Pigeonho said:The answer to that is obvious and what has been covered time and time again. You saw how Sky billed it, almost like a second coming of the club. Nauseating it maybe, funny too in a comical way, (I would HATE for City to become like that), but it's simply a matter of pandering to the millions of 'fans' they have. Not an anti City agenda, which is what this thread is about.Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:Pigeonho said:Course it is, they're all part of the league and one club in particular still consider themselves more rivals to united than we are. I might be wrong and on every other forum from the other 18 clubs there could be threads asking why it was broadcast from there. I suspect not though.
This is just another of those gripes which take away any credibility from more serious posts about an agenda, because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where motd is broadcast from, and it certainly doesn't suggest any form of anti-something to the other 19 clubs.
It really doesn't matter where it is broadcast from. It will still be the same shit programme it has turned into. But the point that should be raised is: Are the BBC going round the grounds to show how 'balanced' an organisation they are, and how interested they are in the game of football, or is it just more MANUre puffery to show just how 'biased' they have become?
Pigeonho said:To you maybe. It's simply just a matter of motd being broadcast from old Trafford though, and I was asking if anyone has checked other clubs forums to see if they are as bothered as some on here are.gordondaviesmoustache said:Well, no it's not the same and your example (presumably) of Liverpool underlines that. Perhaps if we hadn't beed unfavourably and directly compared, in the media, to united, as a club and an institution, over the last six years (and for some considerable time before that too) then perhaps blues wouldn't be so tetchy and react in the way they do, to matters which may have otherwise gone unnoticed or unremarked upon.Pigeonho said:Course it is, they're all part of the league and one club in particular still consider themselves more rivals to united than we are. I might be wrong and on every other forum from the other 18 clubs there could be threads asking why it was broadcast from there. I suspect not though.
This is just another of those gripes which take away any credibility from more serious posts about an agenda, because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where motd is broadcast from, and it certainly doesn't suggest any form of anti-something to the other 19 clubs.
City fans are the way they are in particular, in relation to united, for reasons which no other set of supporters can comprehend or relate to, because they've not had it perpetually shoved down their throats for the last 30 years, and not just in the media but at workplaces all across Greater Manchester during that time.
To suggest Liverpool can "feel our pain" on this particular issue is wholly wrong.
And lucky toma. As discussed yesterday with others, it's a forum. If some one posts something,mothers are entitled to disagree, agree or whatever else. Or do you want it just to become a forum full of he's men who agree on everything? If a poster has said they had a problem with motd being broadcast from a stadium, surely someone curious as to why that would be a problem is entitled to ask why?
Madrid Juventus Galatasaray Copenhageneastmanc said:tonea2003 said:George Hannah said:so Di Maria, who begged to come to us, is at the swamp and we couldn't go for Fabregas or Schneiderlin or Pogba to improve our home-grown quota because of the £49m cap and Negredo is on loan at Valencia with no space in our squad for him and £50m of the club's revenue is illegally being shared out among our rivals and we are drawn in the most difficult CL group for the third consecutive time.
A very minor inconvenience - I can see Clattenberg smiling now as the media prepare their latest batch of lies, smears and negative reports.
wrong!
Let's not be picky, we know what you mean, three out of four.
Like I said in my edit, it's ironic that you don't take my posts serious, given the fact they, in the majority, are in direct reply to posts that are as unserious as you could get.Lucky Toma said:Pigeonho said:To you maybe. It's simply just a matter of motd being broadcast from old Trafford though, and I was asking if anyone has checked other clubs forums to see if they are as bothered as some on here are.gordondaviesmoustache said:Well, no it's not the same and your example (presumably) of Liverpool underlines that. Perhaps if we hadn't beed unfavourably and directly compared, in the media, to united, as a club and an institution, over the last six years (and for some considerable time before that too) then perhaps blues wouldn't be so tetchy and react in the way they do, to matters which may have otherwise gone unnoticed or unremarked upon.
City fans are the way they are in particular, in relation to united, for reasons which no other set of supporters can comprehend or relate to, because they've not had it perpetually shoved down their throats for the last 30 years, and not just in the media but at workplaces all across Greater Manchester during that time.
To suggest Liverpool can "feel our pain" on this particular issue is wholly wrong.
And lucky toma. As discussed yesterday with others, it's a forum. If some one posts something,mothers are entitled to disagree, agree or whatever else. Or do you want it just to become a forum full of he's men who agree on everything? If a poster has said they had a problem with motd being broadcast from a stadium, surely someone curious as to why that would be a problem is entitled to ask why?
I never said anything about you not posting pal. I'm simply stating that it's getting to the point now - or perhaps even beyond that point - where I no longer take your replies as seriously as I once did.
If someone says black within five minutes you say white. If someone says chalk you reply with cheese.
Considering the intricacies of this subject I'm doubtful anyone can emit such contrary views right across the board.
I'm a real lefty in my politics but occasionally I'll find myself agreeing with a Tory viewpoint or policy.
As a Blue I obviously hate United with every fibre of my being. But occasionally I find myself admiring a passage of play or respecting the words of one of their players.
It's just not possible to be so consistently 'other' right across the board. You are and I doubt the merit in that.
Pigeonho said:Like I said in my edit, it's ironic that you don't take my posts serious, given the fact they, in the majority, are in direct reply to posts that are as unserious as you could get.Lucky Toma said:Pigeonho said:To you maybe. It's simply just a matter of motd being broadcast from old Trafford though, and I was asking if anyone has checked other clubs forums to see if they are as bothered as some on here are.
And lucky toma. As discussed yesterday with others, it's a forum. If some one posts something,mothers are entitled to disagree, agree or whatever else. Or do you want it just to become a forum full of he's men who agree on everything? If a poster has said they had a problem with motd being broadcast from a stadium, surely someone curious as to why that would be a problem is entitled to ask why?
I never said anything about you not posting pal. I'm simply stating that it's getting to the point now - or perhaps even beyond that point - where I no longer take your replies as seriously as I once did.
If someone says black within five minutes you say white. If someone says chalk you reply with cheese.
Considering the intricacies of this subject I'm doubtful anyone can emit such contrary views right across the board.
I'm a real lefty in my politics but occasionally I'll find myself agreeing with a Tory viewpoint or policy.
As a Blue I obviously hate United with every fibre of my being. But occasionally I find myself admiring a passage of play or respecting the words of one of their players.
It's just not possible to be so consistently 'other' right across the board. You are and I doubt the merit in that.
You know what to do though mate, just bypass anything I've replied to. :-)
You're right, they shouldn't, and for all anyone knows the show may have been broadcast there for another reason. Regular studio fucked, perhaps? Unlikely I know, and I'm not saying that is the case. Bottom line though is after taggart and the disaster that was Moyes, they've invested heavily in some fine players, 2 of which are some of the biggest names in the game. The media were reporting on it as a rebirth, like Sky yesterday. No other club will get that, because no other club has had that period of huge success, then become a laughing stock and then repaired it by said investment. To those who care about such things, it's big news. Like I said earlier though, I would fucking hate that circus at our place. Some reds I know were quite embarrassed with the razzmatazz of it all.Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:Pigeonho said:The answer to that is obvious and what has been covered time and time again. You saw how Sky billed it, almost like a second coming of the club. Nauseating it maybe, funny too in a comical way, (I would HATE for City to become like that), but it's simply a matter of pandering to the millions of 'fans' they have. Not an anti City agenda, which is what this thread is about.Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:It really doesn't matter where it is broadcast from. It will still be the same shit programme it has turned into. But the point that should be raised is: Are the BBC going round the grounds to show how 'balanced' an organisation they are, and how interested they are in the game of football, or is it just more MANUre puffery to show just how 'biased' they have become?
But the BBC should not be pandering to anyone. I can understand the direct and unadorned bias from Sky and latterly from BT, but the BBC are supposed to be a national organisation and not a parochial one. We all pay for the licence, not just SwampDwellers and Dippers.