Media Thread - 2021/22

[Bill]

I am absolutely convinced that there isn't a media platform in the country that has any interest in being fair towards City. Individual writers are just doing their jobs. They aren't there (IMO) to serve and present information in an unbiased fashion. They are there to use the internet in the same way supporters do. To get engagements and to stir the pot enough just enough to keep the tribes all kicking against each other.

Adam Crafton is more or less the United writer at the Athletic, so why is he writing a piece about all 49 of City's sponsors and their ties to each other? The answer is so fucking obvious that it insults my intelligence and the intelligence of all City supporters for anyone to try and claim that it was anything but a piece written to get maximum clicks from the Athletic's rag readership and to keep inferring that City are cheating or gaming the system.

The pithy defence which I saw from Adam consequently was something along the lines of "it's an analysis of the new rules". Well, no, Adam, that is not how it was framed. A good writer, someone with a high level education, maybe even Oxbridge in your case, who knows, would understand very very well that HOW you present facts is almost more important than what you present. It's very very easy to frame every single financial issue inside the PL through the prism of Manchester City - why? Because we're the least popular club in the country and we are the ones who have been regularly smeared as being financial cheats.

I've found myself less and less interested in any of the media platforms and their City related takes. Generally it can be taken as read that not a single writer outside of the specific City press pack in the north west (and Martin Samuel) will be writing anything fair or balanced about City. And even inside the press pack you have the likes of Jackson and Ogden who are just rag trolls when they write about City.

As someone who has in the past looked down their nose at the idea that there's an organised agenda against City, having had a bit of time behind the curtain, I can say with some assurance that there is absolutely an organised agenda against City, and it will continue whilst this generation of so called journalists are running the football pages. Rags, scousers, and cockneys, all of them. All with a sense of entitlement to the success we're currently enjoying. Fuck them all and the plastic internet horses they ride around on.

EDIT:

Just seen @Prestwich_Blue reply to Dave. I've no idea what the twitter thread yesterday was or what the conversation was. But it is absolute fact that the athletic embarrassed themselves over CAS in a pretty impressive fashion. We offered to them the analysis @projectriver put together on which way the case would fall and their response was "we've consulted countless experts who completely disagree with Stefan's assessment". To me, that just stank of "we only want opinions which reinforce the idea that City are guilty and will be punished". They hid their bias in plain sight and afterwards pretended it never happened and that City were always going to get off.

top top post.

i post around 10 years ago that there was an agenda against City , to me it was obvious . i got laughed at and called paranoid .
at least now people see it.
what does still grate is our club does absolutely nothing about it. bias in the pub is fair enough , bias inside the game has to met head on.

 

[johnevans]

We know each other. You're a really nice guy and absolutely a City fan. The podcast is very professional and you obviously put a lot of work into it. It's what BBC Radio Manchester's Blue Tuesday should have been in fact.

But we've all said daft things at times, me included, and on Twitter I challenged your claim that the "vast majority" of coverage is fair and balanced. Of course not everything written about us is based on a negative agenda but I think quite a lot is.

I don't think it is fair and balanced in many areas and I've been one of the people trying to provide that balance over the last 10 years. None of the coverage of FFP/CAS was fair and balanced, as none of the journalists reporting on it took any trouble to understand the issues or the regulations. Whereas people like me, Stefan and others did have a detailed understanding of them. Did you ask either of us on the podcast to provide that balance?

I know Adam Crafton well, and as with you, would never get personal but that had material inaccuracies in it about our FFP case. It could also be read in a number of ways, depending on your starting position, but I thought that it showed the exceptional and genius strategy behind our commercial arrangements.

It's a regular feature of most televised games of ours, particularly against what we'll call the less well financed clubs, that the cost of the squad is highlighted against that of the opposition. Yet it's never done for clubs like united or Chelsea. These aren't isolated incidents are they?

You made some false claims about things that had been discussed at City Matters, about away tickets, without knowing the background and, as the representative of seasoncard holders, I messaged Richard offering to come on and discuss our thinking and correct what you'd said, which he ignored. That's when I stopped listening to Blue Moon podcast and I'm questioning whether you yourself really know what 'fair and balanced' is.

I remembered something else last night. Your and I were at a Football Writers Festival event a few years ago. I think you were on the panel, along with Oli Kay and Paul Lake among others. The subject was young players, as Kay had just published his book on Adrian Dougherty. Afterwards, Kay, yourself, myself and the Lakes were chatting and we got onto the subject of how the media operates. Kay was at The Times then and talked about what motivates the media. I always remember he said that he could write the greatest piece he'd ever written but if it didn't get enough clicks, then he would get his arse kicked by his editor.

That was The Times, not the Mail or other populist paper. We've seen it at the Guardian where the starting point is an almost racist hatred of our owner and his country. It's all about clicks, not balance. The question is, how many individual 'specific articles or items' does it take to indicate a pattern?

You make some excellent points, as ever. If I might add to your final two paragraphs, the following might apply. I posted these recollections a couple of years ago in response to a thread entitled 'How did the GPC get away with it?' with the 'it' referred to being Ferguson's treatment of the press. Sorry for banging on at length in this response quoted below but I have highlighted the salient sections that resonated with me in relation to your post above. I think you'll get my drift even if you only read those parts!

========================================================================================

How did he get away with it? Maybe the following will give you a clue (and apologies in advance for going on at length)..

In February 2008, long before City were taken over by The Sheikh, I entered into correspondence with a UK football journalist working for one of the Sunday 'quality papers'. This was and remains the only time I've ever done this. I sent an e-mail into the said sports writer, who shall remain anonymous, as I don't think it's fair to quote names in this instance and, this article apart, I've always enjoyed this writer's output and take on football matters. I sent it because I was pretty hacked off by a piece he'd written in advance of the Manchester 'derby' game that month, (in?)famously chosen by the Premier League's computer to take place during the 50th anniversary week of the Munich Air Disaster.

The newspaper article suggested that there may be 'trouble' at the Old Trafford game and that City supporters could not be trusted to behave correctly during the pre-match commemoration of the Air Disaster, let alone the game itself because, as the article pointed out, us City fans were regularly guilty of singing 'Munich' chants and making all sorts of 'Munich' gestures when confronting our arch rivals.

The article did not question the wisdom of the Premier League's decision to schedule the game as it had. In addition, there was no discussion or suggestion of any criticism of United and its historical handling of the Munich disaster aftermath down the decades; rather its focus was on emphasising that 'problems', should they arise, were likely to be down to City supporters and City supporters alone.

I pointed out several things in my e-mail response to the article:

(a) that the suggestion City fans wouldn't behave was based on no evidence
(b) that in fact, I expected City supporters to behave impeccably (as we did) as the Munich Air Disaster was, actually, MANCHESTER's disaster, involving loss of life of City-connected people and people from other walks of life
(c) that I had attended the welcome home celebration for United after losing the 1958 Cup Final barely a few months after the disaster, being taken there by my parents (I was on my Dad's shoulders), aunts and uncles (all Blues) and our neighbours (season ticket holding Reds), all chanting 'We want Matt!' as the team appeared on the Town Hall balcony
(d) that throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s Manchester commemorated the disaster with dignity, especially when it came to the 'Evening News' edition with its 'In Memoriam' notices on 6 February each year, which diminished each year with the passing of time. I can remember kids being chided by adults for speaking negatively about the disaster or making jokes about it
(e) that despite this, still there was a growing dissatisfaction about United's response to the disaster and especially the way players and their families were treated by the club, pushing them out of club houses, refusing to compensate them properly and so on (I gave the example of Albert Scanlon, who my mother would babysit for in Hulme when she was a young girl/woman and who I'd met on a couple of occasions when my parents would go to Sinclair's Oyster Bar in the 70s of a Saturday night, when Albert always spent time chatting with my Mum. He was very upset about his treatment)
(f) that United's callous behaviour post-disaster (apart from the clock at the ground) was compounded by its change of direction in the 90s onward, when suddenly 'Munich' seemed to become a marketing tool for the club post-Stock Market flotation.. yet still no proper compensation for its servants after the disaster..
(g) that the 40th anniversary commemoration in 1998 had put the tin lid on things for those of us who had been around when the crash happened, involving as it did the disgraceful payments to Eric Cantona and his entourage and, yet again, the fans being asked to stump up money for the compensation (finally, 40 years on) to any surviving players
(h) that overall, I believed that United had behaved dreadfully throughout the years since Munich; that, as above, originally what was MANCHESTER's disaster had become hijacked over time as part of the marketing legend that was underpinning the club; and that I'd love to know why our press never commented on any of the things I was pointing out to this particular journalist, never mind all of the problems that this club and a couple of others at the top of the English football hierarchy were causing for the rest of the game with their accretion of power post-Premier League..

The responses I got (we swapped a couple of e-mails) were quite clear. The journalist agreed with every point I made, as above, with the exception of one.. the last one, to tackle United over its practices and those of the other clubs it was in cahoots with both here and in Europe.

The reply came in words to the effect that 'If you think I, or any sports writer, is going to commit professional suicide by taking on Manchester United or Alex Ferguson, you've got another think coming..'

After the game had been played and our fans behaved impeccably before and after we won 2-0, the journalist wrote a final e-mail to apologise for taking the line that City fans might 'cause trouble/be a problem'. I just wrote back to say 'Thank you' but I did also suggest people in the sports media might grow a pair of collective cojones and take on the real issues in English football, rather than simply be the ciphers of the vested interests that ran the game.

Judging by events over the past 12 years, I think I've still got a long wait ahead of me..

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

He could start with Darren Lewis waffling on how City disrespected Kane because they refused to stump up £150 million after unsettling him with lower bids.

If we had paid £150m he would have written some shite about oil money , f*cking hypocrite.

 

[BillyShears]

top top post.

i post around 10 years ago that there was an agenda against City , to me it was obvious . i got laughed at and called paranoid .
at least now people see it.
what does still grate is our club does absolutely nothing about it. bias in the pub is fair enough , bias inside the game has to met head on.

Double top from a Bluemoon OG. I'm honoured Bill!

 

[StrangewaysHereWeCome]

top top post.

i post around 10 years ago that there was an agenda against City , to me it was obvious . i got laughed at and called paranoid .
at least now people see it.
what does still grate is our club does absolutely nothing about it. bias in the pub is fair enough , bias inside the game has to met head on.

Rarely browse and less frequently post on here nowadays but I do remember that Bill.

That and your stern defence of Felipe Caicedo :0)

 

[Bill]

Interesting very interesting. For all the words and tone used here by senor Mooney it smacks of nothing more than trying to keep the finance coming in at the expense of MCFC and it’s fans.

You would have been safer just saying it was not a balanced piece but an opinion piece and as such my opinion is bought and paid for.

MCFC do not receive balanced reporting on any media platform you have eloquently mentioned. The odd puff piece here and then is not enough.

We as a club and fanbase are routinely set upon by biased, unethical hacks who create nothing but lies and misinformation to generate revenue. The CAS episode was a fucking disgrace and very nearly ruined this great club. So the next time you decide to write a negative or as you call it a balanced hatchet job take a moment to recall the time when you sold your opinion for clicks at the behest of the media.

correct .

 

[Bill]

This is absolutely not what I've said. The TL;DR of that thread was that the vast majority of coverage of City is fair, but there are some fans in a race to be offended that will find fault where there is very little to complain about. That's quite a big difference between (as someone on Twitter put it) "apparently we're all paranoid".

But, of course, the nuance in the whole thing can't be summed up in such a short sentence and one of the reasons why I'm not getting into specific articles or items is because it becomes a long list of "go on - defend this one!" when that's not what I'm saying in the slightest. There *are* things that City fans can rightly feel upset about in the way the club is covered, but a lot of what gets posted in this thread or most of what I see complained about on Twitter is perfectly fine - and the more that gets shovelled in together, the more diluted the actual grievances get.

Again, in that thread, I said I understood why people would question why The Athletic piece by Adam Crafton was done. This is purely conjecture, but I suspect it's a precursor to a something on Newcastle later down the line, but I've no idea what Adam is working on. Equally, City's business deals are the subject of interest in the wake of the CAS verdict and the recent news around 3Key. People are interested, rightly or wrongly - and here is a piece that says all of the sponsorships City have entered into are legit. Next time someone tells you about all of that dodgy money being pumped into City through the back door, you can literally point them to an investigation by a national publication that shows it's all above board.

But that's besides the point - I said I didn't want to get into specifics of pieces and I'm not here to debate that piece.

The main reason I wanted to reply here is what's often put to me: "pursuing a career in the media". I've seen this before ("he just wants to be a sportswriter" etc etc). It might surprise you, but I've actually got what I consider to be the perfect job right now. I said in the thread on Twitter who I work for so that I could be clear, but let me give this even more personal data (that the whole discussion probably doesn't deserve) so that I can be even clearer and, even if you don't agree with me, you can see that I'm speaking from what limited experience I have rather than acting as a stooge or trying to worm my way to the top (of where, I'm not really sure).

I'm freelance. I work in news production for BBC 5 Live across various programmes. That generally means pitching news stories and potential guests to speak to, and then contacting those guests to invite them on air. It's interviewing those guests to find out more about the story or their experience and taking a brief of what they'll say or what they think so we know what they can talk about. It's writing scripts for the presenters to read and generally making the programme ready for broadcast. This is not anything to do with the station's sport output, in fact I've never worked on a single sport programme in my six years at 5 Live.

I work for The Athletic, producing their City podcast with Sam Lee. I have no insight into what anybody at The Athletic is writing about or working on - I literally speak to Sam over the weekend and between us we decide what would be an interesting topic for the show. Then I go away and write some scripts and some questions I can ask him, while he brings the info and the stories. Then we record, I edit it and I upload it.

I make Blue Moon Podcast, which, while not a roaring success, it doesn't cost me money to make anymore, so I can be glad about that.

I've been working in various media jobs now for nearly 15 years and I've hit a point where I've never been happier. I can choose (ish) when I work and I get to talk about City with nobody telling me what I can and can't say. I have no editorial pressures and no need to have contacts at City to find stories and information out (I have none). I'm also making radio, which is far more fun than writing daily under pressure because the desk needs a story covering or whatever.

That's my motivation - so you can believe all you want that I say what I say about coverage of City being an attempt to cosy up to people, but it's really not the case. Would you believe, I actually have writers, pundits and journalists that I like and dislike, too.

Ultimately, though, I just don't understand what people mean by "The Media" anymore. If I'm being honest, I'd love to be able to make a living talking about only City on podcasts - would that still make me part of "The Media" as a self-employed podcaster? What is it? We talk about newspapers, websites, TV news bulletins, rolling news, Sky Sports, social media platforms. All of this is "The Media" - but I see a big difference between finding unfair what Miguel Delaney has written compared to what some blogger for Football Fancast has tweeted or what some YouTuber has made a video about.

(Importantly, I'm not criticising anyone's right to feel annoyed by anything, but I do think the response needs to be proportionate.)

What I was saying in that Twitter thread was that most of what is written about City by journalists IS balanced, but that doesn't mean you have to like it. Balanced isn't about portraying anybody in a positive or negative light - something can be balanced and a negative story. Balance is all about letting all sides have their say.

From my brief stint as a blogger, I know that City do take action where they think things are unfair. I've had a call from the press office in the past over an opinion piece I wrote on ticket prices, for instance - and I'm hardly one of the "big boys", I was a fan writing what I thought.

There's also a massive difference between opinion pieces and news pieces, but that all gets bundled up into one. Opinions can't be true or false, so when I see tweets about Journalist X lying about City and then I see it's them giving an opinion that City fans would disagree with, I find it hard to be upset.

Does this mean I think everybody that's ever written about City is perfect? No. Does this mean that I think nobody makes mistakes? No. Does this mean that I don't get pissed off with how the club is written about? No. Does this mean that I wish Jamie Carragher would commentate on every City game or that the cost of City's line-up is fair game in ever pre-match build-up? No.

It just means that there is far more nuance than anybody gives any time to - but in trying to talk about that nuance, I'm called all sorts of names under the sun and have what I'm saying misrepresented, while my motives are questioned. People might not agree with me, people might think I'm a dick, fine - but Christ at least let it be for the things I think.

I apologise that you've had this essay in response to your post and I promise I'm not having a go at you. I just thought it'd be worth explaining my position rather than having it talked about without my input.



This is a strawman - nobody is claiming that I am, least of all me. Nobody could possibly be the voice of any fanbase because, again, everything is far too nuanced.



Maybe this is for the best. After all, I'm just as much small fry as that Football Fancast blogger or YouTuber I created up there and, as much as I work for two media organisations, I'm hardly "in the media", whatever that means. If you don't like me, you can avoid my stuff pretty easily - I know what listener figures my podcasts get.

quite sad to see a blue sell his soul for fame and pieces of eight .
you are an embarrassment to the fan base.
i bet you loved the red circle piece.

 

[Ribble73]

I am absolutely convinced that there isn't a media platform in the country that has any interest in being fair towards City. Individual writers are just doing their jobs. They aren't there (IMO) to serve and present information in an unbiased fashion. They are there to use the internet in the same way supporters do. To get engagements and to stir the pot enough just enough to keep the tribes all kicking against each other.

Adam Crafton is more or less the United writer at the Athletic, so why is he writing a piece about all 49 of City's sponsors and their ties to each other? The answer is so fucking obvious that it insults my intelligence and the intelligence of all City supporters for anyone to try and claim that it was anything but a piece written to get maximum clicks from the Athletic's rag readership and to keep inferring that City are cheating or gaming the system.

The pithy defence which I saw from Adam consequently was something along the lines of "it's an analysis of the new rules". Well, no, Adam, that is not how it was framed. A good writer, someone with a high level education, maybe even Oxbridge in your case, who knows, would understand very very well that HOW you present facts is almost more important than what you present. It's very very easy to frame every single financial issue inside the PL through the prism of Manchester City - why? Because we're the least popular club in the country and we are the ones who have been regularly smeared as being financial cheats.

I've found myself less and less interested in any of the media platforms and their City related takes. Generally it can be taken as read that not a single writer outside of the specific City press pack in the north west (and Martin Samuel) will be writing anything fair or balanced about City. And even inside the press pack you have the likes of Jackson and Ogden who are just rag trolls when they write about City.

As someone who has in the past looked down their nose at the idea that there's an organised agenda against City, having had a bit of time behind the curtain, I can say with some assurance that there is absolutely an organised agenda against City, and it will continue whilst this generation of so called journalists are running the football pages. Rags, scousers, and cockneys, all of them. All with a sense of entitlement to the success we're currently enjoying. Fuck them all and the plastic internet horses they ride around on.

EDIT:

Just seen @Prestwich_Blue reply to Dave. I've no idea what the twitter thread yesterday was or what the conversation was. But it is absolute fact that the athletic embarrassed themselves over CAS in a pretty impressive fashion. We offered to them the analysis @projectriver put together on which way the case would fall and their response was "we've consulted countless experts who completely disagree with Stefan's assessment". To me, that just stank of "we only want opinions which reinforce the idea that City are guilty and will be punished". They hid their bias in plain sight and afterwards pretended it never happened and that City were always going to get off.

There’s no doubt there’s a systematic approach not to report the facts when it comes to City and instead a deliberate angle to paint things in a different way to City’s detriment. Any negative Reports about the Premier League/Football in general you can be sure there will be pictures of Raheem Stirling or some other City Player prominent if not the only picture shown. The European Super League Fiasco was portrayed as us being at the heart of it with our Crest prominent in the Reporting when in reality we were reluctant partners at best as became clear in the subsequent days.

 

[LongsightM13]

I am absolutely convinced that there isn't a media platform in the country that has any interest in being fair towards City. Individual writers are just doing their jobs. They aren't there (IMO) to serve and present information in an unbiased fashion. They are there to use the internet in the same way supporters do. To get engagements and to stir the pot enough just enough to keep the tribes all kicking against each other.

Adam Crafton is more or less the United writer at the Athletic, so why is he writing a piece about all 49 of City's sponsors and their ties to each other? The answer is so fucking obvious that it insults my intelligence and the intelligence of all City supporters for anyone to try and claim that it was anything but a piece written to get maximum clicks from the Athletic's rag readership and to keep inferring that City are cheating or gaming the system.

The pithy defence which I saw from Adam consequently was something along the lines of "it's an analysis of the new rules". Well, no, Adam, that is not how it was framed. A good writer, someone with a high level education, maybe even Oxbridge in your case, who knows, would understand very very well that HOW you present facts is almost more important than what you present. It's very very easy to frame every single financial issue inside the PL through the prism of Manchester City - why? Because we're the least popular club in the country and we are the ones who have been regularly smeared as being financial cheats.

I've found myself less and less interested in any of the media platforms and their City related takes. Generally it can be taken as read that not a single writer outside of the specific City press pack in the north west (and Martin Samuel) will be writing anything fair or balanced about City. And even inside the press pack you have the likes of Jackson and Ogden who are just rag trolls when they write about City.

As someone who has in the past looked down their nose at the idea that there's an organised agenda against City, having had a bit of time behind the curtain, I can say with some assurance that there is absolutely an organised agenda against City, and it will continue whilst this generation of so called journalists are running the football pages. Rags, scousers, and cockneys, all of them. All with a sense of entitlement to the success we're currently enjoying. Fuck them all and the plastic internet horses they ride around on.

EDIT:

Just seen @Prestwich_Blue reply to Dave. I've no idea what the twitter thread yesterday was or what the conversation was. But it is absolute fact that the athletic embarrassed themselves over CAS in a pretty impressive fashion. We offered to them the analysis @projectriver put together on which way the case would fall and their response was "we've consulted countless experts who completely disagree with Stefan's assessment". To me, that just stank of "we only want opinions which reinforce the idea that City are guilty and will be punished". They hid their bias in plain sight and afterwards pretended it never happened and that City were always going to get off.

Amen brother, testify

 

[LongsightM13]

You make some excellent points, as ever. If I might add to your final two paragraphs, the following might apply. I posted these recollections a couple of years ago in response to a thread entitled 'How did the GPC get away with it?' with the 'it' referred to being Ferguson's treatment of the press. Sorry for banging on at length in this response quoted below but I have highlighted the salient sections that resonated with me in relation to your post above. I think you'll get my drift even if you only read those parts!

========================================================================================

How did he get away with it? Maybe the following will give you a clue (and apologies in advance for going on at length)..

In February 2008, long before City were taken over by The Sheikh, I entered into correspondence with a UK football journalist working for one of the Sunday 'quality papers'. This was and remains the only time I've ever done this. I sent an e-mail into the said sports writer, who shall remain anonymous, as I don't think it's fair to quote names in this instance and, this article apart, I've always enjoyed this writer's output and take on football matters. I sent it because I was pretty hacked off by a piece he'd written in advance of the Manchester 'derby' game that month, (in?)famously chosen by the Premier League's computer to take place during the 50th anniversary week of the Munich Air Disaster.

The newspaper article suggested that there may be 'trouble' at the Old Trafford game and that City supporters could not be trusted to behave correctly during the pre-match commemoration of the Air Disaster, let alone the game itself because, as the article pointed out, us City fans were regularly guilty of singing 'Munich' chants and making all sorts of 'Munich' gestures when confronting our arch rivals.

The article did not question the wisdom of the Premier League's decision to schedule the game as it had. In addition, there was no discussion or suggestion of any criticism of United and its historical handling of the Munich disaster aftermath down the decades; rather its focus was on emphasising that 'problems', should they arise, were likely to be down to City supporters and City supporters alone.

I pointed out several things in my e-mail response to the article:

(a) that the suggestion City fans wouldn't behave was based on no evidence
(b) that in fact, I expected City supporters to behave impeccably (as we did) as the Munich Air Disaster was, actually, MANCHESTER's disaster, involving loss of life of City-connected people and people from other walks of life
(c) that I had attended the welcome home celebration for United after losing the 1958 Cup Final barely a few months after the disaster, being taken there by my parents (I was on my Dad's shoulders), aunts and uncles (all Blues) and our neighbours (season ticket holding Reds), all chanting 'We want Matt!' as the team appeared on the Town Hall balcony
(d) that throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s Manchester commemorated the disaster with dignity, especially when it came to the 'Evening News' edition with its 'In Memoriam' notices on 6 February each year, which diminished each year with the passing of time. I can remember kids being chided by adults for speaking negatively about the disaster or making jokes about it
(e) that despite this, still there was a growing dissatisfaction about United's response to the disaster and especially the way players and their families were treated by the club, pushing them out of club houses, refusing to compensate them properly and so on (I gave the example of Albert Scanlon, who my mother would babysit for in Hulme when she was a young girl/woman and who I'd met on a couple of occasions when my parents would go to Sinclair's Oyster Bar in the 70s of a Saturday night, when Albert always spent time chatting with my Mum. He was very upset about his treatment)
(f) that United's callous behaviour post-disaster (apart from the clock at the ground) was compounded by its change of direction in the 90s onward, when suddenly 'Munich' seemed to become a marketing tool for the club post-Stock Market flotation.. yet still no proper compensation for its servants after the disaster..
(g) that the 40th anniversary commemoration in 1998 had put the tin lid on things for those of us who had been around when the crash happened, involving as it did the disgraceful payments to Eric Cantona and his entourage and, yet again, the fans being asked to stump up money for the compensation (finally, 40 years on) to any surviving players
(h) that overall, I believed that United had behaved dreadfully throughout the years since Munich; that, as above, originally what was MANCHESTER's disaster had become hijacked over time as part of the marketing legend that was underpinning the club; and that I'd love to know why our press never commented on any of the things I was pointing out to this particular journalist, never mind all of the problems that this club and a couple of others at the top of the English football hierarchy were causing for the rest of the game with their accretion of power post-Premier League..

The responses I got (we swapped a couple of e-mails) were quite clear. The journalist agreed with every point I made, as above, with the exception of one.. the last one, to tackle United over its practices and those of the other clubs it was in cahoots with both here and in Europe.

The reply came in words to the effect that 'If you think I, or any sports writer, is going to commit professional suicide by taking on Manchester United or Alex Ferguson, you've got another think coming..'

After the game had been played and our fans behaved impeccably before and after we won 2-0, the journalist wrote a final e-mail to apologise for taking the line that City fans might 'cause trouble/be a problem'. I just wrote back to say 'Thank you' but I did also suggest people in the sports media might grow a pair of collective cojones and take on the real issues in English football, rather than simply be the ciphers of the vested interests that ran the game.

Judging by events over the past 12 years, I think I've still got a long wait ahead of me..

Oliver Holt I would imagine