UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[Blue Mist]

If it helps I am In The Know (ITK) The problem is I am Not Sure What I Know (NSWIK) further I do not understand what I know (IDNUWIK)

 

[Alaricmc]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

Have to say I very much like your reasoned and very eloquent response Alaricmc. Thanks for sharing.

 

[The Colonel]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

I considered writing something similar but didn’t find the time and I don’t think that I could have put it so eloquently and succinctly. I too used to read it and it’s a shame when I think back to the days of Frank Keating et al.

 

[Alaricmc]

Thanks, guys.

 

[KS55]

I really hope the smoking gun doesn't turn out to be a water pistol.

Tottenham have a spud gun.

Gets coat.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

Being a Manchester City fan and reading The Guardian is the definition of Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[chesterbells]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

Excellent work regardless pal

 

[KS55]

Being a Manchester City fan and reading The Guardian is the definition of Cognitive Dissonance.

How about liking football and supporting the rags.

 

[Northblue]

I really hope the smoking gun doesn't turn out to be a water pistol.

the soaking gun?