The mancityfans.net football forum

london blue 2 wrote:Can’t believe some scruffy Little Dipper runs into a lamp post chasing salad, gets a sympathy pic and now SSN are interviewing the little fucker.

Blatant virtue signalling from salad. Somehow the world's media just so happened to find out about his heroic gesture.

We all pay for the state media to tell us how to think, but this is taking the absolute piss...
"Super Cup: Liverpool and Chelsea to meet in final - why you should care"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49316920

1) English sides meet for first time in competition's history - woopeydoo. Should the dippers really be in it?! (More on that later)

2) "History will be made" - cos ref is a woman? Really!?! I couldn't give a toss. Women can be corrupt and incompetent, just like men. If Emily Davison was ref, that would be history.

3) "The first Premier League weekend suggests there will be goals" - well a goal is inevitable in a final you doss cunt!

4) "First of potentially six for Liverpool this season?" - your tongue is so far up Klopp's arse that you might as well coat it with tooth whitener. Did you forget that scouse2s mere presence on the Champions League is dulled by the fact that they entered it as champions of fuck all? Moreover, surely they should've been DQd from the competition for three years for throwing bottles bricks and fireworks at a team bus (aided and abetted by the council and Merseyside Police, who simply spectated then shrugged their shoulders after the event)?

5) "Lampard could win his first trophy as Chelsea boss" - yes. It could also be his last.

We paid for some clown to publish this.

It seems that the Community Shield is now a recognised trophy when the Rags win it or the Dippers have s chance, just like that Super Cup where only 2 clubs contest it.

Pep was right, we did win 4 trophies in a season. I'll take the Centur100ns and 4Midables status anytime.

Hutch's Shoulder wrote:

Hutch's Shoulder wrote:

Dameerto wrote:

PeterParker wrote:

Dameerto wrote:
Notice how the Community Shield is a trophy when they're talking about the dipper quest for '7 trophies' but it's not when looking back at City's achievements last season...

But what are the 7 Trophies? Do they include the Mickey Mouse Cup also?

I only skimmed the article to see if they were including the Community Shield - didn't want to read the rest of it.

The seven are: the four proper trophies, Community Shield, UEFA Super Cup (14th August vs Chelsea), Club World Cup (December).

Just the sextuple then.

Fair play yo the dippers its still on

On the other hand it could be just the Super Cup!

Class clip on sky this morning a young city fan from Warrington, super confident kid being interviewed brought a smile to my miserable face

city72 wrote:Class clip on sky this morning a young city fan from Warrington, super confident kid being interviewed brought a smile to my miserable face

Young Braydon is my mates nephew . Now lives near Lymm , family originally from Urmston . Little superstar the kid , very sharp and knows his lines exquisitely

He's a little gimp that kid

Mase wrote:He's a little gimp that kid

proper annoying little nob

Nigels Tackle wrote:

Mase wrote:He's a little gimp that kid

proper annoying little nob

Actually makes me cringe watching him with the over the top acting. He's a kid, I get that, but there's plenty of kids that won't act like a little gimp that could do that job.

Remember his taxi with Pep. Embarrassing!!

Mase wrote:

Nigels Tackle wrote:

Mase wrote:He's a little gimp that kid

proper annoying little nob

Actually makes me cringe watching him with the over the top acting. He's a kid, I get that, but there's plenty of kids that won't act like a little gimp that could do that job.

Remember his taxi with Pep. Embarrassing!!

He is 10 years old and talks more sense than you big pair of knobs .

City64 wrote:

Mase wrote:

Nigels Tackle wrote:

Mase wrote:He's a little gimp that kid

proper annoying little nob

Actually makes me cringe watching him with the over the top acting. He's a kid, I get that, but there's plenty of kids that won't act like a little gimp that could do that job.

Remember his taxi with Pep. Embarrassing!!

He is 10 years old and talks more sense than you big pair of knobs .

Who told you I've got a big nob?

This is an update on my complaint to the BBC last week about Roan's interview with the new PL chief exec

Original Complaint: CAS-5572998-RC5QVH 8/8/19
BBC Pre-Season Interview with new Premier League Acting CEO: Bias Against Man City in Question by Dan Roan

Dan Roan’s opening question: "Is Manchester City's financial clout making the league predictable? Manchester City have won back-to-back Premier League titles and became the first English side to win the domestic treble last season

Richard Masters’ answer: "I'm not concerned. First of all we should celebrate just how brilliant City are and we should celebrate how Pep Guardiola has transformed the squad," says Masters."

The fact that this is patently untrue and Man City are not the financially dominant club at the moment is actually not the key issue here. While there's no doubt that they spent a lot of money, City's financial resources are very similar to those of Man United, Liverpool and Chelsea etc. The question of ‘damaging the competition’ has never featured during the previous 30 years of domination by those clubs, why is it only relevant now? Mr Roan’s clear implication is that Man City’s 'financial clout' is qualitatively different from that of other clubs, in short the inference is because its source is an Arab owner.

I see that this news bulletin is no longer available on iPlayer and that on your website the interview has now been re-edited and the question sequence re-ordered. Its headline is about tackling racism but what is widely seen as an openly racist attack by Dan Roan on Man City's owners seems to have gone unnoticed by your editors and his superiors.

Although the video clip no longer contains Mr Roan's highly prejudicial question nor Richard Masters’ strong rejection of the untruthful allegation that Manchester City's dominance on the field was the result of their 'financial clout', the associated Q & A extracts still retain the original disgraceful inference that underlies Mr Roan’s all too familiar attacks on the club. He is the only reporter ever to be banned by Manchester City and since then has been even more blatantly biased against the club.

The main problem is not just about him, though he is an important part, it is also about his bosses. That’s because both he and they are very well aware that underlying this prejudiced narrative is a long-term commercial battle between Manchester City and the Premier League’s US owned rival clubs together with their European allies. Essentially it is about their hostility to the City owner’s business model, which ploughs back all profits back into the club unlike profits from their clubs which mostly go out of football completely. For example the Glazer family have taken almost the same amount of money out of Manchester United as Sheikh Mansour has invested in City since 2008, over £1 billion. While City is debt free United were subject to a leveraged buyout with £525m debts loaded on to the club, including £275m high interest “payment in kind” loans. This debt scandal continues to be virtually unreported by the BBC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC Response from Deborah Dawson (extract)

“The job of the BBC interviewer is to then put forward questions likely to be in the minds of our audience
[..]
Just because Dan questioned whether Man City's financial clout made the League unpredictable does not mean that it can be inferred that this is his own view."

Complaint continued and further explained :

Your attempt to justify this question shows the same bias against Man City. The key issue, which you completely fail to address, is why Mr Roan’s opening question was to ask if City’s financial resources made the Premier League uncompetitive. If the question had been about the club’s recent dominance in respect of their footballing excellence, the question would have been entirely legitimate. Instead Mr Roan asked if the competition was being damaged not as a result of sporting performance of the team on the pitch but as a consequence of the club’s ‘financial clout’.

His clear implication is that Man City’s financial resources are different from their rival clubs. Yet Mr Roan knows full well that the club is not financially dominant by any measure - whether that is turnover, profits, player wages or transfer fees paid – indeed they have none of the 20 most expensive signings. His biography makes it abundantly clear what he believes about Manchester City and why he asks the question he did. Your claim that it was not his own is absurd.

"Sport has been revolutionised by the huge amount of money that’s come into it. It’s part of the modern business world, but hasn’t caught up governance-wise. When you see Putin using the Winter Olympics and now the FIFA World Cup to project his image onto the world, and the situation in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and China, you see sport as another arm of power. These places are using sport as a way of projecting their authority, not only on their own people, but globally too. So money in sport is becoming important to governments as well as just people.” A Life in Sports Reporting - BBC's Dan Roan

Mr Roan and his bosses have deliberately aligned the BBC as a supporter of what are widely seen as racially prejudiced attacks on Manchester City by its commercial opponents. The plain truth is that owners of rival clubs have seen their profits and hegemony threatened by City's success via a profit investment business model they will never copy. Through the media outlets they control or influence these elite clubs have sought to divert the disappointment of their mass supporter bases at City’s onfield domination with a series of invented pegs to hang their resentment on.

First they reassured their fans that the new investment in City was just a temporary ‘vanity purchase’ which would inevitably fail. When this didn’t happen FFP was redesigned and manipulated to protect elite clubs whilst hobbling City and PSG. These overtly unfair measures were later combined with the borderline racist narratives of ‘Financial Doping’ and ‘Sportswashing’. Both these fictions have been exposed by reputable football journalists such as Martin Samuel and Oliver Holt but a derivative campaign is still being waged by a few discredited individuals many of whom are regularly referenced by Mr Roan on his twitter account as BBC Sports Editor.

All football clubs face questions and criticism, some justified, some not. In City's case, financial and sporting rivalry have created an emotional interest amongst millions of people which a commercially pressured media are targeting – a perfect storm to which is added political bias from those who object to Arab ownership of a PL club. No other owner or club has ever been questioned and vilified to such a degree. Singling out City from the very large number of major UK companies, scientific research institutions, HE bodies and sporting industries that benefit from UAE based investment, including long term sponsorship of the clubs that are responsible for these attacks, is hypocrisy of the highest order. For them to be subjected to this continuing and escalating hostility by the BBC as well is totally unacceptable and needs to stop right now.

johnny crossan wrote:This is an update on my complaint to the BBC last week about Roan's interview with the new PL chief exec

Original Complaint: CAS-5572998-RC5QVH 8/8/19
BBC Pre-Season Interview with new Premier League Acting CEO: Bias Against Man City in Question by Dan Roan

Dan Roan’s opening question: "Is Manchester City's financial clout making the league predictable? Manchester City have won back-to-back Premier League titles and became the first English side to win the domestic treble last season

Richard Masters’ answer: "I'm not concerned. First of all we should celebrate just how brilliant City are and we should celebrate how Pep Guardiola has transformed the squad," says Masters."

The fact that this is patently untrue and Man City are not the financially dominant club at the moment is actually not the key issue here. While there's no doubt that they spent a lot of money, City's financial resources are very similar to those of Man United, Liverpool and Chelsea etc. The question of ‘damaging the competition’ has never featured during the previous 30 years of domination by those clubs, why is it only relevant now? Mr Roan’s clear implication is that Man City’s 'financial clout' is qualitatively different from that of other clubs, in short the inference is because its source is an Arab owner.

I see that this news bulletin is no longer available on iPlayer and that on your website the interview has now been re-edited and the question sequence re-ordered. Its headline is about tackling racism but what is widely seen as an openly racist attack by Dan Roan on Man City's owners seems to have gone unnoticed by your editors and his superiors.

Although the video clip no longer contains Mr Roan's highly prejudicial question nor Richard Masters’ strong rejection of the untruthful allegation that Manchester City's dominance on the field was the result of their 'financial clout', the associated Q & A extracts still retain the original disgraceful inference that underlies Mr Roan’s all too familiar attacks on the club. He is the only reporter ever to be banned by Manchester City and since then has been even more blatantly biased against the club.

The main problem is not just about him, though he is an important part, it is also about his bosses. That’s because both he and they are very well aware that underlying this prejudiced narrative is a long-term commercial battle between Manchester City and the Premier League’s US owned rival clubs together with their European allies. Essentially it is about their hostility to the City owner’s business model, which ploughs back all profits back into the club unlike profits from their clubs which mostly go out of football completely. For example the Glazer family have taken almost the same amount of money out of Manchester United as Sheikh Mansour has invested in City since 2008, over £1 billion. While City is debt free United were subject to a leveraged buyout with £525m debts loaded on to the club, including £275m high interest “payment in kind” loans. This debt scandal continues to be virtually unreported by the BBC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC Response from Deborah Dawson (extract)

“The job of the BBC interviewer is to then put forward questions likely to be in the minds of our audience
[..]
Just because Dan questioned whether Man City's financial clout made the League unpredictable does not mean that it can be inferred that this is his own view."

Complaint continued and further explained :

Your attempt to justify this question shows the same bias against Man City. The key issue, which you completely fail to address, is why Mr Roan’s opening question was to ask if City’s financial resources made the Premier League uncompetitive. If the question had been about the club’s recent dominance in respect of their footballing excellence, the question would have been entirely legitimate. Instead Mr Roan asked if the competition was being damaged not as a result of sporting performance of the team on the pitch but as a consequence of the club’s ‘financial clout’.

His clear implication is that Man City’s financial resources are different from their rival clubs. Yet Mr Roan knows full well that the club is not financially dominant by any measure - whether that is turnover, profits, player wages or transfer fees paid – indeed they have none of the 20 most expensive signings. His biography makes it abundantly clear what he believes about Manchester City and why he asks the question he did. Your claim that it was not his own is absurd.

"Sport has been revolutionised by the huge amount of money that’s come into it. It’s part of the modern business world, but hasn’t caught up governance-wise. When you see Putin using the Winter Olympics and now the FIFA World Cup to project his image onto the world, and the situation in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and China, you see sport as another arm of power. These places are using sport as a way of projecting their authority, not only on their own people, but globally too. So money in sport is becoming important to governments as well as just people.” A Life in Sports Reporting - BBC's Dan Roan

Mr Roan and his bosses have deliberately aligned the BBC as a supporter of what are widely seen as racially prejudiced attacks on Manchester City by its commercial opponents. The plain truth is that owners of rival clubs have seen their profits and hegemony threatened by City's success via a profit investment business model they will never copy. Through the media outlets they control or influence these elite clubs have sought to divert the disappointment of their mass supporter bases at City’s onfield domination with a series of invented pegs to hang their resentment on.

First they reassured their fans that the new investment in City was just a temporary ‘vanity purchase’ which would inevitably fail. When this didn’t happen FFP was redesigned and manipulated to protect elite clubs whilst hobbling City and PSG. These overtly unfair measures were later combined with the borderline racist narratives of ‘Financial Doping’ and ‘Sportswashing’. Both these fictions have been exposed by reputable football journalists such as Martin Samuel and Oliver Holt but a derivative campaign is still being waged by a few discredited individuals many of whom are regularly referenced by Mr Roan on his twitter account as BBC Sports Editor.

All football clubs face questions and criticism, some justified, some not. In City's case, financial and sporting rivalry have created an emotional interest amongst millions of people which a commercially pressured media are targeting – a perfect storm to which is added political bias from those who object to Arab ownership of a PL club. No other owner or club has ever been questioned and vilified to such a degree. Singling out City from the very large number of major UK companies, scientific research institutions, HE bodies and sporting industries that benefit from UAE based investment, including long term sponsorship of the clubs that are responsible for these attacks, is hypocrisy of the highest order. For them to be subjected to this continuing and escalating hostility by the BBC as well is totally unacceptable and needs to stop right now.

Eloquent and persuasive.

No chance of the BBC responding!

If it was "what the audience would like to ask" then asks them why they've edited it out. Would love to know the answer..

johnny crossan wrote:This is an update on my complaint to the BBC last week about Roan's interview with the new PL chief exec

Original Complaint: CAS-5572998-RC5QVH 8/8/19
BBC Pre-Season Interview with new Premier League Acting CEO: Bias Against Man City in Question by Dan Roan

Dan Roan’s opening question: "Is Manchester City's financial clout making the league predictable? Manchester City have won back-to-back Premier League titles and became the first English side to win the domestic treble last season

Richard Masters’ answer: "I'm not concerned. First of all we should celebrate just how brilliant City are and we should celebrate how Pep Guardiola has transformed the squad," says Masters."

The fact that this is patently untrue and Man City are not the financially dominant club at the moment is actually not the key issue here. While there's no doubt that they spent a lot of money, City's financial resources are very similar to those of Man United, Liverpool and Chelsea etc. The question of ‘damaging the competition’ has never featured during the previous 30 years of domination by those clubs, why is it only relevant now? Mr Roan’s clear implication is that Man City’s 'financial clout' is qualitatively different from that of other clubs, in short the inference is because its source is an Arab owner.

I see that this news bulletin is no longer available on iPlayer and that on your website the interview has now been re-edited and the question sequence re-ordered. Its headline is about tackling racism but what is widely seen as an openly racist attack by Dan Roan on Man City's owners seems to have gone unnoticed by your editors and his superiors.

Although the video clip no longer contains Mr Roan's highly prejudicial question nor Richard Masters’ strong rejection of the untruthful allegation that Manchester City's dominance on the field was the result of their 'financial clout', the associated Q & A extracts still retain the original disgraceful inference that underlies Mr Roan’s all too familiar attacks on the club. He is the only reporter ever to be banned by Manchester City and since then has been even more blatantly biased against the club.

The main problem is not just about him, though he is an important part, it is also about his bosses. That’s because both he and they are very well aware that underlying this prejudiced narrative is a long-term commercial battle between Manchester City and the Premier League’s US owned rival clubs together with their European allies. Essentially it is about their hostility to the City owner’s business model, which ploughs back all profits back into the club unlike profits from their clubs which mostly go out of football completely. For example the Glazer family have taken almost the same amount of money out of Manchester United as Sheikh Mansour has invested in City since 2008, over £1 billion. While City is debt free United were subject to a leveraged buyout with £525m debts loaded on to the club, including £275m high interest “payment in kind” loans. This debt scandal continues to be virtually unreported by the BBC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC Response from Deborah Dawson (extract)

“The job of the BBC interviewer is to then put forward questions likely to be in the minds of our audience
[..]
Just because Dan questioned whether Man City's financial clout made the League unpredictable does not mean that it can be inferred that this is his own view."

Complaint continued and further explained :

Your attempt to justify this question shows the same bias against Man City. The key issue, which you completely fail to address, is why Mr Roan’s opening question was to ask if City’s financial resources made the Premier League uncompetitive. If the question had been about the club’s recent dominance in respect of their footballing excellence, the question would have been entirely legitimate. Instead Mr Roan asked if the competition was being damaged not as a result of sporting performance of the team on the pitch but as a consequence of the club’s ‘financial clout’.

His clear implication is that Man City’s financial resources are different from their rival clubs. Yet Mr Roan knows full well that the club is not financially dominant by any measure - whether that is turnover, profits, player wages or transfer fees paid – indeed they have none of the 20 most expensive signings. His biography makes it abundantly clear what he believes about Manchester City and why he asks the question he did. Your claim that it was not his own is absurd.

"Sport has been revolutionised by the huge amount of money that’s come into it. It’s part of the modern business world, but hasn’t caught up governance-wise. When you see Putin using the Winter Olympics and now the FIFA World Cup to project his image onto the world, and the situation in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and China, you see sport as another arm of power. These places are using sport as a way of projecting their authority, not only on their own people, but globally too. So money in sport is becoming important to governments as well as just people.” A Life in Sports Reporting - BBC's Dan Roan

Mr Roan and his bosses have deliberately aligned the BBC as a supporter of what are widely seen as racially prejudiced attacks on Manchester City by its commercial opponents. The plain truth is that owners of rival clubs have seen their profits and hegemony threatened by City's success via a profit investment business model they will never copy. Through the media outlets they control or influence these elite clubs have sought to divert the disappointment of their mass supporter bases at City’s onfield domination with a series of invented pegs to hang their resentment on.

First they reassured their fans that the new investment in City was just a temporary ‘vanity purchase’ which would inevitably fail. When this didn’t happen FFP was redesigned and manipulated to protect elite clubs whilst hobbling City and PSG. These overtly unfair measures were later combined with the borderline racist narratives of ‘Financial Doping’ and ‘Sportswashing’. Both these fictions have been exposed by reputable football journalists such as Martin Samuel and Oliver Holt but a derivative campaign is still being waged by a few discredited individuals many of whom are regularly referenced by Mr Roan on his twitter account as BBC Sports Editor.

All football clubs face questions and criticism, some justified, some not. In City's case, financial and sporting rivalry have created an emotional interest amongst millions of people which a commercially pressured media are targeting – a perfect storm to which is added political bias from those who object to Arab ownership of a PL club. No other owner or club has ever been questioned and vilified to such a degree. Singling out City from the very large number of major UK companies, scientific research institutions, HE bodies and sporting industries that benefit from UAE based investment, including long term sponsorship of the clubs that are responsible for these attacks, is hypocrisy of the highest order. For them to be subjected to this continuing and escalating hostility by the BBC as well is totally unacceptable and needs to stop right now.

I have been a member of this site for 10 years now and I reckon this is the best post I have read on here . I don’t think the BBC complaints department are clever enough to give you a decent response

Mase wrote:If it was "what the audience would like to ask" then asks them why they've edited it out. Would love to know the answer..

What they want to know is why City are so much better than their own teams and Roan tells them the same lies as their owners -
'we are cheats because our owner is an Arab.'

Dan Roan’s opening question: "Is Manchester City's financial clout making the league predictable? Manchester City have won back-to-back Premier League titles and became the first English side to win the domestic treble last season"
Funny how, until scouse2 blew their lead, these taxpayer-funded twats were reporting how this was the closest title race ever (conveniently ignoring the goal-difference finish in 2012, probably because the other red media darlings lost again!).

The clip of the 3 scouse fans when Vinny scored v the Foxes which was Murray, Dalglish daughter and another twat summed up the BBC position so well
It could have been planned better if we were filming it. Scouse meltdown BBC entitled twats!

Hazy2 wrote:The clip of the 3 scouse fans when Vinny scored v the Foxes which was Murray, Dalglish daughter and another twat summed up the BBC position so well
It coueld have been planned better if we were filming it. Scouse meltdown BBC entitled twats!

I would like to see this - source please - anyway still looking for the BBC coverage of this - no doubt Banned Dan will get round to it in time
https://news.sky.com/story/standard-cha ... s-11787218

johnny crossan wrote:

Hazy2 wrote:The clip of the 3 scouse fans when Vinny scored v the Foxes which was Murray, Dalglish daughter and another twat summed up the BBC position so well
It could have been planned better if we were filming it. Scouse meltdown BBC entitled twats!

I would like to see this - source please

Here you go mate. Great post above, by the way.

https://twitter.com/5livesport/status/1 ... 03?lang=en