Well said mate. I know we don't see what the club do behind the scenes, but to the average fan it looks like we do nothing. It seems every man and his dog can take say what they like about us in the media whether it's true or not, and we just seem to smile and do nothing. If people read enough lies and hear enough bullshit on the tv and radio, it becomes the truth. It's time for the club to admit that the way they are handling things is clearly not working. If they have no idea how to fix it, then they should do what they have done with every other position in the club and bring someone in who can.
I think the suggestion in your last sentence is something that should be seriously considered.
I'll preface what I'm about to say by saying two things. Firstly I'm well aware of the ownership's prevailing ethos in terms of the management of the club's image through the media. There is a manifest reticence to iterpose with the press, borne in no small part, no doubt, by concerns about Abu Dhabi's wider image in terms of civil rights; which is a subject which the sporting media has so far largely abstained from commenting upon. This would not remain the case if we embarked on any form of what could be perceived as censorship. Secondly, I think it's right to say that the club's media coverage has gradually and marginally improved since 2008, but certainly not consistent with our rise as a club. Further, the press only seem to need the slightest excuse to revert to their default mode of mocking and sneering at the club, as we have seen of late.
The Sterling imbroglio has brought this into particularly sharp relief. Anyone who cannot see the complete dichotomy between the way Sterling's putative transfer has been reported, in contrast to that of Clyne plus Loveren and Llalana before him, is completely beyond help. We're not talking nuances here, but naked, utter hypocrisy. I can also state with supreme confidence that if Delph had reportedly rebuked united, the narrative within the press would have been entirely different and certainly lacking the widespread unbridled glee at a club being 'snubbed'. I could list many other examples, which have been regurgited on this thread
ad nauseum, but it wouldn't serve any useful purpose. It's been done to death.
Banning journalists, however tempting, would be counter-productive and the club does not have sufficient clout within the media as yet to start wielding a stick more generally to any purposeful effect. It's not something the club would consider in any event, given the point I made earlier. Going from one extreme to the other would be foolish. It is equally true, however, that the current approach is not working to the extent it should, given what the club has achieved both on and off the pitch in the last half decade. I believe that assertion is irrefutable. Our public image is pretty shocking and certainly worse than it should be.
It may well be, of course, that the club doesn't believe it's particularly important and I, for one, don't place as much currency on it as other posters. It's certainly not prevented our rise, but it must have hampered it to some extent. It's difficult to escape from that notion, although it's also equally difficult to say with any certainty how much it's hindered us. Possibly not enough to trouble our ownership.
I'm certainly not sure what the answer is tbh, but as you say, it may lie in bring an outside agency into the arena, with a slightly altered brief. Nothing too drastic, but enough change in emphasis to be both discernible and effective.
Maybe the Sterling situation will provide some form of tipping point in that regard.
