The mancityfans.net football forum

london blue 2 wrote:Alan shearer has a wonderful insight into the signing of Raheem -

"Will he improve Manchester City? Yes. For £49m? No"

So which is it Al? Tit.

He really is a fucking plank. Still, good enough for the BBC and its public service remit.

gmercer1 wrote:

london blue 2 wrote:Alan shearer has a wonderful insight into the signing of Raheem -

"Will he improve Manchester City? Yes. For £49m? No"

So which is it Al? Tit.

Now that is genius! I like him but I don't.

To think licence payers money pays his salary. Depressing

Maybe the BBC should hire Diego Forlan, to balance Alan Shearer's nonsense!
Here are some season predictions that Diego made in his column for The National, in UAE.
Diego also gave a compliment to Manuel Pellegrini, for being one of the best managers to work for. I don't entirely agree with Diego's predictions, but I thought they were interesting, anyway.

http://www.thenational.ae/sport/footbal ... ted?#page2

Is this the place to post media articles that are utter shit written by utter cunts?

Daily Star's take on unals loan to genk

(Sorry on phone so cut and paste the article would be a ball ache)

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/footba ... ing-Latest

Well, seems the Guardian staff (on average) voted us to finish 4th! Wow. (Jamie Jackson actually is in a video saying 2nd or 3rd, btw).

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blo ... ester-city

That suggests that tomorrow we will see United voted on average to be considered 2nd, because they have Chelsea 1st and Arsenal 3rd (all by average votes).

Hilarious.

PrezIke wrote:Well, seems the Guardian staff (on average) voted us to finish 4th! Wow. (Jamie Jackson actually is in a video saying 2nd or 3rd, btw).

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blo ... ester-city

That suggests that tomorrow we will see United voted on average to be considered 2nd, because they have Chelsea 1st and Arsenal 3rd (all by average votes).

Hilarious.

just posted that in another thread. They can't wait to see us drop off. Foaming at the mouth for it.

I think we'll be suprising a lot of cunts this year.

The latest headlines are all about jovetic "hits out at pellegrini"... the mirror have even gone with "jovetic hits out at city and pellegrini".

And then go on to quote him saying he had some problems at city but so did others. Then he says he wishes city all the best.

Original Dub wrote:The latest headlines are all about jovetic "hits out at pellegrini"... the mirror have even gone with "jovetic hits out at city and pellegrini".

And then go on to quote him saying he had some problems at city but so did others. Then he says he wishes city all the best.

Bluemoon should counter-sue the Mirror for misrepresentation using that article as evidence.

If anybody needs any evidence of the way the football media work against us, look no further than the BBC, the bastion of objective reporting. Remember, the BBC is a national institution, paid for by the tax payer, for the tax payer. Looking over their pages you will see more talk of another bid for Bale, a full on advertisement for their new Adidas Kit and an apologist article on Di Maria's move to PSG; no mention of how a top player, the biggest buy in the PL, couldn't make it in such an average team or the thought that he went AWOL.

Compare and contrast to today's piece on our game yesterday. The 'Blue Moon Falling' article, listed on their front page goes some way to give an insight into how they work. A very single minded article written by a one of the BBCs Blog writers, with only one affiliation - to be a Rag. In his time, Shamoon Hafez has written about Taggart's 25 years in charge as well as other greats where he is asked to comment on all things Rag with this exclusive interview on Offside Liam.

So what, you ask? We played shit and deserved to get such an headline on the BBC. But did we?

I thought I'd do a comparison with what had been reported about the PSG v Rag game, one that I only knew had been played because Sky Sports News managed to mention it in passing before showing endless trails of Louis Van Butthead talking about De Gea and Di Maria, 2 of their very best players who actually want to leave the club. But could I find it, to see what they had to say about the World's Bestest club, losing to the French upstarts? Could I hell! It was only when I accidentally clicked on an article with the headline De Gea: Louis Van Gaal says keeper saga 'not favourable' that I found the full extent of how the 650,000,000 fans around the world are informed of what's going on at the Rags. That's right, nothing made of it and buried within the so called 'Bigger' story.

This is just one example of how a supposedly impartial media outlet has took the line that it's important to keep the biggest audiences happy while using negative articles against the not so big to placate the same fans.

If this is how the BBC operate, is it any wonder why we see what we do from the commercial enterprises?

Beefymcfc wrote:If anybody needs any evidence of the way the football media work against us, look no further than the BBC, the bastion of objective reporting. Remember, the BBC is a national institution, paid for by the tax payer, for the tax payer. Looking over their pages you will see more talk of another bid for Bale, a full on advertisement for their new Adidas Kit and an apologist article on Di Maria's move to PSG; no mention of how a top player, the biggest buy in the PL, couldn't make it in such an average team or the thought that he went AWOL.

Compare and contrast to today's piece on our game yesterday. The 'Blue Moon Falling' article, listed on their front page goes some way to give an insight into how they work. A very single minded article written by a one of the BBCs Blog writers, with only one affiliation - to be a Rag. In his time, Shamoon Hafez has written about Taggart's 25 years in charge as well as other greats where he is asked to comment on all things Rag with this exclusive interview on Offside Liam.

So what, you ask? We played shit and deserved to get such an headline on the BBC. But did we?

I thought I'd do a comparison with what had been reported about the PSG v Rag game, one that I only knew had been played because Sky Sports News managed to mention it in passing before showing endless trails of Louis Van Butthead talking about De Gea and Di Maria, 2 of their very best players who actually want to leave the club. But could I find it, to see what they had to say about the World's Bestest club, losing to the French upstarts? Could I hell! It was only when I accidentally clicked on an article with the headline De Gea: Louis Van Gaal says keeper saga 'not favourable' that I found the full extent of how the 650,000,000 fans around the world are informed of what's going on at the Rags. That's right, nothing made of it and buried within the so called 'Bigger' story.

This is just one example of how a supposedly impartial media outlet has took the line that it's important to keep the biggest audiences happy while using negative articles against the not so big to placate the same fans.

If this is how the BBC operate, is it any wonder why we see what we do from the commercial enterprises?

That just about sums it up in a nutshell Beefy, and anyone who thinks there isn't an agenda against us needs their bumps felt

Agenda or bias mate, it's all the same to me as it's a direct attack at what we are trying to do. The fact that the media have taken a line of attacking every one of our possible buys this closed season says to me that we're in for a bit of a kicking this season. They want their 'Sky 4' back and will do almost anything to influence the outcome. Just as they tried to influence the Sterling move as well as De Bryne's.

Just imagine how a young footballer must have felt, seeing all those headlines and knowing that they'd be butt of endless headlines if they made one misplaced pass?

Talk shite just reported ADM set for PSG medical ahead of a €64m fee. Wow good business they only paid 59.7m for him......hang on a minute that was pounds which is €75m. It's a wonder they didn't use $98m. If it was City it would be flop sold for €11m euro loss !!!!
I try to ignore it all but it's so blatant you can't.

Anyone else notice how whenever they show a goal of someone scoring, they will always show the goal scored against City. Never against the dippers, rags, arse or chelsea

Sparklehorse wrote:Talk shite just reported ADM set for PSG medical ahead of a €64m fee. Wow good business they only paid 59.7m for him......hang on a minute that was pounds which is €75m. It's a wonder they didn't use $98m. If it was City it would be flop sold for €11m euro loss !!!!
I try to ignore it all but it's so blatant you can't.

From what I've been seeing, Dobbie is going for around £40 mil. A huge loss on the face of it.

But that's how it works, and the reason for him leaving. Subtle changes to the facts and ramp them up depending on how you want to portray them.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Sparklehorse wrote:Talk shite just reported ADM set for PSG medical ahead of a €64m fee. Wow good business they only paid 59.7m for him......hang on a minute that was pounds which is €75m. It's a wonder they didn't use $98m. If it was City it would be flop sold for €11m euro loss !!!!
I try to ignore it all but it's so blatant you can't.

From what I've been seeing, Dobbie is going for around £40 mil. A huge loss on the face of it.

But that's how it works, and the reason for him leaving. Subtle changes to the facts and ramp them up depending on how you want to portray them.

It is much more a loss than I thought.....even more blatant then !!

Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

Sparklehorse wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Sparklehorse wrote:Talk shite just reported ADM set for PSG medical ahead of a €64m fee. Wow good business they only paid 59.7m for him......hang on a minute that was pounds which is €75m. It's a wonder they didn't use $98m. If it was City it would be flop sold for €11m euro loss !!!!
I try to ignore it all but it's so blatant you can't.

From what I've been seeing, Dobbie is going for around £40 mil. A huge loss on the face of it.

But that's how it works, and the reason for him leaving. Subtle changes to the facts and ramp them up depending on how you want to portray them.

It is much more a loss than I thought.....even more blatant then !!

At some point it will be dredged up that it's City's fault for distorting the market.

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

Actually mate, Di Maria's initial transfer fee was report at £60 mil, that's GBP and they're letting him go a reported £44 mil which makes a book loss of approx Euros 28 million. In anybodies books, that's a huge loss.

However, as the goal and 3 assists he got in the early part of the season ensured them CL, then all is well and good.

Beefymcfc wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Not wanting to defend the rags in any wsy shape or form. But, surely as a company who trade with other European companies, they have a bank account in Euros as well as Sterling. Thus last year they wouldnt have paid £60m, they would gave paid whatever the exchange was back then in Euros. €75m at a guess.

Now they have agreed a fee of £44m. What is that now on Euros now the exchange rate is higher? €65m? Thus its a loss of €10m. Not as much as being quoted. Still a loss nontheless though.

The same logic can be applied to ourselves and the sales of Jovetic and Dzeko.

Of course, if exchange rates are less favourable the equation can work the other way. Should Madrid sell Bale for instance it will be for the same price or slightly higher in Euros than they paid. The Sterling price would be less however

Actually mate, Di Maria's initial transfer fee was report at £60 mil, that's GBP and they're letting him go a reported £44 mil which makes a book loss of approx Euros 28 million. In anybodies books, that's a huge loss.

However, as the goal and 3 assists he got in the early part of the season ensured them CL, then all is well and good.

But that is true if we assume the exchange rate of Euros to Pounds remains constant. It hasn't. In the last year the rate has gone from somewhere around 1.2 to 1.45. It is this which negates the loss, assuming the rags have a Euro account that they deal exclusively in. If they are stupid enough not to, then the loss is as large as reported as they will have converted Euros to pounds last year and this year. I just don't believe a top European club would conduct business this way.

nottsblue wrote:But that is true if we assume the exchange rate of Euros to Pounds remains constant. It hasn't. In the last year the rate has gone from somewhere around 1.2 to 1.45. It is this which negates the loss, assuming the rags have a Euro account that they deal exclusively in. If they are stupid enough not to, then the loss is as large as reported as they will have converted Euros to pounds last year and this year. I just don't believe a top European club would conduct business this way.

I imagine payments will be staggered so they'll never pay part of the original fee anyway, it'd just be settled by PSG. They'll have plenty of holding accounts for the different currencies they deal in.

I assume they'd just sit on it then until it got stronger, invest it or use it for other buys in that currency.

This was a pretty good read on it if you can be bothered: https://sports.vice.com/en_uk/article/c ... fer-window