Peter Drury replaces Martin Tyler on Sky Sports

[lust overlord]

Spurs fans think Tyler is favourable towards City and Arsenal.

United fans think he's biased against them too.

 

[Armaan]

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.

This!!!

 

[Any1aBlue]

You have to wonder why this perennial issue keeps on coming up (I see the irony in that comment - it couldn't be perennial if it didnt!) - anyway, I digress - why are you lot so bothered? I think its positive, if true, as it smells of fear. The better we get the more we are disliked - bring it on for my money as it means we're successful.

If it does exist, then the worst offender IMO is Jeff Stelling........................just enjoy the fact we are once again looking brilliant and they don't like it up 'em.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

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?

I didn't say it defines us. I said its a large part of what defines modern day city, which it clearly and obviously is. And your part about the England team is of course irrelevant.

Just to be clear, I couldn't give a flying one if anyone calls us Moneybags.

Big fucking deal.

 

[kaz7]

Mr k is not into football so he is much more objective and has said to me a couple of times that he really sounds like he hopes we are the losing side,i think so as well

 

[Henkeman]

Mr k is not into football so he is much more objective and has said to me a couple of times that he really sounds like he hopes we are the losing side,i think so as well

If the underdog wins, it's a bigger story. Always has been.

 

[kaz7]

Mr k is not into football so he is much more objective and has said to me a couple of times that he really sounds like he hopes we are the losing side,i think so as well

If the underdog wins, it's a bigger story. Always has been.

I get that but he is supposed to be impartial but always sounds more excited if we concede first and rather underwhelmed if we score first

 

[Chris in London]

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?

I didn't say it defines us. I said its a large part of what defines modern day city, which it clearly and obviously is. And your part about the England team is of course irrelevant.

Just to be clear, I couldn't give a flying one if anyone calls us Moneybags.

Big fucking deal.

Clearly and obviously City has brought to the Premier League a number of extremely talented and extremely expensive foreign footballers. Yaya, Aguero, Negredo, Navas and Fernandinho (all of whom started on Sunday) all came with big price tags from foreign leagues. This is (part of) how the huge investment - the lottery win - is being applied. There are of course many more examples.

Equally clearly and obviously, the the more extremely talented and extremely expensive foreign footballers there are in the premier league, the fewer are the opportunities for talented young English players to feature.

So the consequence of City's investment, which you say is a large part of what defines modern day city, is clearly and obviously that their are fewer opportunities for English players in the premier league. Which is precisely Neil Ashton's point.

If you regard continual descriptions of City as lottery winners as reasonable on the basis that huge investment is a large part of what defines modern day City it is difficult to see any logical reason why the consequences of that investment (one being limited places for English talent) cannot equally reasonably be viewed as a large part of what defines modern day City.

The one flows directly from the other. Which is why I ask if you agreed with Neil Ashton's point.

If there is a logical distinction between the two, what is it?

 

[Any1aBlue]

Mr k is not into football so he is much more objective and has said to me a couple of times that he really sounds like he hopes we are the losing side,i think so as well

If the underdog wins, it's a bigger story. Always has been.

- congratulations on winning the; 'stating the bleedin obvious' prize of the week!

 

[Henkeman]

Mr k is not into football so he is much more objective and has said to me a couple of times that he really sounds like he hopes we are the losing side,i think so as well

If the underdog wins, it's a bigger story. Always has been.

- congratulations on winning the; 'stating the bleedin obvious' prize of the week!

It appears the bleedin' obvious requires stating when some see everything as a conspiracy instead.