Pellers press conference

[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?

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?

 

[supercity88]

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?

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.

It's not just that, most football clubs are happy to allow a free press and not restrict it. It was well known baconface handed out bans and journalists wanted the news from the swamp so had to play ball. City are more happy to let them make up their own minds and ask the questions and we will release snippets to those that are pro city I am sure. I refer to the Q and A with a few journalists that was posted on here, can't recall where or by whom but it was a good insight into the fact that the rags ran a tight ship in terms of the media. The bottom line is that a negative article will sell a lot better than a positive one, especially in terms of City!

 

[NipHolmes]

Pidge what do you have to say about the Herbert article?

I think Mr Herbert is on the verge of suicide. I tell you what I will acknowledge, that there will be some journo's who actually may support United and will write negative about all their rivals, but not all of them. As others have said, and what I read from journo's on Twitter, many of them were positive yesterday and seem to have taken to Pellegrini. If Herbert is the odd one out, then that's unfortunate for him. It is very negative though, not in a nasty way but more of a needless way. There was no need to refer to the cabin the way he did, for instance. Who cares how grubby it is? The stuff he said about Pellegrini being the manager with the hardest job is obviously bollocks. All 3 of the big name managers at the top 3 clubs have it hard, and I would say for all different reasons. I didn't read his article on Moyes, so I can't comment on that.

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!

 

[Anonymous]

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?

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!

 

[NipHolmes]

Pidge what do you have to say about the Herbert article?

My take on it is that it's one of the worst reports I've ever seen. It put the bitterest twists on the presser.

What Herbert was saying in a roundabout way was, "Pellegrini takes no shit from the press and I've spat my dummy so I'm going to be a nasty, bitter twat."

Dreadful "reporting" from Herbert.

Agree.

That article is one of the most twisted and biased parables of diatribe I have stumbled across in recent times.

You can actually imagine him at home typing this filth sipping out an MUFC cup whilst gazing at a picture of Ferguson lifting a trophy which is sat next to his monitor on the computer desk.<br /><br />-- Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:13 pm --<br /><br />

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?

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.

A mere boil on their backside. A spot on their cheek.

Completely agree. the way I see it is United are that big that they can call their shots and act like the Gestapo when it comes to the press because they are the golden goose.

 

[The Flash]

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, 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.

 

[Pigeonho]

Pidge what do you have to say about the Herbert article?

I think Mr Herbert is on the verge of suicide. I tell you what I will acknowledge, that there will be some journo's who actually may support United and will write negative about all their rivals, but not all of them. As others have said, and what I read from journo's on Twitter, many of them were positive yesterday and seem to have taken to Pellegrini. If Herbert is the odd one out, then that's unfortunate for him. It is very negative though, not in a nasty way but more of a needless way. There was no need to refer to the cabin the way he did, for instance. Who cares how grubby it is? The stuff he said about Pellegrini being the manager with the hardest job is obviously bollocks. All 3 of the big name managers at the top 3 clubs have it hard, and I would say for all different reasons. I didn't read his article on Moyes, so I can't comment on that.

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.<br /><br />-- Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:18 pm --<br /><br />

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!

Is that why when Aguero scored to win us the league, fans of other clubs went bonkers? We've seen the QPR and Sunderland fans' footage, but the day after that I remember Paul Hawksby and Andy Jacobs saying how fans of their clubs were going mental at it, just like they were when they were in the boozer watching us demolish them 6-1. The saying goes that everybody hates United, doesn't it?

 

[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?

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.

 

[NipHolmes]

I think Mr Herbert is on the verge of suicide. I tell you what I will acknowledge, that there will be some journo's who actually may support United and will write negative about all their rivals, but not all of them. As others have said, and what I read from journo's on Twitter, many of them were positive yesterday and seem to have taken to Pellegrini. If Herbert is the odd one out, then that's unfortunate for him. It is very negative though, not in a nasty way but more of a needless way. There was no need to refer to the cabin the way he did, for instance. Who cares how grubby it is? The stuff he said about Pellegrini being the manager with the hardest job is obviously bollocks. All 3 of the big name managers at the top 3 clubs have it hard, and I would say for all different reasons. I didn't read his article on Moyes, so I can't comment on that.

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.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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!

There is no doubt there has been a collective cloak of silence in the press with regards to the appointment of Moyes. This lack of scrutiny would be astonishing under normal circumstances, that is to say if it was any other club but united.

There is zero doubt in my mind that if we had appointed Moyes and united had appointed Pellegrini the narrative would be manifestly different. The digs about lack of trophies would have been liberally aimed in Moyes' direction, from members of the press who currently appear to have lost their voices on the matter.

I have stated on other threads that I believe Moyes to be an astute, intelligent man, with a pretty good track record, but his complete lack of worthwhile trophies and his record with Everton against all the top clubs, us excepted, both warrant a much more strenuous examination of his suitability for what is one of the biggest jobs in world football than has been the case hitherto.

If we cannot expect our free and fearless press to ask those questions, then is it any wonder that people think there a significant imbalance in the way football is reported upon in this country?