BBC forced to withdraw claim that Man City have bought English football.

[blueparrot]

Perhaps the adverts on ITV could pay for Premier League highlights show on Saturday evening.

Alan Shearer and Ian Wright cost us £150 a year to listen to their bollocks.

Lee Dixon and Roy Keane cost fuck all because at half time Ray Winston pops up and tells us to 'gamble responsibly'.

Both sets of pundits, consist of ex players, no longer involved in the game (for obvious reasons), trading on their former celebrity. Their opinions are worth fuck all.

No contest. I prefer my half times to be 50% bullshit and 50% (often entertaining) adverts at a cost of £0.

I'd pay £500 a year not to have to watch football on ITV thanks.

 

[Keeper!]

I'd pay £500 a year not to have to watch football on ITV thanks.

I would add a 0 to that ie 5000 to never watch that smarmy barsteward Gary Liniker, that man sums up everything wrong with the BBC.

 

[GortonBlue62]

I'd pay £500 a year not to have to watch football on ITV thanks.

Keep your money in your pocket and just don't watch football on ITV. Hope that helps.

When I watch match on TV, I get to the channel just before kick off, do something else at half time and switch off at full time. I also mute the commentator and his mate(s).

As long as I can see the pictures I can make my own mind up about what I'm seeing.

There is no difference in any broadcasters picture output.

 

[GortonBlue62]

advertising spend is finite and decreasing on the "old" media with a flight by advertisers to the new on cost grounds. Making the BBC dependant on advertising revenue won't generate more it will simply spread a diminishing spend more thinly and would damage both of the big free to air TV channels and give more power to SKY and BT Sports when it comes to bidding for sports rights.

We're only talking about highlights here. ITV will suffice and the BBC can fuck off and die.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Keep your money in your pocket and just don't watch football on ITV. Hope that helps.

When I watch match on TV, I get to the channel just before kick off, do something else at half time and switch off at full time. I also mute the commentator and his mate(s).

As long as I can see the pictures I can make my own mind up about what I'm seeing.

There is no difference in any broadcasters picture output.

The problem is for the live games they selectively show and highlight incidents such as fouls against certain teams/players, and yet contentious penalties or fouls against a particular team are glossed over.

Also, how many times have you watched highlights on MOTD and thought 'what game have I just watched'? Some of the games on MOTD, you'd have thought we were absolutely battered, and lucky to scrape a 4-0 win.

 

[Fiftyyearsandcounting]

Watching any match on any TV channel is so annoying. In "The good old days" the camera would follow the game and commentators like Ken Wolstenholme would describe the action.
Today so many replay of incidents or focusing on some half-famous "celeb" in the stands and camera has almost missed a goal or quickly taken free kick or corner. Plus the advent of two talking head in the commentary box means they spend much of the time, not on the action, but chatting amongst themselves. "I mean that Clive, I really do"

 

[George Hannah]

On the subject of the OP, I don't know if this is a standard part of the BBC complaints process now but yesterday I received an invitation from a Sam Smith, Head of BBC Audience Services to provide feedback via an independent agency called ICM (part of Walnut Unlimited.) This is part of my input, cobbling together many points already made on this thread:

Sport related but I believe this incident shows clearly how the BBC is losing its integrity and impartiality.

My complaint was about their Sports Editor Dan Roan, the only reporter ever to be banned by Manchester City and who ever since has been even more blatantly biased against the club. https://www.mancity.com/news/club%20news/club%20news/archive/2012/march/man%20city%20ban%20bbc%20man%20dan%20roan


The main problem is not just about him, though he is an important part, it is also about his bosses. That’s because both he and they are very well aware that underlying his bias is a long-term commercial battle between Manchester City and the Premier League’s US owned rival clubs together with their European allies. Essentially it is about their hostility to the City owner’s business model, which ploughs back all profits back into the club unlike profits from their clubs which mostly go out of football completely. For example the Glazer family have taken almost the same amount of money out of Manchester United as Sheikh Mansour has invested in City since 2008, over £1 billion. While City is debt free United were subject to a leveraged buyout with £525m debts loaded on to the club, including £275m high interest “payment in kind” loans.


In this high stakes financial contest between top level football clubs Dan Roan and BBC Sport have lined up squarely with City’s opponents. So last Wednesday on the BBC National News at 10, in the high profile start of season interview with the head of the Premier League, Roan’s first question was "Is Manchester City's financial clout making the league predictable?


It is important to know that City do not have any record transfer fees in the top 20, they do not have the highest wage bill in the PL, they have not spent as much as the other top PL teams. While there's no doubt that they spent a lot of money, City's ‘financial clout’ is actually very similar to that Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. The question of ‘financial clout ‘ damaging the competition has never featured during the previous 30 years of league domination by those clubs, and one is invited to ask why is it only relevant now? His question contains a clear implication that City’s 'financial clout' is qualitatively different from that of other clubs. In short it is because its source is an owner with a radically different approach to football club ownership.


In recent years a number of major media organisations influenced by the US owned PL clubs have engaged in a relentless negative narrative aimed at undermining to City's achievements through the development of a racist fiction that City’s owner is in reality “a corrupt Arab state engaged in the practice of ‘sportswashing’ its human rights abusing and undemocratic culture.” Roan and BBC Sport have chosen to associate the national broadcaster with this disgusting campaign of smears and lies.


Through his questioning Roan is openly claiming City’s owner has access to unlimited wealth which is being unfairly used to damage football. This claim is utterly false and is being made to damage the reputation of Manchester City.


Within a few hours of the broadcast as a result of action by Manchester City and Premier League lawyers the whole news bulletin was taken off the iPlayer. In the version on the BBC website the interview’s first question was completely edited out and the sequence re-ordered. The article headline is now about tackling racism but Dan Roan's racist attack on Man City's owners seems to have gone unnoticed by the editors and his superiors. This is at the heart of my complaint about Mr Roan. The video clip no longer contains Roan's question or Richard Master's strong rejection of the untruthful allegation that Manchester City's dominance on the field was the result of their 'financial clout'. Nevertheless the associated Q & A extracts still retain the disgraceful attack underlying Roan’s often repeated prejudiced narrative.

The BBC Complaints Department later attempted to justify this blatant hostility by claiming Roan was 'asking the questions our audience would want us to ask' . The plain truth is that he is pandering to their biggest target football demographic of Manchester United & Liverpool fans - which includes a disproportionate number of the BBC’s own staff. For example the current head of BBC Sports Media was recruited from MUTV and their full time Manchester City FC correspondent is their long-serving former Manchester United correspondent and lifetime supporter.


Sorry this is so long and angry.

 

[bornblueegg]

Release the hounds.....

 

[M12Blue]

On the subject of the OP, I don't know if this is a standard part of the BBC complaints process now but yesterday I received an invitation from a Sam Smith, Head of BBC Audience Services to provide feedback via an independent agency called ICM (part of Walnut Unlimited.) This is part of my input, cobbling together many points already made on this thread:

Sport related but I believe this incident shows clearly how the BBC is losing its integrity and impartiality.

My complaint was about their Sports Editor Dan Roan, the only reporter ever to be banned by Manchester City and who ever since has been even more blatantly biased against the club. https://www.mancity.com/news/club%20news/club%20news/archive/2012/march/man%20city%20ban%20bbc%20man%20dan%20roan


The main problem is not just about him, though he is an important part, it is also about his bosses. That’s because both he and they are very well aware that underlying his bias is a long-term commercial battle between Manchester City and the Premier League’s US owned rival clubs together with their European allies. Essentially it is about their hostility to the City owner’s business model, which ploughs back all profits back into the club unlike profits from their clubs which are mostly go out of football completely. For example the Glazer family have taken almost the same amount of money out of Manchester United as Sheikh Mansour has invested in City since 2008, over £1 billion. While City is debt free United were subject to a leveraged buyout with £525m debts loaded on to the club, including £275m high interest “payment in kind” loans.


In this high stakes financial contest between top level football clubs Dan Roan and BBC Sport have lined up squarely with City’s opponents. So last Wednesday on the BBC National News at 10, in the high profile start of season interview with the head of the Premier League, Roan’s first question was "Is Manchester City's financial clout making the league predictable?


It is important to know that City do not have any record transfer fees in the top 20, they do not have the highest wage bill in the PL, they have not spent as much as the other top PL teams. While there's no doubt that they spent a lot of money, City's ‘financial clout’ is actually very similar to that Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. The question of ‘financial clout ‘ damaging the competition has never featured during the previous 30 years of league domination by those clubs, and one is invited to ask why is it only relevant now? His question contains a clear implication that City’s 'financial clout' is qualitatively different from that of other clubs. In short it is because its source is an owner with a radically different approach to football club ownership.


In recent years a number of major media organisations influenced by the US owned PL clubs have engaged in a relentless negative narrative aimed at undermining to City's achievements through the development of a racist fiction that City’s owner is in reality “a corrupt Arab state engaged in the practice of ‘sportswashing’ its human rights abusing and undemocratic culture.” Roan and BBC Sport have chosen to associate the national broadcaster with this disgusting campaign of smears and lies.


Through his questioning Roan is openly claiming City’s owner has access to unlimited wealth which is being unfairly used to damage football. This claim is utterly false and is being made to damage the reputation of Manchester City.


Within a few hours of the broadcast as a result of action by Manchester City and Premier League lawyers the whole news bulletin was taken off the iPlayer. In the version on the BBC website the interview’s first question was completely edited out and the sequence re-ordered. The article headline is now about tackling racism but Dan Roan's racist attack on Man City's owners seems to have gone unnoticed by the editors and his superiors. This is at the heart of my complaint about Mr Roan. The video clip no longer contains Roan's question or Richard Master's strong rejection of the untruthful allegation that Manchester City's dominance on the field was the result of their 'financial clout'. Nevertheless the associated Q & A extracts still retain the disgraceful attack underlying Roan’s often repeated prejudiced narrative.

The BBC Complaints Department later attempted to justify this blatant hostility by claiming Roan was 'asking the questions our audience would want us to ask' . The plain truth is that he is pandering to their biggest target football demographic of Manchester United & Liverpool fans - which includes a disproportionate number of the BBC’s own staff. For example the current head of BBC Sports Media was recruited from MUTV and their full time Manchester City FC correspondent is their long-serving former Manchester United correspondent and lifetime supporter.


Sorry this is so long and angry.

I’m currently clapping that. Be interested in the response

 

[Fordyboy46]

The BBC is so fucking monotonous and biased in every aspect, be it sport, news etc. If I hear once more how disastrous and how it's the end of the world if a no deal Brexit should happen, a brick is going through my screen.