Media bias against City

[yankcitizen76]

You're completely right bud... I mean has the Sheikh invested his money in Athens? I don't think he owns anything in Olympiakos.
The British public and the media should be greatful that our football league has attracted the likes of Mansour and his ability to invest, transforming areas.

Doesn't matter who you support, I mean many parts of Manchester have positively had an impact on the community for people who may not even like football.

Hmmmm. I agree. If the Sheik put a football club in Detroit, it probably wouldn't change much.

 

[blueincy]

Tevez controversially signed for Man City in 2009

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...go-maradona-uploads-facebook-picture-5914994?

Wake up LIAM CORLESS who was the club he controversially signed for and got charged for it...West ham was it not...
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/mar/03/newsstory.sport8

Our press office are missing a trick with all the slander cases they could make money from..

 

[franksinatra]

Tevez controversially signed for Man City in 2009

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...go-maradona-uploads-facebook-picture-5914994?

Wake up LIAM CORLESS who was the club he controversially signed for and got charged for it...West ham was it not...
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/mar/03/newsstory.sport8

Our press office are missing a trick with all the slander cases they could make money from..

I think you are looking through those agenda glasses. It is clearly described as controversial because he was on loan at United, they wanted him, and he signed for us.

 

[blueincy]

I think you are looking through those agenda glasses. It is clearly described as controversial because he was on loan at United, they wanted him, and he signed for us.

Oh! I get it now, I will just cup my ear and forget all about it..

 

[aguero93:20]

I think you are looking through those agenda glasses. It is clearly described as controversial because he was on loan at United, they wanted him, and he signed for us.

Yep, it was the completely above board signing for City, with us buying out the full registration rights for the player, that was controversial.

Not the illegal registration at west ham or the 'technically illegal but let's turn a blind eye' registration at the rags. They weren't controversial at all.

 

[franksinatra]

Yep, it was the completely above board signing for City, with us buying out the full registration rights for the player, that was controversial.

Not the illegal registration at west ham or the 'technically illegal but let's turn a blind eye' registration at the rags. They weren't controversial at all.

No worries if you want to take offence at that article so be it.

 

[Shirley]

No worries if you want to take offence at that article so be it.

No offence intended here Frank, are you training to be some kind of a counselor?

 

[Ric]

I think this thread needs renaming, because the "agenda" tag has become all encompassing and, dare I say, a bit misleading.

I think most people feel that there is a media bias against City, and that FFP is pointedly aimed at us and PSG. What some of us baulk at, however, is the notion that everyone is against us because it just doesn't ring true to me.

FFP is the big, fuck off conspiracy against our club.

The Daily Mail, as vile a publication as it is, is often cited as one of the mainstays of the agenda, yet their chief sports writer is probably the staunchest defender of City out there. The second biggest paper in the country have their main sports correspondent constantly, and vociferously, fighting our corner. Why would they do that if there is was a genuine agenda against us? Surely they would have him berating us at every opportunity.

We're getting bogged down in semantics though. Everyone interprets the word "agenda" differently.

For me, FFP is clearly an agenda against City and where we should concentrate our attention. The media bias is a bit different, and should be treated separately.

This thread should be renamed "Media bias against City", because that's a far more legitimate argument than an all encompassing "agenda" against City.

 

[Shirley]

I think this thread needs renaming, because the "agenda" tag has become all encompassing and, dare I say, a bit misleading.

I think most people feel that there is a media bias against City, and that FFP is pointedly aimed at us and PSG. What some of us baulk at, however, is the notion that everyone is against us because it just doesn't ring true to me.

FFP is the big, fuck off conspiracy against our club.

The Daily Mail, as vile a publication as it is, is often cited as one of the mainstays of the agenda, yet their chief sports writer is probably the staunchest defender of City out there. The second biggest paper in the country have their main sports correspondent constantly, and vociferously, fighting our corner. Why would they do that if there is was a genuine agenda against us? Surely they would have him berating us at every opportunity.

We're getting bogged down in semantics though. Everyone interprets the word "agenda" differently.

For me, FFP is clearly an agenda against City and where we should concentrate our attention. The media bias is a bit different, and should be treated separately.

This thread should be renamed "Media bias against City", because that's a far more legitimate argument than an agenda against City.

Absolutely correct.
There is no denying there is media bias against City usually by the rag licking hacks. The FFP agenda is well documented.

 

[Bill]

I think this thread needs renaming, because the "agenda" tag has become all encompassing and, dare I say, a bit misleading.

I think most people feel that there is a media bias against City, and that FFP is pointedly aimed at us and PSG. What some of us baulk at, however, is the notion that everyone is against us because it just doesn't ring true to me.

FFP is the big, fuck off conspiracy against our club.

The Daily Mail, as vile a publication as it is, is often cited as one of the mainstays of the agenda, yet their chief sports writer is probably the staunchest defender of City out there. The second biggest paper in the country have their main sports correspondent constantly, and vociferously, fighting our corner. Why would they do that if there is was a genuine agenda against us? Surely they would have him berating us at every opportunity.

We're getting bogged down in semantics though. Everyone interprets the word "agenda" differently.

For me, FFP is clearly an agenda against City and where we should concentrate our attention. The media bias is a bit different, and should be treated separately.

This thread should be renamed "Media bias against City", because that's a far more legitimate argument than an all encompassing "agenda" against City.

there is a total agenda against our club, from platini right down to the jealous ref whose team we spank every season. the media are part of the plot. they belittle us, they highlight every negative be it true or not, they do their very best to make us "unlikeable" to anyone who will watch. listen or read. this reduces our commercial value, less clicks, little shirt sales and only poor exposure. advertisers will want no part of this hence less income. its there for all to see. the people that dont see it dont want to see it. or indeed part of said plot under the guise of being a blue.