Manchester Evening News

[RightTurnClyde]

As others have said just Fuck the M.E.N off. Bin dippers do it with The Sun, we should do exactly the same with these fuckers. They can then put all their attention and dedication into JizzyJazz articles and comfort pieces on why finishing 5th is better than winning the league.

Don't be fooled by the inevitable sentimental heart felt articles on Bert Trautmann and Colin Bell that I'm sure we'll be bombarded with for the remainder of the week to get the blues back onside. They call themselves a Manchester paper yet I honestly can't ever recall them giving US, you know, the Manchester club, their fullest backing. They report the positives as negatives and the negatives as positives. Always have.

If you have somebody in your life who all they do is look to put the boot in, nit-pick and give snidey comments about all the positive things that are happening to you in your life you'd fuck them right off. The club and supporters should do exactly that with the M.E.N.

 

[Pigeonho]

As others have said just Fuck the M.E.N off. Bin dippers do it with The Sun, we should do exactly the same with these fuckers. They can then put all their attention and dedication into JizzyJazz articles and comfort pieces on why finishing 5th is better than winning the league.

Don't be fooled by the inevitable sentimental heart felt articles on Bert Trautmann and Colin Bell that I'm sure we'll be bombarded with for the remainder of the week to get the blues back onside. They call themselves a Manchester paper yet I honestly can't ever recall them giving US, you know, the Manchester club, their fullest backing. They report the positives as negatives and the negatives as positives. Always have.

If you have somebody in your life who all they do is look to put the boot in, nit-pick and give snidey comments about all the positive things that are happening to you in your life you'd fuck them right off. The club and supporters should do exactly that with the M.E.N.

Hmm, whilst I see why some would not want to buy the paper, it's a bit of a mismatch to compare not buying the MEN to why Liverpool fans don't buy the Sun.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

not to have a go at utd because this article is not about them but could someone post the gmp figures for the swamp last season as this would give a figure of how many go thro a clubs turnstyle againnst seats sold .it should be quite easy to give a % for saturdays and mid week games ? .from memory i think its about 5000 out of 7500 that dont attend so going off that would we expect 3000 out of 47000 as the norm of paying punters that dont attend for what ever reason ?
sorry meant 5000 out of 75,000 .the 7500 was at the end of the 6-1

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/12/manchester-united-attendances-police-figures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ce-figures</a>

thanks for that .could you make the link print up please .not having a go at the rags but 10,000 no shows of paying punters is staggering !! so totaly expected 3000+ no shows at any givern city game amazed it would be that high.we calculate are figures the samr way so not cheap point scoring

 

[leewill31]

not to have a go at utd because this article is not about them but could someone post the gmp figures for the swamp last season as this would give a figure of how many go thro a clubs turnstyle againnst seats sold .it should be quite easy to give a % for saturdays and mid week games ? .from memory i think its about 5000 out of 7500 that dont attend so going off that would we expect 3000 out of 47000 as the norm of paying punters that dont attend for what ever reason ?
sorry meant 5000 out of 75,000 .the 7500 was at the end of the 6-1

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/12/manchester-united-attendances-police-figures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ce-figures</a>

thanks for that .could you make the link print up please .not having a go at the rags but 10,000 no shows of paying punters is staggering !! so totaly expected 3000+ no shows at any givern city game amazed it would be that high.we calculate are figures the samr way so not cheap point scoring

you would think a scouse fan journo would have at least brought this in to his article but it was not intended to be balanced in any way shape or form and made him self look like a complete prick not doing any research what so ever either.

 

[mancity dan]

So you don't have to click on Guardian website

Manchester United declare attendances far higher than police figures

• Average disparity between club and police figures is 10,000
• Club count tickets sold rather than fans through turnstiles

Share

Tweet this





Email


Daniel Taylor


The Guardian, Friday 12 April 2013 19.40 BST


Fans watch Manchester United at Old Trafford
According to the club 75,498 fans watched Manchester United lose to Machester City at Old Trafford on 8 April. Photograph: Jon Super/AP


Manchester United are adding as many as 24,000 fans on to crowd attendances compared with the actual number of people watching games at Old Trafford, according to police data.

Sir Alex Ferguson's team have not had a single crowd over 70,000 for a league match, police say, not taking in Monday's game against Manchester City. The club, in contrast, recorded attendances in excess of 75,000 every time. Instead Greater Manchester police's figures claim the average crowd for league matches, excluding City, is 10,000 below what the club say. The police records state it is 65,601 rather than the official figure of 75,527. In all competitions it is 61,739 rather than the club's 73,653.

United are still the best-supported club in England by some distance but the new set of figures claim Old Trafford was not even half-full for the Capital One Cup tie against Newcastle in September. The police recorded the number of people who passed through the turnstiles at 33,409. United gave the crowd as 46,358. In the next round, against West Ham, the disparity was even bigger. The police put down the crowd as 51,724, whereas United recorded it as 71,081.

When United played Cluj in the Champions League in December, having qualified for the knockout stages, the crowd was announced as 71,521. In fact, the police say it was 46,894.

The disparity is because United, in common with other clubs, release the number of people who bought tickets, whether or not they attend. The police keep their own record of actual match-goers for safety purposes and have released the data to the Redsaway fans' website under the Freedom of Information Act.

The figures show the high number of supporters who will buy tickets for matches without going. Arsenal are among the clubs who suffer the same problem on a large scale.

United's largest crowd of the season for a league match, according to the police, was 69,933 for Liverpool's visit in January (the club put it at 75,501). The lowest was against Southampton later that month. On that occasion the official attendance was given at 75,600 when, according to the police, the genuine figure was 59,766. In other words, almost 16,000 ticket-holders stayed away.

The Real Madrid match in the Champions League attracted the one 70,000-plus attendance at Old Trafford this season, in the data. The police recorded it at 72,299 whereas United declared it was 74,959, lower than any domestic league match because of Uefa's seating restrictions.

 

[BringBackSwales]

It's a bit like when the rag's new twitter feed overtook ours in the number of followers. I bet there was someone at the muen checking the follower numbers every day and as soon as they surpassed our total, couldn't wait to tell the world about it.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...anchester-united-overtake-city-number-6261593

I hadn't seen this before, yet another example of their arrogant contempt of City and their unadulterated hero worship of united. They do not even try to hide it, it is shocking and everyone on here should mean what they say and boycott buying it or clicking on it forever, not just for a day or two

-- Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:57 am --

Certainly got a lot of United fans giddy, this article. Their use of this as a dig reminds me of when I was a wee laddy and all I had in my armour was 'you don't even go to games', in retaliation to them slating us for how bad we were. Difference is I was 14 then.
Funny how things change though, as now they are the dog shit side in the city, this is all they have. What's even funnier though is watching them squabble amongst themselves with some acknowledging that we sell out, and others saying they are just using it as something to beat us with.
They can't even slag us off properly.

perhaps you cam stop telling us that the muen has no agenda now?

 

[BringBackSwales]

As others have said just Fuck the M.E.N off. Bin dippers do it with The Sun, we should do exactly the same with these fuckers. They can then put all their attention and dedication into JizzyJazz articles and comfort pieces on why finishing 5th is better than winning the league.

Don't be fooled by the inevitable sentimental heart felt articles on Bert Trautmann and Colin Bell that I'm sure we'll be bombarded with for the remainder of the week to get the blues back onside. They call themselves a Manchester paper yet I honestly can't ever recall them giving US, you know, the Manchester club, their fullest backing. They report the positives as negatives and the negatives as positives. Always have.

If you have somebody in your life who all they do is look to put the boot in, nit-pick and give snidey comments about all the positive things that are happening to you in your life you'd fuck them right off. The club and supporters should do exactly that with the M.E.N.

Hmm, whilst I see why some would not want to buy the paper, it's a bit of a mismatch to compare not buying the MEN to why Liverpool fans don't buy the Sun.

he was not comparing the events he was merely saying take the same action, and he is 100% right

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

60p for daily.

80 odd pence on a Saturday.

The MEN used to subsidise the Guardian, it will be lucky to last another two years in it's present guise.

It's an irrelevance, having to resort to the lowest denominator to gain any type of acknowledgement that it still exists.

Stuart Brennan has a hard enough job as it is without his own desk basically forcing him to produce that PR management bollocks they have in today, and what little exclusive access the club does afford these days.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Could I make a request in here? Despite hating the muen with a passion I have been guilty of clicking onto their website in the last 24 hours to see what they have been saying about us. Is it possible to open a thread in here, managed by the moderators, in which they cut and paste all articles about City in the muen into here (match reports, player ratings, articles slagging off the fans or whatever) and that way they only get 1 click rather than say 2k or 5k or whatever clicks they might get from all of us added together? Rather than just talking about a boycott, this will seriously reduce their number of clicks and seriously reduce their revenue. Their complete contempt for us and our existence merits our complete contempt of them and their existence

 

[stuart brennan]

I understand some of the upset here, but the suggestions that this is one-sided and that we never do stuff like this about United should take note of these:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/revealed-manchester-uniteds-old-trafford-2592078" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... rd-2592078</a>

and

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-figures-reveal-five-times-3003108" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... es-3003108</a>

David Lynch's piece was ill-advised, flawed and badly-timed in my opinion, but it was not part of some wider agenda.