Interview with Daniel Taylor from The Guardian

[George Hannah]

Hopefully those idiots who claim that Vickie Kloss is "not up to the job",have the balls to apologise.I fear not though.

I've always hoped that despite her job, Vickie Kloss never ever reads BlueMoon to see what the fans think.

She reads it religiously. That's a fact.

Factually, I hear she prefers your tuna to your egg mayo , especially on Fridays.

 

[blueincy]

it doesn't excuse the misrepresentation of us though, for example in terms of our spending, wage bill and FFP etc.

Why doesn't DT come out tomorrow and write a positive article, saying that actually we've been responsible financially for the past several seasons, that FFP is complete bollocks and look how clubs like United are completely battering the market and outspending us?

It's alright for him to say it to you, but until he has the balls to put it in a national paper regularly and force the standards of the press up by aligning with the fairer journalists to put pressure on the gutter press, like the guy who put a back page of us as cheats the other week despite it being proved otherwise 2 days later, until the big crap stops being spouted, and the huge lies printed about us, then all the slight criticisms are going to rile us as well, because if you're going to allow people to lie about us in the national press, and not being strong in defending us when we deserve to be, then we're going to take the stance that you want to do us down, and that will manifest itself in people picking on every little detail, because they don't trust you anymore.

So Daniel Taylor, if you truly believe what you told Ric, take a leaf out of Martin Samuel's book and write about it, and set a fair press standard that puts pressure on those who call us cheats and lie about us, and force them through peer pressure to at least be fair. If you want to criticise the club over the handling of Lampard, or over the Mangala fee, fine, if you have the evidence to support you. But for us to be labelled "FFP dodgers", is inexcusable and a leading journalist like yourself should not accept your peers damaging your industry's reputation by it. So print about us fairly, defend us when your disreputable colleagues lie about us and not only may your industry change for the better, but you'll get a lot more respect for it.

We don't want to see you slag off United either, and be biased in the other way. I think simply, the main bone of contention is that if you're going to criticise us for things, then you should equally do so when United do it worse (i.e. excessive spending, high wage bills, based in the Cayman Islands, lots of debt). It's the complete unfairness of slamming City for something, then not clubs who have done it worse, or just plain lying about us (not a claim against you personally) that riles City fans, and you and your peers who claim, as you do in the interview, to be fair and honest and have those views, should do more to make sure your profession is, well professionally, in its reporting towards all teams, including City.

 

[Blue&whitestripes]

I've said this before and i'll stand by it until i'm blue in the face;

Newspapers are in the industry of selling units and getting clicks, they produce sports material that is at the same time; informative (to whatever degree you consider), provocative, interesting and populist.

we are still in a situation where a large make up of UK fans are United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal. The Premier League era big boys. That's their market and 10 back pages of how good City are and how good they will be will not shift aforementioned units and neither will it attract this huge base of readership to their websites (and thus advertisers).

For now it remains inflammatory but i would love to see in 10 or 15 years time - when the current crop of 5 to 8 year olds who have emerged as footy fans and have a City side that wins titles to pick from - have disposable incomes, how the news coverage changes then.

The only 'agenda' i see is age-old newspaper bias to sell units and advertising to satisfy the largest consumer base. They have zero interest in squashing City out of existence as they are a massive market in the making.

I agree with you: there may not be a concerted agenda against City, but there is a definite commercial interest in attracting clicks/paper purchases from fans of United et al who want to read good stories about their club and its players OR who will delight in an article that knocks their rivals/the newest upstarts AND who won't bother to click through to anything critical of their club. (I'm not criticising them for that: I have to have a large whisky and take a very deep breath before I will consider reading a Jamie Jackson article about City .....)

There is no doubt that the spotlight that could have been shone on United's transfer spend and huge wage bills has not been there. Given how much City were "ruining football" for so long, it does smack of hypocrisy. But, again, I suspect it's commercial hypocrisy rather than anything else.

 

[Damocles]

A disgusting set of replies from Taylor, entirely due to his knowledge that the interview wouldn't be confrontational in any way.

Every single reply was patronising, aggressive and worst of all, wrong. He constantly insulted our userbase throughout the interview knowing that we'd have no right to reply or to point out inaccuracies.

I'm an admin on Bluemoon and have been for 7 years and that being published on here is the first time that I've ever been ashamed of being a part of this place. Ric probably published that as some sort of freedom of speech thing as he's extremely strong on that, and that is his right as the owner of the site, but he essentially took the piss out of City fans then slagged off Bluemoon. There's a difference between freedom of speech and somebody trolling for clicks.

If that was a post by a new user on here we'd ban them

 

[oakiecokie]

A disgusting set of replies from Taylor, entirely due to his knowledge that the interview wouldn't be confrontational in any way.

Every single reply was patronising, aggressive and worst of all, wrong. He constantly insulted our userbase throughout the interview knowing that we'd have no right to reply or to point out inaccuracies.

I'm an admin on Bluemoon and have been for 7 years and that being published on here is the first time that I've ever been ashamed of being a part of this place. Ric probably published that as some sort of freedom of speech thing as he's extremely strong on that, and that is his right as the owner of the site, but he essentially took the piss out of City fans then slagged off Bluemoon. There's a difference between freedom of speech and somebody trolling for clicks.

If that was a post by a new user on here we'd ban them

I can see Ric sending a P45 out in the morning.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

RAWK don't approve either;

Interesting but seriously cringey interview with a Guardian journalist. They got him in on the pretence of discussing football - threw in a Tate style don't care question at the start and finish - then spent the entire thing whining about some mythical agenda against their club.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

A disgusting set of replies from Taylor, entirely due to his knowledge that the interview wouldn't be confrontational in any way.

Every single reply was patronising, aggressive and worst of all, wrong. He constantly insulted our userbase throughout the interview knowing that we'd have no right to reply or to point out inaccuracies.

I'm an admin on Bluemoon and have been for 7 years and that being published on here is the first time that I've ever been ashamed of being a part of this place. Ric probably published that as some sort of freedom of speech thing as he's extremely strong on that, and that is his right as the owner of the site, but he essentially took the piss out of City fans then slagged off Bluemoon. There's a difference between freedom of speech and somebody trolling for clicks.

If that was a post by a new user on here we'd ban them

He's not taking the piss out of City fans per se but he is showing amusement at the more radical extremes of football forum opinions. Let's be honest, it's not an uncommon theme amongst media and football people. And you know as well as I do that it has a lot of truth in it.

 

[TCIB]

absoute bullshit interview, even sychophantic in places. thee one thing in the agenda thread we all agree on is media bias and some hack tells the site owner there isn't one and thats enough for you all. fuckin bollocks.

I see where your coming from bud.
I give him credit for doing it and dislike parts and the general tone but i just find i could not give a toss really.
People are pissed off and i can understand that but i only read it as i had a nice joint ready to smoke and wanted more than a one line post to read :-D

I don't even click newspaper links that are good now, i just don't care what others have to say that are not City fans.

 

[LoveCity]

No questions about the self-parody Jamie Jackson who succeeded him? I am disappoint! If anyone is living proof of bias, it's that loathsome creature.

BTW Ric it appears actual rags have commented below that interview with their usual tripe.

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

absoute bullshit interview, even sychophantic in places. thee one thing in the agenda thread we all agree on is media bias and some hack tells the site owner there isn't one and thats enough for you all. fuckin bollocks.

I see where your coming from bud.
I give him credit for doing it and dislike parts and the general tone but i just find i could not give a toss really.
People are pissed off and i can understand that but i only read it as i had a nice joint ready to smoke and wanted more than a one line post to read :-D

I don't even click newspaper links that are good now, i just don't care what others have to say that are not City fans.

Same, they all just spout the shite the red tops tell them.