Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
jrb said:
He does have a valid point. At the end of the match, everyone watching it must have thought how both teams have been funded.


View attachment 53468

The c*nts final paragraph.

So, three games into the season, only Arsenal are left with a perfect record and the more sanguine of City’s rivals will draw heart from the unexpected vulnerability they demonstrated. The less optimistic will note how ominously impressive City’s fightback was. And neutrals will feel blessed to have witnessed a magnificently entertaining draw – while trying their best not to think what has funded it.

Apparently he’s a Sunderland fan.
Click to expand...
You were right…

 
jrb said:
He does have a valid point. At the end of the match, everyone watching it must have thought how both teams have been funded.


View attachment 53468

The c*nts final paragraph.

So, three games into the season, only Arsenal are left with a perfect record and the more sanguine of City’s rivals will draw heart from the unexpected vulnerability they demonstrated. The less optimistic will note how ominously impressive City’s fightback was. And neutrals will feel blessed to have witnessed a magnificently entertaining draw – while trying their best not to think what has funded it.

Apparently he’s a Sunderland fan.
Click to expand...
What's funded City?


It's times like these I wish City didn't have malnourished year old kids working in the ticket office 24 hours a day without a break....

Ive got to say, they've always looked very happy to me....?!?!


YAWN!!
 
jrb said:
He does have a valid point. At the end of the match, everyone watching it must have thought how both teams have been funded.


View attachment 53468

The c*nts final paragraph.

So, three games into the season, only Arsenal are left with a perfect record and the more sanguine of City’s rivals will draw heart from the unexpected vulnerability they demonstrated. The less optimistic will note how ominously impressive City’s fightback was. And neutrals will feel blessed to have witnessed a magnificently entertaining draw – while trying their best not to think what has funded it.

Apparently he’s a Sunderland fan.
Click to expand...
He actually makes a great point....written on his mobile device, which batteries were made by Child labour who mine unregulated cobalt and lithium.

www.theguardian.com

Child labour, toxic leaks: the price we could pay for a greener future

Our mission to create cleaner living using natural resources could itself cause widespread environmental harm, scientists now warn
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


Screenshot_20220822-084805_Chrome.jpg


We're all happy to turn a blind eye when it suits.
 
TheBlueDune said:
Schar looked at stones and moved into him, no attempt to get the ball.
If anything endangered stones fall and could have been called a foul by schar.
Click to expand...
Exactly, we can all see what happened but the desperation to stick it to us sees lots of revision in the media and officiating
 
colin's bell helmet said:
Last week Haaland... Only 2 passes, 8 touches 1 of which was an assist!.. Motd2 fuckin stats up from 2013 tonight new signing touches or some fuckin shite laughable bullshit, haaland 3 games, 3 goals, 1 assist, about fuckin 5 passes and 15 touches!.... Get that golden Boot polished and haaland engraved on it drop it off at the reception!
Click to expand...
That Nordic meatshield, has his shoulders back and is going to go out there and smash it.
 
cookster said:
Add BritshGQ to the list. Read the comments under our shirt.

Click to expand...


Emailed them:

Sir,

Regarding the article
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashi...pe=owned&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social and it’s lack of due impartiality (as per the editors code).

The paragraphs relating to Manchester City, start with a lazy insult to the fans and city of Manchester, by referring to them as ‘citeh’, none of the other teams had disparaging remarks about them. Eg Liverpool could easily have been called ‘dippers’, Arsenal ‘Tarquins’ or Chelsea ‘Chavs’, but the entire piece only insulted Manchester City.

The final sentence then has the oft repeated but entirely false trope that Manchester City is owned by a state, and additionally shoehorning in a potentially slanderous ‘despotic regime’ insult.

The indisputable facts are Manchester City is majority owned by Sheik Mansoor having been purchased with his own privately held money. Since the purchase minority stakes have been sold to Chinese and American (Clearlake) investors. Manchester City, is therefore, clearly not ‘state owned’.

Only the Manchester City paragraphs had these sort of lies and insults. Compare with, for example, the hagiography of the Liverpool paragraph - eg no mention of the appalling civil rights and inequalities in the US where their owners come from, or that they are sponsored by a ‘Sportswashing’ (to use the vernacular of some Ill informed journalists) bank, who have been repeatedly fined for money laundering on behalf of terrorist states and entities.

I look forward to the Manchester City paragraph being edited to reflect the known facts rather than untruthful tropes and the removal of a lazy cultural insult.

And that the editorial staff of Conde Nast are made aware of the falsehoods they should not repeat.

I would have expected better from a magazine that is meant to be more cerebral than a rabid football fanzine, perhaps , and I’m guessing here, the author of the piece should flag up their allegiances, if they can only write biased drivel about their footballing rivals.

Yours sincerely


If anyone else would like to:

Condé Nast

www.condenast.co.uk www.condenast.co.uk
&
complaints@condenast.co.uk
 
Blue Mist said:
Instead of sky showing the whole pitch so we could see the movement, they decided to do a fancy angle shot of just the player. When it took 15 minutes for the wanker to say something I assumed the crap angle had not shown Bernie stood 15 yards offside. ITV in 1979 had better camera angles and they only had 2.
Click to expand...
their too busy looking for pointless things to show while the games clearly going on in background
 
JASR said:
Emailed them:

Sir,

Regarding the article
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashi...pe=owned&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social and it’s lack of due impartiality (as per the editors code).

The paragraphs relating to Manchester City, start with a lazy insult to the fans and city of Manchester, by referring to them as ‘citeh’, none of the other teams had disparaging remarks about them. Eg Liverpool could easily have been called ‘dippers’, Arsenal ‘Tarquins’ or Chelsea ‘Chavs’, but the entire piece only insulted Manchester City.

The final sentence then has the oft repeated but entirely false trope that Manchester City is owned by a state, and additionally shoehorning in a potentially slanderous ‘despotic regime’ insult.

The indisputable facts are Manchester City is majority owned by Sheik Mansoor having been purchased with his own privately held money. Since the purchase minority stakes have been sold to Chinese and American (Clearlake) investors. Manchester City, is therefore, clearly not ‘state owned’.

Only the Manchester City paragraphs had these sort of lies and insults. Compare with, for example, the hagiography of the Liverpool paragraph - eg no mention of the appalling civil rights and inequalities in the US where their owners come from, or that they are sponsored by a ‘Sportswashing’ (to use the vernacular of some Ill informed journalists) bank, who have been repeatedly fined for money laundering on behalf of terrorist states and entities.

I look forward to the Manchester City paragraph being edited to reflect the known facts rather than untruthful tropes and the removal of a lazy cultural insult.

And that the editorial staff of Conde Nast are made aware of the falsehoods they should not repeat.

I would have expected better from a magazine that is meant to be more cerebral than a rabid football fanzine, perhaps , and I’m guessing here, the author of the piece should flag up their allegiances, if they can only write biased drivel about their footballing rivals.

Yours sincerely


If anyone else would like to:

Condé Nast

www.condenast.co.uk www.condenast.co.uk
&
complaints@condenast.co.uk
Click to expand...
Well done.

Let's keep an eye on it to see if the paragraph is altered or removed.
 
It gets worse by the day.

As expected, Scousers agreeing with Wright in the comments section.

Screenshot_20220822-124947~2.png

But when Arsenal won the PL season after season with Wright in the team, it was great for the PL and English football.
 
Last edited:
schfc6 said:
The daft thing is, the reason fans are indifferent to us winning is simple. Normally neutral fans get fed up with a dominant side, begin to find their success monotonous and their fans become unbearable.


But the red shirts fans and clubs are so vile, people would prefer to see us win every league title for the next 20 years than listen to red shirts carry on.

The indifference comes from preferring us over the alternative rather than loving us win stuff..
Click to expand...
There was a Bournemouth podcast last week where their fans said we weren't condescending towards them as fans of other big clubs are.
 
cookster said:
Add BritshGQ to the list. Read the comments under our shirt.

Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly no comment on Liverpool's shirts bearing the name of a terrorist supporting organisation fined $1.5 billion for money laundering for Iran and others, fined £20 million for breaking EU sanctions on Russia and most recently found to have facilitated money transfers between Iran and the Taliban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top