Media bias against City

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ric said:
Been away for a few days, so apologies if already mentioned, but did anyone see The Telegraph's "Five things we learned about the Charity Shield"? One of the points, ostensibly about Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, was devoted almost entirely to slagging off Raheem Sterling:

"If Raheem Sterling is worth £49 million, what price Oxlade-Chamberlain, who gave a timely reminder of the outstanding talent that sets him apart from England’s other wingers? Not only did he terrorise one of the country’s best full-backs with his pace and skill, he had an end product to go with it– something that cannot always be said of Sterling – and scored a brilliant goal to boot. Over to you Raheem."

This was a game not even involving City, ffs.
Click to expand...

This is what we call the Agenda.
 
Talkshite this morning had little Lou Macari bigging up Yooniteds chances of finishing higher than us.Desperate stuff.
 
I linked onto a story about Delph in the Mirror....surprise...by some knob called Moxley,who must be getting paid too much as his taxi ride was FIFTY minutes, talking about his taxi ride and a conversation with the driver. It turns out this driver had hit hard times due to the financial crash and his two sons were in Bangladesh with his wife and he hadn't seen them for four months. Of course he then goes into a rant against overpaid footballers,Delph in particular is singled out,rambling about feeling humbled talking to the taxi driver and people all over the country with a few pounds at stake who are making heart-breaking sacrifices for their families.Fucking nauseating isn't the word! It is time the club started fighting back against every one of these cunts as tickling their fat tummies obviously isn't working!
 
David James piping up now saying we are the weak link on the top 4 and the club is getting it all wrong because we spend so much. What a fucking bellend
 
I note that Dobby Di Maria is now being quoted as costing Rags £59M. If I recall correctly it was £63M they bought him for, as the euro was stronger. Just wondering if they would devalue to match when talking about us? No chance
 
BBC sport tweeting re Dzeko

@BBCSport: Bought for £27m, sold for £14m?

Yep, I can't believe we took such a hit as we achieved nothing with him and his goals in the team :-/

Is it just me or does it seem like they are comparing this 'loss' with those on players like Di Maria?
 
Ed68 said:
Ha ha - yeah. My point is that although we have made a loss if you look purely at the transfer fee we haven't really made a loss due to his goals being worth more than the £13m 'hit' during the time we've had him.
Click to expand...
Your point is entirely valid, but we haven't made a loss in accounting terms, in any event. We bought Edin as he was approaching his theoretical peak and sold him as he was coming to its end. The two prices are entirely consistent with that cycle. His 'book value' will have been written down over that period, partly as a process of amortisation and also to reflect his advancing age. Nearly all players, especially strikers, decline in value from 24 to 29. Any journalist who fails to account for that is being intellectual dishonest or doesn't grasp the concept because he is stupid.

De Maria, on the other hand, was bought and sold by united within his prime. Arguably his two peak theoretical years in terms of his transfer value. On that basis, united's 'loss' is significantly greater. It is also greater in actual terms too. This is brought into even sharper focus when you consider that De Maria is the most expensive English signing EVER. When you consider that, his hugely inconsistent season, the fact he went AWOL and forced a move and the huge loss that united sustained on someone who a year ago was hailed as world class, the lack of invective and critique in relation to this should be astonishing, but it's not. It's predictable and tiresome. If we'd signed him and sold him in that way the narrative would be entirely different. This is manifest. You only have to look to David James' preposterous and lazy comments on our spending to see what the prevailing script is.

Quite simply, to criticise City offers the path of least resistance, which is a road the idle and the pathologically thick are always happy to travel.
 
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