Did they seek permission to use contentSomeone watching blue moon forum.
Did they seek permission to use contentSomeone watching blue moon forum.
B for Bollocks, not BalanceAn interesting read but he references Delaney, Schindler, the Guardian and the Independent to support and underpin his findings. The academic article lacks balance and credibility as it fails to offer and present virtually any opposing, alternative viewpoint or argument. Which it should. Whoever wrote it will probably have received a B as a mark and he or she will be happy enough with that. However, it didn’t highlight or articulate anything that wasn’t already known and therefore doesn’t add to ‘the body of knowledge’.
I would have marked it a B minus at best.
Yes . No reference to the positive commentary im the CAS judgement.Well he hasn't been paying attention. I got as far as time-barring then gave up.
A logical thought, everyone would imagine ?
However, since City started dominating English football (starting around 2016 ?), the media stated to realise that we could really dominate and "own" the Premier League. This was against the wishes of the Premier League under Scudamore.
Not sure when "sports washing" was generally adopted by the press, but this mysterious Arab-centric phrase seemed to transform City into the "enemy" which denied fair competition.
The "open and democratically" American-owned clubs obviously were seen as the correct type of owners by primarily, Sky and subsequently BT.
Individually, rival football fans generally admire City and their legends e.g. Aquero, Kompany, David Silva.
However, the current media do not want one dominant club. This is different to Liverpool's era as the top team, or even the initial Sky years when MUFC won many Premier League titles.
They cannot slag off Pep or (generally) the players performances and behaviour.
So the UAE owners are the evil enemy, which will be amplified if Newcastle really threaten the Red Shirts.
Ask the Red Shirt fans if they would accept a Qatari takeover ?
I would imagine most would no in public, but say yes, privately...
I agree with those opinions.Very poor research with no academic merit whatsoever. Clearly researched and written with the authors' political and sporting bias embedded in order to reach pre-determined conclusion. You can tell that from words such as "concerning" which tells the reader that the researchers already have a view on the opinions expressed.
It surprises me that the authors have not disclosed any conflict of interest. That strikes me as intellectually dishonest and disqualifies it from serious consideration.
Someone watching blue moon forum.
A genuinely superb definition.Its an excellent piece of scouse-washing.
*scouse-washing - the act of denigrating all success by other clubs by any means necessary whilst ignoring their own historical misdeeds.
Only skimmed through bits of it…looks a load of shite to be honest wrapped up in pretentious language and with a coat of faux academic bullshit (in case they’re reading)Someone watching blue moon forum.