Credit to him for admitting his mistake and apologising for the David Silva thing but for the rest of it he reverted to a slippery bullshitter.
Regarding the perceived agenda against City in UK media, he could have said he doesn't personally have an agenda, or he doesn't pander to the masses(rags and dippers) by using certain terminology which they will enjoy hearing... but he makes the mistake of choosing to push the blame and paint City fans as unintelligent conspiracy theorists(I was expecting a "tin foil hat" jibe), who "just don't get it, it's not that sophisticated. Click-baiting doesn't exist, it just happens like that by coincidence as reaction to events" But don't they choose what to react to and how most of the time? It's like he's saying they don't have a choice in how they report things.
He also foolishly tries speaking on the behalf of all journalists which just gives his game away of basically not giving any ground or conceding any criticism of the way a lot of UK sports journalists operate. Clearly there are good and bad ones and he should have gone with that instead of denying the existence of something that we have in black and white to point at. Putting it down to time constraints is a weak defence as is speaking at great length without saying anything of substance to back up what he's trying to say in the hopes he bores him to death or decides they've spent too long on the topic.
In the short clip of TalkSport he played back at the beginning, he even used a rag favourite quote: "United earn their money and City don't" which I'd have hoped the interviewer would question him on. I'd have asked him how he thinks sponsorship works, whether he knows how widely watched City are and whether he thinks City are actually well worth the £40-50m a year(reminding him that's a 3 facet deal and comparing that to United's separate deals) and thensome in their new found position playing the football they do, with "the most famous manager in the world, with some of the most talented players in the world" as he put it.
If he can concede it's fair value then the argument that City don't earn their money is lost, for a few years now since I read those forbes sponsorship breakdowns from 2016, I've maintained that City could easily get more if they really had to find new sponsors. Look how shit united are and have been for years(since Moyes) and what their "fair market value" is, who other than rags is tuning in to watch that garbage for the full 90? That's more important to a sponsor than shirt sales to plastic rags, star players wearing the sponsors name beamed across the world to millions of households has to be the priority.
City and PSG should explore the possibility that those who do these "fair value" evaluations are vulnerable to corruption, because if they are it would be viable way for the cartel to limit the spending power of "new money" unfairly, thus protecting the status quo artificially.
