Media Thread - 2021/22

[argyle]

The only group of people happier than Liverpool fans tonight is the entire English football media. If this ridiculous bias doesn't fire our team up, nothing will.

I don't think the team will notice, they live in a bubble and won't be reading this stuff.

 

[dickie davies]

BBC doesn't have advertising so shouldn't be concerned about clicks

Yes it does
If you access the BBC from abroad there are ads

 

[dickie davies]

they live in a bubble and won't be reading this stuff.

Well I hope they're sat in their ivory bubbles feeling absolutely disgusted with themselves

 

[waspish]

Our Highlights on Man City YouTube channels was over 2 million after being up for just over 10 hours now that’s more than I’ve seen in such a short space of time from one of our games!

 

[HelloCity]

2017

 

[Bozzie]

David Mooney doing a wonderful defence of our erstwhile sports media this morning on twitter. Apparently City fans go looking for offence where none exists and we get exactly the same level of coverage as other teams. And the recent Athletic article - for whom David just happens to work, producing a monetised podcast, nothing to see here of course - digging into our sponsorships was actually very complimentary about City's dealings. Who knew?

Well, at least according to the 'City fan' who - purely coincidentally you will understand - also happens to be pursuing a career in the media.

It was a strange, and lengthy, defence of his colleagues and in particular the Adam Crafton piece on the relationship between sponsors and owners. Even Mooney admits that there journalists out there who look to "antagonise" City supporters but his solution is for us to simply ignore their lies and duplicity. My solution would include journalists who recognise that trait calling out their peers for their dishonesty and their lack of professionalism and showing support for those fans who engage respectfully and intelligently in debunking the stream of misinformation.
Crafton maintains that the article was a balanced, general insight into the nature of what could be described as 'associated transactions' following the introduction of the PL's new guidelines. Well he would say that wouldn't he! The article was so heavily weighted towards City and clearly structured to present those deals as somehow nefarious, questionable and just a little bit dodgy despite being perfectly legal. Equally he seems to believe that because he's managed to get a negative response from City fans and a positive response from 'rival' fans that demonstrates his article was fair. I may be wrong but that just makes me think his article was perfectly structured to appeal to those people who see City as 'cheats' and always will regardless of there being no evidence to support it.

 

[cookster]

David Mooney doing a wonderful defence of our erstwhile sports media this morning on twitter. Apparently City fans go looking for offence where none exists and we get exactly the same level of coverage as other teams. And the recent Athletic article - for whom David just happens to work, producing a monetised podcast, nothing to see here of course - digging into our sponsorships was actually very complimentary about City's dealings. Who knew?

Well, at least according to the 'City fan' who - purely coincidentally you will understand - also happens to be pursuing a career in the media.

Mooney, voice of the fans. I think not!

 

[Phil1]

Mooney can fuck off.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The article was so heavily weighted towards City and clearly structured to present those deals as somehow nefarious, questionable and just a little bit dodgy despite being perfectly legal.

I read the article, it actually made a few good points buried amongst the bollocks, but the reason there was so much bullshit is it swerved the elephant in the room, and that's the nature of business in the oil rich Middle East.

To understand how things work in Saudi and the Gulf think prohibition Chicago. There was a main gangster family and then smaller ones who had their own areas of the city and their own specialisms, like gambling or prostitution, the main family controlled the booze, friction was kept to a minimum coz it was bad for business as everyone had a slice of the cake and therefore something to lose if it all went pear shaped.

The ruling families of the Gulf are the same, the big cheese owns the oil and the lesser families have construction, or hotels or banking or whatever.

The population of the UAE is just under 10 million, 1 million of them Emiratis with members of the ruling families numbering in the thousands, and as there's a tendency among the powerful to keep everything nice and snug they all inter marry.

Consequentially everyone is at least a second cousin to everyone else among the rich and powerful, hence accusations of cronyism from know nothing journalists when City gets a sponsorship deal from a company run by Khaldoon's sister in law's nephew. I'll wager there's very few sizeable businesses in the UAE where the owner, or someone on the board, is not related in some way to someone associated with our owners.

The article did make a couple of valid points at the end. If City needed a quick top up of a few million quid, I suspect a call to the extended network of grandchildren, nephews and uncles back in the UAE, would produce the required low level sponsorship, and I imagine western companies wanting to win major contracts in the UAE could do worse than sponsor Man City in some shape or form.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I read the article, it actually made a few good points buried amongst the bollocks, but the reason there was so much bullshit is it swerved the elephant in the room, and that's the nature of business in the oil rich Middle East.

To understand how things work in Saudi and the Gulf think prohibition Chicago. There was a main gangster family and then smaller ones who had their own areas of the city and their own specialisms, like gambling or prostitution, the main family controlled the booze, friction was kept to a minimum coz it was bad for business as everyone had a slice of the cake and therefore something to lose if it all went pear shaped.

The ruling families of the Gulf are the same, the big cheese owns the oil and the lesser families have construction, or hotels or banking or whatever.

The population of the UAE is just under 10 million, 1 million of them Emiratis with members of the ruling families numbering in the thousands, and as there's a tendency among the powerful to keep everything nice and snug they all inter marry.

Consequentially everyone is at least a second cousin to everyone else among the the rich and powerful, hence accusations of cronyism from know nothing journalists when City gets a sponsorship deal from a company run by Khaldoon's sister in law's nephew. I'll wager there's very few businesses of any size in the UAE not related in some way to someone associated with our owners

The article did make a couple of good points at the end, it is easier for City to gets lots of low level sponsorship in the UAE with a quick call to the extended network of grand kids, nephews and uncles, and western companies wanting to win major contracts in the UAE could do worse than sponsor Man City in some shape or form.

Agreed, mostly. It's a damning indictment of journalism in this country that there hasn't been any article about our owner over the last decade that places him and his family into the context of how the UAE is run, and how business is done there. You know, something educational rather than something as simplistic as that's different to how we do it, so it must be dodgy. Which is what Crafton's piece was.