BOYCOTT THE SUN!!!!

[BlueGeorge]

I sent this email to the parasite that is Ian McGarry last week... Got a reply as well funny enough.


Dear Mr McGarry

Below is a piece from todays Guardian (21s Jan), written by Daniel Taylor. I ask you to take a few moments to read it if you have not already. Here is a piece of Journalism that puts a man of your age and experience to shame. I have bought The Sun newspaper for many years and in all these years of reading it I have never seen such a thinly veiled attack on a football club as your piece today about Manchester City. Had you taken the time to establish all of the facts regarding the 'Kaka transfer', then maybe you would have been able, well the more I think about it, you were more than able. You just chose to jump on the 'anti city' bandwagon that had rolled into town, and the offices of practically every 'red top rag' in the UK. Your idea of 'sensationalist journalism' rather than 'real life facts' only serves to show how sad and delusional you are when it comes to doing your job properly.

If you type the word 'Journalist' into the popular search engine Google, the first entry takes you to the wikipedia page where the first line states -

'A journalist (also called a newspaperman) is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues, and people while striving for viewpoint that is not biased'

Did you read that correctly? Just incase you had not, let me repeat the last two words for you. NOT BIASED.

May I also go back to the peice in the Guardian, refering mostly to the Journalist who had wrote it and ask you to take note of how young he is.

Furthermore I shall DEIFINATELY NOT be buying the Sun newspaper again as you are now on the same par as the Daily Mirror, which really should be a Manchester United fanzine.

Please find the aforementioned peice from the Guardian below.

I doubt very much that I will be getting a reply, I'm sure you will choose to hide behind your fictitious articles and I'm sure the only thing hiding behind you is your buggering boyfriend.

Yours
Glenn McGoldrick

What was the reply mate?

 

[BlueGeorge]

I sent this email to the parasite that is Ian McGarry last week... Got a reply as well funny enough.


Dear Mr McGarry

Below is a piece from todays Guardian (21s Jan), written by Daniel Taylor. I ask you to take a few moments to read it if you have not already. Here is a piece of Journalism that puts a man of your age and experience to shame. I have bought The Sun newspaper for many years and in all these years of reading it I have never seen such a thinly veiled attack on a football club as your piece today about Manchester City. Had you taken the time to establish all of the facts regarding the 'Kaka transfer', then maybe you would have been able, well the more I think about it, you were more than able. You just chose to jump on the 'anti city' bandwagon that had rolled into town, and the offices of practically every 'red top rag' in the UK. Your idea of 'sensationalist journalism' rather than 'real life facts' only serves to show how sad and delusional you are when it comes to doing your job properly.

If you type the word 'Journalist' into the popular search engine Google, the first entry takes you to the wikipedia page where the first line states -

'A journalist (also called a newspaperman) is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues, and people while striving for viewpoint that is not biased'

Did you read that correctly? Just incase you had not, let me repeat the last two words for you. NOT BIASED.

May I also go back to the peice in the Guardian, refering mostly to the Journalist who had wrote it and ask you to take note of how young he is.

Furthermore I shall DEIFINATELY NOT be buying the Sun newspaper again as you are now on the same par as the Daily Mirror, which really should be a Manchester United fanzine.

Please find the aforementioned peice from the Guardian below.

I doubt very much that I will be getting a reply, I'm sure you will choose to hide behind your fictitious articles and I'm sure the only thing hiding behind you is your buggering boyfriend.

Yours
Glenn McGoldrick

What was the reply mate?

 

[gfunkstylee]

He replied with this. No mention of the buggering boyfriend comment tho.
Interesting...

Dear Mr McGoldrick,

thank you for your email. I read the piece by Daniel Taylor on Wednesday morning. I agree it has it's merits but I would also point out that the City chief execuitve, Garry Cook, was heavlily quoted in the piece and it is therefore no huge leap of faith to deduct that the information regarding the transfer also came from Mr Cook.

For that reason I would consider the piece very biased in City's favour. Given that Mr Cook has since made comments about AC Milan, Kaka and the process which have been nothing short of embarrassing, his comments must be looked at with huge circumspection.
Indeed, I would direct you to the comments made by Kaka's spokesman, Diogo Koscho, in my story on the matter today.

As far as your allegation that I have not done my job properly then I would contest that wholeheartedly. You do not know my sources and neither will I divulge them.
I would, however, point out that I am the only British journalist to have interviewed Robinho one on one since he signed for Manchester City. In fact I have met him twice to interview him.
I speak fluent Portuguese and Spanish so communication for me with the player is easy. This is not the case for Mark Hughes or the majority of his team mates.

Finally, my job is to inform the public of that which they do not know about. In this case, I am satisfied that I exposed the problems which led to Robinho's walk out but was by no means uncritical of the player and his actions. I am not biased in any way with regard to Manchester City.

I hope this has addressed some of the issues you have raised. And please, before you attack someone about what they do for a living, please be sure to research the facts before calling them or their work a disgrace. It is very rude.

regards

Ian McGarry

 

[svennis pennis]

He replied with this. No mention of the buggering boyfriend comment tho.
Interesting...

Dear Mr McGoldrick,

thank you for your email. I read the piece by Daniel Taylor on Wednesday morning. I agree it has it's merits but I would also point out that the City chief execuitve, Garry Cook, was heavlily quoted in the piece and it is therefore no huge leap of faith to deduct that the information regarding the transfer also came from Mr Cook.

For that reason I would consider the piece very biased in City's favour. Given that Mr Cook has since made comments about AC Milan, Kaka and the process which have been nothing short of embarrassing, his comments must be looked at with huge circumspection.
Indeed, I would direct you to the comments made by Kaka's spokesman, Diogo Koscho, in my story on the matter today.

As far as your allegation that I have not done my job properly then I would contest that wholeheartedly. You do not know my sources and neither will I divulge them.
I would, however, point out that I am the only British journalist to have interviewed Robinho one on one since he signed for Manchester City. In fact I have met him twice to interview him.
I speak fluent Portuguese and Spanish so communication for me with the player is easy. This is not the case for Mark Hughes or the majority of his team mates.

Finally, my job is to inform the public of that which they do not know about. In this case, I am satisfied that I exposed the problems which led to Robinho's walk out but was by no means uncritical of the player and his actions. I am not biased in any way with regard to Manchester City.

I hope this has addressed some of the issues you have raised. And please, before you attack someone about what they do for a living, please be sure to research the facts before calling them or their work a disgrace. It is very rude.

regards

Ian McGarry

Can you PM me this guys email address. i am going to send him my research and see how he wriggles out of it, Thanks.

 

[i8therags]

He replied with this. No mention of the buggering boyfriend comment tho.
Interesting...

Dear Mr McGoldrick,

thank you for your email. I read the piece by Daniel Taylor on Wednesday morning. I agree it has it's merits but I would also point out that the City chief execuitve, Garry Cook, was heavlily quoted in the piece and it is therefore no huge leap of faith to deduct that the information regarding the transfer also came from Mr Cook.

For that reason I would consider the piece very biased in City's favour. Given that Mr Cook has since made comments about AC Milan, Kaka and the process which have been nothing short of embarrassing, his comments must be looked at with huge circumspection.
Indeed, I would direct you to the comments made by Kaka's spokesman, Diogo Koscho, in my story on the matter today.

As far as your allegation that I have not done my job properly then I would contest that wholeheartedly. You do not know my sources and neither will I divulge them.
I would, however, point out that I am the only British journalist to have interviewed Robinho one on one since he signed for Manchester City. In fact I have met him twice to interview him.
I speak fluent Portuguese and Spanish so communication for me with the player is easy. This is not the case for Mark Hughes or the majority of his team mates.

Finally, my job is to inform the public of that which they do not know about. In this case, I am satisfied that I exposed the problems which led to Robinho's walk out but was by no means uncritical of the player and his actions. I am not biased in any way with regard to Manchester City.

I hope this has addressed some of the issues you have raised. And please, before you attack someone about what they do for a living, please be sure to research the facts before calling them or their work a disgrace. It is very rude.

regards

Ian McGarry

I haven;t seen many examples of replies from the press,could it be we may have them rattled?

 

[gfunkstylee]

PM sent to you Svennis. I was meant to send him a reply but just havent had the time. Might leave out the derogatory comments when I do. He'd be dicky enough to pull some sort of 'defamation of character' out of the bag.

 

[Shooter 83]

Wonder what he's excuse will be for getting the back page totally wrong this morning?

 

[harry the plumber]

He forgot to mention that he was also fluent in bullshit aswell

 

[svennis pennis]

Just sent him my thoughts.

Dear Ian.


I tend to read the articles on my club, (Manchester City) through various publications and use them as a reference point rather than gospel, however many people do not have this approach and will believe everything they read as fact.

The handling of the Kaka saga by yourselves was infuriating to read. It was almost desperation for it to fail and ecstasy when it collapsed. I don't remember the same desperation when you reported that Chelsea were interested in paying a similar fee for the player, and I do not recall the term vulgar being used when Christiano Ronaldo was close to joing Madrid for 100 million pounds. An honest question. Is it because a large demographic of your readers are Manchester United and Chelsea supporters? I know you have close ties to Chelsea.

The story which made your back pages when Kaka 'delivered a massive snub to city" by declaring he preferred Manchester United and Arsenal, prompted me to do a bit of my own research. The quotes were definitely Kaka's, that is for certain, however they were from an interview in Esquire magazine, dated October 2007. Obviously the gullible readers that make up a large demographic of your audience lapped this up. Lets not forget this was at a time when people were horrified that little old City might just sign Kaka. This was a bias attempt to appease those fans, so armed with their new found (1 year old) knowledge could mock City supporters. Obviously out numbering them in their sheep like masses.

Now we have the Robinho saga.

I have followed your 'reporting' of this story very closely and have read numerous inaccuracies in your account. Now lets get this right. Here is where you will claim your well placed sources tell you what the player is really thinking. Your 'reporting' has ignored all the official lines from the player and the club and gone for the sensationalist approach. "Robinho thinks Man City are pants" read one witty headline, obviously featuring a picture of said player wearing, thats right you guessed it, SWIMMING PANTS. Incredible.

As of this morning yourself and Mr Custis were pretty much on your own in reporting that Robinho had not been fined by the club and we were, and I quote "a laughing stock." Around 10 am, Mark Hughes confirmed that the club had fined Robinho and were proceeding with disciplinary procedures. How do you think disciplinary procedures work? Do you think Hughes sits down at his desk, pulls out a chip and pin machine and asks Robinho to check the amount of 300k is correct and press enter? Your U-Turn on this story was about as subtle as a brick. Amazingly you reported it as if it was Hughes doing the U-turn, however you failed to mention these quotes in your piece."
“Well, I think if you read some of the tabloids this morning, nothing could be further from the truth with their depiction of what went on.
“One certain newspaper I’ve come to expect it from and it doesn’t really bother me. Some of the reporting on the situation was incorrect and that’s been the norm for a number of months in that certain paper."

Which paper do you think he is referring to there?

Im sure you are tired of my email and will be amazed if you read this far but heres another one for you. Nigel De Jong, It is reported we paid between 14 million - 19 million for this player. A top quality dutch international, I am sure you will agree. You reported that we could of signed the player for 2.3 million in the summer, which is correct. However and heres the key part which you failed to mention. De Jong had already verbally agreed a new contract with Hamburg which he was on the verge of signing until our interest became apparent. If he had signed this contract the clause would of been removed and thus the price would of been possibly higher than what we have paid. Oh, silly me, that wouldn't fit in with the sensationalist journalism. You can delete that part of my Email if you like.

Now seriously Ian, what is the agenda? Am I incorrect in thinking it was you that claimed a back page exclusive that "Ramos was to be fired and replaced with Hughes," which subsequently got you into hot water and an immediate retraction of the story?

I really would love to have a reply from you Ian. I have become fascinated with the level of contempt being shown by yourself and some of your colleagues.

Yours Sincerely.

 

[Kinky by name]

He replied with this. No mention of the buggering boyfriend comment tho.
Interesting...

Dear Mr McGoldrick,

thank you for your email. I read the piece by Daniel Taylor on Wednesday morning. I agree it has it's merits

Write back and tell the prick there's no apostrophe in "its" in this instance; fucking ignoramus, he may be able to speak Spanish but he doesn't know the Queen's English. Twat.

But you're all missing the point, writing to them or their news/sports heads or editor is not they way to hurt them; they'll bat this stuff back at you all day. They're better at it than you and more used to doing it.

You need a balanced and cogent argument, telling them that, generally, their product is okay, however, just recently you have decided to cease purchasing it. It's no good saying it's a bag of wank and you would never read their crap product as that won't hurt them - they'll never miss what they've never had. You need to present a clear argument, backed-up with evidence in a letter to their finance chief and to Murdoch's office, stating the reasons why you, your family, your friends and associate City fans will no longer be buying the Sun or any of its products; nor will you be buying any of its sister papers or, indeed, watching Mr Murdoch's Sky tripe either.

Add up the revenue (on a daily, weekly and annual basis) multiply by a ballpark figure of disgruntled fans and point out that they (by continuing with this clown's ramblings) are also risking future revenue by failing to recruit new readers among your family and friends.

Tell them, too, that you intend to send copies of your complaint to all the major companies that regularly advertise in the paper explaining your reasons for no longer reading the paper or its website.

This type of letter, arriving from a growing number of fans (regularly) over a period of weeks/months will have an effect; far more of an effect than the odd rant; trust me.