conn having a dig again

[Chris in London]

Fantastic posts as usual, BSHR.

Going to the cinema in the 1970's was certainly more affordable than today and doubtless the local flea-pit was owned by a local businessman, but the facilities were crap, the acoustics terrible and they only sold one flavour of ice cream.

If Conn was writing an article about the evolution of the "cinema going experience", I expect he'd pontificate about the current cost, lament about the fact that cinemas are now primarily foreign owned, whilst conspicuously omitting reference to any improvements.

I don't have a problem with his view on the modern game, but he has a way of advancing his argument which is tendentious and self-righteous in equal measure.

I've said it before GDM, but you use your tongue purtier than a $20 dollar whore. Tendentious. There won't be a better word used on here all day. I am (sadly) very excite......!

I debated putting 'specious' in there too, but I didn't want to over-egg the pudding ;-)

Specious... Tendentious... pontificate... Away with your johnsonesque antediluvian fripperies.

It was fucking shite and you know it.

 

[Corky]

'remarkable acceptance ' is a bit offensive, just ignore him in future.

 

[moomba]

'remarkable acceptance ' is a bit offensive, just ignore him in future.

If he thinks it's remarkable he doesnt have a great understanding of football supporters, or human beings.

 

[Damocles]

The accounts show Sheikh Mansour had paid almost exactly £1bn into City since his 2008 takeover, including £190m last year. Total losses made to 31 May 2013 were £559m, which Sheikh Mansour's money has bankrolled. So the source of his £1bn is not some rag-based media trolling but based on analysis of the accounts and cash introduced by Sheikh Mansour.

You know enough about our accounts to know why this is a completely unfair statement that means almost nothing, and more importantly the first bit is wrong.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Before this, there was one on the financial results a month ago. It's a pretty straightforward article but he makes this statement: The accounts show Sheikh Mansour had paid almost exactly £1bn into City since his 2008 takeover, including £190m last year. Total losses made to 31 May 2013 were £559m, which Sheikh Mansour's money has bankrolled. So the source of his £1bn is not some rag-based media trolling but based on analysis of the accounts and cash introduced by Sheikh Mansour.

Doesnt that £1bn include future wage commitments, money not actually spent?

And by the same standards isnt there several other club owners that are at an above the billion mark that never seem to be mentioned?

It covers all the equity that the Sheikh has put in to cover the purchase from Thaksin, losses, player purchases and other investment. So I wouldn't imagine it covered any future commitments to meet wages. But we should be self-sufficient this year anyway.

Another thing Conn mentioned in one of his articles that I've not seen anyone else mention is that there was a 10-year target to recoup that money, by making the value of the club exceed that £1bn. You have to remember that he was the one journalist given unprecedented access to the club and the senior figures, including Khaldoon, when he was flown out to Abu Dhabi. That doesn't mean he will just produce powder-puff pieces like most journos and the club know this. But with all his faults and angst about the state of the game, I'd rather read Conn than a million writers who simply reproduce club PR (like Herbert) or even just make things up.

 

[moomba]

When the billion figure first came out (Telegraph from memory) it included future wage commitments.

 

[Damocles]

You'd prefer to read an incredibly biased writer with an ideology that constantly infects his journalism than an incredibly biased writer with no ideology?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

What grates with Conn IMO, is the frequency with which City seems to be the vehicle on which he hangs his "money-ruining-football" mantras...

I looked at the list of his articles in The Guardian. Link

Before this, there was one on the financial results a month ago. It's a pretty straightforward article but he makes this statement: The accounts show Sheikh Mansour had paid almost exactly £1bn into City since his 2008 takeover, including £190m last year. Total losses made to 31 May 2013 were £559m, which Sheikh Mansour's money has bankrolled. So the source of his £1bn is not some rag-based media trolling but based on analysis of the accounts and cash introduced by Sheikh Mansour.

Prior to that there was the one in July 2013 about the Human Rights Watch press release about Abu Dhabi. It was critical of some practices in the UAE but also made the point that the money put into City included the biggest investment into East Manchester for many years.

Then in May there were a couple on the Mancini sacking, where he'd clearly been briefed by the club and one about the NYCFC franchise. There was an interview with Pab Zab in March 2013 and before that, the 2012 accounts in Dec 2012.

He's written far more about the Glazers, Hillsborough, Leeds and recently Coventry than about us.

He probably has, but they just don't stick in the mind, because our focus is, inevitably, on City.

The point about the £1 billion is not that it was inaccurate as a face value statement of what Sheikh Mansour has invested, but that the rag trolls bandy that sum about to the effect that that is what the City team cost to assemble in transfer fees. In reality of course, nearly half of it went on buying the club, building up the infrastructure, etc etc

 

[moomba]

And just looking at that Telegraph article it says that the cash outlay was £565m. Which is a little different to £1bn. Basically it ignores any income we've made since the takeover, counts player purchases but not player sales and ignores the increased value of club and assets held by the club.

But if you're going to use the standard why not use it with other clubs. I've never heard the spending of Man United or Liverpool (both would be around a billion) spoken about the same way.

 

[Damocles]

He probably has, but they just don't stick in the mind, because our focus is, inevitably, on City.

The point about the £1 billion is not that it was inaccurate as a face value statement of what Sheikh Mansour has invested, but that the rag trolls bandy that sum about to the effect that that is what the City team cost to assemble in transfer fees. In reality of course, nearly half of it went on buying the club, building up the infrastructure, etc etc

But again, the figure is wrong.

£1bn totals every single penny that Sheikh Mansour has spent on purchasing the club, and most importantly it includes every single penny City have spent as a company since 2008 without counting any money coming in.

It's grossly unfair and misleading figure and people like David Conn would be above such sensationalism if it didn't fit into their pre-determined agenda on Manchester City. In one conversation I had with him when I pointed out the new jobs in East Manchester, his response was "well it doesn't make up for losing all the factories" like this was somehow our responsibility.

He also claims that the jobs in East Manchester "are overstated in importance" and when writing about them uses the figure purely for the permanent jobs at the new City development instead of using figures that takes into account the entire redevelopment, nor does he count the jobs created by using Manchester contractors for much of the work.

This is exactly what I mean about Conn. He cherrypicks figures to make his point, and that point is often grossly unfair. He constantly tries to have a dig at City; on deadline day he was having a dig at City for supporting "indentured servitude" because we were chasing two player who were partly owned by agents. That is a ridiculous statement.

I converse with the man fairly regularly online, have read all of his books and exchanged emails from time to time and whilst he seems like a nice man rather than some moustache twirling villain, his views of football are mainly just wrong.