'How to buy a football club' - Ch4 Mon 8pm

[Pigeonho]

I think Pigeonho is a good poster and can see what hes saying and wheres hes coming from but IMO Mario has been a whipping boy for the press. Why? because hes young,black,successful,reputation,signed for "money bags" city, foreign and most importantly different, humans do not like different or something/someone they are not used to.

The red tops and most of the mainstream media is absoulete drivel and they force an opinion on the brain dead masses who read their news religously and believe everything that is written. The opinions in these papers are usually wrote to then reinforce the braindead, rascist muppets opinions.

Mario will show them all up this coming season :)

It would have been the same if you changed 'signed for successful Man United' instead of 'moneybags City'. He has his reputation, he brought it over from Italy and continued to enhance it over here, albeit with nothing stories. The papers love printing shit though, and print it they will - if someone supplies the ammo. Balotelli was getting reported on over here long before the names 'Balotelli' and 'Man City' were spoke in the same sentence. When he through his shirt to the floor, enticing the fury of the San Siro and was subsequently cornered in the car park by fans and the media alike, that made the news over here. That is him, his reputation is exactly that. He has continued it over here but some fans who I can only now come to the conclusion that they want there to be an agenda, simply refuse to see it because its easier to just say 'nope, not having it. Its ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL because he plays for us'.
I prefer to live in the real world.

 

[KentBlue]

So they didn't run the Giggs 'scandal' in Kent? Or the Ferdinand's 10 lovers story? Or the Rooney with hookers, hair transplant, swearing ban, son in an Everton kit, smoking on holiday, pissing in a doorway etc etc etc...

I don't buy tabloids but I stop and read the sports pages in Asda most mornings. I can truthfully say personally I never saw the Ferdinand's 10 lovers thing, and definitely not Rooney pissing in a doorway. They might have been there, but I didn't see them. The Giggs scandal, yes, that was printed. But as I said in my post, you seldom see negative stories about the rags here.

 

[WJP]

So they didn't run the Giggs 'scandal' in Kent? Or the Ferdinand's 10 lovers story? Or the Rooney with hookers, hair transplant, swearing ban, son in an Everton kit, smoking on holiday, pissing in a doorway etc etc etc...

I don't buy tabloids but I stop and read the sports pages in Asda most mornings. I can truthfully say personally I never saw the Ferdinand's 10 lovers thing, and definitely not Rooney pissing in a doorway. They might have been there, but I didn't see them. The Giggs scandal, yes, that was printed. But as I said in my post, you seldom see negative stories about the rags here.

Mon Dieu!

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Pige would you not agree that in general the press and the sporting media prefer not to run negative rag stories as not to alienate their major source of revenue?

 

[Pigeonho]

Pige would you not agree that in general the press and the sporting media prefer not to run negative rag stories as not to alienate their major source of revenue?

Well the Rooney story was a negative one, and that was ran.
The Giggs story was a negative one, and that was ran.
The Ferdinand one I mentioned earlier, when he was alleged to have to stand up on flights now because of his back, that was a negative one and that was ran.
Remember the stories of Fergie having to go round and remove people from Giggs' parties, most notebly Sharp by the ear?
What about how the press ripped the piss out of them when they blamed their grey kit for the Southampton defeat? All negative press. The last 2 are years old, but the point there is our negative stories are happening because we are only just taking our seat at the top table, whereas before we were everyones favourite little club. United have been at the top table for years, so any negative stories will have been printed.
In the main what has really been that negative about us? The press had a bee in their bonet about the take over and Hughes' sacking, and they had a problem with how we spunked £32.5m on a player who openly admitted to wanting to go to Chelsea. That will attract negative, piss taking press instantly. Did you expect them to not report on that? The other little things, the Mario bib, the Tevez rowing with BM, the this, the that, it;s all because we are big news because of what we've spent to get what we are. The thing is though it's hardly negative is it? Negative is one of the players sleeping with a hooker, and another shagging some Welsh slag off of BB. Oh, those stories were about United players - negative stories at that. If one of our players had done those things and it was in the press, it would be the fault of the player, and it would be the player who had forced the negative press because as we all know, it is the job of the media to sell papers, and negative stories sell papers more than positive ones, whether its sport, drama, disasters or anything else. We are news, we have attracted that news because of what we are doing. You can't have it both ways and like I have said before I would rather have us in the press for our £24m Italian striker fucking about with his bib than be in the press because we miraculouslly beat Gillingham in the 3rd tier play off, once again becoming everyones favourite second team.

 

[cookster]

Pige would you not agree that in general the press and the sporting media prefer not to run negative rag stories as not to alienate their major source of revenue?

Well the Rooney story was a negative one, and that was ran.
The Giggs story was a negative one, and that was ran.
The Ferdinand one I mentioned earlier, when he was alleged to have to stand up on flights now because of his back, that was a negative one and that was ran.
Remember the stories of Fergie having to go round and remove people from Giggs' parties, most notebly Sharp by the ear?
What about how the press ripped the piss out of them when they blamed their grey kit for the Southampton defeat? All negative press. The last 2 are years old, but the point there is our negative stories are happening because we are only just taking our seat at the top table, whereas before we were everyones favourite little club. United have been at the top table for years, so any negative stories will have been printed.
In the main what has really been that negative about us? The press had a bee in their bonet about the take over and Hughes' sacking, and they had a problem with how we spunked £32.5m on a player who openly admitted to wanting to go to Chelsea. That will attract negative, piss taking press instantly. Did you expect them to not report on that? The other little things, the Mario bib, the Tevez rowing with BM, the this, the that, it;s all because we are big news because of what we've spent to get what we are. The thing is though it's hardly negative is it? Negative is one of the players sleeping with a hooker, and another shagging some Welsh slag off of BB. Oh, those stories were about United players - negative stories at that. If one of our players had done those things and it was in the press, it would be the fault of the player, and it would be the player who had forced the negative press because as we all know, it is the job of the media to sell papers, and negative stories sell papers more than positive ones, whether its sport, drama, disasters or anything else. We are news, we have attracted that news because of what we are doing. You can't have it both ways and like I have said before I would rather have us in the press for our £24m Italian striker fucking about with his bib than be in the press because we miraculouslly beat Gillingham in the 3rd tier play off, once again becoming everyones favourite second team.

I wonder what percentage of your 11000 plus posts have been defending Manure? Just a thought ;)