Media Thread 2017/18

[kaz7]

That is one hell of a good post, well done.
On the subject of media bias I seem to remember it being metioned on this forum that in a weekend Sky programme Martin Samuel admitted there was a bias within the media against us. If so how come people are still denying it's existance?

Yes his did on the sunday supplement,be good if someone can find it,it was as honest as you will ever get and why people still prattle on it not being true is beyond me

 

[Barcon]

I'm reluctant to join the queue of posters jumping down your throat because you dare to disagree but I would like to make one point, if I may....

I think it might have been our second home game of the season when an opposing forward launched himself into the air, caught our goalkeeper in the face and rendered him in urgent need of medical attention.

To be fair to the attacker, I don't believe anybody thought there was any malice in his actions. The ball was in play, he felt he had to go for it and, when he didn't get it, everybody else felt he had to go. That should have been the end of it. Except, as you know, it wasn't.
The two clowns in the Sky TV commentary box set forth a theory that a great injustice had been perpetrated, not on the goalkeeper who needed eight stitches, a stretcher and an oxygen mask but on the forward who had (most probably not maliciously, as I say but) inarguably led with his foot several feet off of the ground without any care or consideration for the well-being of his opponent.

They proceeded to spend the remainder of the game ignoring some scintillating football from our team and, instead, urging the viewer to believe that every City transgression was worthy of review with an eye to issuing a post-dated red card. All interviews after the game concentrated upon the sending-off with a clear inference that a great injustice had cost the visitors dearly.

The printed media, seeing the value of playing up to this narrative, in many cases seized upon it, in others, at the very least, validated it - despite the clear and obvious fact that it was utter, utter bollocks.

So, why am I rehashing this, you might be wondering?

This chain of events was not, even in the wildest of imaginations, a manifestation of some greater, clandestine conspiracy. It stemmed from two individuals in the commentary box - neither of whom have ever liked City, I suspect - putting their tainted view of an action, front and centre and other outlets realising some commercial value in acknowledging it rather than simply dismissing for the petty, deluded bollocks it rather was.

The trouble is, the story doesn't just end there. It continued to have ramifications throughout the season. Time after time, opposition players left nasty, vicious tackles in on City players, throughout the remainder of the season. Largely, they did so with impugnity.

Undoubtedly, many other clubs' fans will point to seriously violent challenges upon their players that went without due punishment. That's part of football.

I doubt though that they could point to Match of the Day pundits urging opposition players to assault theirs - and I doubt too that they could realistically argue, as we City fans can, that, having witnessed the shitstorm arising from such a blatant red card in September, referees were intimidated with regard to sending off any further players for foul play against us. So much so, in fact, with the exception of the final minute of extra time v "plucky Cardiff" (the BBC's description, not mine), after 90 minutes of employing tactics that more resembled British Bulldog than Association Football, I cannot recall any other opposition player being sent off against City for the rest of the season, despite some entirely vicious assaults masquerading as tackles in about ten occasions.

So, yeah, I get it. You work with United fans and they tell you every day that Fernandinho leads a charmed existence and you somewhat believe it - or, if not, you at least, think that the argument somehow negates any claims of bias made by City fans.

That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion - and yes, some of the tin foil helmet stuff floating about can be embarrassing.

You're wrong though. City have undoubtedly been the victims of a loosely orchestrated campaign of bias. The tale set out above is just one example. There have been others - some of it quite blatant - from Sky displaying doctored statistics to BT accidentally forgetting to include City in its Champions League promotions to the BBC saluting "Bertie" and so on...

Again, I don't think it's a particularly well thought out campaign. Hating on City is more a flag of convenience for hacks wishing to appeal to both of the big red tribal bases.

It undoubtedly exists though and - in one manifestation of it at least - our players are being put at very real physical risk because of it.

Supporters have every right to call it out when they see it. They don't deserve to be ridiculed or spoken down to for expressing an opinion about it. They might get carried away in their interpretation of its origins but let's not pretend it's a figment of the imagination. It's very real.

Yeah but.................

 

[franksinatra]

I'm reluctant to join the queue of posters jumping down your throat because you dare to disagree but I would like to make one point, if I may....

I think it might have been our second home game of the season when an opposing forward launched himself into the air, caught our goalkeeper in the face and rendered him in urgent need of medical attention.

To be fair to the attacker, I don't believe anybody thought there was any malice in his actions. The ball was in play, he felt he had to go for it and, when he didn't get it, everybody else felt he had to go. That should have been the end of it. Except, as you know, it wasn't.
The two clowns in the Sky TV commentary box set forth a theory that a great injustice had been perpetrated, not on the goalkeeper who needed eight stitches, a stretcher and an oxygen mask but on the forward who had (most probably not maliciously, as I say but) inarguably led with his foot several feet off of the ground without any care or consideration for the well-being of his opponent.

They proceeded to spend the remainder of the game ignoring some scintillating football from our team and, instead, urging the viewer to believe that every City transgression was worthy of review with an eye to issuing a post-dated red card. All interviews after the game concentrated upon the sending-off with a clear inference that a great injustice had cost the visitors dearly.

The printed media, seeing the value of playing up to this narrative, in many cases seized upon it, in others, at the very least, validated it - despite the clear and obvious fact that it was utter, utter bollocks.

So, why am I rehashing this, you might be wondering?

This chain of events was not, even in the wildest of imaginations, a manifestation of some greater, clandestine conspiracy. It stemmed from two individuals in the commentary box - neither of whom have ever liked City, I suspect - putting their tainted view of an action, front and centre and other outlets realising some commercial value in acknowledging it rather than simply dismissing for the petty, deluded bollocks it rather was.

The trouble is, the story doesn't just end there. It continued to have ramifications throughout the season. Time after time, opposition players left nasty, vicious tackles in on City players, throughout the remainder of the season. Largely, they did so with impugnity.

Undoubtedly, many other clubs' fans will point to seriously violent challenges upon their players that went without due punishment. That's part of football.

I doubt though that they could point to Match of the Day pundits urging opposition players to assault theirs - and I doubt too that they could realistically argue, as we City fans can, that, having witnessed the shitstorm arising from such a blatant red card in September, referees were intimidated with regard to sending off any further players for foul play against us. So much so, in fact, with the exception of the final minute of extra time v "plucky Cardiff" (the BBC's description, not mine), after 90 minutes of employing tactics that more resembled British Bulldog than Association Football, I cannot recall any other opposition player being sent off against City for the rest of the season, despite some entirely vicious assaults masquerading as tackles in about ten occasions.

So, yeah, I get it. You work with United fans and they tell you every day that Fernandinho leads a charmed existence and you somewhat believe it - or, if not, you at least, think that the argument somehow negates any claims of bias made by City fans.

That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion - and yes, some of the tin foil helmet stuff floating about can be embarrassing.

You're wrong though. City have undoubtedly been the victims of a loosely orchestrated campaign of bias. The tale set out above is just one example. There have been others - some of it quite blatant - from Sky displaying doctored statistics to BT accidentally forgetting to include City in its Champions League promotions to the BBC saluting "Bertie" and so on...

Again, I don't think it's a particularly well thought out campaign. Hating on City is more a flag of convenience for hacks wishing to appeal to both of the big red tribal bases.

It undoubtedly exists though and - in one manifestation of it at least - our players are being put at very real physical risk because of it.

Supporters have every right to call it out when they see it. They don't deserve to be ridiculed or spoken down to for expressing an opinion about it. They might get carried away in their interpretation of its origins but let's not pretend it's a figment of the imagination. It's very real.

Thanks for posting and not surprisingly you have received plaudits for a well constructed post which I congratulate you on, however I would just like to make a few salient points.

Unfortunately the ‘tale’ you have told, using the Sadio Mane challenge and subsequent media response as a cause and effect for later events in the season is based on a number of inaccuracies which break the linkage of these events you have weaved together.

Firstly you pinpoint the role of the sky commentators in perpetuating the myth it was a foul but cutely leave out the fact that Jamie Carragher was adamant at half time that is was a sending off offence as the challenge endangered a player. So hardly the biased Sky narrative you are claiming.

In addition to this your argument the printed media ‘seized upon it or at the least validated’ this injustice which led to a ‘shit storm’ which intimidated refs is without any merit.

The BBC (Phil Mcnulty), Telegraph (Sam Wallace), Independent (Mike Critchley) wrote pieces explaining exactly why it was a sending off with the Independent and BBC actually referring to the law of the game it contravened. The Guardian (Sachrin Nacrani) under a headline about Klopp stating it should not have been sending off added within in the article ‘it fell under the guidelines of a dismissal for serious foul play’. Furthermore the Daily Mail wrote an opinion piece which logged Gary Nevilles belief it was not a sending off alongside the comments of Graham Poll who stated it was a sending off.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...nchester-city-liverpool-jurgen-klopp-red-card

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41133350

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...hlights-sadio-mane-red-card-a7938631.html?amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...iverpool-premier-league-watch-live-score/amp/

So at best, in your favour, there was a range of opinions but not the ‘seizing upon or, at least, a validation of an injustice or the subsequent shit storm you claimed which influences refs over the course of a season.

Interestingly our own manager stated he was not sure it was a sending off which supports the likelihood there could be a range of opinions unless you think he may be displaying bias also?

Furthermore we have never heard a MOTD pundit urge ‘assaults’ against any of our players. Again its a blatant distortion of what was actually stated and highlights the emotive nature of your post and in addition highlights the lack of accuracy of the actual events.

The rest you state has been touched upon previously and so there is little point rehashing old stuff.

 

[bluealf]

Thanks for posting and not surprisingly you have received plaudits for a well constructed post which I congratulate you on, however I would just like to make a few salient points.

Unfortunately the ‘tale’ you have told, using the Sadio Mane challenge and subsequent media response as a cause and effect for later events in the season is based on a number of inaccuracies which break the linkage of these events you have weaved together.

Firstly you pinpoint the role of the sky commentators in perpetuating the myth it was a foul but cutely leave out the fact that Jamie Carragher was adamant at half time that is was a sending off offence as the challenge endangered a player. So hardly the biased Sky narrative you are claiming.

In addition to this your argument the printed media ‘seized upon it or at the least validated’ this injustice which led to a ‘shit storm’ which intimidated refs is without any merit.

The BBC (Phil Mcnulty), Telegraph (Sam Wallace), Independent (Mike Critchley) wrote pieces explaining exactly why it was a sending off with the Independent and BBC actually referring to the law of the game it contravened. The Guardian (Sachrin Nacrani) under a headline about Klopp stating it should not have been sending off added within in the article ‘it fell under the guidelines of a dismissal for serious foul play’. Furthermore the Daily Mail wrote an opinion piece which logged Gary Nevilles belief it was not a sending off alongside the comments of Graham Poll who stated it was a sending off.

So at best, in your favour, there was a range of opinions but not the ‘seizing upon or, at least, a validation of an injustice or the subsequent shit storm you claimed which influences refs over the course of a season.

Interestingly our own manager stated he was not sure it was a sending off which supports the likelihood there could be a range of opinions unless you think he may be displaying bias also?

Furthermore we have never heard a MOTD pundit urge ‘assaults’ against any of our players. Again its a blatant distortion of what was actually stated and highlights the emotive nature of your post and in addition highlights the lack of accuracy of the actual events.

The rest you state has been touched upon previously and so there is little point rehashing old stuff.

You log into the wrong account again or are you playing tag teams, it really is impossible to tell your post styles apart, sentence construction, argument, I would say independent thought but "you" both think the same thing at the same time.

And as for Murphy here is a transcript of what he said after the Swansea game

Match of the Day pundit Danny Murphy has slammed Swansea City for a lack of fighting spirit in their 4-0 defeat to Manchester City , calling Paul Clement's side's efforts "powderpuff".

Former Liverpool midfielder Murphy cited that no Swans player had picked up a yellow card as evidence for their passive approach to the game, which allowed Pep Guardiola's side to dictate the play.

And Murphy says, if the Swans are to stay up, they need to show more fight even if it means picking up yellow cards.

"They're some of the best players in the world, so I'm not saying it's easy," he added.

"But not one Swansea player got a yellow card. Some people would say 'good discipline' — I don't.

"I think you've got to be trying to get in their faces. A few badly-timed tackles and a few bits of indiscipline... I don't mind that from my players.

"No tackles and no yellow cards. It was powderpuff."

What do you think he means from this, especially the bits highlighted for you, hell it was hard not to just highlight the full transcript tbh.

You don't get yellow cards from fair tackling, you get them from getting in players faces and booting the fuck out of the classier team.

I am not sure what is wrong with you or your other half, absolute weirdo's who pretend not to see or hear anything, utter oddballs.

 

[Bentheblue]

Yes his did on the sunday supplement,be good if someone can find it,it was as honest as you will ever get and why people still prattle on it not being true is beyond me

Thanks for confirming it Karen, I was beginning think I had imagined it.

 

[franksinatra]

You log into the wrong account again or are you playing tag teams, it really is impossible to tell your post styles apart, sentence construction, argument, I would say independent thought but "you" both think the same thing at the same time.

And as for Murphy here is a transcript of what he said after the Swansea game

Match of the Day pundit Danny Murphy has slammed Swansea City for a lack of fighting spirit in their 4-0 defeat to Manchester City , calling Paul Clement's side's efforts "powderpuff".

Former Liverpool midfielder Murphy cited that no Swans player had picked up a yellow card as evidence for their passive approach to the game, which allowed Pep Guardiola's side to dictate the play.

And Murphy says, if the Swans are to stay up, they need to show more fight even if it means picking up yellow cards.

"They're some of the best players in the world, so I'm not saying it's easy," he added.

"But not one Swansea player got a yellow card. Some people would say 'good discipline' — I don't.

"I think you've got to be trying to get in their faces. A few badly-timed tackles and a few bits of indiscipline... I don't mind that from my players.

"No tackles and no yellow cards. It was powderpuff."

What do you think he means from this, especially the bits highlighted for you, hell it was hard not to just highlight the full transcript tbh.

You don't get yellow cards from fair tackling, you get them from getting in players faces and booting the fuck out of the classier team.

I am not sure what is wrong with you or your other half, absolute weirdo's who pretend not to see or hear anything, utter oddballs.

I think it means what it states. Not a mention of assault anywhere, or your ‘booting the fuck’ out of people. Again made up emotive nonsense.

I am the oddball but it seems people actually think Danny Murphy wants our players booted the fuck out and has encouraged and influenced others Premiership to do it even if it means possible red cards etc. Is Danny Murphy some sort of divine god or cult leader to Premiership players? Beyond laughable.

It is generally unbelievable if people on this forum cannot digest and understand the point Danny Murphy is trying to make or that you think Prem players have read his MOTD analysis and think he is advocating trying to injure City players.

 

[roj]

I think it means what it states. Not a mention of assault anywhere, or your ‘booting the fuck’ out of people. Again made up emotive nonsense.

I am the oddball but it seems people actually think Danny Murphy wants our players booted the fuck out and has encouraged and influenced others Premiership to do it even if it means possible red cards etc. Is Danny Murphy some sort of divine god or cult leader to Premiership players? Beyond laughable.

He spoke the truth. I know one of the things I’d tell my players if they were playing City (if I were a coach). It’s up to the referees to do their part.

 

[franksinatra]

He spoke the truth. I know one of the things I’d tell my players if they were playing City (if I were a coach). It’s up to the referees to do their part.

Its similar to what Tom Ince said when he said our plan was ‘to make it nasty for Manchester United’. Do you think by him saying that is a message or call for other players to ‘make it nasty for them’. Do you think every bad tackle on them is a consequence of those words? No of course not its football speak and typically this forum is making a big deal out of nothing.

 

[blueinsa]

I think it means what it states. Not a mention of assault anywhere, or your ‘booting the fuck’ out of people. Again made up emotive nonsense.

I am the oddball but it seems people actually think Danny Murphy wants our players booted the fuck out and has encouraged and influenced others Premiership to do it even if it means possible red cards etc. Is Danny Murphy some sort of divine god or cult leader to Premiership players? Beyond laughable.

It is generally unbelievable if people on this forum cannot digest and understand the point Danny Murphy is trying to make or that you think Prem players have read his MOTD analysis and think he is advocating trying to injure City players.

I've heard him on Talksport advocating just that i'm afraid Frank.

 

[kaz7]

I've heard him on Talksport advocating just that i'm afraid Frank.

So have i many times and from then on we got the 10 or more horror tackles,he knew what he was doing,dean saunders was saying the same on talksport as well,boot the flair players is not the way to play football,niggly fouls are one thing but what those 2 advocated was not good at all

 

[roj]

Its similar to what Tom Ince said when he said our plan was ‘to make it nasty for Manchester United’. Do you think by him saying that is a message or call for other players to ‘make it nasty for them’. Do you think every bad tackle on them is a consequence of those words? No of course not its football speak and typically this forum is making a big deal out of nothing.

I think you’re right in this particular case. I think you enjoy swimming against the tide in this thread :)

 

[franksinatra]

I think you’re right in this particular case. I think you enjoy swimming against the tide in this thread :)

Pat yourself on the back because that makes you right as well :-)

Troy Deeney about Arsenal ‘I will go up and think I will give one a whack and see who wants it, Arsenal have no cajones’ etc etc

Its not very agreeable but very much football speak which has gone on for years. Some how its now unique to City and part of a campaign against us to advcate violence. Needless to say when its said by others against United/Arsenal its quickly forgotten.

 

[bluealf]

I think it means what it states. Not a mention of assault anywhere, or your ‘booting the fuck’ out of people. Again made up emotive nonsense.

I am the oddball but it seems people actually think Danny Murphy wants our players booted the fuck out and has encouraged and influenced others Premiership to do it even if it means possible red cards etc. Is Danny Murphy some sort of divine god or cult leader to Premiership players? Beyond laughable.

It is generally unbelievable if people on this forum cannot digest and understand the point Danny Murphy is trying to make or that you think Prem players have read his MOTD analysis and think he is advocating trying to injure City players.

Like asked already how do you get a yellow card in Danny Murphy's scenario ?

He is calling for the opposition of your team to get a yellow card by breaking the rules.

Like previously stated you just do not want to see or just prefer to play the devils advocate for your shits and giggles, the same as your alter ego friend.

Also the next 7 or so games after his comments City players faced at least 10 leg breaking tackles that resulted in the sum total of ZERO red cards, or did you not see those either ?

Is this also laughable you odd odd man.

 

[roj]

Pat yourself on the back because that makes you right as well :-)

Troy Deeney about Arsenal ‘I will go up and think I will give one a whack and see who wants it, Arsenal have no cajones’ etc etc

Its not very agreeable but very much football speak which has gone on for years. Some how its now unique to City and part of a campaign against us to advcate violence. Needless to say when its said by others against United/Arsenal its quickly forgotten.

Sunday league in nets i rugby tackled a guy who went round me. I got booked(!), saved the penalty that he took and he started crying. Fuck him sorry.

 

[aguero93:20]

Sunday league in nets i rugby tackled a guy who went round me. I got booked(!), saved the penalty that he took and he started crying. Fuck him sorry.

You should have been sent off.

 

[franksinatra]

Sunday league in nets i rugby tackled a guy who went round me. I got booked(!), saved the penalty that he took and he started crying. Fuck him sorry.

Did Danny Murphy tell you to do it?

 

[franksinatra]

Like asked already how do you get a yellow card in Danny Murphy's scenario ?

He is calling for the opposition of your team to get a yellow card by breaking the rules.

Like previously stated you just do not want to see or just prefer to play the devils advocate for your shits and giggles, the same as your alter ego friend.

Also the next 7 or so games after his comments City players faced at least 10 leg breaking tackles that resulted in the sum total of ZERO red cards, or did you not see those either ?

Is this also laughable you odd odd man.

Yes it is if you think Danny Murphys comments influenced it.

 

[roj]

Did Danny Murphy tell you to do it?

Nope you’ve got to try and win the game by hook or by crook (imo when you’re as shit as the teams I played for). Topically, VAR is cancelling out the hooks and crooks.

 

[mad4city]

Thanks for posting and not surprisingly you have received plaudits for a well constructed post which I congratulate you on, however I would just like to make a few salient points.

Unfortunately the ‘tale’ you have told, using the Sadio Mane challenge and subsequent media response as a cause and effect for later events in the season is based on a number of inaccuracies which break the linkage of these events you have weaved together.

Firstly you pinpoint the role of the sky commentators in perpetuating the myth it was a foul but cutely leave out the fact that Jamie Carragher was adamant at half time that is was a sending off offence as the challenge endangered a player. So hardly the biased Sky narrative you are claiming.

In addition to this your argument the printed media ‘seized upon it or at the least validated’ this injustice which led to a ‘shit storm’ which intimidated refs is without any merit.

The BBC (Phil Mcnulty), Telegraph (Sam Wallace), Independent (Mike Critchley) wrote pieces explaining exactly why it was a sending off with the Independent and BBC actually referring to the law of the game it contravened. The Guardian (Sachrin Nacrani) under a headline about Klopp stating it should not have been sending off added within in the article ‘it fell under the guidelines of a dismissal for serious foul play’. Furthermore the Daily Mail wrote an opinion piece which logged Gary Nevilles belief it was not a sending off alongside the comments of Graham Poll who stated it was a sending off.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...nchester-city-liverpool-jurgen-klopp-red-card

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41133350

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-news-manchester-city-report-goals-highlights-sadio-mane-red-card-a7938631.html?amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...iverpool-premier-league-watch-live-score/amp/

So at best, in your favour, there was a range of opinions but not the ‘seizing upon or, at least, a validation of an injustice or the subsequent shit storm you claimed which influences refs over the course of a season.

Interestingly our own manager stated he was not sure it was a sending off which supports the likelihood there could be a range of opinions unless you think he may be displaying bias also?

Furthermore we have never heard a MOTD pundit urge ‘assaults’ against any of our players. Again its a blatant distortion of what was actually stated and highlights the emotive nature of your post and in addition highlights the lack of accuracy of the actual events.

The rest you state has been touched upon previously and so there is little point rehashing old stuff.

Thanks for your response. I trust you will forgive me if I havethe audacity to seek to disagree upon the salience of your points, though?

I can only applaud your citing of Jamie Carragher as a denial of the remarks I clearly condemned - which were those those of Neville and Tyler. Most people who would have read my remarks might have concluded from such wording as "it stemmed from the two clowns in the commentary box" as being clearly indicitave of my attribution of the blame to them rather than "a Sky narrative" which you alone have constructed in your imagination.

I take your point about not every outlet seizing upon the narrative of the, shall we for simplicity's sake call it, "great injustice". I do this, not least, because it's exactly the point that I made in my original post. However, I thank you for citing the relevant passages that endorse what I said in your rather pedantic post. Admittedly, I am somewhat at a loss as to how you feel they are in any way a negation of my argument but hey, if it makes you happy to think so, have at it.
I might also point out that Mane's goal in the return fixture was described by the same Sky commentator as "revenge" and that Sky saw fit to remove this remark in subsequent repeats of the goal. This, to my (what was your patronising remark again? Oh, yeah...) "emotive nature" further exemplifies my claim that this particular cause celebre was an individual rather than a organisational development. However, you may feel free to accuse me if claiming otherwise. I frankly have no time to be quibbling with such a self-servingmentality.

Guardiola's remarks on the sending off are open to interpretation. You argue they were a vindication. That's not unreasonable, to be fair. I would suggest they were as much born out of diplomacy. A diplomacy deamanded by his employers and, the lacking of which, has been evident in the sacking of both Mancini and your man, El Fathead, back at the time of the take over. What's indisputable is that Pep later despaired at the treatment of our players - and chose his words extremely carefully in doing so.

Your assertion that Danny Murphy didn't call for violence against our team on MOTD, has been quite thoroughly dealt with already. So, I'll spare you the embarrassment of repeating it.

PS
For the record, I posted my entry in a mannerly and respectful tone. Always, feel free to disagree with me any time (that's never a problem) but it was disappointing that, rather than respond in constructive argument and address the actual points I made, you chose to distort and, worse again, attempt to patronise me in your response. Frankly, nothing you have posted thus far suggests that you possess the intellect to carry off that particular trick.

 

[bluealf]

Thanks for your response. I trust you will forgive me if I havethe audacity to seek to disagree upon the salience of your points, though?

I can only applaud your citing of Jamie Carragher as a denial of the remarks I clearly condemned - which were those those of Neville and Tyler. Most people who would have read my remarks might have concluded from such wording as "it stemmed from the two clowns in the commentary box" as being clearly indicitave of my attribution of the blame to them rather than "a Sky narrative" which you alone have constructed in your imagination.

I take your point about not every outlet seizing upon the narrative of the, shall we for simplicity's sake call it, "great injustice". I do this, not least, because it's exactly the point that I made in my original post. However, I thank you for citing the relevant passages that endorse what I said in your rather pedantic post. Admittedly, I am somewhat at a loss as to how you feel they are in any way a negation of my argument but hey, if it makes you happy to think so, have at it.
I might also point out that Mane's goal in the return fixture was described by the same Sky commentator as "revenge" and that Sky saw fit to remove this remark in subsequent repeats of the goal. This, to my (what was your patronising remark again? Oh, yeah...) "emotive nature" further exemplifies my claim that this particular cause celebre was an individual rather than a organisational development. However, you may feel free to accuse me if claiming otherwise. I frankly have no time to be quibbling with such a self-servingmentality.

Guardiola's remarks on the sending off are open to interpretation. You argue they were a vindication. That's not unreasonable, to be fair. I would suggest they were as much born out of diplomacy. A diplomacy deamanded by his employers and, the lacking of which, has been evident in the sacking of both Maldini and your man, El Fathead, back at the time of the take over. What's indisputable is that Pep later despaired at the treatment of our players - and chose his words extremely carefully in doing so.

Your assertion that Danny Murphy didn't call for violence against our team on MOTD, has been quite thoroughly dealt with already. So, I'll spare you the embarrassment of repeating it.

PS
For the record, I posted my entry in a mannerly and respectful tone. Always, feel free to disagree with me any time (that's never a problem) but it was disappointing that, rather than respond in constructive argument and address the actual points I made, you chose to distort and, worse again, attempt to patronise me in your response. Frankly, nothing you have posted thus far suggests that youyou poss the intellect to carry that particular trick off.

ouch

Not that he will be bothered, he will be applying lube and consider it a success.