Are City taking an anti-SSN stance?

[Blue Train]

Nonsense. It will do us no favours to piss sky off

The boot's on the other foot now.

They have to fill 24 hours a day with 'news'. We are the biggest story in town. They need us more than we need them.

How? Do you not think the foreign influx of owners over the past few years has nothing to do with sky's money?

We are the only club in the Premiership who dont need Sky's money. We are breaking their Grand Slam Big 4 without it, and if they don't want to look very silly indeed, like they did today, they are going to have to radically alter their coverage of us.

My guess is orders will come from on high and we'll see a marked change in tone on SNN when reporting on City, with their Rag presenters suddenly less prone to making digs.

 

[Pam]

Nonsense. It will do us no favours to piss sky off

The boot's on the other foot now.

They have to fill 24 hours a day with 'news'. We are the biggest story in town. They need us more than we need them.

How? Do you not think the foreign influx of owners over the past few years has nothing to do with sky's money?

Oh it definatly did, and without them we would never have been taken over.

But that was then, and this is now. Their main product is the Premier League, and if all of the news fromt heir main product is coming from somewhere that won't give them anything, then they have a problem.

Like the poster above said, it started with Sky in charge, but the boot is well and truly on th eother foot now.

When is all this going to dawn on them?

 

[mrbelfry]

lol this reminds me of the time that David James refused to talk to Sky until they fixed his dish. Maybe Cook just get's a bad signal or he's after free Sky+

 

[johnmc]

I think you are naive to think that our owners would continue to operate as they are if the sky money wasnt being pumped in. They are business men. Do you really think that they are city fans?

They are trying to make us the biggest club in the world knowing that investment now will lead to dividends in the future and as and when they come to sell.

 

[whalley ranger]

Talk Shite were the same way until a few weeks ago but now they're practically standing up for us. So anyway, think on, SSN because we are laughing at you.

Was just about to post something to the same effect Pam, and with Sky being a 'sister company' its strange. Until you think of it globally. SSN is watched worldwide, and they are protecting a brand. ....blah, blah.....TEVEZ!

 

[Big G]

I think you are naive to think that our owners would continue to operate as they are if the sky money wasnt being pumped in. They are business men. Do you really think that they are city fans?

They are trying to make us the biggest club in the world knowing that investment now will lead to dividends in the future and as and when they come to sell.

If that time ever comes, Sky will be kissing our arse FACT,
And if we become as successful as the owners want us to be, with all the money that comes in through that success we may well be self financing by then.

If we spend £100m tomorrow, it will feel like the owner has just spend a quid.

 

[Blue Train]

I think you are naive to think that our owners would continue to operate as they are if the sky money wasnt being pumped in. They are business men. Do you really think that they are city fans?

They are trying to make us the biggest club in the world knowing that investment now will lead to dividends in the future and as and when they come to sell.

It's slightly different to that. They're not out to make MCFC a self-sufficient company with a view to selling it on at a profit in five years' time.

They are out to build a football team into a global force in order to attract a global audience to their real business: Abu Dabhi. They are willing to pump huge amounts of money into achieving this - way more than the spare change that SKy are handing out to the other Premiership teams.

They will want Sky on message with the project and my guess is they will be willing to play hard ball with them until they are. Cook stonewalling SNN's on the spot reporter today was a clear signal to them that we're no longer prepared to put up with their shit.

We WILL see a change in their stance towards us and it will happen very quickly.

Sky didn't suck up to the Rags because they were fans - they did it because Utd were the hottest story. That's over now. It's us now.

 

[johnmc]

If that time ever comes, Sky will be kissing our arse FACT,
And if we become as successful as the owners want us to be, with all the money that comes in through that success we may well be self financing by then.

If we spend £100m tomorrow, it will feel like the owner has just spend a quid.

Obviously the owners want us to become self financing and profit making without a shadow. But at the end of the day we are not big enough YET that if Sky were to pull out of the TV deals and each club marketed their own games, that we would make more than what Sky brings in now. The aim could well be grow over the next 5 years, win things, and market as much as possible so that worldwide, if a mcfctv showing live games was to be marketed that the money would be greater than the sky income.

So for the minute and foreseeable future we need sky more than they need us

 

[whalley ranger]

I think you are naive to think that our owners would continue to operate as they are if the sky money wasnt being pumped in. They are business men. Do you really think that they are city fans?

They are trying to make us the biggest club in the world knowing that investment now will lead to dividends in the future and as and when they come to sell.

rag alert

 

[johnmc]

Incorrect quotage - one about Cook stonewalling SSN!!

That is speculation because of one incident. Cook could have been due at another meeting or just wanted to get home - he has a daughter that he must be spending a lot of time away from. Maybe he was late for a meal with his wife. Lets not take this one incident as a sure sign that we are blanking sky - otherwise why say anything at all?