MCFCforum sat down with The Telegraph's Mark Ogden. The reason? Manchester City has been missing from the media for much of the off-season, and the talk as been more concerned with Manchester United and Liverpool; we wanted to know why. We also wanted to know how he, and the media in general, fair with the club ...
Why has there been a lack of coverage by journalists of City's recent pre season tour of America and more focus on United and Liverpool?
Firstly, budgets and manpower have to be considered. The Sun and Mail were the only two papers to cover City, United and Liverpool throughout their US tours as they have the biggest budgets.
At the Telegraph, our guy with Liverpool spent two days with City when the two clubs met in New York. It wasn’t ideal, but we could only send two reporters and that’s how it worked out.
I looked into doing the New York leg, but my schedule with United made it impossible because of the Inter game in Washington.
Because of the changes at Old Trafford, United was the priority tour. New manager, lots of players leaving (not so many arriving!) and the whole sense of the club being in a state of flux meant United had to be covered from start to finish.
As for Liverpool, they are a huge global brand, the only English club who can compete with United on that scale, and coverage is also based on the demand and appetite from readers.
With online coverage nowadays, papers can get exact numbers for clicks and visits to stories online and the reality is that United and Liverpool dwarf the rest in terms of interest, followed by Arsenal and Chelsea.
In pure economics, advertisers want to pay for their product to be seen by as many people as possible, so a daily stream of United and Liverpool stories gives them that.
Currently, City just do not drive online traffic like the other four clubs I have mentioned, but there is also another issue which played a part in the decisions of the offices, which I have covered in response to question three.
Are the media as welcomed at City as much as other clubs you cover in your opinion?
Yes, probably more so than at other clubs, but I think Liverpool do very well on this front, probably the best in terms of the big clubs.
City and United are different. Both are good and bad in their own ways, but I have never had a problem in terms of the welcome I get at City.
We’ve had our ups and downs, but I get on well with the guys in the media department.
They will always try to fulfil requests, sometimes they can, sometimes they can’t, but the club has changed during the Abu Dhabi years and I don’t think anyone can really expect City to be like they were ten years ago.
Is it down to the newspaper you work for to tell you which club you cover on tours, or do you have a say who you want to cover?
Pretty much, yes, although my opinion is obviously part of the decision-making process.
The office basically want to get their moneys worth, which means regular news and stories for the paper and the website. This can mean filing 3-4 stories a day.
You look at the logistics of getting around the region or country where the teams are based and also the access you are likely to get and City haven’t scored well on this during this summer.
A year ago, I spent time with United, Liverpool and City during the Far East tours, so it can be possible to get around and do them all.
But in terms of access, United and Liverpool promised, and delivered, far more than City have come up with this summer and that was a crucial factor in deciding on which clubs to cover.
City were asked prior to the tour whether the national papers would be given time with Manuel Pellegrini and / or Ferran Soriano and the response was that there was no appetite within the club for that.
Liverpool provided lengthy interviews with Brendan Rodgers and Steven Gerrard, time with one of the owners and almost daily contact with Rodgers.
United gave us sitdown interviews with Louis van Gaal, Ryan Giggs and Ed Woodward, with Wayne Rooney and Juan Mata also provided for the dailies.
Summer tours are when you spend time with clubs and the general return is a big interview with the manager and CEO and a star player.
City fell short here, so when a decision is being made, it is hard to sell a tour -- two weeks of flights and hotel bills -- on the basis of no interviews with key figures.
Had Pellegrini or Soriano been provided, my office would have wanted me to be there and efforts would have been made to get me there.
City has changed a lot over recent years but have you seen a change in the way the media gets access to players and staff etc?
Yes, things have changed. Interviews with players are shared around the papers and they usually happen once a month.
Again, Liverpool do well here. It is more difficult to get player interviews at United, but not impossible.
The only downside with City is that every interview comes with requirements to plug this sponsor or that community visit etc.
Sometimes it is good to have a ‘clean’ interview, with no sideshow or endorsements, just the player talking, but City have gone down the road they have taken.
Still, the positive is that they are least make players available.
Local media, especially, seem to get less and less access to players these days. Do you think this needs looking at as a way of bringing the game closer to the fans?
I think it is a problem. City’s argument would be that they have a very well-resourced website which has regular player interviews, but fans rarely get anything more than soft and safe interviews if a club employee is asking the questions.
The recent Yaya Toure interview in the New York was a case in point. Do the fans really believe Yaya when he complains about the media driving the stories which came out at the end of the season?
Had Yaya been put in front of the newspapers, it would have been a totally different interview, which is probably why he wasn’t put in front of the papers!
Is Manchester City becoming less media friendly (possibly with their own vast coverage these days)?
I think they have become more media-wary than less media friendly, if that makes sense?
I don’t think the final season under Roberto Mancini helped much, because he led a divisive regime and was pretty much hated by everyone at City by the time left.
When we wrote about the negative stuff going on that season, some of us were viewed as having agendas, but the reality was that it was happening and our job is to find out that kind of stuff.
Stability doesn’t sell newspapers, which is why the United meltdown under David Moyes received more coverage that City winning the title.
If City are becoming less media friendly in certain aspects, then when they are in action of sorts, is that not a signal that, perhaps, this is something that needs chasing up by you guys? And don't give me the "if we're not invited" nonsense; this is what journalism is.
I think I probably answered that in the previous question.
Basically, if something is going wrong, it is our job to find out what it is and why.
Not much went wrong at City last season, so there was much less for us to get into in comparison to the days of Mancini, Balotelli and Tevez, when a week would rarely go by without some kind of nonsense.
Manuel Pellegrini brought stability and calm, but he could also be very dull when speaking, so it was hard to make City interesting beyond ‘aren’t they playing well.’
You can’t write that every week because readers get bored.
Why has there been a perceived lack of coverage of the current Champions, with more focusing on Manchester United and Liverpool? This did seem like the least covered Premier League Champion's team I can remember (yes, they got lots of coverage, it wasn't like it was all hushed up). Is that a fair assessment, after all they did win 2 of the 3 major domestic trophies available.
For example on your Twitter feed going back to the 9th of April, "Liverpool" is mentioned 30 times, "United" 53 times, and "City" 35 times. Is United dropping to 7th a bigger story then City winning the league?
Firstly, United lost to Bayern Munich on April 9, were eliminated from the Champions League and were on the brink of sacking David Moyes, so that gives you an indication as to why they dominated my Twitter feed that day!
I agree that City have slipped under the radar a bit as champions, but as I said earlier, stability is only interesting for so long and they had the misfortune -- wrong word, but hopefully you get my point -- to have won the title when United endured their worst season in living memory and when the whole narrative around Liverpool, including the Hillsborough anniversary, made them the romantic story of the season.
City had that element of romance in 2012, when they won their first title, but it was different this time. It happened at United many times, with their titles almost greeted with a shrug of the shoulders at times under Ferguson.
But in answer to the question, is United dropping to seventh a bigger story than City winning the league, the reality is that it is.
United’s fall was unprecedented. The team went into complete meltdown and failed even to qualify for Europe.
City, meanwhile, sailed smoothly to their second title in two years. Nothing went wrong, nobody fell out with each other and money wasn’t wasted on shaggy-haired midfielders from Everton.
Sad as it is, people in this country enjoy seeing famous people or organisations fail and the United story had everything.
Liverpool was similar. The emotion of Hillsborough, Steven Gerrard chasing his Holy Grail, the Kop getting carried away with it all, then Gerrard’s slip against Chelsea.
It reminded me of Newcastle’s blow-up in 1996. The neutrals all wanted Newcastle to win it and I think Liverpool had similar support this time.
People still talk about Newcastle messing up in 1996 rather than United overhauling them and I suspect it will be the same when people reflect on last season.
Still, the trophy will be in City’s cabinet with blue ribbons on, so that is the perfect riposte to that.
When journalists like yourself get accused of being anti-City because you're seen as reporting more negative things about the club than anything positive, do you feel this is unfair or do you feel that maybe some people have a point?
I genuinely couldn’t care less because the majority of stick I get is from twelve-year-old’s using their big brother’s computer, so it’s water off a duck’s back.
I don’t think there is much from last season which could be described as me being negative about City. In fact, I received much more stick from United fans for regularly being negative about the Moyes regime last season.
It goes with the territory. One set of fans likes you, the other doesn’t. Then when results turn around, it changes.
This is more an observation than a question ... personally I have found City very fan friendly, and are getting closer to the fans than any club I have seen, so despite the criticism they get from other fans and media, do you feel City get unfair stick from other sections of football and the media?
I think City have retained the link to their fans really well. City Square is great and I know that fans believe the club takes notices of them, which is exactly how it should be.
I don’t want to keep harping on about Liverpool here, but they also have a connection with their fans, as do Everton.
United fans don’t share the same sense of their club being on their side and that is perhaps why City fans are so proud of how their club treats them.
If City get stick or criticism from the media, it is not relating to how they deal with their fans.
But in recent years, lots of clubs have finally realised that you have to embrace the supporters, so City are not alone in this.