Media thread 2022/23

[LongsightM13]

I like how the Guardian now seem to share the City hate and snide digs around between their writers, rather than leaving it all to Conn, Nakrani, Jackson, Glendenning. Makes the individuals seem less obsessed if its not the same names slagging us off all the time.
It’s a bit like Wenger’s Arsenal and their rotational fouling, where different players would take turns to nobble the opposition’s star men in an attempt to avoid yellow and red cards

 

[LongsightM13]

I think Manchester as a whole has been fortunate with the investment and property development happening. It’s not just Abu Dhabi that are investing it’s also the Chinese, you get a better return in Manchester on your money than you do in London now. This is providing work for people in Manchester and the spin offs of the supply chains to make this construction happen, should the council have said no to it? We’d have a city stagnating like some of the areas in the North East.

Yep Gary Neville is a shill and frontman for far east developers but there’s no energy in the Guardian for challenging that

 

[jimbopm]

Ironically published under the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' section but comments turned off BTL. Wonder why? It's the same when messrs Conn, Ronay and the like put some bile up about Abu Dhabi no comments, just free to say whatever shit they like with impunity.

 

[JASR]

I think Manchester as a whole has been fortunate with the investment and property development happening. It’s not just Abu Dhabi that are investing it’s also the Chinese, you get a better return in Manchester on your money than you do in London now. This is providing work for people in Manchester and the spin offs of the supply chains to make this construction happen, should the council have said no to it? We’d have a city stagnating like some of the areas in the North East.

If the council can be strong in the face of property developers, ie demanding and enforcing social housing in any development it would be useful.

Many developers include a social housing percentage commitment, but over the course of the development this gets whittled down to hardly any/none.

The lack of robust enforcement and clear leadership by planning depts and withholding signing off , is really bad.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I like how the Guardian now seem to share the City hate and snide digs around between their writers, rather than leaving it all to Conn, Nakrani, Jackson, Glendenning. Makes the individuals seem less obsessed if its not the same names slagging us off all the time.
It’s a bit like Wenger’s Arsenal and their rotational fouling, where different players would take turns to nobble the opposition’s star men in an attempt to avoid yellow and red cards

The Rag's did that against the Arse in the infamous Mike Riley game. IIRC Phil Chuckle was the fist one to get a card after about the 20th foul on Reyes.

 

[Jordie]

Truly dsgusting way to spell ‘rag’.

Irony?

 

[petrusha]

There may be some cause for criticism of the Council's actions, but the transparent bad faith of the article lies in the fact that not once does the author care to look at what the alternatives might have been to doing the deal MCC did with ADUG. Strikingly reminiscent of David Conn and his lamentable hand-wringing bilge when he starts droning on about rich foreigners benefitting from the public money invested in the stadium that became CoMS/The Etihad.

Not once does Conn care to mention that the alternative would have been a 10K athletics venue on site which would have been knocked down after MCC stopped having the cash to pay for it in the age of austerity (as happened with Don Valley in Sheffield). And not once does he mention that the rent MCFC have paid for the main stadium has been responsible for helping to keep other sports facilities open in the area, the money being ringfenced for this purpose.

This latest article is the same. Want to have a pop at the relationship between MCC and ADUG? OK, fair enough. But tell us what alternative developers were around and why they would have paid more for the land or would otherwise have been a better bet. As that hasn't been done, maybe we should assume that there weren't any other options, in which case tell us why for nothing at all to have been built would have been preferable.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I think Manchester as a whole has been fortunate with the investment and property development happening. It’s not just Abu Dhabi that are investing it’s also the Chinese, you get a better return in Manchester on your money than you do in London now. This is providing work for people in Manchester and the spin offs of the supply chains to make this construction happen, should the council have said no to it? We’d have a city stagnating like some of the areas in the North East.

Partially agree with this but Manchester has worked very hard to get inward investment. It took decades of effort led by people like Howard Bernstein and some bold moves by its Labour leadership (taking political risks by doing private deals with the Tories for example). It is not popular to praise the council (and they have made plenty of mistakes over the years) but overall Manchester has generally done a fantastic job with its urban regneration. It has been transformed and that didn't happen by accident. You are right that Chinese investment (despite the politics) has been good for Manchester. Let's face it we have had fuck all support from successive London governments of all political colours for decades.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

It's a double whammy Sports washing while making a profit.

I particularly liked the line.

"Addicted to Oil revenue"

The growth of the Uae in the last 20 odd years has been in order to move away from reliance on oil. It couldn’t be more wrong.

 

[LongsightM13]

There may be some cause for criticism of the Council's actions, but the transparent bad faith of the article lies in the fact that not once does the author care to look at what the alternatives might have been to doing the deal MCC did with ADUG. Strikingly reminiscent of David Conn and his lamentable hand-wringing bilge when he starts droning on about rich foreigners benefitting from the public money invested in the stadium that became CoMS/The Etihad.

Not once does Conn care to mention that the alternative would have been a 10K athletics venue on site which would have been knocked down after MCC stopped having the cash to pay for it in the age of austerity (as happened with Don Valley in Sheffield). And not once does he mention that the rent MCFC have paid for the main stadium has been responsible for helping to keep other sports facilities open in the area, the money being ringfenced for this purpose.

This latest article is the same. Want to have a pop at the relationship between MCC and ADUG? OK, fair enough. But tell us what alternative developers were around and why they would have paid more for the land or would otherwise have been a better bet. As that hasn't been done, maybe we should assume that there weren't any other options, in which case tell us why for nothing at all to have been built would have been preferable.

It was Conn in the Guardian who criticised liverpool for deliberately running down the area around anfield, to depress the property market and enabling them to buy the houses at a knock down price for their own ends
Now the same paper is criticising City for doing the very opposite