Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
bluealf said:
BBC Sport nailing their colours to the mast again

www.bbc.co.uk

Another upset? How Leeds stunned Man City

BBC Sport takes a look back at Leeds United's 2-1 Premier League win at Manchester City last season ahead of their meeting on Saturday.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
As I've said, cocks are out ready, ready for any City slip up. They're all scouse apologists these media wankers, ok any north west team that plays in red then
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
He’s a laughing stock and Telegraph staff should be embarrassed by this sort of shite. It damages is own credibility publishing this sort of fanzine stuff
Click to expand...
LongsightM13 said:
The mental and ethical gymnastics Edwards and his redshirt accolytes are now putting themselves through, in order to try and justify his rank hypocrisy and laughable bias, really is something to behold
Click to expand...
It’s just relentless unbalanced and partial coverage of our top sport. Everything is politicised with a tint of racism. The sport washing narrative is a fake PR construct which conceals the real reason our owner is despised by some of the media. Does this mean that every investment in Dubai tourism is tourismwashing. The Telegraph is pandering to its dwindling toxic base.
 
waspish said:
People use to wax lyrical about a club winning the double!

We done it 3 times with a domestic quad thrown in for good measure in he last 7/8 years
Click to expand...
The scousers have had problems even winning singles in the last 30 years.
Not even much in the von Trapp era if people wake up from their wet dream about how good he is.
 
Last edited:
I think this recent Liverpool love-in, is the final nail in the coffin for those who've been finding any excuse not to give Pep and Manchester City any credit, over the last 6 years in particular. They were never neutrals("I'm just a football fan that cares about the sport"), those journalists do have agendas. They feign any semblance of objectivity and therefore their opinions are tainted and worth very little to any real neutral football fans and indeed City fans.

No matter what the sport/subject is, if someone starts off early on in a debate, with one liners that anyone remotely knowledgeable about it knows is inaccurate. Then it's reasonable to assume they are either ill-informed or in a lot of cases have clear bias for against a related party. You can lean towards bias from the off if it's something(as is often the case) that can be cleared up by stating the cold hard facts, with sources that can't be argued with... Especially if their response to that is either silence, denial(with no argument other than "bollocks grrrr oil money, inflated deals") or in some cases attacking the person rather than the argument("Manchester City fans who disagree are weaponised", "Rabin you're a shill on City's payroll" not to mention their co-ordinated attempt to dox him... and so on). Not forgetting of course, that they continue to use the same argument regardless of being proven wrong. No matter how many times someone provides them the facts, they'll ignore them and often block them, without any insults being brandished(though that's not how they'll tell it).
 
Last edited:
That reminds me, has anyone noticed the amount of influencers(the kickoff, 90 min type youtube channels), pushing the narrative that it's unfair that Liverpool have to go up against City in what is their biggest golden age of the PL era for them? From ruining football by being too good, to being an inconvenience to Liverpool by being too good, quite a turn around. It's been going for a while now and they point to things like the 1 point difference in that last 4 years as "further evidence" of it. It normally comes from the faux-neutrals(they don't support Liverpool but despise City, while brown-nosing Liverpool for views as much as possible), who get all sympathetic towards Klopp and Liverpool suggesting: " They would be winning lots more if it weren't for City and their financial doping oil money".

More often than not, these are the same people who justify their dislike of City and their refusal to give them any credit, with the excuse that they make the league look less competitive. Surely by bleating on that Liverpool should be winning trophy after trophy, considered the best team of this era and so on...

If you really think about it, removing the "financial doping"/owned by a state elements(which are false) and also remembering United have the highest netspend of the last 10 years, as of today. Without realising it, they are exposing how full of shit they are because they are essentially advocating for one team(Liverpool) to be a dominant force and that it's "unfair" that they aren't. I also noticed how they collectively moved the goalposts from "how much each club has spent" to "how much each manager has spent" to remove clubs like United from the equation. United still spent more in the same period whichever way they spin it. They'll just keep moving these goalposts, it's not about what City are doing it's about them being City and not United or Liverpool that bothers them.

A team being far ahead of everyone else, is only "killing football" when it's City. A team that has spent the most in a transfer window(or even a 5 year or 10 year period) is only "killing football" when it's City. A team being invested in and grown to become not only self sustaining but one of the best ran clubs in world football is only... you get the point.
 
Last edited:
Fordyboy46 said:
As I've said, cocks are out ready, ready for any City slip up. They're all scouse apologists these media wankers, ok any north west team that plays in red then
Click to expand...
The BBC wind me up more than all the other gutter press/MSM put together - they are supposed to be our impartial. National broadcaster. I'd love to throw my tv license in the bin but the kids/wife watch live TV so am stuffed.
 
Metalartin said:
That reminds me, has anyone noticed the amount of influencers(the kickoff, 90 min type youtube channels), pushing the narrative that it's unfair that Liverpool have to go up against City in what is their biggest golden of the PL era for them? From ruining football by being too good, to being an inconvenience to Liverpool by being too good, quite a turn around. It's been going for a while now and they point to things like the 1 point difference in that last 4 years as "further evidence" of it. It normally comes from the faux-neutrals(they don't support Liverpool but despise City, while brown-nosing Liverpool for views as much as possible), who get all sympathetic towards Klopp and Liverpool suggesting: " They would be winning lots more if it weren't for City and their financial doping oil money".

More often than not, these are the same people who justify their dislike of City and their refusal to give them any credit, with the excuse that they make the league look less competitive. Surely by bleating on that Liverpool should be winning trophy after trophy, considered the best team of this era and so on...

If you really think about it, removing the "financial doping"/owned by a state elements(which are false) and also remembering United have the highest netspend of the last 10 years, as of today. Without realising it, they are exposing how full of shit they are because they are essentially advocating for one team(Liverpool) to be a dominant force and that it's "unfair" that they aren't. I also noticed how they collectively moved the goalposts from "how much each club has spent" to "how much each manager has spent" to remove clubs like United from the equation. United still spent more in the same period whichever way they spin it. They'll just keep moving these goalposts, it's not about what City are doing it's about them being City and not United or Liverpool that bothers them.

A team being far ahead of everyone else, is only "killing football" when it's City. A team that has spent the most in a transfer window(or even a 5 year or 10 year period) is only "killing football" when it's City. A team being invested in and grown to become not only self sustaining but one of the best ran clubs in world football is only... you get the point.
Click to expand...
The bizarre thing is these red tops hate us under the wrong premise. We've somehow denied the Dippers a golden age under Klopp since he joined

If we weren't in the picture, they'd have won the league in 18/19.

In 15/16, they'd have won the League Cup, but Leicester won the league as they finished 8th.

16/17 Chelsea won the league anyway.

17/18 we were Centurions, but in our absence Mourinho would have won the Rags the title. We'll nominally give Arsenal the League Cup.

In 18/19, they'd have won the League. Chelsea would be given a League Cup and Watford the FA Cup.

In 19/20 they won the league anyway and Villa are given the League Cup.

In 20/21 Ole and the Rags would have won the league (lol), we'll give Spurs the League Cup.

So far from a Klopp dynasty, without us they'd have ended up with as many titles as the Rags.

So the red top marks can't even get their premise right. Klopp would have lost titles to Mourinho and Ole. So much for a dynasty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.