- Status
auction294
Well-Known Member
Watched this. The most interesting aspect to this is Custis making no attempt to be impartial or even to hide his allegiances. Of course he's entitled to have his opinion and to support a football team, or any other sports team but with his role he should be reporting objectively, not as a fan. This shows to me a lack of professionalism that I cannot take any of his words verbal or written seriously.
It's no shocker to me that The Sun chose to run with two negative stories this week about attendances at City.
....but there is no media bias is there?
Rochdale Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 3,554
There are still people in Liverpool who believe the Etihad isn't sold out, probably the same people I spoke to at Wembley who refused to believe we had sold our full allocation. Some idiots will always ignore the evidence and cling to whatever nonsense makes them feel secure..even if it does come from the Sun.
What a mard arse .
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
The Art of War against Attack Attack Attack.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
His employment requires him to air these views to be digested by their carefully researched major revenue earner.
JM has conceded the PL but continuing to placate gullible subscribers with black is white views is needed. They need their daily dose of hope even though reality is totally different.
Sir peace frog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,879
- Location
- stalking the canals and rivers
- Team supported
- Manchester City Football Club
heard it 3 times this week,1 off a Liverpool fan,one off a united fan,and one off some guy at the fag shelter at work talking to his mate about the game(pretty sure he was a Liverpool fan)put the first two lads right,couldnt be arsed with the third guy
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. ;)
An *exclusive* hatchet job by *Richard Wheatstone of the Sun*.
Not just a small article, but a full and in-depth report on City's attendance figures.
The only other club that get's a slight mention in the article is Southampton.
No mention of United, Arsenal(how many empty seats at Arsenal Yesterday and throughout the season), Spurs, WestbHam, etc.
It's obvious this f***er has been given the go ahead by his Editor in Chief to have at City and our support.
Perhaps Richard could explain this. According to him via the Police, the crowd against Stoke was *28,405*. That's roughly 26,000 down on the Etihad capacity of 54,000+. Almost half. So that would mean 2 stands would have been empty.
Question. When did any of you ever see 2 stands empty at the Etihad for a PL match? Exactly!
More bullshit from the PL cartel loving Sun/Media, as City close in on another PL title.
EXCLUSIVE
By Richard Wheatstone https://mobile.twitter.com/rich_wheatstone?lang=en (his Twitter page)
30th March 2018, 5:15 pm
Updated: 30th March 2018, 5:20 pm
*Last season, the Blues' 0-0 draw at home to Stoke drew a crowd of just 28,405 - just over half of the official crowds of 52,625*.
No link as per.
Not just a small article, but a full and in-depth report on City's attendance figures.
The only other club that get's a slight mention in the article is Southampton.
No mention of United, Arsenal(how many empty seats at Arsenal Yesterday and throughout the season), Spurs, WestbHam, etc.
It's obvious this f***er has been given the go ahead by his Editor in Chief to have at City and our support.
Perhaps Richard could explain this. According to him via the Police, the crowd against Stoke was *28,405*. That's roughly 26,000 down on the Etihad capacity of 54,000+. Almost half. So that would mean 2 stands would have been empty.
Question. When did any of you ever see 2 stands empty at the Etihad for a PL match? Exactly!
More bullshit from the PL cartel loving Sun/Media, as City close in on another PL title.
EXCLUSIVE
By Richard Wheatstone https://mobile.twitter.com/rich_wheatstone?lang=en (his Twitter page)
30th March 2018, 5:15 pm
Updated: 30th March 2018, 5:20 pm
*Last season, the Blues' 0-0 draw at home to Stoke drew a crowd of just 28,405 - just over half of the official crowds of 52,625*.
No link as per.
auction294
Well-Known Member
Perhaps, but in my view his employment requires him to be objective, regardless of his personal opinions. To report news, not to use his employment as a platform for his views.
I've met Ian Ladyman several times, he proudly displays a signed Liverpool Shirt in his home. This doesn't stop his from impartially reporting on Liverpool when they don't perform well to the extent that some posters on BM believe him to be a Utd fan. Therefore he does his job well if his personal views are not transparent in his reporting.
Something Custis should take up, actually doing his job.
The_Maverick
Well-Known Member
It amazes me that people use quotes from that red top regarding the dippers. The feckers are still sucking up to them because of that headline nearly 30 years ago.
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
In fairness we did beat the big stick at the Rags when this was also published by GMO some 3-4 years ago.An *exclusive* hatchet job by *Richard Wheatstone of the Sun*.
Not just a small article, but a full and in-depth report on City's attendance figures.
The only other club that get's a slight mention in the article is Southampton.
No mention of United, Arsenal(how many empty seats at Arsenal Yesterday and throughout the season. Spurs, etc.
It's obvious this f***er has been given the go ahead by his Editor in Chief to have at City and our support.
Perhaps Richard could explain this. According to him via the Police, the crowd against Stoke was *28,405*. That's roughly 26,000 down on the Etihad capacity of 54,000+. Almost half. So that would mean 2 stands would have been empty.
Question. When did any of you ever see 2 stands empty at the Etihad for a PL match? Exactly!
More bullshit from the PL cartel loving Sun/Media, as City close in on another PL title.
EXCLUSIVE
By Richard Wheatstone https://mobile.twitter.com/rich_wheatstone?lang=en (his Twitter page)
30th March 2018, 5:15 pm
Updated: 30th March 2018, 5:20 pm
*Last season, the Blues' 0-0 draw at home to Stoke drew a crowd of just 28,405 - just over half of the official crowds of 52,625*.
No link as per.
However as you rightly point out it equates to almost two stands worth of empty seats and I`ve never seen that big a drop,even when we had Pearce managing us.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Of course you are correct about proper journalism but the bean counters are in charge now with the media so antagonising your main subscriber base with the truth may not be the best career move.
taleofbluehalves
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 5,941
Blatant lies or he’s got the wrong club. I don’t think we’ve had 28,000 for a league game for 20 years?An *exclusive* hatchet job by *Richard Wheatstone of the Sun*.
Not just a small article, but a full and in-depth report on City's attendance figures.
The only other club that get's a slight mention in the article is Southampton.
No mention of United, Arsenal(how many empty seats at Arsenal Yesterday and throughout the season), Spurs, WestbHam, etc.
It's obvious this f***er has been given the go ahead by his Editor in Chief to have at City and our support.
Perhaps Richard could explain this. According to him via the Police, the crowd against Stoke was *28,405*. That's roughly 26,000 down on the Etihad capacity of 54,000+. Almost half. So that would mean 2 stands would have been empty.
Question. When did any of you ever see 2 stands empty at the Etihad for a PL match? Exactly!
More bullshit from the PL cartel loving Sun/Media, as City close in on another PL title.
EXCLUSIVE
By Richard Wheatstone https://mobile.twitter.com/rich_wheatstone?lang=en (his Twitter page)
30th March 2018, 5:15 pm
Updated: 30th March 2018, 5:20 pm
*Last season, the Blues' 0-0 draw at home to Stoke drew a crowd of just 28,405 - just over half of the official crowds of 52,625*.
No link as per.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Expect more hatchet jobs from these rats. It's the normal run up to derby day, they always try to piss on our parade. I expect a story along the lines of 'city star walks past injured bumble bee whilst laughing on his mobile phone..'
Horrible twats the lot of them, especially our fat friend truffle shuffle custis.
Horrible twats the lot of them, especially our fat friend truffle shuffle custis.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,147
Journalism is at its lowest ebb but you can see why they do it, for clicks, as even on a City website all the links being offered are negative articles about the club. Slagging city off is a cash cow on this forum.
How do the police get their figures?An *exclusive* hatchet job by *Richard Wheatstone of the Sun*.
Not just a small article, but a full and in-depth report on City's attendance figures.
The only other club that get's a slight mention in the article is Southampton.
No mention of United, Arsenal(how many empty seats at Arsenal Yesterday and throughout the season), Spurs, WestbHam, etc.
It's obvious this f***er has been given the go ahead by his Editor in Chief to have at City and our support.
Perhaps Richard could explain this. According to him via the Police, the crowd against Stoke was *28,405*. That's roughly 26,000 down on the Etihad capacity of 54,000+. Almost half. So that would mean 2 stands would have been empty.
Question. When did any of you ever see 2 stands empty at the Etihad for a PL match? Exactly!
More bullshit from the PL cartel loving Sun/Media, as City close in on another PL title.
EXCLUSIVE
By Richard Wheatstone https://mobile.twitter.com/rich_wheatstone?lang=en (his Twitter page)
30th March 2018, 5:15 pm
Updated: 30th March 2018, 5:20 pm
*Last season, the Blues' 0-0 draw at home to Stoke drew a crowd of just 28,405 - just over half of the official crowds of 52,625*.
No link as per.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,147
Jesus christ do people see an agenda in everything?
Schemers is a well known football phrase used in england term to describe an inside forward or more loosely a playmaker which are exactly what Silva and KDB are for us.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Certainly this thread gives direct links but that is its subject heading. My post was to perhaps understand why journos do it not to agree with it.
Perhaps some journos are big enough in their own right to make a balanced article but circulation pays the wages, even a fair minded editor will not risk falling sales to print the truth so employ presenters or journos who match your circulation research ie are biased.
Genuinely curious mate, why does it bother you so much? I happen to agree on this occasion but it strikes me that you're like a watchdog on this thread just waiting for someone to show the slightest hint of paranoia.
- Status