If Liverpool or United achieved the same results, there would be no debate

[I'm With Stupid]

They do in the UK, they’ve had huge crowds for a lot of fixtures this season.

They've also had extremely low attendances too. 23,000 for their League Cup tie against Burnley. Look at all their other big attendances this season: Real Madrid (>83,000), Liverpool (>80,000), Man Utd (>81,000 and >84,000), Juventus (>84,000), Man City (>80,000). Let's just say there's probably a pretty substantial tourist element for all of those games, or fans in the wrong end. In a one-off game, even American football can fill Wembley. Most of their other games are somewhere between 50k and 70k, and their actual average attendance for the season was just under 68,000, which is impressive, but still only 75% capacity. Hence why they're building a 62,000-seater stadium, not a 70,000-seater one.

But newspapers aren't really aimed at the match-going fan anyway, they're more interested in the wider market of casual armchair fans. And there, we're probably more interested in things like viewing figures and social media engagement. We were on TV more than Spurs last season, and I can't imagine that they've closed that gap any more this season given how good we've been. In terms of social media, there really is no contest. We're absolutely miles ahead, although newspapers may be more interested in domestic engagement than international fans.

For the record, I'm not saying that we have a bigger fan base than Spurs, just that they're not part of that group of huge, casually supported teams that need pandering to in the papers. If they do get pandered to in the papers, it's because of a combination of London-based journalists (although the thread on the topic put most of them as Arsenal fans), the English factor, and this narrative that they do things the 'right way.' They're almost used as an anti-City.

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

Look at the papers the day we got 100 points ffs.

Only two newspapers put us as the lead story, and one of those it was a combined story with Salah's record.

My favourite one is the Guardian, which says "City join the hundred club." Which hundred club would that be, and who else is in this club?

It doesnt surprise me to be honest. Take a look at writers of the pieces ( i checked 2 and their affinity lies with the bindippers). Unfortunately that is what we are against, as we all know, that the press and pundits are riddled with united and liverpool fans so will always push their agenda first to get maximum positive coverage across to the population

All we have to do is keep on winning and continue what Pep has built once he decides to move on. Since 2012 i have seen kids at the park footy pitches wearing our colours and I live in Southport - so we are making in-roads in bringing onboard new fans. The press on the other hand are a different issue altogether

 

[blue_paul]

They've also had extremely low attendances too. 23,000 for their League Cup tie against Burnley. Look at all their other big attendances this season: Real Madrid (>83,000), Liverpool (>80,000), Man Utd (>81,000 and >84,000), Juventus (>84,000), Man City (>80,000). Let's just say there's probably a pretty substantial tourist element for all of those games, or fans in the wrong end. In a one-off game, even American football can fill Wembley. Most of their other games are somewhere between 50k and 70k, and their actual average attendance for the season was just under 68,000, which is impressive, but still only 75% capacity. Hence why they're building a 62,000-seater stadium, not a 70,000-seater one.

But newspapers aren't really aimed at the match-going fan anyway, they're more interested in the wider market of casual armchair fans. And there, we're probably more interested in things like viewing figures and social media engagement. We were on TV more than Spurs last season, and I can't imagine that they've closed that gap any more this season given how good we've been. In terms of social media, there really is no contest. We're absolutely miles ahead, although newspapers may be more interested in domestic engagement than international fans.

For the record, I'm not saying that we have a bigger fan base than Spurs, just that they're not part of that group of huge, casually supported teams that need pandering to in the papers. If they do get pandered to in the papers, it's because of a combination of London-based journalists (although the thread on the topic put most of them as Arsenal fans), the English factor, and this narrative that they do things the 'right way.' They're almost used as an anti-City.

I agree with your post entirely. Especially regarding the targeting of the casual armchair fan types who are more interested in the soap opera around football than actually watching the game.
Headlines around potential signings or spin on Mourinho’s latest press conference utterances are what these people are after. Sky sports news fans if you will.

 

[aguero93:20]

Miguel Delaney in the Independent at least told the truth. The tv companies are very wary of City and our potential to basically destroy all competition over the next several years. We don’t have the fan base of United, pool, Arsenal or Spurs and judging by the back pages above, we don’t sell papers either.
We’re bad for business basically, expect a full frontal assault on ‘City’s obscene spending’ over the summer.

We sell more shirts in the UK than Spurs and are a far bigger club worldwide.

 

[blue_paul]

We sell more shirts in the UK than Spurs and are a far bigger club worldwide.

How do you know we sell more shirts? Are you totaling numbers from all retailers or official club outlets?
Calling us fat bigger than Spurs is wrong, smacks of insecurity. There’s about 10 big clubs in England, we’re one of them.

 

[aguero93:20]

How do you know we sell more shirts? Are you totaling numbers from all retailers or official club outlets?
Calling us fat bigger than Spurs is wrong, smacks of insecurity. There’s about 10 big clubs in England, we’re one of them.

A number of different sources, including all retailers and club outlets. We were ahead 2 years ago and nothing will have changed.

We're far bigger worldwide mate, most watched PL team in Asia, South and North America. The worldwide plastic fans care about winning things and Spurs simply don't do it. The media here blow smoke up their arses week in, week out, the media worldwide barely mention them.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

They've also had extremely low attendances too. 23,000 for their League Cup tie against Burnley. Look at all their other big attendances this season: Real Madrid (>83,000), Liverpool (>80,000), Man Utd (>81,000 and >84,000), Juventus (>84,000), Man City (>80,000). Let's just say there's probably a pretty substantial tourist element for all of those games, or fans in the wrong end. In a one-off game, even American football can fill Wembley. Most of their other games are somewhere between 50k and 70k, and their actual average attendance for the season was just under 68,000, which is impressive, but still only 75% capacity. Hence why they're building a 62,000-seater stadium, not a 70,000-seater one.

But newspapers aren't really aimed at the match-going fan anyway, they're more interested in the wider market of casual armchair fans. And there, we're probably more interested in things like viewing figures and social media engagement. We were on TV more than Spurs last season, and I can't imagine that they've closed that gap any more this season given how good we've been. In terms of social media, there really is no contest. We're absolutely miles ahead, although newspapers may be more interested in domestic engagement than international fans.

For the record, I'm not saying that we have a bigger fan base than Spurs, just that they're not part of that group of huge, casually supported teams that need pandering to in the papers. If they do get pandered to in the papers, it's because of a combination of London-based journalists (although the thread on the topic put most of them as Arsenal fans), the English factor, and this narrative that they do things the 'right way.' They're almost used as an anti-City.

I seem to remember being told that many of the attendances for Spurs' matches at Wembley were boosted by some very attractive ticket prices - I believe at one match a "family ticket" (the usual two adults and two under 16s) for £20. If this was the case then Spurs were targeting fans of other clubs in London as much as their own armchair fans. It would also be interesting to know the number of fans the away team took to the games in which there was a crowd of around 80,000 and how much they had to pay for their tickets. I think Spurs are well supported, are good to watch, do score goals and will attract good crowds but I would not think they would attract extraordinary ones.

 

[Bewar3them00n]

There was a report about our viewership in the States, and surprisingly, more people had watched Man City than any other Prem team.
And I switched on Sky last night and there was the 2013/14 4-1 win against UTD followed by the interview with Pep, so it's turning, slowly...

 

[domalino]

If we won the treble next season, going undefeated in the league and getting 100 points, they'd still say we weren't the best ever.


Part of it is jealousy, part of it is denial, part of it is rose tinted glasses.

The achievements of this side will become apparent and get the credit they deserve in 10 years time.

 

[Jalfraag]

There was a report about our viewership in the States, and surprisingly, more people had watched Man City than any other Prem team.
And I switched on Sky last night and there was the 2013/14 4-1 win against UTD followed by the interview with Pep, so it's turning, slowly...

We'll be top here too if sky ever release their numbers. We were only 100K behind them three years ago.