so this agenda thing.

[George Hannah]

How come that MNF graphic showing United's huge net spend hasn't featured heavily in today's sports pages, surely that would be worth a few hits

this is not the sort of thing they think the public should put up with, in fact young Ratboy got a very good telling off for mentioning it last night.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Here's another one:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-city-squad-value-better-6884095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... er-6884095</a>

"Well, at least United fans can console themselves that they haven’t bought their way to success, eh?

Indeed, when you look at the two line-ups in Tueday’s one-sided derby, it is clear the Reds have been spending their way to mediocrity – their starting XI at Old Trafford cost £181m, and a superior City team cost £168m.

There are some staggering statistics which suggest that when it comes to Sir Alex Ferguson’s old mantra of ‘value for money’, City have been streets ahead of United in recent years."

 

[Len Rum]

Thank heavens for the last few posts.

Just before that I thought for an awful moment that the thread was about to stutter into a consensus of balanced views.

Foxy - there is a consensus on the thread that there is a media agenda of maximising revenue and the anti City biased reporting forms part of the achievement of that agenda.
There remain however a few individuals who believe either:
1. There is bias but no agenda (without explaining why, but probably on the mistaken impression that agenda involves collaboration ,which it doesn't).
2. There is no bias or agenda (no specific explanation given).

There you are I've said it again.

The debate went quiet towards the middle of last season but what kick started it back into life was the Liverpool 'love in' towards the end of the season, and the general media disregard for City's eventual title win. This media coverage (or lack of it) is never mentioned by the few non agendarists left, nor is there any attempt by them to explain or justify it.

I don't think there is all that much anti-City biased reporting. There are little digs here and there from the same culprits, then the odd strange article every now and again...overall it's more pro-certain-other-clubs than anti-City.

Some people say that is pro-old "Sky Four". But the amount of derogatory stuff about Arsenal in the media must double what we get and it is far more damning of that club. And did you stay tuned in to Monday Night Football last year when Liveprool threw that 0-3 lead away at Palace when Carragher and Neville ripped Liverpool and Rodgers to shreds live on air. I've not seen then level of negativity towards any City manager since the takeover.

The media did get very carried away with Liverpool from March onwards last season, certainly, but they weren't particularly anti-City as an industry in my eyes at all.

But where there are some negative things about us, there is also a huge amount that a lot of our fanbase is far too oversensitive about and the same people pay absolutely no attention to all the positive things about us in the media, as if it doesn't exist, or they don't want to believe it does so they choose to ignore it.

I also pop into this thread to provide many examples of this positive stuff in the media.

Again, "the media disregard for City's eventual title win". I bought the papers (it's the only time i ever do) the day after and also watched back the extensive amount of time Sky spent talking about City at the end of the final game - with Quinn Souness and even Redknapp fawning over us and especially Quinn and Souness talking positively about our future. Then there was the coverage of the open top bus tour. Over the Summer, while other clubs whore themselves out to the media, City purposely kept a closed door to them. We didn't want to engage with them too much, by our own choice. We didn't allow anyone to come on tour with us from the media other than the people from our own official website. Then just two days ago there was The Race For The Title on Sky - an hour long programme on the final month of last season. Sky didn't have to make or show that programme, but they did and it was a joy to watch! (it was better than our DVD we put out, mainly due to the fact it didn't have crap music playing throughout it, but i am a bit picky when it comes to music...anyway...)

I'm not saying there is nothing there, because there is. But it's certainly nowhere near as anti-City as people make out and even the ones that are negative about us aren't as bad as people make out.

Fair comments.
Regarding the title win I didn't see all of the post match analysis as I was at the game, but did see a recording of part of it. The comments were positive, but as I recall the pundits were on the pitch in the middle of the celebrations and the impression I got was that it would have been churlish if not impossible for them to have been critical. Like being at a party where everybody's celebrating a success, who wants to be the lone voice striking a critical note?
I still remember Souness' comments after the Dippers had been beaten by Chelsea and we had beaten Palace to put us in the box seat in the Title race.
Away from the pitch and the celebrations then the media showed it's true colours - 'should have won it by ten points' (Durham et al) and 'success due to failings of others' (Hugh McIlvanney et al). Then the awards for anyone but City.
You said the media weren't particularly anti City from March onwards. However I remember we were labelled as underachievers by many at that stage (Hugh McIlvanney et al) and also a journo from the Telegraph did a very heavy piece on us which was posted on the forum a couple of months ago.I also recall Pellegrini was being criticised by other sections of the media as being too nice to win anything. All this of course went hand in hand with the Liverpool 'love in'.
You mentioned the Race for the Title on Sky. I didn't see it ,so can't comment. However if it was positive then it would have served to redress the balance of the Season Review 2013/14 programme which focussed as much on Liverpool and caretaker manager Giggsy as the Champions.
Liverpool vs Palace analysis, I have no problem with Neville, he's objective and a good commentator. Carragher's analysis IMO may have been partly as a result of anger.
Arsenal do come in for some criticism but I think this is based on their lack of success, whereas we get criticised for the sake of it to achieve the financial agenda.

 

[George Hannah]

Here's another one:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-city-squad-value-better-6884095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... er-6884095</a>

"Well, at least United fans can console themselves that they haven’t bought their way to success, eh?

Indeed, when you look at the two line-ups in Tueday’s one-sided derby, it is clear the Reds have been spending their way to mediocrity – their starting XI at Old Trafford cost £181m, and a superior City team cost £168m.

There are some staggering statistics which suggest that when it comes to Sir Alex Ferguson’s old mantra of ‘value for money’, City have been streets ahead of United in recent years."

Mr Brennan clearly feels safe at the moment to make such wicked observations but wait until the vacant MUFC editor post is filled - he'll be sorry then

 

[Chippy_boy]

Here's another one:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-city-squad-value-better-6884095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... er-6884095</a>

"Well, at least United fans can console themselves that they haven’t bought their way to success, eh?

Indeed, when you look at the two line-ups in Tueday’s one-sided derby, it is clear the Reds have been spending their way to mediocrity – their starting XI at Old Trafford cost £181m, and a superior City team cost £168m.

There are some staggering statistics which suggest that when it comes to Sir Alex Ferguson’s old mantra of ‘value for money’, City have been streets ahead of United in recent years."

Mr Brennan clearly feels safe at the moment to make such wicked observations but wait until the vacant MUFC editor post is filled - he'll be sorry then

You know, I didn't actually read the whole article. How about this for commentary, in the MUEN no less (from the same article):

"The flippant accusation levelled at City since Sheikh Mansour’s take-over is that their rise is somehow artificial, buoyed up by unearned money, and that it is all a little tasteless.

It is utter bunkum, of course. The investment from Abu Dhabi has been a good one – the motive was to boost the name of the emirate, and its state airline Etihad, and the association with City has done just that.

Etihad’s profits have surged since 2008, and the association with this classy City team enhances the airline’s reputation, while Abu Dhabi is now on the map as a tourist destination – something in which City have also played a big part. It is laughable United fans criticise a major investment by City’s owners which has been hugely beneficial to both parties, while the Reds’ owners have plunged their club into debt.

It is even dafter that Uefa thinks Sheikh Mansour’s investment, a huge boost to football and the community in Manchester, needs investigating under the Fair Play system, while the plunder of United is not."

Of course it is dangerous to dismiss United – they remain a great club with a big global standing. But it is City who are setting the pace in Manchester now, and the Reds are limping along in their wake."

 

[SilverFox2]

Good point (Chippy Boy), what was originally an FFP issue has been misrepresented as highest spend.

Over 5 years this evens out that this year our spend has been limited but I admit to being under the impression that we were highest spenders.

 

[sir baconface]

Citysmith. Excellent post.
I like your first sentence "The agenda is to sell stuff".
As you point out, Dippers and United stories for example will increase revenue more than City stories because of the sizes of the target markets (fan base).
And it doesn't require much lateral thinking to realise that pro Dipper/United stories and anti City stories will increase revenues even further.
So we have an agenda of 'revenue increase', the means of achieving which is to be biased in the reporting of the affairs of the different clubs.
Agenda and bias combined in one.
And yet there are still some who seek to deny it.

Saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make something an indisputable fact.

Over and out.

At the risk of boring everyone, could you state your counter argument not over and over again because I don't believe you've ever put one forward in the first place.

As a matter of fact I have. If you are genuinely interested in any view other than your own, try looking through the thread.

 

[Ducado]

I think it's time for this

[bigimg]http://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BvOpXZNCUAEccB8.jpg[/bigimg]

 

[cibaman]

Thank heavens for the last few posts.

Just before that I thought for an awful moment that the thread was about to stutter into a consensus of balanced views.

Foxy - there is a consensus on the thread that there is a media agenda of maximising revenue and the anti City biased reporting forms part of the achievement of that agenda.
There remain however a few individuals who believe either:
1. There is bias but no agenda (without explaining why, but probably on the mistaken impression that agenda involves collaboration ,which it doesn't).
2. There is no bias or agenda (no specific explanation given).

There you are I've said it again.

The debate went quiet towards the middle of last season but what kick started it back into life was the Liverpool 'love in' towards the end of the season, and the general media disregard for City's eventual title win. This media coverage (or lack of it) is never mentioned by the few non agendarists left, nor is there any attempt by them to explain or justify it.

It was explainable by the very unusual way in which we won the title, spending only 15 days in first place. The team in first place is usually the focus of media attention. We were rarely in that position.

Our best spell was December & January. Starting with the wins at Bayern and at home to Arsenal, culminating in the magnificent victory at Spurs when we topped the table for a couple of days. I thought we received plenty of acclaim during that period and if we'd continued in that form would have been praised to the heavens and won every award going.

But then we lost to Chelsea which pricked our balloon as far as the press (and many of our fans) were concerned. We then spent all of Feb, March & April in 3rd or 4th place. The three postponements distorted that but generally the press focus on the league leaders rather than the team in 3rd or 4th place. And despite the mawkishness that followed, it has to be said that Liverpool were superb during that period. They were 7 points behind us after we played Spurs and their winning run deserved high praise. It also coincided with voting season for the major awards.

We then had our glorious 2 weeks at the end of the season when we won the league. 14 days isn't really a long enough period to outweigh the media coverage of the previous 3 months.

We didn't get a great deal of attention after winning the league because the media quickly moved into World Cup mode, as they usually do in World Cup years. With a short interlude for Cakegate.

 

[George Hannah]

I think it's time for this

[bigimg]http://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BvOpXZNCUAEccB8.jpg[/bigimg]

is that Aaron Ramsey?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Thank heavens for the last few posts.

Just before that I thought for an awful moment that the thread was about to stutter into a consensus of balanced views.

Foxy - there is a consensus on the thread that there is a media agenda of maximising revenue and the anti City biased reporting forms part of the achievement of that agenda.
There remain however a few individuals who believe either:
1. There is bias but no agenda (without explaining why, but probably on the mistaken impression that agenda involves collaboration ,which it doesn't).
2. There is no bias or agenda (no specific explanation given).

There you are I've said it again.

The debate went quiet towards the middle of last season but what kick started it back into life was the Liverpool 'love in' towards the end of the season, and the general media disregard for City's eventual title win. This media coverage (or lack of it) is never mentioned by the few non agendarists left, nor is there any attempt by them to explain or justify it.

It was explainable by the very unusual way in which we won the title, spending only 15 days in first place. The team in first place is usually the focus of media attention. We were rarely in that position.

Our best spell was December & January. Starting with the wins at Bayern and at home to Arsenal, culminating in the magnificent victory at Spurs when we topped the table for a couple of days. I thought we received plenty of acclaim during that period and if we'd continued in that form would have been praised to the heavens and won every award going.

But then we lost to Chelsea which pricked our balloon as far as the press (and many of our fans) were concerned. We then spent all of Feb, March & April in 3rd or 4th place. The three postponements distorted that but generally the press focus on the league leaders rather than the team in 3rd or 4th place. And despite the mawkishness that followed, it has to be said that Liverpool were superb during that period. They were 7 points behind us after we played Spurs and their winning run deserved high praise. It also coincided with voting season for the major awards.

We then had our glorious 2 weeks at the end of the season when we won the league. 14 days isn't really a long enough period to outweigh the media coverage of the previous 3 months.

We didn't get a great deal of attention after winning the league because the media quickly moved into World Cup mode, as they usually do in World Cup years. With a short interlude for Cakegate.

Whilst there is nothing factually incorrect in what you post, your memory of the tone of the coverage around Liverpool's putative title charge is severely lacking.

It extended well beyond the mawkish. It was nauseating, tendentious, and at times, utterly absurd, and as such invites derision, contempt and very much deserves to be called into question on a thread which is, in part at least, about media bias.

 

[Blue Is the Opposite of Blue]

So now we're on to Red Button headlines and yellow card averages?

wow what a superb cogent comeback, clearly expressed well written and full of the evidence for us all to pack up and go home

you want facts, you get facts, no narrative, but still you are an hypocritical spoilt brat

Should we drag up the question you asked in the "Would you accept a rapist at City?" thread, or should we just leave it there?

 

[SilverFox2]

Thank heavens for the last few posts.

Just before that I thought for an awful moment that the thread was about to stutter into a consensus of balanced views.

Foxy - there is a consensus on the thread that there is a media agenda of maximising revenue and the anti City biased reporting forms part of the achievement of that agenda.
There remain however a few individuals who believe either:
1. There is bias but no agenda (without explaining why, but probably on the mistaken impression that agenda involves collaboration ,which it doesn't).
2. There is no bias or agenda (no specific explanation given).

There you are I've said it again.

The debate went quiet towards the middle of last season but what kick started it back into life was the Liverpool 'love in' towards the end of the season, and the general media disregard for City's eventual title win. This media coverage (or lack of it) is never mentioned by the few non agendarists left, nor is there any attempt by them to explain or justify it.

Sorry Len, just noticed your comments so apologies for the late reply.

Please don't misunderstand my comments. I am in favour of reasoned argument but have given up on this thread being anything other than a sounding board for extreme views on both sides.

In a way I understand both points of view with a probable leaning towards the agnostic within me so I tend to enjoy the fact that this thread will probably never reach an agreed conclusion but unlike the 'agree to disagree' mentality of most stalemates this one runs on like a written 'speakers corner'.

I also enjoy the fact that it has become a collecting point for news items and data facts that on occasions probably deserve their own thread.

 

[George Hannah]

Whilst there is nothing factually incorrect in what you post, your memory of the tone of the coverage around Liverpool's putative title charge is severely lacking.
It extended well beyond the mawkish. It was nauseating, tendentious, and at times, utterly absurd, and as such invites derision, contempt and very much deserves to be called into question on a thread which is, in part at least, about media bias.

it was indeed a tissue of mendacious absurdity matched admirably by some on here

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

So now we're on to Red Button headlines and yellow card averages?

wow what a superb cogent comeback, clearly expressed well written and full of the evidence for us all to pack up and go home

you want facts, you get facts, no narrative, but still you are an hypocritical spoilt brat

Should we drag up the question you asked in the "Would you accept a rapist at City?" thread, or should we just leave it there?

Yeah, that was some comment, that.

 

[Len Rum]

Thank heavens for the last few posts.

Just before that I thought for an awful moment that the thread was about to stutter into a consensus of balanced views.

Foxy - there is a consensus on the thread that there is a media agenda of maximising revenue and the anti City biased reporting forms part of the achievement of that agenda.
There remain however a few individuals who believe either:
1. There is bias but no agenda (without explaining why, but probably on the mistaken impression that agenda involves collaboration ,which it doesn't).
2. There is no bias or agenda (no specific explanation given).

There you are I've said it again.

The debate went quiet towards the middle of last season but what kick started it back into life was the Liverpool 'love in' towards the end of the season, and the general media disregard for City's eventual title win. This media coverage (or lack of it) is never mentioned by the few non agendarists left, nor is there any attempt by them to explain or justify it.

It was explainable by the very unusual way in which we won the title, spending only 15 days in first place. The team in first place is usually the focus of media attention. We were rarely in that position.

Our best spell was December & January. Starting with the wins at Bayern and at home to Arsenal, culminating in the magnificent victory at Spurs when we topped the table for a couple of days. I thought we received plenty of acclaim during that period and if we'd continued in that form would have been praised to the heavens and won every award going.

But then we lost to Chelsea which pricked our balloon as far as the press (and many of our fans) were concerned. We then spent all of Feb, March & April in 3rd or 4th place. The three postponements distorted that but generally the press focus on the league leaders rather than the team in 3rd or 4th place. And despite the mawkishness that followed, it has to be said that Liverpool were superb during that period. They were 7 points behind us after we played Spurs and their winning run deserved high praise. It also coincided with voting season for the major awards.

We then had our glorious 2 weeks at the end of the season when we won the league. 14 days isn't really a long enough period to outweigh the media coverage of the previous 3 months.

We didn't get a great deal of attention after winning the league because the media quickly moved into World Cup mode, as they usually do in World Cup years. With a short interlude for Cakegate.

It's a good argument which explains the way the media reported the title race.
Where I have to disagree is that the Liverpool love in was mere mawkishness. IMO the media desperately wanted Liverpool to win the title not only because a lot of media pundits are ex Liverpool players but because the Dippers as a club fit the media model - big fan base and so lots of revenues,lots of British players, a British manager and an American owner is not too bad i.e.everything we are not.Throw in the England captain who had never won a Prem title and the25th anniversary of Hillsborough and they just lost it and went overboard for the Dippers. In the reverse situation of us coming from where they did , do you think the media would have treated us the same way? I just can't see it.
As for the non reaction to our title win, it let's them off too lightly to suggest it was due to the World Cup, there was still a good month after the season finished. A week of favourable coverage would have been nice. Moving on to the World Cup so quickly may have been the excuse they needed to ignore us. What coverage we did get was as I mentioned in the post above restricted to 'should have won it by ten points' and 'success was due to failings of others'.

 

[tonea2003]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28866189" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28866189</a>

how does this sits with the agenderists?

surely they wouldn't ban one of their own

i thought things like this only happen to inner commers

 

[BigOscar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28866189

how does this sits with the agenderists?

surely they wouldn't ban one of their own

i thought things like this only happen to inner commers

To be fair, Barcelona are always accused of being UEFA's team, not FIFA's (who are the ones who've punished them) and FIFA are in a bit of a war with UEFA over the increasing power of the CL so probably wouldn't mind sticking it to UEFA's favourite child, but that's a whole different agenda for a different day.

 

[nmc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28866189

how does this sits with the agenderists?

surely they wouldn't ban one of their own

i thought things like this only happen to inner commers

Nice that they were given pre warning so they could do this and next years transfer business upfront - what a joke. Perhaps they could get around to paying some tax in 2015 whilst they are not distracted by transfer business.

 

[George Hannah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28866189

how does this sits with the agenderists?

surely they wouldn't ban one of their own

i thought things like this only happen to inner commers

Nice that they were given pre warning so they could do this and next years transfer business upfront - what a joke. Perhaps they could get around to paying some tax in 2015 whilst they are not distracted by transfer business.

Matty illustrated this well on the Barca thread

"You're banned from signing players"

"Ok, we appeal"

"Fine, we'll hear your appeal, and in the meantime feel free to sign whoever you want"

"Ok, we'll spend £130m signing the following:-
Claudio Bravo (goalkeeper)
Marc-Andre ter Stegen (goalkeeper)
Jeremy Mathieu (defender)
Thomas Vermaelen (defender)
Ivan Rakitic (midfielder)
Luis Suarez (striker)"

"Fine, you've just lost your appeal, can't sign anyone until January 2016"

"Oh damn, how will we cope, we were in real need of goalkeepers, defenders, a striker and an attacking midfielder!"