Ruining Football Since 2008 Flag Trouble?

[m27]

JMA, I liked your posts about Hughes but you've lost the fucking plot here son.

My mythical Chanting Liasion Officer is now looking like a reality in JMA's world.

 

[M18CTID]

There's a surprise - JMA in talking bullshit shocker. It's a bit rich to suggest the flag might attract a negative response from the press when the vast majority of the press have been negative towards our club over the past 2 years anyway. I honestly don't think some media outlets can be any more vitriolic in their attacks on our owner and our club so it renders your point useless JMA.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

FFS, can't you see that the message suggests that the people who wrote it feel persecuted by the press.

Now, whether you think that they are justified in feeling that way or not, it is indicative of a persecution complex - even if it is tongue in cheek - and the club will want fuck all to do with that.

The club cannot benefit at all from being seen to be part of that or condoning that.

If a flag/banner suggesting that is in the stadium then the club are seen to be endorsing that feeling by allowing it.

And it will only bring negativity to MCFC, with the press and anyone else who wants to, seeing it as a sign of pettiness, a lack of professionalism and a childish persecution complex.

Why would the club want to be linked with those characteristic? It would be a PR nightmare for them.

Yes, people can moan all they want about it being a joke and tongue in cheek, but the club isn't in a position to chance themselves being associated with such pettiness and it being taken as the view of, or endorsed by, the club itself.

People need to get a grip and recognise that the pettiness of football fans should not be mirrored by a professional club, especially one in City's unique position.

The funny thing is.

I've not seen any journalists having their laptops removed and being marched out of the stadium be 3 security guards, even though they've been writing s*** about the club for months, if not years, since our new owners bought the club.

Perhaps it's just me, but I find that even more offensive. Obviously the people running the club know exactly what they're doing, and they deemed that banner to be much worse?

Face it, that just isn't going to happen. This is a professional club, attempting to enter the highest echelon of world football we are talking about. Not some back street boozer run by a bunch of small time gangstes.

It isn't going to react like fans do. And rightly so. It has nothing to gain by doing so. The club has taken steps against certain articles in the past but the one thing I will say in favour of Cook and the people that deal with that side of it is that they are obviously shrewd enough to want to keep a certain balance regarding press relationships. Chucking their toys out of the pram, even if they feel justified in doing so, would just mean more problems in the future<br /><br />-- Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:45 pm --<br /><br />

There's a surprise - JMA in talking bullshit shocker. It's a bit rich to suggest the flag might attract a negative response from the press when the vast majority of the press have been negative towards our club over the past 2 years anyway. I honestly don't think some media outlets can be any more vitriolic in their attacks on our owner and our club so it renders your point useless JMA.

Thanks

 

[peacefrog]

Peacefrog, if you like the flag then that should be the end of it. I like the flag and if our owner, Chairman or Garry Cook don't like it then I totally disagree with them and think they are totally missing the point.

Do you think it should stay or not? You, not anyone else.

You see I don't think it's that simple though. I might think some racist jokes are funny but I wouldn't then go and say it in front of someone I thought it might offended. I know it's not quite the same thing but you can see what I'm getting at.

 

[jrb]

Regardless of your views on it.(if you would like to see it or not)

I know for a fact that the club won't allow a banner having a pop at United's debt.

The question was asked, and the answer was eventually no, due to possible crown trouble. Please.

Nobody is saying the ground should be awash with inappropriate banners(Ultra's etc), but it seems our owners do not want any banner whatsoever that could cause the club any problems or bad publicity.(if there is such a thing form a harmless banner)

 

[Norb]

FFS, can't you see that the message suggests that the people who wrote it feel persecuted by the press.

Now, whether you think that they are justified in feeling that way or not, it is indicative of a persecution complex - even if it is tongue in cheek - and the club will want fuck all to do with that.

The club cannot benefit at all from being seen to be part of that or condoning that.

If a flag/banner suggesting that is in the stadium then the club are seen to be endorsing that feeling by allowing it.

And it will only bring negativity to MCFC, with the press and anyone else who wants to, seeing it as a sign of pettiness, a lack of professionalism and a childish persecution complex.

Why would the club want to be linked with those characteristic? It would be a PR nightmare for them.

Yes, people can moan all they want about it being a joke and tongue in cheek, but the club isn't in a position to chance themselves being associated with such pettiness and it being taken as the view of, or endorsed by, the club itself.

People need to get a grip and recognise that the pettiness of football fans should not be mirrored by a professional club, especially one in City's unique position.

The funny thing is.

I've not seen any journalists having the laptops removed and being marched out of the stadium be 3 security guards, even though they've been writing s*** about the club for months, if not years, since our new owners bought the club.

Perhaps it's just me, but I find that even more offensive. Obviously the people running the club know exactly what they're doing, and they deemed that banner to be much worse?

Correct me if I'm wrong:

The club is seeking to gain the maximum positive publicity, and minimise any negative publicity, in that the Sheikh wants City to put forward the image of the best football club in the world

Some journalists write articles about City painting the club in a negative light.

If the club imposes sanctions against those journalists, then those and other journalists will paint the club in an even more negative light.

The banner which is the subject of this thread would give journalists an excuse to paint the club in a negative light.

Therefore the club removes the banner and tolerates the journalists.

I can't actually see any problem with City's policy on this, although the execution of that policy leaves something to be desired.

 

[glen quagmire]

Regardless of your views on it.(if you would like to see it or not)

I know for a fact that the club won't allow a banner having a pop at United's debt.

The question was asked, and the answer was eventually no, due to possible crown trouble. Please.

Nobody is saying the ground should be awash with inappropriate banners(Ultra's etc), but it seems our owners do not want any banner whatsoever that could cause the club any problems or bad publicity.(if there is such a thing form a harmless banner)

Fuck's sake! Is liz a rag too?

 

[warpig]

Regardless of your views on it.(if you would like to see it or not)

I know for a fact that the club won't allow a banner having a pop at United's debt.

The question was asked, and the answer was eventually no, due to possible crown trouble. Please.

Nobody is saying the ground should be awash with inappropriate banners(Ultra's etc), but it seems our owners do not want any banner whatsoever that could cause the club any problems or bad publicity.(if there is such a thing form a harmless banner)

Fuck's sake! Is liz a rag too?

she does fit the criteria of being non-match going and london based, so id guess yes, a die hard red.

 

[jrb]

The funny thing is.

I've not seen any journalists having their laptops removed and being marched out of the stadium be 3 security guards, even though they've been writing s*** about the club for months, if not years, since our new owners bought the club.

Perhaps it's just me, but I find that even more offensive. Obviously the people running the club know exactly what they're doing, and they deemed that banner to be much worse?

Face it, that just isn't going to happen. This is a professional club, attempting to enter the highest echelon of world football we are talking about. Not some back street boozer run by a bunch of small time gangstes.

It isn't going to react like fans do. And rightly so. It has nothing to gain by doing so. The club has taken steps against certain articles in the past but the one thing I will say in favour of Cook and the people that deal with that side of it is that they are obviously shrewd enough to want to keep a certain balance regarding press relationships. Chucking their toys out of the pram, even if they feel justified in doing so, would just mean more problems in the future

-- Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:45 pm --

There's a surprise - JMA in talking bullshit shocker. It's a bit rich to suggest the flag might attract a negative response from the press when the vast majority of the press have been negative towards our club over the past 2 years anyway. I honestly don't think some media outlets can be any more vitriolic in their attacks on our owner and our club so it renders your point useless JMA.

Thanks

In all honesty, do you think that banner would have caused the club anymore problems? Let's be honest. I think not. It's a small, let's have a general pop banner. Nothing more. Nothing less. With all due respect. Just like the club, your reading to much into the unlikely affect of that banner.

This is a professional club, attempting to enter the highest echelon of world football we are talking about.

I'm sure you've seen some of the banners displayed at the biggest clubs in Itally and across Europe. That echelon have allowed much worse banners for decades.

 

[glen quagmire]

Fuck's sake! Is liz a rag too?

she does fit the criteria of being non-match going and london based, so id guess yes, a die hard red.

lol.