Hughes calls for clarity over Tevez row, MuEN block comments

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This is going off-topic and I will resist adding to that

But there has been much written in depth about the genesis of the introduction of FFPR - and to suggest that thwarting CITY is the sole purpose of FFPR is indeed a degree of paranoia.

But to think that the emergence of CITY and the threat of similar such 'new players' would have to the established old order - that had been powerful enough to force the structure of the CL and belittling of the UeFA Cup just to provide security - was not the clear catalyst for and focus of these regulations as they have been shaped is ignorance of the highest order..

As I say going down that path is a divergence from the topic - but there has been plenty written about the motivations of FFPR being brought forward that there is no real reason for people to speak with such ignorance

Two uses of 'ignorance' in the same post. Good job I agree with the thrust of what you are saying.

The key expression in your post is 'as they have been shaped' as to suggest that the established old order would have no say in the form these regulation took is naive in the extreme.

But to suggest that FFP is purely about thwarting our football club, as some do, borders on the insane.<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:07 pm --<br /><br />

And which team is most likely,(and to some extent already has) to threaten the established order? They've even specifically named us in statements regarding FFP. The plans were draughted almost as soon as we were taken over

Seriously? They actually named us?

Fuck me. Well that's me shown then. And there was me thinking that they hadn't named us and there was no conspiracy.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Have you ever been abducted by aliens at any point? Just asking, like.

Are you about 10 or something? Just asking like.

No.

 

[SuperKevinHorlock]

Just the name Financial Fair Play makes me feel sick.

Its nothing but an exercise to maintain the status quo.

 

[Welcome to Manchester]

I haven't posted on the MUEN for over 2 years and won't be doing so in future because of the disgraceful bias shown when I have tried to contribute.
Why would I keep blocked comments from 2 years ago?
I do however remember comments published by the MUEN from rags of a bigoted nature telling a blue with an asian name to "get back where he came from" and racist comments about SWP which I complained about and to be fair were removed. If the mods are so good why were the comments of this nature posted by rags allowed on the City forum in the first place?

If it was just me who has had a poor experience with the MUEN bias then fair enough however I have lost count of the number of blues who I know personally or who have posted on here with similar experiences.
The behaviour of your chief sports editor over a consistent period of time has helped cement the opinion of most people and as the saying goes a fish stinks from its head so maybe the answer to the anti-City bias lies there.
It probably doesn't benefit your paper from being anti-City but my own experience and that of countless others is that it is and frankly you are pissing in the wind by trying to say otherwise.

Occasionally offensive comments do slip through, especially at times when there are a high volume of comments being posted - they are often spotted by someone else on the wesbite operation, or are removed when flagged up by a reader.
There have been instances of offensive City posts getting through, as well as Utd ones.

As you say, you and many other City fans have had comments blocked down the years. I don't doubt it, but without seeing the posts I can't really say why that was.
But there have probably been an equal number of United posts blocked, for many of the same reasons - does that mean we are biased against United as well?
You might be right, I may be pissing in the wind, but only because you have decided what you think, and no amount of reason will make you think otherwise.
Next time you HEAR of someone having a post blocked, get them to save it and send it to me, and I'll assess it for you.
Quite often, what the poster feels is innocuous can be libellous.

I'm still waiting for facts. The sports editor is NOT a United fan, as I keep saying, and without hearing specifically what he is meant to bhave said which is offensive, I can't somment on that either.
I do know that once when I was on Talksport, I was very positive about City, and answered one question which related to City's standing in relation to United, which again I answered positively from a Blue point of view.
Next day, there was a poster on Blue Moon who said I had been invited on to talk about City and that I had turned the whole topic round to talk about United.
That is why I am sceptical, because people with a prejudice or an agenda only hear what they want to hear

Obviously you are not the only one pissing in the wind eh!!
I consistently experienced MUEN bias first hand and as a result of this have formed my own opinion.
If I do hear of any comments blocked I will gladly let you know.

As the MUEN pay your wages you clearly have your own agenda for defending them and I don't blame you for coming on here defending your employer but as I said earlier he who pays the piper calls the tune.
It wasn't you who I was referring to going onto Talksport it was Spence and he has form when it comes to making petty, childish comments about City.
I remember him making a comment about it being "the only trophy you will ever see City win" when the groundsman won an award for the condition of the pitch at Maine Road.
He was on Talksport after City's FA Cup parade where he tried to belittle the fact that over 100 000 people turned up and claimed that 200 000 would turn up for the rag parade prior to their embarassing turnout.
The most recent example I can recall was when he was invited onto Talksport again in the summer to talk about City where he proceeded to slag off the club accusing them of "stockpiling" players - at the time we had only signed Clichy and Savic - and claiming that the rags only wanted Sneijder.
For a so called impartial view on national radio from a local paper is it any wonder the MUEN has such a poor reputation amongst City fans?
Its not you I have a problem with its the MUEN in general and fair play for coming on here but at the end of the day they pay your wages so you clearly have an agenda yourself.
You are hardly going to come on here and bite the hand that feeds you are you?

 

[blumoonrisen]

is it any wonder the MUEN has such a poor reputation amongst City fans?

Why do some folk think they somehow speak for a majority..? ignorant and laughable.

 

[mcfc1632]

Just think that we should not let the FFPR subject take over this thread - there are loads of FFPR specific threads where those that have done substantial research have gone into healthy (and not normally paranoid) discussion.

Anyway - back on topic - I would hope that SB takes from this thread that there is a growing number of CITY fans that genuinely feel that the MEN coverage continues down a path established from many years of pandering to the stretford set.

Now he says - why should the MEN do this?' - I can accept that it is probably so systemic that it is now just subliminal in the way that it affects their approach - perhaps SB can agree to take stock over the coming months just to review his/ the paper's balance to see if he sees any grounds for the concern he has witnessed raised by CITY fans?

That should be a fair thing to ask/suggest - it is not demanding anything - but as stated by SB it is in the interests of the MEN not to alienate the CITY fans and that is the direction of travel that the paper has been on for some time (in the opinions of a growing number of us)........

 

[Welcome to Manchester]

is it any wonder the MUEN has such a poor reputation amongst City fans?

Why do some folk think they somehow speak for a majority..? ignorant and laughable.

Did I say ALL City fans?
If you think the MUEN hasn't got a poor reputation amongst a significant number of city fans it is you who is ignorant and laughable.

 

[blumoonrisen]

is it any wonder the MUEN has such a poor reputation amongst City fans?

Why do some folk think they somehow speak for a majority..? ignorant and laughable.

Did I say ALL City fans?
If you think the MUEN hasn't got a poor reputation amongst a significant number of city fans it is you who is ignorant and laughable.

yeah there's a handful on here... there's far more folk on the planet that think the earth is hollow.<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:39 pm --<br /><br />

is it any wonder the MUEN has such a poor reputation amongst City fans?

Why do some folk think they somehow speak for a majority..? ignorant and laughable.

Did I say ALL City fans?
If you think the MUEN hasn't got a poor reputation amongst a significant number of city fans it is you who is ignorant and laughable.

 

[Welcome to Manchester]

yeah there's a handful on here... there's far more folk on the planet that think the earth is hollow.

And no doubt plenty that think the world is flat....

 

[bluelady47]

Why can't Hughes keep his "Big disjointed nose out of MCFC" he no longer has anything to do with our club, Hughes just climb further up Kia A*S*hole. Go Away.

 

[mcfc1632]

well that (bluemoonrisen) is all a bit of subjective tit for tat.

from a personal point of view I am sure that I have heard more CITY fans (far more it feels) state that they feel that the MEN does not provide a fair and balanced coverage when reporting on united and CITY.

But that is just my view - it would be interesting to see a poll conducted on Bluemoon just to ask for a simple vote on:

Do you think that the Manchester Evening News:

a) offers a fair and balanced level of reporting of football matters between CITY and united

b) demonstrates a clear bias towards united or

c) demonstrates a clear bias towards CITY

A 2nd poll question could be

With regard to the reporting of CITY specific subjects, do you think that the Manchester Evening News:

a) on balance reports in a manner that is 'neutral'

b) on balance reports in a manner that is actively 'overstated and perhaps overly positive' or

c) on balance reports in a manner that is actively 'understated and perhaps overly negative'

I would answer:

b) and c)

Perhaps a mod would be willing to set this up - I do not know how to