Interview with Daniel Taylor from The Guardian

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Condescend to you ??? I fucking meant it so how can I be condescending ?? If you write when you`re pissed then expect flack or maybe your shoulders aren`t broad enough and also have thin skin.

Attacking wrong use of words or grammar while ignoring the meaning of the post is like lesson #1 in an "i've lost an argument on the internet so better chance the subject" course. you defended Scholes slagging city off on national tv did'nt you?

I said too may Blues have skins as thin as fuck,you have just proved my point.Then again you are very much part of the "Agenda Tribe" aren`t you ?
Changed the subject ... now I know you`re pissed !!

you are talkin in riddles pal because you are an uncle Tom apologist and have no answer for it other than its the stance you took ages back and now have to stick with it till the end, just like pidge, he defended the slagging off of our club on national tv by ex rags too didn't he.

 

[oakiecokie]

Attacking wrong use of words or grammar while ignoring the meaning of the post is like lesson #1 in an "i've lost an argument on the internet so better chance the subject" course. you defended Scholes slagging city off on national tv did'nt you?

I said too may Blues have skins as thin as fuck,you have just proved my point.Then again you are very much part of the "Agenda Tribe" aren`t you ?
Changed the subject ... now I know you`re pissed !!

you are talkin in riddles pal because you are an uncle Tom apologist and have no answer for it other than its the stance you took ages back and now have to stick with it till the end, just like pidge, he defended the slagging off of our club on national tv by ex rags too didn't he.

Talking of riddles you say.If I was you i`d look back at this thread in the morning when you`re sober.As I`ve always stated, I do not or never will do is go back on my beliefs ... that there are too many people on this forum who read and see everything and anything as an attack on our Club.
Think you`ll also find that DD and others also share the same opinion as myself ... Blue Mooners make mountains out of very small molehills.

 

[pominoz]

I don't mind DT,of the pack,he seems amongst the more intelligent,well balanced and honest.

Good interview Ric.

As one of the Bluemooners who's met him, I can confirm the above. A decent, down-to-earth guy who has developed into a fine football writer.

Re the Munich article, I had a beef with him over that and when we finally met he told me the story behind it. It was Paul Tyrrell who asked him to write it and while I agreed fully with the principle, it was a typically heavy-handed approach by Tyrrell.

Hold on, this the same Daniel Taylor you posted this about in 2009

"Prestwich_Blue wrote:
It appears that Mr Taylor, an odious little shit if ever there was one, is not above a little plagiarism:

Neil McNab's Tash (Bluemoon 26/02/09) wrote:
They moved onto a smaller pitch looked like about 6 v 6, the others rotated when one side scored a goal, this was the funniest part of the morning, Robinho pulled off this great bit of skill and finish. SWP and Richards and the rest of them started singing "we've got Robinho, we've got Robinho" funny as he gave them a little wave, quality moment.

Daniel Taylor (The Guardian 27/02/09) wrote:
The two Brazilians are popular among the younger players and a typical piece of Robinho magic in training this week led to a round of applause and an impromptu rendition of the chant "We've got Robinho."


Daniel, if you're reading this - Die soon, you lying, story-twisting, scumbag twat."

and this,,,

"Daniel Taylor is (and I use the term loosely) a journalist working for the Guardian. He has been involved in a number of stories that have been anti-City. He's a Nottingham Forest fan but has written a book entitled "Alex Ferguson: The Uncut Story of a Football Genius" so you might be able to detect where his sympathies lie.

He wrote the story "70% of City fans don't want Sven", which was a complete twisting of what he was told.

He wrote a story about City fans singing "We're all going to the Golden Jubilee" before the OT derby last year. This story was comprehensively proven to be fabricated.

He was clearly so upset by our failure to disrupt the memorial proceedings at that match that he wrote a spiteful little piece about City fans before this season's derby. This piece talked about the use of the "Munich" word but somehow forgot to mention the rag fans were the ones doing aeroplane impressions.

And he lifts stories from Bluemoon and claims them as his own work.

You would expect it from a Sun or Mirror journalist but not from someone from one of the so-called "quality" newspapers."

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769</a>

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I don't mind DT,of the pack,he seems amongst the more intelligent,well balanced and honest.

Good interview Ric.

As one of the Bluemooners who's met him, I can confirm the above. A decent, down-to-earth guy who has developed into a fine football writer.

Re the Munich article, I had a beef with him over that and when we finally met he told me the story behind it. It was Paul Tyrrell who asked him to write it and while I agreed fully with the principle, it was a typically heavy-handed approach by Tyrrell.

Hold on, this the same Daniel Taylor you posted this about in 2009

"Prestwich_Blue wrote:
It appears that Mr Taylor, an odious little shit if ever there was one, is not above a little plagiarism:

Neil McNab's Tash (Bluemoon 26/02/09) wrote:
They moved onto a smaller pitch looked like about 6 v 6, the others rotated when one side scored a goal, this was the funniest part of the morning, Robinho pulled off this great bit of skill and finish. SWP and Richards and the rest of them started singing "we've got Robinho, we've got Robinho" funny as he gave them a little wave, quality moment.

Daniel Taylor (The Guardian 27/02/09) wrote:
The two Brazilians are popular among the younger players and a typical piece of Robinho magic in training this week led to a round of applause and an impromptu rendition of the chant "We've got Robinho."


Daniel, if you're reading this - Die soon, you lying, story-twisting, scumbag twat."

and this,,,

"Daniel Taylor is (and I use the term loosely) a journalist working for the Guardian. He has been involved in a number of stories that have been anti-City. He's a Nottingham Forest fan but has written a book entitled "Alex Ferguson: The Uncut Story of a Football Genius" so you might be able to detect where his sympathies lie.

He wrote the story "70% of City fans don't want Sven", which was a complete twisting of what he was told.

He wrote a story about City fans singing "We're all going to the Golden Jubilee" before the OT derby last year. This story was comprehensively proven to be fabricated.

He was clearly so upset by our failure to disrupt the memorial proceedings at that match that he wrote a spiteful little piece about City fans before this season's derby. This piece talked about the use of the "Munich" word but somehow forgot to mention the rag fans were the ones doing aeroplane impressions.

And he lifts stories from Bluemoon and claims them as his own work.

You would expect it from a Sun or Mirror journalist but not from someone from one of the so-called "quality" newspapers."

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769</a>

PB has just covered that: that's clearly the "beef" he describes. He's said clearly he's met Taylor since and been told who planted the Munich story. Fair play to him for changing his opinion when given the facts.

 

[George Hannah]

As one of the Bluemooners who's met him, I can confirm the above. A decent, down-to-earth guy who has developed into a fine football writer.

Re the Munich article, I had a beef with him over that and when we finally met he told me the story behind it. It was Paul Tyrrell who asked him to write it and while I agreed fully with the principle, it was a typically heavy-handed approach by Tyrrell.

Hold on, this the same Daniel Taylor you posted this about in 2009

"Prestwich_Blue wrote:
It appears that Mr Taylor, an odious little shit if ever there was one, is not above a little plagiarism:

Neil McNab's Tash (Bluemoon 26/02/09) wrote:
They moved onto a smaller pitch looked like about 6 v 6, the others rotated when one side scored a goal, this was the funniest part of the morning, Robinho pulled off this great bit of skill and finish. SWP and Richards and the rest of them started singing "we've got Robinho, we've got Robinho" funny as he gave them a little wave, quality moment.

Daniel Taylor (The Guardian 27/02/09) wrote:
The two Brazilians are popular among the younger players and a typical piece of Robinho magic in training this week led to a round of applause and an impromptu rendition of the chant "We've got Robinho."


Daniel, if you're reading this - Die soon, you lying, story-twisting, scumbag twat."

and this,,,

"Daniel Taylor is (and I use the term loosely) a journalist working for the Guardian. He has been involved in a number of stories that have been anti-City. He's a Nottingham Forest fan but has written a book entitled "Alex Ferguson: The Uncut Story of a Football Genius" so you might be able to detect where his sympathies lie.

He wrote the story "70% of City fans don't want Sven", which was a complete twisting of what he was told.

He wrote a story about City fans singing "We're all going to the Golden Jubilee" before the OT derby last year. This story was comprehensively proven to be fabricated.

He was clearly so upset by our failure to disrupt the memorial proceedings at that match that he wrote a spiteful little piece about City fans before this season's derby. This piece talked about the use of the "Munich" word but somehow forgot to mention the rag fans were the ones doing aeroplane impressions.

And he lifts stories from Bluemoon and claims them as his own work.

You would expect it from a Sun or Mirror journalist but not from someone from one of the so-called "quality" newspapers."

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769</a>

PB has just covered that: that's clearly the "beef" he describes. He's said clearly he's met Taylor since and been told who planted the Munich story. Fair play to him for changing his opinion when given the facts.

Lol, Dismal anxious as ever to ingratiate himself with the proprietor. I'm sad to say that Ric has stained his own website with a truly pathetic rag hack apologetic and sneered with him at those posters on here who are offended by the ant-City effluent that Taylor & his ilk regularly contaminate the media with.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Lol, Dismal anxious as ever to ingratiate himself with the proprietor. I'm sad to say that Ric has stained his own website with a truly pathetic rag hack apologetic and sneered with him at those posters on here who are offended by the ant-City effluent that Taylor & his ilk regularly contaminate the media with.

Funny.

 

[George Hannah]

Lol, Dismal anxious as ever to ingratiate himself with the proprietor. I'm sad to say that Ric has stained his own website with a truly pathetic rag hack apologetic and sneered with him at those posters on here who are offended by the ant-City effluent that Taylor & his ilk regularly contaminate the media with.

Funny.

“A man who can laugh at himself is truly blessed, for he will never lack for amusement.”

there's hope for you yet Dave ;-)

 

[bernabias home shirt]

As one of the Bluemooners who's met him, I can confirm the above. A decent, down-to-earth guy who has developed into a fine football writer.

Re the Munich article, I had a beef with him over that and when we finally met he told me the story behind it. It was Paul Tyrrell who asked him to write it and while I agreed fully with the principle, it was a typically heavy-handed approach by Tyrrell.

Hold on, this the same Daniel Taylor you posted this about in 2009

"Prestwich_Blue wrote:
It appears that Mr Taylor, an odious little shit if ever there was one, is not above a little plagiarism:

Neil McNab's Tash (Bluemoon 26/02/09) wrote:
They moved onto a smaller pitch looked like about 6 v 6, the others rotated when one side scored a goal, this was the funniest part of the morning, Robinho pulled off this great bit of skill and finish. SWP and Richards and the rest of them started singing "we've got Robinho, we've got Robinho" funny as he gave them a little wave, quality moment.

Daniel Taylor (The Guardian 27/02/09) wrote:
The two Brazilians are popular among the younger players and a typical piece of Robinho magic in training this week led to a round of applause and an impromptu rendition of the chant "We've got Robinho."


Daniel, if you're reading this - Die soon, you lying, story-twisting, scumbag twat."

and this,,,

"Daniel Taylor is (and I use the term loosely) a journalist working for the Guardian. He has been involved in a number of stories that have been anti-City. He's a Nottingham Forest fan but has written a book entitled "Alex Ferguson: The Uncut Story of a Football Genius" so you might be able to detect where his sympathies lie.

He wrote the story "70% of City fans don't want Sven", which was a complete twisting of what he was told.

He wrote a story about City fans singing "We're all going to the Golden Jubilee" before the OT derby last year. This story was comprehensively proven to be fabricated.

He was clearly so upset by our failure to disrupt the memorial proceedings at that match that he wrote a spiteful little piece about City fans before this season's derby. This piece talked about the use of the "Munich" word but somehow forgot to mention the rag fans were the ones doing aeroplane impressions.

And he lifts stories from Bluemoon and claims them as his own work.

You would expect it from a Sun or Mirror journalist but not from someone from one of the so-called "quality" newspapers."

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769</a>

PB has just covered that: that's clearly the "beef" he describes. He's said clearly he's met Taylor since and been told who planted the Munich story. Fair play to him for changing his opinion when given the facts.

So what abt all the other stories Sven, Hughes, Robinho..P'b seems to have a long list of how Daniel Taylor had it in for our club back then and tore him a new arsehole on here on numerous occasions, so as he changed his opinion on taylor on those issues too?

How can he have gone from calling him every name under the sun & wanted him to die, to then being a decent down to earth guy?

And for what its worth i'm a non angenderist as i know you are, but Taylor is a two faced hypocritacal **** and of the highest order too, far far worse than herbert & his ilk, your probably not going to like that seeing as you quite fond of taylor...

 

[Petrovs left peg]

Jesus! There are some bitter and twisted folk on here!!

 

[TFC]

Havent read the whole thing yet but was shocked to discover we have conceded more goals than the ragford splitarses ffs.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Hold on, this the same Daniel Taylor you posted this about in 2009

"Prestwich_Blue wrote:
It appears that Mr Taylor, an odious little shit if ever there was one, is not above a little plagiarism:

Neil McNab's Tash (Bluemoon 26/02/09) wrote:
They moved onto a smaller pitch looked like about 6 v 6, the others rotated when one side scored a goal, this was the funniest part of the morning, Robinho pulled off this great bit of skill and finish. SWP and Richards and the rest of them started singing "we've got Robinho, we've got Robinho" funny as he gave them a little wave, quality moment.

Daniel Taylor (The Guardian 27/02/09) wrote:
The two Brazilians are popular among the younger players and a typical piece of Robinho magic in training this week led to a round of applause and an impromptu rendition of the chant "We've got Robinho."


Daniel, if you're reading this - Die soon, you lying, story-twisting, scumbag twat."

and this,,,

"Daniel Taylor is (and I use the term loosely) a journalist working for the Guardian. He has been involved in a number of stories that have been anti-City. He's a Nottingham Forest fan but has written a book entitled "Alex Ferguson: The Uncut Story of a Football Genius" so you might be able to detect where his sympathies lie.

He wrote the story "70% of City fans don't want Sven", which was a complete twisting of what he was told.

He wrote a story about City fans singing "We're all going to the Golden Jubilee" before the OT derby last year. This story was comprehensively proven to be fabricated.

He was clearly so upset by our failure to disrupt the memorial proceedings at that match that he wrote a spiteful little piece about City fans before this season's derby. This piece talked about the use of the "Munich" word but somehow forgot to mention the rag fans were the ones doing aeroplane impressions.

And he lifts stories from Bluemoon and claims them as his own work.

You would expect it from a Sun or Mirror journalist but not from someone from one of the so-called "quality" newspapers."

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769</a>

PB has just covered that: that's clearly the "beef" he describes. He's said clearly he's met Taylor since and been told who planted the Munich story. Fair play to him for changing his opinion when given the facts.

So what abt all the other stories Sven, Hughes, Robinho..P'b seems to have a long list of how Daniel Taylor had it in for our club back then and tore him a new arsehole on here on numerous occasions, so as he changed his opinion on taylor on those issues too?

How can he have gone from calling him every name under the sun & wanted him to die, to then being a decent down to earth guy?

And for what its worth i'm a non angenderist as i know you are, but Taylor is a two faced hypocritacal **** and of the highest order too, far far worse than herbert & his ilk, your probably not going to like that seeing as you quite fond of taylor...

I'm not "fond of" Taylor, I'm "fond of" common sense, which he clearly and obviously talks in that interview, and is no doubt one of the traits which has elevated him to one of the best jobs in sports print journalism.

I love how I haven't seen a single person address a single one of his points. Just a load of infantile and bitter "he's a rag ****" type responses from the very people he makes look silly with his interview.

 

[pace89]

Taylor never missed an opportunity to belittle us when we poor, unsuccessful and mancunian owned. Now we’re rich, successful and, as it happens, owned by an Abu Dhabi sheik he suddenly wants to build bridges and pretend like he loved us all along. Jamie Jackson may be the died in the wool rag-boy but Taylor is a fully signed up fellow traveller.

On virtually every occasion we failed to win at home pre-takeover Taylor would drag out the hackneyed Baconface ‘temple of doom’ quote as if this was both the height of human wit and the definitive judgement on our team, club and stadium. The fact that a one off quote from an opposition manager carries no relevance to match between City and Blackburn or Watford or whoever was of no concern to him. Just copy and paste the same old shite about City and then knock out 500 words on why Jonny Evans promises to be the new Beckenbauer.

The whole tone of the interview here is monumentally patronising “you don’t what you’re missing in the Champions League” etc . The atmospheres experienced at Maine Road for the play-off semi and the Birmingham almost promotion game exceeded anything seen in Stretford over the last 20 years. If City really did lie about Lampard and undervalue Mangala why doesn’t he write a piece explaining the details of it? Presumably because he doesn’t have anything other than rumour and conjecture.

 

[J4FOW]

Decent interview. Interesting read. Some things I didn't agree with but mostly I thought it was a fascinating insight into one journalists view and experience of reporting on our club.

The torrent of anger in response to this (including the suggestion that this forum has in someway been betrayed!) really and truly read like the missives of paranoid lunatics

Taylor's write up of the utd FA cup game tonight refers to their spending and is fairly (in every sense of the word) critical. I doubt any of the content is affected by an affinity to City...

No club can expect to get unstinting praise in the media. This applies especially to those at the top of the game. I'm glad that group now includes us

 

[johnnytapia]

I don't mind DT,of the pack,he seems amongst the more intelligent,well balanced and honest.

Good interview Ric.

As one of the Bluemooners who's met him, I can confirm the above. A decent, down-to-earth guy who has developed into a fine football writer.

Re the Munich article, I had a beef with him over that and when we finally met he told me the story behind it. It was Paul Tyrrell who asked him to write it and while I agreed fully with the principle, it was a typically heavy-handed approach by Tyrrell.

Hold on, this the same Daniel Taylor you posted this about in 2009

"Prestwich_Blue wrote:
It appears that Mr Taylor, an odious little shit if ever there was one, is not above a little plagiarism:

Neil McNab's Tash (Bluemoon 26/02/09) wrote:
They moved onto a smaller pitch looked like about 6 v 6, the others rotated when one side scored a goal, this was the funniest part of the morning, Robinho pulled off this great bit of skill and finish. SWP and Richards and the rest of them started singing "we've got Robinho, we've got Robinho" funny as he gave them a little wave, quality moment.

Daniel Taylor (The Guardian 27/02/09) wrote:
The two Brazilians are popular among the younger players and a typical piece of Robinho magic in training this week led to a round of applause and an impromptu rendition of the chant "We've got Robinho."


Daniel, if you're reading this - Die soon, you lying, story-twisting, scumbag twat."

and this,,,

"Daniel Taylor is (and I use the term loosely) a journalist working for the Guardian. He has been involved in a number of stories that have been anti-City. He's a Nottingham Forest fan but has written a book entitled "Alex Ferguson: The Uncut Story of a Football Genius" so you might be able to detect where his sympathies lie.

He wrote the story "70% of City fans don't want Sven", which was a complete twisting of what he was told.

He wrote a story about City fans singing "We're all going to the Golden Jubilee" before the OT derby last year. This story was comprehensively proven to be fabricated.

He was clearly so upset by our failure to disrupt the memorial proceedings at that match that he wrote a spiteful little piece about City fans before this season's derby. This piece talked about the use of the "Munich" word but somehow forgot to mention the rag fans were the ones doing aeroplane impressions.

And he lifts stories from Bluemoon and claims them as his own work.

You would expect it from a Sun or Mirror journalist but not from someone from one of the so-called "quality" newspapers."

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111941&p=1759769&hilit=daniel+taylor#p1759769</a>

I'm sure PB told him to his face that he hoped he'd die. After slapping him (another threat issued by PB from the safety of the net). Fucking pathetic - all talk, but when faced with an actual person, genuflecting like the Pope on whizz. Then we get told that PB had the decency to change his tune when he knew the facts. Fucking priceless.

 

[Ric]

There are probably a few things I should clear up.

Firstly, the last thing I would want to do is "betray the forum", as some have suggested. That was obviously never my intention, and I'm sorry if some think that.

I've always said, though, that whilst I think we do generally get negative press coverage, I have never believed that there is a pre-meditated, concerted agenda against the club, from the media at least. I just think they're sycophantic towards United, and play up to the lazy stereotype that City are bad for football. UEFA is a different matter, of course.

Secondly, the interview only really came about by chance (our kids go to the same football training sessions) and was conducted at fairly short notice. It wasn't really something I'd prepared for. The questions were drunkenly concocted with a couple of mates in a boozer in town after the Arsenal defeat, so due diligence wasn't really followed. And it probably showed.

We were probably ranting a bit, hence the over emphasis on the "agenda" and United comparisons, rather than asking more pertinent questions about the club that people would've preferred to see answered.

The original plan was to invite questions from the forum, but I thought I'd probably get grief from people whose questions weren't selected. As tempting as it was, I thought that specific questions regarding Jamie Jackson weren't fair game, considering they are colleagues.

Also, and I hold my hands up, I took certain things for granted, such as who McDonnell, Ladyman, Herbert etc support without actually researching it. Poor stuff, although I still maintain they clearly have a softer spot for United than City. It probably gave Danny greater ammunition though, when it comes to our perception of the press. They're certainly lapping it up on United forums.

Thirdly, the interview was done by email so there wasn't really the opportunity to follow things up properly. The interview would have been different, I suspect, if it was done verbally. It would've flowed more naturally and probably wouldn't have come across as confrontational as it did.

I think he possibly did come across a little patronising towards City fans at times, certainly regarding the Champions League, but as mentioned some of the questions were ill-prepared and set the tone of the interview. Plus Forest were losing 3-0 at the time. If pressed on City when we were losing, I'd probably be a touch cantankerous as well.

My only intention from the interview was for us to get an insight into how the press think, and hopefully most found it interesting. I appreciated his forthright views, even if some don't agree with them. It wasn't "sidling up the press", as some put it, just a chance to hear things from a different perspective.

 

[johnnytapia]

There are probably a few things I should clear up.

Firstly, the last thing I would want to do is "betray the forum", as some have suggested. That was obviously never my intention, and I'm sorry if some think that.

I've always said, though, that whilst I think we do generally get negative press coverage, I have never believed that there is a pre-meditated, concerted agenda against the club, from the media at least. I just think they're sycophantic towards United, and play up to the lazy stereotype that City are bad for football. UEFA is a different matter, of course.

Secondly, the interview only really came about by chance (our kids go to the same football training sessions) and was conducted at fairly short notice. It wasn't really something I'd prepared for. The questions were drunkenly concocted with a couple of mates in a boozer in town after the Arsenal defeat, so due diligence wasn't really followed. And it probably showed.

We were probably ranting a bit, hence the over emphasis on the "agenda" and United comparisons, rather than asking more pertinent questions about the club that people would've preferred to see answered.

The original plan was to invite questions from the forum, but I thought I'd probably get grief from people whose questions weren't selected. As tempting as it was, I thought that specific questions regarding Jamie Jackson weren't fair game, considering they are colleagues.

Also, and I hold my hands up, I took certain things for granted, such as who McDonnell, Ladyman, Herbert etc support without actually researching it. Poor stuff, although I still maintain they clearly have a softer spot for United than City. It probably gave Danny greater ammunition though, when it comes to our perception of the press. They're certainly lapping it up on United forums.

Thirdly, the interview was done by email so there wasn't really the opportunity to follow things up properly. The interview would have been different, I suspect, if it was done verbally. It would've flowed more naturally and probably wouldn't have come across as confrontational as it did.

I think he possibly did come across a little patronising towards City fans at times, certainly regarding the Champions League, but as mentioned some of the questions were ill-prepared and set the tone of the interview. Plus Forest were losing 3-0 at the time. If pressed on City when we were losing, I'd probably be a touch cantankerous as well.

My only intention from the interview was for us to get an insight into how the press think, and hopefully most found it interesting. I appreciated his forthright views, even if some don't agree with them. It wasn't "sidling up the press", as some put it, just a chance to hear things from a different perspective.

"forthright" - sorry, but he was the usual anodyne, cutting it both ways bollocks. As were you Ric. And PB - you come across like rabbits in the headlights, all dewy eyed at hearing from some bloke from the so-called "intelligent" end of the journalistic spectrum. Fawning, we're not worthy bollocks. And you know it.

 

[Ric]

There are probably a few things I should clear up.

Firstly, the last thing I would want to do is "betray the forum", as some have suggested. That was obviously never my intention, and I'm sorry if some think that.

I've always said, though, that whilst I think we do generally get negative press coverage, I have never believed that there is a pre-meditated, concerted agenda against the club, from the media at least. I just think they're sycophantic towards United, and play up to the lazy stereotype that City are bad for football. UEFA is a different matter, of course.

Secondly, the interview only really came about by chance (our kids go to the same football training sessions) and was conducted at fairly short notice. It wasn't really something I'd prepared for. The questions were drunkenly concocted with a couple of mates in a boozer in town after the Arsenal defeat, so due diligence wasn't really followed. And it probably showed.

We were probably ranting a bit, hence the over emphasis on the "agenda" and United comparisons, rather than asking more pertinent questions about the club that people would've preferred to see answered.

The original plan was to invite questions from the forum, but I thought I'd probably get grief from people whose questions weren't selected. As tempting as it was, I thought that specific questions regarding Jamie Jackson weren't fair game, considering they are colleagues.

Also, and I hold my hands up, I took certain things for granted, such as who McDonnell, Ladyman, Herbert etc support without actually researching it. Poor stuff, although I still maintain they clearly have a softer spot for United than City. It probably gave Danny greater ammunition though, when it comes to our perception of the press. They're certainly lapping it up on United forums.

Thirdly, the interview was done by email so there wasn't really the opportunity to follow things up properly. The interview would have been different, I suspect, if it was done verbally. It would've flowed more naturally and probably wouldn't have come across as confrontational as it did.

I think he possibly did come across a little patronising towards City fans at times, certainly regarding the Champions League, but as mentioned some of the questions were ill-prepared and set the tone of the interview. Plus Forest were losing 3-0 at the time. If pressed on City when we were losing, I'd probably be a touch cantankerous as well.

My only intention from the interview was for us to get an insight into how the press think, and hopefully most found it interesting. I appreciated his forthright views, even if some don't agree with them. It wasn't "sidling up the press", as some put it, just a chance to hear things from a different perspective.

"forthright" - sorry, but he was the usual anodyne, cutting it both ways bollocks. As were you Ric. And PB - you come across like rabbits in the headlights, all dewy eyed at hearing from some bloke from the so-called "intelligent" end of the journalistic spectrum. Fawning, we're not worthy bollocks. And you know it.

Haha, sorry it wasn't a Frost vs Nixon type interrogation. Feel free to post your questions to him if you like, he might answer them.

 

[bluetuesdaysmcfc]

I have a question to put to PB: what was it that DT shared with you that so drastically changed your position re the article that was published prior to the Munich memorial fixture?

Besides the vilification of our fanbase in that particular article, there was also this article the same year:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2008/nov/30/premierleague-manchesterunited" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... sterunited</a>

But back to this interview, I'm not sure where I stand on it, it did seem condescending and dismissive in parts, but sincere in others. I do think however that the focus on 'the agenda' with its conspiratorial overtones allowed DT to ignore and play down the overwhelming evidence of less than impartial coverage we face in the wider press - likely due to personal biases etc. For example: Ian Herbert may lay claim to being a Wrexham fan, but it doesn't change the fact that he described Wigan's victory over us in the FA Cup final as a "victory for football" on BBC Breakfast the following morning, or tweeting photos of empty seats at the Etihad with disparaging remarks.

You allowed him to create a false dicothomy there Ric.

 

[Mikejl]

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.

This.

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

"Philip, there is no agenda"

"OK, thanks for clearing that up David"