Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heres why we can spend and Everton not so much: Its not rocket science our income is nearly treble theirs.
Why LFC fans and the Echo are not asking "Why are we not spending on players" is the odd question.

2018/19 Revenue (€m)

  • FC Barcelona 840.8
  • Real Madrid 757.3
  • Manchester United 711.5
  • Bayern Munich 660.1
  • Paris Saint-Germain 635.9
  • Manchester City 610.6
  • Liverpool 604.7
  • Tottenham Hotspur 521.1
  • Chelsea 513.1
  • Juventus 459.7
  • Arsenal 445.6
  • Borussia Dortmund 377.1
  • Atlético de Madrid 367.6
  • FC Internazionale Milano 364.6
  • Schalke 04 324.8
  • AS Roma 231.0
  • Olympique Lyonnais 220.8
  • West Ham United 216.4
  • Everton 213.0
  • SSC Napoli 207.4
 
Mike N said:
Understand that but this is getting beyond a joke now. These characters feel empowered by the clicks they get and as this shows, feel they can say anything.

‘Totally legit deal with Abu Dhabi Sewage Board’. This has got to be against the law?
Click to expand...
Sadly I don't think it is actually libellous or against any law. You can pretty much abuse organisations as much as you want under the guise of "fair comment." It only becomes defamatory if you suggest overtly that they are corrupt or dishonest. Freedom of speech is a strong right in this country.
However for a Reporter on a national newspaper to make such public comments about an organisation he also reports on is totally unethical and unprofessional. It undermines his credibility and shows that he is not impartial. City could complain to the Independent Press Standards Organisation and his employers would be tied up in a time-consuming complaints process. This would make the journalist look very stupid.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Sadly I don't think it is actually libellous or against any law. You can pretty much abuse organisations as much as you want under the guise of "fair comment." It only becomes defamatory if you suggest overtly that they are corrupt or dishonest. Freedom of speech is a strong right in this country.
However for a Reporter on a national newspaper to make such public comments about an organisation he also reports on is totally unethical and unprofessional. It undermines his credibility and shows that he is not impartial. City could complain to the Independent Press Standards Organisation and his employers would be tied up in a time-consuming complaints process. This would make the journalist look very stupid.
Click to expand...
We should ban the racist **** and his shite paper from the club then.
 
Heath Park said:
How about agreeing the transfer at half time in the game.
A quick change of strip and away we go...
Now that would be box office!
Click to expand...
It happened in the U.S. (a bit before my time.....)

Not only have several players been traded between teams in the middle of a series, but there was one instance in which players were traded between games of a doubleheader.

On May 30, 1922, the Cubs won the opening game of a day/night doubleheader against the Cardinals and one of their outfielders, Max Flack, went home to grab lunch (he lived three blocks from Wrigley). He returned to the Cubs clubhouse for the evening game to find out he'd been traded to the Cardinals for one of their outfielders, Cliff Heathcote. The players literally traded jerseys and played the evening game.

The Cubs won both games, and both players were hitless in the opening game but 1-4 and 2-4 in the game with their new teams.
 
Norman Stanley Fletcher said:
It happened in the U.S. (a bit before my time.....)

Not only have several players been traded between teams in the middle of a series, but there was one instance in which players were traded between games of a doubleheader.

On May 30, 1922, the Cubs won the opening game of a day/night doubleheader against the Cardinals and one of their outfielders, Max Flack, went home to grab lunch (he lived three blocks from Wrigley). He returned to the Cubs clubhouse for the evening game to find out he'd been traded to the Cardinals for one of their outfielders, Cliff Heathcote. The players literally traded jerseys and played the evening game.

The Cubs won both games, and both players were hitless in the opening game but 1-4 and 2-4 in the game with their new teams.
Click to expand...
Wow that is absolutely insane!
What a great bit of trivia.
Thanks for sharing that Norman!!
 
Norman Stanley Fletcher said:
It happened in the U.S. (a bit before my time.....)

Not only have several players been traded between teams in the middle of a series, but there was one instance in which players were traded between games of a doubleheader.

On May 30, 1922, the Cubs won the opening game of a day/night doubleheader against the Cardinals and one of their outfielders, Max Flack, went home to grab lunch (he lived three blocks from Wrigley). He returned to the Cubs clubhouse for the evening game to find out he'd been traded to the Cardinals for one of their outfielders, Cliff Heathcote. The players literally traded jerseys and played the evening game.

The Cubs won both games, and both players were hitless in the opening game but 1-4 and 2-4 in the game with their new teams.
Click to expand...
City were once involved in something not unlike this. Spurs had an England international right-back called Bert Sproston, and when Spurs travelled up to play City at Maine Road, There were frantic negotiations, and Sproston signed for City on the morning of the game on November 5, 1938, for the then huge fee of £10,000.
So he turned out that afternoon for City against the former team-mates he had travelled up from London with.
City won the game 2-0, so it was a good investment.
Sproston lost his best years to the war, but continued to play until the 1949-50 season. He then became a physiotherapist with Bolton Wanderers - some older Bluemooners may remember him. He was a Cheshire lad from Sandbach, and didn't like the life in London.
 
700 comments of which a very large number were poisonous and libellous on the Guardian's Manchester City preview. Pleased to say that few blues got involved. I cancelled my account ages ago but monitor what this media enemy says. Never have rivals supporters been so inflamed as they are now. I wouldn't mind but it has consequences. It won't be long until there are acts of violence against City fans because of media vilification, and anyone who sticks his head up against the parapet can be targeted. It is more effective to boycott the corporate media particularly those who lead the campaign against us.

I can report that the Guardian print circulation has fallen 30% in two years and taken with subscriptions is now hovering at about 105k per day. Sadly I suspect their digital business is thriving. They are though on borrowed time because at some point a major rival will go on to their digital turf and their revenues will crash. Tiny digital presences like the Telegraph, TImes, Mail etc don't count. These websites are deliberately minor to avoid cannibalising their existing print business. At some point, one of them will go all into digital. Guardian will be first but others will inevitably follow and then what happens? Hopefully some democratisation? Why should only big media be successful? Maybe niche experts will thrive. If for example you want to know about science, you don't go to a newspaper. I suspect its the same for stuff like technology, or music. FOr sport. There are specialist sites e.g., Bluemoon. Coproprate media can be jack of all trades for now but will that last?
 
Marvin said:
700 comments of which a very large number were poisonous and libellous on the Guardian's Manchester City preview. Pleased to say that few blues got involved. I cancelled my account ages ago but monitor what this media enemy says. Never have rivals supporters been so inflamed as they are now. I wouldn't mind but it has consequences. It won't be long until there are acts of violence against City fans because of media vilification, and anyone who sticks his head up against the parapet can be targeted. It is more effective to boycott the corporate media particularly those who lead the campaign against us.

I can report that the Guardian print circulation has fallen 30% in two years and taken with subscriptions is now hovering at about 105k per day. Sadly I suspect their digital business is thriving. They are though on borrowed time because at some point a major rival will go on to their digital turf and their revenues will crash. Tiny digital presences like the Telegraph, TImes, Mail etc don't count. These websites are deliberately minor to avoid cannibalising their existing print business. At some point, one of them will go all into digital. Guardian will be first but others will inevitably follow and then what happens? Hopefully some democratisation? Why should only big media be successful? Maybe niche experts will thrive. If for example you want to know about science, you don't go to a newspaper. I suspect its the same for stuff like technology, or music. FOr sport. There are specialist sites e.g., Bluemoon. Coproprate media can be jack of all trades for now but will that last?
Click to expand...
Like the sentiment but the British media is "one of the most partisan in the western world" - NYT frequently mentions this. There will never be any democratic input into the media in this country so long as wealthy individual owners are in control, they issue for the money not a balanced content eg Murdoch is supposed to hate the content of Fox news but loves the revenue. It's no different here, one of the reasons I stopped paying for news many years ago.
 
Mike N said:
I think it’s time for the club to take legal action against this character. Are we really going to stand by while he writes libellous comments about the club?
Click to expand...
Indeed if we take one down the majority of the others will shit themselves, we've seen it if a fan calls one out imagine big bad oil funded City going for them....playing the victim would show them up for being the shithouses they are.
 
roypaulknewmyfather said:
Like the sentiment but the British media is "one of the most partisan in the western world" - NYT frequently mentions this. There will never be any democratic input into the media in this country so long as wealthy individual owners are in control, they issue for the money not a balanced content eg Murdoch is supposed to hate the content of Fox news but loves the revenue. It's no different here, one of the reasons I stopped paying for news many years ago.
Click to expand...
But what does it take to have a presence on the web? You don't need to be a billionaire. All you need is something to say and you can distribute it and people can access it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top