Peter Drury replaces Martin Tyler on Sky Sports

[cibaman]

For reasons that are beyond my understanding Sky seem to see City as a threat and this is reflected in their attitude towards us.

80% of sky subsribers worldwide are probably armchair hardcore rags , like any business they want to keep their customers happy and if city do start winning trophies and thrashing their little darlings , it will effect their profits , simple economics. Sky dont have an agenda against city , they will show their bias against any challenge to the rags , arsenal,liverpool,chelsea would all get the same treatment , Talksport have the same concept , and it will never change , they are businesses that make money for their shareholders

Codswallop!
I would say 80% support someone other than United.

United might have a larger number than any other individual club but put together everyone else will dwarf United.

True enough, but in the main the ABU's are less dedicated to the anti United cause. If Sky show a United game many ABU's will not bother watching it. Most of the telly audience for a United game will be United fans.

 

[Chris in London]

I'm sure in one of the commentaries on the 4-1 (I've watched a few) that the commentator (Tyler?) describes City as having won the lottery many times over in relation to the investment in the club. As if no other club has ever been taken over or had money pumped into it?

An entirely reasonable comment. Modern day city are largely defined by the huge investment in the club. It's ridiculous to see bias when anybody mentions it.

Presumably you would offer the same defence of Adrian Chiles' inability to refer to us without calling us 'moneybags Manchester City'?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I'm sure in one of the commentaries on the 4-1 (I've watched a few) that the commentator (Tyler?) describes City as having won the lottery many times over in relation to the investment in the club. As if no other club has ever been taken over or had money pumped into it?

An entirely reasonable comment. Modern day city are largely defined by the huge investment in the club. It's ridiculous to see bias when anybody mentions it.

Presumably you would offer the same defence of Adrian Chiles' inability to refer to us without calling us 'moneybags Manchester City'?

Of course I would. I remember moneybags Chelsea.

 

[Henkeman]

An entirely reasonable comment. Modern day city are largely defined by the huge investment in the club. It's ridiculous to see bias when anybody mentions it.

Presumably you would offer the same defence of Adrian Chiles' inability to refer to us without calling us 'moneybags Manchester City'?

Of course I would. I remember moneybags Chelsea.

Chiles is just expressing jealousy. I don't mean that as a criticism of him even, he's a Baggies fan who would love it if they got lots of funding.

 

[2sheikhs]

Listened to his commentary on the opening goal. No screaming or shouting, just faux praise through gritted teeth. He was absolutely gutted.

 

[Henkeman]

Listened to his commentary on the opening goal. No screaming or shouting, just faux praise through gritted teeth. He was absolutely gutted.

Why say this? Well all loved the Agueroooooooo commentary. Why do people expect him to gush each and every time City score?

 

[Chris in London]

An entirely reasonable comment. Modern day city are largely defined by the huge investment in the club. It's ridiculous to see bias when anybody mentions it.

Presumably you would offer the same defence of Adrian Chiles' inability to refer to us without calling us 'moneybags Manchester City'?

Of course I would. I remember moneybags Chelsea.

The huge investment is most noticeable in terms of spending large sums on expensive foreign players - Yaya, Aguero, Robinho, Tevez etc etc.

If that what is largely defines us, presumably you would also defend Neil Ashton's point that this is causing the death of English football?

 

[Armaan]

He's a United fan so so obvious.

 

[Manc in London]

Spurs fans think Tyler is favourable towards City and Arsenal.

 

[2sheikhs]

Listened to his commentary on the opening goal. No screaming or shouting, just faux praise through gritted teeth. He was absolutely gutted.

Why say this? Well all loved the Agueroooooooo commentary. Why do people expect him to gush each and every time City score?

He had no choice really with that goal due to the drama of the situation.
On sunday it was still an important match but he barely raised his voice. He seems to get quite animated when teams score against us though.