The mancityfans.net football forum

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:I wonder if the media 'experts' will dismiss and devalue Arsenic's drubbing of Neverton, by explaining that it was achieved against only ten men, in the same way they did with us when we thrashed Klipperty's Klanfield mob ??.......

.......no, I didn't think so.

Slackjaw mentioned it again when talking about the amount of goals scouse have shipped away from home.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:I wonder if the media 'experts' will dismiss and devalue Arsenic's drubbing of Neverton, by explaining that it was achieved against only ten men, in the same way they did with us when we thrashed Klipperty's Klanfield mob ??.......

.......no, I didn't think so.

Slackjaw mentioned it again when talking about the amount of goals scouse have shipped away from home.

Even discounting the 4 we scored when they were down to 10, they'd still be on 11 conceded away, which is just 1 better than bottom placed Palace.

I see the media are desperately trying to get Bernardo banned retrospectively, cunts.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:I see the media are desperately trying to get Bernardo banned retrospectively, cunts.

Banned retrospectively? The keeper trapped his fucking foot under his leg. By accident I'm sure, but a fact none the less.
We were also in a very promising position to score had he been able to cut the ball back to Sane who was standing alone right in front of him.

Anyway, where was all the talk of retrospective punishment for simulation after that cunt for Everton pretended he got elbowed in the face and had Walker sent off, costing us two points?
If they were ever serious about this kind of punishment, that was the perfect time to set their stall out and tell the league it won't be tolerated anymore. But there wasn't a mention of it by the media, because it didn't suit their agenda.

Original Dub wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:I see the media are desperately trying to get Bernardo banned retrospectively, cunts.

Banned retrospectively? The keeper trapped his fucking foot under his leg. By accident I'm sure, but a fact none the less.
We were also in a very promising position to score had he been able to cut the ball back to Sane who was standing alone right in front of him.

Anyway, where was all the talk of retrospective punishment for simulation after that cunt for Everton pretended he got elbowed in the face and had Walker sent off, costing us two points?
If they were ever serious about this kind of punishment, that was the perfect time to set their stall out and tell the league it won't be tolerated anymore. But there wasn't a mention of it by the media, because it didn't suit their agenda.

It's laughable the way they have to nitpick
At made up shit because of the way we are
Playing.
Cunts all of them

Nice piece on Aguero. Must be city fan!

https://www.thenational.ae/sport/footba ... y-1.669635

SSN just managed to make no FA action for simulation by Bernardo sound like a Scottish 'not proven' verdict.
Their raggy disappointment is blatant and so pitiful.

Yes I saw that JC.

No "further action " will be taken after "alleged dive".

Who alleged it?

Last weekend Lukaku got a sly kick in the face of a Liverpool player. Picked up on camera and the co commentator said he knew what he was doing and we might hear more about that. He certainly did know what he was doing imo.

But virtually nothing more was said about it and my guess is somebody was told to shut up. On MotD it got a passing mention so that Danny Murphy could say it was intentional, move on and that was the last time I think it was mentioned.

Roll on to this week and all sorts of commentator pundit, manager etc had a right big initial reaction to the penalty decision basically s aying it was a dive and he cheated. It took a little time but the replays were absolutely clear that it was a foul and a definite penalty yet still some crappy media go on about it suggesting he could get a ban even though it was a penalty. Nothing but a joke.

johnny crossan wrote:SSN just managed to make no FA action for simulation by Bernardo sound like a Scottish 'not proven' verdict.
Their raggy disappointment is blatant and so pitiful.

I saw the app had it as Breaking News. Fucking Breaking News? For a correctly awarded decision two days previously, which no one but their media department thought to question?

Fuck em

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:Last weekend Lukaku got a sly kick in the face of a Liverpool player. Picked up on camera and the co commentator said he knew what he was doing and we might hear more about that. He certainly did know what he was doing imo.

But virtually nothing more was said about it and my guess is somebody was told to shut up. On MotD it got a passing mention so that Danny Murphy could say it was intentional, move on and that was the last time I think it was mentioned.

Roll on to this week and all sorts of commentator pundit, manager etc had a right big initial reaction to the penalty decision basically s aying it was a dive and he cheated. It took a little time but the replays were absolutely clear that it was a foul and a definite penalty yet still some crappy media go on about it suggesting he could get a ban even though it was a penalty. Nothing but a joke.

Tbh, I've heard nothing about it since MotD but, then, I don't pay money to Murdoch to watch to Sky.

On the ball, as ever

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... p-11404008

nottsblue wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:SSN just managed to make no FA action for simulation by Bernardo sound like a Scottish 'not proven' verdict.
Their raggy disappointment is blatant and so pitiful.

I saw the app had it as Breaking News. Fucking Breaking News? For a correctly awarded decision two days previously, which no one but their media department thought to question?

Fuck em

I thought there were a number of times tonight when we should have had a freekick, but the ref waved play on. He certainly wasn't going to give any debatable decisions to us. I wonder if the officials are effected by the constant media bleatings as if we look to con the officials for decisions.

If Bravo hadn't saved us we could have easily lost that game in the regular 90+ minutes.

Original Dub wrote:On the ball, as ever

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... p-11404008

Unless you publish the story here it isn’t going to be read mate.

They don’t deserve the clicks.

www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/pe ... l-11404941

No, he didn't blame the ball. You lying rag cunts

dazby wrote:

Original Dub wrote:On the ball, as ever

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... p-11404008

Unless you publish the story here it isn’t going to be read mate.

They don’t deserve the clicks.

Agree. I never click into any of the red tops. Detestable

littlebig wrote:

dazby wrote:

Original Dub wrote:On the ball, as ever

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... p-11404008

Unless you publish the story here it isn’t going to be read mate.

They don’t deserve the clicks.

Agree. I never click into any of the red tops. Detestable

I refuse to promote any of their garbage.
No clicks form me.

Just a quick mention for MOTD2 Spurs v Dippers coverage in case you missed it. Guy Mowbray decided to inform the nation that Guardiola's praise of the Carthorse team was 'churlish'. The rag colours again nailed firmly to the BBC mast.

And now some turgid headlines about being kicked out of the Caribou Cup for putting two subs out in extra time according to the Express http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football ... -Wolves-CC and the Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... titutions/ - although it seems that (a) the rules don't say you are only allowed one additional sub in extra time excluding any other subs you haven't yet made; and (b) there are a host of other clubs in earlier rounds who subbed more than one player during extra time without punishment

Seen a few reporters staying that spuds loss was a good result for them as they can focus on bigger things, i believe poch said something similar. I can't help but think if we'd have lost that the same opinion would not have been offered.

Media darlings atm.