Media bias against City

[fulabeer]

£36m...more "like" £58m...

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I have been asking the same question of Ian Herbert (chief sportswriter at The Independent) on Twitter tonight, but haven't had a satisfactory response as yet.

His response to your question, with tiresome predictability, is a complete non-sequitur.

Also, presumably he means "cited by me".

 

[ninjamonkey]

You're all ignoring the obvious answer to the martial fee. It's because Sterling is likely to end up costing us £49 million when he wins titles with us and we gladly pay the few million extra for helping us do so, whereas Martial is unlikely to activate any clauses as he will win nothing with the rags before being sold at a hefty loss.

 

[glyncity]

but at the start of the season the press where quoting the full £49 million for Sterling while also reckoning we where the team most likely to fall out of the top 4

 

[andyhinch]

His response to your question, with tiresome predictability, is a complete non-sequitur.

Also, presumably he means "cited by me".

I think the problem lies in the fact that Ric didn't call him a ****, to nice for his own good at times :)

 

[trotsky]

BBC news are now reporting the Martial transfer as £36 million that may rise to £58.
Maybe people pointing out the bias in the press is beginning to have an affect.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

BBC news are now reporting the Martial transfer as £36 million that may rise to £58.
Maybe people pointing out the bias in the press is beginning to have an affect.

It's a start I guess but I'll believe it when they report the Sterling fee as £44m that may rise to £49m. The BBC, sadly, appears to have enthusiastically joined the race to the bottom in football reporting.

 

[Ajm1985]

I love the confidence that the journos have in us to take it as a given that we'll win the league and the Chumps league, thereby activating the add on fees.

I think it's worth asking how much they have bet on us to win, seeing as they report our future success as fact when stating our transfer fees.

 

[SilverFox2]

I have been asking the same question of Ian Herbert (chief sportswriter at The Independent) on Twitter tonight, but haven't had a satisfactory response as yet.

Hi Ric,

I note on our own MCFC website a link reference to the Daily Mail review on a club by club basis re the transfer window.

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/What-the...-media-says-about-MCFC-2-September/1441092700

(see just below ESPN paras)

This review should give a like for like comparison but may not so perhaps it can add to your ammunition by either being fair or not ?

 

[jimbobblue]

Now I didn't believe that whole city media bias because I thought media would love the under dog turned big dog story plus adds competition which were told is healthy right. But having read this topic on the forum I am turning into a believer. That and not to mention articles from Sky such as the new Paul Merson ratings of the recent transfer window. Giving city a B- and no "mersons view" below it. Liverpool given better grade than city in transfer window yet look how the dynamic has changed in our squad from our business dealings. Not that I should care what merson thinks as he's an idiot but others think what is written on these sites is gospel!