Quite ironic that he and his journo mates were not a little more positive in the past.David Conn on 5Live defending us to the hilt and refusing to get baited into "state-sponsored" and "bought success" stuff.
I was a little surprised at how positive he was and so was the host, Jonathan Overend, who had to take a few cheap shots.
The mirror today go with pep admits he is winning because of cash he has been given and on the other side of the page a maureen love in with no mention of spending so much and not winning the league,also a tiny bit of pog being offered to us,can you imagine if we had offered kev to them in jan
Heard today that if we “only” win the league and cup it’s a failure if we don’t win champs league!
so Baconchops only had 2 good seasons in 25 years at the scum then.
Fuck em waspish mate. Just sniping for sniping sake because they realise that itwas their beloved red rats (liverpool & united) that used to be in our position
We may or may not get through on Tuesday, but what has happened this season will only make our club and team stronger for the following seasons to come
David Conn on 5Live defending us to the hilt and refusing to get baited into "state-sponsored" and "bought success" stuff.
I was a little surprised at how positive he was and so was the host, Jonathan Overend, who had to take a few cheap shots.
Can you elaborate abit more on what Dixon said or what the commentator said to him.Lee Dixon.
Unbelievable. The commentator gave him countless opportunities to retract his pro that lot statements, even after having seen replays, yet he stuck with his original opinion in every instance; and every instance he sided with that lot. Had the gall to ask the commentator if he wanted a translator brought in to understand him better, assuming the commentator had not heard him properly. Think the men in white coats would have been more apt.
Can you elaborate abit more on what Dixon said or what the commentator said to him.
Thanks mate.When Sterling and Young tussled, he continued to say it was a foul against Sterling even when shown the replay.
Commentator: 'You...(looooong pause) you mean against Young, don't you?
LD: 'No, I mean against Sterling.Do you want me to get a translator in for you?'
On the first penalty.
Commentator:'Oh, it did hit his hand.'
LD: 'Yeah, but his hand is in a natural position if you are sliding on the floor'
On the second penalty
Commentator: 'That's nasty and you can see why the City players were so upset'
LD: 'He's actually won the ball and only caught him on the follow through, so that's not a penalty'
I'm paraphrasing, but capturing the gist.
And he's supposed to be a lifelong City fan. Yeah; right.When Sterling and Young tussled, he continued to say it was a foul against Sterling even when shown the replay.
Commentator: 'You...(looooong pause) you mean against Young, don't you?
LD: 'No, I mean against Sterling.Do you want me to get a translator in for you?'
On the first penalty.
Commentator:'Oh, it did hit his hand.'
LD: 'Yeah, but his hand is in a natural position if you are sliding on the floor'
On the second penalty
Commentator: 'That's nasty and you can see why the City players were so upset'
LD: 'He's actually won the ball and only caught him on the follow through, so that's not a penalty'
I'm paraphrasing, but capturing the gist.
And he's supposed to be a lifelong City fan. Yeah; right.
When Sterling and Young tussled, he continued to say it was a foul against Sterling even when shown the replay.
Commentator: 'You...(looooong pause) you mean against Young, don't you?
LD: 'No, I mean against Sterling.Do you want me to get a translator in for you?'
On the first penalty.
Commentator:'Oh, it did hit his hand.'
LD: 'Yeah, but his hand is in a natural position if you are sliding on the floor'
On the second penalty
Commentator: 'That's nasty and you can see why the City players were so upset'
LD: 'He's actually won the ball and only caught him on the follow through, so that's not a penalty'
I'm paraphrasing, but capturing the gist.
Glendenning is trolling his fellow jurnos and people like me who get wound up by it.Here's a cracker from some dickhead in The Guardian today named Barry Glendenning:
He is writing about 'Derbies that really mattered'...
'It was the fourth of six straight victories for Roberto Mancini’s side, who subsequently beat Newcastle before wrapping up the first title of their brave new petro-dollar-fuelled dawn in the most dramatic circumstances imaginable against Queens Park Rangers.'
Just why would you write that? What does it add to the article or how does it inform the reader? Bitter, pathetic attempt at journalism.
The link is here if you wish to read it: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/apr/06/manchester-derbies-that-mattered-city-united-title