PeterParker wrote:john68 wrote:
I once asked why a foregn guy supported the rags. He answered that he liked English football and as his national TV only ever showed the rags or Dippers his choice of clubs was rather limited.
Yes, but why? That's the million-dollar question.
I can confirm that I've seen City once in Romania in the 90s, and another time before 2004.
I am speaking from the point of view of a country that was very limited football-wise until 1989. After that, romanians had a colossal hunger to see football on tv, but they were fed by the rising media with the rags & scouse, barca & real.
I wrote here, I found out we were relegated in 2001 two weeks later after someone told me. Had no way of knowing with all of the rags/scouse games on the telly.
Now the local broadcaster here for the Premiership is owned by Eurosport (for 5 years now). Every game in the Pep era the commentators mention about the money Pep spent on defence (money that are mostly fake news).
I am 100% convince they are getting the brief from the main station of Eurosport, which is owned by Warner Bros.
Sorry for the delayed response Peter.
The answer is simple. If you show a couple of teams week after week and if the advertising about those clubs is always positive, the sheeple swallow it. Just like the sheeple here in England believe that the rags and dippers wealth grew oprganically and despite being exonerated by CAS, the sheeeple still believe we are the corrupt club. It's because it is an incessant message from the media.
It controls public opinion, it creates markets and audiences to sell to. That created demand increases advertising revenue and therefore increases the profits of all concerned.
The rags, dippers and Arse are media manufactured...and the sheeple follow as sheeple do