MUEN again and again

[adrianr]

To be fair those fuckers over the road are at their lowest point in over 20 years and have been breaking unwanted records all season under the guidance of a buffoon, one would expect a tad of negativity for more than a month.

It was 13 years ago that Fergie christened us the Manchester Evening Blues, and I can remember as a teenager in the 70s United fans complaining that the MEN was City biased. And don't forget, I was blackballed at United, and we got untold grief from them about my coverage of the Glazer takeover, nine years ago.
The negativity has always been there, for both clubs, but has also always been overwhelmed by the positivity.

Funny that this article hasn't got a mention yet, four pages yesterday on United's woes, as seen by prominent fan Fred Done, including loads of positive City stuff - he even says City are "murdering" United on and off the field, and is full of praise for what Sheikh Mansour has done.
Wonder why nobody mentioned it?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/fred-done-slams-glazers-hails-6765904" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ls-6765904</a>

We have a thread dedicated to it, as it so happens.

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335</a>

 

[BWTAC]

To be fair those fuckers over the road are at their lowest point in over 20 years and have been breaking unwanted records all season under the guidance of a buffoon, one would expect a tad of negativity for more than a month.

It was 13 years ago that Fergie christened us the Manchester Evening Blues, and I can remember as a teenager in the 70s United fans complaining that the MEN was City biased. And don't forget, I was blackballed at United, and we got untold grief from them about my coverage of the Glazer takeover, nine years ago.
The negativity has always been there, for both clubs, but has also always been overwhelmed by the positivity.

Funny that this article hasn't got a mention yet, four pages yesterday on United's woes, as seen by prominent fan Fred Done, including loads of positive City stuff - he even says City are "murdering" United on and off the field, and is full of praise for what Sheikh Mansour has done.
Wonder why nobody mentioned it?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/fred-done-slams-glazers-hails-6765904" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ls-6765904</a>

We have a thread dedicated to it, as it so happens.

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335</a>

Great to see investigative journalism is alive and well.

 

[moomba]

When you make mistakes you get criticised for it. Don't see the problem really.

Don't think there is a pro rag or anti City agenda, although I'm sure some in there use their position to have a pop at us (might also be some that use their position to have a pop at them for all I know).

But there does seem to be a lot of mistakes, sloppiness or just stupid stories like the circled seats on it.

When it happens I don't see the problem with calling them out over it on here.

 

[BringBackSwales]

City & FFP (updated)

Tbh Stuart if your rag has also upset the rags then hopefully they will do what lots of us have done and stop buying it and clicking on it, and then there will be nothing for any of us to get paranoid about - the reality is that they ain't as upset as we are. Also your defence about the article you say is being critical about united (I have not read it as I do not read the men) is a different thing entirely - united are playing poorly and getting poor results, so it is actually factual, whereas the shit about the circled seats was just, er, shit - that is the key difference, your rag is snide about City, it is respectful to united

 

[stuart brennan]

I think you are unbelievably defensive, both you and your publication; the particular episode of the red circled seats was frankly pathetic, and you should just have manned up as a person and a publication and come in here and apologised and also apologised in your publication

Likewise when a picture is put up of Sergio Aguero and just happens to have £200k per week on it, then I think that is more than coincidence, and again you should have accepted this was just another piece of shit journalism, rather than questioned the paranoia of a genuine poster in here. Can we expect to see a picture of Rooney with £300k a week on it, or with an image of an elderly prostitute on it? I don't think so do you? Or maybe I am just being paranoid. I think the day when a Blue is appointed as the main reported for united will not come in my lifetime either - or maybe just paranoia again?

Frankly Stuart I think your "newspaper" is worse than appalling in its coverage of City these days. City have always been a predominantly Manchester club in our support, and I think we deserve a lot more decency in our coverage from a supposedly local newspaper. The ongoing digs in print, as well as the garbage that peter spencer comes out with on air make it clear what your "newspaper's" policy is towards City.

Let's agree to change paranoid to unreasonably defensive. The day that your "newspaper" openly apologises for its red circles on empty seats article, AND starts being balanced in its coverage of City, is the day I might consider buying it again or clicking on it again

Some points:
1. The original picture of Aguero with £208,000 a week" on it was not his actual pay, but what City fans said he is worth, in a poll we ran. The equivalent on United, and Rooney, with his "value" on it is here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/revealed-wages-you-would-pay-6753671" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ay-6753671</a>

2. Could you point out the "ongoing digs", other than the red circles article, with which I utterly disagreed, and on which action was taken, made by the MEN and Peter Spencer? By the way, Pete is not a United fan, and never has been.

3. I am not being defensive when I come on here. I don't respond to straight criticism, because I accept that people have their opinion. What I won't accept is when people tell lies and produce wild inaccuracies about what we do. The problem with the paranoid nonsense is that, in this day and age, it too easily passes from fantasy into fact.

4. The day when you view us as "balanced" can never come, because you have already proved you have no real overview of what we do - it is you who lacks the balance, not the MEN. It comes with the territory of being a football fan - most fans think the media has it in for their club, as they lack the ability to stand back and take a more reasoned view.<br /><br />-- Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:11 pm --<br /><br />

We have a thread dedicated to it, as it so happens.

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335</a>

I apologise. I don't go on the general forum, and thought that the interesting stuff Fred says about City might have made it a City topic.

 

[oakiecokie]

It was 13 years ago that Fergie christened us the Manchester Evening Blues, and I can remember as a teenager in the 70s United fans complaining that the MEN was City biased. And don't forget, I was blackballed at United, and we got untold grief from them about my coverage of the Glazer takeover, nine years ago.
The negativity has always been there, for both clubs, but has also always been overwhelmed by the positivity.

Funny that this article hasn't got a mention yet, four pages yesterday on United's woes, as seen by prominent fan Fred Done, including loads of positive City stuff - he even says City are "murdering" United on and off the field, and is full of praise for what Sheikh Mansour has done.
Wonder why nobody mentioned it?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/fred-done-slams-glazers-hails-6765904" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ls-6765904</a>

We have a thread dedicated to it, as it so happens.

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335</a>

Great to see investigative journalism is alive and well.

Perhaps then that some MEN journalists don`t get all their info direct from Blue Moon,as has been suggested before !! Why should they need to do some investigative work on what being said all over BM ?
As SB has shown, people from this Forum don`t want to look at the negativity they have been giving the Rags,as it doesn`t fit their (Blues Fans) so called agenda against City.
How on earth people can criticise the MEN when they don`t even read it,is completely baffling,but as I`ve said on many occasion we have to many sheep.

 

[Bill]

It was 13 years ago that Fergie christened us the Manchester Evening Blues, and I can remember as a teenager in the 70s United fans complaining that the MEN was City biased. And don't forget, I was blackballed at United, and we got untold grief from them about my coverage of the Glazer takeover, nine years ago.
The negativity has always been there, for both clubs, but has also always been overwhelmed by the positivity.

Funny that this article hasn't got a mention yet, four pages yesterday on United's woes, as seen by prominent fan Fred Done, including loads of positive City stuff - he even says City are "murdering" United on and off the field, and is full of praise for what Sheikh Mansour has done.
Wonder why nobody mentioned it?

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/fred-done-slams-glazers-hails-6765904" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ls-6765904</a>

We have a thread dedicated to it, as it so happens.

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335</a>

Great to see investigative journalism is alive and well.

lol. should have put a red circle round it.

 

[aguero93:20]

I think you are unbelievably defensive, both you and your publication; the particular episode of the red circled seats was frankly pathetic, and you should just have manned up as a person and a publication and come in here and apologised and also apologised in your publication

Likewise when a picture is put up of Sergio Aguero and just happens to have £200k per week on it, then I think that is more than coincidence, and again you should have accepted this was just another piece of shit journalism, rather than questioned the paranoia of a genuine poster in here. Can we expect to see a picture of Rooney with £300k a week on it, or with an image of an elderly prostitute on it? I don't think so do you? Or maybe I am just being paranoid. I think the day when a Blue is appointed as the main reported for united will not come in my lifetime either - or maybe just paranoia again?

Frankly Stuart I think your "newspaper" is worse than appalling in its coverage of City these days. City have always been a predominantly Manchester club in our support, and I think we deserve a lot more decency in our coverage from a supposedly local newspaper. The ongoing digs in print, as well as the garbage that peter spencer comes out with on air make it clear what your "newspaper's" policy is towards City.

Let's agree to change paranoid to unreasonably defensive. The day that your "newspaper" openly apologises for its red circles on empty seats article, AND starts being balanced in its coverage of City, is the day I might consider buying it again or clicking on it again

Some points:
1. The original picture of Aguero with £208,000 a week" on it was not his actual pay, but what City fans said he is worth, in a poll we ran. The equivalent on United, and Rooney, with his "value" on it is here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/revealed-wages-you-would-pay-6753671" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ay-6753671</a>

2. Could you point out the "ongoing digs", other than the red circles article, with which I utterly disagreed, and on which action was taken, made by the MEN and Peter Spencer? By the way, Pete is not a United fan, and never has been.

3. I am not being defensive when I come on here. I don't respond to straight criticism, because I accept that people have their opinion. What I won't accept is when people tell lies and produce wild inaccuracies about what we do. The problem with the paranoid nonsense is that, in this day and age, it too easily passes from fantasy into fact.

4. The day when you view us as "balanced" can never come, because you have already proved you have no real overview of what we do - it is you who lacks the balance, not the MEN. It comes with the territory of being a football fan - most fans think the media has it in for their club, as they lack the ability to stand back and take a more reasoned view.

-- Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:11 pm --

We have a thread dedicated to it, as it so happens.

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=14&t=298335</a>

I apologise. I don't go on the general forum, and thought that the interesting stuff Fred says about City might have made it a City topic.

nah, general forum, he's a rag so his views on city don't count ;)

 

[BringBackSwales]

I think you are unbelievably defensive, both you and your publication; the particular episode of the red circled seats was frankly pathetic, and you should just have manned up as a person and a publication and come in here and apologised and also apologised in your publication

Likewise when a picture is put up of Sergio Aguero and just happens to have £200k per week on it, then I think that is more than coincidence, and again you should have accepted this was just another piece of shit journalism, rather than questioned the paranoia of a genuine poster in here. Can we expect to see a picture of Rooney with £300k a week on it, or with an image of an elderly prostitute on it? I don't think so do you? Or maybe I am just being paranoid. I think the day when a Blue is appointed as the main reported for united will not come in my lifetime either - or maybe just paranoia again?

Frankly Stuart I think your "newspaper" is worse than appalling in its coverage of City these days. City have always been a predominantly Manchester club in our support, and I think we deserve a lot more decency in our coverage from a supposedly local newspaper. The ongoing digs in print, as well as the garbage that peter spencer comes out with on air make it clear what your "newspaper's" policy is towards City.

Let's agree to change paranoid to unreasonably defensive. The day that your "newspaper" openly apologises for its red circles on empty seats article, AND starts being balanced in its coverage of City, is the day I might consider buying it again or clicking on it again

Some points:
1. The original picture of Aguero with £208,000 a week" on it was not his actual pay, but what City fans said he is worth, in a poll we ran. The equivalent on United, and Rooney, with his "value" on it is here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/revealed-wages-you-would-pay-6753671" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ay-6753671</a>

2. Could you point out the "ongoing digs", other than the red circles article, with which I utterly disagreed, and on which action was taken, made by the MEN and Peter Spencer? By the way, Pete is not a United fan, and never has been.

3. I am not being defensive when I come on here. I don't respond to straight criticism, because I accept that people have their opinion. What I won't accept is when people tell lies and produce wild inaccuracies about what we do. The problem with the paranoid nonsense is that, in this day and age, it too easily passes from fantasy into fact.

4. The day when you view us as "balanced" can never come, because you have already proved you have no real overview of what we do - it is you who lacks the balance, not the MEN. It comes with the territory of being a football fan - most fans think the media has it in for their club, as they lack the ability to stand back and take a more reasoned view.

re 1, I am not clicking it (read above)

re 2 I am not going to go back and trawl through; you really surprise me re peter spencer, but I assume ultimately he says what he says due to united having 750 million fans and being more important to his job for that reason

re 3 I completely disagree - and your allegation of "lies..and wild inaccuracies...and paranoid nonsense" says an awful lot about you and your employer

re 4 I am a professional in what I do, and of course I watch matches and talk to opposition fans after a game and note that both sets of fans cannot be right when they say the ref favours the other team - I can sit back and comment rationally, and understand the principles of being biased - I can also sit back dispassionately and say that I think the evening news 20 to 30 years ago was very fair towards City, especially when we were shit, but that changed as united got more successful and has ratcheted up a few levels since we became quite good. Your paper is not snide all the time (obviously) but it is snide some of the time, and that is too much

 

[George Hannah]

.. By the way, Pete (Spencer) is not a United fan, and never has been....

I read this and immediately had to go the chemist for reality-restoring medication