so I'm not as paranoid as I thought

BY STEPHEN TUDOR
It was only right and proper that Manchester City’s recent 4-0 defeat to Everton was accompanied by the sharpening of knives across the media. This was City’s fourth loss in eight Premier League games and in the hyperbolic climes we now reside in it represented no less than a ‘crisis’, a wholly unexpected one to boot. Back in September it appeared that Pep Guardiola’s alchemy was instant with the title already a foregone conclusion. Now a shambolic defence was making Kevin Mirallas look Messi-esque.  

Wounded and confused, the club’s fan-base braced themselves for the inevitable backlash that would surely monopolise that week’s news cycle, headlines and criticism aimed predominantly at readers who have come to resent the club’s rise in recent years. They anticipated the tone: a gleeful schadenfreude at a Bond baddies’ comeuppance; an attempt at world domination gone spectacularly awry. 

They expected the visuals that were handed to the press on a plate: the most heralded coach in world football shell-shocked on the touchline, unable to make sense of why his meticulously-planned vision was unravelling before his very eyes. Throw in a mock-up of Claudio Bravo sporting a clown nose and some merciless ribbing in the office and a torrid few days awaited. 



What they couldn’t have foreseen – even fans who have long become accustomed to their club being sniped at, belittled and disrespected by the media – was Neil Ashton’s hate-piece in The Sun. It was not the words that especially offended – a cut-and-paste mix of bile and cliché – but rather the bold text above it: ‘569m reasons why City deserve a good kicking’.

This was not a journalistic swoosh of sharpened blade, this was a phlegmy spit in the face, an antagonistic declaration that is impossible to imagine being applied to any other club. An unscrupulous owner perhaps. An extremely unpopular national manager at a push. But a club? Never.

What precisely had City done to warrant a ‘good kicking’? Spent a great deal of money, like their peers. And lost a few games, also like their peers.

As shocking as it was, Ashton's warmongering was only the latest in an unrelenting campaign of negativity and animosity emanating from the media towards City since their takeover in 2008. 

Previously they have been described on television and in the tabloids as ‘whores’, ‘morally bankrupt’, and charged with single-handedly ‘ruining football’ – yet these are only the examples so spiteful they stick in the memory. Far more pernicious is the constant drip-feed of digs from commentators' mouths to countless tabloid articles concentrating only on the wealth that has elevated City among the established elite. 

It is an elevation that is impressive and unprecedented in its scale – in nine short years the club have upgraded from Emile Mpenza to Sergio Aguero, won the league twice, built an outstanding state-of-the-art academy, committed to work in the community that is bettered by none, and now find themselves self-sufficient and debt-free. It is also an elevation that could have been viewed as a fairy-tale, a celebratory narrative of long-suffering Blues getting all six numbers and experiencing dreams previously assumed forever beyond them. 



Yet an algorithm of media coverage during this surreal and exhilarating period can be condensed to scoffed disbelief at a misplaced pass from Yaya Toure followed by an obligatory mention of his wage packet and a cheap joke about birthday cakes to remind everyone that he is little more than a mercenary. That or a snide reference to Raheem Sterling’s diamond-encrusted sink or his sheer gall to shop in Poundworld. The boy really can’t win can he?

Failing that there will always be former professionals happy to line up and take pot-shots at a few empty seats while on co-commentary duties in between mouthfuls of vol-au-vents served up by a club that has largely taken a pacifistic approach to tempering the hostility. ‘Be nice to them and they will eventually be nice to us’ appears to be the mandate the PR department stubbornly adheres to, a flawed strategy that allows Neil Ashton to be welcomed with open arms to the Etihad just two days after writing his inflammatory piece; a flawed strategy that Sir Alex Ferguson would baulk at knowing the utter futility of it.

Seeking refuge from the unremitting negativity that surrounds their club a City supporter might understandably venture to the local pub for some well-deserved respite. There surely they will be free to discuss football with like-minded souls, encountering a bit of ‘bantz’ naturally but laced with less poison that has one eye on maximising social media clicks. 

Yet here they will encounter the same clichés, untruths, and puerile slingshots only spat instead of spoken. It should never be under-estimated to what extent City are resented for muscling their way onto a plateau previously thought to be exclusively reserved for a select few and bizarrely this hatred is not solely confined to supporters of those clubs directly affected. Whatever a person’s allegiance they will – as likely as not – be appalled and insulted by a club daring to challenge the traditional elite and do so by employing exactly the same modus operandi for success of buying the best players available. 

So whether it’s delivered with a scouse twang, Essex sharpness or a Norfolk drawl the material is always the same. No history. No class. Emptyhad. Oil money. Sterling castigated for having the temerity to move from one top flight club to another. And, of course, the new favourite, Pep Fraudiola.

It was all supposed to stop with the arrival of Pep. Or at least it was expected to get better. Yet such is the depth of ill-feeling towards Manchester City that this fascinating, charismatic creator of extraordinary teams has found himself sucked into the vortex of unpopularity that engulfs the club. 

Tarnished by association. Instead it is Liverpool’s Jürgen Klopp who enjoys the status of media darling while Jose Mourinho’s villainous persona has been softened to that of an endearing character since taking over at Old Trafford. Of the former the contrast between the coverage he is afforded and the goading of Guardiola and general hope that he fails is quite something and we can only imagine the ferocity of criticism the City boss would have endured had he – a foreigner – deigned to disrespect our FA Cup by fielding a side entirely made up of kids. 



Indeed, we don’t need to imagine it: Manuel Pellegrini is still counting the bruises from doing similar last season and that with a Champions League game only days away. In the league meanwhile Liverpool’s defence have conceded only one less than City’s this term, which would surprise many considering the welter of remorseless condemnation of Kolorov and co over the other. The same goes for each manager’s respective abilities to organise said rear-guards. Lastly, with just a single win in 2017 so far (and that against League 2 side Plymouth) in the hyperbolic climes we now reside in it represents no less than a ‘crisis’. Please don’t await such talk with baited breath. You will suffocate.

It is quite amazing what leeway a big broad grin gets you. That and being the boss of Liverpool. 

Determining what came first, the media’s constant undermining of Manchester City or the general public’s strong disapproval of them really amounts to a chicken and egg conundrum. But without question one feeds off the other, inspiring the negativity and misinformation, while they in turn are pandered to by outlets seeking a sizable, appreciative audience. 

This in itself is a depressing state of affairs that appears only to be coarsening with each passing season. Yet there is another aspect to City’s singular treatment that should be a concern to all.

It didn’t take long for Guardiola to realise that there is potentially something very remiss about the manner in which City games are officiated. Now, six months in, he is seeking a second meeting with the head of PGMOB Mike Riley after witnessing a series of perplexing decisions go against his team. 

The high-profile incidents from recent weeks would be sufficient to raise alarm bells on their own – the straight-forward dismissals of Luiz against Chelsea and Walker against Spurs that were not even given as fouls – but much more worrying are these entirely contradictory facts: City top the possession stats by some margin yet lie third in the disciplinary table. And the odd meltdown aside, they are anything but a dirty side. 

City supporters are hardly alone in believing their team is persecuted by referees but the evidence from seasons past has accumulated until it now borders on the irrefutable. The whisper of doubt has become a sane, steady voice of logic that asks a perfectly reasonable question: If the media are so against them – with journalists and pundits unable to hide their personal feelings and remain impartial – and if the majority of the public regard their club so appallingly, then what is stopping referees from unintentionally doing likewise?

 

Editor's note: The following correction was made to this article at 9.47pm on 24/01/17 - Neil Ashton was the author of The Sun article ‘569m reasons why City deserve a good kicking’, not Neil Custis, as originally stated.

569 million reasons why City deserve a good kicking    

But I notice this article has stopped short of mentioning the other elephant in the room: Islamophobia.  The FA are quite happy to advocate Russian oil merchants, or American businessmen who put their clubs in debt while they hoover money into their own accounts, or dodgy Italians who have a bit of a shaky history.  But an Arab who invests heavily in the club and the area surrounding it?  Well, how very dare he!  I suspect if he were from anywhere else in the world (or maybe just sent out the odd brown envelope) then none of this would be happening.  So much for trying to do it the right way.

What we need to do now is just stop being nice.  Let's go back to the idea that Mark Hughes advocated, which was to make the away dressing rooms as miserable as possible, but extend this lack of courtesy to everyone who isn't there as a City fan.  Make the refs change in an uncomfortably warm box room with no windows.  Remove the cosy press box and replace it with a draughty tin box up at the top of the third tier, with only lukewarm tea and curled up cheese sandwiches as refreshment.  Shove the away supporters up in the gods in the East Stand and close half the kiosks and toilets.  Make it as unfriendly a place as possible for anyone who isn't on our side.

And then stick two huge fingers up at FFP and buy who we want.  The second UEFA tell us we're in breach, get that fancy Bosman lawyer to argue it's against the law.

It's time we stopped playing Mr. Nice Guy, because it's getting us nowhere.

I said this many many years ago. We shouldn't be nice to anyone and we should sue those who print flagrant lies.

Suing the journos for their 'alternative facts' would soon out an end to this fakery.

Superb article.
And yes, I agree, go and tell and tell them all to go fuck themselves.
It would do no harm to build up a siege mentality, and stop pandering to these jealous twats.

What a great read Leo. 

Where was that article taken from as I'd like to Tweet it to Neil Ashton?

I said the other day, I generally like some of Neil's articles and have have FB and Twitter conversations with him, which was why last week, when this article appeared, I immediately tweeted him asking why the sudden vitriolic approach to a situation that most of the top 6 managers have faced this season - a few defeats and draws in a short period of time. 

I didn't get a reply, but it was re-tweeted by many asking the same question.

blueboy wrote:What a great read Leo. 

Where was that article taken from as I'd like to Tweet it to Neil Ashton?

I thought it was, too, but I can't take credit for it, it was Nijinsky who posted it.

I follow Stephen on Twitter he always posts quality @TheDaisyCutter1 if interested

https://twitter.com/thedaisycutter1
Blog - http://www.thedaisycutter.co.uk/

They feed them up nice after they slag us off with lies. Old bacon face was onto something when he banned some of the media. If a reporter says something that is a downright lie, ban him for 12 months minimum. If a paper prints lies, do the same to them. Stuff them.

blueboy wrote:What a great read Leo. 

Where was that article taken from as I'd like to Tweet it to Neil Ashton?

I said the other day, I generally like some of Neil's articles and have have FB and Twitter conversations with him, which was why last week, when this article appeared, I immediately tweeted him asking why the sudden vitriolic approach to a situation that most of the top 6 managers have faced this season - a few defeats and draws in a short period of time. 

I didn't get a reply, but it was re-tweeted by many asking the same question

It was on the   bet.unibet.co.uk  web site (I found it on Facebook)

Aother good read



Manchester City should be lauded for their radical and sensible reaction to the club's stuttering season

BY IAIN MACINTOSH 1 HOUR AGO



Can it really be true that a virulent strain of common sense is breaking out in modern football? According to reports in The Times, Manchester City’s hierarchy have held serious-faced meetings to discuss their appalling form and have concluded…that football is often more complicated than it looks, that sustained success requires time and that the last thing they want to do is sack their manager. How odd.

They’re right, of course. Real football is hard. Unlike football on the console games, success is not simply a case of buying players with lots of stars on their profile. Unlike football on the laptop games, real players will stand up and shout at you if you drop them. And even Football Manager hasn’t yet replicated 40,000 people calling you the Bad Word, the newspapers saying that you look like a hipster maths teacher and, at the first sign of grumpiness on your part, three days of new stories on how your extraordinary rudeness is ruining football.

The word ‘project’ has been overused in football, but it’s so appropriate to City. They are a project like the renovation of a poorly conceived yuppie mansion is a project. There’s an extraordinary passage in Duncan Hamilton’s George Best biography that details Best’s 1970 bespoke dream house, a spectacular creation that used “state of the art” electronic technology for everything from lights to doors to a large TV screen that would slide smoothly out of a cavity in the wall at the touch of a button.

“Best found the garage door opening and closing repeatedly, like a giant mouth, the lamps and the lights constantly flickering on and off and the TV vanishing up and down the chimney. Whenever an aeroplane passed low overhead, the signal from its radar threatened to scramble the electronics in the whole house.”

That’s City, that. The intentions are good, the money has been spent, but unexpected problems continue to develop that, in hindsight, really should have been obvious. And this isn’t just a dig at City. If YOU predicted them to challenge for the title this summer, as almost all of us did, you made the same mistakes. You didn’t realise that a manager who cherishes world class full backs was probably going to struggle with the diminishing powers of Bacary Sagna and Gael Clichy. You didn’t accept that Vincent Kompany now has the fitness and stamina of the dog in the last 45 minutes of ‘Marley & Me’ and that without his calming influence Nicolas Otamendi and John Stones would offer all the protection of a poppadum shield. We can be forgiven for not predicting that Guardiola would replace Joe Hart with a goalkeeper made of smoke, but you and I really should have looked at that squad, looked at their birth certificates, looked at their sad little 66 point haul last season, and said, “You know what? This might not be as straight-forward as we thought.”

The logical course of action is to take a breath, assess why the transfer strategy has failed (spending £115m on three centre-backs, none of whom can settle because a £6m centre-back is always injured would be a good starting point), write off the short term ambitions and focus on the long term. City are unlikely to win the title this season, so why not blood some of the youngsters that the club has invested so much in developing? But when has logic had any place in 21st century football? With the turnover of managers at other ludicrously wealthy clubs, it’s no surprise that jubilant Everton fans taunted Guardiola with chants of, “You’re getting sacked in the morning!”

But even though the mansion is poorly conceived, it’s still a mansion. The lights may be going haywire, but they can be fixed. The malfunctioning retractable TV screen can be replaced by one that’s screwed to the wall. There is money and, if the City hierarchy wish to bestow it, there is time.

Guardiola, regardless of the howling from some of the stranger corners of social media, is not a fraud. He’s a proven success at the top level of European football. And for all the ageing players in their ranks, there are still some pretty good ones too, like Kevin de Bruyne, Raheem Sterling and one Sergio Aguero. City have all the facilities, all the resources and all the advantages to slowly build something sustainable and magnificent in Manchester. It’s just strange, given all the madness of the modern game, that the club’s owners actually seem to be fully aware of this. More of this sort of thing, please.

Apologies Najinsky...great post.

Najinsky???

Cheers blue. 

I answer to anything

Nijinsky wrote:Cheers blue. 

I answer to anything

Before anyone says it...  No.  Don't do it!

oh, you just spoiled my fun, 'twas going to be the return of the word that must not be uttered!

Topdawg wrote:Najinsky???

was writing this on my phone as I left to take the missus for some lunch at The Grosvenor Arms...so didn't check it before I sent it.

Good second article as well.

Excellent article 
It really does disgust me that Klopp gets such an easy ride at Loserpoo. Mourinho is not such a surprise as the Rag loving press used to suck off Slur Alex whenever they could

They had to suck up to slur alex just to get allowed into the ground. 

Come in city, ban the bastards!

'in' or 'on'?

cheeky buggah!

People in glass houses...and all that!

blueboy wrote:People in glass houses...and all that!

Yes.....from Najinsky