Media Discussion - 2023/24

[Centurions]

Why does he use the label "Abu Dhabi" when he knows full well that CFG is owned by Sheikh Mansour. It is dehumanising to refer to our owner using the name of a state. He could also have used the name of his firm Newton Investment and Development. Does Wallace think that "all Arabs are the same" and can't have their own personal investments or is he just stupid? It is difficult to take any journalist seriously when they get such basic information wrong either deliberately or by mistake.

That's a strange take given the one and only mention is:-

"Yet in the face of it, Abu Dhabi are relentless."

 

[Ithryn Luin]

Why does he use the label "Abu Dhabi" when he knows full well that CFG is owned by Sheikh Mansour. It is dehumanising to refer to our owner using the name of a state. He could also have used the name of his firm Newton Investment and Development. Does Wallace think that "all Arabs are the same" and can't have their own personal investments or is he just stupid? It is difficult to take any journalist seriously when they get such basic information wrong either deliberately or by mistake.

You should know the rules of the UK sporting media.....the only good Arab is a poor Palestinian and yes, as you point out, an individual Arab is incapable of accumulating personal wealth!

 

[Centurions]

I hadn’t read it & thought the headline was very positive but the “tone” is very much faceless Arabs which is a known media trick.

My god, the media must live in some peoples heads 24/7.

It's a piece about multi-use stadiums to increase revenue and you're drilling down to try and find anything negative even if you have to make crap up to do so.

 

[PPT]

That's a strange take given the one and only mention is:-

"Yet in the face of it, Abu Dhabi are relentless."

But why say Abu Dhabi at all? City is privately owned. That is an irrefutable fact. Does he mention the USA when talking about United or Liverpool? Of course he doesn’t. Why is that?

 

[Centurions]

But why say Abu Dhabi at all? City is privately owned. That is an irrefutable fact. Does he mention the USA when talking about United or Liverpool? Of course he doesn’t. Why is that?

He actually talks about the USA generally and how they're creating massive multi-use stadiums and complexes and then mentions the American owed football clubs. AD IS relentless in it's pursuit of the future. Try reading the piece without frothing at the mouth and understand what he's discussing.

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

And in those last 5 seasons City have only won 4 x Premier Leagues, 2 x FA Cups, 3 x League Cups and 1 x Champions League.

Don't forget 2 x Community Shield.....

 

[Blue Mist]

"almost implied", so he didn't imply that then? I'm sorry but that there is without doubt bias from the usual suspect sources against us but that's just nonsense.

He was talking about Soriano getting his seat at the table:-

"At times like these it seems everyone in the room has forgotten that City defeated a Uefa conviction of significant financial wrongdoing at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in 2020 and now face 115 more charges from the Premier League. Where that ends, no-one is prepared to hazard a guess. These are the most serious charges the Premier League has ever levelled against a member. Yet in the face of it, Abu Dhabi are relentless. Another new CFG club, this time in Brazil. A new arena. A seat at the top table."

If you object to the above then I can't convince you otherwise as your mind was set before you read it.

The article was about who is shaping world football. It highlighted the difference between the 2 Manchester clubs (sic) City were building the arena, expanding the stadium, Soriano worked the room for 2 days.... (and then got elected) whereas the rag fellah wasn't even present.
It mentioned the American money men who are shaping the world game. It was in many respects an excellent article about how certain people at certain clubs will shape the future of football and one specific club will not.
So why then mention City 'defeated' uefa. What a strange phrase by the way. And then go on to say about the 115 charges ? The article steers the reader towards a belief that Soriano, having worked the room, having become one of the most powerful men in football will make the charges simply disappear.
There was no need to mention the charges. It was not what the article was about. They were mentioned to keep the red shit fans happy. When we are eventually cleared it will be because Soriano is at the top table not because we are innocent.

 

[BlueRockape]

Don't forget 2 x Community Shield.....

And one super European thingy

 

[Blue Mist]

That's a strange take given the one and only mention is:-

"Yet in the face of it, Abu Dhabi are relentless."

It only needs that one mention.
Have you ever read 'America are determined to hold onto Manchester United'
'Russia were forced to hand over Chelsea after the UK imposed sanctions ?

 

[PPT]

He actually talks about the USA generally and how they're creating massive multi-use stadiums and complexes and then mentions the American owed football clubs. AD IS relentless in it's pursuit of the future. Try reading the piece without frothing at the mouth and understand what he's discussing.

Calm down dear… Who’s frothing at the mouth except you.I can only presume you don’t read the Daily Telegraph on a regular basis. Their bias, which verges on outright hatred for our club is both explicit and blatant. There is only one reason the use the words Abhu Dhabi.
If you think and believe differently. Then that’s great. Others on here don’t. Is that OK with you?

 

[cheekybids]

My god, the media must live in some peoples heads 24/7.

It's a piece about multi-use stadiums to increase revenue and you're drilling down to try and find anything negative even if you have to make crap up to do so.

Absolutely not. I read the headline & thought that’s positive but after your comment I thought I’ll read the article.

I thought the article started very complimentary about & very negatively about the Rags.

However, I made my point & stand by my point that I felt the tone was “faceless Arab”. The media do make points deliberately, it’s their job as professional writers & creators of narratives.

 

[Centurions]

The article was about who is shaping world football. It highlighted the difference between the 2 Manchester clubs (sic) City were building the arena, expanding the stadium, Soriano worked the room for 2 days.... (and then got elected) whereas the rag fellah wasn't even present.
It mentioned the American money men who are shaping the world game. It was in many respects an excellent article about how certain people at certain clubs will shape the future of football and one specific club will not.
So why then mention City 'defeated' uefa. What a strange phrase by the way. And then go on to say about the 115 charges ? The article steers the reader towards a belief that Soriano, having worked the room, having become one of the most powerful men in football will make the charges simply disappear.
There was no need to mention the charges. It was not what the article was about. They were mentioned to keep the red shit fans happy. When we are eventually cleared it will be because Soriano is at the top table not because we are innocent.

I agree with the highlighted first part but I find the rest a stretch to say the least.

 

[Centurions]

Calm down dear… Who’s frothing at the mouth except you.I can only presume you don’t read the Daily Telegraph on a regular basis. Their bias, which verges on outright hatred for our club is both explicit and blatant. There is only one reason the use the words Abhu Dhabi.
If you think and believe differently. Then that’s great. Others on here don’t. Is that OK with you?

Oh dear(lol), you start with a homophobic and/or misogynistic insult and then claim you (and you are known for it on here) aren't the one frothing at the mouth :)

We're discussing one (that's singular in case you weren't aware) article. If that's OK with you?

;)

 

[Asa's left peg]

You should know the rules of the UK sporting media.....the only good Arab is a poor Palestinian and yes, as you point out, an individual Arab is incapable of accumulating personal wealth legally !

Fixed it for you

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

The article was about who is shaping world football. It highlighted the difference between the 2 Manchester clubs (sic) City were building the arena, expanding the stadium, Soriano worked the room for 2 days.... (and then got elected) whereas the rag fellah wasn't even present.
It mentioned the American money men who are shaping the world game. It was in many respects an excellent article about how certain people at certain clubs will shape the future of football and one specific club will not.
So why then mention City 'defeated' uefa. What a strange phrase by the way. And then go on to say about the 115 charges ? The article steers the reader towards a belief that Soriano, having worked the room, having become one of the most powerful men in football will make the charges simply disappear.
There was no need to mention the charges. It was not what the article was about. They were mentioned to keep the red shit fans happy. When we are eventually cleared it will be because Soriano is at the top table not because we are innocent.

I loved the headline and I agree in many respects an excellent article.

The "defeated UEFA" link is clumsy and horrible but the rest of that section is fine with me and totally ok to mention the charges etc. My takeaway was that Soriano's election was a sure sign that City aren't the pariahs at the heart of European club football you might have thought considering all the shit with super league, UEFA case and currently the PL charges. And we power on inexorably to global domination.

I'm not sure anything in the article appeases the red shit fans. There was a paragraph referencing greenwood, sancho, anthony and that coach guy ffs. Then there was the "nothing at all" line at the end. Brilliant.

 

[Blue Mist]

Whether Duckers article on Sorianos election to the top table is or isn't a veiled dig, it highlights something else.
City can either lead the way that fans want football to go or they can be one of 'them'. Hopefully the Super League debacle gave every money wanker a wake up call. Yes let's have bigger stadiums but let's have cheaper affordable prices to go with it. Let's remember that when it turns to shit, as one day it will, they will need us as the tourists wont be there. The article mentioned that because of lock down people are going crazy for live entertainment. It mentions Taylor Swift making billions, the lock down effect will not last forever. Soriano, please remember that.

 

[LongsightM13]

Still not a single word on the BBC about united paedo Konopka, despite their obsession with women’s football, all things red and their ongoing, wall to wall coverage of the Rubiales incident. Laughable and transparent

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Still not a single word on the BBC about united paedo Konopka, despite their obsession with women’s football, all things red and their ongoing, wall to wall coverage of the Rubiales incident. Laughable and transparent

They are an absolute fucking disgrace.

 

[LongsightM13]

They are an absolute fucking disgrace.

Their refusal to even acknowledge the story is staggering even for them

 

[its grim up north]

I know I shouldn't, (but on my hols and fed up with my favourites list on YouTube so) turned on Talkshite.They were on about the Glazers. Then Jorden of course made it about us and said something like Manchester City walked away from Maine Road, trousered the money and walked into a free stadium. I've often wondered what we're the terms of us leaving and how we're the finances arranged. Anybody help?