Media bias against City

[@BluePhil8]

Frank must be on a wind up here.

 

[mat]

[




Oki firstly I never popped up with this positive article. It was actually posted by another to highlight the perceived agenda and under a little more scrutiny it was actually a positive article a point many tried to ignore to fit in the agenda narrative. As for the picture it is a classic caption and I have no problem with it being used. I have my doubts anyone would look at that picture and subconsciously think 'City must be boring to watch'. The reality is anyone who has found that page will have an understanding of football and no full well the type/style of football we play.

But interestingly if you think this is a picture to strengthen an 'agenda' that City play boring football. What exactly will the consequence be of this picture? Because surely it will have a purpose?

You are correct though I do not think there is an agenda by FIFA, UEFA, Michel Platini, Sky, BBC, ITV, Niall Quinn, Jamie Jackson, Trevor Sinclair, Jamie Carragher, Jamie Redknapp, Jeff Stelling, Martin Tyler, all the referees, The Daily Mail, Mirror, Sun, Telegraph, Guardian, Manchester Evening News, and all the others who have been accused on this forum. Just a collection of opinions, some positive and some negative.

Like many on here I was amazed that Sergio did not make the team of the year but was pleased many in the media have also highlighted that he should have been included. Again suggesting just a range of differing opinions.

I defend City all the time when the needs must. What I don't do is continually moan on a forum about an agenda but then continue to read the articles, buy the papers, subscribe to sky when I believe these organisations are out to undermine the future success of the club. That to me would be more of an act of Uncle Tom, showing subservience.

Welcome back Pidge. " Frank Sinatra" as in more comebacks than... ;)

 

[squirtyflower]

Frank must be on a wind up here.

frank is always on a wind up, that's his modus operandi
He'd better be careful though as it is against the code of conduct and he could be banned

 

[franksinatra]

Well ban me then because you certainly will not censure my opinion otherwise. I do not believe there is an agenda and if you have a problem with an alternative opinion maybe thats the best course of action.

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

No need to ban frank imo. I think most of what he says is bollocks but he usually tries at least to make a point with his responses. He's better, though just as deluded as pidge.

 

[Bentheblue]

Frank seems to think for some reason that the odd negative article about a rivals proves their is no agenda against us

 

[Bentheblue]

So Frank is not a WUM he actually believes the rubbish he comes out with ? That is seriously weird.

 

[jimharri]

Oh I don`t know. Mr.Brennan speaks very highly of us. ;)

Not as highly as ("you're my") Alan Ball though!

 

[SilverFox2]

No need to ban frank imo. I think most of what he says is bollocks but he usually tries at least to make a point with his responses. He's better, though just as deluded as pidge.

Trying to understand why he would be banned.
Surely not for disagreeing with others on this thread so is it because 'Winding Up' is not allowed ?

 

[1961_vintage]

Banning Frank would be wrong in my view and doing so would simply emphasise just how deep this Agenda problem runs.