Media bias against City

Status
Not open for further replies.
stony said:
I remember an argument I had about ffp, but I can't remember if it was with a Spurs or Everton fan. He agreed that ffp was around just to protect the established elite and it was a way of stopping clubs like City from competing at the top. He was also very much in agreement with it, because until his club was in a position to do what City had done, he didn't want us "jumping the queue".
Click to expand...
And thank fucking God someone realised what we were telling them!
 
Charlie whatshisface saying sagna has been a bad buy for us,bitter gooner alert and stelling sergio hasn't scored many goals with no mention of his injuries,twats
 
ballbag said:
And thank fucking God someone realised what we were telling them!
Click to expand...
Has everyone heard the news yet? Coz this is pretty ground breaking, innit...Your club is fucked by these rules. Thank you for the via. You're all screwed now, you voted for it too. xx Haaaaaaa, you thought it did good xxx You've kept the big clubs on top, stop falling for the wankers, we are CITY, we lived to help in 19999. You laugh at us, we laugh at you now x
 
Not noticing Bournemouth get the same treatment as us for being fined for breaching FFP... Poor soles and sympathy for them from the media. We are scabs who defy regulations....
 
Stretch said:
Driving back from Cheshire today at about 12.45 and five live had a lets love Giggs and who will be the next vermin manager wank fest!!.. Changed to Talk Shite and bingo!!! Same fucking benign ramblings about that load of cunts possible new manager.. The fucking lego headed **** in charge now is still in charge FFS so what happens when he does get sacked..Another fucking show about the new vile **** of a manager. Rag obsessed cunts the lot of em!!! A happy ending to my story however, changed station and got Waterloo sunset by the Kinks. Lovely!!!
Click to expand...
Lol Lego headed.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
There are three reasons why our rise has leveled the playing field more than would otherwise be the case.

The first reason is that we have destabilised the established 'Big 4' in footballing terms, most especially united and Liverpool. You say we've not played a 'direct' role, which I partly disagree with, but it's a moot point. Our influence has made them behave differently, but more importantly has punished them for operating anachronistically, which I don't believe they would have been as severely if it wasn't for our influence and presence. We've created a level of chaos which has made them less impenetrable as footballing institutions. They've made bad decisions because we've been breathing down their neck, Van Persie being a case in point.

Secondly, we've made the Premier League 'product' discernibly more interesting, which in turn has imposed itself greatly on the new TV deals. The Premier League TV deal has leveled the paying field enormously within the top flight (although not in relation to the leagues below it, somewhat lamentably). It has closed the gap between the likes of Stoke and Everton and the ancien régime clubs. Moreover it has enabled clubs like Spurs and West Ham to be more bold with their stadium expansion plans, which in turn will act as a further leveler. There is no doubt in my mind that the 'product' would have been much less enticing had it been the same four clubs monopolising the top four places. Commercial inertia would have set in to a certain extent, and furthermore, levels of discontent among supporters of clubs outside that grouping would have been higher than is presently the case. As a consequence the Premier League would have been much less at ease with itself, which in turn would have diminished the league's intrinsic value. Simply, if the new TV deal wasn't as lucrative overall, the playing field would have been manifestly less even.

Thirdly, we have eroded the power base of those established clubs off the pitch as well. Who's to know whether they wouldn't have held the rest of the clubs to ransom in some way, like the Spanish pair did. That FFP letter is evidence of how far some of those clubs were prepared to go in terms of protectionism; united have form in recent years for trying to change the TV deal when Peter Kenyon was chairman, so although by definition this limb is more speculative, I believe it doesn't require a huge leap of imagination to conclude that without our presence the 'big 4' would have felt sufficiently emboldened to skew the TV deal increasingly in their favour, by increments, no doubt. It's certainly something they have form for over several decades.

In saying all this I don't believe that we have acted in a way that is remotely altruistic, or that in a crude, simplistic sense we've done much more than merely replaced Liverpool in an Animal Farm, 'two legs good, four legs better' kind of way, but you have to look beyond that and consider how the universe operates.

We've introduced a healthy level of chaos into a world that had become stultifyingly predictable. We've moved the pieces on the board, which has in turn enabled other clubs to profit. We've changed the landscape immensely; how can that not have impacted on clubs other than ourselves? That isn't how the world works. Look at the Scottish referendum and the impact that had on the outcome of the last general election. Or the influence that punk rock had on the wider British music scene. You cannot look at supervening events in isolation; their reach and scope extends well beyond what is immediately apparent.

Just because what you see this season is a by-product of our influence, rather than something that was intended, doesn't make that influence any less germane.





Edit: I should add that a further by-product of the new TV deal is that it has made qualifying for the Champions League less of a game changer than hitherto . Under previous deals, the thirty million quid clubs got for finishing in the top four acted as cushion in the form of a self-perpetuating cartel, as that sum meant those four clubs could easily keep the rest at arm's length in terms of player recruitment etc.. The gap was unbridgeable. The new Sky deal has significantly diluted that advantage. In actual fact, in a very real sense, the 'Sky 4' had a vested interest in suppressing the domestic TV deal to a certain extent, especially given that even as it previously stood it was still significantly more lucrative than any other in word football. In its previous format it gave them a simultaneous advantage over both their domestic and European rivals, which is not so profoundly the case with the new deal.
Click to expand...

We can both agree that we've destabilised the top four with the primary victim being Liverpool, where we disagree is the extent of the knock on effect for the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Utd and whether what we've done, and continue to do, is bringing about profound change, a real game changer, where football historians will have a chapter on the Premier League entitled "Before Sheikh Mansour and after Sheikh Mansour", where they will discuss how we fundamentally altered the behaviour and dynamics of the league, ushering in a new era, or whether we'll just warrant a few paragraphs, interesting yes, but with no long term effects, just a minor earthquake, nobody killed (except the Scousers, but they, as they say in the obituary columns, had been "ill for some time"), but after the tremors the familiar story continued, with much the same script, but with new actors, City, the new Doctor Who.

I'm not disputing that there have been consequences for the old top four because of our brash gatecrashing of their cosy cartel, I'm not disputing the Aguero goal helped in bumping up the TV deal , Scudamore said as much himself (though its true effect and whether Scudamore was full of himself after the sucessful negotiations we'll never truly know) but then to claim sole ownership of that additional wave of cash washing down the leagues to the benefit of the likes of Stoke and Everton is a bit rich, remember, that Aguero goal, magnificent as it was, was not the culmination of the Mansour plan, it belongs to irons out of the fire heroics, great moments in sport of which we have no monopoly, it happened to be us at the moment the new TV deal was negotiated, but that's all and its real effect on the outcome of those negotiations will never be known, the Premier League was not dying on its feet before the Aguero goal, that goal did not give the league the kiss of life, if anything it put a cherry on top.

Speculating what might have happened without Sheikh Mansour is all very interesting and maybe we headed off the possibility of the old top four doing a Spanish deal over TV revenue and slowly starving the likes of Stoke and Southampton, but just as likely we didn't. Either way what's to say, once we've got our feet under the table, we'll not try to do the same? Behaviour outside the old order trying to get in is not the same as behaviour once you are in. If you look at how we threw enormous amounts of cash at Wolfsburg and Liverpool to get the players we wanted, we don't look like game changers to Swansea fans, we look just like another big beast clone, only one who'll piss longer and harder on the smaller clubs to get what they want and who can dispute that analysis? I certainly can't.

We almost certainly altered the date of Ferguson's retirement, but not the subsequent fuck up when he did. Utd signing Van Persie was a direct result of our threat, but the threat could have come from Chelsea and resulted in the same signing.

We've played no part in the Chelsea meltdown, that fiasco would have happened if Pearce was still sitting in the Etihad dug out.

City have certainly made the Premier league more interesting, yes, for us, but for the wider world? Not really. We can produce sparkling football, but periodically during the Premier league era other teams have done the same, Utd in the 90's, Arsenal and Chelsea spasmodically over the last 15 years. We spoiled the fairy tale ending for the Scousers a couple of seasons ago, we thumped Utd 6-1, we have flair players, we play attacking football, FFP was used to hold us back and it did, for a while, but now we can flash the cash, paying 50/60 million for top class talent, we're extending the stadium, built a first class academy, have a fully supported and improving women's team and we're building a global football presence. All exciting stuff at City, bigger and better and shinier and slicker, but out here in the sticks (I'm a City season ticket holder in Norwich, Christ! The drive is murder) City look for all the world like a gatecrasher who has battered their way through the top four front door, then once in, turned round and nailed it back up. If anyone else gets in good luck to them and maybe in the new fluidity of the cash rich Premier League, membership of the "top four club" might change quite a bit, but if it does it won't be down to anything we've done.

PS: As for....

"Just because what you see this season is a by-product of our influence, rather than something that was intended, doesn't make that influence any less germane."

Yes, City was Johnny on the spot at key moments over the last five years or so, and undoubtedly stuff happened as a direct and indirect consequence of that and those ungrateful buggers at Southampton and Swansea might still hate us "we're everything that's wrong with football, yadda, yadda, yadda" and "What have City ever done for us?" But without us the ungrateful bastards wouldn't have etc, etc. But that way madness lies, any number of positives can be attributed to us when you buy in to that heady brew, and any negatives conveniently foisted on to others.

We've made ripples yes, some of our own making and some made by others as a result of what we've done, but the main beneficiary has been City. Other clubs less fortunate than us do not privately celebrate our achievements, they don't see them as trailblazing, top four destroying, shedding light, milk and honey flowing, revolutionary blah, blah, they see no benefit for them either directly or indirectly as a consequence of our rise and they're not wrong.

There are other forces at work which are more profound than anything we've done and implying, as you do, that uniquely we are responsible for the tsunami of cash rolling over the Premier League and that everything good that flows from that can be attributed to us, is wishful thinking, entertained by some Bluemooners, but it's not shared by many beyond the Etihad.

I agree with you, we live in a world of unintended consequences, but I try to steer clear of the butterfly effect and I would urge other Blues to do the same.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.