Media bias against City

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wilf Wild 1937 said:
Pretty much said we had on the main 6 o'clock BBC 1 News along with quoting £55m for KDB, £49m for Sterling and £36m for that French kid I've never heard of that the rags have just signed.
Click to expand...
No need to worry, even the rags aren't boasting about the French kid. They are on meltdown as a club, panic is everywhere. Whereas city, dignified and classy as always, don't need praised by anyone. See it with my own eyes
 
To be fair to Mark Ogden he did post this earlier today on the Telegraph Transfer Window rolling news article that if Martial was a Manchester City purchase it would be reported as €80m.
And anyone who follows me on the Telegraph page threads (as Mr-Ed) will know how I feel about his City reporting.
 
I have been asking the same question of Ian Herbert (chief sportswriter at The Independent) on Twitter tonight, but haven't had a satisfactory response as yet.





 
Ric said:
I have been asking the same question of Ian Herbert (chief sportswriter at The Independent) on Twitter tonight, but haven't had a satisfactory response as yet.





Click to expand...


Where's the f*cking "like" button on this forum???!!! (whilst waiting for him to answer your question)
 
You're all ignoring the obvious answer to the martial fee. It's because Sterling is likely to end up costing us £49 million when he wins titles with us and we gladly pay the few million extra for helping us do so, whereas Martial is unlikely to activate any clauses as he will win nothing with the rags before being sold at a hefty loss.
 
but at the start of the season the press where quoting the full £49 million for Sterling while also reckoning we where the team most likely to fall out of the top 4
 
Last edited:
BBC news are now reporting the Martial transfer as £36 million that may rise to £58.
Maybe people pointing out the bias in the press is beginning to have an affect.
 
trotsky said:
BBC news are now reporting the Martial transfer as £36 million that may rise to £58.
Maybe people pointing out the bias in the press is beginning to have an affect.
Click to expand...
It's a start I guess but I'll believe it when they report the Sterling fee as £44m that may rise to £49m. The BBC, sadly, appears to have enthusiastically joined the race to the bottom in football reporting.
 
I love the confidence that the journos have in us to take it as a given that we'll win the league and the Chumps league, thereby activating the add on fees.

I think it's worth asking how much they have bet on us to win, seeing as they report our future success as fact when stating our transfer fees.
 
Last edited:
Ric said:
I have been asking the same question of Ian Herbert (chief sportswriter at The Independent) on Twitter tonight, but haven't had a satisfactory response as yet.





Click to expand...


Hi Ric,

I note on our own MCFC website a link reference to the Daily Mail review on a club by club basis re the transfer window.

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/What-the...-media-says-about-MCFC-2-September/1441092700

(see just below ESPN paras)

This review should give a like for like comparison but may not so perhaps it can add to your ammunition by either being fair or not ?
 
Now I didn't believe that whole city media bias because I thought media would love the under dog turned big dog story plus adds competition which were told is healthy right. But having read this topic on the forum I am turning into a believer. That and not to mention articles from Sky such as the new Paul Merson ratings of the recent transfer window. Giving city a B- and no "mersons view" below it. Liverpool given better grade than city in transfer window yet look how the dynamic has changed in our squad from our business dealings. Not that I should care what merson thinks as he's an idiot but others think what is written on these sites is gospel!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top