Media coverage 2018/19

Status
Not open for further replies.
burning blue soul said:
People need to wake up to the fact that sky sports news is NOT A NEWS ORGANISATION, or even an impartial observer. Proper news reporting went out of the window with the rise of Murdoch. The sound of a truthful voice is almost inaudible over the sensationalistic sound bites that the dumbed down masses now lap up.

SSN is the front to a commercial sports channel whose roots are as deeply embedded into the football status quo as could possibly be. They are the wagging tail on the G14 dog!!

You WILL NOT hear fair judgement or balanced review. They are a slightly upscaled talksport, with prettier mouthpieces.

Being shocked at a skewed report in favour of an established G14 club over City really should not be shocking anyone in City blue anymore. In fact I am more shocked that people are still shocked at their antics.

It's hard being the outsiders as we now are, to be lambasted regularly and unfairly, but that is how it is and it isn't going to change until ADUG buy 51% share of SSN and write their own version of events. The best way of uniting warring factions is to find a common enemy, that is what we are and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rules the hearts and minds of the clubs and supporters of these clubs.

There has never been a more sustained and insidious campaign against a first class English football club. The whole media industry is breaking new ground every day on the lengths they will go to in smearing our club. Watching this happen, as a fan, is frustrating and downright annoying, borderline making fans aggressive towards the people who talk down the club. We have come to detest the written and spoken media as a whole.

Get used to it peeps cos only City saving the planet from global warming, an alien invasion and zombie apocalypse is going to change the attitude towards us by the media. And let's be honest, even if we did save the day, they will still say we outspent the opposition on ozone, death rays and pick axe handles to get the victory!!

I don't listen anymore to SSN, which is a shame because they used to be alright, y'know,when things were easier for them to predict and bet on!!!
Click to expand...
"Manchester City Cure cancer".

"Yeah, but their defence cost £280 Million"
 
burning blue soul said:
People need to wake up to the fact that sky sports news is NOT A NEWS ORGANISATION, or even an impartial observer. Proper news reporting went out of the window with the rise of Murdoch. The sound of a truthful voice is almost inaudible over the sensationalistic sound bites that the dumbed down masses now lap up.

SSN is the front to a commercial sports channel whose roots are as deeply embedded into the football status quo as could possibly be. They are the wagging tail on the G14 dog!!

You WILL NOT hear fair judgement or balanced review. They are a slightly upscaled talksport, with prettier mouthpieces.

Being shocked at a skewed report in favour of an established G14 club over City really should not be shocking anyone in City blue anymore. In fact I am more shocked that people are still shocked at their antics.

It's hard being the outsiders as we now are, to be lambasted regularly and unfairly, but that is how it is and it isn't going to change until ADUG buy 51% share of SSN and write their own version of events. The best way of uniting warring factions is to find a common enemy, that is what we are and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rules the hearts and minds of the clubs and supporters of these clubs.

There has never been a more sustained and insidious campaign against a first class English football club. The whole media industry is breaking new ground every day on the lengths they will go to in smearing our club. Watching this happen, as a fan, is frustrating and downright annoying, borderline making fans aggressive towards the people who talk down the club. We have come to detest the written and spoken media as a whole.

Get used to it peeps cos only City saving the planet from global warming, an alien invasion and zombie apocalypse is going to change the attitude towards us by the media. And let's be honest, even if we did save the day, they will still say we outspent the opposition on ozone, death rays and pick axe handles to get the victory!!

I don't listen anymore to SSN, which is a shame because they used to be alright, y'know,when things were easier for them to predict and bet on!!!
Click to expand...
Have you ever had the misfortune of watching Fox News?
 
televised-games-full.jpg

this was the 5 seasons prior to 18/19 season.
Then you have
Liverpool 29 games £ 33 million
City 26 games £ 30 million
Chelsea 25 games £ 29 million
Tottenham 26 games £ 30 million
UTD 25 games £ 29 million
Arsenal 25 games £ 29 million
No team has won more Played more or played better than City during this period a clear indication that the TV companies are nurturing City`s ability to make money and increase our future fan base, with the FA`s blessing
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Something about borrowing the money and assigning the incoming TV money to the bank as surety, I think. I think it means that the actually money at the club doesn't change, but it gives some spending money upfront.
Click to expand...

Done by most clubs as far as I know. Transfer fees need paying in one go, TV money comes in instalments. Sensible financial planning
 
SebastianBlue said:
VVD doesn’t even get in to WhoScored’s Nations League Finals Team.

Bernardo is the second highest rated. Though, even taking off the blue-tinted glasses, he really should be the highest, as he basically carried Ronaldo (and Portugal) through.

It’s also interesting that a **** player like Delph makes it in. ;-)

Click to expand...

Didn't watch that much of the finals, caught the second half of the Portugal/Swiss game & most of England/Holland....Pickford/Delph England's best pair? Did the guy putting it together go to Crooks for advice?
 
blue b4 the moon said:
Didn't watch that much of the finals, caught the second half of the Portugal/Swiss game & most of England/Holland....Pickford/Delph England's best pair? Did the guy putting it together go to Crooks for advice?
Click to expand...
SebastianBlue said:
It is based entirely on their running player ratings for the Nations League games, which are supposedly “based on a unique, comprehensive statistical algorithm, calculated live during the game”, from “over 200 raw statistics included in the calculation of a player’s/team’s rating, weighted according to their influence within the game”, with “every event of importance taken into account, with a positive or negative effect on ratings weighted in relation to its area on the pitch and its outcome.” (Source)

Even if you question how their algorithm interprets the metrics at times, their rating system it is still substantially better than football “analyst” ratings (especially given the Liverpool-bias inherent in most, as you pointed out).
Click to expand...
 
I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.

So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.

That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...

If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.

And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).

Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).

Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.

Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?

My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.

Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?
 
mad4city said:
I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.

So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.

That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...

If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.

And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).

Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).

Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.

Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?

My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.

Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?
Click to expand...

Also begs the question, that if Salah leaves in less than happy circumstances, will the level of hate crime increase?
 
mad4city said:
I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.

So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.

That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...

If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.

And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).

Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).

Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.

Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?

My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.

Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?
Click to expand...

The thing is that it's been specifically reported as a reduction in Islamophobia. I guess the foaming Islamophobia against our owner that proliferates on RAWK and elswhere in dipper world doesn't count because the subject of this racist abuse doesn't live in Liverpool.
 
mad4city said:
I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.

So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.

That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...

If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.

And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).

Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).

Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.

Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?

My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.

Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?
Click to expand...
You know the score mate,any dipper story has to have a positive narrative and any City one needs a negative slant.
 
laserblue said:
The thing is that it's been specifically reported as a reduction in Islamophobia. I guess the foaming Islamophobia against our owner that proliferates on RAWK and elswhere in dipper world doesn't count because the subject of this racist abuse doesn't live in Liverpool.
Click to expand...
The story is essentially fake news. The reporting of hate crimes goes up and down depending on the political climate. The biggest driver is public awareness ie there is a spike whenever a major incident occurs.
The level of racist vitriol against our owners on social media and in the mainstream media, especially comments on online stories, has gone off the scale in the last couple of years. Most of this has been driven by Liverpool fans. For example I was verbally abused in a pub before the CL match at Anfield by a woman who used the phrase "Arab owners and their dirty oil money." To suggest that Merseyside has become some sort of haven of tolerance because of Mo Salah is ridiculous. The opposite is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top