Media Thread 2020/21

[mat]

 

[BringBackSwales]

"Earlier this year, I tried to interview Svennis for the Guardian. Paul Tyrrell, the spokesman for Manchester City, told me that the Guardian would never get an interview with him because we had shown a lack of respect."

Come back Paul, all is forgiven.

Really? I found him very dislikable

 

[BringBackSwales]

I see slyman stones says in his impartial piece on the Biased Bastard Cunts website that “united are justified in fancying their chances”, what a low life turd he is

 

[cheekybids]

Client journalist.

Whoops - still blocked :)

 

[JPAMCR]

Client journalist.

Don’t think he needs help from anyone to look foolish

 

[Messi38]

I`m growing to like you.

Thanks. I know its about the money but stillbfine the media desperation for them to be good and successful embarrassing.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

Client journalist.

Please destroy these cunts tomorrow City.

 

[petrusha]

He had been through a hard time as it happens. In a short space of time his first wife and his best friend, Jack Rosenthal, both died of cancer which hit him very hard.

But some gobshite City fan had a response published. Bit cringeworthy really: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1206137/You-wrong-Colin--love-City.html

Remember that, you absolutely nailed the man there, especially his self indulgent nostalgia for a sepia-tinted age when the players caught the same bus to the game as the fans

I don't think it's uncommon to be nostalgic for simpler footballing times in the past and if that makes him want to distance himself from today's game, then I suppose that's his business. But he doesn't seem to recognise that it's modern football (and indeed modern society) as a whole that he has a problem with. It's not uniquely City.

The fact that a historically big club which had fallen on hard times needed the eye-watering levels of investment we did to enable us to challenge at the top again was a function of the way, over a period of decades, a small cabal of entitled clubs had tried to rig governance of the game for their own benefit. But for the removal of a raft of 'level playing field' provisions (to use a phrase oft in the news recently), we could have sought success in a way neutrals would have found far more wholesome but that simply hasn't been possible for a long time.

In any event, in the book that made his name Shindler showed a willingness to compromise in terms of the theme to ensure his narrative met the demands of a media in thrall to United. @Gary James has posted on here before that, back in the mid-1990s, he was looking for a publisher for what was effectively a proposed City version of Fever Pitch, and received an offer conditional on him focusing the text on the hapless Blues forever flailing in the shadow of their mighty red neighbours. He refused but Shindler didn't, the resulting book being published the following year.

The Daily Mail piece to which PB's reply is above and Shindler's subsequent City book also quite consciously mine the prevailing desired seam - much better the 'new' City having lost their soul rather than being a manifestation of where the greed of rapacious rivals has taken the game, coupled with events in his personal life making the whole thing seem rather less important. Indeed in recent months, I 've been able myself to relate to how that latter process can happen (albeit thankfully without the bereavements).

Hattenstone and Conn are others whose views run counter to those of pretty well any other Blues I know but who are quite happy to present themselves as representative of a significant strand of City-supporting opinion. I did have quite a bit of contact with Shindler 20 years ago or so, actually finding him quite helpful and engaging. I've never really had much time for Hattenstone or, unlike many, for Conn. But what links them all is an opportunistic streak when it comes to monetising their old MCFC allegiance.

 

[LongsightM13]

I don't think it's uncommon to be nostalgic for simpler footballing times in the past and if that makes him want to distance himself from today's game, then I suppose that's his business. But he doesn't seem to recognise that it's modern football (and indeed modern society) as a whole that he has a problem with. It's not uniquely City.

The fact that a historically big club which had fallen on hard times needed the eye-watering levels of investment we did to enable us to challenge at the top again was a function of the way, over a period of decades, a small cabal of entitled clubs had tried to rig governance of the game for their own benefit. But for the removal of a raft of 'level playing field' provisions (to use a phrase oft in the news recently), we could have sought success in a way neutrals would have found far more wholesome but that simply hasn't been possible for a long time.

In any event, in the book that made his name Shindler showed a willingness to compromise in terms of the theme to ensure his narrative met the demands of a media in thrall to United. @Gary James has posted on here before that, back in the mid-1990s, he was looking for a publisher for what was effectively a proposed City version of Fever Pitch, and received an offer conditional on him focusing the text on the hapless Blues forever flailing in the shadow of their mighty red neighbours. He refused but Shindler didn't, the resulting book being published the following year.

The Daily Mail piece to which PB's reply is above and Shindler's subsequent City book also quite consciously mine the prevailing desired seam - much better the 'new' City having lost their soul rather than being a manifestation of where the greed of rapacious rivals has taken the game, coupled with events in his personal life making the whole thing seem rather less important. Indeed in recent months, I 've been able myself to relate to how that latter process can happen (albeit thankfully without the bereavements).

Hattenstone and Conn are others whose views run counter to those of pretty well any other Blues I know but who are quite happy to present themselves as representative of a significant strand of City-supporting opinion. I did have quite a bit of contact with Shindler 20 years ago or so, actually finding him quite helpful and engaging. I've never really had much time for Hattenstone or, unlike many, for Conn. But what links them all is an opportunistic streak when it comes to monetising their old MCFC allegiance.

Superb post, sir, take a bow

 

[blue cigar]

I don't think it's uncommon to be nostalgic for simpler footballing times in the past and if that makes him want to distance himself from today's game, then I suppose that's his business. But he doesn't seem to recognise that it's modern football (and indeed modern society) as a whole that he has a problem with. It's not uniquely City.

The fact that a historically big club which had fallen on hard times needed the eye-watering levels of investment we did to enable us to challenge at the top again was a function of the way, over a period of decades, a small cabal of entitled clubs had tried to rig governance of the game for their own benefit. But for the removal of a raft of 'level playing field' provisions (to use a phrase oft in the news recently), we could have sought success in a way neutrals would have found far more wholesome but that simply hasn't been possible for a long time.

In any event, in the book that made his name Shindler showed a willingness to compromise in terms of the theme to ensure his narrative met the demands of a media in thrall to United. @Gary James has posted on here before that, back in the mid-1990s, he was looking for a publisher for what was effectively a proposed City version of Fever Pitch, and received an offer conditional on him focusing the text on the hapless Blues forever flailing in the shadow of their mighty red neighbours. He refused but Shindler didn't, the resulting book being published the following year.

The Daily Mail piece to which PB's reply is above and Shindler's subsequent City book also quite consciously mine the prevailing desired seam - much better the 'new' City having lost their soul rather than being a manifestation of where the greed of rapacious rivals has taken the game, coupled with events in his personal life making the whole thing seem rather less important. Indeed in recent months, I 've been able myself to relate to how that latter process can happen (albeit thankfully without the bereavements).

Hattenstone and Conn are others whose views run counter to those of pretty well any other Blues I know but who are quite happy to present themselves as representative of a significant strand of City-supporting opinion. I did have quite a bit of contact with Shindler 20 years ago or so, actually finding him quite helpful and engaging. I've never really had much time for Hattenstone or, unlike many, for Conn. But what links them all is an opportunistic streak when it comes to monetising their old MCFC allegiance.

That's a very good point, I know and have known a lot of city fans down the years and not a single one has turned their back on the club due to moral reflections.

 

[Bald fraud]

Negative article always picture of a city player

 

[give it to gordon]

TIP: Always keep the "Agueroooooooooo" sound-bite in your phone, trust me, just press play and enjoy.......works every time!

It's still my text tone, set on full volume !

 

[Lavinda Past]

Sympathy in the aftermath of Munich.
MOTD. In the days of one match per week, it was MU more often than any other club.
The catholic connection to the BBC.
'Georgie' Best, loved by women.
A record number of titles.
The legendary hole in the roof.

Nothing changes...

I had a letter printed in the Pink in the late 60s responding to the question "why are United bigger than City?", in which I referred to their largely catholic following and (understandable) public sympathy post-Munich. Whether or not it was led by BBC catholic bias, it was clear that they had captured the hearts of the public and that the media had jumped very firmly onto that bandwagon. Simple fact is that they've never jumped off it because United became the raison d'etre for many of their 'top' sports editors, journalists etc.

It's how the media works - They are the ultimate media darlings. Regardless of on-field performances or off-field scandals, they've retained a very privileged place in the football world since the Munich disaster. Let's face it, a United player could assasinate the Queen and the media would try to put a positive slant on it.

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

Please destroy these cunts tomorrow City.

And then mutilate Spurs in the final

 

[cookster]

Completely agree. His writing style is laboured and self-indulgent.

Glasshouses ;)

 

[BringBackSwales]

He had been through a hard time as it happens. In a short space of time his first wife and his best friend, Jack Rosenthal, both died of cancer which hit him very hard.

But some gobshite City fan had a response published. Bit cringeworthy really: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1206137/You-wrong-Colin--love-City.html

Nice response Colin, I’d have just called him a ****. Not sure how you got away with “striking blonde” and “swallow” in the same section of your letter, but that’s another matter entirely. CSIAFC, and just to be clear the S is for Schindler

 

[johnevans]

When the top lad of BBC Sport retired some years ago he commented that if the rags had not been first on MOTD that Ferguson would ring and get in his ear even on a Sunday.
This comment was written in a 'dear old Fergie' manner and as we saw the GPC usually got his way instead of being told to piss off.

Similar to your memory, some time ago I posted about an e-mither conversation trail I had with a football writer after his 'quality' Sunday paper had printed an article ahead of the 2008 'Munich 50th Remembrance Derby' at Old Trafford, which, in effect, expected City supporters attending the game to display poor behaviour when the memorial took place.

I took issue with this dreadful piece of 'journalism' (and was subsequently proven correct in my belief that the memorial would be observed perfectly by City supporters), writing in to the newspaper's editorial desk to say so. The correspondence that took place over a few e-mithers with the football writer concerned touched upon the way Manchester United were (and continue to be) treated by the media, emphasising the power that club held (and continues to hold) over the media specifically and football in general.

The football writer agreed with everything I said or offered in defence of City supporters for the upcoming derby game, whilst also agreeing about the power held/wielded by Manchester United. However, he did say that neither he nor any of his media colleagues would ever challenge this power as, and I quote, 'If you think any journalist is ever going to risk his career by taking on United or Sir Alex Ferguson, think again. It would be professional suicide.'

'Q.E.D.' as Spinoza might have put it (..the Dutch philosopher, not the Colombian midfielder..)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Glasshouses ;)

I wouldn’t say my writing style was laboured...

 

[dawlish dave]

It's still my text tone, set on full volume !

How can I get the tone?

 

[Dirty Harry]

That's a very good point, I know and have known a lot of city fans down the years and not a single one has turned their back on the club due to moral reflections.

Must admit, the way footballers are perceived, the way they act, the money involved, has all dimmed my view of them and football in general, don't ask me exactly why (maybe it's my old school upbringing, you know, common decency and basic manners), but those video's (inside City ?) where I saw staff, people with families, just trying to earn a crust, opening doors for players and most just waltzing through without a thank you, kiss my arse or nothing really really pissed me off, and was probably the start of my falling out of love with football, but will I still support the club, will I still defend their honour, of course I will, it's in the blood, or not in some cases.