Media bias against City

[mat]

The Sinclair signing was a baffling one from the moment we were linked with him, I can't think of one person who thought it was a good idea, or that he was anywhere near good enough to be playing even a rotational role in the City squad. Sinclair was always far below the standard required of City players, and he proved to be just that during his time here. Since leaving he's been a mediocre player in one of the Premier League's worst sides.

I can only guess that Helen Flannigan was offering blowies to get him to Manc as she didn't fancy living in Wales.

 

[mat]

If we did the quadruple we'd struggle to get four players in the team of the year.

It would be classed as bare minimum for all the riches we have then they'd put a 6 page interview with Shrek and his latest pube transplant over it.

I made the effort to read that... Thought John Cross had come on-side recently.

What did strike me was there were hyperlinks in the storey for Everton, Peter Reid, Wroy, Sunderland etc but not for us.

If ever there was an indication of bias/agenda......

John Cross is a bitter entitled Tarquin. Like the rest of them who thinks we don't deserve to be challenging as we have a club with money and ambition on the pitch.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Rodwell hasn't excactly resurrected his career with Sunderland. If he were one of England's brightest prospects he hasn't really got a fierce competition to overcome.

There's a balanced article about Sterling in the ToryGraph today. It's balanced in the sense that we aren't coloured as 'The Money', and Sterling's reasons for wanting to move are sypathetically laid out.

 

[BrianW]

City are effectively forced by the rules to buy a certain number of English/British players and put them in the squad. Does anyone think that if Sinclair had been 95% as good as Aguero, or Rodwell 90% as good as Silva, that City would have left them out of the team because of their nationality? They failed at City because they simply weren't good enough. Joe Hart plays every week because he's good enough. Sterling plays most games because he's good enough. It's simple, really. If they're good enough, they'll get games. If not, they'll sit on the bench and eventually get transferred to a less successful club. No one will tell me it's any different at Old Trafford, Anfield or the Emirates. I can't imagine Wenger giving a shit player a regular place just because the player comes from Britain.

 

[blueinsa]

City are effectively forced by the rules to buy a certain number of English/British players and put them in the squad. Does anyone think that if Sinclair had been 95% as good as Aguero, or Rodwell 90% as good as Silva, that City would have left them out of the team because of their nationality? They failed at City because they simply weren't good enough. Joe Hart plays every week because he's good enough. Sterling plays most games because he's good enough. It's simple, really. If they're good enough, they'll get games. If not, they'll sit on the bench and eventually get transferred to a less successful club. No one will tell me it's any different at Old Trafford, Anfield or the Emirates. I can't imagine Wenger giving a shit player a regular place just because the player comes from Britain.

Sums the situation up perfectly.

 

[cibaman]

The Sinclair signing was a baffling one from the moment we were linked with him, I can't think of one person who thought it was a good idea, or that he was anywhere near good enough to be playing even a rotational role in the City squad. Sinclair was always far below the standard required of City players, and he proved to be just that during his time here. Since leaving he's been a mediocre player in one of the Premier League's worst sides.

Sinclair was a last minute panic buy after our main targets turned us down.

The other common denominator between Sinclair and Rodwell is that they'd both had decent games against City. Rodwell had that cameo when they beat us at the Etihad, Sinclair had a couple of decent performances for Swansea. Buying players who have played well against us has been a City trait for a long time and still continues eg Delph (although that might turn out to be a decent signing.

 

[BillyShears]

If we did the quadruple we'd struggle to get four players in the team of the year.

It's a really bizarre phenomenon, and one which i'm only fully beginning to see now.

Basically we are roundly ignored whilst doing well because "it's where they should be after the money they've spent". But any slight slip and we come sharply back into focus for the mainstream media.

I find it fascinating that this time last year when Chelsea were top of the league you couldn't move for stories about what a genius Mourinho was and how Chelsea were such an outstanding side who'd bought so many good players blah blah blah. Yet fast forward 12 months, we're top of the league, qualified from our CL group etc etc. and honestly it's almost as if we don't play every weekend. I have to literally go looking for the match reports.

Anyone seen anything approaching an editorial on how well we're doing or how we've improved from last season or in fact anything positive about the direction the club are heading in ?

 

[Tueart1976]

I have just submitted the article to the PCC. Let's see what they come back with.

Just seen this belter from The Star:

I have just received a reply back from the Independent Press Standards Organisation about my complaint regarding the “Sheikh head in disbelief” article. The IPSO have deemed the article does not breach the Editors' Code of Practice. I have copied the IPSO's response below with my name and the complaints officer's name removed.

Dear Mr XXXXX,

I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Sheikh head in disbelief”, published by the Daily Star Sunday on 18 October 2015.

On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive reviews it to ensure that it falls within our remit, and discloses a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of your complaint under the terms of the Code. Having considered the points you have raised in full, we have concluded that your complaint does not raise a possible breach of the Code.

You complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that the article was inaccurate because it said that Manchester City had been running a deficit of £650 million, when you said that deficit had been converted into equity. You do not dispute that the club had amassed a net transfer spend of £650 million in the last eight transfer windows, or that it had spent £200 million refurbishing the stadium and funding the academy. We also note that the article said: “What has happened to all the money City owe? Written off by the mega-rich owners presumably.” In this context, we did not consider that the article gave a misleading impression of Manchester City’s overall financial situation. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.

You complained under Clause 1 that the article was inaccurate because it stated that Manchester City’s sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways was a “related party” arrangement, despite UEFA having ruled that it was not. The article said that “Even City’s major sponsor – Etihad Airways – is a family firm run by Sheikh and Vac’s brother”. The article did not report that Etihad Airways was a “related party” arrangement in line with UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules; as a result, the article was not inaccurate. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.

You also said that Clause 1 had been breached because the article inaccurately reported that Etihad Airways was a family firm run by Sheikh Mansour’s brother; you said the airline was owned by the Abu Dhabi government, and was not a family firm. We note that Sheikh Mansour is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi, and that the airline is owned by the Abu Dhabi government; in these circumstances, we did not consider that the article was inaccurate. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.

You also said that Clause12 had been breached because the article had racial undertones. IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy. In the case of third party complaints, we will need to consider the position of the party most closely involved. In this instance, the concerns you raised under this Clause relate directly to the Manchester City owner. Since you are not acting on their behalf with their knowledge and consent, we were unable to consider this aspect of your complaint further.

You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us within seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made more than seven days following the date of this email.

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.

Best wishes,

XXXXXXX

Cc Daily Star Sunday

 

[jacko74]

Was watching BBC Breakfast the other morning and they were interviewing some Yank, haven't got a clue what they were talking about but the yank just happened to make a comment about ''people coming over and watching a Manchester City soccaar match''... the host, Bill wotisname, couldn't wait to jump in and say 'or utd, or utd'

I wonder if the yank had used utd as his example in the first place if Bill would have been just as keen to get a mention of City in?

 

[Blueknows]

It's a really bizarre phenomenon, and one which i'm only fully beginning to see now.

Basically we are roundly ignored whilst doing well because "it's where they should be after the money they've spent". But any slight slip and we come sharply back into focus for the mainstream media.

I find it fascinating that this time last year when Chelsea were top of the league you couldn't move for stories about what a genius Mourinho was and how Chelsea were such an outstanding side who'd bought so many good players blah blah blah. Yet fast forward 12 months, we're top of the league, qualified from our CL group etc etc. and honestly it's almost as if we don't play every weekend. I have to literally go looking for the match reports.

Anyone seen anything approaching an editorial on how well we're doing or how we've improved from last season or in fact anything positive about the direction the club are heading in ?

Instead we get stories every other week on Pep or Ancelotti replacing Pellers , we could do the quadruple this season and we still wouldnt get any credit , didnt Pulis win manager of the year in Pellers first season says it all really