Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluetobits1951 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Del_Bosque said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nail. Head. Spot on.
 
petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bluetobits1951 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sam Lee is a ****!
 
Bluetobits1951 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BamberBridgeBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Colin. I felt that he was looking down his nose at City fans a couple of times in the past, but what really finished me with him once and for all was his attitude on the Why Always Us? podcast in the summer. The Athletic hired a general football writer last May whose name I forget, but his first piece was a laughable alternative account of what could have happened the CL final in which, instead of Real winning 1-0, Liverpool romped to a 5-1 win. I'd never read anything as ridiculous in my life, let alone in a supposed quality publication.

The same guy produced a piece in July, after we signed Erling Haaland, claiming that Haaland was just as likely to fail as to succeed, and then setting out why in a lengthy article. Obviously, City fans thought it ridiculous, but it was the "just as likely to fail or succeed" line that was really to blame. If he'd said that no transfer is absolutely guaranteed to succeed, outlined how it could pay off but then explored reasons why it possibly might not, no one could have complained. People were riled the statement that implied there was a significant chance of Haaland being a flop before giddily trying to argue that he would.

This was symptomatic of The Athletic seeking clicks from other teams' fans when writing about City. But on the podcast, Sam sneered at us for objecting to the piece, claiming we couldn't take criticism of the club. Pure gaslighting. Well, Mr Lee, when you have a moment for reflection, you might care to wonder how you had a fantastic opportunity to write about the country's most successful club for a supposedly ground-breaking new quality publication, but have managed to royally fuck it up and make large numbers of their fans totally hostile to you.
 
petrusha said:
Thanks, Colin. I felt that he was looking down his nose at City fans a couple of times in the past, but what really finished me with him once and for all was his attitude on the Why Always Us? podcast in the summer. The Athletic hired a general football writer last May whose name I forget, but his first piece was a laughable alternative account of what could have happened the CL final in which, instead of Real winning 1-0, Liverpool romped to a 5-1 win. I'd never read anything as ridiculous in my life, let alone in a supposed quality publication.

The same guy produced a piece in July, after we signed Erling Haaland, claiming that Haaland was just as likely to fail as to succeed, and then setting out why in a lengthy article. Obviously, City fans thought it ridiculous, but it was the "just as likely to fail or succeed" line that was really to blame. If he'd said that no transfer is absolutely guaranteed to succeed, outlined how it could pay off but then explored reasons why it possibly might not, no one could have complained. People were riled the statement that implied there was a significant chance of Haaland being a flop before giddily trying to argue that he would.

This was symptomatic of The Athletic seeking clicks from other teams' fans when writing about City. But on the podcast, Sam sneered at us for objecting to the piece, claiming we couldn't take criticism of the club. Pure gaslighting. Well, Mr Lee, when you have a moment for reflection, you might care to wonder how you had a fantastic opportunity to write about the country's most successful club for a supposedly ground-breaking new quality publication, but have managed to royally fuck it up and make large numbers of their fans totally hostile to you.
Click to expand...

You nailed it with gas lighting. Writes shite then blames the fans as if no offence intended & we are all touchy.

I’d dare the prick & the athletic to try the same shit with the dippers.
 
petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Cracking post and worth an extra like for this gem.

the red ugly sisters at either end of the East Lancs Road
Click to expand...
 
Del_Bosque said:
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
Click to expand...
That’s the sam Lee one? I would rather listen to cats fighting than anything that comes out of that self important egotist
 
petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was at a wedding, not long after city had signed Grealish; i had been put on the same table as a sub-editor from the Athletic. Talk got onto football, and it transpires that this guy was a plastic utd fan from Leeds, never met the **** before, but when he found out me and my kids were city fans, he starts piping off about "i didn't know there were any city fans in manchester"and "city are just playing using a cheat code" etc etc. Put him back in his box verbally, but would have liked to put him in a box physically - but probably not the best thing to do at a family wedding! Point is that this snide **** is actually making editorial decisions / adjustments to Athletic articles, so yes, fuck the athletic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top