so this agenda thing.

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I'm sure they log on to Rag Cafe before Bluemoon when they get up.

To know your enemy, you must become your enemy.

 

[OB1]

that chris wheeler sounds like a rag c.unt

I have known Chris Wheeler for over 40 years and I can assure you that he's a nice guy but he is most definitely a Rag.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

Daily mirror reporting "new big money contracts" for Edin and Joe.
Completely missing the fact Aguero and probably they too taking pay cuts.
What agenda?

Do you really think they're taking paycuts?

 

[Salford_Blue]

Daily mirror reporting "new big money contracts" for Edin and Joe.
Completely missing the fact Aguero and probably they too taking pay cuts.
What agenda?

Do you really think they're taking paycuts?

Yes, but they will recoup most if not all and more if they win stuff.

Sounds good business acumen to keep the players hungry, even though our Gary says that City won't win the League solely because he doesn't think "they will be up for it".

Top notch punditry it is.

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Daily mirror reporting "new big money contracts" for Edin and Joe.
Completely missing the fact Aguero and probably they too taking pay cuts.
What agenda?

Do you really think they're taking paycuts?

Yes, because they are albeit with huge bonuses, but so what rughead is on £300.000pw and he'll still get huge bonuses.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

Daily mirror reporting "new big money contracts" for Edin and Joe.
Completely missing the fact Aguero and probably they too taking pay cuts.
What agenda?

Do you really think they're taking paycuts?

Yes, but they will recoup most if not all and more if they win stuff.

Sounds good business acumen to keep the players hungry, even though our Gary says that City won't win the League solely because he doesn't think "they will be up for it".

Top notch punditry it is.

I'm well aware of the possible bonuses they'll have been promised, but it's naive to think they'll be going home every month and reading a wage slip which has a lower net income than what they received prior to signing the new contract.

Probably bigger appearances fees, goal fees bla bla bla.

 

[SilverFox2]

I suppose the thread title itself encourages 'gathering evidence' so perusing alien media / forums etc. is I suppose vital for the threads continuity.

I cannot help thinking though that Vince Kompany had the right idea when interviewed on Sky the other day about his views regarding Rooney's captaincy appointment.

 

[Burtonblue]

Daily mirror reporting "new big money contracts" for Edin and Joe.
Completely missing the fact Aguero and probably they too taking pay cuts.
What agenda?

Do you really think they're taking paycuts?

They will be on their "basic" salary but will make it up on win bonuses if successful.
Just how it should be!
Proof we no longer need megasalaries to attract the best players.

 

[Len Rum]

Bias? Certainly. Industry-wide agenda? Nah.

If money is the common purpose across the industry which drives the anti City bias then why not an industry wide agenda?

 

[Deleted member 58678]

Daily mirror reporting "new big money contracts" for Edin and Joe.
Completely missing the fact Aguero and probably they too taking pay cuts.
What agenda?

Do you really think they're taking paycuts?

Nobody, but nobody, at our club will be taking home less money each month than they were with us last year or at a previous club.

 

[SWP's back]

Daily mirror reporting "new big money contracts" for Edin and Joe.
Completely missing the fact Aguero and probably they too taking pay cuts.
What agenda?

Do you really think they're taking paycuts?

They are in basic pay yes.

 

[SWP's back]

Daily mirror reporting "new big money contracts" for Edin and Joe.
Completely missing the fact Aguero and probably they too taking pay cuts.
What agenda?

Do you really think they're taking paycuts?

Nobody, but nobody, at our club will be taking home less money each month than they were with us last year or at a previous club.

Depends if we are winning.

 

[Monkfish]

No general bias, mainly paranoia, same on Liverpool/Arse/Spuds/Rags forum, they all think everyone is against their club. As soon as you put your head above the parapet it will be shot at

 

[Len Rum]

I've not seen one negative article about the contracts, I've also not seen any positive ones. I have however seen articles that have reported on what we've done - extend the contracts of key players for lengthy periods. You see for anyone other than city fans there are no positives on those deals, or negatives for that matter. They are simply stories to be reported on, which is what they've done. When Rooney signed his 300k a week deal it was the same thing. Positives for united fans but not much else. If you think 'splash the cash' is a negative, as many seem to think it is on that headline a few pages back, well i presume then you think arsenal fans must think the same headline was a negative when it was used for their purchase of that kid from barca, who's name escapes me for some reason. I've seen it used especially in liverpool case this ore season, as splashing the cash is what they've done. The headline of city spend 175m grabs the person looking at it, then the sub headline of 'invests 175m' is what is actually the story.
There aren't any negatives been printed about our recent dealings, just like there aren't any negatives in sky not stating how much we got for Garcia in that particular bulletin. From what I can see, all this nonsense is about how it looks to other people, well what does it matter what someone else thinks? The irony of that is that people moan about how much united are talked about and how nauseating it is, when Infact they seem to want the exact same thing for us. It's bizarre.

I guess it depends on how you perceive what they are writing. Take the mail article that people have been discussing. City spend 175 million in 4 days, City splash the cash, British record transfer for defender, Aguero linked with Barca and Real. Well lets look at that in reality. Of that 175 million, approx £120 million is wages to existing players. For Silva, VK and Kun have those players got pay rises? I dont think they have, or if so very little. So really we have only spent 32 million in 4 days plus Mangalas wages in the future. Those wages are already being paid today pretty much so why make a huge headline out that. Are there huge headlines that Liverpool have splashed probably 300 million on new players if you include wages? I haven't seen anything and maybe im wrong, but i doubt it.

Its not that i want articles on Liverpool or United slagging them off cause i really couldnt care less about them. However, what i want is fair reporting on City. Maybe were getting that and i just have tinted specs on, but i do struggle to believe that with the articles in the press i see and the reporting on SSN.

But those headlines grabbed your attention, and the attention of those punters bored stiff on the daily commute each day on the way to work, by which time the paper is in the bin and the story has vanished from their minds anyway. The story is after the headlines though, like any headline. Anyone with half a brain will see what the story itself is saying, and for those who are silly enough to believe only the headline and think we literally spent 175m in 5 days, well who cares what they think anyway?
As for feeling we get a raw deal, well put that down to that fact you aren't used to us being talked about at all, other than being everyone's favourite sleeping giant. The fact is, and will be for some time, is that we are a decent sized club in the same way many others are in our league, and we have won the lottery and our fans are living the dream. We haven't built success over years, we've bought it with the sheikhs millions. That's fine, and we all love it, but even when the success is down to players bought with money generated from the club itself when the transformation is complete, some will still use the money bags tag, because the fact is you don't in any walk of life come from relative poverty and obscurity to having the most money available, buying the best things, paying the best money and having success as a result without having people talk about you. Be it a regular guy winning the lotto and going bonkers with the best house, buying the best cars and shagging the fittest women, to a football club buying the best players and winning the league. People will talk. In the short time I've been looking on here again I've seen people saying that Madrid don't get the same negative coverage we get when they spend loads, but we seem to get negative coverage. I think people are forgetting who we are and where we've come from there in comparison to Madrid. They've always bought the best and most expensive players, but then again they've also won the big trophies year after year. Them buying the best players and paying the biggest wages will always be different to us doing it, until such a time we have had years and years of success and it's a given that based on that success, we will invest in said players.

We could though just slink back into obscurity and enjoy a snippet in the local paper about buying a league 1 top scorer for a million quid.

Pige, nice to see you're back in your old groove:
1. Agreeing there is an agenda
2. Explaining it in terms of the 'chav lottery winners compared to "earned"success' argument.
3. Recommending a stiff upper lip reaction.
To which the response is:
1.Yes
2. Yes (partly).
3.No.

 

[Deleted member 58678]

No general bias, mainly paranoia, same on Liverpool/Arse/Spuds/Rags forum, they all think everyone is against their club. As soon as you put your head above the parapet it will be shot at

You only have to go on other clubs forums to see that this thread exists on every single one of them.

Imagine if we'd actually been properly done over by the media like Arsenal have in recent years; The Daily Arsenal Monday-Friday every week had Adrian Durham laying into very aspect of Arsenal FC at drive time/tea time for two years straight...the BT Sport adverts have hammered them this Summer shown them in games from their channel last season getting hammered for 5 at Anfield and hammered 6 Stamford Bridge, even though BT Sport actually had Arsenal winning their first trophy for eight years in the FA Cup final...constant ridicule about ticket prices...constant ridicule of Wenger...

Do any of you here think there is an organised agenda against Arsenal FC? Because if we'd had the treatment they get, this thread would be 2000 pages long.

We just get little digs about money and lack of English players here and there, and the odd person here moaning that there was too much of a close up on van Gaal's face on an advert.

 

[Len Rum]

No general bias, mainly paranoia, same on Liverpool/Arse/Spuds/Rags forum, they all think everyone is against their club. As soon as you put your head above the parapet it will be shot at

That sounds like the discredited Didsbury Dave argument i.e.all fans think there is an agenda against their club, therefore there is no agenda against any club.
I agree that fans will to varying degrees perceive an agenda against their club ( although in the case of the Rags this is more a sense of entitlement to a positive media which if they don't get makes them feel as if they're being harshly treated). However based on the evidence it is clear we get the least favorable media coverage of our rivals.
What evidence I hear you say. Well it's impossible to produce it here. But here are two major recent media events - the Liverpool 'love in' and the total under-reaction and devaluing of our Premier League win ( including the awards for Manager of the Year), whilst excuses and/or praise are dished out to our main rivals Chelsea and Liverpool.
I could go on with other relative examples but you get my drift.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

What evidence I hear you say. Well it's impossible to produce it here.

And there we have it, Len.
I have the same circuitous journey to nowhere with folk in the Cellar every time we have a 'religion' thread, and the parallels here are clear.
Folk of faith all believe in some form of God, regardless of any quantifiable proof or evidence.
Agenda-istas do the same, regarding their belief in an agenda.
Now being a pragmatic kind of guy, I tend to believe in what can be proven, rather than that which can't - to me this seems an eminently sensible and reasonable way to think, which explains why I personally don't believe in the existence of either an agenda or a supreme being.
Yet on here, we have agenda-istas who are quite happy to laugh at those of faith for believing in something which cannot be proven in the deity department, whilst quite happily signing up for believing in something which also can't be proven in the agenda department.
It's like a selective pick 'n' mix into the realms of hypothesis, and both funny and ironic in equal measure.

 

[Monkfish]

No general bias, mainly paranoia, same on Liverpool/Arse/Spuds/Rags forum, they all think everyone is against their club. As soon as you put your head above the parapet it will be shot at

That sounds like the discredited Didsbury Dave argument

you disagreeing does not maketh discredited, especially as you probably have an agenda against him

 

[Pigeonho]

I guess it depends on how you perceive what they are writing. Take the mail article that people have been discussing. City spend 175 million in 4 days, City splash the cash, British record transfer for defender, Aguero linked with Barca and Real. Well lets look at that in reality. Of that 175 million, approx £120 million is wages to existing players. For Silva, VK and Kun have those players got pay rises? I dont think they have, or if so very little. So really we have only spent 32 million in 4 days plus Mangalas wages in the future. Those wages are already being paid today pretty much so why make a huge headline out that. Are there huge headlines that Liverpool have splashed probably 300 million on new players if you include wages? I haven't seen anything and maybe im wrong, but i doubt it.

Its not that i want articles on Liverpool or United slagging them off cause i really couldnt care less about them. However, what i want is fair reporting on City. Maybe were getting that and i just have tinted specs on, but i do struggle to believe that with the articles in the press i see and the reporting on SSN.

But those headlines grabbed your attention, and the attention of those punters bored stiff on the daily commute each day on the way to work, by which time the paper is in the bin and the story has vanished from their minds anyway. The story is after the headlines though, like any headline. Anyone with half a brain will see what the story itself is saying, and for those who are silly enough to believe only the headline and think we literally spent 175m in 5 days, well who cares what they think anyway?
As for feeling we get a raw deal, well put that down to that fact you aren't used to us being talked about at all, other than being everyone's favourite sleeping giant. The fact is, and will be for some time, is that we are a decent sized club in the same way many others are in our league, and we have won the lottery and our fans are living the dream. We haven't built success over years, we've bought it with the sheikhs millions. That's fine, and we all love it, but even when the success is down to players bought with money generated from the club itself when the transformation is complete, some will still use the money bags tag, because the fact is you don't in any walk of life come from relative poverty and obscurity to having the most money available, buying the best things, paying the best money and having success as a result without having people talk about you. Be it a regular guy winning the lotto and going bonkers with the best house, buying the best cars and shagging the fittest women, to a football club buying the best players and winning the league. People will talk. In the short time I've been looking on here again I've seen people saying that Madrid don't get the same negative coverage we get when they spend loads, but we seem to get negative coverage. I think people are forgetting who we are and where we've come from there in comparison to Madrid. They've always bought the best and most expensive players, but then again they've also won the big trophies year after year. Them buying the best players and paying the biggest wages will always be different to us doing it, until such a time we have had years and years of success and it's a given that based on that success, we will invest in said players.

We could though just slink back into obscurity and enjoy a snippet in the local paper about buying a league 1 top scorer for a million quid.

Pige, nice to see you're back in your old groove:
1. Agreeing there is an agenda
2. Explaining it in terms of the 'chav lottery winners compared to "earned"success' argument.
3. Recommending a stiff upper lip reaction.
To which the response is:
1.Yes
2. Yes (partly).
3.No.

Tell you what mate, it doesn't surprise me one bit you see things in the papers that aren't there. Superb.

 

[Len Rum]

What evidence I hear you say. Well it's impossible to produce it here.

And there we have it, Len.
I have the same circuitous journey to nowhere with folk in the Cellar every time we have a 'religion' thread, and the parallels here are clear.
Folk of faith all believe in some form of God, regardless of any quantifiable proof or evidence.
Agenda-istas do the same, regarding their belief in an agenda.
Now being a pragmatic kind of guy, I tend to believe in what can be proven, rather than that which can't - to me this seems an eminently sensible and reasonable way to think, which explains why I personally don't believe in the existence of either an agenda or a supreme being.
Yet on here, we have agenda-istas who are quite happy to laugh at those of faith for believing in something which cannot be proven in the deity department, whilst quite happily signing up for believing in something which also can't be proven in the agenda department.
It's like a selective pick 'n' mix into the realms of hypothesis, and both funny and ironic in equal measure.

Nice piece of selective editing there fetlocks.
I should have course have said 'impossible to produce it ALL here'.
I then went on to give factual examples which blows apart your 'belief in God' argument.
For one who is supposedly ' a pragmatic kind of guy' who 'tends to "believe" (did you really mean to use that word?) in what can be proven' , your inability to understand a wider definition of agenda than a list of items for a meeting beggars "belief".