lancs blue
Well-Known Member
I liked the quality nutmeg by Mendy on KdB in that vid.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I liked the quality nutmeg by Mendy on KdB in that vid.
I liked the quality nutmeg by Mendy on KdB in that vid.
Haha yep, class.
I was incredibly surprised that BT offered a sane perspective
Talksport very close too being slanderous on the White and Cascarino show, 10 to 11 it was virtual "filthy Arab money" now it's don't buy Man City fringe players as they have been "inactive" and are "not worth the money"
No media bias my arse
No media bias my arse
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Talksport very close too being slanderous on the White and Cascarino show, 10 to 11 it was virtual "filthy Arab money" now it's don't buy Man City fringe players as they have been "inactive" and are "not worth the money"
No media bias my arse
Yes I heard some of this. They couldn't wait to lump us in with PSG over the Neymar deal. City's lawyers should be keeping a close eye on this. Last week they were suggesting that we use off-shore money to prop up our operation. There is a real nasty streak behing these drip drip insinuations. City's business model is the polar oppposite of PSG. We are sustainable. The irony of all this is that they were suggesting that Barcelona are somehow victims. In fact they and Real Madrid have been exploiting their financial clout for decades at the expense of other clubs.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Worthy of a complaint to OFCOM?Talksport very close too being slanderous on the White and Cascarino show, 10 to 11 it was virtual "filthy Arab money" now it's don't buy Man City fringe players as they have been "inactive" and are "not worth the money"
No media bias my arse
Talksport very close too being slanderous on the White and Cascarino show, 10 to 11 it was virtual "filthy Arab money" now it's don't buy Man City fringe players as they have been "inactive" and are "not worth the money"
No media bias my arse
I missed the filthy Arab money bit but I did catch the inactive fringe players, they basically repeat what they have read in the tabloids.
The usual Rodwell, Sinclair scenario is now included with Delph and Bony, piss poor punditry really.
They did not follow up the fringe players item, no phone calls from listeners and it was never mentioned again during the rest of the show, wonder if someone had a word!Worthy of a complaint to OFCOM?
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,147
And they will keep airing such rubbish as long as the viewing figures and advertisement revenues are maintained.
Everyone knows what talksport are like so why are blues who moan about the bias/content still listening to it?
Everyone knows what talksport are like so why are blues who moan about the bias/content still listening to it?
Last edited:
Because they are discussing our sport and our club and people want to hear what they are saying about us.And they will keep airing such rubbish as long as the viewing figures and advertisement revenues are maintained.
Everyone knows what talksport are like so why are blues who mosn about the bias/content still listening to it?
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I rarely listen to Talksport but lots of people do and there is no doubt that this sort of coverage undermines our reputation and damages our brand. You can't just ignore it and hope it will go away. It will affect us commercially everytime we try and negotiate a sponsorship deal. Business partners do not like being tainted by association. The relentless negative and biased coverage we get is an ongoing issue for us as a business. Chelsea used to be the whipping boys but nowadays they get a free pass. The very least we should do is pull the plug on our advertising with Talksport. As an organisation we need to be on the front foot with this. We have had it for almost ten years now.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,147
Because they are discussing our sport and our club and people want to hear what they are saying about us.
So anti-city stuff is click bait for blues as well as reds? Then do not expect things to change.
The only power you have against these organisations is to impact on its listenership and consequently advertisement revenues.
asahartford1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 9,764
Because they are discussing our sport and our club and people want to hear what they are saying about us.
Thank you. For replying to him for me.
You keep your enemies closest.
asahartford1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 9,764
I rarely listen to Talksport but lots of people do and there is no doubt that this sort of coverage undermines our reputation and damages our brand. You can't just ignore it and hope it will go away. It will affect us commercially everytime we try and negotiate a sponsorship deal. Business partners do not like being tainted by association. The relentless negative and biased coverage we get is an ongoing issue for us as a business. Chelsea used to be the whipping boys but nowadays they get a free pass. The very least we should do is pull the plug on our advertising with Talksport. As an organisation we need to be on the front foot with this. We have had it for almost ten years now.
Good post .
So anti-city stuff is click bait for blues as well as reds? Then do not expect things to change.
The only power you have against these organisations is to impact on its listenership and consequently advertisement revenues.
Whether I listen to it or not has absolutely no bearing on what they say.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,147
I rarely listen to Talksport but lots of people do and there is no doubt that this sort of coverage undermines our reputation and damages our brand. You can't just ignore it and hope it will go away. It will affect us commercially everytime we try and negotiate a sponsorship deal. Business partners do not like being tainted by association. The relentless negative and biased coverage we get is an ongoing issue for us as a business. Chelsea used to be the whipping boys but nowadays they get a free pass. The very least we should do is pull the plug on our advertising with Talksport. As an organisation we need to be on the front foot with this. We have had it for almost ten years now.
Firstly good post and the narrative you describe in relation to commercial aspects I would not disagree with, even if we disagree on if it effects City uniquely. . So lets just say all that is true so how can we as a fanbase effect change the other way.
Could we not effect talksport commercially if we stopped listening to the show, if they had less viewers would not that effect their commercial revenues
It seems pretty clear to me that talksports whole business model is to make controversial statements, get a heated debate raging to attract listeners and get joe public who want to 'give it to the presenter' to call in and keep the cycle going.
What will change if the listening figures/advertisement revenues stay the same?
Maybe its just me, and this is not directly aimed at you, but I do not understand how anything will change if people keep tuning in to the show and then come on here moaning about it. Your casting a vote tor the continuation of the dross the show produces.
I do agree conpletely with removing advertising if that takes place. Its small steps but something people can influence.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Firstly good post and the narrative you describe in relation to commercial aspects I would not disagree with, even if we disagree on if it effects City uniquely. . So lets just say all that is true so how can we as a fanbase effect change the other way.
Could we not effect talksport commercially if we stopped listening to the show, if they had less viewers would not that effect their commercial revenues
It seems pretty clear to me that talksports whole business model is to make controversial statements, get a heated debate raging to attract listeners and get joe public who want to 'give it to the presenter' to call in and keep the cycle going.
What will change if the listening figures/advertisement revenues stay the same?
Maybe its just me, and this is not directly aimed at you, but I do not understand how anything will change if people keep tuning in to the show and then come on here moaning about it. Your casting a vote tor the continuation of the dross the show produces.
I do agree conpletely with removing advertising if that takes place. Its small steps but something people can influence.
I agree with most of what you say. The problem is that even if all City fans stopped listening to Talksport it would not stop the damage happening. I am not overly concerned about Talksport on its own. The issue we have is that essentially a false narrative about City has been cemented across sections of the whole media sector. The narrative is that we are just an oil club, with no history, with no morality, no sustainablity, no proper youth policy. The damage to us is subtle but very real. We are not victims of a media conspiracy but the commercial reality is that most newspapers and broadcast organisations are driven by audience figures and United have the biggest fanbase. The reason so many of us fans get frustrated is that we know we are being unfairly treated by the media. But the media has always been market driven. The club must adopt a more proactive PR strategy. Improving our reputation is very important in the long-term. We have to challenge people when they publish or broadcast untruths.
If someone treats us unfairly, or tells lies or misrepresents what we're doing or what we're about we shouldn't be afraid to say so.
Silence doesn't stop the lies, the unreasonable criticism, the consistent negative tone about he very thing we do.
If people think we did wrong at the start of the takeover they should criticise what we did at the start of the takeover. But that doesn't give them the right to carry on forever.
I agree with you but we're not talking about reasonable people here, or people with any scruples. It's the media. They're not called the gutter press for nothing. And when it comes to football it's all one......press, TV, radio, the lot. The narrative even infects live televised matches.
yeah whatever !!
Well-Known Member
“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
Oscar Wilde
And look what happened to him!
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
Firstly good post and the narrative you describe in relation to commercial aspects I would not disagree with, even if we disagree on if it effects City uniquely. . So lets just say all that is true so how can we as a fanbase effect change the other way.
Could we not effect talksport commercially if we stopped listening to the show, if they had less viewers would not that effect their commercial revenues
It seems pretty clear to me that talksports whole business model is to make controversial statements, get a heated debate raging to attract listeners and get joe public who want to 'give it to the presenter' to call in and keep the cycle going.
What will change if the listening figures/advertisement revenues stay the same?
Maybe its just me, and this is not directly aimed at you, but I do not understand how anything will change if people keep tuning in to the show and then come on here moaning about it. Your casting a vote tor the continuation of the dross the show produces.
I do agree conpletely with removing advertising if that takes place. Its small steps but something people can influence.
I treat Talk Sport as comedy central, however the vast majority of it's listeners truly believe what's being broadcast
- Status
- Not open for further replies.