so this agenda thing.

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I like being different.

 

[George Hannah]

I like being different.

indifference can be a virtue as well

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I like being different.

indifference can be a virtue as well

I'm never indifferent when it comes to City.

 

[Chris in London]

I like being different.

You're like me in that respect.

 

[George Hannah]

I like being different.

indifference can be a virtue as well

I'm never indifferent when it comes to City.

I never doubted it

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I like being different.

You're like me in that respect.

I'm struggling to think of anything else we've got in common.

 

[George Hannah]

Others notice too! From another thread

Pisstake of the advert/Liverpool -
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxjOyo7AQZQ[/video]

fexcellent

 

[Blue Mooner]

It's obvious from last nights attendance when City played Liverpool why Sky and BT push Liverpool(and United) more.

Apparently 80% of that 50,000 crowd supported Liverpool. The same was probably true, if not bigger, when United played AC Milan.

So you can imagine what the viewing figures are like across the UK, America, and around the World when both of them are on the TV.

Sky and BT buy the PL rights, and then sell TV subscription and advertising space to make that money back.

Sky and BT will always put Liverpool and United first as it makes them more money. And that's the only thing those two companies are interested in.

Always seem to be a defender of the status quo?

What about the fact that when you add up the number of people that don't support the rags or Liverpool it is more than likely greater than those that do ? Why have TV execs not worked that out?

Also, are these two clubs getting the level of support simply because they are 'big' clubs or because of the promotion they get by the media outlets? What came first the chicken or the egg? In my experience your average foreign fan follows the team that is having the most recent success. I would say the globalisation of the prem league has only occurred in the last five maybe ten years at the absolute most. People's decisions are influenced by what they see, read and hear. We are the prem champions for 2 of the last 3 years FFS but you wouldn't know it watching the recent coverage and that is why our success hasn't translated into as many new fans as it should. A dramatic increase yes, but certainly not commensurate with what it should be based on our recent success.

Do you not think that had we had the ar@e licking and promotion our recent success deserves that we we would have seen a much more balanced crowd last night. Maybe not 50/50 but certainly 60/40

Let's not forget there is a constant new generation of fans coming through all the time. They will pick the team that is having the most recent success but if that success is not being promoted to a level that it deserves then the message won't get through to that new generation.

Of course we all get that driving big audiences is what influences tv and media outlets content, that said, someone like Martin Samuel albeit on a small scale has proven that quality, objective journalism can drive big audiences. It will take a brave media exec to take the decision to remove the bias and not follow the agenda but I think when one does they will reap the benefits as they will realise there are more non rag and dipper fans that would welcome and be attracted by that type of output,

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's obvious from last nights attendance when City played Liverpool why Sky and BT push Liverpool(and United) more.

Apparently 80% of that 50,000 crowd supported Liverpool. The same was probably true, if not bigger, when United played AC Milan.

So you can imagine what the viewing figures are like across the UK, America, and around the World when both of them are on the TV.

Sky and BT buy the PL rights, and then sell TV subscription and advertising space to make that money back.

Sky and BT will always put Liverpool and United first as it makes them more money. And that's the only thing those two companies are interested in.

Always seem to be a defender of the status quo?

What about the fact that when you add up the number of people that don't support the rags or Liverpool it is more than likely greater than those that do ? Why have TV execs not worked that out?

Also, are these two clubs getting the level of support simply because they are 'big' clubs or because of the promotion they get by the media outlets? What came first the chicken or the egg? In my experience your average foreign fan follows the team that is having the most recent success. I would say the globalisation of the prem league has only occurred in the last five maybe ten years at the absolute most. People's decisions are influenced by what they see, read and hear. We are the prem champions for 2 of the last 3 years FFS but you wouldn't know it watching the recent coverage and that is why our success hasn't translated into as many new fans as it should. A dramatic increase yes, but certainly not commensurate with what it should be based on our recent success.

Do you not think that had we had the ar@e licking and promotion our recent success deserves that we we would have seen a much more balanced crowd last night. Maybe not 50/50 but certainly 60/40

Let's not forget there is a constant new generation of fans coming through all the time. They will pick the team that is having the most recent success but if that success is not being promoted to a level that it deserves then the message won't get through to that new generation.

Of course we all get that driving big audiences is what influences tv and media outlets content, that said, someone like Martin Samuel albeit on a small scale has proven that quality, objective journalism can drive big audiences. It will take a brave media exec to take the decision to remove the bias and not follow the agenda but I think when one does they will reap the benefits as they will realise there are more non rag and dipper fans that would welcome and be attracted by that type of output,

You raise some valid points but I think you are way off the mark with your reasoning regards the enormous Liverpool contingent in the crowd for that game.

Do you think - by your own logic - the 80% Liverpool supporters were there because of the extent to which the media have hyped Liverpool in the US over the past 5 or 10 years? Really?

Of course this is nonsense - Liverpool have been off the radar internationally for the past several seasons. If it was the rags then maybe conceivably it might have made some small difference, but even then not much.

The reason for the huge Liverpool turn out is that, like it or not, they are a famous club with a large worldwide fan base, built up over generations. Going back to the days of Bob Paisley (or Shankley before that) and them winning the European Cup 3 times. How many Liverpool players did Don Revie bring in to the England team when he took over in the 70's? From memory 6 or 7 of the starting 11 were Liverpool players. This is why 80% of the crowd were Liverpool fans, because of what's happened over the past 40 or 50 years, not the past 5.

Now of course more recent successes count too, and they are a more potent advert, so our title wins and new success will be attracting new fans all over the world. Imagine how the crowd would have been split if we had played that game before Sheikh Mansour came along! 99-1 would have been closer to the mark, let alone 80-20. So to get from effectively nil to perhaps 20% in only in few short years is not bad at all. Next year it will be better still and in time we will overtake Liverpool and the scum, but it will take time.

 

[Bill]

It's obvious from last nights attendance when City played Liverpool why Sky and BT push Liverpool(and United) more.

Apparently 80% of that 50,000 crowd supported Liverpool. The same was probably true, if not bigger, when United played AC Milan.

So you can imagine what the viewing figures are like across the UK, America, and around the World when both of them are on the TV.

Sky and BT buy the PL rights, and then sell TV subscription and advertising space to make that money back.

Sky and BT will always put Liverpool and United first as it makes them more money. And that's the only thing those two companies are interested in.

Always seem to be a defender of the status quo?

What about the fact that when you add up the number of people that don't support the rags or Liverpool it is more than likely greater than those that do ? Why have TV execs not worked that out?

Also, are these two clubs getting the level of support simply because they are 'big' clubs or because of the promotion they get by the media outlets? What came first the chicken or the egg? In my experience your average foreign fan follows the team that is having the most recent success. I would say the globalisation of the prem league has only occurred in the last five maybe ten years at the absolute most. People's decisions are influenced by what they see, read and hear. We are the prem champions for 2 of the last 3 years FFS but you wouldn't know it watching the recent coverage and that is why our success hasn't translated into as many new fans as it should. A dramatic increase yes, but certainly not commensurate with what it should be based on our recent success.

Do you not think that had we had the ar@e licking and promotion our recent success deserves that we we would have seen a much more balanced crowd last night. Maybe not 50/50 but certainly 60/40

Let's not forget there is a constant new generation of fans coming through all the time. They will pick the team that is having the most recent success but if that success is not being promoted to a level that it deserves then the message won't get through to that new generation.

Of course we all get that driving big audiences is what influences tv and media outlets content, that said, someone like Martin Samuel albeit on a small scale has proven that quality, objective journalism can drive big audiences. It will take a brave media exec to take the decision to remove the bias and not follow the agenda but I think when one does they will reap the benefits as they will realise there are more non rag and dipper fans that would welcome and be attracted by that type of output,

You raise some valid points but I think you are way off the mark with your reasoning regards the enormous Liverpool contingent in the crowd for that game.

Do you think - by your own logic - the 80% Liverpool supporters were there because of the extent to which the media have hyped Liverpool in the US over the past 5 or 10 years? Really?

Of course this is nonsense - Liverpool have been off the radar internationally for the past several seasons. If it was the rags then maybe conceivably it might have made some small difference, but even then not much.

The reason for the huge Liverpool turn out is that, like it or not, they are a famous club with a large worldwide fan base, built up over generations. Going back to the days of Bob Paisley (or Shankley before that) and them winning the European Cup 3 times. How many Liverpool players did Don Revie bring in to the England team when he took over in the 70's? From memory 6 or 7 of the starting 11 were Liverpool players. This is why 80% of the crowd were Liverpool fans, because of what's happened over the past 40 or 50 years, not the past 5.

Now of course more recent successes count too, and they are a more potent advert, so our title wins and new success will be attracting new fans all over the world. Imagine how the crowd would have been split if we had played that game before Sheikh Mansour came along! 99-1 would have been closer to the mark, let alone 80-20. So to get from effectively nil to perhaps 20% in only in few short years is not bad at all. Next year it will be better still and in time we will overtake Liverpool and the scum, but it will take time.

it will take longer if the media ignore all our success's. which is the plan.