Media Discussion - 2023/24

[Rory Bluelow]

Keane couldn't hack it as a manager. He was a great ball-winning player but would not get in many top teams in the modern era because he had poor technique in controlling the ball. Somethng he slagged off Haaland for. Keane scored 33 goals in 326 games for United which is a poor return for a central midfielder in such a dominant team. He doesn't seem to have any self awareness like so many of these pundits.

And just to add, on top of that, he’s a bit of a ****.

 

[domalino]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't tickets more expensive in London along with everything else being sold at the ground. Making the revenue appear higher.

The revenue doesn't "appear higher", it just is higher. They charge more they get more money.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Amanda "the rag" Davies has done herself proud today with scum loss totally airbrushed from the 15 minute CNN sports bulletin, preferring to dedicate the whole show to F1 and cycling. Had they held on I'm sure there would have been a panel purring over it
Nice work Mandy, Neil Ashton will be in touch soon

 

[SSBlue]

What’s really pissed me off though I should know better, is they have headline of debt and show a City crest, however the article makes it clear City are in rude financial health with zero debt whereas the rags and Spuds are up to their necks in debt so why not show their crests? fucking wankers.

You're right to be annoyed, it's the usual BBC bias.

But clicking the HYS comments I was pleasantly surprised ... you have to go a long way down before any City comments and even then it's not too derogatory.

Just goes to show, football fans in general are not stupid, you give them the accurate data (even with BBC Spin) and they'll make up their own minds about whether a club is well run or not.

 

[hertsblue]

You're right to be annoyed, it's the usual BBC bias.

But clicking the HYS comments I was pleasantly surprised ... you have to go a long way down before any City comments and even then it's not too derogatory.

Just goes to show, football fans in general are not stupid, you give them the accurate data (even with BBC Spin) and they'll make up their own minds about whether a club is well run or not.

If anyone at the club kept a record, they should haul the BBC bosses in and demand to know why the petty bias of them featuring an image or in this case crest of us on any negative post is happening time after time. It’s deliberate.
If we don’t like the answers they give, simply ban them from the ground or if TV contract obligated ie MOTD refuse them access to players and Pep and send out a kit man or something for the interviews and that’s all, refuse them access bar MOTD

 

[TinFoilHat]

 

[argyle]

What’s really pissed me off though I should know better, is they have headline of debt and show a City crest, however the article makes it clear City are in rude financial health with zero debt whereas the rags and Spuds are up to their necks in debt so why not show their crests? fucking wankers.

Clear and obvious.

 

[citymad]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't tickets more expensive in London along with everything else being sold at the ground. Making the revenue appear higher.

Owners need reminding Manchester isn’t London and so should really align prices accordingly. By the looks of it the dippers seem to do a decent job for their feral fans

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Owners need reminding Manchester isn’t London and so should really align prices accordingly. By the looks of it the dippers seem to do a decent job for their feral fans

Their ferals don't pay for tickets though, they just find other ways of getting into games .

 

[blueste41]

You're right to be annoyed, it's the usual BBC bias.

But clicking the HYS comments I was pleasantly surprised ... you have to go a long way down before any City comments and even then it's not too derogatory.

Just goes to show, football fans in general are not stupid, you give them the accurate data (even with BBC Spin) and they'll make up their own minds about whether a club is well run or not.

It wasn't when the article first appeared, the first post questioned how we could have the biggest commercial income when we have 30,000 empty seats! One a little further down suggested that all our accounts were a work of fiction and not to be taken seriously. The 115 was mentioned quite a bit as well (obviously).