so this agenda thing.

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

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 quoted something you actually typed - sorry if you find that problematical.
The remainder of your post didn't say anything noteworthy, so I didn't quote it in it's entirety.
So now you move the goalposts again into 'well, what I really meant to say was...' territory because you told the truth by mistake.
Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of an agenda on here, so congratulations - you got that bit right, albeit accidentally.
In future if you don't want folk to misquote you, then it may be prudent to actually post what you mean in the first place, then you won't have to come on here backtracking like Zabaleta on crystal meth.

 

[George Hannah]

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".

NF is a very slippery hermeneutist

 

[sir baconface]

NF is a very slippery hermeneutist

Bloody hell, George. He won't know whether to be pleased or pissed off.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

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.

Well it's interesting you bring up religion, because one other common similarity between religious groups and football fans is that they all think they're discriminated against. They'll even on occasion join forces and turn on a common enemy (for religions, it's those evil secularists, and for English football fans, it's UEFA). And in both cases, you've got a dominant group or two that enjoy special treatment that others don't get, and will cry discrimination if that special treatment is taken away. But obviously the fact that anything other than the usual arse-kissing of the rags or Liverpool is jumped on as widespread bias by their fans doesn't render legitimate claims of bias false by association. In the same way, the fact that a Christian claims that him having to follow the same law as everyone else when running a B&B is discrimination doesn't mean that all claims of religious discrimination are therefore false.

 

[cibaman]

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.

The under reporting of City last season was hugely affected by the fact that we won the league whilst only spending 15 days in 1st place. It was a distinctly unusual way of winning the league and was reflected in the media coverage. I also think you can divide the season into distinct chunks in terms of how the press reported on City.

Aug-Nov was a distinctly mixed bag, a few excellent performances but some rubbish. Much of that time spent outside the top 4. And that's how the press reported it.

Our purple patch was Dec & Jan. Starting with Bayern and Arsenal and culminating in the game at Spurs when we topped the league for a couple of days. My recollection of that period was that it was a joy to watch City and usually a joy to read about us. If we had continued in that vein I'm sure that we would have received the recognition we deserved.

Feb started with the defeat to Chelsea which definitely took the gloss off of City as far as the press were concerned (and many Bluemooners). We then spent Feb, March & April chugging along in 3rd or 4th place. Not helped by the postponements admittedly. But, even though the reporting on Liverpool descended into mawkishness, they deserved to dominate the headlines during that period given the run that they put together (they were 7 points behind us after we beat Spurs). And they did it in the awards voting period.

We then had the glorious last 5 matches to win the league. And then straight into the World Cup after a brief interlude for Cakegate.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

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.

He's a proper comedy poster this one, pidge.

Every time I look on the thread he's there with some wacky teenage theory, followed up with some kind of "so that's it, proved" remark.

Don't. Get. Sucked. In. You cannot puncture delusion.

 

[Cellarite]

Missus had one of these 'good morning uk' programs on this morn . One of the pratts (the annoyin mixed race one with a face thats beggin to be punched) was doin a pre season update report . Where was he !? Outside the fookin swamp .

Why!? Why was he stood outside a stadium where the team that plays there pretty much finished midtable ?. I just think it would make more sence to take the short trip into manchester and stand outside the home of the champions !.

I didnt watch.it all but would id prob be fooling myself that he popped in to manc and visited the home of the champions later on ?.

Do you reckon it might be because the channel headquarters is one stop away from Old Trafford on the tram?

I'm an agendarista myself but for fuck's sake, the fixtures and Good Morning Britain are not a part of it. I'll bet your missus had the telly on ITV rather than BBC where you'd find a certain John Stapleton.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

An open goal for you that, eh?! I could give you literally hundreds of examples from the subtle to the blunt, but there's no point on two counts. 1) it would take me ages and I can't be arsed and 2) you'd dismiss them all as paranoia anyway.

I've attached just one for you though. You think United would ever have an article adopting such a tone about them?!

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171366/Manchester-City-order-13th-century-Austrian-church-stop-ringing-bells-avoid-disturbing-players.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ayers.html</a>

 

[Len Rum]

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 quoted something you actually typed - sorry if you find that problematical.
The remainder of your post didn't say anything noteworthy, so I didn't quote it in it's entirety.
So now you move the goalposts again into 'well, what I really meant to say was...' territory because you told the truth by mistake.
Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of an agenda on here, so congratulations - you got that bit right, albeit accidentally.
In future if you don't want folk to misquote you, then it may be prudent to actually post what you mean in the first place, then you won't have to come on here backtracking like Zabaleta on crystal meth.

Only to pleased to be the butt of your cheap point scoring fetlocks.
I'll carry on discussing the substantive issues.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Nice piece of selective editing there fetlocks.
I should have course have said 'impossible to produce it ALL here'.

I quoted something you actually typed - sorry if you find that problematical.
The remainder of your post didn't say anything noteworthy, so I didn't quote it in it's entirety.
So now you move the goalposts again into 'well, what I really meant to say was...' territory because you told the truth by mistake.
Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of an agenda on here, so congratulations - you got that bit right, albeit accidentally.
In future if you don't want folk to misquote you, then it may be prudent to actually post what you mean in the first place, then you won't have to come on here backtracking like Zabaleta on crystal meth.

I'll carry on discussing the substantive issues.

Substantive - 'having a firm basis in reality'.
You have already admitted you cannot prove any such agenda exists, so I'd give up if I were you, Len.
Oh, but wait - an article in the Daily Fail online about bell ringing has made me change my mind completely, and there is an agenda after all.
There is indeed one born every minute, as Phineus Taylor Barnum may or may not have said.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I quoted something you actually typed - sorry if you find that problematical.
The remainder of your post didn't say anything noteworthy, so I didn't quote it in it's entirety.
So now you move the goalposts again into 'well, what I really meant to say was...' territory because you told the truth by mistake.
Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of an agenda on here, so congratulations - you got that bit right, albeit accidentally.
In future if you don't want folk to misquote you, then it may be prudent to actually post what you mean in the first place, then you won't have to come on here backtracking like Zabaleta on crystal meth.

I'll carry on discussing the substantive issues.

Substantive - 'having a firm basis in reality'.
You have already admitted you cannot prove any such agenda exists, so I'd give up if I were you, Len.
Oh, but wait - an article in the Daily Fail online about bell ringing has made me change my mind completely, and there is an agenda after all.
There is indeed one born every minute, as Phineus Taylor Barnum may or may not have said.

Ha ha, exactly as predicted. Any evidence submitted by the prosecution to be automatically excluded on the grounds of mental incapacity. A few simple questions.
1. To what do you attribute the "overpaid spoiled brat" theme running through the Austrian hotel story? Laziness on behalf of the journalist concerned? Bias?
2. And if either of those two, is there a finite number of such spiteful little articles one would have to acquire before the remote possibility of something more deliberate might be considered?
3. Have you ever seen an article with that same bitter tone about United or Liverpool, cos I could wheel out dozens in similar vein on City?
4. And if you have, note I said the same tone (off hand I'm thinking of the intrusive camera in Jesus Navas' suitcase that time, that gleefully itemised the cost of the contents, which someone responded to with a similar tale of a camera in David Moyes suitcase that fawningly identified a copy of Taggart's book, and claimed the two stories amounted to the same kind of coverage, when patently they didn't).

Ultimately though, and I fully accept all of the points you made earlier today and actively agree with most of them, it doesn't matter whether we call it an agenda, bias or the spite of individual journalists, the fact is there is an issue with how City are portrayed by elements of the media.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Nice piece of selective editing there fetlocks.
I should have course have said 'impossible to produce it ALL here'.

I quoted something you actually typed - sorry if you find that problematical.
The remainder of your post didn't say anything noteworthy, so I didn't quote it in it's entirety.
So now you move the goalposts again into 'well, what I really meant to say was...' territory because you told the truth by mistake.
Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of an agenda on here, so congratulations - you got that bit right, albeit accidentally.
In future if you don't want folk to misquote you, then it may be prudent to actually post what you mean in the first place, then you won't have to come on here backtracking like Zabaleta on crystal meth.

Only to pleased to be the butt of your cheap point scoring fetlocks.
I'll carry on discussing the substantive issues.

There is plenty of 'evidence' of an agenda, it is posted on here with regularity but the agenda 'deniers' think that because everything is not universally positive on every other club and that when the 'odd' negative article pops up on other clubs that that somehow disproves the notion that there is a concerted and deliberate slant of negativity on anything associated to our club. Even great news like the tying up of our world class players on long term contracts is wrapped up in a headline around the amount of 'money' we spend. The narrative of the virtuous rags doing things the right way against the un virtuous city yet again buying their way to success.

The deniers response is simply that city fans should take it on the chin, grow up, not read the articles, listen to the radio, and have a stiff upper lip about the whole thing. The thing they miss is that those of us who understand the power of 'spin' and PR is the effect that this constant negativity has on the ambitions of the club, to grow the brand globally, and retain the status we have worked hard to achieve against the obstacles put in our path. As Len said, the weight of evidence of an agenda is overwhelming but really do any of us have the time to sift through thousands of articles and produce some kind of statistical analysis to 'prove' the weight of the bias against our club. Despite article, after article, proof after proof, day in, day out on this thread, the deniers simply choose to ignore the evidence. I challenge the deniers to post negative articles on the rags in this forum whenever they see it, I would happily be proven wrong, but they won't because they can't and very little of it actually exists. I'm looking for opinion pieces that slate the rags for whatever it might be. Can you imagine if one of our players had been sh@gging his brothers wife, you wouldn't have been able to get it off the front and back pages, and they certainly wouldn't be sitting in the assistant managers chair at the Etihad. These lot are beyond the pale.

But the deniers also conveniently ignore the smoking gun, the silver bullet that has blown the agenda out into the open, the much discussed FFP regulations. Why, may I ask the deniers, were these regulations to restrict spending brought in? Who were the team most likely to be impacted negatively by them ? Who has subsequently been punished by them ? Can you explain the timing of the regulations, why were they brought in when they were ?

Every answer to those questions points to our beloved MCFC, and yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that these regulations were brought in to halt our dominance the deniers still claim no evidence of an agenda exists!!

You have to ask just what the hell would convince these people? Do they really expect UEFA, The FA, The premier League to come out and produce a document stating that the primary goals of the governing bodies of football is to protect the status quo, in order to protect revenues. Clearly, it is only this that will convince these people that the lovely world of football is not all straight, fair and run for the benefit of all clubs.

The deniers would have you believe the authorities click a button and the fixtures just fall out of a computer (despite pretty categoric evidence that fixtures are gerrymandered for any number of reasons) that the big media outlets just let their journalists write and then go to print with what the hell they like, that livelihoods in journalism are not dictated by the popularity of their articles, that FFP (despite being anything but fair in their construction) is intended to stop another Portsmouth. Please, just how naive are these people?

There is a concerted and constant agenda against our club and blues are right to call it out and expose it whenever they see it. This is the only way that things may eventually change.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

I quoted something you actually typed - sorry if you find that problematical.
The remainder of your post didn't say anything noteworthy, so I didn't quote it in it's entirety.
So now you move the goalposts again into 'well, what I really meant to say was...' territory because you told the truth by mistake.
Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of an agenda on here, so congratulations - you got that bit right, albeit accidentally.
In future if you don't want folk to misquote you, then it may be prudent to actually post what you mean in the first place, then you won't have to come on here backtracking like Zabaleta on crystal meth.

Only to pleased to be the butt of your cheap point scoring fetlocks.
I'll carry on discussing the substantive issues.

There is plenty of 'evidence' of an agenda, it is posted on here with regularity but the agenda 'deniers' think that because everything is not universally positive on every other club and that when the 'odd' negative article pops up on other clubs that that somehow disproves the notion that there is a concerted and deliberate slant of negativity on anything associated to our club. Even great news like the tying up of our world class players on long term contracts is wrapped up in a headline around the amount of 'money' we spend. The narrative of the virtuous rags doing things the right way against the un virtuous city yet again buying their way to success.

The deniers response is simply that city fans should take it on the chin, grow up, not read the articles, listen to the radio, and have a stiff upper lip about the whole thing. The thing they miss is that those of us who understand the power of 'spin' and PR is the effect that this constant negativity has on the ambitions of the club, to grow the brand globally, and retain the status we have worked hard to achieve against the obstacles put in our path. As Len said, the weight of evidence of an agenda is overwhelming but really do any of us have the time to sift through thousands of articles and produce some kind of statistical analysis to 'prove' the weight of the bias against our club. Despite article, after article, proof after proof, day in, day out on this thread, the deniers simply choose to ignore the evidence. I challenge the deniers to post negative articles on the rags in this forum whenever they see it, I would happily be proven wrong, but they won't because they can't and very little of it actually exists. I'm looking for opinion pieces that slate the rags for whatever it might be. Can you imagine if one of our players had been sh@gging his brothers wife, you wouldn't have been able to get it off the front and back pages, and they certainly wouldn't be sitting in the assistant managers chair at the Etihad. These lot are beyond the pale.

But the deniers also conveniently ignore the smoking gun, the silver bullet that has blown the agenda out into the open, the much discussed FFP regulations. Why, may I ask the deniers, were these regulations to restrict spending brought in? Who were the team most likely to be impacted negatively by them ? Who has subsequently been punished by them ? Can you explain the timing of the regulations, why were they brought in when they were ?

Every answer to those questions points to our beloved MCFC, and yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that these regulations were brought in to halt our dominance the deniers still claim no evidence of an agenda exists!!

You have to ask just what the hell would convince these people? Do they really expect UEFA, The FA, The premier League to come out and produce a document stating that the primary goals of the governing bodies of football is to protect the status quo, in order to protect revenues. Clearly, it is only this that will convince these people that the lovely world of football is not all straight, fair and run for the benefit of all clubs.

The deniers would have you believe the authorities click a button and the fixtures just fall out of a computer (despite pretty categoric evidence that fixtures are gerrymandered for any number of reasons) that the big media outlets just let their journalists write and then go to print with what the hell they like, that livelihoods in journalism are not dictated by the popularity of their articles, that FFP (despite being anything but fair in their construction) is intended to stop another Portsmouth. Please, just how naive are these people?

There is a concerted and constant agenda against our club and blues are right to call it out and expose it whenever they see it. This is the only way that things may eventually change.

Oh dear.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I'll carry on discussing the substantive issues.

Substantive - 'having a firm basis in reality'.
You have already admitted you cannot prove any such agenda exists, so I'd give up if I were you, Len.
Oh, but wait - an article in the Daily Fail online about bell ringing has made me change my mind completely, and there is an agenda after all.
There is indeed one born every minute, as Phineus Taylor Barnum may or may not have said.

Ha ha, exactly as predicted. Any evidence submitted by the prosecution to be automatically excluded on the grounds of mental incapacity. A few simple questions.
1. To what do you attribute the "overpaid spoiled brat" theme running through the Austrian hotel story? Laziness on behalf of the journalist concerned? Bias?
2. And if either of those two, is there a finite number of such spiteful little articles one would have to acquire before the remote possibility of something more deliberate might be considered?
3. Have you ever seen an article with that same bitter tone about United or Liverpool, cos I could wheel out dozens in similar vein on City?
4. And if you have, note I said the same tone (off hand I'm thinking of the intrusive camera in Jesus Navas' suitcase that time, that gleefully itemised the cost of the contents, which someone responded to with a similar tale of a camera in David Moyes suitcase that fawningly identified a copy of Taggart's book, and claimed the two stories amounted to the same kind of coverage, when patently they didn't).

Ultimately though, and I fully accept all of the points you made earlier today and actively agree with most of them, it doesn't matter whether we call it an agenda, bias or the spite of individual journalists, the fact is there is an issue with how City are portrayed by elements of the media.

I have never disagreed that there is an issue regarding just how City are perceived in certain sections of the media - clearly some do folk wish to portray us as nouveau riche arrivistes who have gatecrashed the cosy closed shop of the traditional big four, but where I do take issue is when this is held up as some kind of proof positive of the existence of some greater plan to do City down, for reasons that have never been fully, or even partially, explained.
When you ask some of the more fervent conspiracy theory advocates just what form this nefarious anti-City campaign takes, then they start speaking in tongues, and mumble some vague mantra about money.
Now if such an evil masterplan did exist, and it was indeed all about money, then why would they not want the richest club on the planet on the inside of the tent pissing out, rather than stood on the outside pissing in?
Just how many folk within the game would have to be 'in' on such a Herculean task for it to prove successful?
And, by any realistic yardstick, it didn't really stop us achieving the major prize in English football last year, did it?
So it must be a pretty crap agenda, as agendas go.
As to ridiculing the agenda-istas, well that goes with the territory of believing crazy notions for which there is no genuine proof whatsoever - if someone told me that the Loch Ness monster existed, I would laugh at them too.
Media bias yes, agenda no, but if folk wish to believe otherwise, then that's entirely their prerogative.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Bigenda.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Substantive - 'having a firm basis in reality'.
You have already admitted you cannot prove any such agenda exists, so I'd give up if I were you, Len.
Oh, but wait - an article in the Daily Fail online about bell ringing has made me change my mind completely, and there is an agenda after all.
There is indeed one born every minute, as Phineus Taylor Barnum may or may not have said.

Ha ha, exactly as predicted. Any evidence submitted by the prosecution to be automatically excluded on the grounds of mental incapacity. A few simple questions.
1. To what do you attribute the "overpaid spoiled brat" theme running through the Austrian hotel story? Laziness on behalf of the journalist concerned? Bias?
2. And if either of those two, is there a finite number of such spiteful little articles one would have to acquire before the remote possibility of something more deliberate might be considered?
3. Have you ever seen an article with that same bitter tone about United or Liverpool, cos I could wheel out dozens in similar vein on City?
4. And if you have, note I said the same tone (off hand I'm thinking of the intrusive camera in Jesus Navas' suitcase that time, that gleefully itemised the cost of the contents, which someone responded to with a similar tale of a camera in David Moyes suitcase that fawningly identified a copy of Taggart's book, and claimed the two stories amounted to the same kind of coverage, when patently they didn't).

Ultimately though, and I fully accept all of the points you made earlier today and actively agree with most of them, it doesn't matter whether we call it an agenda, bias or the spite of individual journalists, the fact is there is an issue with how City are portrayed by elements of the media.

I have never disagreed that there is an issue regarding just how City are perceived in certain sections of the media - clearly some do folk wish to portray us as nouveau riche arrivistes who have gatecrashed the cosy closed shop of the traditional big four, but where I do take issue is when this is held up as some kind of proof positive of the existence of some greater plan to do City down, for reasons that have never been fully, or even partially, explained.
When you ask some of the more fervent conspiracy theory advocates just what form this nefarious anti-City campaign takes, then they start speaking in tongues, and mumble some vague mantra about money.
Now if such an evil masterplan did exist, and it was indeed all about money, then why would they not want the richest club on the planet on the inside of the tent pissing out, rather than stood on the outside pissing in?
Just how many folk within the game would have to be 'in' on such a Herculean task for it to prove successful?
And, by any realistic yardstick, it didn't really stop us achieving the major prize in English football last year, did it?
So it must be a pretty crap agenda, as agendas go.
As to ridiculing the agenda-istas, well that goes with the territory of believing crazy notions for which there is no genuine proof whatsoever - if someone told me that the Loch Ness monster existed, I would laugh at them too.
Media bias yes, agenda no, but if folk wish to believe otherwise, then that's entirely their prerogative.

I take it you have never seen the letter from Arsenal FC to Peter Scudamore on financial regulation in the premier league. That's not some figment of a paranoid mcfc delusionist. Two simple questions, who could that letter possibly be aimed at stopping in their tracks? Secondly in your mind does that not constitute any kind of agenda?

And no it's not been too successful to date because 1) we spent a large part of our money before FFP could take effect & 2) because we have some absolutely brilliant owners and stewards of the club

With the amount of money we spent it was inevitable we would have some sort of success but if you look at both our wins in the perm league they could so easily have gone the other way. Fine lines and all that

 

[sir baconface]

I quoted something you actually typed - sorry if you find that problematical.
The remainder of your post didn't say anything noteworthy, so I didn't quote it in it's entirety.
So now you move the goalposts again into 'well, what I really meant to say was...' territory because you told the truth by mistake.
Nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever of an agenda on here, so congratulations - you got that bit right, albeit accidentally.
In future if you don't want folk to misquote you, then it may be prudent to actually post what you mean in the first place, then you won't have to come on here backtracking like Zabaleta on crystal meth.

Only to pleased to be the butt of your cheap point scoring fetlocks.
I'll carry on discussing the substantive issues.

There is plenty of 'evidence' of an agenda, it is posted on here with regularity but the agenda 'deniers' think that because everything is not universally positive on every other club and that when the 'odd' negative article pops up on other clubs that that somehow disproves the notion that there is a concerted and deliberate slant of negativity on anything associated to our club. Even great news like the tying up of our world class players on long term contracts is wrapped up in a headline around the amount of 'money' we spend. The narrative of the virtuous rags doing things the right way against the un virtuous city yet again buying their way to success.

The deniers response is simply that city fans should take it on the chin, grow up, not read the articles, listen to the radio, and have a stiff upper lip about the whole thing. The thing they miss is that those of us who understand the power of 'spin' and PR is the effect that this constant negativity has on the ambitions of the club, to grow the brand globally, and retain the status we have worked hard to achieve against the obstacles put in our path. As Len said, the weight of evidence of an agenda is overwhelming but really do any of us have the time to sift through thousands of articles and produce some kind of statistical analysis to 'prove' the weight of the bias against our club. Despite article, after article, proof after proof, day in, day out on this thread, the deniers simply choose to ignore the evidence. I challenge the deniers to post negative articles on the rags in this forum whenever they see it, I would happily be proven wrong, but they won't because they can't and very little of it actually exists. I'm looking for opinion pieces that slate the rags for whatever it might be. Can you imagine if one of our players had been sh@gging his brothers wife, you wouldn't have been able to get it off the front and back pages, and they certainly wouldn't be sitting in the assistant managers chair at the Etihad. These lot are beyond the pale.

But the deniers also conveniently ignore the smoking gun, the silver bullet that has blown the agenda out into the open, the much discussed FFP regulations. Why, may I ask the deniers, were these regulations to restrict spending brought in? Who were the team most likely to be impacted negatively by them ? Who has subsequently been punished by them ? Can you explain the timing of the regulations, why were they brought in when they were ?

Every answer to those questions points to our beloved MCFC, and yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that these regulations were brought in to halt our dominance the deniers still claim no evidence of an agenda exists!!

You have to ask just what the hell would convince these people? Do they really expect UEFA, The FA, The premier League to come out and produce a document stating that the primary goals of the governing bodies of football is to protect the status quo, in order to protect revenues. Clearly, it is only this that will convince these people that the lovely world of football is not all straight, fair and run for the benefit of all clubs.

The deniers would have you believe the authorities click a button and the fixtures just fall out of a computer (despite pretty categoric evidence that fixtures are gerrymandered for any number of reasons) that the big media outlets just let their journalists write and then go to print with what the hell they like, that livelihoods in journalism are not dictated by the popularity of their articles, that FFP (despite being anything but fair in their construction) is intended to stop another Portsmouth. Please, just how naive are these people?

There is a concerted and constant agenda against our club and blues are right to call it out and expose it whenever they see it. This is the only way that things may eventually change.

Makes me wonder if you've actually read any of the thread. I'll sum up for you.

Not a single poster - to my knowledge - denies there is an agenda re FFP. So you're kicking at an open door there and wasting words.

Re press agenda, the debate largely hinges on whether it is bias in the media's own commercial interests or an agenda in the sense of coordinated action. Almost everyone believes there is bias. Opinion is deeply divided on "agenda" and there is no categoric evidence either way.

That's a million miles from your own attempt at simplification. You have demonstrated nothing new and proved nothing at all.

 

[Bill]

its sinking in. heads are being removed from sand everywhere.

 

[Cellarite]

its sinking in. heads are being removed from sand everywhere.

Reporting for duty Sir!

I've got a recording of Tyler's commentary of both games on Merseyside ready to play to any doubters at a moment's notice.

 

[sir baconface]

its sinking in. heads are being removed from sand everywhere.

Only if the burden of proof equates to that on the Cliff Richard thread.