More, In Your Face, Sky Bias, Typical!

[Pigeonho]

When are you going to realise we are what people want to talk about, whether it be positive or negative? Who cares what SSN say? Who cares what Richard keys thinks? It has filled in 2 or 3 minutes of their air time, which is their job. If they praise us, so be it. If they slate us, so be it. The result is the same - a point away at Arsenal, so why people get so het up over what some presenter says is beyond me. Just laugh it off, look at the league table and forget about it.

People get bothered because it matters. This constant sniping and negative agenda is being used to try and undermine what we are trying to achieve, it influences people's views and opinions which can effect what happens on the pitch. They whip up anti city feelings amongs the opposition and it galvanises other teams to try and 'knock us down a peg or two' which makes it harder for our players meaning we don't get the type of games where teams just lie down and take defeat like they do at OT.

No one can deny there is a negative agenda against our club. The one good thing is that I genuinely believe it is uniting the players and fans and that us blues all coming together against the media is the one good thing to come out of it all.

But we're second in the league, so they're not really succeeding are they? If people thought spending millions on a team and then going to Arsenal for a draw, not making any significant attacks in the process, was not going to get negative press, those people don't get it in my opinion. Thats not what I think by the way, I think going to Arsenal and getting a hard fought draw is a top result, and I thoroughly enjoyed the match last night. Thats because i'm a blue though, and a point away is always a good result at Arsenal. The media though, they WILL only focus on the money spent but the fact we went and parked the bus, and why wouldn't they? People get so upset about what the media think, I sometimes wonder if they would prefer it if we were still tiny little City in the 3rd division, everyones loveable little rogue of a club, rather than have what we have but with a bit of negative press to boot. I know what I want, and I know what I take notice of. I want us to be where we are, and in the process I take absolutely no notice whatsoever of what the press say. The press fill columns, they sell their papers. City are the big word in town and will be for some time, just like Chelsea will be. Chelsea got all this with the press, but i'm sure those boozing on the Kings Road didn't give a flying fuck what the press said, when they were celebrating their first title in decades not so long ago.

 

[Anonymous]

I think your comments are a little disingenuous Mr Didsbury. Whilst I agree a global conspiracy involving the media, the league, the FA, Blatter and Platini is probably stretching things, the media agenda is one worth looking at.

It is highly probable, given the age and demographic of most of the 'national' journalists, a large proportion are likely to be rag fans. They will have witnessed nothing but success for their team for the last 20 years whilst laughing up the sleeves at the continual capitulation of their hated rivals, namely us.

Now that we are becoming cohesive on and off the pitch, why on earth would a journalist that supports the rags give City a decent write up? After all we are everything that is wrong with the game aren't we? There is no mileage, no sales, no internet traffic being nice about us. Far better to pander to the current (maunfacutred) zeitgeist.

For some fans, the constant sniping, demeaning and belittling of something we hold so dear is wrong and unfair as our transformation is not just about the football side, it's about East Manchester too with the planned developments and we get no credit for that, despite it being richly deserved.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Why would they "hate" us for that?

because rags (mainly) and liverpool and chelsea to extent, their arm chair 'fans' make up probably 75 % of their subscrition fees and paper sales.
if sky start banging on week in week out how well were doing ,
it wont go down well with the viewers !
could affect suscriptions and paper sales.

Absolute pile of stinking pub talk shite, mate, with respect.

The broadcasters want a competitive league, that's what brings in the viewing figures. Rupert Murdock would like every premier league season to go to the wire. It's brilliant for him that there are new teams challenging. Two seasons ago Arsenal v City would have got 150K viewers and low advertising revenue. This year it will have got five times the viewers and five times the revenue.

Believe me, the last thing Sky and thr sports media wants is the same team(s) winning it every year. It was bad news for them when the same 4 finished in the same places every year.

This "they're all out to get us" myth is embarrassing, grossly deluded and a tiny bit arrogant.

 

[Pigeonho]

because rags (mainly) and liverpool and chelsea to extent, their arm chair 'fans' make up probably 75 % of their subscrition fees and paper sales.
if sky start banging on week in week out how well were doing ,
it wont go down well with the viewers !
could affect suscriptions and paper sales.

Absolute pile of stinking pub talk shite, mate, with respect.

The broadcasters want a competitive league, that's what brings in the viewing figures. Rupert Murdock would like every premier league season to go to the wire. It's brilliant for him that there are new teams challenging. Two seasons ago Arsenal v City would have got 150K viewers and low advertising revenue. This year it will have got five times the viewers and five times the revenue.

Believe me, the last thing Sky and thr sports media wants is the same team(s) winning it every year. It was bad news for them when the same 4 finished in the same places every year.

This "they're all out to get us" myth is embarrassing, grossly deluded and a tiny bit arrogant.

Exactly! If Sky hate us so much, why in our season of trying to get into the top 4 were we featured in the ending/commencing of each bulletin of SSN and Sunday Football? (talking about the little kid who writes 'MCFC' in his dads car). Those clips were us, Spurs and Villa, i.e. those competing for a top 4 place last season. Surely they would just have put Spurs and Villa if they hated us that much? No-one hates us, no-one is out to get us and if they were, do you all seriously think a few negative comments in the press will hurt a multi-million pound business of a football club?!!!

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I think your comments are a little disingenuous Mr Didsbury. Whilst I agree a global conspiracy involving the media, the league, the FA, Blatter and Platini is probably stretching things, the media agenda is one worth looking at.

It is highly probable, given the age and demographic of most of the 'national' journalists, a large proportion are likely to be rag fans. They will have witnessed nothing but success for their team for the last 20 years whilst laughing up the sleeves at the continual capitulation of their hated rivals, namely us.

Now that we are becoming cohesive on and off the pitch, why on earth would a journalist that supports the rags give City a decent write up? After all we are everything that is wrong with the game aren't we? There is no mileage, no sales, no internet traffic being nice about us. Far better to pander to the current (maunfacutred) zeitgeist.

For some fans, the constant sniping, demeaning and belittling of something we hold so dear is wrong and unfair as our transformation is not just about the football side, it's about East Manchester too with the planned developments and we get no credit for that, despite it being richly deserved.

It's even more cringeworthy to hear this argument: they're all somehow United fans. Just how many Utd fans do you think there are?!?!?!

I know plenty of media people. 5% of journos, maybe 10% at an absolute push, support Man Utd.

And even those 5% would lose their jobs if they were seen to be too biased.

Yes, we get some negative press. But that's because that's what people want to read: if any club spent hundreds of millions it's much more newsworthy to say they are imploding, than they are improving. How much positive press have Liverpool had recently? Or Newcastle? Or Villa? Crises sell papers. City sell papers now.

 

[ledge1]

Re: SSN on the offensive!!

Quoting the pathetic Oliver Holt,
Making up time charts of the extra 8 minutes that Arsenal should have have added because of our time wasting,
Listing 10 strikers who we've got and we never a shot on target last night,
Persisting in the myth that it was a victory for the dark side even though they didn't play,
and on and on - there are some really serious rags on the Sky editing desk

The interesting point for me was Mancio's after match comment when he said that 3 important players weren't available - Kolarov, Silva & Balotelli. If those are his first pick, presumably ahead of Jo, Milner & Zab, who is destined to join them and AJ on the subs bench when Dzeko rocks up?

Given the overall tactics Mancini went for, would be unlikely if we'd have started with Tev, Balo and Dzeko. Maybe Tev would've found himself benched?!?!

 

[blue dallas]

because rags (mainly) and liverpool and chelsea to extent, their arm chair 'fans' make up probably 75 % of their subscrition fees and paper sales.
if sky start banging on week in week out how well were doing ,
it wont go down well with the viewers !
could affect suscriptions and paper sales.

Absolute pile of stinking pub talk shite, mate, with respect.

The broadcasters want a competitive league, that's what brings in the viewing figures. Rupert Murdock would like every premier league season to go to the wire. It's brilliant for him that there are new teams challenging. Two seasons ago Arsenal v City would have got 150K viewers and low advertising revenue. This year it will have got five times the viewers and five times the revenue.

Believe me, the last thing Sky and thr sports media wants is the same team(s) winning it every year. It was bad news for them when the same 4 finished in the same places every year.

This "they're all out to get us" myth is embarrassing, grossly deluded and a tiny bit arrogant.

my mistake for not noticing that it was you i was answering too.
with respect , you talk shit 24/7.
i would never have posted had i seen your name.

 

[mcfcliam]

Absolute pile of stinking pub talk shite, mate, with respect.

The broadcasters want a competitive league, that's what brings in the viewing figures. Rupert Murdock would like every premier league season to go to the wire. It's brilliant for him that there are new teams challenging. Two seasons ago Arsenal v City would have got 150K viewers and low advertising revenue. This year it will have got five times the viewers and five times the revenue.

Believe me, the last thing Sky and thr sports media wants is the same team(s) winning it every year. It was bad news for them when the same 4 finished in the same places every year.

This "they're all out to get us" myth is embarrassing, grossly deluded and a tiny bit arrogant.

my mistake for not noticing that it was you i was answering too.
with respect , you talk shit 24/7.
i would never have posted had i seen your name.

foe'd.

You're a good poster, Dallas and you come out with some funny shit but foe'ing someone for having a different opinion than you?

Totally defies the meaning of why forums exist...

 

[Didsbury Dave]

my mistake for not noticing that it was you i was answering too.
with respect , you talk shit 24/7.
i would never have posted had i seen your name.

foe'd.

You're a good poster, Dallas and you come out with some funny shit but foe'ing someone for having a different opinion than you?

Totally defies the meaning of why forums exist...

It rather tickled me, Liam.

 

[Anonymous]

I think your comments are a little disingenuous Mr Didsbury. Whilst I agree a global conspiracy involving the media, the league, the FA, Blatter and Platini is probably stretching things, the media agenda is one worth looking at.

It is highly probable, given the age and demographic of most of the 'national' journalists, a large proportion are likely to be rag fans. They will have witnessed nothing but success for their team for the last 20 years whilst laughing up the sleeves at the continual capitulation of their hated rivals, namely us.

Now that we are becoming cohesive on and off the pitch, why on earth would a journalist that supports the rags give City a decent write up? After all we are everything that is wrong with the game aren't we? There is no mileage, no sales, no internet traffic being nice about us. Far better to pander to the current (maunfacutred) zeitgeist.

For some fans, the constant sniping, demeaning and belittling of something we hold so dear is wrong and unfair as our transformation is not just about the football side, it's about East Manchester too with the planned developments and we get no credit for that, despite it being richly deserved.

It's even more cringeworthy to hear this argument: they're all somehow United fans. Just how many Utd fans do you think there are?!?!?!

I know plenty of media people. 5% of journos, maybe 10% at an absolute push, support Man Utd.

And even those 5% would lose their jobs if they were seen to be too biased.

Yes, we get some negative press. But that's because that's what people want to read: if any club spent hundreds of millions it's much more newsworthy to say they are imploding, than they are improving. How much positive press have Liverpool had recently? Or Newcastle? Or Villa? Crises sell papers. City sell papers now.

So although disagreeing with my point about club allegiances, you do agree there is a media agenda against us then as it is more profitable for them to print negative stories as it creates more sales.

Even Bernard Halford alluded to it in his Q&A with the CIty fans the other night (Prestwich Blue's thread).

And again, when people care deeply about something, the instinct is of course to protect hence why we get these threads on here berating the media et al.