Media bias against City

[jimharri]

Some more totally unbiased reporting that I'm sure every other club gets

Then the same bunch of shysters tweet this;


As Yoda would say; "make it up, you couldn't".

 

[jaiguruKun]

According to Sky, United have spent "just £77m" this year.

Depay's fee being quoted as £25m, no mention of add-ons taking it to £33m. Would love to know why?

 

[Ripleys_Cat]

I haven't read this entire thread. Would someone be so gracious as to sum it up in one paragraph...

 

[Bill]

I haven't read this entire thread. Would someone be so gracious as to sum it up in one paragraph...

no chance. anyway it would all be Alien to you.

 

[Damocles]

I haven't read this entire thread. Would someone be so gracious as to sum it up in one paragraph...

I was contacted this morning by one of the national papers, asking if I'd pen an article for them about Sterling.

They asked if I was alarmed by his refusal to go on tour, and whether he'd be loyal at City, to which I replied that I wasn't remotely concerned.

They then said thanks, but that's not the angle we're after.

No doubt they'll now wheel out someone like Colin Shindler who will provide the negative slant they require.

 

[pissedagain]

anyone think that setups don't happen on CNN/SKY etc go to youtube and type in crisis actors

 

[Ripleys_Cat]

no chance. anyway it would all be Alien to you.

It was a bit of a long shot, and me just being lazy.

Loving you're acknowledgement of my username though!! :)

 

[Ripleys_Cat]

They (the media) all have their angle - we all know it all too well. A story develops, the media form their own opinion, and as a consequence try to wrap their own opinion around the story that develops. In that sense, it can be called an agenda.

But that's the same for every club. How are we so different? Yes we've had negative press - that was always going to happen - but that doesn't constitute an agenda in my opinion. I just don't see it. Whenever I see a negative article about City, yes it annoys me, but I see it in isolation, and it can be easily dismissed in isolation. An agenda on the other hand suggests something else entirely. The people who write these articles - yes they have a bigger voice in the sense that it reaches a greater number of people, but aside from that, it is just a voice.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

why do the media always include wages in our purchase price ? Sterling 49m plus 50m in wages , total nearly 100m where as wankersteiger cost the rags 13m ? Wankersteiger has allegedly trousered 250k a week over 3 years , so that equates to 13m fee and 39m in wages , a total of 52m for a player who will have no sell-on value at 33 years old . We have invested 100m in a player who will be 25 and in his prime , and could be worth nearer 100m in 5 years time .
Dont suppose these figures are newsworthy , the media would rather feed the limited intelligence of your average rags/dipper armchair plastic f*ckhead.

 

[@BluePhil8]

According to Sky, United have spent "just £77m" this year.

Depay's fee being quoted as £25m, no mention of add-ons taking it to £33m. Would love to know why?

I know I shouldn't listen to it but one of the gormless talkSPORT presenters said before, without a hint of irony or sarcasm; "For a change United are spending big to get back to the top". THEY SPENT £145M LAST SUMMER ALONE!!!