MUEN again and again

[The Flash]

does hmitchell still post in here? Just wondering

hmitchell from Trinity Mirror Group er, Chester?

Shit he has got out of detention, i'm off lads bring my ball back when your finished.

Get back 'ere you scrote!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I respect Stuart Brennan for trying to defend his corner but the problem with the MEN is about tone. The paper has alienated a high volume of its former core audience by constantly carrying snide articles about City...and United. A lot of the stories, especially online, are childish and stupid. It's the sort of content you see on blogs and in the red tops. Most City fans are comfortable with the team and club being criticised as long as it is fair and balanced. Just look at many of the comments on this site. The MEN doesn't have an agenda. It just has a lot of sub-standard journalists (not including Stuart Brennan)
The Sports Desk has consistently got the tone of its coverage wrong for many years. This has hugely damaged its brand in Manchester and contributed to its decline. The increase in web audience is misleading because many of these readers are outside the UK and have no value to local advertisers. All newspapers are in decline but the MEN print edition has performed worst than most others. The revenues from the website do not compensate for the disastrous commercial performance of the paper in recent years. There are lots of reasons for this decline, most of them outside the control of the MEN, but one key reason is the way the paper has sometimes treated its local customers with contempt. The Editor's response to the empty seat debacle tells you everything you need to know about this organisation. None of this is Stuart's fault and I don't expect him to agree with this publically. It's a shame that Manchester does not have a strong newspaper (media group) to stand up and campaign for its citizens instead of ridiculing them.

 

[chesterguy]

Lies and inaccuracies need to be challenged. !!!!

So I took a screenshot of a"mistake by a sub editor". Does this mean that I shouldn't challenge it ?

And if I hadn't, would it not have happened (piccies or it didn't happen rule.!!)

And am I still paranoid in accordance with your personal CoC ?

Absolutely no problem with you flagging up errors, although in this case it was a bit pointless as the person responsible had realised their mistake and already corrected it.
My problem was with the ridiculous use of this error as some kind of evidence of a grand MEN conspiracy to do City down.
THAT is what made it paranoid.
If I was to interpret all the anti-MEN vitriol on here - which includes masses and masses of lies, inaccuracies, half-truths, exaggerations and one-eyed ignorance - as being part of a huge conspiracy by City fans to bring down the MEN, I would also be paranoid.
But I don't. I see the lies etc as evidence that some people on here are liars, some get things wrong, but most are simply football fans being football fans ie seeing everything remotely negative about their club as part of an agenda, and failing to see that other clubs get the same treatment.

The issue is that not many people think there is a Machiavellian conspiracy against City

What there does seem to be from the media is a general tone of negativity towards City. That includes a number of "mistakes" "errors of judgement" from a local paper which is really unforgivable. Yes I appreciate that people try to do things in a rush but that does not mean that people should use poor judgement

The problem for many City fans since the takeover is they have had to read and listen to commentators spin the line that City have "ruined" football with their "overpaid mercenaries" being paid in "petrodollars" from some "Arabs" and that general negative attitude has made many people very protective of City

You only have to go on the threads about Talksport and Sunday Supplement to see what I am talking about

Now I do not want or expect City to be above criticism what I do expect is factual reporting and for City, its fans and its players to be treated fairly. I dont think the article about Aguero was fair, I dont think the article about the empty seats was fair therefore dont be surprised if City fans react

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Lies and inaccuracies need to be challenged. !!!!

So I took a screenshot of a"mistake by a sub editor". Does this mean that I shouldn't challenge it ?

And if I hadn't, would it not have happened (piccies or it didn't happen rule.!!)

And am I still paranoid in accordance with your personal CoC ?

Absolutely no problem with you flagging up errors, although in this case it was a bit pointless as the person responsible had realised their mistake and already corrected it.
My problem was with the ridiculous use of this error as some kind of evidence of a grand MEN conspiracy to do City down.
THAT is what made it paranoid.
If I was to interpret all the anti-MEN vitriol on here - which includes masses and masses of lies, inaccuracies, half-truths, exaggerations and one-eyed ignorance - as being part of a huge conspiracy by City fans to bring down the MEN, I would also be paranoid.
But I don't. I see the lies etc as evidence that some people on here are liars, some get things wrong, but most are simply football fans being football fans ie seeing everything remotely negative about their club as part of an agenda, and failing to see that other clubs get the same treatment.

The issue is that not many people think there is a Machiavellian conspiracy against City

What there does seem to be from the media is a general tone of negativity towards City. That includes a number of "mistakes" "errors of judgement" from a local paper which is really unforgivable. Yes I appreciate that people try to do things in a rush but that does not mean that people should use poor judgement

The problem for many City fans since the takeover is they have had to read and listen to commentators spin the line that City have "ruined" football with their "overpaid mercenaries" being paid in "petrodollars" from some "Arabs" and that general negative attitude has made many people very protective of City

You only have to go on the threads about Talksport and Sunday Supplement to see what I am talking about

Now I do not want or expect City to be above criticism what I do expect is factual reporting and for City, its fans and its players to be treated fairly. I dont think the article about Aguero was fair, I dont think the article about the empty seats was fair therefore dont be surprised if City fans react

Well said, mate.

 

[Davs 19]

The issue is that the 'mistakes', the 'errors of judgement' and the 'inaccuracies' keep on coming. I don't believe there is any 'agenda' against City. I do think that the MEN's editorial standards leave an awful lot to be desired, just my opinion.I really don't see the need for the seemingly never ending posts about the paper though. If you don't like the content, don't buy it or give it's site a hit. Many have already made that choice.

It really is that easy.

 

[stuart brennan]

The problem for many City fans since the takeover is they have had to read and listen to commentators spin the line that City have "ruined" football with their "overpaid mercenaries" being paid in "petrodollars" from some "Arabs" and that general negative attitude has made many people very protective of City

That is why the MEN has consistently taken the opposite tack - I have written several pieces defending City against this kind of stuff, having a pop at the way FFP has been hijacked, and so on.

I dont think the article about Aguero was fair

Sorry, which article was that?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I dont think the article about Aguero was fair

Sorry, which article was that?

The one that said he slept under a united duvet every night.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

The problem for many City fans since the takeover is they have had to read and listen to commentators spin the line that City have "ruined" football with their "overpaid mercenaries" being paid in "petrodollars" from some "Arabs" and that general negative attitude has made many people very protective of City

That is why the MEN has consistently taken the opposite tack - I have written several pieces defending City against this kind of stuff, having a pop at the way FFP has been hijacked, and so on.

I dont think the article about Aguero was fair

Sorry, which article was that?

hijacked by who. it was set out to stop the medium to smaller teams from getting new invest and to keep the rich clubs at the top of the pile.

none of the policies are there to effect the arsenal`s, united`s, barca`s or real madrid`s of football. it there to stop clubs who aspire to take their place

 

[stuart brennan]

hijacked by who. it was set out to stop the medium to smaller teams from getting new invest and to keep the rich clubs at the top of the pile.

none of the policies are there to effect the arsenal`s, united`s, barca`s or real madrid`s of football. it there to stop clubs who aspire to take their place

The original idea was a good one, to try to stop clubs doing a Leeds or Portsmouth.
It was hijacked by the richer clubs you mentioned, and turned into a way of keeping the likes of City and Chelsea in their place.
I think we agree on what FFP is now about, but my argument is that it was originally well-meant.

 

[squirtyflower]

hijacked by who. it was set out to stop the medium to smaller teams from getting new invest and to keep the rich clubs at the top of the pile.

none of the policies are there to effect the arsenal`s, united`s, barca`s or real madrid`s of football. it there to stop clubs who aspire to take their place

The original idea was a good one, to try to stop clubs doing a Leeds or Portsmouth.
It was hijacked by the richer clubs you mentioned, and turned into a way of keeping the likes of City and Chelsea in their place.
I think we agree on what FFP is now about, but my argument is that it was originally well-meant.

Do you really believe that the G-14 brought in FFP to stop clubs doing a Leeds/Pompey?

How very altruistic of them.