Media Thread 2020/21

[M12Blue]

All it said was a played a massive 492 games for us.

There’s absolutely no way of knowing that was a dig or not.

Didn’t read the article, refuse to, but given the relationship between the press and the club, particularly the fans, you can see why fans get offended.

 

[cheekybids]

All it said was a played a massive 492 games for us.

There’s absolutely no way of knowing that was a dig or not.

if it is let it go but luckhurst & the express - tw@ts!

 

[Blue Mist]

Remember that substitution well a very poor one as it turned out. Charlton should not have been taken off full stop. Colin was never used properly at that time and subsequently up until the fiasco of the 74 qualification campaign. Poor management which of course is always overlooked.

@Father Paul I was 12 and Bell was my hero. If posters think coverage of City now is bad, it is nothing compared to 1970. It was as though England didn't have a manager and Bell himself said 'right I'm coming on, Charlton do one'. The rag loving media blamed Bell for us losing that match!

 

[Ban-jani]

Didn’t read the article, refuse to, but given the relationship between the press and the club, particularly the fans, you can see why fans get offended.

I agree, I know we get unfair treatment in the press but it doesn’t mean every single article is a dig.

There’s no way of know the word massive there is a piss take.

The word massive isn’t that used as a piss take as much as it used to be anyway.

 

[M12Blue]

I agree, I know we get unfair treatment in the press but it doesn’t mean every single article is a dig.

There’s no way of know the word massive there is a piss take.

The word massive isn’t that used as a piss take as much as it used to be anyway.

‘Impressive 492 games’ would have been the words I’d use but I agree

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Some nice articles on the BBC about Colin.

Sky are STILL running with their lfc v utd clickbait bollocks.

I fkin hate sky and their big 2 bias

 

[Mike Cledford]

Its disgusting how certain parts of the media notably Reach plc have slipped on sneaky remarks and headlines in.
I would be furious if in similar circumstances remarks were made about 'well known as someone you could get a ticket from if you had the money but also telling young fans to fuck off when seeking autographs'. Or 'a well known heavy drinker and womaniser often on his own doorstep in Hale or Alderley Edge (take your pick from many) or 'the man behind a Christmas orgy off Deansgate and for disapearing through a window when required to take a test'.
There are many more because people are not perfect but by long convention there,'s a time when out of respect you forget people's foibles for a while.
As for having a dig about City's recent spending, all the more stupid as it is meaningless to quote £45k without comparison to the going rate at the time or the implication Colin lost us the World Cup over 50 years ago - it can be summed up in three letters. FFS.

 

[Messi38]

All it said was a played a massive 492 games for us.

There’s absolutely no way of knowing that was a dig or not.

That doesn't sound right to me.

Better English would be an 'impressive 492 games' or a 'sizeable 492 games'. Massive doesn't sound right.

 

[jaiguruKun]

How can you possibly know?

When have you ever see the word used in that context? It's another armchair Rag thinking they're being really cool and edgy.

 

[Sky Blue]

When have you ever see the word used in that context? It's another armchair Rag thinking they're being really cool and edgy.

Yep, some plastic cûnt from Kent thinking it's hilarious.

 

[Sky Blue]

Talkshite have been very good this morning tbf. Just had Joe Corrigan on and it was a great tribute towards the King from the big man.

 

[Ban-jani]

When have you ever see the word used in that context? It's another armchair Rag thinking they're being really cool and edgy.

Yes I have, it’s the slap dash tabloid press.

There’s a headline from last week saying “massive day for football” when we weren’t playing.

They sensationalise their wording, rather than making it the best possible form grammatically.

 

[Ban-jani]

That doesn't sound right to me.

Better English would be an 'impressive 492 games' or a 'sizeable 492 games'. Massive doesn't sound right.

They sensationalise their wording.

I wouldn’t advise grammar lessons from the British tabloid press ;-)

 

[Ban-jani]

Some nice articles on the BBC about Colin.

Sky are STILL running with their lfc v utd clickbait bollocks.

I fkin hate sky and their big 2 bias

Sky had a cracking story on last night and got Martin Tyler to talk about how good he was.

I am very much in the camp of the media have at least a general bias in favour of Liverpool and Utd and one against us... but I do think we are guilty sometimes of presuming the worst.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Always p*sees me off when this is brought up.. it was nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Colin Bell or Norman Hunter (brought on for Martin Peters), it was all down to Ramsey. I called it as it happened.

Charlton was taken off a minute or so AFTER Beckenbauer had pulled one back to make it 2-1 (Golden Law of Football: 2-0 is always the most dangerous lead..) Beckenbauer had been nullified for 70-odd minutes by being detailed by Helmut Schoen to man-mark Charlton. For once he attacked us and scored.. so what did Ramsey do? Take off the player the Germans feared most and freed his marker up for the last 20 minutes..

To compound that error, Ramsey substituted Hunter for Peters, who had been doing great work helping to nullify Jurgen Grabowski, who’d been brought on to stretch the play on the right. Within a minute or so, the Germans had moved the ball down both flanks, pulled our defence all over the shop, then boom.. Seeler gets the equaliser..

The rest is history.

So f*ck you (once), you revisionist media twunts. It was all down to Ramsey, not Bell, not Hunter, not Bonetti..

And f*ck you (twice), you media twunts for posting epitaphs referring to ‘buying success’ and ‘massive appearances’ and the like.

Colin Bell was a gentleman and a gentle man and an absolutely fabulous footballer, while you are mealy-mouthed wastes of the 7 billion billion billion atoms it takes to make up the average human being. I don’t know how the likes of you can sleep at night

I hope you are talking to the daily cunting mail here and not to me? I reported what the cunts said and was attacking them for it. I hate the daily mail and I loved The King. My work computer password is still a mixture of Colin’s name, number and nickname, more than 40 years after he last played for us

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

All it said was a played a massive 492 games for us.

There’s absolutely no way of knowing that was a dig or not.

On balance, the rational conclusion is that it was.

 

[Ban-jani]

On balance, the only rational conclusion is that it was.

In the Bluemoon media thread definitely ;-)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In the Bluemoon media thread definitely ;-)

I mean within sports journalism. Any sports journalist who isn’t aware of the significance of that word is grossly incompetent, especially one charged with producing output on an obituary of a (great) player associated with the club to which the reference relates. Anyone who was aware wouldn’t use it unless they were being malicious.


I think it is more likely than not that they were aware.

I‘ve taken the word ‘only’ out of the post you quoted as I think that was overstating it.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

They sensationalise their wording.

I wouldn’t advise grammar lessons from the British tabloid press ;-)

Have a look at the Jack Charlton and Nobby Stiles obituaries. Not a single one of them had massive as a precursor to the amount of appearances either of them made at their respective clubs.
I would have a bet that you will not find the word massive as a precursor to anyones appearances, as part of their obituary, apart for some strange reason, Colin Bells.

Whether you see it is a sly dig is up to you. It has definitely been placed in there by some smart arsed reporter, who thinks he is funmy.

It is just not the kind of language you would use and the fact it is not used on any other footballers obituary (who has made a large ammount of appearances) speaks volumes.

On balance, the only rational conclusion is that it was.

 

[Ban-jani]

I mean within sports journalism. Any sports journalist who isn’t aware of the significance of that word is grossly incompetent, especially one charged with producing output on an obituary of a (great) player associated with the club to which the reference relates. Anyone who was aware wouldn’t use it unless they were being malicious.


I think it is more likely than not that they were aware.

I think the word is barely used anymore as a piss take, I haven’t seen it/heard it recently anyway and it’s not like it’s a very niche word.

Nearly everyone reading the article won’t realise or think anything of it.

I just think there’s more than enough doubt with that one, to give them the benefit of doubt.

The word massive will be used to report on us occasionally, it’s just too much of a common word not to feature somewhere.