Cit.revenge wrote:Beefymcfc wrote:Well, started off alright with the game on 22 minutes. The cheeky turn in our box by Joleon which led to Sergio just clipping the post. Then into the one decent effort from the Hammers from outside the box which Joe spilt but picked up again. Everything was then City with the numerous efforts and Yaya's pile driver until the 89th when they got a freekick before going on to show the mistake by Joe.
But then, oh dear. Shearer spent about 30 seconds talking about how we did a Blackburn and didn't strengthen after winning it before the obvious, 'Now Phil (Ratboy 2), let's talk about the new Champions' (or words to that effect). Phil Neville (there for the specific purpose) proceeded to talk about the spine of the Rags team beginning with De Gea who has been an amazing buy, onto Camel Gob who has had his best season ever, then up comes Carrick and how he is the best midfield player in the Prem. But of course, they saved the best to the last. The best of the best, the piece de resistance, the inimitable Van Pussy, showing goal after goal, including the deflected goal against us. Quite sickening if you're a City fan.
They did not have one piece of analysis, one replay of any play or even a mention of the 2 great goals we scored. Our space was used to fit the Rags into the programme, completely ignoring and disrespecting both clubs in the process. What changes though. There have been many occassions where they've done exactly the same. Only this season they completely ignored our game and decided to talk about the colour of our shirt instead, so no real change there then.
It is however, a real sign of how the BBC operate. They are a public servant who are supposed to report the news they have impartially. That doesn't happen as they still have to pamper to their audience, and to be fair, their armchair Rag audience far outways any other club that watches. Fucking annoying, yes. Unexpected, no.
lol why is that there so much anti City on tv ?
There's a lot of anti-City (or pro-Rag) in the newspapers and I put that down to 2 factors. One is the individual bias from the actual writer with the other being the audience that they are pampering to. The same sort of applies to the likes of BBC with the likes of Hansen and Lawrenson who are still locked in the history of when they were the best and the Rags were perceived as a threat (they weren't really but it's amazing how 2 era's can be combined into one).
What can be said though is that I think we understand how things work and from a marketing point of view you cannot get any bigger in the Premier League, possibly world wide, than competing for things against the Rags. The size of the audience we are getting our product over to is the biggest in the world and the fact that we are portrayed as the 'enemy' with all the negative feed makes no difference to us at the moment. You've got to create a market to start with and then build on that when the time is right. We are still creating awareness, building as we go, and I'm sure all at City understand that we have to take this sort of shit to get to the required levels to sustain our club.
Competition against the Rags is essential for our own model because if they fall away from the top then the 650 million
*cough* fans who tune in and pay for their Sky cards and create advertising revenue will tune out. That's not good for the PL or for us as a business.
Always remember, Sky created the modern day United and United created the modern day Sky. Hand-in-hand they will skip along and the rest of us are living off their feed. Creating our own brand and awareness is a must and we will need them competing, at least in the short term, to ensure we grow as a business. It's all part of the [strike]game[/strike] plan.
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:34 pm