Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
bobbyowenquiff said:
The Mail article is riddled with lies from start to finish. Neville repeatedly talks about Abu Dhabi doing this and Abu Dabi doing that. He knows full well that the developments and investments in the Manchester area are either by Sheikh Mansour himself or are joint projects between CFG and other business partners including Manchester City Council, Los Angeles-based Silver Lake, and the Chinese-based CMC holdings. These investments are reaping huge profits for Sheikh Mansour. They are nothing to do with the Abu Dhabi Government.
I realise Neville is a moron but, even by his standards, the article (based on his book) is ridiculous. I can only assume that he is totally motivated by malice. Otherwise why does he ignore the truth?
Click to expand...
It's just a guess but Neville ignores the truth like most politicians do. Is that his next job....or worse, is he using his sky platform to be part of a new Regulatory body ?
Make no mistake, these are not the ramblings of a drunken half wit (I've already got that job) he is clever and calculated.
 
shemnel said:
I listened to this also, but i think i would mainly disagree - the prof explained that there is no evdience that asthma drugs give performance enhancement unless huge amounts are taken, and even then the evidence is mixed. Plus those amounts would be picked up on doping tests easily.

athletes have higher prevalence of asthma (25%, double national rate, admittedly not the 63% being claimed about Liverpool). However if there is any basis to the rumour of asthma rates at Liverpool being way way higher, this would be of interest, i agree.

where did the story about Liverpool even come from? it's entirely out of the ether. Why should Liverpool make an official statement about every rumour/story online? do City?

for a while I wanted to believe Liverpool's lack of injuries and relentless running could be explained in part by some sort of rule-bending, but let's face it, it isn't. They are fit, they have had their share of injuries the last 2 seasons and they dont even run the most in the Prem (7th most last year).
Click to expand...
Nurturing these ridiculous conspiracy theories about our closest rivals is embarrassing.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
Depending on who scores them I think they do! They really seem to think that if one of their anointed players or teams score then the LotG should be temporarily set aside.
Click to expand...

Bit of a scratchy mood this morning, since Sam Lee wanted a blatantly offside goal awarded because it was a worldy strike.
He is a major correspondent for our Team, a bit worrying.
 
waspish said:
The thing with this with Liverpool players having a very high % of asthma? If other clubs don’t have the similar % of asthma players tells you all you need to know that they bending the rules!
Click to expand...
The claim is that 63pc of their squad are registered as being asthmatic, whilst the UK national average for the whole population, which obviously includes fatties, smokers etc etc is only is 12pc.

BBC attempted to rubbish the claim without actually offering any firm and definitive counter argument at all and actually just contradicted themselves, firstly saying the percentage of the Liverpool squad being asthmatic wasn't that high without offering any evidence to back that up, and then saying that even if the Liverpool players are using inhalers it won't enhance their performance anyway.

A classic case ''move along, nothing to see here''
 
asahartford1 said:
Sam Lee did the paper review on Sky today.

He said the mcallister wonder goal should have stood and VAR overruling it was wrong.

Is he a football expert ? It was clearly offside, does he want offside goals given. Strange remark imo
Click to expand...
Remember the lockdown game v Villa at ours, when Bernardo came back from an offside position, robbed Mings then we scored? The media wanted that goal disallowed, so PGMOL changed the interpretation of the law to rule out goals where someone had come back from an offside position.

When Coutinho does exactly that, and a goal against us is ruled out, the media scream that it's unfair and the law is wrong, totally forgetting they screamed exactly the opposite a couple of years ago.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Remember the lockdown game v Villa at ours, when Bernardo came back from an offside position, robbed Mings then we scored? The media wanted that goal disallowed, so PGMOL changed the interpretation of the law to rule out goals where someone had come back from an offside position.

When Coutinho does exactly that, and a goal against us is ruled out, the media scream that it's unfair and the law is wrong, totally forgetting they screamed exactly the opposite a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...
Bang on PB, my thought's too, they need to bring back simple black and white offside, not this dodgy make it up to suit rule.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I'm not going to post it here but there as an article in the fail which extracts from Nevilles 'new book' which repeats the claim that we are 'owned' by Abu Dhabi and goes on to recommend a new independently created regulatory board which oversees ownership. Such a board would require HRH and any other owner to host (personally) an agm for season ticket holders and (personally) attend what would be in effect a 'select committee' where they can answer any questions about the club or in general (human rights etc etc). The man is fucking delusional.
Click to expand...

Maybe Peter Lim will face similar questions for his investments, palm oil, deforestation & Im certain he’ll be very influentual in his native Singapore which also has the death penalty.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Remember the lockdown game v Villa at ours, when Bernardo came back from an offside position, robbed Mings then we scored? The media wanted that goal disallowed, so PGMOL changed the interpretation of the law to rule out goals where someone had come back from an offside position.

When Coutinho does exactly that, and a goal against us is ruled out, the media scream that it's unfair and the law is wrong, totally forgetting they screamed exactly the opposite a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...

The ball ending up in the net on Saturday was not a disallowed goal was it. A misnomer, The whistle had gone, City played to the whistle, I heard the whistle from 50 yards away, players stopped Stones turned his back, Ederson stopped, all the other Villa players stopped. The attacker ignored the whistle.

It is a non story. Though I do believe the linesman was wrong raisng his flag, that is an officials issue, the outcome would have been totally different if play had continued.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Remember the lockdown game v Villa at ours, when Bernardo came back from an offside position, robbed Mings then we scored? The media wanted that goal disallowed, so PGMOL changed the interpretation of the law to rule out goals where someone had come back from an offside position.

When Coutinho does exactly that, and a goal against us is ruled out, the media scream that it's unfair and the law is wrong, totally forgetting they screamed exactly the opposite a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it Rodri or am I misremembering l? Anyway, this latest one has nothing to do with the offside law, it’s whether or not Coutinho was in an offside position. It certainly looked like a wrong and premature call by the linesman
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Remember the lockdown game v Villa at ours, when Bernardo came back from an offside position, robbed Mings then we scored? The media wanted that goal disallowed, so PGMOL changed the interpretation of the law to rule out goals where someone had come back from an offside position.

When Coutinho does exactly that, and a goal against us is ruled out, the media scream that it's unfair and the law is wrong, totally forgetting they screamed exactly the opposite a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...
Coutinho was not offside.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Remember the lockdown game v Villa at ours, when Bernardo came back from an offside position, robbed Mings then we scored? The media wanted that goal disallowed, so PGMOL changed the interpretation of the law to rule out goals where someone had come back from an offside position.

When Coutinho does exactly that, and a goal against us is ruled out, the media scream that it's unfair and the law is wrong, totally forgetting they screamed exactly the opposite a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...
Countinho didnt come from an offside position tho, its not exactly the same
 
Jordie said:
Coutinho was not offside.
Click to expand...

Bluearmy said:
Countinho didnt come from an offside position tho, its not exactly the same
Click to expand...

And the goal still wouldn’t have happened because the whistle went and Stones stopped and Ederson stopped when the whistle went. As far as we know, Stones would have blocked the shot and City could have gone up the other end and scored.
 
HelloCity said:
And the goal still wouldn’t have happened because the whistle went and Stones stopped and Ederson stopped when the whistle went. As far as we know, Stones would have blocked the shot and City could have gone up the other end and scored.
Click to expand...
Dont disagree, I never said it would have. We definitely stopped after the whistle (Mahrez/Stones/Ederson)

Was just pointing out it wasnt exactly the same as last season v Villa as Coutinho was clearly onside
 
An intermediary being interviewed on Talkshite. Being attacked for calling Liverpool a club of bullies who destroyed a player's mental health.

I wonder what the angle would be of he made the comment about us?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top