conn having a dig again

[Prestwich_Blue]

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?

No. I'd prefer to read a writer whose standpoint I understand (but may not agree with) who writes with passion for his subject, has done his research and is prepared to challenge the status quo or go beyond the PR person's narrative and educates me. That's why I loved the late Paul Foot & Christopher Hitchens.

 

[1972Bramhall_Blue]

"well it doesn't make up for losing all the factories" like this was somehow our responsibility.

That sums up David Conn in a nutshell. Whether it makes up for losing all the factories or not is totally irrelevant, the factories have gone, long ago and ARE NOT COMING BACK. Should East Manchester then forever remain a post industrial wasteland till some dream world that exists only in Conns head rebuilds the factories? or should someone acyually try to do something with the world as it is?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

"well it doesn't make up for losing all the factories" like this was somehow our responsibility.

That sums up David Conn in a nutshell. Whether it makes up for losing all the factories or not is totally irrelevant, the factories have gone, long ago and ARE NOT COMING BACK. Should East Manchester then forever remain a post industrial wasteland till some dream world that exists only in Conns head rebuilds the factories? or should someone acyually try to do something with the world as it is?

Again, the map is not the territory. Read some of his articles, even the one highlighting human rights abuses in the UAE, and you'll see he mentions the investment in East Manchester favourably.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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?

Ladyman has an ideology, alright. The word 'cult' springs to mind, in fact.

 

[1972Bramhall_Blue]

That sums up David Conn in a nutshell. Whether it makes up for losing all the factories or not is totally irrelevant, the factories have gone, long ago and ARE NOT COMING BACK. Should East Manchester then forever remain a post industrial wasteland till some dream world that exists only in Conns head rebuilds the factories? or should someone acyually try to do something with the world as it is?

Again, the map is not the territory. Read some of his articles, even the one highlighting human rights abuses in the UAE, and you'll see he mentions the investment in East Manchester favourably.

I've read all three of his books and a lot of his articles and I am genuinely confused by him, he makes a lot of very good points about where football may have gone wrong but really that's it. I can appreciate he thinks the game took the wrong path but the fact is that it did take that path, so what now? Constantly bemoaning the Premier League and the effect of the influx of money is all very well, but it has happened, to keep harping about it is like the old man in the pub twenty years ago telling anyone who'd listen how much better the game was under the maximum wage and retain and transfer system, well maybe but so what?

 

[Damocles]

Again, the map is not the territory. Read some of his articles, even the one highlighting human rights abuses in the UAE, and you'll see he mentions the investment in East Manchester favourably.

The be all and end all of this though is the one question; "is David Conn a fair reporter on Manchester City?"

I don't think he is because he often misuses statistics that suit his point better than the actual ones, he draws tedious and tenuous connections between City and human rights abuses in UAE (such as things that happen in Dubai) which is grossly unfair, he champions a return to a time that never existed in football and he'll freely admit this time never existed and he has a hammer and sees everything as a nail.

Manchester City represent everything that Conn thinks is wrong with modern football by his own admission. There is no way at all that this can be ignored in his writings; just as we don't expect Ed Miliband to write about Conservative Party political agendas fairly.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Au contraire, mon ami it's highly accurate.

I've just checked the relevant accounts and the cash flow statements say that new financing introduced was as follows (slightly rounded but not excessively so):

2009 - £155m
2010 - £295m
2011 - £180m
2012 - £170m
2013 - £190m

That totals £990m, which is just £10m short of £1bn.

 

[Phil Meup]

That sums up David Conn in a nutshell. Whether it makes up for losing all the factories or not is totally irrelevant, the factories have gone, long ago and ARE NOT COMING BACK. Should East Manchester then forever remain a post industrial wasteland till some dream world that exists only in Conns head rebuilds the factories? or should someone acyually try to do something with the world as it is?

Again, the map is not the territory. Read some of his articles, even the one highlighting human rights abuses in the UAE, and you'll see he mentions the investment in East Manchester favourably.

I've read all three of his books and a lot of his articles and I am genuinely confused by him, he makes a lot of very good points about where football may have gone wrong but really that's it. I can appreciate he thinks the game took the wrong path but the fact is that it did take that path, so what now? Constantly bemoaning the Premier League and the effect of the influx of money is all very well, but it has happened, to keep harping about it is like the old man in the pub twenty years ago telling anyone who'd listen how much better the game was under the maximum wage and retain and transfer system, well maybe but so what?

I find him a bit wearing as well. If I decided to stop supporting City (as he claims he has), I'd never go to see another game. Being 'in the trade' he has the luxury of still going to see any game he likes for free! Life's short: enjoy it & stop fkin moaning!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I've read all three of his books and a lot of his articles and I am genuinely confused by him

The problem is that, as I've said, I believe he's confused himself. There's a dilemma he seemingly struggles to resolve, certainly where City are concerned. "Money is bad for the game but the owners are good for City".

Or else it's "the owners may not actually be good as they've done some naughty things in Abu Dhabi but they've done some good things as well."

So it's hardly surprising you're confused. Me - I just accept the contradictions and enjoy the writing as he writes about subjexts I'm also passionately interested in.

 

[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.

Au contraire, mon ami it's highly accurate.

I've just checked the relevant accounts and the cash flow statements say that new financing introduced was as follows (slightly rounded but not excessively so):

2009 - £155m
2010 - £295m
2011 - £180m
2012 - £170m
2013 - £190m

That totals £990m, which is just £10m short of £1bn.

And how exactly would Conn have known those figures in May 2012?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/may/18/fall-and-rise-manchester-city" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ester-city</a>

Coincidentally 4 days after this article:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2012/05/the_1billion_title.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/20 ... title.html</a>