gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
A couple??!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
BBC forced to withdraw claim that Man City have bought English football.
- Thread starter George Hannah
- Start date
Did you see the interview as broadcast last night? Do you think we're making up the part that was edited out? Do you understand what kind of attack is being made on the club? Do you think Khaldoon is hypersensitive too?
No I did not see the interview, can't afford a TV licence - and this thread has no evidence either.
BBC articles are often chopped and changed with the same content but a new headline to get clicks.
Not sure what the Chairman has to do with it? I doubt he takes any notice of the media, never mind watches it looking to be offended.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Similarly, when the dippers finished third in the 71/72 season they then finished 1st (11 times) or 2nd (7 times) in 18 of the following 19 seasons.They won it 12 times in 19 seasons, and probably would have won it more if Abramovich hadn't arrived on the scene with his obviously ethically-obtained funds, so when we've exceeded that proportion over the same duration, maybe then it's a valid question.
I cannot recall ANYONE complaining about it. Moreover it doesn’t look like either of those protracted periods of success managed ‘ruin football’.
On a personal note, I do enjoy their spewing bile whenever we win anything and long may it continue..
Football and sport lends itself to domination by one club for long periods but City's success is seen as problematic, whereas Man Utd were a national treasure, the manager knighted and Old Trafford christened the "Theatre of Dreams".
If you are a City fan, you will notice the same people making the same arguments again and again.
If you are a City fan, you will notice the same people making the same arguments again and again.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I agree that it is correct to pick your battles but in the modern social media age I am not sure the club has been as proactive as it could be with some of the media. There has been a reduction in some of the more aggressive coverage about FFP since Khaldoon's strong statement. I don't think we have done enough to sell our business model. There is genuine ignorance from a lot of people about the positive things the Sheikh is doing in the Manchester community. Why do we not do more interviews on the business channels for example? The one Khaldoon did with Bloomberg (I think) was posted on here and was superb. No business media outlet would turn down a showpiece interview with Khaldoon.PR is not about focussing on firing shots at media outlets. PR is about managing the reputation of the club. The most effective way of doing this is to influence others to be positive about City. Making an enemy of media outlets is not the best way to go about it. Yes, we should not allow them to say things that are unreasonable. But talk of 'attack' is not going to be of much benefit to us. If anything, it could have a negative impact on peoples perceptions of our club. You have to pick your battles carefully and, ideally, have as few battles as possible.
I am not convinced our PR is of poor quality. Managing the reputation of a club in a cut throat industry where we are not one of the established and influential cabal is very difficult.
Manc in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 8,169
I agree that it is correct to pick your battles but in the modern social media age I am not sure the club has been as proactive as it could be with some of the media. There has been a reduction in some of the more aggressive coverage about FFP since Khaldoon's strong statement. I don't think we have done enough to sell our business model. There is genuine ignorance from a lot of people about the positive things the Sheikh is doing in the Manchester community. Why do we not do more interviews on the business channels for example? The one Khaldoon did with Bloomberg (I think) was posted on here and was superb. No business media outlet would turn down a showpiece interview with Khaldoon.
Fair point. However, with our ownership and us upsetting the cabal, who have many media friends and influence at regulatory bodies, managing reputation is very difficult.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Spot-on. The owners of Arsenal and Spurs have more personal wealth than Roman Abramovich and could have paid from their own capital for the new stadiums (exempt from FFP) but chose not to do so. There's nothing wrong with them doing that but it's the hypocrisy of people like Wenger that stinks. That said the Sheikh is now making huge profits from all his UK investments including City. He has a brilliant business model.That's not the whole picture.
Income is immaterial if a club won't spend it, ask Arsenal Fan TV.
It's our owners willingness to spend, what the rest of the league considers a disproportionate amount of profit, that's the real problem for all the other owners.
Forget oil money and racism, it's our business model they loathe.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
If longevity of support and miles travelled following the team counted I would be infallible, fortunately rational debate does not need to take it into account. @Corky is a brickhead.Tbf to Corky I think all those years following the team home and away has messed with his head. He finds it hard to take any joy out of our current success, yet comes alive when we have one of our few failures.
We’ve a couple in our fan base who are similar - best to let them crack on. They’ve put in the hard yards and get my utmost respect for that, their views on the game on the other hand...
I agree with you in principle, we should not go on the attack and alienate media. However, issues management is a different proposition and I don't see much evidence that the club is good at this. For example, we constantly see journos referring to City being owned by a state. I'm not talking about those anti City idiots like McGeehan on twitter, but we see this lie constantly in the so called respectible press. The Times has said it twice in the last fortnight.. Roan's question originally included the words "unfair financial...." etc. This can only mean he believes we are funded by AD or at least by the back door. It is this constant reiteration of an untruth that we should tackle. You can manage this issue without attacking the media, just issue a sober reminder to every journo and his editor every time they do this. This requires constant vigilance and a committment to act on each and every occasion. It is this which City PR appears to lack. Advantage should also be taken of pressers whenever a suitable opportunity arises.PR is not about focussing on firing shots at media outlets. PR is about managing the reputation of the club. The most effective way of doing this is to influence others to be positive about City. Making an enemy of media outlets is not the best way to go about it. Yes, we should not allow them to say things that are unreasonable. But talk of 'attack' is not going to be of much benefit to us. If anything, it could have a negative impact on peoples perceptions of our club. You have to pick your battles carefully and, ideally, have as few battles as possible.
I am not convinced our PR is of poor quality. Managing the reputation of a club in a cut throat industry where we are not one of the established and influential cabal is very difficult.
I know Khaldoon finds this frustrating as the leaked NY emails revealed. We need to up our game somewhat.
I was once responsible for the reputation of a major company and issues management was a high priority.
EDIT PS. Does our official website have a section clearly setting out our ownership structure thru ADUG and CFG.?
Last edited:
Only in his headSo you don't want to berry the hatchet?