so this agenda thing.

[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,

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.

Sorry I do happen to disagree. Do you really think that the crowd of 55,000 yanks were following Liverpool through the 80's, seriously? You could barely get a game on Granada in the 80's let alone across the pond. The globalisation of the game, particularly in Asia and the US has only really happened in the last 10 years since the onset of the internet.

The MLS struggled for many years from its inception in 96 from a lack of interest in soccer, it was losing hundreds of millions of dollars up until 2004. It onlyreally got going post the 2004 World Cup, so where were these hordes of Liverpool fans in the US that you point to that loyally followed the club from Shankly to Paisley? They weren't even interested in their own version of the game. No these fans have developed recently and have bought into the narrative propagated by the media around the history of Liverpool, hillsborough tragedy, and the mythical Kop and YNWA.

But we have our own illustrious history, are arguably the most successful prem team of the last 3 years. Had that message been getting out there, about one of the best midfielders in the world in Yaya toure (who was inextricably beaten out of the top 3 by Steven Gerrard!) Our amazing goal scoring record and the world class talent in the
Ike's of silva, Aguero and Kompany been promoted to the same degree, we would have had more fans at the game.

I'm not suggesting that had we had the lions share of media output our success deserves that we would have had more fans than Liverpool, as no doubt their narrative is alluring to a new fan of the game, however, I am certain that had we had the promotion in the media our success deserves the discrepancy in the crowd would have been a lot less pronounced.

But if you want to believe that the majority of that crowd in NY has been following Liverpool for decades then your entitled to that view, I personally totally disagree.

 

[tonea2003]

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.

Do you think it would be allowed if Coca Cola launched an advertising campaign claiming Pepsi Cola was toxic?

they are not toxic?

 

[tonea2003]

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.

of course whilst the media is full of rags and dippers, but that will change over time as they employ people ala joe hart, vinnie( if thats what they want to do) etc
but that will take time

 

[SilverFox2]

I think that there are valid points from both sides on recent posts but am happy that our owners have probably understood that we are not going to be everybody's flavour of the month in the short term or have decided to be more proactive in changing this perception (probably both).
ADUG's decision to buy into football clubs in USA, Japan and Australia is evidence that they want to grow it globally rather than rely solely on the model others use of a UK based club that their base of foreign supporters must be grown from.

Like most things applicable to MCFC we have a lot of catching up to do after the many years of mismanagement of our image by previous owners.

Our owners are doing things differently and frankly UEFA and FIFA never mind the 12 or (is it 14) elite clubs are realising that change is happening so are uncertain whether to embrace it or ignore it.

Again just an opinion.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

No these fans have developed recently and have bought into the narrative propagated by the media around the history of Liverpool, hillsborough tragedy, and the mythical Kop and YNWA.

But we have our own illustrious history, are arguably the most successful prem team of the last 3 years.

Liverpool's narrative is something that John W Henry will come to have viewed as serendipitous, being aware, as I'm certain he is, of the currency in human tragedy, if it can be marketed effectively. It is, I suspect, one of the reasons that the doublethink in relation to Heysel that subsists in people associated with that club, prevails. It is why it is played down by the club in such stark contrast to their advancement of the cause around Hillsborough. Does that mean I am critical of them for that in relation to Hillsborough? In broad terms, absolutely not, not least because it is something the club has consistently done since before FSG took over, but anyone who thinks that John W Henry hasn't considered, appreciated and acted upon the commercial benefits of being associated with such a tragedy, with all its attendant ingredients of innocent death and state culpability, do not understand what it takes in someone to become a billionaire.

As you say, City have their own narrative and one which should be exploited more vigourously by the club imo. A club that was virtually broken a decade and a half ago, a fallen giant, now sits at the top table of the global world game. If it hadn't been for the steadfast efforts of its supporters around the end of the last century, it wouldn't and couldn't have appeared on Sheikh Mansour's radar in the first place. The club's revival, and the part its supporters played in that, is a story which also has considerable marketing appeal and one reason why the club's ticketing pricing needs to the attended to with greater care than has been displayed of late. I believe City, more than any other club, would suffer an identity crisis, if sufficient numbers of its long-term support were priced-out from watching their team with any regularity.

The club needs to be more bold in promoting its history globally. It is a narrative which is as interesting, with as many incredible twists and calamities, as any other. It really is, in footballing terms, an incredible story.

 

[mancity dan]

No these fans have developed recently and have bought into the narrative propagated by the media around the history of Liverpool, hillsborough tragedy, and the mythical Kop and YNWA.

But we have our own illustrious history, are arguably the most successful prem team of the last 3 years.

Liverpool's narrative is something that John W Henry will come to have viewed as serendipitous, being aware, as I'm certain he is, of the currency in human tragedy, if it can be marketed effectively. It is, I suspect, one of the reasons that the doublethink in relation to Heysel that subsists in people associated with that club, prevails. It is why it is played down by the club in such stark contrast to their advancement of the cause around Hillsborough. Does that mean I am critical of them for that in relation to Hillsborough? In broad terms, absolutely not, not least because it is something the club has consistently done since before FSG took over, but anyone who thinks that John W Henry hasn't considered, appreciated and acted upon the commercial benefits of being associated with such a tragedy, with all its attendant ingredients of innocent death and state culpability, do not understand what it takes in someone to become a billionaire.

As you say, City have their own narrative and one which should be exploited more vigourously by the club imo. A club that was virtually broken a decade and a half ago, a fallen giant, now sits at the top table of the global world game. If it hadn't been for the steadfast efforts of its supporters around the end of the last century, it wouldn't and couldn't have appeared on Sheikh Mansour's radar in the first place. The club's revival, and the part its supporters played in that, is a story which also has considerable marketing appeal and one reason why the club's ticketing pricing needs to the attended to with greater care than has been displayed of late. I believe City, more than any other club, would suffer an identity crisis, if sufficient numbers of its long-term support were priced-out from watching their team with any regularity.

The club needs to be more bold in promoting its history globally. It is a narrative which is as interesting, with as many incredible twists and calamities, as any other. It really is, in footballing terms, an incredible story.

Totally agree with you here GDM. We do need to market the past 15 years or so more to show our incredible rise.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

No these fans have developed recently and have bought into the narrative propagated by the media around the history of Liverpool, hillsborough tragedy, and the mythical Kop and YNWA.

But we have our own illustrious history, are arguably the most successful prem team of the last 3 years.

Liverpool's narrative is something that John W Henry will come to have viewed as serendipitous, being aware, as I'm certain he is, of the currency in human tragedy, if it can be marketed effectively. It is, I suspect, one of the reasons that the doublethink in relation to Heysel that subsists in people associated with that club, prevails. It is why it is played down by the club in such stark contrast to their advancement of the cause around Hillsborough. Does that mean I am critical of them for that in relation to Hillsborough? In broad terms, absolutely not, not least because it is something the club has consistently done since before FSG took over, but anyone who thinks that John W Henry hasn't considered, appreciated and acted upon the commercial benefits of being associated with such a tragedy, with all its attendant ingredients of innocent death and state culpability, do not understand what it takes in someone to become a billionaire.

As you say, City have their own narrative and one which should be exploited more vigourously by the club imo. A club that was virtually broken a decade and a half ago, a fallen giant, now sits at the top table of the global world game. If it hadn't been for the steadfast efforts of its supporters around the end of the last century, it wouldn't and couldn't have appeared on Sheikh Mansour's radar in the first place. The club's revival, and the part its supporters played in that, is a story which also has considerable marketing appeal and one reason why the club's ticketing pricing needs to the attended to with greater care than has been displayed of late. I believe City, more than any other club, would suffer an identity crisis, if sufficient numbers of its long-term support were priced-out from watching their team with any regularity.

The club needs to be more bold in promoting its history globally. It is a narrative which is as interesting, with as many incredible twists and calamities, as any other. It really is, in footballing terms, an incredible story.

Totally agree with you here GDM. We do need to market the past 15 years or so more to show our incredible rise.

Whenever I see fans of other clubs mocking us for where we were 15 years ago, as if its something to be ashamed of, I always allow myself a wry smile, as it makes me very proud, both in terms of where we were and where we now find ourselves. I am sure it is a story that would appeal greatly to neutrals (not yet imbued with all the bile that goes with casting our eyes upon a rival club) who are looking to attach themselves to a particular club in the years ahead.

 

[BlueHalli]

I just state that no other team has done what we have done in my generation. To go from seeing your team yoyo from league to league. Get promoted from div 2 in such fasion and then watch your team take the title from the grasps of the rags and liverpool. You couldnt make it up .

I wouldnt change a thing . Everything.has been perfect. Id hate to be born into a club that was at the top from the off . That old sayin 'you must experiance the bad times to appriciate the good times'.

Im also glad we dont get our arses kissed by the media . It makes us look like a proper club rather than a brand like liverpool and rags . It just pisses me off havin to hear about them every two mins . Sky and the media dont even try to be discrete with it anymore . Its just a blatent onslaught.

It tells me its desperate times to try and keep them in everyones mind during our uprise.

 

[Blue Mooner]

I think that there are valid points from both sides on recent posts but am happy that our owners have probably understood that we are not going to be everybody's flavour of the month in the short term or have decided to be more proactive in changing this perception (probably both).
ADUG's decision to buy into football clubs in USA, Japan and Australia is evidence that they want to grow it globally rather than rely solely on the model others use of a UK based club that their base of foreign supporters must be grown from.

Like most things applicable to MCFC we have a lot of catching up to do after the many years of mismanagement of our image by previous owners.

Our owners are doing things differently and frankly UEFA and FIFA never mind the 12 or (is it 14) elite clubs are realising that change is happening so are uncertain whether to embrace it or ignore it.

Again just an opinion.

Do you not think this strategy of setting up/buying up clubs is in part the relative failure (I say relative as there is no doubt we are a much bigger brand than we were 5 years ago) of MCFC to take off globally as a brand In it's' own right and that is in part due to the lack of promotion we get by the mainstream media, despite our success?

 

[Blue Mooner]

No these fans have developed recently and have bought into the narrative propagated by the media around the history of Liverpool, hillsborough tragedy, and the mythical Kop and YNWA.

But we have our own illustrious history, are arguably the most successful prem team of the last 3 years.

Liverpool's narrative is something that John W Henry will come to have viewed as serendipitous, being aware, as I'm certain he is, of the currency in human tragedy, if it can be marketed effectively. It is, I suspect, one of the reasons that the doublethink in relation to Heysel that subsists in people associated with that club, prevails. It is why it is played down by the club in such stark contrast to their advancement of the cause around Hillsborough. Does that mean I am critical of them for that in relation to Hillsborough? In broad terms, absolutely not, not least because it is something the club has consistently done since before FSG took over, but anyone who thinks that John W Henry hasn't considered, appreciated and acted upon the commercial benefits of being associated with such a tragedy, with all its attendant ingredients of innocent death and state culpability, do not understand what it takes in someone to become a billionaire.

As you say, City have their own narrative and one which should be exploited more vigourously by the club imo. A club that was virtually broken a decade and a half ago, a fallen giant, now sits at the top table of the global world game. If it hadn't been for the steadfast efforts of its supporters around the end of the last century, it wouldn't and couldn't have appeared on Sheikh Mansour's radar in the first place. The club's revival, and the part its supporters played in that, is a story which also has considerable marketing appeal and one reason why the club's ticketing pricing needs to the attended to with greater care than has been displayed of late. I believe City, more than any other club, would suffer an identity crisis, if sufficient numbers of its long-term support were priced-out from watching their team with any regularity.

The club needs to be more bold in promoting its history globally. It is a narrative which is as interesting, with as many incredible twists and calamities, as any other. It really is, in footballing terms, an incredible story.

Great post and I do think City themselves could make more of this narrative, that said, it still returns to my main point that the mainstream media have no interest in promoting this narrative to our ultimate benefit as they are too busy promoting the interests of the rags, Liverpool, arsenal and Chelsea with their sycophancy.

For me, this is the main reason why we saw such a difference in support in NYC.