The mancityfans.net football forum

Got to say, the Etihad is the coldest stadium I've ever been in, it's like a wind tunnel. Always remember SP's swansong season for being simultaneously bored out of my mind and frozen half to death.

Beefymcfc wrote:

zuricity wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:That's cold. Our stadium design doesn't help either, it turns the place into a great big refridgerator.

warm beefy, i go jogging in colder weather!!!

i think the problem you have back home is the moisture in the air... it's always damp. I've just been for a long walk with my dog and whilst it is cold , the air is very, very dry.

Yes, totally different conditions. People whinging about it doesn't make it any better.

Agree 100%.....when me and my missus left KZ at Christmas it was minus 29 degrees and we were colder at the Etihad than we had been for weeks outside in those kind of conditions. Mental.

Mark Champan taking over MOTD2 - Big rag replaces Big dipper.

:

Colin Murray is to leave the BBC's Match Of The Day 2 programme at the end of this season, the BBC has announced.

The former Radio 1 DJ, who has presented the sports show since 2010, will be replaced by Mark "Chappers" Chapman, another ex-Radio 1 voice.

In a statement, the BBC thanked Murray "for his great contribution".

He will continue to play a "key role" in BBC output on 5 Live and across TV output for darts and American Football, it added.

Murray was named Music Broadcaster Of The Year at the Sony Radio Academy Awards in 2007 and made the transition from music to sport presenting from 2006 when he hosted the sports-themed panel show Fighting Talk on 5 Live.

Chapman, who made his name as a sports newsreader on Radio 1's Scott Mills show, has previously hosted Channel 5's Football Night and Final Score at the BBC.

:

I will be glad to see the back of Murray, I can't stand that man.

Dameerto wrote:I will be glad to see the back of Murray, I can't stand that man.

Agreed. But as Yffi points out, we get a rag in his place.

I don't know which one's worse. Chapman reminds me of Phil 'The Duncan Edwards' Jones having a peanut filled shit!

If Murray and Chapman didn't support the teams they support, I'd like them a lot more.

dazby wrote:If Murray and Chapman didn't support the teams they support, I'd like them a lot more.

No you wouldn't mate. They'd be insignificant piss-ants who you wouldn't put out of their misery if their legs had been pulled off.

Beefymcfc wrote:

dazby wrote:If Murray and Chapman didn't support the teams they support, I'd like them a lot more.

No you wouldn't mate. They'd be insignificant piss-ants who you wouldn't put out of their misery if their legs had been pulled off.

In light of Beefy's comment I'd like to retract my previous statement. I hate them with all my might and would hate them more if they supported different clubs. Grrrr Grrrr!!!

I had no idea who Murray supported when I decided he was a knobhead - he was presenting an American Football programme on one of the other channels at the time.

dazby wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

dazby wrote:If Murray and Chapman didn't support the teams they support, I'd like them a lot more.

No you wouldn't mate. They'd be insignificant piss-ants who you wouldn't put out of their misery if their legs had been pulled off.

In light of Beefy's comment I'd like to retract my previous statement. I hate them with all my might and would hate them more if they supported different clubs. Grrrr Grrrr!!!

Love ya man x

Just read an article in the Mail (Newsnow) on what should be done with MOTD(2) in which they interviewed all the football correspondents on the paper. All seem to agree with getting rid of the usual pundits but all want them replaced with... ex-rags/red-dippers/gonners. You couldn't make this shit up. Someone actually advocated bringing in michael fucking owen and another david 'can't-take-a-piss unless-there's-a-sponsorship-deal-in-place' beckham. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose....

I'm chillin', who's this fucker?

[youtube]QhKTPC8c6fA[/youtube]

It'll change your perspective.

Thanks - liked that beefy - nearly drifted off to get a nice glass of red until I realised what time it is!!

Saw this article today - only saying I guess what we all know but that fact set out in the 1st paragraph surprised even the most hard-line scum-red-bastard hater (me).

On Saturday 8 January 2005, Manchester United played Exeter City in the third round of the FA Cup. It was something of a mismatch on paper, but surprisingly a plucky Exeter team held out for a 0-0 draw, and took the holders to a replay. A notable achievement for the minnows, but this game was remarkable for another reason; to date it remains the last FA Cup tie involving Manchester United not to have been shown live on TV.

Even on the face of it, this is a remarkable statistic. Particularly in the earlier rounds, there are many matches from which TV companies can take their pick, and traditionally the perceived likelihood of an upset is a big draw. Given the perennial dominance of Manchester United, it's usually difficult to see much chance of a giant-killing, and the interest in games involving them, you might think, will be mainly for those occasions when they're drawn against a Chelsea, or a Liverpool, or maybe even a Manchester City or an Arsenal.

Looking at the list of games included in this amazing run of uninterrupted TV spotlight, some of them really do make you wonder what the companies concerned hoped to achieve, with the chances of an embarrassingly one-sided contest surely outweighing by far any prospect of a surprise. It begs the question of whether broadcasters are putting too high a priority on audience over entertainment value. There may be a certain piquant charm in seeing the likes of Burton Albion gazing wide-eyed at the immensity of Old Trafford, but some of the ties televised have lacked even this saving grace. Middlesbrough or Reading at home? Hardly sets the pulse racing, does it?

Any hint of complaint about Manchester United will, naturally, bring anguished howls of protest from the direction of London and Devon, as hardcore Reds, some of whom may even have visited Old Trafford, loudly protest about this latest manifestation of 'jealousy.' It's become rather a knee-jerk reaction, but there's really not a lot of foundation for it. Anyone truly motivated by envy (jealousy means something different, chaps, look it up) has a simple solution at hand - simply jump aboard the bandwagon. The prevalence of the Old Trafford club on our TV screens will certainly garner them increased 'support' from those who just want to be identified with such a vulgar example of a club gorging on success. It is the more negative effect of blanket coverage that should be worrying, not so much for Manchester United, but for the sport itself.

For there is a danger here that the media have not only created a monster, but that they are actively encouraging that monster to eclipse all their rivals. The basis of any sport must be healthy competition, but there is disquieting evidence that the playing field has not been level for a long time now. It doesn't take too much digging to unearth some unsettling trends. One study over a number of matches suggested that 88% of all marginal decisions went the way of Manchester United, and there was also a distinct lack of penalties awarded against them in league games at Old Trafford over a period of years. There have also been instances of referees who have displeased Alex Ferguson mysteriously disappearing for months from their fixtures. In a game of fine margins, as any game is at professional level, evidence that one club enjoys preferential treatment is a matter of concern. Such a trend, given the amount of money flowing into the game, could easily lead that one club into an unhealthy dominance, to the detriment, ultimately, of the spectacle as a whole. Fierce competition is so crucial to any healthy sport, that the importance of this principle is difficult to overstate.

Success, they say, is all about the steady accumulation of marginal gains. Manchester United as an institution appears fully to appreciate this, as any club should. But these days, the media are the game's paymasters, particularly the TV companies - and when they start favouring one club above all others, then you have to fear for the ability of others to compete in the long term. It's a matter of concern - and it could easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as more coverage (of an almost exclusively favourable nature) promotes more support ever further afield for 'United' as the media love to call them. And the more support they gain, the more of a market there is which will feed on their success, so the more commercially desirable their success will become - and commercial pressure speaks volumes when knife-edge decisions are to be made.

It would be difficult to imagine that any other club should have such a long, unbroken run of live TV coverage in their FA Cup ties. On Saturday, they will figure in their 38th consecutive such event. This will be a home tie against Fulham - hardly a game bursting with giant-killing potential. Meanwhile, Brighton will face Arsenal, in what many would feel is a potentially much more exciting contest, two sides that play good football, and the prospect of maybe seeing a shock. But this tie will not be seen live.

As a Leeds United supporter, I've had cause to bless the tendency of TV companies to cover even the games where 'United' seem certain to roll over the opposition. On January 3 2010, Leeds, then of the third tier, triumphed at Old Trafford before a live ITV audience, sending the Champions spinning out of the cup at the earliest possible stage. But satisfactory as this was, it's the exception, not the rule - normally the colossus will trample the underdogs, and their millions of fans worldwide will be happy. But what about the rest of us? Are we to continue paying our satellite subscriptions, and buying our match tickets, for the privilege of watching Man U clean up as the stakes become higher, and the odds become ever more skewed in their favour?

At some point, worms will start turning and - at the risk of mixing metaphors - maybe the bubble will finally burst. Then, chill winds of reality will blast through the offices of the TV moguls. Don't say you weren't warned.

Excellent piece. A leeds fan...

Have you a link to this mate?

Original Dub wrote:Excellent piece. A leeds fan...

Have you a link to this mate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rob-atk ... f=uk-sport

Think this is it - came up on my aol email

Cant believe its not been mentioned but the eay MOTD2 and hansen say that MDM clearly caught suarez and skipped passed it rapid was a disgrace.

I couodnt believe what they spouted. However I shouldn't be surprised.

The MOTD and MOTD2 Panelists are effectively making that show LFC TV.

Hansen, Lawrenson, Fowler, Hamann, Murphy - Ill bet they have Barry Venison on speed dial, and Ian Rush on standby in case the quota drops.

And yet somehow Sky Sports is even worse, and has been akin to a LFC Prem Lge champions campaign HQ for the past month.

The only people not expecting this, are those who were stupid enough to believe that the media wasn't set up to support Manchester Utd previously.

It has always been: Utd, Liverpool, London (which also includes Utd & Liverpool). Then you have the proportional left overs from interest created by previous successes, such as Everton, Leeds, & now ourselves; we now have a few 'friendlies' in there, but mainly just as a 2nd or 3rd favourite.

The Liverpool contingent has been there, lurking, in all media kept in reserve for such an outcome as Utd slip up. They have an Arsenal 'firm' they could switch to if they had taken the chance to step up instead eg Dixon, Keown, Ian Wright, Merson, Charlie Nicholas, Ray Parlour, Seaman, Thierry Henry, Tony Adams, even Perry Groves etc etc etc there are shedloads of them spread through the media at all levels, even Vieira was recruited ages ago. Spurs have a firm ready to go; Hoddle, Redknapps etc.

The only club in the top 6 who doesn't have a media 'firm' is City & we won the fucking thing two seasons ago.