Highest ever finish was second in the old division 3 south, over 90 years ago. Suggest they've always been on a shoestring long before City's filthy oil money ruined footer for everyone.
Maybe we should buy their club eh BBC?
It can't be a genuine mistake can it? Our accounts are published and audited every year. Neither UEFA or the PL has ever claimed City were "state owned." Perhaps Silver Lake with their 25 per cent stake in our club might have something to say about that. It is fucking ridiculous that our "state broadcaster" seems to think it's acceptable to continue to publish uncontestable lies. There is no point complaining as nothing will happen. Virtually everything the BBC has published about City's finances has been inaccurate since day one. Why should we trust anything else they publish?Brighton have banned the Guardian for stating facts.
We continue to allow the bbfuckinc every opportunity to lie and attack our club without any fear of punishment.
I've submitted a formal complaint:In some peoples eyes the BBC are OK and fine.
In my eyes they are complicit in many things from kiddie fiddling enabling to this type of clickbait shite.
The BBC is not ok and fine and my view is shaped by what I have been told by more than three independent trusted sources who know precisely how the organisation operates at different levels. The BBC still has pockets of excellence but the culture there is shameful.In some peoples eyes the BBC are OK and fine.
In my eyes they are complicit in many things from kiddie fiddling enabling to this type of clickbait shite.
I've submitted a formal complaint:
In the linked article on the forthcoming Manchester City v Exeter City FA Cup tie, there is a reference to Manchester City's ownership, namely "One is owned by an oil-rich state where money is no object...". This is false and misleading.
The publicly available facts on Manchester City's ownership is that they are 75%-owned by Newton Investments, a company that is100% owned by HH Sheikh Mansour as a private individual. The rest is owned by Silver Lake, a multi-billion dollar US investment company. There is nothing to support the oft-repeated assertion that Manchester City are "state owned".
In addition, regardless of the sovereign wealth of Abu Dhabi or its ruling family and other citizens, Manchester City has to abide by the same financial rules and constraints imposed by the Premier League and UEFA.
The BBC, above all other media channels, should stop using this false and lazy claim. I therefore ask that it's removed or corrected.
It’s the license fee payers who fund the BBC and an increasing number are choosing not to do so anymoreAnd the taxpayer is having to foot the bill for this....
Good work mate, what is a bit irksome is that they continue to do this there doesn't seem to be any editorial control over what is pumped out.
They use the same well worn script, print lies, get the clicks, let the moment pass and the smear do its job, quietly remove the offending text once the article is no longer being viewed and thank you for bringing it to their attention. Fucking vile organisation.I've submitted a formal complaint:
In the linked article on the forthcoming Manchester City v Exeter City FA Cup tie, there is a reference to Manchester City's ownership, namely "One is owned by an oil-rich state where money is no object...". This is false and misleading.
The publicly available facts on Manchester City's ownership is that they are 75%-owned by Newton Investments, a company that is100% owned by HH Sheikh Mansour as a private individual. The rest is owned by Silver Lake, a multi-billion dollar US investment company. There is nothing to support the oft-repeated assertion that Manchester City are "state owned".
In addition, regardless of the sovereign wealth of Abu Dhabi or its ruling family and other citizens, Manchester City has to abide by the same financial rules and constraints imposed by the Premier League and UEFA.
The BBC, above all other media channels, should stop using this false and lazy claim. I therefore ask that it's removed or corrected.
Oi, it’s Sir Marcus of Rashford you disrespectful mofodidn't the Right Honourable Marcus of Rashford once rock this look?
View attachment 177094
I’ve sent a complaint clarifying we are not owned by an oil-rich state and that money is an object to us like every other team under the PSR rules.BBC Again.
Done a story on how drawing us could save Exeter but of course they had to include this:
The gap between the two clubs could not be more stark.
The amount of money Manchester City's star striker Erling Haaland reportedly earns in a fortnight is less than the amount that has been causing an existential threat to the League One club's future.
One is owned by an oil-rich state where money is no object, while the other was saved from bankruptcy by a few thousand fans from a town in Devon just over two decades ago.
With apologies to all the Devonians who aren't racist, Devon knows how they make it so dog whistle!
Ive been down this path and the answer is they hide behind the journalism clause in the FoI, which they claim covers them not releasing the information. Since they dont allow an internal appeal I exhausted the options with the organization therefore, I have lodged a complaint with the ICO. My grounds is that asking for how many articles are published about the rags in comparison to other clubs isn't covered under the clause as I need the information to lodge a form complaint against them, on the grounds that is in contradiction with their charter to remain neutral and treat all the same It is clear that they do show editorial bias is endemic and evidenced by the recent fraud perpetrated by PanoramaSomeone had a great idea on here about requesting a FOI on how they decide which articles are allowed comments turned on and not. Would love them to explain why certain articles are and others are not
Didn’t see it mateDid Merseyside Police see him being thrown under a bus
This is my take too, still surprises me that many people think of the BBC as a bastion of truth, when we know for a fact that that isn't true. Are we to believe/accept that they only lie about *some* football matters?It can't be a genuine mistake can it? Our accounts are published and audited every year. Neither UEFA or the PL has ever claimed City were "state owned." Perhaps Silver Lake with their 25 per cent stake in our club might have something to say about that. It is fucking ridiculous that our "state broadcaster" seems to think it's acceptable to continue to publish uncontestable lies. There is no point complaining as nothing will happen. Virtually everything the BBC has published about City's finances has been inaccurate since day one. Why should we trust anything else they publish?
It’s not a town, it’s a City