Final reply from the BBC. Utter, utter wankers.
Thank you for taking the time to contact us and we appreciate that you felt strongly enough to write to us again. We have noted your points on the matter of your perceptions about our coverage of, and references to, Manchester City and we are sorry to learn you were not satisfied with our earlier response.
We are sorry to tell you that we have nothing to add to our previous reply where we explained that such things are entirely subjective in nature. We therefore do not believe your complaint has raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation. We will not therefore correspond further in response to additional points, or further comments or questions, made about this issue or our responses to it. We realise you will be disappointed to hear this but hope this explains why we are not able to take your complaint further. If you remain dissatisfied about our decision you can appeal to the BBC Trust, the body which represents licence fee payers. The Trust has asked that we should explain to complainants that the BBC's Royal Charter draws a clear distinction between the role of the Trust - which determines the overall scope of the BBC's services and sets its standards - and that of the BBC Executive - which runs the Corporation and decides what to broadcast and publish.
The Trust does not investigate every appeal submitted to it. It will normally hear appeals about the Executive’s decisions only if a complainant can show that they involved a potential breach of the BBC's published standards, or that an operational decision has raised significant issues of general importance. The Trust is the final arbiter of which appeals it should consider. For the full information about the BBC Trust’s appeals procedures please visit www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/. If you wish to submit an appeal you must write within 20 working days of receiving this reply, explaining why you wish to appeal. You can contact the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ, or by emailing trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. Please would you include for them the relevant case reference which you may have been given.
We're sorry not to have referenced the Tweet you mentioned - . The fact of the matter is that tickets were indeed still available for that match, however later in the day you will have noted that we contextualised this by reporting "Manuel Pellegrini was quizzed about the lack of a sell-out at Manchester City earlier on this afternoon but their Champions League tie with Paris St-Germain is likely to break the club's European record. Around 51,400 tickets have been sold - and continue to be sold - with the capacity at the Etihad reduced to 53,000 for European games. City's record crowd for a European game is 50,363 (v Juventus in September 2015)" thus giving the full and ongoing picture.
You've now mentioned another Tweet - - and we can clarify that the comparisons between Leicester City and Manchester City were made to highlight the disparity between how much each team have spent on players, but also to put into context that Manchester City’s starting line-up was the most costly in the Premier League at the time. We feel that it was a fair, accurate and legitimate comparison to make and was done with the aim of illustrating a key component of the Leicester City eventual title. The post was in no way indicative of any bias or targeting of Manchester City. We posted this in the build-up of the Manchester United v Leicester City match purely due to the fact that all Leicester City needed to do that evening was to win the match to take the title. We’re sorry that you’re unhappy about this and we can assure you that the BBC Sport team are aware of the concerns you’ve raised.
Haha, brilliant!Are you saying there's a mod agenda against you Frank?
:)
Thanks 2Sheikhs. What is often forgotten on here is firstly I am no lover of the Press and although I do not see an agenda it does not mean I am not disappointed and do not agree that some members of the press do not like us.
The lines of what constitues an agenda seems to have been blurred. I have always disputed that commercial organisations are conspiring against us because I do not believe from a commercial perspective there is really any significant benefit and organisations like BT, one of the organisations continually accused, even has a commercial relationship with us.
Also I have to say often the journalists articles fans get upset about in this forum, crowds for champs lge games, fans leaving early, players poor attitudes, you can also generally find threads saying the same by City fans on this forum.
One of the biggest things which feeds the perceived agenda is comparing our coverage with Uniteds. Do we get as much coverage? Of course we dont that is just based on market forces.
Do they get as tough a time in the media? Probably not about empty seats (although it has been referenced a lot for the palace/Bournemouth games) but there managers certainly get a tougher time as arguably did Mourinho, Rodgers this year as does Wenger every year.
I do also think we can be a bit sensitive. Shael wrote a great post listing slights and many are well founded, and rightly fans have reason to be cheesed off about them. But I also noted he referenced how everyone new City were going to get Guardiola but the press perpetuated the myth he would end up at Old Trafford as evidence of bias within the media coverage. But in a complete contradiction when City have been linked with players, who are likely or have gone to another club, fans scream bias and state the press have wrote this to make it look like the players rejected us. So in both scenarios bias has been confirmed and of course this then reinforces the belief.
Still I think its great poor journalism is challenged but for me a lot of valid points are diluted by the accusation of bias which follows every article.
Quick edit for you, did you fluff his beard?
Sorry guys, I've not been ale to follow this thread for the last couple of pages as my broadband has been down. Have I missed anything?
Al though I don't agree with your views you have every right to air them. Commercially can BT afford to have pissed me off to such an extent that I no longer pay them c£75 ppm for broadband, phone and Sports? Probably. Can they afford for all the City fans who have done the same? Who knows. It's well know UEFA are not happy with the viewing figures and if they carry on with their snide, juvenile pundits and anchor having, not very well disguised, digs then I really hope they go out of business very soon. Sky were not perfect but so superior.
I get that we say some of the same things but I'm sure you would not be happy if I made constant snide digs at, for example, your wife (or Bill :) ) but you are fully entitled to as it's your family. Regards an agenda it really depends on what you class as an agenda. The agenda, in my view, is to ignore, mock and belittle as it is what the hoards of pathetic reds, of many persuasions, want.
I do agree we have got ourselves into such a frenzy that we analyse everything and look for things that are not there at times. I called someone for an example this week but cannot for the life of me remember what it was. There's plenty of stuff out there from commercial organisations that really should not look to alienate so many people that they end up removing £1000 a year from their bottom line. And that's the answer blues. The season is over. Fuck them off, tell them why. They'll be back with better offers ready for next season. Trust me, I have a paper mountain of offers from them. None of them say they're going to stop being petty pricks though...
Ha ha! By the way, De Niro took me to Barcelona. I had to do some specialist stuff obviously.......
... because they gave United a tough time on chanps lge nights?
He doesn't call me a '****'. Instead he calls me a 'posh ****', which compared to him I most certainly am.In our brief chat he talked dirty a lot - well he repeatedly swore and called everyone a c&&t. A trip to Barca would have been nicer -I hope he booked the honeymoon suite for you Exeter?
Good post Manchester blue. Just to pick up on your first paragraph the point you are making I actually agree with, which to me makes redundant the argument that BT would be biased against us for Commercial reasons.
Being biased against City will only alienate our fan base, which would possibly lead to cancelled subscriptions, but I would very much doubt persuade fans of other clubs to subscribe. They will only do that if BT have the tv rights and their team is featured. For an example would City fans buy papers, subscribe to BT because they gave United a tough time on chanps lge nights?
You are also correct also we take things personally from an outsider as its different to discussing it amongst ourselves and this is the crux of the matter. If we feel that like that what would an Arsenal fan think about the treatment of Wenger or United fans about Van Gaal?
We are naturally sensitised to criticism about our club and so of course it feels everyone is against us and particularly City fans who read Blue Moon are sensitised to it more than most because we have threads dedicated to articles. Amongst my peer group those who dont read Blue Moon or a lot less aware of the bias/agenda which is alluded to on the forum.
Still that does not change the fact the likes of Ferdinand, Ogden etc generally do have a dislike for us and are quite rightly called out for it.
The thing that struck me about the BT Sport coverage was just how unappealing they made our games for neutral fans. Not the ones that love or hate City but the ones that would think about tuning in for a CL game featuring another club but are 50:50 about it. They completely failed to create any feel good factor which might have persuaded neutrals to follow City's progress in the CL. Contrast that with the build up to the EL final where I expect quite a few neutrals would have been pulled in by the positivity of the build up across the media.
If it was deliberate decision by BT to appeal to United fans it doesn't seem to have been well thought out.
The thing that struck me about the BT Sport coverage was just how unappealing they made our games for neutral fans. Not the ones that love or hate City but the ones that would think about tuning in for a CL game featuring another club but are 50:50 about it. They completely failed to create any feel good factor which might have persuaded neutrals to follow City's progress in the CL. Contrast that with the build up to the EL final where I expect quite a few neutrals would have been pulled in by the positivity of the build up across the media.
If it was deliberate decision by BT to appeal to United fans it doesn't seem to have been well thought out.
Here's a thought - how angry is Ferdinand going to be next season, fronting the CL coverage!
He doesn't call me a '****'. Instead he calls me a 'posh ****', which compared to him I most certainly am.
Here's a thought - how angry is Ferdinand going to be next season, fronting the CL coverage!
The thing that struck me about the BT Sport coverage was just how unappealing they made our games for neutral fans. Not the ones that love or hate City but the ones that would think about tuning in for a CL game featuring another club but are 50:50 about it. They completely failed to create any feel good factor which might have persuaded neutrals to follow City's progress in the CL. Contrast that with the build up to the EL final where I expect quite a few neutrals would have been pulled in by the positivity of the build up across the media.
If it was deliberate decision by BT to appeal to United fans it doesn't seem to have been well thought out.
Exactly Cibaman they were unappealing, which again suggests it was hardly the desire of an organisation being slammed for poor viewing figures but the actions of a few poor comentators with an axe to grind, which again reflects my point is was not a commercial decision particularly as most United fans would probably avoid watching the game anyway. BT can rightly be criticised for their choice of panel though.
I do wonder if BT are just stuck in some 80s football stereotype timewarp where barely literate blokes like Ferdinand can indulge in some 'lads bantz' thinking that will appear to the audience. From our own experiences the demographic of a football crowd at City has changed and sadly You wonder if BT are aware of it. It may suit a talksport with a small niche market but to a broader spectrum of viewers sadly fails.
If I walked past a news stand and saw a paper with the headline, "United in financial meltdown", I'd read it.
If it said, "United post record profits", I wouldn't.
The country is full of gullible plastic rags. It's a case of know your audience. Make rags happy and blues upset means more money.