Media discussion - 2024/25

[Pingu the Penguin]

Prestwich Blue was saying David Conn hadn't written anything about City for a few years after City had had a few words with some of the media behind the scenes. I wonder if he's been writing a book for publication to coincide with the culmination of the case. I have a feeling it's still got some legs in it yet. Hopefully, if the Tribunals rule in favour of City, stronger action will be taken against those people than has happened up till now.

I had always thought and hoped this but I doubt any judgement will be completely uncritical of us and our detractors will dog whistle any such comments to suggest we were really guilty all along. I would hope that some journo will over tread that line and we will come down hard as a deterrent to others tho.

 

[bluealf]

I had always thought and hoped this but I doubt any judgement will be completely uncritical of us and our detractors will dog whistle any such comments to suggest we were really guilty all along. I would hope that some journo will over tread that line and we will come down hard as a deterrent to others tho.

I'm stuck for which one I want that to be tbh

Miggy, magic twat/sporting intelligence guy are my main hopes

 

[dadnlad]

I agree he's not bad. I would say he's publicly non-committal, but I also think he knows what he's doing, e.g. in this appearance he gave the platform the soundbite you suspect he knew they wanted. They know the conditional won't get a look-in in the pile-on. He and a few others have made an industry out of City's plight. It's not in their interest to countenance City will be vindicated. What will they do when all this is over?!

talkshite have stefan on to discuse subject but after first time they twisted his words to create headline on very next hourly bulletin he's now appears more guarded not to feed them and good on him

 

[petrusha]

I doubt any judgement will be completely uncritical of us and our detractors will dog whistle any such comments to suggest we were really guilty all along.

The most important thing is that we avoid being found to have done anything that could trigger a greater penalty than a fairly minor fine. In any event, when all that's decided, we can respond to our detractors.

Yes, they're bound to denigrate the ruling if it's largely favourable to us. But the main point for now is to be able to attack those views from a position of strength.

 

[jrb]

Disastrous run?

Once again, another negative headline, rather than a positive headline about a good performace and win at Spurs.

The cunts never let you do they, Barlow, you ****!


Update.

The headline has been changed.



Somebody must have had a word with Barlow, or he reads this thread?

 

[gray740]

Is Henry Winter even human ?just caught the ballbag on sky wtaf does he look like an alien ,jesus christ where do these assholes come from ? half slapped arse springs to mind .

 

[cheekybids]

Disastrous run?

Once again, another negative headline, rather than a positive headline about a good performace and win at Spurs.

The cunts never let you do they, Barlow, you ****!

View attachment 148087
Update.

The headline has been changed.

View attachment 148088

Somebody must have had a word with Barlow, or he reads this thread?

2nd in the form table with wins against Chelsea, Newcastle & Spurs with an injury ravaged team.

 

[SWP's back]

2nd in the form table with wins against Chelsea, Newcastle & Spurs with an injury ravaged team.



View attachment 148092

The point of the article was that it was a loss at Spurs that somehow made us go on a disastrous run. Until then we were top and unbeaten, then won 1 from the following 13.

 

[cheekybids]

The point of the article was that it was a loss at Spurs that somehow made us go on a disastrous run. Until then we were top and unbeaten, then won 1 from the following 13.

Well it wasn’t the loss at Spurs that made us going on a disastrous run it was being ravaged by injuries.

 

[Nephin Man]

100% correct, its just infuriating that the same old suspects are rolled out time and again to trot out the same old tired clickbait nonsense when there must be more people out there who are qualified to give their possible opposing opinions.

Yes, the same old suspects who for 17 years managed to avoid raising the issue that was central to the APT 1 and 2 judgments, whether because it hadn't occurred to them, they'd been told not to raise it, or they consciously didn't raise it in order to continue getting the gigs.

 

[SWP's back]

Well it wasn’t the loss at Spurs that made us going on a disastrous run it was being ravaged by injuries.

But the loss at Spurs was the start of the bad run.

 

[madloaf]

The BBC literally have no clue:

Newcastle could have proved a tricky stumbling block for Arne Slot's Reds.

After all, the Magpies had impressed with goal-heavy wins against Manchester City and Nottingham Forest of late.

Errr....

 

[cheekybids]

But the loss at Spurs was the start of the bad run.

But that didn’t make us go on the bad run, it didn’t even contribute to it. That loss & many more were down to an injury crisis.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yes, the same old suspects who for 17 years managed to avoid raising the issue that was central to the APT 1 and 2 judgments, whether because it hadn't occurred to them, they'd been told not to raise it, or they consciously didn't raise it in order to continue getting the gigs.

A point that is overlooked by anybody who tried to analyse the APT case before, during or after: City have probably had the shareholder loan issue in their back pocket since 2021 waiting to use it if the PL went too far. I'm no lawyer but that issue seems to have been pretty much a slam-dunk, insofar as anything can be legally. The PL can't say City didn't give them enough warnings .....

 

[tommybooth]

The BBC literally have no clue:

Newcastle could have proved a tricky stumbling block for Arne Slot's Reds.

After all, the Magpies had impressed with goal-heavy wins against Manchester City and Nottingham Forest of late.

Errr....

Lefty school kids writing bollocks.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

Prestwich Blue was saying David Conn hadn't written anything about City for a few years after City had had a few words with some of the media behind the scenes. I wonder if he's been writing a book for publication to coincide with the culmination of the case. I have a feeling it's still got some legs in it yet. Hopefully, if the Tribunals rule in favour of City, stronger action will be taken against those people than has happened up till now.

I hope all of the bottom feeding C***ts have spend hundreds of hours having their poisonous books on our verdict ready to go just so that they can all be thrown into the fire on judgement day!

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

But that didn’t make us go on the bad run, it didn’t even contribute to it. That loss & many more were down to an injury crisis.

but it was the start of a poor run of games for us

 

[JASR]

But the loss at Spurs was the start of the bad run.

The loss at spurs (or any other team) was almost inevitable given the way we were playing at the start of the season.
From the season start, the team looked sluggish, tired, short passes, disjointed. We still won games and were top/4 but the games were hard to watch , as the free flowing complete superiority and ‘even if they score, we’ll get a load more’ feelings of the past 7 years slowly ebbed away.

The early season injuries didn’t help. Gundo not replicating his player of the season at Barca didn’t either, ditto foden…and then the repeating injuries to the defence iced the cake on the increasing fragile mentality.

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

Yes, definitely no agenda in that title....

 

[Nephin Man]

A point that is overlooked by anybody who tried to analyse the APT case before, during or after: City have probably had the shareholder loan issue in their back pocket since 2021 waiting to use it if the PL went too far. I'm no lawyer but that issue seems to have been pretty much a slam-dunk, insofar as anything can be legally. The PL can't say City didn't give them enough warnings .....

I'm similarly no lawyer - or accountant - and I may be wide of the mark - but I'm also very dubious that the latest retrospective amendments can be lawful when they were voted on and passed by clubs who for a part or parts of the period they apply to were not in the PL, and the clubs they replaced were not given a vote for those periods they were in the PL. And we're also being told that while APT1 ruled it was unlawful to apply associated party rules while ignoring interest-free shareholder loans, the latest amendments will still discriminate between the former and the latter in historical PSR assessments.