Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again why your obsession with reporting the Guardian and your obsession with reading what is clearly a long term hate campaign of our club and owner?
Not sure about hate campaigns.

It's a business plan by all of the media for pecuniary gain, plain and simple.

Friggin' annoying, but not the worst plan I've ever seen.

If I could garner clicks and easy advertising money from winding up a sector of footie fans, whilst at the same time, pandering to the two largest supported clubs, I'd definitely be up for it.
 
Not sure about hate campaigns.

It's a business plan by all of the media for pecuniary gain, plain and simple.

Friggin' annoying, but not the worst plan I've ever seen.

If I could garner clicks and easy advertising money from winding up a sector of footie fans, whilst at the same time, pandering to the two largest supported clubs, I'd definitely be up for it.
It's quite a good plan until said supporters wake up.
 
Opening line of Guardian Liverpool v City preview by the journalist/troll Will Unwin:

"Manchester City fans have not been in attendance for a league win at Anfield since 2003", when "City have not won at Anfield since 2003" would be much simpler.

This is designed to make fans comment so don't do it! They want fans posting on their site, to generate revenue so don't give it to them. Clear trolling of City's fanbase so those City fans contributing should think about what they are doing.

Why would he write that when that's false? We have one since then. There is zero denying that the first line is true, and relatively important to be honest. We've beaten them now at Anfield, but with no fans there, and that is of course a factor, in Liverpool's eyes at least. Liverpool will be telling themselves that, so it'd be pointless not to consider it.
 
I see Martin Samuel is on it again today.
Breakaway plot bled red

When four of the six Premier League clubs that were part of the breakaway Super League plot called a meeting to dissolve the company, Liverpool and Manchester United did not agree.

No surprise there. Ostensibly, this was because they feared legal repercussions from Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus but the real reasons are obvious. It was them. It was always them.

They needed the others to make their rotten plan work but this was driven by the two red clubs in the north and had their fingerprints all over it from the start.


Martin Samuel Oct-1
 
Why would he write that when that's false? We have one since then. There is zero denying that the first line is true, and relatively important to be honest. We've beaten them now at Anfield, but with no fans there, and that is of course a factor, in Liverpool's eyes at least. Liverpool will be telling themselves that, so it'd be pointless not to consider it.
I realise that now but it's still a wind-up. He's a football writer. He knows the value of words, the emptihad etc.
 
I really think you're reading something into it that simply isn't there.
Well I admit I go looking for barbs on there but I think it's deliberate. It's rather a contrived sentence and when you write for a publication you have your audience in mind. I agreed with Salford_Blue's assessment of what they are doing.
 
Well I admit I go looking for barbs on there but I think it's deliberate. It's rather a contrived sentence and when you write for a publication you have your audience in mind. I agreed with Salford_Blue's assessment of what they are doing.

I think you are a little too sensitive on this one Marvin.

If anything I'm offended by the 1st line of the United point as below. I think this is a slight on Pep Guardiola and we should take to the streets and protest.

"Manchester United have a lot of good players, but whether a title-winning team can be permed from them – by any manager – is doubtful"

.
 
Working for BBC Sport used to be a prestigious and respected job. Now it's like working for a tittle-tattle tabloid like the Daily Star.

MMA star, and 'Man Utd fan'.
A
If you need to know, Liverpool 4 - City 3

29629-BC0-71-DA-414-C-B639-8-DDCE5-C70-D6-C.png
Yes and calling an ex player 'Lawro' is a typical BBC dumbing down for the ignorant masses.
 
Because it follows from their long term hate campaign and I am a City supporter. If the boycott was 100% effective it would seriously damage their coverage. Fans use it to discuss football generally. It would be damaged if it was perceived as partisan.

Supporting City is not about personal entertainment. Do you go to the matches?
Boycott the Guardian, the more you tell people about it on here, the more people go and look, the more 'clicks' the Guardian gets and the more revenue.

Don't ever question my support, great coming from a man that wanted a joint City and Rags parade.
 
Not sure about hate campaigns.

It's a business plan by all of the media for pecuniary gain, plain and simple.

Friggin' annoying, but not the worst plan I've ever seen.

If I could garner clicks and easy advertising money from winding up a sector of footie fans, whilst at the same time, pandering to the two largest supported clubs, I'd definitely be up for it.
Exactly and hence why it should not be publicised by City fans, they want to wind us up, creates clicks, traffic and revenue.
 
Why would he write that when that's false? We have one since then. There is zero denying that the first line is true, and relatively important to be honest. We've beaten them now at Anfield, but with no fans there, and that is of course a factor, in Liverpool's eyes at least. Liverpool will be telling themselves that, so it'd be pointless not to consider it.
It was the truth in the sense that everytime we play them in front of a full house we go to pieces, high time that was put to an end starting Sunday, huge game, not only for 3 points but to show we are made of the right stuff.
 
Because it follows from their long term hate campaign and I am a City supporter. If the boycott was 100% effective it would seriously damage their coverage. Fans use it to discuss football generally. It would be damaged if it was perceived as partisan.

Supporting City is not about personal entertainment. Do you go to the matches?
The Guardian is now selling an average of less than 90,000 per day and on some weekdays less than 60,000 copies. Its large website audience is dominated by overseas readers. Hardly anyone reads the paper any more. It is a very small fringe product in a country of 65 million people and it is a dying business.
I doubt if many city fans read their content any more. Their dwindling audience seems to consist mostly of BBC staff and politicians. This website has more than 70,000 members, many of whom are also on Twitter. Bluemoon probably has more influence with Manchester City matters than any broadsheet newspaper. I don't have a problem with boycotting the Guardian but I am not that concerned about what it says about our club. The publically-funded BBC concerns me more.
 
Last edited:
Twitter and Facebook bombard you with info so and so said this Bert Scroggins said that to get you to look at one of their ads and if you ignore it they keep sending and if you click on it they send twice as many. Anyone born after 1990 will spend their life living in an advert.
 
The Guardian is now selling an average of less than 90,000 per day and on some weekdays less than 60,000 copies. Its large website audience is dominated by overseas readers. Hardly anyone reads the paper any more. It is a very small fringe product in a country of 65 million people and it is a dying business.
I doubt if many city fans read their content any more. Their dwindling audience seems to consist mostly of BBC staff and politicians. This website has more than 70,000 members, many of whom are also on Twitter. Bluemoon probably has more influence with Manchester City matters than any broadsheet newspaper. I don't have a problem with boycotting the Guardian but I am not that concerened about what it says about our club. The publically-funded BBC concerns me more.
I partly agree. It's print edition is collapsing, so much so that they no longer publish their circulation data but their digital revenue is increasing. It will increase until one of their commercial rivals goes online properly. Then they will have problems.

BBC football is not as hostile imo. I think most of their football coverage is good. I like MOTD for example and wish other coverage was as neutral as they generally are, Their web-site is very skewed towards Man Utd but the City coverage is generally not so bad - in my opinion.

I am concerned about what the media say about our club because there is strong evidence that City's supporter base is getting affected. The negativity is extraordinary at a time when we have possibly the best team in our history - arguable I know but still outstanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top