meldrew
Well-Known Member
It can't be serious, surely!
Luckily though, this will go straight past most of the rags I have to 'work/associate' with!
Luckily though, this will go straight past most of the rags I have to 'work/associate' with!
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.
'Bluffers guide to MCFC'
- Thread starter Alex B
- Start date
I tell what's worse than this, those f*cking captions on the training pictures. It's SO unprofessional for the club's official site, looks like it should be a blog post. If even they WERE funny, it wouldn't be the best idea, and they are really not funny.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
About as funny as 'the job club' thread in off-topic.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
this is utterly shameful, a new low for our club.
it's like you have to put the invisible blinkers on and just watch the 90 minutes and ignore everything else about the club because it is cheesy, cringeworthy and rag-esque crap.
it's like you have to put the invisible blinkers on and just watch the 90 minutes and ignore everything else about the club because it is cheesy, cringeworthy and rag-esque crap.
New fans don't need to learn any lesson of how to be a MCFC proper fan from any teacher either. They just love football and MCFC and that's good enough imo.Kakhaber Tskhadadze K.O.T.A. said:Comment now on OS BY THE GUY THAT COMMISSIONED THE ARTICLE
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/FA-Cup-countdown/2011/May/Welcoming-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/FA-Cup-count ... ing-debate</a>?
Who would have thought a bluffer's guide would cause such a reaction on twitter? Clearly not I and I'm the man who asked for it to be written.
I have an admission to make. I've been working one the websites at MCFC for a few months and I can't help myself, I now care about the Club. I didn't think I'd cave in, but working with the @mcfcgeeks team has been great and some of their passion has rubbed off on me. I don't know much of the history, and I want to know more. More importantly, I thought there would be other people out there who might want to know more too so I asked one of our excellent journalist team - a man who has been a City fan since birth and is a diehard Blue - to write me a guide. And so the bluffer's guide was made. The tone was intentionally light-hearted, a bit tongue-in-cheek, open and welcoming. It was relying on the Mancunian sense-of-humour …but clearly some people didn't take it that way.
"Cringeworthy" seems to be the main complaint on twitter and I apologise to the hardcore fans for the misunderstanding.
I'd have thought it pretty obvious, but this wasn't an article meant for you and it wasn't meant to be patronising. We've been getting more people coming to our website - showing an interest in the Club's community and atmosphere as well as players and the success this season - and these are the people we were trying to help. Brits like me or people from overseas who weren't brought up on football or who don't know the full story.
Twitter can be a really powerful medium - but it can also make it really easy for people to jump on a bandwagon. There's nothing easier than clicking RT and it doesn't always convey a depth of thought. However, it's clear from the reaction that there are some loyal supporters who feel very passionately and we try hard on the site, on twitter and facebook to listen to the fans. Of course, as a club that's having some success we will get interest from people who haven't been fans before. We will need to find a way to welcome them into the City way of life - and maybe the reaction to this story suggests we need to have a conversation with the lifelong fans about the best way to do that.
I suppose the word 'Bluffer's' might be the problem. We could have called it 'a briefing' perhaps, but I think most people would agree that it's short-hand for giving a quick explanation of the topic. It was hardly a genuine attempt to help people pretend to be fans - more an explainer to help those who might wonder what on earth the Poznan was if they see it on global coverage of the FA Cup.
What amazes me about some of the online comments is how quickly reaction can change. Yesterday, about an hour before the bluffer's guide went live, we put up Tunnel Cam. Exclusive footage from inside the tunnel at the match against Spurs. Reaction online was great and it's not the only example of our efforts to be more open and accessible to our community of fans. I don't know of any other football club, or even sports club for that matter, who give the level of frank, honest, straight-talking behind-the-scenes content that we do. What's more, that interaction with the community is a reflection of the work the Club does in and around Manchester - more players have spent more time with supporters' clubs and visiting hospitals or kids clubs over the last couple of years than ever before.
In real life, I've found the fans and the Club's atmosphere to be open hearted, welcoming and willing to indoctrinate me into a great culture and the rituals of City life. It seems, in the online world, we face the challenge of how to share the culture in a way that welcomes people who want to get to know the Club better.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
JohnMaddocksAxe said:I think a few people on this thread are trying to be a little bit too clever.
At no point in that 'explanation' does it state that this article was a joke or a parody.
It states it was written 'light hearted, a bit tongue in cheek, opening and welcoming'.
There is a clear difference between something being written in such a style and something being a joke, a parody, a pastiche or a piss take of similar articles or phenomenon.
It isn't a piss take, it is a shit article written with the sole intention hooking people who have no previous interest in the club and giving them some sort of knowledge with which to watch the cup final. All in the hope that it may lead to a small percentage of them becoming "fans of the brand".
The fact that it is written in a light hearted manner does not detract from that or suddenly transform it into a withering, ironic piss take.
If you think it is a piss of the rags then I suggest that you are hopelessly mistaken. Far from taking the piss out of the 'rag-esque' attitude that you think it is, it is actually evidence of such an attitude here - albeit disguised as light hearted.
Of course, all the publicity is a complete over reaction and slightly mad. In the scheme of things it is absolutely nothing and not worthy of note. But make no mistake that the intention behind the article was much more "promote the brand" than "take the piss out of rags." (Unless the writer is the worst comedy writer in history) And this sort of priority, desperation to attract people who have little interest in City - often at the expense of the long term fan - (which some on this thread seem to thing is very ragish) is more than alive and well at the higher levels within this club
oh the irony of what you are saying
this is the best clarkie post i've come across on here, and there have been a few.
aphex said:JohnMaddocksAxe said:I think a few people on this thread are trying to be a little bit too clever.
At no point in that 'explanation' does it state that this article was a joke or a parody.
It states it was written 'light hearted, a bit tongue in cheek, opening and welcoming'.
There is a clear difference between something being written in such a style and something being a joke, a parody, a pastiche or a piss take of similar articles or phenomenon.
It isn't a piss take, it is a shit article written with the sole intention hooking people who have no previous interest in the club and giving them some sort of knowledge with which to watch the cup final. All in the hope that it may lead to a small percentage of them becoming "fans of the brand".
The fact that it is written in a light hearted manner does not detract from that or suddenly transform it into a withering, ironic piss take.
If you think it is a piss of the rags then I suggest that you are hopelessly mistaken. Far from taking the piss out of the 'rag-esque' attitude that you think it is, it is actually evidence of such an attitude here - albeit disguised as light hearted.
Of course, all the publicity is a complete over reaction and slightly mad. In the scheme of things it is absolutely nothing and not worthy of note. But make no mistake that the intention behind the article was much more "promote the brand" than "take the piss out of rags." (Unless the writer is the worst comedy writer in history) And this sort of priority, desperation to attract people who have little interest in City - often at the expense of the long term fan - (which some on this thread seem to thing is very ragish) is more than alive and well at the higher levels within this club
oh the irony of what you are saying
this is the best clarkie post i've come across on here, and there have been a few.
It isnt a "clarkie" at all, hes one of the few talking sense and trying to point out what a laughing stock the "light-hearted" piece made us today.
As expected its been picked up by the press, not suprising really given the awful cringey nature of a piece like this on the O.S
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/12/manchester-city-bluffers-guide?CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... CMP=twt_gu</a>
Thats my last comment on it,Wembley eve now so ill get on with supporting the club/lads.
-- Thu May 12, 2011 11:20 pm --
aphex said:JohnMaddocksAxe said:I think a few people on this thread are trying to be a little bit too clever.
At no point in that 'explanation' does it state that this article was a joke or a parody.
It states it was written 'light hearted, a bit tongue in cheek, opening and welcoming'.
There is a clear difference between something being written in such a style and something being a joke, a parody, a pastiche or a piss take of similar articles or phenomenon.
It isn't a piss take, it is a shit article written with the sole intention hooking people who have no previous interest in the club and giving them some sort of knowledge with which to watch the cup final. All in the hope that it may lead to a small percentage of them becoming "fans of the brand".
The fact that it is written in a light hearted manner does not detract from that or suddenly transform it into a withering, ironic piss take.
If you think it is a piss of the rags then I suggest that you are hopelessly mistaken. Far from taking the piss out of the 'rag-esque' attitude that you think it is, it is actually evidence of such an attitude here - albeit disguised as light hearted.
Of course, all the publicity is a complete over reaction and slightly mad. In the scheme of things it is absolutely nothing and not worthy of note. But make no mistake that the intention behind the article was much more "promote the brand" than "take the piss out of rags." (Unless the writer is the worst comedy writer in history) And this sort of priority, desperation to attract people who have little interest in City - often at the expense of the long term fan - (which some on this thread seem to thing is very ragish) is more than alive and well at the higher levels within this club
oh the irony of what you are saying
this is the best clarkie post i've come across on here, and there have been a few.
It isnt a "clarkie" at all, hes one of the few talking sense and trying to point out what a laughing stock the "light-hearted" piece made us today.
As expected its been picked up by the press, not suprising really given the awful cringey nature of a piece like this on the O.S
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/12/manchester-city-bluffers-guide?CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... CMP=twt_gu</a>
Thats my last comment on it,Wembley eve now so ill get on with supporting the club/lads.<br /><br />-- Thu May 12, 2011 11:23 pm --<br /><br />
aphex said:JohnMaddocksAxe said:I think a few people on this thread are trying to be a little bit too clever.
At no point in that 'explanation' does it state that this article was a joke or a parody.
It states it was written 'light hearted, a bit tongue in cheek, opening and welcoming'.
There is a clear difference between something being written in such a style and something being a joke, a parody, a pastiche or a piss take of similar articles or phenomenon.
It isn't a piss take, it is a shit article written with the sole intention hooking people who have no previous interest in the club and giving them some sort of knowledge with which to watch the cup final. All in the hope that it may lead to a small percentage of them becoming "fans of the brand".
The fact that it is written in a light hearted manner does not detract from that or suddenly transform it into a withering, ironic piss take.
If you think it is a piss of the rags then I suggest that you are hopelessly mistaken. Far from taking the piss out of the 'rag-esque' attitude that you think it is, it is actually evidence of such an attitude here - albeit disguised as light hearted.
Of course, all the publicity is a complete over reaction and slightly mad. In the scheme of things it is absolutely nothing and not worthy of note. But make no mistake that the intention behind the article was much more "promote the brand" than "take the piss out of rags." (Unless the writer is the worst comedy writer in history) And this sort of priority, desperation to attract people who have little interest in City - often at the expense of the long term fan - (which some on this thread seem to thing is very ragish) is more than alive and well at the higher levels within this club
oh the irony of what you are saying
this is the best clarkie post i've come across on here, and there have been a few.
It isnt a "clarkie" at all, hes one of the few talking sense and trying to point out what a laughing stock the "light-hearted" piece made us today.
As expected its been picked up by the press, not suprising really given the awful cringey nature of a piece like this on the O.S
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/12/manchester-city-bluffers-guide?CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... CMP=twt_gu</a>
Thats my last comment on it,Wembley eve now so ill get on with supporting the club/lads.
mcfcliam said:Utter shite.
Why do the club feel the need to force feed us with this americanized shite
Americanised. :)
Ticket For Schalke
Well-Known Member
It's not the same person who does those awful interviews on OS is it?
i hope so.
i hope so.