Pellers press conference

[Pigeonho]

Because all football clubs are not United. Even on the most conservative of estimates Utd's worldwide fan base is at least 100 times larger than ours. I love City, have supported her all my life, but in corporate terms we're tiny compared to the behemoth that is Utd.

We're not talking corporate though, we're talking journalists reporting on managers/players/matches. Why don't we filter out the City supporting ones? I don't believe that is what United do by the way, i'm just saying that if it is, why don't we do it? What about the London clubs, the big ones in particular? Why don't they filter out the Spurs fans from the Chelsea fans and the Arsenal fans from whoever else and only have journalists who are fans of their clubs do the reporting?

We're not talking corporate

When you're a business as large as Utd, or a financial gamble as gargantuan as the one Sheikh Mansour has made at City, everything is corporate. You can look at every club in the Premier League and pretty much gauge what they do using standard business models, of the type you would use to analyse businesses of similar size in any industry, and you'd get pretty close to the mark.

That's one of the reasons American owners can't understand relegation, why would anyone relegate a profit making club simply because it's results are poor?

Of course personalities and history and all the other sporting paraphernalia have to be factored in, but the bottom line, when journalists file in to Old Trafford many of them come to worship at one of the most powerful corporate entities in world football, not to analyse and certainly not to criticise.

Based on what they see happening at City then, and with that very possible outcome that Moyes might drag United down the table, would it not make sense for those journo's to file into City in the same way you think they file into OT?<br /><br />-- Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:26 pm --<br /><br />

There you go then, by your own admission you have stated Journolists sritw negative articles.

Now for some math. More journos support United than City, so if say 20 journos write negative to the 3 positive then that's outnumbered by 17. Punters by these shitrags and believe everything 99/100. Journalists shape the opinion of the masses. You only have to see the Sun when they slashed labour and went with the tories, same can be said about illegal immigrants and benefit recipients.

My point is that the sheer scale of hate does untold damage. I have just put SSN on and on the yellow bar they have a ticker saying Moyes first game as MUFC manager live on sky, now why is Pellegrini's first game live on sky also on the ticker? Reason is because there's more rags at home interested in United than City and Sky know this and act accordingly.

United outspent City last season, little was made of that. City signed nobody in Jan, but united bought Zaha. City have sold two strikers (Jan and now) and are replacing them with money brought in and wages saved, our only outlay is on two sterling signings who are both entering their peaks. Nothing will be said about net, or the fact we were outspent last season, it will all be about how much we have spent this window and a total spend rather than net spend will be stated, mark my words.

I don't believe there's a mass coverup across teh board but I do believe 100% Sky lean to United and the tabloids are riddled with rag-hacks. Just so happens that both forms of media outlet actually shape the masses opinions and that is where the damage is done. ESPN and the odd paper isn't relevant when you class Sky, Sun, Daily Star, Independant and Talksport (more rags and just one pro-city pundit who is Durham a Peterborough fan) as the ones against us.

I said it yesterday and will say it again. Moyes has an inferior C.V to Martinez and even Laudrup, both are equally as hamstrung financially yet Moyes is seen as the second coming when all but 3 months a go any fans of a top club would not want him as their manager. Chelsea wanted Jose, Pep, Pellegrini, Simeone, Klopp or even Zola. United wanted Jose, Pep, Klopp and even Solsjkaer. Moyes wasn't even in the bloody running, not even close. The same can be said about teh T.V and Radio and none of them chose Moyes, if a pundit punted him it would even have been tongue in cheek. Liverpool fans even sang ''8 more years'' because they wanted him to stay due to Evertons lack of success, again even the much maligned Macliesh achieved more!

Untold damage?! To who? Does anything any of them make you support City any less? No. If a Reading fan picks up a paper on his way to work and reads something about us, Arsenal or whoever else, do City fans, Arsenal fans or fans of whoever really care what that Reading fan may or may not believe? No.

You say United wanted Jose etc, how do you know that? Were you silly enough to buy a paper and read it, then believe it? did anyone from United publicly say who there targets were? (I have no idea myself, as I don't much care what they do). If you yourself were brainwashed into believing a tabloid, will what you think have affected a United fan? No.

As for the yellow ticker. You've seen that, as have the many other viewers. So what though? You will have made a decision not to bother watching that match, others will have made the decision to watch it but so what? What does that matter that they put that on the yellow ticker? If Chelsea's first game is on Sky, (pre season I mean), maybe they will put that on the yellow ticker too? Maybe they'll put Pellegrini's because whilst you have seen that at 2pm on a Thursday afternoon, you may just miss the Pellegrini or Mourinho yellow ticker. Others won't miss is but again, who cares? Does any of it affect how you and the other thousands of City fans feel about the club? No.

Whoosh.

I don't buy papers because I know the product is faulty.

The untold damage is to the masses of Joe Public. Ask a fan, any fan what they think of City. I work all over the country and it's staggering how uniform their opinions are. just may be coincidence it's exactly the same as the bile written in these tabloids. i stopped reading when the phone tap stuff started, Millie Dolwer was the straw that broke the camels back.

You listed a list of targets United wanted as manager, where did that list come from? That's why I asked if you got it from a paper.

Again, who cares what joe public think? Do you really need the club to be liked by people who have nothing to do with it? I just said in reply to Strongbowholic that Aguero's goal and the 6-1 told us all what fans of other clubs think of us and United, but in the main though who cares what they think?

 

[The perfect fumble]

We're not talking corporate though, we're talking journalists reporting on managers/players/matches. Why don't we filter out the City supporting ones? I don't believe that is what United do by the way, i'm just saying that if it is, why don't we do it? What about the London clubs, the big ones in particular? Why don't they filter out the Spurs fans from the Chelsea fans and the Arsenal fans from whoever else and only have journalists who are fans of their clubs do the reporting?

We're not talking corporate

When you're a business as large as Utd, or a financial gamble as gargantuan as the one Sheikh Mansour has made at City, everything is corporate. You can look at every club in the Premier League and pretty much gauge what they do using standard business models, of the type you would use to analyse businesses of similar size in any industry, and you'd get pretty close to the mark.

That's one of the reasons American owners can't understand relegation, why would anyone relegate a profit making club simply because it's results are poor?

Of course personalities and history and all the other sporting paraphernalia have to be factored in, but the bottom line, when journalists file in to Old Trafford many of them come to worship at one of the most powerful corporate entities in world football, not to analyse and certainly not to criticise.

Based on what they see happening at City then, and with that very possible outcome that Moyes might drag United down the table, would it not make sense for those journo's to file into City in the same way you think they file into OT?

We've not yet reached the "king is dead, long live the king" moment, when the balance of power is seen to shift, the smart reporters will see it coming, but it's like an ocean liner, the turn will be slow, but it will happen, and to stretch the maritime analogy further, they'll be a number of hacks still playing "Glory, Glory Man Utd" on the good ship Scum as they disappear below the waves, or so I would like to think, but in reality, unlike the Titanic, Utd are probably unsinkable.

Utd have reached a stage of development where a Stoke like mid table irrelevance is unlikely, the club retained enormous following even in the barren 70's and 80's, she is likely to remain a football presence of considerable power for the foreseeable future, but her days of pre-eminence are over, and the smart money knows it.

Liverpool is a good example, analysed as a business it's "product" is not as good as it once was, but customer loyalty to a great degree has still been retained, however if the product continues to disappoint then customer enthusiasm will dim, potential customers will go elsewhere, and those retained will be older and less affluent. So they'll be re-launches and changes of management, culls and gimmicks, false dawns and PR fluff all intended to slow the inevitable decline, but decline she will because the fundamentals at Liverpool are flawed.

The fundamentals at Utd are not flawed but the cooler heads at the swamp, staring across Manchester at the Etihad, see a competitor who seems to be doing all the right things, they'll be more worried about us then we are of them.

 

[Pigeonho]

When you're a business as large as Utd, or a financial gamble as gargantuan as the one Sheikh Mansour has made at City, everything is corporate. You can look at every club in the Premier League and pretty much gauge what they do using standard business models, of the type you would use to analyse businesses of similar size in any industry, and you'd get pretty close to the mark.

That's one of the reasons American owners can't understand relegation, why would anyone relegate a profit making club simply because it's results are poor?

Of course personalities and history and all the other sporting paraphernalia have to be factored in, but the bottom line, when journalists file in to Old Trafford many of them come to worship at one of the most powerful corporate entities in world football, not to analyse and certainly not to criticise.

Based on what they see happening at City then, and with that very possible outcome that Moyes might drag United down the table, would it not make sense for those journo's to file into City in the same way you think they file into OT?

We've not yet reached the "king is dead, long live the king" moment, when the balance of power is seen to shift, the smart reporters will see it coming, but it's like an ocean liner, the turn will be slow, but it will happen, and to stretch the maritime analogy further, they'll be a number of hacks still playing "Glory, Glory Man Utd" on the good ship Scum as they disappear below the waves, or so I would like to think, but in reality, unlike the Titanic, Utd are probably unsinkable.

Utd have reached a stage of development where a Stoke like mid table irrelevance is unlikely, the club retained enormous following even in the barren 70's and 80's, she is likely to remain a football presence of considerable power for the foreseeable future, but her days of pre-eminence are over, and the smart money knows it.

Liverpool is a good example, analysed as a business it's "product" is not as good as it once was, but customer loyalty to a great degree has still been retained, however if the product continues to disappoint then customer enthusiasm will dim, potential customers will go elsewhere, and those retained will be older and less affluent. So they'll be re-launches and changes of management, culls and gimmicks, false dawns and PR fluff all intended to slow the inevitable decline, but decline she will because the fundamentals at Liverpool are flawed.

The fundamentals at Utd are not flawed but the cooler heads at the swamp, staring across Manchester at the Etihad, see a competitor who seems to be doing all the right things, they'll be more worried about us then we are of them.

'The good ship Scum', haha that made me laugh out that!

 

[SWP's back]

See this is what I don't agree with. You're referring to 'the press' as one, like as if they all want Moyes to succeed and they all want Pellegrini to fail. If Strongbowholic is right, that some press are United fans who will write negative about their rivals, well isn't the opposite true too? Wouldn't journalists who aren't United fans want them to fail, for instance? What have 'the press' as one got to benefit from United succeeding?

And what has happened to those Journo's who have written negative pieces about United in the past? They get banned from attending press conferences. So it's not in the interests of non-rag supporting journo's to write negative copy about them.

So what you're saying is, is that United have filtered through the United supporting journo's, and only allow them in? Why don't all football clubs do that then?

No that is not what he is saying at all.

ANd to answer the second question, because Utd are the biggest club in England and 3rd biggest in the world and can get away with it.

 

[Pigeonho]

And what has happened to those Journo's who have written negative pieces about United in the past? They get banned from attending press conferences. So it's not in the interests of non-rag supporting journo's to write negative copy about them.

So what you're saying is, is that United have filtered through the United supporting journo's, and only allow them in? Why don't all football clubs do that then?

No that is not what he is saying at all.

ANd to answer the second question, because Utd are the biggest club in England and 3rd biggest in the world and can get away with it.

First of all, sorry to hear about your sister. My auntie is going through treatment for neck cancer at the minute, it's fucking terrible. I hope your sister makes a full recovery, and for what it's worth, my brother's wife had that cancer many years ago and made that exact recovery. I'm sure she'll be fine mate.

Onto this, I think that is what he was saying in a way. He asks what has happened to those journo's down the years, suggesting only pro-united ones are left. Either way, there's no reason why any other club, any other big club I should add, can't go down that route, if that is what United are doing, (which I don't think they are).

 

[laserblue]

Re: Pellers press confernce

Under their skin already.

Also:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/threads/pellegrini-press-conference.373755/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/threads/pellegri ... ce.373755/</a>

I see one simple twat has posted pics of empty seats 5 minutes from the end of a dire 0-0 draw against Liverpool a few years ago and against West Brom 4 days before this year's Cup Final, when City effectively fielded a reserve side, as 'proof' that City fans aren't loyal.

Maybe he should look a bit closer to home. As a few examples last season they had:

Southampton - 16,000 empty seats
Braga - 20,000 empty seats
Cluj - 29,000 empty seats
Newcastle - 43,000 empty seats (see pic)

And of course the classic 30,000/40,000/50,000/60,000 empty seats the season before.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9okFFpXbtQ[/youtube]

 

[Deleted member 52846]

Because it wasn't on the list of approved subjects as defined by united's PR dept.

It really is incredible that a handful of blues cannot spot the innate sense of bias within the media, especially the written press, in spite of manifest supporting evidence.

None of these spineless charlatans would dare write such a sneering, derogatory article about united. Herbert, like bullies and cowards always do, picks on City because he knows he can do so with impunity.

I wouldn't mind quite so much if his writing style wasn't so laboured and dreary.

Oh i can see it, but it makes me laugh how so many people are so sensitive to it and get all shirty about it. It makes no odds what anyone in the press or media says.

Nothing anyone has said has stopped us doing any of this:
moving up from a mid table team, to a top five team, to a top three team winning the FAC, to a Prem title winning team.
signing players
bringing in a new DoF and CEO
increasing our attendances (even FAC early rounds against teams from the division below are sell-outs)
attracting new sponsors
signing a new shirt deal
communicating links with one of the world's biggest sports franchises and setting up a joint MLS team with them
etc.

So, for me, the press/media can say what they like. If it's a load of bollocks i'll ignore it, if it's decent i'll pay attention to it. When i see people getting all hot'n'bothered about what they say it makes me laugh a bit so i'll come on here and take the piss out of them a bit.

All of the things you list are correct, but if you believe that how our club is portrayed and therefore perceived has no currency, then you fail to appreciate how the modern world we inhabit operates.

Perhaps you would care to contact the club and notify them that the millions that they currently squander on marketing and public relations could be better utilised in other areas.

It is regrettable that you derive entertainment from laughing at other blues, just because they don't like professional journalists, who are very well rewarded for what they do, mocking and sneering at something they care deeply about.

Feel free to take the piss out of me, mind. That is something I would very much relish :-)

:D

There were a few lists out a little while ago (i'm sure it was on here) that showed how many hits football and sporting franchises on the whole's websites get. I think we were in the top eight in football and top twelve in all sports. Our attendances have risen, shirt sales have risen, sponsors have grown etc. so it's obvious our marketing from our own side is working and the media isn't hindering us as a club that much at all.

 

[NipHolmes]

Re: Pellers press confernce

Under their skin already.

Also:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/threads/pellegrini-press-conference.373755/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/threads/pellegri ... ce.373755/</a>

I see one simple twat has posted pics of empty seats 5 minutes from the end of a dire 0-0 draw against Liverpool a few years ago and against West Brom 4 days before this year's Cup Final, when City effectively fielded a reserve side, as 'proof' that City fans aren't loyal.

Maybe he should look a bit closer to home. As a few examples last season they had:

Southampton - 16,000 empty seats
Braga - 20,000 empty seats
Cluj - 29,000 empty seats
Newcastle - 43,000 empty seats (see pic)

And of course the classic 30,000/40,000/50,000/60,000 empty seats the season before.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9okFFpXbtQ[/youtube]

Great post.


@Pidge, those lists were made by me as a compilation of names frequently posted on said forums. I check the Ragcafe, Rawk Arsenalmania and Shedend.

 

[Deleted member 52846]

Re: Pellers press confernce

Under their skin already.

Also:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/threads/pellegrini-press-conference.373755/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/threads/pellegri ... ce.373755/</a>

I see one simple twat has posted pics of empty seats 5 minutes from the end of a dire 0-0 draw against Liverpool a few years ago and against West Brom 4 days before this year's Cup Final, when City effectively fielded a reserve side, as 'proof' that City fans aren't loyal.

Maybe he should look a bit closer to home. As a few examples last season they had:

Southampton - 16,000 empty seats
Braga - 20,000 empty seats
Cluj - 29,000 empty seats
Newcastle - 43,000 empty seats (see pic)

And of course the classic 30,000/40,000/50,000/60,000 empty seats the season before.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9okFFpXbtQ[/youtube]

Haha, indeed.

10million fans in Britain, 650m fans worldwide...

v Palace:

Rags; "but I can't get a ticket"

v Wolves:

v Bursaspor:

 

[Pigeonho]

Re: Pellers press confernce

Under their skin already.

Also:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/threads/pellegrini-press-conference.373755/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/threads/pellegri ... ce.373755/</a>

I see one simple twat has posted pics of empty seats 5 minutes from the end of a dire 0-0 draw against Liverpool a few years ago and against West Brom 4 days before this year's Cup Final, when City effectively fielded a reserve side, as 'proof' that City fans aren't loyal.

Maybe he should look a bit closer to home. As a few examples last season they had:

Southampton - 16,000 empty seats
Braga - 20,000 empty seats
Cluj - 29,000 empty seats
Newcastle - 43,000 empty seats (see pic)

And of course the classic 30,000/40,000/50,000/60,000 empty seats the season before.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9okFFpXbtQ[/youtube]

Great post.


@Pidge, those lists were made by me as a compilation of names frequently posted on said forums. I check the Ragcafe, Rawk Arsenalmania and Shedend.

So they mean about as much as what would be printed on a copy of the sun then! ;-)

 

[NipHolmes]

Re: Pellers press confernce

I see one simple twat has posted pics of empty seats 5 minutes from the end of a dire 0-0 draw against Liverpool a few years ago and against West Brom 4 days before this year's Cup Final, when City effectively fielded a reserve side, as 'proof' that City fans aren't loyal.

Maybe he should look a bit closer to home. As a few examples last season they had:

Southampton - 16,000 empty seats
Braga - 20,000 empty seats
Cluj - 29,000 empty seats
Newcastle - 43,000 empty seats (see pic)

And of course the classic 30,000/40,000/50,000/60,000 empty seats the season before.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9okFFpXbtQ[/youtube]

Great post.


@Pidge, those lists were made by me as a compilation of names frequently posted on said forums. I check the Ragcafe, Rawk Arsenalmania and Shedend.

So they mean about as much as what would be printed on a copy of the sun then! ;-)

Fans opinions just like journalists were that the replacement to Ferguson should be of the top drawer. Moyes has never, ever, ever been seen as that. Moyes has bottled every big game for Everton and won less than Macliesh, Martinez and Laudrup and many Everton fans started to grumble about him and thought about change. Liverpool fans mocked, and fans of big clubs wanted no part of him. Rumours of him going to Germany arose and many said he should prove himself there, BVB and Bayern weren't interested but instead Shalke, a Spurs like club.

If Chelsea, City or Arsenal appointed Moyes it'd be frowned upon as a very risky appointment. Real Madrid and Barca no chance. Bayern and BVB no chance etc etc.. now all of a sudden he's this unheralded gem that United intend to clean up and show off. This management genius cut from the same cloth as Ferguson (must have missed his Aberdeen like achievements with Everton).

The papers, just like Sky are rewriting history and the truth. Moyes is bang average and I am buzzing they appointed him because he is a good and not great manager. They can sugarcoat and spin and it's laughable, fact is United fans will shut themselves and Moyes isn't a major draw and commands little respect on the world stage. I can see this for what it is but the media is doing there utmost to hype this.

The upside of this is the bigger the hype the harder the fall. I believe wholeheartedly Moyes will finish third and potless. The same the season after. And that's when the knives will be sharpened and when the media changes tact. Bookmark this, I've never been so certain.

 

[The Flash]

Pidge, this was my response on the previous page, which you missed...

So what you're saying is, is that United have filtered through the United supporting journo's, and only allow them in? Why don't all football clubs do that then?

No, what United and the GPC have done over the years is create in the mindset of the journo's is that if you report United negatively, then there's a chance you will be barred from future pressers.

So if you're the reporter for the North West region, how do you tell your bosses that you can't report on Manchesssss Unaarted because a previous article has meant you're barred from OT? There isn't an editor in the world that would be happy with that.

And so, even the non-rag supporting journo's don't bother rocking the boat as they might be denied copy from The Swamp.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Manuel running the show in Part 2 as well.

Geezer.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

And what has happened to those Journo's who have written negative pieces about United in the past? They get banned from attending press conferences. So it's not in the interests of non-rag supporting journo's to write negative copy about them.

So what you're saying is, is that United have filtered through the United supporting journo's, and only allow them in? Why don't all football clubs do that then?

Probably replying to the wrong post here, so apologies if this is potentially out of context...

I think there are a number of factors at play.

1) We've agreed re the rivals thing.
2) Writing about the rags is like shooting fish in a barrel - 669 million punters worldwide to play to.
3) City are a very easy target given the largesse of Sheikh Mansour - I work with lots of Villa fans who are incredibly bitter about it as an example. In some respects, and somewhat in agreement with an earlier point, we have become a bit of a pantomime villain.

With all that in mind, that could mean playing to an even wider audience than the 669 million rags in the world. Surely that makes it more tempting, even sensible to put a negative slant on us.

After all in that profession, and again I think we are in agreement, sales/circulation is king?

I don't necessarily say all this proves an agenda against City, rather being negative about us is a convenient mechanism to boost circulation to the widest audience?

I'm also typing this whilst on a conference call so apologies if the points are incoherrent and/or hamfisted!

Absolutely this, but is that not an agenda in itself? It doesn't really matter that the prime motivational force is boosting circulation by continually belittling the natural enemy of the world's largest supported club, rather than a considered actual hatred of Manchester City, because the nett result is the same: United acclaimed, City shamed. The Fail is probably the biggest case in point. Since Gollum's appointment, the love-in that paper has had with the rags has if anything intensified to the point that they have led with a Moyes related puff piece almost everyday since. Articles on City meanwhile are pretty much as they have been since Sept 2008, ie frequently couched in negative terms or bearing provocative headlines. The one that I keep coming back to was the totally unsolicited hatchet job they did on us, 2 months after we won the title, when we were on a pre-season training camp in Austria, specifically a double paged spread under a banner about how City's "spoiled brats had demanded that a 1000 year old church stop ringing its bells, so they could get their beauty sleep", and developed further with tales of pampered overpaid stars having hand made Italian mattresses flown in, and insisting on having the cruet sets placed in a particular place on the breakfast tables, and so on and so on. I don't care what any anti-agendaists might say, you would never ever see an article of such unbelievable and unnecessary spite written about United.
It is also not acceptable to justify the practice of journalists who support the rags, rubbishing City, on the grounds that they will rubbish ALL of united's rivals, for the simple reason that, with the possible exception of Chelsea, we are the only rival that currently counts. What real threat are Liverpool, or Arsenal? City are the club with the immediate financial wherewithal to harm united's trophy chances, and they therefore are the designated pantomime villain. Again, it might all be about circulation figures and 'clicks', but it's no less real for that fact

 

[The perfect fumble]

So what you're saying is, is that United have filtered through the United supporting journo's, and only allow them in? Why don't all football clubs do that then?

Probably replying to the wrong post here, so apologies if this is potentially out of context...

I think there are a number of factors at play.

1) We've agreed re the rivals thing.
2) Writing about the rags is like shooting fish in a barrel - 669 million punters worldwide to play to.
3) City are a very easy target given the largesse of Sheikh Mansour - I work with lots of Villa fans who are incredibly bitter about it as an example. In some respects, and somewhat in agreement with an earlier point, we have become a bit of a pantomime villain.

With all that in mind, that could mean playing to an even wider audience than the 669 million rags in the world. Surely that makes it more tempting, even sensible to put a negative slant on us.

After all in that profession, and again I think we are in agreement, sales/circulation is king?

I don't necessarily say all this proves an agenda against City, rather being negative about us is a convenient mechanism to boost circulation to the widest audience?

I'm also typing this whilst on a conference call so apologies if the points are incoherrent and/or hamfisted!

Absolutely this, but is that not an agenda in itself? It doesn't really matter that the prime motivational force is boosting circulation by continually belittling the natural enemy of the world's largest supported club, rather than a considered actual hatred of Manchester City, because the nett result is the same: United acclaimed, City shamed. The Fail is probably the biggest case in point. Since Gollum's appointment, the love-in that paper has had with the rags has if anything intensified to the point that they have led with a Moyes related puff piece almost everyday since. Articles on City meanwhile are pretty much as they have been since Sept 2008, ie frequently couched in negative terms or bearing provocative headlines. The one that I keep coming back to was the totally unsolicited hatchet job they did on us, 2 months after we won the title, when we were on a pre-season training camp in Austria, specifically a double paged spread under a banner about how City's "spoiled brats had demanded that a 1000 year old church stop ringing its bells, so they could get their beauty sleep", and developed further with tales of pampered overpaid stars having hand made Italian mattresses flown in, and insisting on having the cruet sets placed in a particular place on the breakfast tables, and so on and so on. I don't care what any anti-agendaists might say, you would never ever see an article of such unbelievable and unnecessary spite written about United.
It is also not acceptable to justify the practice of journalists who support the rags, rubbishing City, on the grounds that they will rubbish ALL of united's rivals, for the simple reason that, with the possible exception of Chelsea, we are the only rival that currently counts. What real threat are Liverpool, or Arsenal? City are the club with the immediate financial wherewithal to harm united's trophy chances, and they therefore are the designated pantomime villain. Again, it might all be about circulation figures and 'clicks', but it's no less real for that fact

Agreed, City gets very little coverage on any note most of the time, when TalkShite and the back pages are full of made up nonsense on every Premier League club, City is often completely ignored, when she is mentioned at all, it is all too often in the "Everything that's wrong with football" vein, taking all the heat while the rest of the Premier league, and particularly the sainted Utd, bask in the glow of teams chock full with British sons of the soil who came through the academy, foreign signing are celebrated as adding spice to the league, unless they sign for City, then they are destroying home grown talent.

The Ian Herbert article is particularly amusing, not for what it said, but the tone in which it was written, as if the press conference was an invitation to some shady bolt hole full of dodgy characters, furtive and up to no good no doubt. Answers were evasions, strings were being pulled, not like the good old boys at the swamp, there you'll find honesty, wholesomeness with "Davey" the new bright and shiny manager. Vanished is the mumbling mediocre miseberalist they know from Everton, but now reborn in to the perfect fit for the greatest club on earth, the clue to their doubt is the constant "He'll do a great job, no fear"...."Right choice for Utd"...." Perfect replacement for Sir Alex". They sound like men trapped in a house when the first whiff of smoke is detected, desperately babbling it'll be alright, when they all privately know it won't.

 

[Blue Tooth]

Simple observation.

They ( The Press) asked Pellegrini about his not having won any trophies ( when he has in fact won some).

They did not as far as I know ask Moyes about not having won any trophies.

Two new managers, same situation, different angles.

FWIW I thought he handled the press well and let them know in no uncertain terms that he is a highly intelligent man and he won't stand for any shit. Looking forward to what he brings on the park.

 

[bluemathlady]

Manuel running the show in Part 2 as well.

Geezer.

Glad he took control from the start, he doesnt seem like he has a problem with defending himself either. Stupid rags

 

[ped]

How come there wasn't the same pre-occupation with the number of trophies won by Moyes in his press conference?

Because it wasn't on the list of approved subjects as defined by united's PR dept.

It really is incredible that a handful of blues cannot spot the innate sense of bias within the media, especially the written press, in spite of manifest supporting evidence.

None of these spineless charlatans would dare write such a sneering, derogatory article about united. Herbert, like bullies and cowards always do, picks on City because he knows he can do so with impunity.

I wouldn't mind quite so much if his writing style wasn't so laboured and dreary.

Oh i can see it, but it makes me laugh how so many people are so sensitive to it and get all shirty about it. It makes no odds what anyone in the press or media says.

Nothing anyone has said has stopped us doing any of this:
moving up from a mid table team, to a top five team, to a top three team winning the FAC, to a Prem title winning team.
signing players
bringing in a new DoF and CEO
increasing our attendances (even FAC early rounds against teams from the division below are sell-outs)
attracting new sponsors
signing a new shirt deal
communicating links with one of the world's biggest sports franchises and setting up a joint MLS team with them
etc.

So, for me, the press/media can say what they like. If it's a load of bollocks i'll ignore it, if it's decent i'll pay attention to it. When i see people getting all hot'n'bothered about what they say it makes me laugh a bit so i'll come on here and take the piss out of them a bit.

its not about the agenda or not,thats certainly debatable,what is not in doubt,is the snearing tone ,of a lot of jurnos,to a lot of us city fans when people,write,such shite ,we take it personally,its offensive,becouse we care so much,in much the same way we would feel if someone spoke with the same tone about a member of our family I love the way this club stirs my blood,i love the passion it instills in me feel free to take the piss , you don't know what your missing

 

[Lakeysbadknee]

Sorry bit of a diversion ,but in the presser in Durban is that Eva Carneiro the ex Chelsea physio sat next to Vinny?

 

[Glenn Ponder]

Sorry bit of a diversion ,but in the presser in Durban is that Eva Carneiro the ex Chelsea physio sat next to Vinny?

I was thinking the same thing but I don't think it is her (unfortunately!).