DAVID MOONEY Blows the Whistle on the Anti-Manchester City Media Agenda

I was sitting on the toilet in work when I first realised the email I had missed all those years ago had been caught in my spam folder. I realise this isn’t the most glamorous start to a column I could have given you and the image of me sitting on the throne with my jeans around my ankles isn’t one you particularly wanted, but if I start off by lying to you and telling you I was in some swanky beach bar in Miami then we begin on very shaky ground.

Not only would it not be true, but you could also check by taking a look at my Twitter feed to see if I was indeed in Miami. I’m not.

So, there I was “interviewing a plumber” as we say at work, when I checked my spam folder and saw the missing email, buried at the bottom of 147,961 unread messages offering me free ink cartridges, penis enlargement patches, all sorts of porn, and cheap holidays to somewhere that definitely wouldn’t look like it did in the photographs.

I’ve been a journalist for a while, but it’s only recently that I’ve started doing the job on a full time basis rather than being freelance. And, for that reason, it seems I was overlooked by the clear media agenda that surrounds Manchester City – specifically the one in which the controllers of all things press tell me what I can and can’t say about the club. Had I gone straight into the media following my graduation, instead of sitting around writing nonsense and talking rubbish, then I might have been CC’d into the mailshot sooner than I was.

I work for a local independent radio station. As well as reporting what happens on a local, national and international level, it’s my job to look at our local football teams: Manchester City and Manchester United being the optimum ones, but there are a few others. As part of my induction to the job, the big media boss that oversees everything we do in the industry – whether we’re BBC staff, whether we’re independent staff, whether we’re writing for newspapers or magazines, whether we’re on the TV… everyone – informed me that it’s my duty to talk up Manchester United at every given opportunity, while laying a boot into their Blue rivals.

‘Why?’ you might ask. Certainly, I did ask. And the answer was clear: Manchester United are the bigger revenue bringers, so their fans need to have their egos massaged.

I was as surprised as anyone. I had always remarked upon the absurdity of every single media outlet being in collusion with each other about reporting negative stories on the Blues. I had always passed it off as common sense that each and every journalist supported a team of their own and were able of coming to their own independent opinions when commenting on football. Tasked with writing an opinion piece, I had always (rather naively) believed that the writer judged the situation and gave their assessment; sometimes they were right and sometimes they were wrong.

I had always assumed that pundits on live football coverage were giving their thoughts on situations, having arrived at the conclusions based on the evidence they’d seen. Again, often right or wrong, with those watching at home able to disagree.

For years, I’d assumed that all of the negative reporting balanced itself out with the sparks of positive press that would surface from time to time. I thought those that dared go against the grain and praise what the Blues had been doing were brave – but I didn’t realise HOW brave. Having since seen the sanctions (which were attached to the email in my spam folder), I can confirm those men and women are indeed heroes of their time. They’ve definitely not just had an opinion based on the evidence they’ve seen.

It had always been my belief that those who felt the whole of the British press were out to get Manchester City were barking up the wrong tree. Little did I know that, of all the conspiracy theories that exist in modern life, the one I was closest to was the one I couldn’t even spot.

When I had opened my spam folder and saw the words on my mobile phone screen, an overwhelming sense of embarrassment filled my body. I had never realised that every working journalist in the country had been in cahoots to maintain the comfortable status quo for no reason whatsoever. How wrong I was.

The truth is simple. We journalists need Manchester City to be the bad guys. More people hate the Blues for their money and power than like them, so it’s for us to pander to the masses and earn ourselves more readers, listeners or viewers. Think about it logically – who would trust a media outlet that reported a truthful opinion instead of what the consumers wanted to hear?

We’d be laughing stocks worldwide if we gave the club a fair ride.

I know what you’ll be thinking: ‘David, what about when it’s a news story rather than an opinion piece? Surely that the news is based on facts means that positive stories can’t be presented negatively?’

Again, that’s what I used to believe. Attached to my email from the leader of all things journalism was a manual, outlining just how to go about sticking the boot in. For instance, whenever we have to report on a Manchester City win, we have to contextualise it and explain how easy it had been made for the club to do it; while a Manchester United victory is always against the odds – in broadcast media, this can be done simply with the tone of voice.

When it comes to what others have said, providing it matches the agenda we all must stick to then it’s reportable. We mustn’t question anything said by those connected to Manchester United about youth policy for instance or how they had earned the money they can spend through winning title after title; but when a Manchester City voice claims the club is doing great work in the community, we must constantly explain how much money is being spent on wages that would serve the world better elsewhere.

For my part in this pushed agenda, I expect I will no longer be allowed to work in the British press – not that I’d want to continue to be a part of the corrupt organisation anyway. This whistle-blowing is, effectively, my resignation from all things media.

The establishment is out to get the club I love – and I can’t stand for it any more.

And, of course, if this whole thing sounds mental to you, imagine how it felt for me to write it. Imagine how ridiculous life would be if anything in this column was actually true.

Written by David Mooney

Follow Typical City on Twitter and Like on Facebook

, ,
77 comments on “DAVID MOONEY Blows the Whistle on the Anti-Manchester City Media Agenda
  1. Chelsea managed to shrug off the anti media
    It is because of united that we can’t
    The owners should have targeted the league from the outset and shut everyone up year after year instead of chasing the champions league

  2. ‘Toilet humour’ was never such an ironic phrase, regarding the original article.
    If the sarcastic end was meant to appease the rag/dipper media, then it worked, because the truth of things will always be that there is an anti-City predilection in the mainstream media, or at least there has been, in recent times, as backed up by the genuine comments from non-City fans.
    For whatever reason.
    There are many – some obvious, some subtle.
    Promoting united and liverpool will always sell more papers, so the gutter press are excused, if morality and truth is to be the casualty in the modern world of worshipping profits – but like the united supporter pointed out, and quite correctly, there is also anti-united sentiment in the media too – it comes with the territory – of being ‘successful’ – however you define that.
    It was always going to take huge sums of money to break the grip of the so-called ‘big four’ of the nineties and noughties, and whilst the likes of spurs and everton came respectably close, the establishment in english football, in much the same way as the establishment in european football (real, barca, bayern) chose to not appreciate the competition. Why on earth would they?
    The accomplishments of Manchester City football club may be belittled or dismissed, but, in actual fact, to go from being winners of a third place playoff in division two, in 1999, to winning the premier league in 2012 with practically the last kick of the last game, is in itself, an indication of the romance of the beautiful game, the poetic justice that the long-suffering City supporters may feel, not least in spite of a banner mocking the club, which was approved by their ‘neighbour’ club and the likes of which we do not see in any football ground anywhere else in the world.
    Slowly but surely, the likes of Uwe Rosler, Richard Dunne, and other ex-City players, will appear in the media commentating on City matches, and in some small part we can hope for at least some non anti-City reporting.
    Or ‘balanced journalism’ – heaven forbid!
    City don’t want kiss-ass fools like Michael Owen in the media, just people who call a spade a spade.
    So if we are shite, we say it, and if we play scintillating pass and move football, it is appreciated as thus, and not some defensive frailty on behalf of the team we sliced apart.
    As an ex-pat Manc living in Ireland, it has been particularly tough. If the british media are anti-City then the irish media are even more so – that’s just the way it is.
    Carlos

  3. I was sat reading this on the toilet funnily enough. Very interesting but sadly not surprising. Happens too often.

    Would be really good to see the email if possible, would put the organisation on the spot and force them to answer questions.

  4. ref fred remind me how many years the english media said their was no conspirisy surrounding phone hacking and hilsborough also barcelona punished for tax reasons munich ulle hournest serving prison sentence. match fixing ect.we live in an age now where people can question things and unfortunately one man [you] and his computer does not mean anything or put people of. the facts are their for all to see.information is sent consistantly to people in the game oh by the way that excludes plattini .when sky loose the rights to the champions league next year you will see all the champions from all the leagues in pot one. does that not alone tell you something or are you so ignorant that you are blind thankfully other organisations are not.its a good job sky sold their share in MUTV for 2.5 million last year as under european law its classed as anti competitive and is a crime which in itself raises the question of bias add that to the fact you subscribe to sky for premier league matches and some would say theirs something that needs looking at.man u are promoted in norway new zealand for example on sky net work by that i mean MUTV So many other examples why most people think english media and press are the sewer rats of the world media.because if you promote a subscription tv company on your network you must be recieving a portion of money to do so.therefore it is in your own benefit to promote your allies and hurt your competitors.newspapers are mostly owned by these tv companies so print the same bile this is not hard to follow really so to say there is no man city agenda and the press are not pro united is laughable. lets not forget who owns the rags as well by that i mean hedge funds and banks they all piss in the same pot fred

  5. well Dave,

    you were doing great until the last line!

    the truth is that the Foul Play cartel clubs
    and their parasitic media allies
    will soon be choking on their lies, smears and negative reporting about City when we win the league (again)

    • To be honest, city fans just tend to come across as a bit of a needy bunch these days.

      “Look at us, look at us! LOOK AT US! Please give us some credit for spending hundreds of millions of pounds of someone else’s money in order to win the league.”

      “Stop looking at those nasty rags across the road! They’re skint, don’t you you know, we’re the future now. Why is no-one paying us any attention?!”

      “Please will someone say nice things about us? We know that any team on earth could have won the league if they had won the lottery like we did, but they wouldn’t have done it whilst shining a blue moon onto the crowd, now would they?”

      “Who do those nasty people at Fifa think they are with these unjust FFP laws? Don’t they realise that we should just be able to do what we want and buy whoever we want, using money that isn’t even ours? Whoever could possibly think that was unsporting and unfair?”

      You would think they’d be happy with their lot after winning the league after all those years of misery, but apparently not….

      • The money City have spent is their own and their debt level is ZERO! If by any chance we don’t make it to the top four we’ll still have no debt but will be come back even stronger in 2015-16. That’s what real businesses do.

        On the other hand, the rags have borrowed up to hilt courtesy of a marker from Adidas. If they fail to qualify for CL this season, they are up sh*t creek without a paddle. Sponsor’s performance targets will be missed and sponsorship income will decline (United share value too). NOBODY WANTS TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH FAILURE!!

        Could get better if Mr Dupont gets FFP declared illegal in the European courts next Spring.

      • If the money city have spent is their own, as you claim, then where did they find the £500-odd million from? Down the back of the sofa?

        And cfity are a ‘real business’? Don’t make me laugh. Everything about the club has always been an absolute joke. Without the outside finance you’d probably have gone bust by now.

        According to Stuart Pearce, it almost happened in 2005:

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2720025/Stuart-Pearce-claims-Manchester-City-gone-BUST-not-sold-Shaun-Wright-Phillips-Chelsea.html

        ‘The club had sold the club shop, sold the ground to council, we were paying on the never-never for the Anelkas of this world,’ Pearce told the The Mirror.

        Seriously, the revisionism shown by city fans since they have suddenly come into all this money is staggering.

      • Of course it is City’s money. Ownership of the club changed and with it did the financial situation of City.
        The money is as much ‘outside money’ as is the money of Chevrolet, Adidas or any other partner, put into your club or any other club. Just to be clear, it’s not outside money.

        And yes, City is a ‘real’ business. Google and read a bit about CFG, City Football Group, and look what it is all about and what kind of people are in charge. Doesn’t get any more ‘real’ than that really.

        And why bring up any period before ’08 at all? The club was on the brink of being placed in administration a couple times before that takeover. This is actually public knowledge and has got nothing to do with how respectable City is as a business in the present. This whole operation is run by a completely different business model and there are almost no people left in charge from that time, if any.
        So it’s nothing more than a lame attempt at a cheap shot. You don’t hear United’s financial problems of the past brought up in an attempt to discredit your current business model. And that’s not because we are nicer people – it’s because they’re completely independent from each other.

        And as far as your accusation of revisionism goes, I guess you realised by now that this was unwarranted. You brought the period before ’08 up all by yourself.

      • Not according to FIFA its not! Money is ‘outside money’ if it is not generated by the income of the club. Just because city’s owners have billions and billions doesnt mean that city automatically do as well. I don’t remember city generating the £500 million plus that they’ve spent on players since the takeover by themselves. United, on the other hand, have. And the Chevrolet and adidas money that you mention is part of that income. That’s the difference – its really a very simple concept that I’m surprised that you can’t grasp.

        My point about revisionism still stands. City fans have for years moaned about clubs like United buying the league, and have always boasted about city being a ‘proper’ club that played local talent brought through the ranks, and claimed that they wouldn’t have it any other way. Now that their club is everything that they claimed to despise they are suddenly okay with it. Funny that.

      • FIFA has nothing to do with it, but I guess you are talking about UEFA’s FFP. And I actually am able to grasp UEFA’s concept. But I’m not really interested today in opening that can of worms and talk about what FFP defines as ‘outside money’ and how ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ those definitions and rules actually are.
        All I’m going to say about it is: It is highly agenda driven by the former G14 and doesn’t resemble anything it was thought out to be in the beginning. Michel Platini admitted as much to Martin Samuel and has talked about it on several different occasions.
        The moment United get back into a European competition they will have to show how those deals with Adidas and Chevrolet reflect market value ( which is stupid that they’ll have to ). It will be interesting to see how they’ll defend that one, depending on which competition they get into. Because that will be seen as ‘outside money’ according to FFP rules. And now I’ve actually said more than I wanted about it. This FFP stuff really winds me up and I start rambling.

        What I was actually trying to get at in my post, was that either every form of investment in a football club results in the club spending ‘outside money’ or none does. And for me it is the latter. Starting to differentiate between forms of investments ( by the owner, by financial partners, sponsorships, etc. ) results in nothing but arbitrary lines for what counts as what, in my opinion.

        And if you want to keep going with the revisionism, then fine. I’m not going to argue about a broad generalisation, which, to me, is unreasonable.
        I could go on and on about how “United fans always boast about the United way, that they won’t spent ‘silly money’ like City and that they bring through their own talent just like that golden ’92 generation” and what have you.
        And now all of the sudden ‘they’ party hard about the “Gaalacticos” and ‘their new project’ which resulted in spending £300m within a year now and all the meaningful talent they brought through in the last couple of years is actually just Welbeck, who the club sold for £16m.
        But what kind of point does that prove? Nothing of value, really. Except that I’m generalising the heck out of it.

        I do hope you read about the CFG though. I think it’s quite interesting even for non City fans. I might be biased though 😀

  6. Let’s be up front here – I’m a City fan and does it really matter if there are agendas or not? I think everyone acknowledges that the crew in ‘Fleet St’ pick and choose what they say – only today there are reports that the bosses at City have ‘ordered’ the team to win the Champions’ League. If you listen to/read Kompany’s full interview, they haven’t. But so what; it makes things a bit more edgy.

    Some interesting points made here though in the responses. I was only thinking myself that 5 years ago when City weren’t in the top 4 and didn’t have European Football it was stated that players were only there for the big wages ie mercenaries. However, when it’s the same at OT (now) they are assembling ‘Van Gaalacticos’. If ever I used the acronym meaning laugh out loud, I would do so now.

    Then there’s the history debate. Every club has one. Some have won more than others, and things tend to go in cycles – just ask Liverpool. To suggest one club is more worthy than another because they have more trophies is a bit fickle. It’s all part of the fun, and as City fans we’ve had to wait an awful long time before we could even enter the conversation on success! Please let us enjoy it while we can, because we are also experienced enough in disappointment to understand that bubbles can burst a lot quicker than you can inflate them….

    My main bugbear is FFP. It has done nothing to level the playing field and stop those at the top of the pile being even more elite. What it probably has done is curtail the chances of Villa, Everton, Newcastle and other clubs of that size and standing competing in the CL in the short to medium term. Of course I’m delighted that City got the investment when they did, and I’m not precious enough to suggest that many fans would say no to it because it offends their morals. Money is money. One pound is not morally better than the next, assuming it is earned legally (I may have opened up a whole new debate there!) Someone has earned it somewhere, and it should be up to them to decide how they spend it. I can see a Bosman style challenge to it coming soon. Football can’t pick and choose the laws it wants to run itself by. Watch this space.

    So, enjoy the ride and just consider that if there is an anti-blue agenda it makes any success all the more sweet.

  7. So you say he is not completly wrong, because you do not think that there is this anti-city leader of “the media”.
    So, how would you define anti-city bias? If I were to look for it how would I know I’ve found it?
    I’ve now read your previous post, I’m sorry I didn’t do so earlier, and the vagueness is outstanding. It reads just like every other “the media is so anti-[insert random club]” comment on the internet.
    Btw, I’m not saying that there aren’t any journalists out there, who are 100% anti-city.

    p.s. for some reason I wasn’t able to reply to your post directly.

    • No he still is completely wrong because he believes that there’s no media bias at all against City. You seem to have ignored the false dichotomy point by the usual pondlife trick of attempting to put me to proof where you’ve provided no evidence to back your own theory up. And as I’ve already said, the content of your last post completely undermines any argument you’re trying to make anyway. You’re clearly only capable of seeing things in black or white, and it’s the large grey area in between we’re really concerned with here.

      If you need someone to explain what “bias” is then you’re not even off the starting blocks. A dictionary definition would be “an inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair”. Do you not understand what that means? How you find bias in the media against City would be no different to how you would find bias in the media against intervention in Iraq, Scottish Independence, private healthcare, video game developers, yadda yadda, yadda – any subject in other words. There’s no algorithm you can apply to every article which tells you whether there’s bias in it or not, and there’s no definition of bias which is personal to City, it’s an objective test. You have to read or watch media outlets and then have the cognitive capacity to interpret what they say – or don’t say, as that can be just as indicative of bias. It’s all a question of degree and context and I’ve already made it clear that I’m prepared to back up my arguments with an actual analysis of several media outlets of David Mooney’s choosing, rather than more of the vague blather that you’re laughably accusing me of, despite vague blather being all you’re apparently capable of.

      I seriously doubt that you would recognise bias in any context, even if it walked up to you and smacked you in the face wearing knuckledusters with “B.I.A.S” emblazoned across them. So as a little experiment why don’t you trot off into cyberspace, and post a link on here to an article from any media outlet, showing, in your opinion, bias about any topic – doesn’t have to be City or even sport related – literally anything will do provided that you consider the article to be biased in some way. Then I’ll be happy to talk further, otherwise jog on. And I’ll see if I get a response from Mr Mooney.

      • Now calm down. I didn’t adress you throwing around a false dichotomy fallacy, because there was none. You rejected a a complex point as completely wrong and “a leader of the media” is part of that point. I didn’t present any dichotomy, as I only asked you a question to see where you are starting to disagree with Mooney. As I said, I didn’t read your previous post. So I just started at the most ridiculous point. By the way, throwing around fallacies, when in fact there are none, is actually fallacious. And I didn’t want the discussion to be derailed.

        The burden of proof actually lies on you, as you are claiming that there is anti-city bias in “the media”. I’m just rejecting that. Your claim.

        I don’t know what your background is, but where I come from, we try to get everybody on the same page when we start a discussion, by clearing up what we are actually talking about, to avoid confusion and wasting time. This is usually done by defining the terms we are going to talk about. And since you are making the claims, I did see no reason why you shouldn’t be the one to start.

        But I guess I’ll just jog on then.

        Let me just say this: I do hope Mooney responds to you and you get to have some type of open debate about this. Maybe on this page. I’d be really interested in that. With an open mind. But maybe you shouldn’t throw around fallacy accusations.

        And yes I’m ignoring all the unreasonable assumptions you made about my intelligence, what my position actually is and also the personal attacks.

        On, I’ll jog now.

  8. I work For the dutch media and all i can say is that part of the compensation to the dutch FA regarding van gael appointment at man u was that sky would screen the dutch league this year. how corrupt is that.everyone in holland knows that. how can a subscription tv station be part of a package so that man u get the only manager in the world that was willing to join them. we have wrote to the dutch FA but have not got a reply as yet .also david is 100 per cent correct about the english media and press that are out to destroy man city that is commonly known not just in england but around the world.

    • Interesting point about Van Gaal’s appointment, that’s scandalous if it’s true.

      Several people on this thread are though completely missing the totally sarcastic tone of the original article. David Mooney is quite categorically stating that there is no bias in the media against City, it’s all a figment of our imagination. The fact that a number of comments have failed to pick that up doesn’t alter the fact that Dave is completely wrong.

      Needless to say he hasn’t taken me up on my offer to actually properly and objectively analyse the media treatment of City.

      • So if David Mooney is completly wrong, then ,in your opinion, there is some sort of leader of “the media” who decided that all of journalism has to carry an anti-city bias?

        And to “dutch with a view”: If “everyone in holland knows that” Sky showing the Dutch league was part of the LvG deal, then it should not be to difficult to source it and blow that whole scandal up.

      • To Jansen0815

        You denialists constantly reiterate this utter fallacy – that the only options are that there’s either no bias at all in the media against City, or that every media outlet is anti City, and if the latter is not true, then the former must be. This a classic false dichotomy, a technique of reasoning which is the preserve of idiots. I said all of this in my earlier post which you either didn’t read, or read but didn’t understand. The offer’s still open to David Mooney to analyse this issue properly rather than rambling about it in the abstract.

  9. Never has a truer word been written!! We have known about this since perhaps the 70’s or even earlier but now it is confirmed!! It doesn’t matter now as thanks to our Arab owners we are better than all our rivals and the future will show this!!! CTID

    • “It doesn’t matter now as thanks to our Arab owners we are better than all our rivals”

      Pretty much sums up your typical city fan these days. No qualms about where the money comes from as long as they are ‘better than the rest’.
      There was a time not that long ago when city fans boasted about how all their players were home-grown and they were a ‘real’ club, unlike big spending clubs like United or Chelsea. Now they are the most artificial, plastic, manufactured club out there.

  10. Are you Didsbury Dave on Bluemoon per chance? One of the most objectionably arrogant posters I’ve encountered on any forum, and the sneering condescension displayed in this article would be entirely in keeping with him.

    It seems there’s a rather odd strain of City fans on the internet who have a pathological need to prove how clever/”not bitter” they are by standing in opposition to the majority view on this issue. There’s no argument to be had – anyone with a few working brain cells can see the glaringly obvious, persistent media bias against City since the takeover. No one who sees this bias though believes or ever even suggests that there may be some shadowy figure lurking in the background, secretly manipulating every media outlet against City, and only City. It’s only morons like you who ever propagate that ludicrous notion – feel free to google “false dichotomy” and the psychological make up of people who routinely use it. It won’t make pretty reading for you.

    Also no one in their right mind is suggesting that every article about City is negative, and that no other clubs have negative articles written about them. That’d be another false dichotomy on your part. If you read widely enough though, and watch enough sport on TV, you would have to be utterly delusional to come to any objective conclusion other than that City get far more unreasonable stick than any other club. There are a whole host of potential reasons behind this bias, where it appears at all, which can of course vary from outlet to outlet, and from time to time within those outlets and some of which others have mentioned on the responses in this thread. There are layers of sophistication involved here which seem to be beyond you.

    I note that you haven’t offered any analysis of actual articles in the media to support your “theory”, and so far neither have I. Any fool can cherry pick single articles to support an argument. So here’s a little challenge for you Dave, you nominate 10 media outlets which cover Premiership football and we’ll review their output over a couple of weeks, and I will happily, and completely, embarrass you on this particular subject.

    Look forward to hearing from you.

  11. David,
    Thank you for revealing what most of us Citizens already knew. The unfair reporting has always and will always be bad for the sport. Let’s await the reports on tomorrow’s Bayern game.
    To the hater’s I say “Citizen for life”

    • I you tally the total expenditure since the league inception (not since 2008) the club that spent the most on players is chelsea, over 1billion, city over 800 mil, manu over 700. (Google: tranfer fee league). The differece between these teams is not very big. On city not having enough english players, the arsenal invincible had Sol campble as the only british. That didnt seem to be a big deal then. The ffp will not hurt city. It will have more impact on everton, villa etc..they will never break through the top as serious investors are discouraged by the rules.

  12. No, I don’t think there’s any real agenda against city. I’m sure every football fan thinks that the media is against them. As a United fan, its almost accepted as a fact that Sky and the BBC are full of scousers and Chelsea fans and United always gets slagged off, and that Martin Tyler never shouts for a United goal as much as an Arsenal or Liverpool one. Again, whether this is true or not I don’t know, but I think all fans probably feel agrieved at their perceived media coverage.
    Also, to say that city never get praise for their achievements is slightly ridiculous. Remember the opening titles for Match of the Day the season after the first title win? I’ve never seen them have a ‘special’ title sequence that included showing the title winning goal again and again like that before. Surely this wouldn’t have happened if the BBC were pro-United, would it?
    I think its just that United and their current ‘project’ (hate that word but…) are the biggest story at the moment. And the media know that any story about United is guarranted readers/viewers, as it attracts non-United fans as well who love to fuel their hate against United by reading every article about them!
    All the city fans will just have to get used to the negative media, its all part of being a successful club and United have had to put up with it for years, despite what other fans think about the media constantly praising United that’s actually far from the case.

  13. David,

    Well said.

    We all know what’s going on. The Daily Telegraphs ‘Mark Ogden’ even boasted about it in an article in Blue Moon. This is not just anti City, its the work of an anti Arab cabal. Ironic considering City’s very close connection with Manchester’s Jewish community.

    Levenson showed the corrupt and corrupters in the media are ‘up for anything’. Bungs, drugs, sex…. Eventually the rotten system will implode, but that won’t be anytime soon. In the meantime we’ll survive and thrive.

    What doesn’t kill us will make us stronger.

  14. A fun piece and of course there is no “conspiracy” but human nature is at work here. Laziness leads to certain angles being used to sell papers.

    There are a number of journalists who let their affiliations colour their opinions and reportage. Good old Jamie Jackson and Daniel Taylor at teh Grauniad come across as particularly irritating United sycophants. It’s either that or their editors do encourage (or turn a blind eye to) unnecessarily positive spin on clubs with big fan bases. Simple fact, it will sell more papers.

    The tired old press spin on City is all about the money; I would have thought they had got used to it by now. Michael Dziuban above makes insightful comment on why City are not quite loved yet and it’s a combination of these two factors that irritates some and leads to the conspiracy theories.

    As for commentators, review the whole of last season’s Sky highlights package. Listen to Martin Tyler’s levels of excitement when City score a goal, compared to when our opponents score a goal, or Liverpool or United score a goal. It is quite revealing. For some reason, he prefers other teams to us.

    TV pundits who actually talk about the football from an informed position and don’t mouth lazy platitudes all day long? You can count those on one hand (finger?). Robbie Savage may be the best of the current crop; he believes in the dreaded “R” word that would have Alan Hansen tittering like a schoolboy – research.

    And heaven save us from Michael Owen, I’d rather listen to commentary in Swahili while watching on a B&W portable television with a dodgy aerial than ever have to suffer another moment of him, calling us “United” repeatedly, and listing the names of promising United youngsters during one of our games.

  15. United buy expensive players on big wages and they’re Galacticos, yet City do it and they’re signing mercenaries.

    One small example of the journalistic double standards we are up against.

    • Rubbish. I don’t recall any city players being called mercenaries in the press. By other club’s fans maybe, but thats not what we’re talking about, is it?
      United, on the other hand, have had plenty of stick in the press for their transfer dealings (signs of desperation, losing identity, not addressing the key failings in the defence and midfield, etc).
      Still, don’t let the facts get in the way of your closed mind opinions, eh?

  16. I guess this went over the head of some of your readers 🙂
    The only problem I see, is City being underrepresented in the media. Every big club has their “champion” so to speak in form of a pundit. The closest we’ve got is Nial Quinn.

    • Have you forgot when Mike Summerbee got into a heated debate after we lost 2-1 to the rags.There were two teams out there today he remarked after their w***kfest, do you not remember the discussion where Summerbee, sitting alongside Dwight Yorke and Jamie Redknapp defended City’s performance by arguing that they had more of the possession, created more chances and the only difference between the two sides was a spectacular goal. Never invited back again was he after that. If you try to Champion our club on TV you’ll lose your job.

      • That still doesn’t make this a conspriacy of “the media” against City.
        And yes I remember Summerbee with those 2. And yes, I liked it. But that was a rant and I can understand why Sky would not invite him back after that. He basically said that their programm is shite.
        And if you think that that was “championing” a club than we have a different understanding of the word. Ranting about how unfair your club is being treated by the people behind the programme you’re on, is not helpful and maybe even detrimental.

      • He’s comments weren’t saying your programme is shit he was pointing out the wankfest that was going on which this article is telling you is a must in the TV and Media alike. Trample on City and big up the rags at all cost.
        No one to champion our team? More like you wont get employment
        Championing our team in TV or Media Rupert Murdoch seen to that.

  17. I Like the sarcasm at the end.You’d have to be either deaf or very nieve to not see any agenda against our club. Example United beat QPR at weekend the media attention given to that win was unbelievable, you’d of thought they had just won the league, it was QPR for god’s sake with out attacking intent the whole game.
    Also, all this but it’s their own money Media mantra is really getting on my nerves at the moment, it’s like saying Eddie Stobart can’t replace a tyre on his trucks because he hasn’t got enough sponsorship money.
    It’s no wonder there are 3 teams up for sale in the premier league already since the introduction of FFP.
    It would appear Al-Fayed had the foresight.

  18. After the massive win against the team that finished third in the championship last season I am reliably informed that if they can fluke a draw/win at the team that finished top, Paddy Power will have no choice but to pay out on Premier champions 14/15 as it will be in the bag.

  19. Thank you for this awesome overview of what confirms what most blues already believe. Really appreciate your honesty and please don’t jack the job in, reading this article you clearly are a talented individual, honest too

    • Dear Fred, ‘United spend (and have always spent) money that the club itself has generated’ is that right?? Please explain why they were so much in debt while trying to off load the club to Micky ‘mouse’ Knighton or actually anybody would be because the massive £2 per head they were getting entry fee of the £10 replica shirts theat simply weren’t big business at the time 89’ish The squad cost 3 times more than any others at the time wonder if that mega expensive squad had anthing to do with that debt? No surely not lol

      • United weren’t the only big spenders in those days. Liverpool bought Barnes, Beardsley and Houghton, Aldridge etc around that time so not sure your facts are correct. But thanks for the reply. ‘Lol’

  20. city won a double last year and after two days the whole english media and press all linked by the way started the PR campain for the new man u manager.they organised a complete staged pre season tour and together ignorded city purposely.just dealing in facts man u are the most hated team in the world.everyone knows that.Must admit though i was really encouraged by the comments of INTERPOL when they state a TOP european club is being run by organised criminal lets face it we all want that club to be manure as its blatent now the corruption in the english media and press is rife.by the way this is not imaginary stuff as it was all proven in the old baily and in the LEVISON ENQUIRY.just a side note the press were terrible to the UK independence party and also to the snp independence vote still have confidence in the people of this country to see corruption in the media when its presented

  21. City only has 1 British player in their starting 11, they shot up the standings due to massive investment. They certainly haven’t set any records yet like winning a treble or going undefeated have they? so you can’t expect them to be better liked than teams with a long history of winning championships and setting records. The author was being sarcastic until the very last two lines. I imagine City will be better liked in time after they’ve developed more home grown talent, added more English players to their starting 11 and perhaps developed a winning tradition like United. In all honesty I still hate Chelsea so if I wasn’t a City supporter before they even got promoted I probably wouldn’t be one now. In City’s defense though, there is no other way to build a top team, without the massive investment to buy the top players and the financial stability to avoid the temptation to cash in on top prospects. FFP protects the right of the top teams to pick the lower teams clean of top young talent and that is the ultimate problem with the EPL. You can try to hold out but teams like United will just unsettle your player by making their pursuit public…

    • Michael Dziuban,

      Make your mind up. First you say (incorrectly) City only has 1 British player in their starting 11. Then you contradict yourself by saying FFP protects the right of the top teams to pick the lower teams clean of top young talent and that is the ultimate problem with the EPL. If that is the case where’s the top talent have City been picking?

      Just to show how ill informed you are, try this troll basher for size;

      Last season five City Academy players joined up with England u16s for the very first time Cameron McCulloch, Joshua Murray, Elan Assiana, Diallo Sadou and Lukas Nmecha made the cut after impressing at England’s pre-season development centre at St George’s Park. All five are now in contention to face Northern Ireland at Bournemouth FC on Friday night.

      Head of Academy Mark Allen was delighted with this astonishing landmark for the academy – the largest crop of City youngsters to be named in a single international squad.

    • How about the 37 successive years of Uniteds history winning erm NOTHING? Was that your “winning tradition? well done on beating City to that record. 37 YEARS is longer than City have ever gone trophy less.

      Typical know nowt rag wittering on about history (started in 92 of course) propagandised to him by other non examiners. United’s success since 1992 was predicated on huge investment due largely to the dis proportionality of outspending 4 of your closest rivals spending combined!!!!, In todaysinsane market (largely created by your own clubs excesses) City would have to spend close to 500m in one summer to match the spending of your club in the late 80s early 90’s which of course ended another 26 year title drought. History my backside you numpty.

      “so if I wasn’t a City supporter before they even got promoted I probably wouldn’t be one now” hahaha what type of bandwagon jumper comes out with a comment like that? How many teams do you support you clown? – do one raglet and try reading up on your own clubs real factual history for a change?

      • Its not really the amounts spent that is the key factor here. It simply comes down to one thing that all city fans conveniently forget when comparing United’s spending to theirs. Read this next paragraph nice and slowly so that you take it in:

        United spend (and have always spent) money that the club itself has generated, whether through tickets sales, shirt sales, merchandising, sponsorship, etc). Other clubs (city, Chelsea, etc) have spent money put onto the club from an external source (rich owners).

        That’s the difference. United’s spending is no different from a club like Barnsley or West Brom or whoever spending £100,000 on a player, if it is money the club itself has generated. Its just United’s income is on a different level, which allows their spending to be on a different level. I’m sure smaller clubs than those I mentioned would love to spend £100,000 on a player but cant – does that mean tthose clubs have bought success just like United ate always accused of? Success breeds success in football, just like in any walk of life or business. United are in the position they are through previous generations of success and HISTORY.

      • Yes, Mr Rocket Sauce, I know plenty about United”s history. I also never said that city had no success or history. I simply said that United are in the strong position they are in is due to their own success and history. We can argue for hours about what had make United the club that they are, but the truth remains: United spend money they have earnt whereas others spend money they have been gifted. Which is more acceptable, or is neither? Answers on a postcode only.

  22. Now the champions league is about to KO we’ll get a true measure. An opportunity for the media to go British, support ours against theirs, regardless of badge. Or did I see city trailed on Sky conceding to Bayern whilst all the English teams were scoring? I’m bored of the spouse love-in already

  23. it’s funny! just yesterday i was saying the same thing to my 16 year old son who is a crazy Arsenal fan.. i am glad i am not imagining things.. Aguero score the first goal and the commentators focused more on what Arsenal defense didn’t do rather than how top class the goal was..then when Arsenal equalized the commentators screamed out of their lungs all kind of praises and how Willshere is going to be one of the greatest in English football, even though the goal was actually due to J Hart going down early rather than anything else.. i am Everton fan by the way..

  24. That was a very confusing ending, I knew it didn’t sound realistically correct but every concept you touched on is true. There is an anti City agenda and a pro United one. Their seems to always be an air of negativity surrounding City at every corner. We do well, “oh but they spent money”, we do bad, “Look at all that money they spent”. People are so naive they cannot seem to find any other comment other than to mention the money we’ve spent. Yet they’ll completely overlook the work done in the local communities and academies. The media seem to have this view on City as they cannot stand the fact that ‘lickle old City’ are moving the big boys off of their perch. hence the most corrupt and unfair organisation in football “Financial fair Play”.

    I guess we should just let the haters and hate while we keep on winning trophies!

    Ryan.

  25. Couldn’t agree more. Sick of reading about Man U, Chelsea, Lpool etc. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t City win the Premiership last season. Definitely wouldn’t thing so when reading the sports pages.

  26. Hello David,

    I would say you are 100% right, I have been following soccer since 1978 and a huge German National team fan. There was a gap when being in the US for a long time i was away from the leagues, but i have hooked up with all the leagues and i have been following the top 4 or 5 leagues regularly since 2011 and suddenly i am a City fan and a plastic fan as the definition goes – though my EPL / Championship sweet memories go back to John Barnes playing for Watford against Portsmouth in 1985 (if i have got that right). Anyway, coming back to City – the FaceBook likes have gone from 7 M to almost 16 M in the last 10 months and this is one of the fastest growing clubs in the world and having put some fear into the rest of the big guys it seems to me that they know City won’t go away – so thanks to you for bringing this up – I am tired of DailyMail or Goal or any other media always masking City with some sort of negativity.

    Why? I am asking – they have been playing beautiful football and for new fans like me I can’t understand the hate they get everywhere else.

    Regards,

    Avi

Make a Comment

%d bloggers like this: