Media thread 2022/23

[Blue Pete]

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun being shot at by a good guy with a gun is another good guy with a gun shooting around the other good and bad people without guns.

Simples.

But back to the City related Media thread...

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families (NRA statement)

 

[KS55]

Stereotypically white (Caucasian) behaviour, especially arrogance or entitlement? Not sure what the colour of skin has to do with anything
Newcastle haven't spent anything yet as their turnover isn't big enough to allow big spending due to FFP.
Martin Samuel (Daily Mail) a bastion of anti FFP rules and how it was corruptly introduced, also stated "It's their money and they can do what they want with it" when referring to City's owners so not sure what your beef is.

When it comes to City and the media, skin colour or religion is everything to do with it. Xenophobic twats with laptops,
anti Arab, anti Muslim.
EDIT PS. Not you Martin.

 

[petrusha]

Athletic cancelling their City podcast Why Always Us

Shame that was always worth a listen even if I didnt agree with parts/lots of it.

Must be getting much less City subscribers than the rest of the big 6

I stopped listening to it at the start of this year after Pol Ballus stopped appearing on it, having become one of the Barcelona correspondents of The Athletic. He at least still seemed to have some kind of access to information from within the club, whereas Sam Lee has sounded to me for quite a while as though he no longer does.

The various City aggregators on Twitter were posting Lee's views yesterday from the latest podcast about who'll be getting regular game time as this season goes forward and who might leave in summer. It all had a ring of guesswork and there's plenty of that along with many more insightful views on here.

I know several Blues who've ceased subscribing to The Athletic, so it wouldn't surprise me if the figures for engagement from City fans are pitifully low. I originally took up their half-price offer to subscribe when they started out. I've been lured back twice by offers that allowed me to pay twelve quid a year, but the current one expires a week from today and I wouldn't go back if they offered me an extension free of charge. Despite having the right to view it for the last 51 weeks, I've barely done so at all for about 9 months. I haven't missed it.

They only have themselves to blame for the disdain in which City fans hold their publication. Despite all the fine words at the outset, it quickly became just another outlet that mindlessly panders to the red ugly sisters at either end of the East Lancs Road. A while back, I used to think it worth my time nonetheless as there were some interesting articles about clubs lower down in or even outside the Premier League but these have now become discernibly far fewer in number.

Meanwhile, for City coverage, we get an out-of-town plastic rag who quite deliberately writes about our club from an outsider's perspective. In contrast with correspondents for the majority of other teams, I perceive no sign of him having the slightest interest in ever conveying what we, as fans, feel about our club. The difference is stark, and I can suppose only that The Athletic's coverage of MCFC is often aimed squarely at opposing fans.

Looking back, they probably reached the point of no return with the debacle of their FFP reporting. City took an implacable stance that we'd be exonerated of UEFA's charges, and anyone in Sam Lee's position with any gumption whatsoever in would have been exploring in depth what arguments could be underpinning the club's position. That he failed to do so would have been truly lamentable even if he hadn't embarrassed himself with a proclaimed journalistic scoop that fell risibly wide of the mark.

If they'd engaged a second dedicated City journalist at the outset (Spurs, Everton and Newcastle all had two), maybe it might have been different. Hiring someone like Simon Curtis, who's steeped in City, on an freelance basis to produce intermittent pieces supplementing Lee's might have mitigated the problem. But as it was, when Ballus and now his replacement arrived, they're billed as United and City correspondents, that lot always named first. This says it all.

So fuck The Athletic. I started out with plenty of good will towards them and have paid for three years of access to their output (albeit at an aggregate price of less than the full rate for a year's subscription). It's therefore an informed view when I say that they deserve to have zero City fans subscribing, and I'm glad that Blues appear already to have voted with their feet just as I'm now doing.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Typo corrected :)

.... Verbalising.

 

[KS55]

I stopped listening to it at the start of this year after Pol Ballus stopped appearing on it, having become one of the Barcelona correspondents of The Athletic. He at least still seemed to have some kind of access to information from within the club, whereas Sam Lee has sounded to me for quite a while as though he no longer does.

The various City aggregators on Twitter were posting Lee's views yesterday from the latest podcast about who'll be getting regular game time as this season goes forward and who might leave in summer. It all had a ring of guesswork and there's plenty of that along with many more insightful views on here.

I know several Blues who've ceased subscribing to The Athletic, so it wouldn't surprise me if the figures for engagement from City fans are pitifully low. I originally took up their half-price offer to subscribe when they started out. I've been lured back twice by offers that allowed me to pay twelve quid a year, but the current one expires a week from today and I wouldn't go back if they offered me an extension free of charge. Despite having the right to view it for the last 51 weeks, I've barely done so at all for about 9 months. I haven't missed it.

They only have themselves to blame for the disdain in which City fans hold their publication. Despite all the fine words at the outset, it quickly became just another outlet that mindlessly panders to the red ugly sisters at either end of the East Lancs Road. A while back, I used to think it worth my time nonetheless as there were some interesting articles about clubs lower down in or even outside the Premier League but these have now become discernibly far fewer in number.

Meanwhile, for City coverage, we get an out-of-town plastic rag who quite deliberately writes about our club from an outsider's perspective. In contrast with correspondents for the majority of other teams, I perceive no sign of him having the slightest interest in ever conveying what we, as fans, feel about our club. The difference is stark, and I can suppose only that The Athletic's coverage of MCFC is often aimed squarely at opposing fans.

Looking back, they probably reached the point of no return with the debacle of their FFP reporting. City took an implacable stance that we'd be exonerated of UEFA's charges, and anyone in Sam Lee's position with any gumption whatsoever in would have been exploring in depth what arguments could be underpinning the club's position. That he failed to do so would have been truly lamentable even if he hadn't embarrassed himself with a proclaimed journalistic scoop that fell risibly wide of the mark.

If they'd engaged a second dedicated City journalist at the outset (Spurs, Everton and Newcastle all had two), maybe it might have been different. Hiring someone like Simon Curtis, who's steeped in City, on an freelance basis to produce intermittent pieces supplementing Lee's might have mitigated the problem. But as it was, when Ballus and now his replacement arrived, they're billed as United and City correspondents, that lot always named first. This says it all.

So fuck The Athletic. I started out with plenty of good will towards them and have paid for three years of access to their output (albeit at an aggregate price of less than the full rate for a year's subscription). It's therefore an informed view when I say that they deserve to have zero City fans subscribing, and I'm glad that Blues appear already to have voted with their feet just as I'm now doing.

Nail. Head. Spot on.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I stopped listening to it at the start of this year after Pol Ballus stopped appearing on it, having become one of the Barcelona correspondents of The Athletic. He at least still seemed to have some kind of access to information from within the club, whereas Sam Lee has sounded to me for quite a while as though he no longer does.

The various City aggregators on Twitter were posting Lee's views yesterday from the latest podcast about who'll be getting regular game time as this season goes forward and who might leave in summer. It all had a ring of guesswork and there's plenty of that along with many more insightful views on here.

I know several Blues who've ceased subscribing to The Athletic, so it wouldn't surprise me if the figures for engagement from City fans are pitifully low. I originally took up their half-price offer to subscribe when they started out. I've been lured back twice by offers that allowed me to pay twelve quid a year, but the current one expires a week from today and I wouldn't go back if they offered me an extension free of charge. Despite having the right to view it for the last 51 weeks, I've barely done so at all for about 9 months. I haven't missed it.

They only have themselves to blame for the disdain in which City fans hold their publication. Despite all the fine words at the outset, it quickly became just another outlet that mindlessly panders to the red ugly sisters at either end of the East Lancs Road. A while back, I used to think it worth my time nonetheless as there were some interesting articles about clubs lower down in or even outside the Premier League but these have now become discernibly far fewer in number.

Meanwhile, for City coverage, we get an out-of-town plastic rag who quite deliberately writes about our club from an outsider's perspective. In contrast with correspondents for the majority of other teams, I perceive no sign of him having the slightest interest in ever conveying what we, as fans, feel about our club. The difference is stark, and I can suppose only that The Athletic's coverage of MCFC is often aimed squarely at opposing fans.

Looking back, they probably reached the point of no return with the debacle of their FFP reporting. City took an implacable stance that we'd be exonerated of UEFA's charges, and anyone in Sam Lee's position with any gumption whatsoever in would have been exploring in depth what arguments could be underpinning the club's position. That he failed to do so would have been truly lamentable even if he hadn't embarrassed himself with a proclaimed journalistic scoop that fell risibly wide of the mark.

If they'd engaged a second dedicated City journalist at the outset (Spurs, Everton and Newcastle all had two), maybe it might have been different. Hiring someone like Simon Curtis, who's steeped in City, on an freelance basis to produce intermittent pieces supplementing Lee's might have mitigated the problem. But as it was, when Ballus and now his replacement arrived, they're billed as United and City correspondents, that lot always named first. This says it all.

So fuck The Athletic. I started out with plenty of good will towards them and have paid for three years of access to their output (albeit at an aggregate price of less than the full rate for a year's subscription). It's therefore an informed view when I say that they deserve to have zero City fans subscribing, and I'm glad that Blues appear already to have voted with their feet just as I'm now doing.

Perfectly put Peter. It's a disgrace that the PL's most successful club over the last decade gets the sort of coverage we do from a publication supposedly based on quality writing and insight. Liverpool get multiple hagiographic and sycophantic writers while we get Sam Lee.

The final straw for me was when Lee made his plea for City fans who were uneasy about Sheikh Mansour's ownership of the club. That's his prerogative of course but then he was quite abusive to many who questioned his motives on social media.

I decided that I wouldn't be making any contribution to paying his wages anymore after that.

 

[Ajm1985]

Stereotypically white (Caucasian) behaviour, especially arrogance or entitlement? Not sure what the colour of skin has to do with anything
Newcastle haven't spent anything yet as their turnover isn't big enough to allow big spending due to FFP.
Martin Samuel (Daily Mail) a bastion of anti FFP rules and how it was corruptly introduced, also stated "It's their money and they can do what they want with it" when referring to City's owners so not sure what your beef is.

Between the disparity in the vast majority of reporting regarding City's and Chelsea's spending? Chelsea's spending has been lauded and applauded by the majority of reporting - City's wasn't. Newcastle's potential spending (and also their ownership) was viewed with terrible trepidation and when Klopp stated 3 clubs could spend what they want, everyone knew which clubs he was referring to. FFP compliance is still a massive risk for Chelsea despite amortisation & higher turnover - including wage to turnover ratio. There has been a difference between the attitude & approach, by journalists in reporting and the Henry Winter point was to highlight exactly that - Samuel aside, very very few people argue that City's owners can spend what they want as it's their money.

 

[cheekybids]

I stopped listening to it at the start of this year after Pol Ballus stopped appearing on it, having become one of the Barcelona correspondents of The Athletic. He at least still seemed to have some kind of access to information from within the club, whereas Sam Lee has sounded to me for quite a while as though he no longer does.

The various City aggregators on Twitter were posting Lee's views yesterday from the latest podcast about who'll be getting regular game time as this season goes forward and who might leave in summer. It all had a ring of guesswork and there's plenty of that along with many more insightful views on here.

I know several Blues who've ceased subscribing to The Athletic, so it wouldn't surprise me if the figures for engagement from City fans are pitifully low. I originally took up their half-price offer to subscribe when they started out. I've been lured back twice by offers that allowed me to pay twelve quid a year, but the current one expires a week from today and I wouldn't go back if they offered me an extension free of charge. Despite having the right to view it for the last 51 weeks, I've barely done so at all for about 9 months. I haven't missed it.

They only have themselves to blame for the disdain in which City fans hold their publication. Despite all the fine words at the outset, it quickly became just another outlet that mindlessly panders to the red ugly sisters at either end of the East Lancs Road. A while back, I used to think it worth my time nonetheless as there were some interesting articles about clubs lower down in or even outside the Premier League but these have now become discernibly far fewer in number.

Meanwhile, for City coverage, we get an out-of-town plastic rag who quite deliberately writes about our club from an outsider's perspective. In contrast with correspondents for the majority of other teams, I perceive no sign of him having the slightest interest in ever conveying what we, as fans, feel about our club. The difference is stark, and I can suppose only that The Athletic's coverage of MCFC is often aimed squarely at opposing fans.

Looking back, they probably reached the point of no return with the debacle of their FFP reporting. City took an implacable stance that we'd be exonerated of UEFA's charges, and anyone in Sam Lee's position with any gumption whatsoever in would have been exploring in depth what arguments could be underpinning the club's position. That he failed to do so would have been truly lamentable even if he hadn't embarrassed himself with a proclaimed journalistic scoop that fell risibly wide of the mark.

If they'd engaged a second dedicated City journalist at the outset (Spurs, Everton and Newcastle all had two), maybe it might have been different. Hiring someone like Simon Curtis, who's steeped in City, on an freelance basis to produce intermittent pieces supplementing Lee's might have mitigated the problem. But as it was, when Ballus and now his replacement arrived, they're billed as United and City correspondents, that lot always named first. This says it all.

So fuck The Athletic. I started out with plenty of good will towards them and have paid for three years of access to their output (albeit at an aggregate price of less than the full rate for a year's subscription). It's therefore an informed view when I say that they deserve to have zero City fans subscribing, and I'm glad that Blues appear already to have voted with their feet just as I'm now doing.

Sam Lee is a ****!

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Stereotypically white (Caucasian) behaviour, especially arrogance or entitlement? Not sure what the colour of skin has to do with anything
Newcastle haven't spent anything yet as their turnover isn't big enough to allow big spending due to FFP.
Martin Samuel (Daily Mail) a bastion of anti FFP rules and how it was corruptly introduced, also stated "It's their money and they can do what they want with it" when referring to City's owners so not sure what your beef is.

Newcastle are not being targeted too much yet. Let’s see what happens if they win the Carabao Cup and take a Champions League spot at the expense of LiVARpool. The main stream media mask slips from time to time. I believe they are racist. Racism is the preserve of the establishment and not to be tolerated in the masses.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Newcastle are not being targeted too much yet. Let’s see what happens if they win the Carabao Cup and take a Champions League spot at the expense of LiVARpool. The main stream media mask slips from time to time. I believe they are racist. Racism is the preserve of the establishment and not to be tolerated in the masses.

They ain’t taking trophies or champions league places away from the two red media darlings. They laughed at City in 2008 and didn’t take the people who bought the club seriously. Robinho thought he was signing for United they said. City could never build something that challenges United’s supremacy they said.

Their complacency was their downfall and the laughing and mocking soon stopped. Their activity then changed to panic and they used their lackeys in the media to highlight how unfair it was that City could spend what they wanted. Once the realisation City were here to stay happened then the hurdles of FFP and attempted bans from Europe were put in place. Soon as Newcastle get to that level, they will then feel the full force of other team’s jealousy.