Media Thread 2020/21

Status
Not open for further replies.
jrb said:
No mention of the hacking-rich club.

Still pandering to the coach wreckers.

View attachment 9010
Click to expand...
Oil rich Manchester City, the constant drip, drip of negativity about our club, of course i always want us to win everything but fuck me i hope we win the lot this year just to rub these cunts noses in it, it’s just unrelenting from these cunts and the drooling braindead masses just lap it up.
 
manchester blue said:
I told them that within minutes of the Cheltenham game predictably we got to know about the wages of the City team. Oddly Gary Lineker did not mention his own salary was more annually than Cheltenham's entire squad.
Click to expand...
Great point mate, people like Lineker cannot see the irony in highlighting the high salaries of others, while he rakes in vast sums from our tv licence taxes ...!! Can’t stand him or his dick suckers ...!
 
LongsightM13 said:
I was amazed we took no action on this.
It was like asking David Attenborough in a public interview if it was true he was a paedophile because the BBC had covered up Jimmy Savile’s activities in the 70s and 80s
Click to expand...
That's a great comparison because the fact Harris couched his allegation as a question makes no difference at all in terms of defamation. I have never been one who thinks City should become a club which spends its whole time taking legal action against the media. You have to pick your battles carefully. But this incident was unprecedented, especially in a sporting context just minutes after a team had won the treble.
I am still amazed that City did not react to it not least because, given the reporter's track record of personal comments about City's owners, it left a wide open goal for lawyers to argue that the defamation may have been driven by malice with potentially more serious repurcussions in terms of damages. I think the incident is probably now out of time.
 
Considering FFP has been going since 2010-11. And UEFA have stitched City up once. And tried to stitch City up again. Whilst checking our finances every season. The Rag and Scouse infested football media still lie about City being bankrolled by an oil-rich owner, even though they all know that hasn’t been the case for years. The lieing anti-City narrative continues to this day.
 
jrb said:
Considering FFP has been going since 2010-11. And UEFA have stitched City up once. And tried to stitch City up again. Whilst checking our finances every season. The Rag and Scouse infested football media still lie about City being bankrolled by an oil-rich owner, even though they all know that hasn’t been the case for years. The lieing anti-City narrative continues to this day.
Click to expand...
Maybe a flag/sign at city stating ‘the state of mancunia’?
Only joking we’re not that scummy
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
That's a great comparison because the fact Harris couched his allegation as a question makes no difference at all in terms of defamation. I have never been one who thinks City should become a club which spends its whole time taking legal action against the media. You have to pick your battles carefully. But this incident was unprecedented, especially in a sporting context just minutes after a team had won the treble.
I am still amazed that City did not react to it not least because, given the reporter's track record of personal comments about City's owners, it left a wide open goal for lawyers to argue that the defamation may have been driven by malice with potentially more serious repurcussions in terms of damages. I think the incident is probably now out of time.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, it was a tap-in.
 
Anyone seen that clown Dale Johnson on Twitter. Does nothing but spout shit and go on about how hard done by Liverpool are. I don't let many journalists annoy me but he is at the top
 
I did not know we played Villa at Villa Park last week and that Rodri did a trick which the rule makers are now going to outlaw.......I thought Rodri just chased down the ball to the keeper, nothing tricky about that you Rag twat!!!

Premier League refs change offside rule after controversial Silva goal (msn.com)

Guidance has been added around the offside rule – which would have rendered Manchester City's controversial goal against Aston Villa offside in a move which has been described as a 'face-saving exercise'.

Urgent talks were held after outrage followed Bernardo Silva's opener at Villa Park, which saw City midfielder Rodri come from an offside position to steal the ball from Tyrone Mings and set up the Portugal man to break the deadlock in an eventual 2-0 win for the home side.

Blah Blah Blah Blah.....

In plain terms, that means that from now on, players repeating Rodri's trick would be penalised. However, goals such as that scored by Villa's Ollie Watkins, in which he came from an offside position to seize on an attempted clearance by Newcastle's Fabian Schar earlier this month, would stand as he did 'not impact Schar's ability to play the ball'.
 
Guidance has been added to Law 11 (offside) which states: 'Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of "interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent's ability to play the ball" should be penalised.

In plain terms, that means that from now on, players repeating Rodri's trick would be penalised.
Click to expand...

That's still bollocks though, Rodri did not impact Mings' ability to chest that ball because he wasn't challenging him for that. That's not how the law should have been changed. That just opens it up for them to be selective on how they interpret whether someone was interfering with play or not(another way to favour their darling teams). This is another example of why broadcasters need reigning in, their influence has become too great and it runs the risk of ruining the game.

I've had a debate with a dummy spitting Villa fan on Sky's youtube video with Walton trying to save face on it(after he had to admit he was wrong), who made the claim: "Rodi was pressing Mings, so he caused his mistake". How can you be pressing someone without blocking their path or blocking off any of their viable passing routes? Pressing is what Rodri was doing seconds before it while closing down Martinez(GK) before he cleared it. If he did feel like he was being pressed/rushed, then he shouldn't have been trying to chest the ball down at all. A cushioned header to the player to his left or the player directly infront of him and there is no loose ball for Rodri to challenge for. Rather than "pressing Mings", Rodri was getting himself back into an onside position as he should and then saw an opportunity with the loose ball. He was behind and to the right of Mings before that and Mings knew this. That didn't change at any point before Mings played the ball because Rodri moved in fairly straight line, which is consistent with him not actively pressing anyone. The space was always to Mings' left if he wanted to bring that ball down, he got this completely wrong of his own doing, while Rori was still yards away.

If they are trying to say chesting the ball down to his right was his only option then the above proves otherwise, if they're saying he had some divine right to that particular option then that's incorrect too. Can you imagine this argument, Mings: "Sure there were several safer options but I really wanted to chest it down to my right and he got in my way, that's just not fair". This was one of the only options that gave Rodri a chance of gaining possession, either he simply mis-controlled the ball or he went with arguably the worst option deliberately, how is any of that on anyone but Mings?

If they wanted to change the laws not to allow this goal in future, change the law on what constitutes a turnover of possession. Mings messed up(nothing to do with Rodri) his first touch and therefore never really had control of that ball, thus you could say Villa never really gained possession. That seems far less open to interpretation while being fair at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Quick update on the youtube account situation since my last post about it. I had to make a new one eventually, which was a hassle since google want to tie every account to a phone number now but I sorted it with my anonymity in tact. Although, I'm still having comments filtered with zero reasons given. I've tried to cut back on anything insulting, even though I scratch my head how some peoples comments don't get filtered. I discovered Youtube doesn't like too many edits either or reposting comments they filtered with some edits in them(to beat the filter). Long comments often get filtered too. I'm guessing currency signs in your comments might trigger the marketing filters aswell. All in all, it's a bit of a mess on youtube these days and their filters don't make much sense, so it's hard to have a discussion the way youtube is heading. You have to log out and reload the page, to see the problem, even the comment count is deceiving while logged in. Try it and see how many of your comments disappear when you're not logged in, if you use it often.
 
Metalartin said:
That's still bollocks though, Rodri did not impact Mings' ability to chest that ball because he wasn't challenging him for that. That's not how the law should have been changed. That just opens it up for them to be selective on how they interpret whether someone was interfering with play or not(another way to favour their darling teams). This is another example of why broadcasters need reigning in, their influence has become too great and it runs the risk of ruining the game.

I've had a debate with a dummy spitting Villa fan on Sky's youtube video with Walton trying to save face on it(after he had to admit he was wrong), who made the claim: "Rodi was pressing Mings, so he caused his mistake". How can you be pressing someone without blocking their path or blocking off any of their viable passing routes? Pressing is what Rodri was doing seconds before it while closing down Martinez(GK) before he cleared it. If he did feel like he was being pressed/rushed, then he shouldn't have been trying to chest the ball down at all. A cushioned header to the player to his left or the player directly infront of him and there is no loose ball for Rodri to challenge for. Rather than "pressing Mings", Rodri was getting himself back into an onside position as he should and then saw an opportunity with the loose ball. He was behind and to the right of Mings before that and Mings knew this. That didn't change at any point before Mings played the ball because Rodri moved in fairly straight line, which is consistent with him not actively pressing anyone. The space was always to Mings' left if he wanted to bring that ball down, he got this completely wrong of his own doing, while Rori was still yards away.

If they are trying to say chesting the ball down to his right was his only option then the above proves otherwise, if they're saying he had some divine right to that particular option then that's incorrect too. Can you imagine this argument, Mings: "Sure there were several safer options but I really wanted to chest it down to my right and he got in my way, that's just not fair". This was one of the only options that gave Rodri a chance of gaining possession, either he simply mis-controlled the ball or he went with arguably the worst option deliberately, how is any of that on anyone but Mings?

If they wanted to change the laws not to allow this goal in future, change the law on what constitutes a turnover of possession. Mings messed up(nothing to do with Rodri) his first touch and therefore never really had control of that ball, thus you could say Villa never really gained possession. That seems far less open to interpretation while being fair at the same time.
Click to expand...
Mings also had time to knock it to the defender to his right or left. But shit control caused him to get the ball stuck under his feet. Is that OUR fault. No it isn't and that ruling is allowing defenders to fuck up and get away with it.
 
prestonibbo_mcfc said:
Mings also had time to knock it to the defender to his right or left. But shit control caused him to get the ball stuck under his feet. Is that OUR fault. No it isn't and that ruling is allowing defenders to fuck up and get away with it.
Click to expand...
It's worse than that though, the change has left it open to interpretation. That means they can pick and choose whether someone was interfering with "a player's ability to play the ball" depending on what shirt they are wearing. Here they have said Rodri challenged for a ball that he did not and the replays show this clearly. Either that or they are saying Rodri simply closing the distance(in the opposite direction to where he was facing and where the ball was) by getting back onside, is enough to put Mings off and cause his mistake. You can bet they would never say the same for a City defender.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top