Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uwe Already said:
In fact made a complaint myself to the pricks, obvious bias - filed under “cunts being cuntish”, will be opting out of the licence fee since getting iptv I think

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63555465 is the article, complain here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints I’d say as many as possible get on it, I messed up a bit as I moaned about “state owned” where it says “state backed” but the argument is the same as is the sentiment
Click to expand...
Your wasting your time , the BBC just bat away any complaints with a standard reply , despite being "state funded" themselves they answer to no one , BBC Salford is rife with Rags & Dippers.
My retort has been to stop paying the licence and i suggest everyone else does , the goons they send round to your house chasing up payment are powerless , (their hollow threats of court action are not enforcable without proof and they need access to your property to gain proof)eventually the BBC will be defunded either by the government or people not paying the licence . The BBC's days are numbered, and they have brought on themselves with the agenda's they clearly promote when they should be impartial , the mismanagement and the money syphoned off via BBC studios which had commercial revenues of £1.6 billion in 2021 , so why do they still go cap in hand to the general public for funding ?
Its not just sport , its politics and other walks of life , the day this unfit for purpose organisation is defunded can't come soon enough , and all the overpaid tossers like Lineker and Shearer will have to go out and earn a living instead of stealing their exorbitant salaries from the man in the street.
 
laserblue said:
Standard Chartered (fined $1.5 billion for money laundering for the rogue Iranian regime and other terrorist organisations) have also been fined £20 million for breaching sanctions on Russia and most recently were found to be facilitating money transfers between Iran and the Taliban.

Their, until fairly recently, secondary shirt sponsors Western Union were fined $586 million for money laundering for criminals and terrorists including Hezbollah.

Morals my arse.
Click to expand...

They have an answer for that:

"Sponsorship deals with big businesses that are involved in some shady practices? Close to unavoidable in football. Owner who is personally, partly responsible for the worlds biggest humanitarian crisis and is using your club to launder his states image? Not even close to the same"

Not a very good answer, but an answer nonetheless.
 
Man-chester copperpot said:
Talksport :

“City are the most boring team to ever win the Premier League.”

“Even the Manchester City fans are not invested in it anymore!”

Pep’s great Barcelona side had no passion, it’s not great to watch.”

What a load of shit! If it wasn’t for my work colleague showing me a wouldn’t believe it - and Cundy sort of agreeing with the caller!

An Arsenal fan knowing how all us City fans feel!

Maybe someone should show him the commentators reactions during the recent 6-3 derby…….
“Thing of beauty, sensational, when do you ever see football like this, breathtaking, brilliant” to quote a few
Click to expand...
As Pep has said many times he doesn't send his teams out to entertain halitosis Terry the Arsenal fan from Chigwell or 30st bedridden Lloyd the Liverpool fan in Swansea. He sends his teams out to win for his people, The Manchester City fans all over the world who haven't stopped smiling for 11 glorious years of fantastic football and success. The written and audio/TV media in this country should be ashamed of themselves the way they have treated us. Unprofesssional, jealous, bitter C@nts
 
Uwe Already said:
In fact made a complaint myself to the pricks, obvious bias - filed under “cunts being cuntish”, will be opting out of the licence fee since getting iptv I think

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63555465 is the article, complain here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints I’d say as many as possible get on it, I messed up a bit as I moaned about “state owned” where it says “state backed” but the argument is the same as is the sentiment
Click to expand...
Well done on the complaint but I think there is a difference between state-backed and state-owned.
You could argue that City, United, and Arsenal are all indirectly state-backed because they are sponsored by Etihad, Saudi Telecom, and Emirates (all state owned firms). This allows some hacks to wriggle off the hook.
But the term state-owned, as applied to City, is just a lie and should always be called out.
 
Uwe Already said:
In fact made a complaint myself to the pricks, obvious bias - filed under “cunts being cuntish”, will be opting out of the licence fee since getting iptv I think

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63555465 is the article, complain here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints I’d say as many as possible get on it, I messed up a bit as I moaned about “state owned” where it says “state backed” but the argument is the same as is the sentiment
Click to expand...
Hi fella, the sneaky bastards have changed the text now - "It has become increasingly difficult for clubs to compete financially with sides that have backers from wealthy states, such as Paris St-Germain (Qatar), Manchester City (Abu Dhabi) and Newcastle (Saudi Arabia)." So by that rationale they are saying the USA and UK are not wealthy states!?
 
Last edited:
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn said:
Hi fella, the sneaky bastards have changed the text now - "It has become increasingly difficult for clubs to compete financially with sides that have backers from wealthy states, such as Paris St-Germain (Qatar), Manchester City (Abu Dhabi) and Newcastle (Saudi Arabia)."
Click to expand...
Good. Shows they know they were out of order! Odd they don’t count the US as a wealthy state ? Makes the whole piece nonsense ;)
 
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn said:
Hi fella, the sneaky bastards have changed the text now - "It has become increasingly difficult for clubs to compete financially with sides that have backers from wealthy states, such as Paris St-Germain (Qatar), Manchester City (Abu Dhabi) and Newcastle (Saudi Arabia)."
Click to expand...
Hang on, the US is the wealthiest nation on earth, the owners/backers of Trafford, Kopites, Chelsea et al, are therefore according to that mangled sentence, the ‘big bad boys’ that mean any owners from less wealthy nations have ‘no ability to compete’ by that edited published logic.

Bollox, as ever, when dealing with City.

Edit: further thinking about it, theyve actually made the piece even more egregious. The whole piece was about the lack of competitive ability of Liverpool and it’s owners, with City, Newcastle and PSG painted as the sole reason, they’ve now, correctly, taken out the City ‘state owned’ part, but replaced it with an even bigger load of bollox about a club’s owners domicile country’s wealth being the reason for Liverpool’s ‘inability to compete’, blithely and wilfully ignoring the US as the wealthiest nation on earth, with the Gulf states various notches below even the UK.

The piece is now effectively saying ‘Liverpool and it’s US owners can’t compete against lesser nonUS owners and other US owners, despite the overwhelming wealth of the US’ . Ie Liverpool as an football entity is run like shit.
 
Last edited:
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn said:
Hi fella, the sneaky bastards have changed the text now - "It has become increasingly difficult for clubs to compete financially with sides that have backers from wealthy states, such as Paris St-Germain (Qatar), Manchester City (Abu Dhabi) and Newcastle (Saudi Arabia)."
Click to expand...
Which now doesn't make any sense, as most have backers from wealthy States, how many yank owners now? They might as well go the whole hog and say dirty Arab States.
 
JASR said:
Hang on, the US is the wealthiest nation on earth, the owners/backers of Trafford, Kopites, Chelsea et al, are therefore according to that mangled sentence, the ‘big bad boys’ that mean any owners from less wealthy nations have ‘no ability to compete’ by that edited published logic.

Bollox, as ever, when dealing with City.
Click to expand...
Doh, just read yours after typing mine. Great minds :)
 
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn said:
Hi fella, the sneaky bastards have changed the text now - "It has become increasingly difficult for clubs to compete financially with sides that have backers from wealthy states, such as Paris St-Germain (Qatar), Manchester City (Abu Dhabi) and Newcastle (Saudi Arabia)." So by that rationale they are saying the USA and UK are not wealthy states!?
Click to expand...

Ha ha. Classic.

I don't know if you guys had any impact (well done if you did, and well done, in fact, even if you didn't) or the club had a word, but that is funny as fuck. The whole introduction to the piece now makes no sense whatsoever. Brilliant writing. Not.

Whatever happened to the BBC? It's becoming a joke.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Ha ha. Classic.

I don't know if you guys had any impact (well done if you did, and well done, in fact, even if you didn't) or the club had a word, but that is funny as fuck. The whole introduction to the piece now makes no sense whatsoever. Brilliant writing. Not.

Whatever happened to the BBC? It's becoming a joke.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to work out how it’s not overtly racist and failing.
 
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Manchester United fans narrowly avoid jail following 'disgraceful' disorder

United's game against Liverpool last season had to be abandoned
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Well, when I saw this link my eyebrows raised a little,proceeding to detach themselves from my forehead the more I read.It refers to the mass violent protest at the swamp.I fail to understand why these rag thugs have "narrowly escaped jail" imagine if it was our fans they would have been boiled in oil, which seemed to be of the less severe options available as punishment to one of our supporters during our end of season pitch invasion.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Ha ha. Classic.

I don't know if you guys had any impact (well done if you did, and well done, in fact, even if you didn't) or the club had a word, but that is funny as fuck. The whole introduction to the piece now makes no sense whatsoever. Brilliant writing. Not.

Whatever happened to the BBC? It's becoming a joke.
Click to expand...
The problem for the BBC is they politicise everything. Just reporting the truth about the incredible riches generated by football is a great story. The digitisation of football across the world will make the current wealth in the sport seem like chickenfeed. Football has nowhere near peaked in terms of its potential streaming audience.
 
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn said:
Hi fella, the sneaky bastards have changed the text now - "It has become increasingly difficult for clubs to compete financially with sides that have backers from wealthy states, such as Paris St-Germain (Qatar), Manchester City (Abu Dhabi) and Newcastle (Saudi Arabia)." So by that rationale they are saying the USA and UK are not wealthy states!?
Click to expand...
OK. Erm "wealthier states" then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top