s 7 year tenure and doesn’t include any sales, Danilo, Angelino, Zinchenko, etc which has brought in around 140m but does include the 50m we paid for Mendy.

So on average around 40m per season, seeing as our prize money last season alone was 290m it’s hardly eye brow raising. As the old saying goes “you have to speculate to accumulate”.
 
If you're wound up now about the Sky defender caption wait until we play West Ham

Manchester City defenders 897 million
West Ham defenders 142* million

* includes the 6-10 million bunged to slabby to get him to sign.
 
Plain Speaking said:
My complaint to BBC about Simon Stone's Kane article, making out we bid £160m for Kane in 2021:

Simon Stone's article about Harry Kane refers to "a £160m move to Manchester City" a link is provided as if such a bid existed or has some substance but there was never any such bid.
Simon Stone is misleading and factually incorrect in his article. Simon Stones will know most readers will not click on the link and discover no such bid was ever made, but putting the figure in bold will fool many readers into believing such a bid was made.
He is a declared Manchester United supporter and regularly reports with bias when reporting on Manchester City or Manchester United matters. He frequently tries to undermine
and portray the Manchester City club in a negative way. While he does the opposite when
reporting on Manchester United. The BBC Sport website normally has a large and disproportionate number of petty Manchester United articles as if the whole sporting department is trying to promote this club above all others. It seems the BBC is institutionally biased in this respect.
Click to expand...
I’m not letting go about Stone’s latest jaunt to promote United in the USA and them not reporting the City game v Yokohama.

Thank you for your response. My point was about the bias in your reporting between City and United games. Yes you put a report up three hours after the game had ended. For the United tour you sent your journalist to the USA, as you have now for many years to promote their friendly games and report live from the half full stadium whilst City played in front of three sold out stadia.

So I want to know do you receive payment from MUFC for the endless promotion of their friendly games on your website?

Or do we, the licence payers, fund the disparity in reports and the travel for Stone follow his team to friendly games?

Would I need to submit a FOI request for this information?

Also you did not address my final question relating to why I should continue to fund the BBC if I cannot find information about my team on your website and can only find promotional content on United.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.