Media bias against City

[Gordyola]

Didn't sky have a stake in city

Yep they had 10% same as a few other clubs

 

[BigOscar]

For anyone who does not believe there is an agenda, how can you possibly explain the way that our transfers are valued as opposed to other clubs? It's clear as day and there is no other explanation as to how the same media source can print Sterling at £49m and Roberts at £11m, but only put Martial at £36m. You're either including add ons in the price or you aren't. Picking and choosing is clearly just a deliberate attempt to sway perception about how much money the two teams have spent.

 

[Sergio Picasso Aguero]

For anyone who does not believe there is an agenda, how can you possibly explain the way that our transfers are valued as opposed to other clubs? It's clear as day and there is no other explanation as to how the same media source can print Sterling at £49m and Roberts at £11m, but only put Martial at £36m. You're either including add ons in the price or you aren't. Picking and choosing is clearly just a deliberate attempt to sway perception about how much money the two teams have spent.

We all know it is part of trying to keep their customer base happy and until we are accepted as part of the "Elite" aka united, liverpool and arsenal by winning titles and being successful in the Champions League then this will continue to happen. I don't think we are off this because we are growing as a club every year. "We're not really here" won't be true for much longer.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I don't really think Merson is particularly biased against us. He's definitely biased towards Arsenal but as a pundit I find him okay. He doesn't really know what he's taking about most of the time but he's quite a likeable and entertaining buffoon. His reaction when Aguero scored "that goal" shows he has no axe to grind against us unlike so many. Really he's just a bit of a clown. I don't take anything he says seriously and when he is being critical of us I don't think it's malicious, it's just ill informed. I think there is an agenda, bias, call it what you will but I think it goes above Merson's head.

I'd agree with this. I think he's harmless enough.

 

[Sergio Picasso Aguero]

I don't really think Merson is particularly biased against us. He's definitely biased towards Arsenal but as a pundit I find him okay. He doesn't really know what he's taking about most of the time but he's quite a likeable and entertaining buffoon. His reaction when Aguero scored "that goal" shows he has no axe to grind against us unlike so many. Really he's just a bit of a clown. I don't take anything he says seriously and when he is being critical of us I don't think it's malicious, it's just ill informed. I think there is an agenda, bias, call it what you will but I think it goes above Merson's head.

I agree, I don't think the guy could even spell the word agenda let alone conform to one.

 

[Blue Budgie]

For anyone who does not believe there is an agenda, how can you possibly explain the way tha's p our transfers are valued as opposed to other clubs? It's clear as day and there is no other explanation as to how the same media source can print Sterling at £49m and Roberts at £11m, but only put Martial at £36m. You're either including add ons in the price or you aren't. Picking and choosing is clearly just a deliberate attempt to sway perception about how much money the two teams have spent.

Spot on Oscar it's pathetic quite frankly.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I have no problem with any scribbler who says "I think City are shit" - that is just an opinion to which they are entitled.
The problem is when it is passed off as fact, and it feeds into the general ignorance of the public who accept it face value.
The journos and the media moguls know that ,for the most part, the viewers and listeners are pretty lazy and really quite happy to buy into the ignorance peddled as long as it doesn't disturb their happy little lives- so just sell them more - they're lapping it up ( and paying for the privilege)
It makes our job harder though. The number of intelligent , educated ,seemingly well-informed fans of other clubs that I know, who still think that City are financed out of the sheik's pocket is frightening. I have spent hours putting them right with facts and figures and the number of open mouths and "well, I never knew that" responses is amazing. Facts and figures which are, of course , available to any member of the public- but which they never see!
They simply believe the 'opinion' of the media ,and consume it quite happily.

 

[Silva_Spell]

It has been another transfer window with colossal sums of money changing hands. Manchester City, for example, have achieved a net spend of more than £130m. Wasn’t Uefa’s financial fair play supposed to put the brakes on this sort of thing?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/sep/02/financial-fair-play-manchester-city

So predictable. Just make up a number and run with it...

Ignore the fact that the net spent is closer to 75-100m, depending on how you treat add ons and the obligations to buy for Dzeko/Jovetic

 

[blueinsa]

Sky continue to claim Martial has cost £36M despite the lad himself saying he doesn't know if he is worth the 80M Euros its cost them to sign him in the same article!

 

[middleton___blue]

Noticed on the Guardian...

Memphis reported as 25m - Full cost 31m
Schneiderlin reported as 24m - Full cost 27m
Darmian reported as 12.7m - Full cost 14.7m
Martial reported as 36m - Full cost 58.8m

Sterling initial 44m - Reported as 49m
Otamendi initial 28.5m - Reported as 32m
Roberts initial 5m - Reported as 11m

and that's just this window

It really is a Joke how obvious and sickening the Bias is when our spending is compared to other clubs I agree.