Pigeonho said:Ah, the paranoia begins. Knew it would at some point.
There were no clubs involved, so to say 'if it was City' is wrong. It wasn't 'United', it was Bryan Robson and his crooked team of investors. United were just unfortunate enough to have their brand involved, but it isn't United as a club who did anything wrong, Fergie included for that matter. The way people were going on this thread last night was like Fergie had been caught with his pants down, eating Sushi off of a 12 year old Thai hooker. It was like a frenzy at times, when in reality the only one in the wrong was Robson and his twatty mates.
If Mario signed for them last season instead of us and did the exact same things he has done whilst being here, (the prison thing, the money thing, the fireworks and all the other things which have made him a 'legend', to some), he would have had the piss taken out of him by the press as well. The things printed about him aren't news stories, they are snippets which fill columns, most of which no-one pays any attention to anyway. What is news is the 2 page spread the Guardian did on him and his background, a full on article about his upbringing, the trouble he had as a kid in Italy and just about him in general. That was positive press for Mario but the difference is that was an article, not a snippet to fill tabloid columns. It would have been the same if he played for United, Arsenal or Liverpool. If it was City who's bar had been used during that documentary we would have had the same non-press as United have had, because other than baring their name it had nothing to do with them, same as it would have had nothing to do with us if it was a City bar. Robson and his mates were what the programme was about, not United. So for someone to say 'if that was City the press would have been all over it' is paranoia, because there is nothing for the press to be all over other than Robson and his dodgy attempts to buy a club and his complete lack of respect to the game.Gaudino said:Pigeonho said:Ah, the paranoia begins. Knew it would at some point.
There were no clubs involved, so to say 'if it was City' is wrong. It wasn't 'United', it was Bryan Robson and his crooked team of investors. United were just unfortunate enough to have their brand involved, but it isn't United as a club who did anything wrong, Fergie included for that matter. The way people were going on this thread last night was like Fergie had been caught with his pants down, eating Sushi off of a 12 year old Thai hooker. It was like a frenzy at times, when in reality the only one in the wrong was Robson and his twatty mates.
Agreed to a point Pige.....but united directly involved or not, are you sure that a media that picks up on Ballo so much as wearing odd socks and makes it a newsworthy story, wouldn't be all over this if it was City 'involved' so? That ain't paranoia, just the way 'us' and 'them' are treated in the press...
Pigeonho said:If Mario signed for them last season instead of us and did the exact same things he has done whilst being here, (the prison thing, the money thing, the fireworks and all the other things which have made him a 'legend', to some), he would have had the piss taken out of him by the press as well. The things printed about him aren't news stories, they are snippets which fill columns, most of which no-one pays any attention to anyway. What is news is the 2 page spread the Guardian did on him and his background, a full on article about his upbringing, the trouble he had as a kid in Italy and just about him in general. That was positive press for Mario but the difference is that was an article, not a snippet to fill tabloid columns. It would have been the same if he played for United, Arsenal or Liverpool. If it was City who's bar had been used during that documentary we would have had the same non-press as United have had, because other than baring their name it had nothing to do with them, same as it would have had nothing to do with us if it was a City bar. Robson and his mates were what the programme was about, not United. So for someone to say 'if that was City the press would have been all over it' is paranoia, because there is nothing for the press to be all over other than Robson and his dodgy attempts to buy a club and his complete lack of respect to the game.Gaudino said:Pigeonho said:Ah, the paranoia begins. Knew it would at some point.
There were no clubs involved, so to say 'if it was City' is wrong. It wasn't 'United', it was Bryan Robson and his crooked team of investors. United were just unfortunate enough to have their brand involved, but it isn't United as a club who did anything wrong, Fergie included for that matter. The way people were going on this thread last night was like Fergie had been caught with his pants down, eating Sushi off of a 12 year old Thai hooker. It was like a frenzy at times, when in reality the only one in the wrong was Robson and his twatty mates.
Agreed to a point Pige.....but united directly involved or not, are you sure that a media that picks up on Ballo so much as wearing odd socks and makes it a newsworthy story, wouldn't be all over this if it was City 'involved' so? That ain't paranoia, just the way 'us' and 'them' are treated in the press...
Well say it was a bar linked to City last night (which is all that bar is for United), what could the press have printed about us as a club to involve us in the seedy goings on of an ex player?Gaudino said:Pigeonho said:If Mario signed for them last season instead of us and did the exact same things he has done whilst being here, (the prison thing, the money thing, the fireworks and all the other things which have made him a 'legend', to some), he would have had the piss taken out of him by the press as well. The things printed about him aren't news stories, they are snippets which fill columns, most of which no-one pays any attention to anyway. What is news is the 2 page spread the Guardian did on him and his background, a full on article about his upbringing, the trouble he had as a kid in Italy and just about him in general. That was positive press for Mario but the difference is that was an article, not a snippet to fill tabloid columns. It would have been the same if he played for United, Arsenal or Liverpool. If it was City who's bar had been used during that documentary we would have had the same non-press as United have had, because other than baring their name it had nothing to do with them, same as it would have had nothing to do with us if it was a City bar. Robson and his mates were what the programme was about, not United. So for someone to say 'if that was City the press would have been all over it' is paranoia, because there is nothing for the press to be all over other than Robson and his dodgy attempts to buy a club and his complete lack of respect to the game.Gaudino said:Agreed to a point Pige.....but united directly involved or not, are you sure that a media that picks up on Ballo so much as wearing odd socks and makes it a newsworthy story, wouldn't be all over this if it was City 'involved' so? That ain't paranoia, just the way 'us' and 'them' are treated in the press...
I respect your opinion, but will have to agree to disagree on it......twenty years working at a national daily, and hearing hacks openly admit to curbing bad press on the rags because of the 'special' bond they enjoy with Surly, while relishing it and happy to go to press when it's other clubs gives me reason to not feel its just paranoia....
As their global ambassador I presume he's on their payroll.Pigeonho said:Well say it was a bar linked to City last night (which is all that bar is for United), what could the press have printed about us as a club to involve us in the seedy goings on of an ex player?
Ok, now take away the fact they had their meeting in the United bar and change it to Paddy's Bar just down the road. Absolutely nothing is linked to United then, other than an ex player and a manager who the programme even said doesn't have the relationship with that Jim character which he, (Jim), seemed to enthuse. Ferguson did nothing wrong in that programme. So if you take the fact the meetings were held in a United bar what do you have left? A washed up ex United player making a **** of himself and ridding himself of any credibility he had to begin with. It would be the same if it was, oh I don't know, David White for example. It would only be the case that he was an ex City player that the club would be linked to the programme in anyway shape or form. There is nothing to report on the club, because the trap was set to show how ex players are involved in trying to purchase clubs in an illegal way.Gaudino said:Guilt by association would be implied simply by the amount of times it would be mentioned in relation to the story.
The very fact that this story barely made the papers today speaks volumes for certain hacks and editor's relationship with that club.
Soz.....this was in resonse to Pige's question.....trying to do ten things at once here...
Pigeonho said:Ok, now take away the fact they had their meeting in the United bar and change it to Paddy's Bar just down the road. Absolutely nothing is linked to United then, other than an ex player and a manager who the programme even said doesn't have the relationship with that Jim character which he, (Jim), seemed to enthuse. Ferguson did nothing wrong in that programme. So if you take the fact the meetings were held in a United bar what do you have left? A washed up ex United player making a **** of himself and ridding himself of any credibility he had to begin with. It would be the same if it was, oh I don't know, David White for example. It would only be the case that he was an ex City player that the club would be linked to the programme in anyway shape or form. There is nothing to report on the club, because the trap was set to show how ex players are involved in trying to purchase clubs in an illegal way.Gaudino said:Guilt by association would be implied simply by the amount of times it would be mentioned in relation to the story.
The very fact that this story barely made the papers today speaks volumes for certain hacks and editor's relationship with that club.
Soz.....this was in resonse to Pige's question.....trying to do ten things at once here...