Not sure about hate campaigns.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?
It's quite a good plan until said supporters wake up.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.
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.
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.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 really think you're reading something into it that simply isn't there.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.
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 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.
Yes and calling an ex player 'Lawro' is a typical BBC dumbing down for the ignorant masses.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
![]()
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.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?
Exactly and hence why it should not be publicised by City fans, they want to wind us up, creates clicks, traffic and revenue.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 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.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.
Tomatoes?Getting a lot of adverts on here for the athletic about all things red, I don’t think I’ll be clicking on.
You're a smart lad Marvin, how can you not see what's wrong with your statement above?Well I admit I go looking for barbs on there...
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.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?
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.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.