Media coverage 2018/19

[@BluePhil8]

Got him tying himself up hahaha 'It's ok if I take money from human rights abusers as long as they let me write what I want' hahaha you fucking dick so fuck everyone else then yeah? Made to look like the absolute imbecile he is.

 

[burning blue soul]

Or fergie’s first big spend was one and a half times the rags turn over thats like them spending 900m this summer on players.

Now that is a stat worth remembering!!!

 

[@BluePhil8]

Never seen someone get exposed so brilliantly.

 

[burning blue soul]

We have also become a bit hypersensitive to a good old fashioned piss take - because there are plenty out there who mean it with venom.

Yep, sometimes it's harmless wind-upery, and sometimes it's total biased nastiness!

But sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

 

[Scottish Cityzen]

Or fergie’s first big spend was one and a half times the rags turn over thats like them spending 900m this summer on players.

When was that? Over the course of one season. Details would be appreciated to share (shovel down the throats) of some rags.

 

[Skip Donoghue]

Piers Morgan?

No no no.....

I did say a "Peirs Morgan" type..... A horrible twat basically

 

[Marvin]

Got him tying himself up hahaha 'It's ok if I take money from human rights abusers as long as they let me write what I want' hahaha you fucking dick so fuck everyone else then yeah? Made to look like the absolute imbecile he is.

Many people work for employers they don't like. We shouldn't be defined by the people we work for. Are you?

There are many radical journalists who have worked for owners they do not like. As long as they are able to publish their views regardless, does this matter?

The better questions to ask the critics is

a) consistency: Billionare and state involvement in football clubs is not restricted to Man City. The fact that they focus their ire on City suggests a lack of sincerity.
b) Misunderstanding of the political and historical development of the Middle East. The logic of their position is that only Western money can own and control football clubs because only their money is clean.

 

[@BluePhil8]

Many people work for employers they don't like. We shouldn't be defined by the people we work for. Are you?

There are many radical journalists who have worked for owners they do not like. As long as they are able to publish their views regardless, does this matter?

The better questions to ask the critics is

a) consistency: Billionare and state involvement in football clubs is not restricted to Man City. The fact that they focus their ire on City suggests a lack of sincerity.
b) Misunderstanding of the political and historical development of the Middle East. The logic of their position is that only Western money can own and control football clubs because only their money is clean.

It's not about working for someone you don't like, it's specifically about him going after City for being 'human rights abusers' when he works for one himself, which he says is fine. So it's not ok for City to get money from the middle east, but he himself is allowed? He's a melon mate, pure and simple.

 

[cleavers]

I actually haven't got a problem with journalists questioning us about FFP and Abu Dhabi sports washing etc. What I detest though it their attitude and approach to doing so and I also can't shake off the feeling that some of the journalists are only concerned with human rights because it can be used to attack City, instead of the nature of it.

Let's just imagine that Sheikh Mansour had enough and sold City tomorrow. Would these journalists then carry on with their crusades and attack clubs for taking sponsorship money of companies with links to questionable human rights?

There are Chinese, Thai, American and Russian owners in English football who all have very close links to countries with poor human rights records. But I'm yet to see any other side receive the same level of vitriol as City has. I understand that City have much stronger links to the UAE Royal Family than say Man United do to Saudi Arabia. Yet both City and United are guilty of taking what the media call 'oil money' from countries with poor human rights records. You would think mentioning how 'blood money' being rife in PL football would also hammer the message home but somehow I'm yet to see this.

Another ****ish trick was that question directed to Pep yesterday. Forget the timing of the question, the fact that he has insinuated that Pep is taking illegal/dodgy payments from elsewhere is nonsense and without foundation. All of the charges we are being investigated for are from long before Pep's arrival. That question yesterday was about as relevant as someone asking Dan Roan if he touches kids because he works for the BBC.

Finally, and the point that pisses me off the most. I've read a lot about how us City fans are somehow complicit in what goes on in the Middle-East because we support our club. I've also heard accusations that we defend the UAE's human rights records because we call out the media and attend the Etihad. However, it is the media, and those alone, who have decided to band the UAE and City as a sole entity not us fans.

I can cheer KDB without laughing as some backwards law in Abu Dhabi. I can criticise the way woman are treated in countries in the Middle East without calling Pep a bald fraud. Yet the insinuation that all City fans are in the wrong for supporting their club is something that i will call the media out for. I supported City long before Sheikh Mansour came along and will support the club long after he doesn't.

I wear Nike footwear but it doesn't mean I support child labour. I had a Huawei phone, doesn't mean I support the death penalty and censorship. I eat meat but it doesn't mean that I support animal cruelty. Yet somehow supporting City means I support human right atrocities.

That is such a good post, spot on.

 

[Mikejl]

The "Petrofac" lottery, if you don't mind.

Just been to my corner shop and they hadn’t heard of the fucker, thought I had a chance of buying a ticket