Sorry but the 100m signing di Maria was not 'factual' at the time it was written. Whereas the fact that the rags were 'sh*te' at that point in time was factual. You are applying knowledge we now have to something that was 'unknown' or at least 'unproven' at that point in time. As someone who thinks it's premature that we are celebrating the sterling signing I cannot accept that the signing of Di maria was a factual story before the signing was made or a bid even accepted.
I haven't seen the whole report but it takes what was 'factually' a p*ss poor performance and sugar coats it with some story about the rags splashing 100m on di Maria and cash on other players.
irrespective, you're best shot at a defence is to drag up an article that writes negatively about Utd having lost at home to Swansea and after having finished 7th at the end of the previous season!!! Jesus wept
Try finding an article on any other team that says you need to rebuild an ageing past it squad after your team has finished 2nd in the league you have the most goals scored, the best goal difference, golden glove and golden boot winners in your team and the golden boot winner fails to get in the team of the season and we might be able to have a serious debate.
Until then some feeble negative article that reports on a team that is spectacularly failing, is hardly 'hard' evidence that an agenda does not exist against our club.
I was referring to the fact that United were to spend huge money as factual, thus proved by signing the player the headline alluded to, rather than saying it was factual at the time of the headline that United had already signed Di Maria.
If you want to get pedantic over the use of "factual", then that's up to you. Whilst your (and probably the majority of others') opinion is that United's performance in the 2-1 defeat to Swansea was "piss poor", that's all that is - an opinion. It most certainly isn't a fact, despite your opinion being one that's shared by the majority.
As for describing your opinion on "my best shot at a defense....", I am not trying to defend United in any way shape or form here, nor am I disagreeing that they were in a state of disarray at the time. I merely find it laughable that you can try and add different context to that United headline (as opposed to the City one), by saying it was made purely to appease the masses of United fans (which I assume you believe this paper's MO was) when the same page had a fairly sizeable section referring to their club being ridiculed by a Liverpool fan.
Editor: "Ian, I need to please the United masses tomorrow, so I'd like you to ensure my newspaper is nothing but positive for our United readers".
Ladyman: "No problem. I'll mention that United plan to spend huge and that Di Maria is a target".
Ladyman: "Erm, boss, you asked me to put a positive spin on United to please them?"
Editor: "Yes, I can see you did that"
Ladyman: "Yes, I did. But do you mind telling me why the fuck you then dedicated another sizeable section of the back page ridiculing them by none other than former Liverpool player, and supporter, Jamie Redknapp?"
Editor: "Erm, shit....yeah. Oh I'm sure they wont mind...."
