Media bias against City

[xgorton]

When the next weekend the rags play a match not televised on BT or Sky out of interest?

September 26th 3pm Sunderland home.

 

[The blue phantom]

Ourselves, the chavs and le arse have all done 1500 sat kick offs. There's a deffo TV bias towards an anti football team and the extra money they will get for it.

Havnt we been on t.v more than the rags for the last two seasons?

 

[The perfect fumble]

September 26th 3pm Sunderland home.

Which is a pity for them, they might actually win that one.

 

[Chris in London]

Havnt we been on t.v more than the rags for the last two seasons?

No

 

[xgorton]

Rags and Chelsea both on 10 times and us 8 from start of season till end of November all prem games.

 

[whipper]

I like The Rags on telly,it's comedy gold.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

I like The Rags on telly,it's comedy gold.

Not for me. I like to watch entertaining football. Without blue tinted specs on,
They're fucking awful at the moment. I'm sure there are a few more teams in the league
who could dish up something a lot more watchable.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Not for me. I like to watch entertaining football. Without blue tinted specs on,
They're fucking awful at the moment. I'm sure there are a few more teams in the league
who could dish up something a lot more watchable.

True, but like a bad smell that won't go away in that you know they are inevitably somehow going to be in the top 4 come the end, which can't be said of Swansea no matter how nicely they play. Sky and BT are simply favouring screening the teams with the biggest fan bases (understandably) and those who are realistically competing for the top spots.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

Yeah of course, thats all true, but why not offer him a 6 year contract with mad wages while Suarez was still there, the point i'm making is Sterling only forced their hand after Liverpool made some shocking decisions. Imagine the uproar if we let Aguero or Silva's contract run down to 1 or 2 years left.

Once things had played out it was a no brainer for Sterling to come to City to play with the best players in the world, competing for titles, domestically and in Europe.

Lets go back a little further..imagine if Qpr had offered Raheem a 6 yr contract to stay in London at the age 0f 15 yr old..do you think that would have ensured he wasn,t looking for a bigger club to suit his obvious talent.? When you have been the best ,at every age group as you rise through the ranks in football, if you want to prove yourself, if your driven, determined and confident in your own ability,as well as being extremely talented, you will move clubs to better yourself......instead of treading water.In addition , if your manager ,s a idiot, that will only stiffen your resolve to move on......i really dont think a 6 year contract with mad wages would have kept Raheem at liverpool...as soon as the signs were clear that the liverpool that sold itself to a teenager 5 yrs ago, was in fact not the red giant it made out it was......a sharp determined and talented player is gonna fuck off....

 

[MCFC1993]

Lets go back a little further..imagine if Qpr had offered Raheem a 6 yr contract to stay in London at the age 0f 15 yr old..do you think that would have ensured he wasn,t looking for a bigger club to suit his obvious talent.? When you have been the best ,at every age group as you rise through the ranks in football, if you want to prove yourself, if your driven, determined and confident in your own ability,as well as being extremely talented, you will move clubs to better yourself......instead of treading water.In addition , if your manager ,s a idiot, that will only stiffen your resolve to move on......i really dont think a 6 year contract with mad wages would have kept Raheem at liverpool...as soon as the signs were clear that the liverpool that sold itself to a teenager 5 yrs ago, was in fact not the red giant it made out it was......a sharp determined and talented player is gonna fuck off....

Going as far back as QPR is a bit daft though as he wasn't a regular starter in a premier league team playing with better players than himself at the time (Suarez, Gerrard), a couple of years ago he would have probably signed a big contract with good wages. Now he would have left eventually but the club would have had a say when. He's a determined individual who wanted to play with the best so he came to City but his contract situation also put him in a position of strength over the club. Listen it benefitted us so I aint complaining but look at Everton, John Stones signed a 5 year contract after his breakout season in 2014, so Everton can basically say piss off to any club that comes calling until they get a good offer or no longer want the player as they did to Chelsea, thus scuppering Chelsea's plans. Obviously keeping an unhappy player will be detrimental to the team but they could basically keep him for 3 more years before thinking about selling him before his value drops. I mean look at us last year, every single key player was given a contract extension just to ensure they had their assets protected, in Sterling's situation, Liverpool fucked up, they then publicly outed the situation to try and gain sympathy which was obviously wrong. To be honest i've lost sight of what points this all started over now, I guess its summed up as; Liverpool could have done better (better position, better replacement, more time to sort the situation out), Sterling benefitted (quicker move to a club challenging for trophies with good wages and a chance to learn from better players at a younger age) & City got a great young player and supposedly a bargain (as certain 'scientists' findings would have you believe).