Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2018/2019 [Mod note 31-Aug-18]

beno619

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Still saw much room to improve in the attack though - with Sanchez dropping deep or central, there were a few times that Shaw was quite isolated out on the left with no one pulling defenders away or offering a good option.

A much more promising performance - a lot to like in what we did and what we were trying to do.

Rashford took up some really nice positions during his 10 min cameo.

DM_7

beno619 wrote: »

Rashford took up some really nice positions during his 10 min cameo.

He really got in the full backs face....

fatherted1969

garra wrote: »

fatherted1969 wrote: »

The thing with Souness is it doesn't matter if Utd win or lose or if Pogba plays great or brutal his analysis is exactly the same. I remember his post match analysis of Utds Europa win over Ajax and honestly if I didn't know the result I'd have thought Utd lost. He can be ok but like a lot of ex Liverpool pundits his chip always comes through on the analysis.

Fair enough he probably is a little overly critical but can be like that with Liverpool players, probably a personality difference too. Having said that I could easily imagine Keane or Giles being just as critical of Pogba.
Will be interesting to see how he progresses this season, will the hunger to adapt and improve be as strong with a WC winners medal around his neck.

I think Keane or Neville don't mind being critical of Utd and that's fine. It's when no matter how well they play the critisism is the same is when its a bit tiring.

Will I Am Not

eigrod wrote: »

and the game wasn't live on tv.

I’m sure they were all streaming it until 2-0 anyway :pac:

TheDoc

Lord TSC wrote: »

Certainly plays a part.

At the same time, yesterdays win is one of those wins that doesn't leave much room for discussion really, does it?

We won, easily enough, despite being down to 10 men. After struggling, we got a vital 3 points that obviously meant a lot to Jose. No one had a "bad" game. Shaw, Fellaini, Sanchez, Lingard all looked really good. Pogba and Lukaku looked good but had bad moments. The defence were never really tested. It was a solid, routine win.

At the same time, it was against a super poor team, and we could have scored three or four more if we'd been more clinical. But bringing up such things for a lengthy discussion is unnecessary cause its not like we struggled to the win.

I'd happily take 38 wins like yesterday though. But no one should be acting as if a win yesterday is some defining, corner-turning moment for the team either.

Just wish I hadn't flicked the captaincy off Lukaku and onto Pogba for my Fantasy Football team

We could talk about the good things haha.

Surprised to see the praise Sanchez got this morning. I thought he was poor again.

Or didnt just expect more than a little moaning, wasteful try hard?

Was such a meh game though. Routine but somehow managed to still cause ourselves a stir and problem.

Now an int break too. Brutal

LuckyLloyd

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I’m sure they were all streaming it until 2-0 anyway :pac:

It was also All Ireland Final day.

It seems to have been a fairly solid and one sided win, so fair play. A good result given the context - though Burnley look like relegation contenders to me. But 3 points was desperately needed given the situation, and that's exactly what ye got.

Will I Am Not

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It was also All Ireland Final day

I know, sure I was watching that instead :pac:

Cantona's Collars

Just a heads up for anyone headed to the Everton game in October. It's been changed to the Sunday by Sky because Spurs game has been moved to the Monday due to NFL being played at Wembley. Sky needed to fill the 4pm slot on the Sunday left blank by this.

Rossi IRL

Shaw, Herrera and Mata all available to sign pre-contract deals with foreign clubs in January as they will be out of contract in the summer.

We need to tie down Shaw and Herrera ASAP

Bandana boy

Rossi IRL wrote: »

Shaw, Herrera and Mata all available to sign pre-contract deals with foreign clubs in January as they will be out of contract in the summer.

We need to tie down Shaw and Herrera ASAP

I would be very surprised if you can get more than one from that list to re-sign , would not be surprised to see all 3 go

IBrows89

Bandana boy wrote: »

I would be very surprised if you can get more than one from that list to re-sign , would not be surprised to see all 3 go

If Shaw stays in the team I can't see why he wouldn't sign. Last year I thought there wasn't a hope but I'm way more positive now that he kept his place even with Young back.

I can see Herrera staying, he won't get a bigger club and seems to love United. I think he's a decent squad player that at will at least put a shift in when on the pitch.

Mata I'm not too sure about, I love the man but I just think the lack of pace and the physical size of him makes it more likely they won't have him in the future plans.

Liam McPoyle

I could see Mata joining someone like Everton on a free.

Hopefully Ander and Shaw stay.

Loafing Oaf

I didn't hear what Mou was saying about goal celebrations directly but assuming this paraphrase is accurate, this is what annoys me about him more than anything, the double standards, the throwing stones in his glasshouse...
Like when he was giving out about West Ham's negative football after Chelsea played them a few years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/09/02/burnley-vs-manchester-united-premier-league-live-score-latest/

Jose Mourinho was punching the air furiously on the touchline. The Manchester United manager had been fairly restrained, with a momentary shake of clenched fists from his seat in the dug-out, when Romelu Lukaku scored the first but the Belgium striker’s second on the cusp of half-time elicited an eruption of emotion.

It was only two days earlier that Mourinho had talked about how he was not one of those managers who makes a song and dance of it when his side score but he had no compunction about passionately celebrating this particular goal.

StringerBell

Did you actually see the celebration? He didn't actually get off the bench for the first, the second he made a gesture to the away fans and it was a release of pressure and stress.

He didn't go running or jumping around anywhere.

There's actually some bang of desperation of trying to equate the reactions to goals. Nothing else to spin negatively, the state of it

jayo26

His celebration was very restrained he punched the air alright but his fist nearly went about waist high.

We all know what Jose is and what he has done I don't think anyone would say he is straight forward or honest but this thing of finding every little thing to hate the man for or to dislike him for is ridiculous if he was winning every game no one would give a sh1t, Fergie was the biggest hypocrite of all time but no one cared because he cleaned up all around him.

The only thing that matters is what the players think of him and that will be made more obvious as time goes on.

hufpc8w3adnk65

StringerBell wrote: »

Did you actually see the celebration? He didn't actually get off the bench for the first, the second he made a gesture to the away fans and it was a release of pressure and stress.

He didn't go running or jumping around anywhere.

There's actually some bang of desperation of trying to equate the reactions to goals. Nothing else to spin negatively, the state of it

Paper never refused Ink. I’m shocked there hasn’t been more made of Pogbas peno miss been a sign of his frustrations at José or something

Loafing Oaf

jayo26 wrote: »

Fergie was the biggest hypocrite of all time.

Was he? Well obviously with regard to criticism of refs but pretty much all managers are guilty of that...

StringerBell

StringerBell wrote: »

Did you actually see the celebration? He didn't actually get off the bench for the first, the second he made a gesture to the away fans and it was a release of pressure and stress.

He didn't go running or jumping around anywhere.

There's actually some bang of desperation of trying to equate the reactions to goals. Nothing else to spin negatively, the state of it

bangkok

Luke shaw united player of the month for august.

Fully deserved

bangkok

'Mourinho reaches Spanish tax agreement'

http://www.skysports.com/share/11490080

SlickRic

StringerBell wrote: »

Did you actually see the celebration? He didn't actually get off the bench for the first, the second he made a gesture to the away fans and it was a release of pressure and stress.

He didn't go running or jumping around anywhere.

There's actually some bang of desperation of trying to equate the reactions to goals. Nothing else to spin negatively, the state of it

Most journalists don't report what happens anymore. The artform is dying.

They want to make the story in this clickbait culture we are in.

watch this from Simon Jordan. starts at 19s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSq47lbNbcs

StringerBell

Without even watching that, yeah I agree completely.

It's all about angles, narratives and spin.

Generating interest rather than getting facts or just telling the plain old boring truth. Most of these press conferences, interviews are simple run of the mill things with very little salacious ****e involved so soundbites are latched on to create narratives instead.

*I am not saying each and every single journalist is like this.

Also, I can appreciate the pressure to get the scoop or the exclusive or whatever but I don't excuse it.

Edit: after listening, thanks for that. Enjoyed how much he wound up oul Neil.

Mitch Connor

have to say I am getting more and more shocked by how quickly people dismiss the media and things they say, how quickly they jump to the assumption the media is lying or making things up.

If the things the media said were being made up, surely we would see more court cases on libel grounds?

I do think there are some outlets that twist facts to push a narative. Daily mail and they hatred of Raheem Sterling for example - they are reporting things that have happened, but their spin is basically racist hatred put to print. But this general abusing of the media is a worrying trend, that we have seen result in Trump and Brexit, and still people don't learn. still people cling to the beliefs that the entities that they tribally follow are bastions of truth and goodness.

I've been honestly shocked by some of the comments we have seen in here - assertions that the media are making up stories about issues between Mourinho and Martial or Pogba for example - based on United not saying publicly that there was an issue. "If the club don't confirm it is true, then it is a lie" is basically what i have seen from some.


The recent decision to by r/reddevils to ban ESPN is a disgrace - and I've unsubbed from the community as a result.

StringerBell

The media don't make everything up
The media don't report everything factually.

The truth is in the middle there Mitch.

You can't deny there is an element of journalism, and it is sports journalism I am talking about, not Trump's "enemies of the people" that are only too happy to take something innocuous and spin that into something negative or controversial to sell papers/get clicks/gain followers etc

You admit it there with the daily mail so obviously you know it's an issue, so why are you shocked if people express a distrust of a large amount of sports journalists?

Bringing Trump or brexit into it does nothing, they had their own spinners in the media creating false narratives their way! Fox news is basically state tv, are you saying they should be given credibility when they have shown time and again they deserve none simply because they are the media?

If you develop a reputation over time chances are you deserve that reputation.

PS: I'm not even getting into it on ESPN but **** that rbreddevils anyway, more fun to be had in rnsfw and rnosleep.

DM_7

On the other side there is a clear change from reporting news to sensationalism with a lot of outlets. With the internet, easily accessible information on the type of stories that generate traction, make money.

Sky Sports News is an example of the change that all will be familiar with.

There is also a marked difference between print and online with a lot of what is put online in traditional outlets never going near the paper versions.

The other difference is the lowering of the average attention span mixed with access, gone is the day of reading a specific paper that suits you and is replaced with all day access to news, a deluge of targeted stories to get your attention and often polarises views even more.

Drumpot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

have to say I am getting more and more shocked by how quickly people dismiss the media and things they say, how quickly they jump to the assumption the media is lying or making things up.

If the things the media said were being made up, surely we would see more court cases on libel grounds?

I do think there are some outlets that twist facts to push a narative. Daily mail and they hatred of Raheem Sterling for example - they are reporting things that have happened, but their spin is basically racist hatred put to print. But this general abusing of the media is a worrying trend, that we have seen result in Trump and Brexit, and still people don't learn. still people cling to the beliefs that the entities that they tribally follow are bastions of truth and goodness.

I've been honestly shocked by some of the comments we have seen in here - assertions that the media are making up stories about issues between Mourinho and Martial or Pogba for example - based on United not saying publicly that there was an issue. "If the club don't confirm it is true, then it is a lie" is basically what i have seen from some.


The recent decision to by r/reddevils to ban ESPN is a disgrace - and I've unsubbed from the community as a result.

Lets not pretend sports reporters are the bastions of truth on any level when it comes to football journalism. Football is entertainment, not life or death. Its nothing like the president of what is considered the beacon of democracy, silencing any criticism or investigations on him. .

When it comes to serious things like drug cheats or head injuries reporting that's different. That's serious and there is usually really good methods involved in the investigation process.

Sports journalists are generally fans or interested parties who are good at articulating themselves better. Their information is very much based on heresay, rumours and innuendo. They are manipulated and bias like everybody else. They have their allegiances and preferences. Have you watched Sunday supplement ? A bunch of self absorbed twits speaking with authority mostly in a manner you can find in any football forum. .

There aren't more stories about United because there is more drama at the club. Its because the club is massive and is click bait heaven. Any story about United will get interest so more stories are made up and people will even copy and paste these stories to get their own attention. .

I don't have any problem with our manager challenging the reporters. I didn't mind Ferguson doing it either. When Jose tells the truth its twisted. When he says nothing they make up the narrative. He cant win . . I long for the good old days when what happened on the pitch was all that mattered. This drama off it (managers, players and owners oh my) is making the sport more like wrestling . .

Discodog

You can't sell newspapers, advertising space, tv subscriptions by saying there is no news today. There will always be interest in certain people, for example a photo of Diana on the cover was reckoned to double the sales of magazine. Jose is one of those people as is United. The loathing of both really helps. Fans will look hoping for good news & millions of others will hoping for bad.

If you are a journo you can't say to your editor that you have nothing for the next edition. Of course stuff is implied, with no substantiation. There aren't libel cases because it would be pointless. The club want publicity. These stories are never factual, it's always sources close to the player or the club.

They are never fact checked & the assumption is that, if the club don't deny it it must be true. I am certain that most aren't.

Mitch Connor

StringerBell wrote: »

The media don't make everything up
The media don't report everything factually.

The truth is in the middle there Mitch.

You can't deny there is an element of journalism, and it is sports journalism I am talking about, not Trump's "enemies of the people" that are only too happy to take something innocuous and spin that into something negative or controversial to sell papers/get clicks/gain followers etc

You admit it there with the daily mail so obviously you know it's an issue, so why are you shocked if people express a distrust of a large amount of sports journalists?

Bringing Trump or brexit into it does nothing, they had their own spinners in the media creating false narratives their way! Fox news is basically state tv, are you saying they should be given credibility when they have shown time and again they deserve none simply because they are the media?

If you develop a reputation over time chances are you deserve that reputation.

PS: I'm not even getting into it on ESPN but **** that rbreddevils anyway, more fun to be had in rnsfw and rnosleep.

I'm worried that the position is fast becoming default that the press are simply lying, that all press are simply lying, rather than people trying to look critically at what is written.

Far too often, and at an increasing rate in all aspects of life we see people taking a default position that things they don't like, things that are critical, are baseless lies.

I don't doubt that elements of opinion or bias will taint how any story is written, which is why everything must be critically assessed in a wider context of writing. But we don't see that. Time and time again we see so many just say "Pfft press just making it up for clicks", as if there is never any basis to what is being said rather than a stories narrative being either true or close enough to the truth that it should not simply be dismissed.

Mitch Connor

I guess there is no point continuing this media debate as I fundamentally disagree with the base position being put to me - that there is no reporting standard placed on any football journalist or story, that they are free to make up any story they wish.

Are there blogs, a d lads sites, and arse holes on twitter that make up stuff or click bait for attention, yeah. Is that representative of the established news organisations, I don't believe so at all.

I 100% disagree that that is the state of play at the top end of journalism. That places like the independent, the Times, the telegraph, the guardian pay good money to people to make up stories, with no consequence for these apparently endless lies from any quarter.

I'll leave it there cause I see no way we could reach anything but an argument with the starting positions are so far apart.

Drumpot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm worried that the position is fast becoming default that the press are simply lying, that all press are simply lying, rather than people trying to look critically at what is written.

Far too often, and at an increasing rate in all aspects of life we see people taking a default position that things they don't like, things that are critical, are baseless lies.

I don't doubt that elements of opinion or bias will taint how any story is written, which is why everything must be critically assessed in a wider context of writing. But we don't see that. Time and time again we see so many just say "Pfft press just making it up for clicks", as if there is never any basis to what is being said rather than a stories narrative being either true or close enough to the truth that it should not simply be dismissed.

I take the position that I always question the validity of information being provided. I include the bias/agenda of the medium supplying it. I have my own bias like everybody else and will usually concur with information that is more in keeping with what I believe.

If I want more grounded based information in football I goto BBC that's more credible then most of the sensationalist stuff written. If I want to be "entertained" I goto Sky Sports and take their narration with dubious pinches of salt. Its not that BBC is flawless and doesn't have its own cringey stuff, but its definitely more filtered then fox news sports . .

On one level I sort of agree with you. Nobody should take a default stance that all media is bullsh*t but most media is bias on some level. People can witness the same thing and give different accounts or views on it, the media is no different. Ask two Liverpool and two united fans what they think of a game between each other and you could get vastly different accounts of the same game.

This happens at different levels because ultimately humans have a predisposition to bias, populaity and drama. The truth is more often then not boring, so to just write the facts does not interest the majority of people either reporting or reading . .

DM_7

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I guess there is no point continuing this media debate as I fundamentally disagree with the base position being put to me - that there is no reporting standard placed on any football journalist or story, that they are free to make up any story they wish.

Are there blogs, a d lads sites, and arse holes on twitter that make up stuff or click bait for attention, yeah. Is that representative of the established news organisations, I don't believe so at all.

I 100% disagree that that is the state of play at the top end of journalism. That places like the independent, the Times, the telegraph, the guardian pay good money to people to make up stories, with no consequence for these apparently endless lies from any quarter.

I'll leave it there cause I see no way we could reach anything but an argument with the starting positions are so far apart.

Go back a couple of posts and the suggestion of things lying more in the middle is true.

Not all is made up, of course it is not. You are right to question spin,spin, money, money shouts about everything.

Yet the online needs of the more traditionally reliable outlets have changed the game, writers are under pressure to make their stories get peoples attention. It would be naive to not consider why they report something at certain times, like the Varane stories at the end of the window. A lot of the time you have to dig in to find the real story rather than see the emphasis they put on certain parts of what they are saying.

PhlegmyMoses

If people don't think that for sports reporting, journalist hears X and then spins it to Y, then I've some magic beans that might interest you. Seriously, newspapers and online editions are under huge pressure these days financially. They need to generate clicks.

A good example of what I'm talking about: let's say Raiola gets onto a few journalists and says Pogba is not happy. This story is then run for a few days until it is old news, and so it morphs into "Mourinho has lost the entire dressing room". The story is then added to by various pundits talking complete pony until it is regurgitated as fact down your local by Ten Pint Tommy.

I'd say a lot of stories start out rooted in reality. But once they have gone through the wringer, they have been embellished beyond belief.

Drumpot

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Ten Pint Tommy.

Ah T.P. Tommy’s a bit of a crack......

Adamcp898

To really understand sports journalism I think you have to take a step back from it all and query whether the sheer volume that is published every week could possibly exist without the creation of narratives and what are their own stories within stories?

By this I mean that the majority of the news which sports journalism groups publish or report is a construct or product of their own making (not necessarily a lie or "made-up" but a construct nonetheless) because there just isn't enough genuine sports news stories to sustain all of the number of publications, websites, journalists, 24 hour sports news broadcasts.

And that's before you even consider that they don't even have every single sport to work with, only a select few popular ones because their target demographics have no interest in quite a number of sports. Taking this part of the world as an example, a media organisation has to meet it's number of required column inches or broadcast minutes based on what has happened in the world of football, rugby, cricket, motorsport, tennis, athletics plus one or two others depending on what stage the season is at. And even then it's only with what has happened at the elite level because no one actually cares about a story from some provincial backwater short of a huge scandal or public interest piece.

So the only other option is to go down the route of constructing short term (days-weeks) and long term (weeks-months-seasons) narratives (e.g. X player is the next big thing, Y manager doesn't get along with Z player/manager/club and they're rivals). Then when you have stories which involve X, Y, or Z, not only just report whatever the original story is, but also skew it slightly (again not a lie or "made-up") to feed your narrative, keep it going, and keep your target demographics hooked.

Now the reasoning for doing this is simply that people are interested in it. Media groups realised that sports fans' appetite for consumption of reports and stories hadn't been saturated and so they ramped up the publication of more pieces. It helps too that there's plenty of money to be made from it and that it feeds into it's own pseudo-perpetuating cycle of telling fan of sport A that it's the greatest pursuit known to man which helps convince then to continue to consume your product.

At the end of the day it should be treated the same as every other type of article published no matter the subject or the source. Question not just the validity of the piece, but also the objectivity of the source/reporter. Increasingly though you have to be mindful of whether it has been targeted at you in any way and if/when you find that you completely agree with a piece in its entirety, question whether there's a motive in that too .


Now the journalists/reporters themselves are another layer to it. In short, they're increasingly like the subjects they record; people are increasingly interested nowadays in the individual and not just the group. Where people in years past would've said they like to read The Times, they now like to say they read John Smith. And well if you don't feel you have the time or ability to build a following through quality reporting and insight like John Smith, then why not foster some controversy and notoriety instead. After all, what are a few controversial opinions if it shoots you up the ladder and gets you better paying gigs


EDIT: This ended up way longer than intended.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I didn't hear what Mou was saying about goal celebrations directly but assuming this paraphrase is accurate, this is what annoys me about him more than anything, the double standards, the throwing stones in his glasshouse...
Like when he was giving out about West Ham's negative football after Chelsea played them a few years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/09/02/burnley-vs-manchester-united-premier-league-live-score-latest/

Wow I had no idea my post was going to trigger such debate over sports journalism so I went back and looked at the celebration in question. Okay it was maybe a but excessive to say he was "punching the air furiously" but I reckon it was a bit more intense than you'd normally get from a manager when his team scores a second goal against a side they would be expected to beat and therefore worthy of mention in a lengthy match report, especially if Mourinho did indeed say a few days previously (and I'm taking the journalist's word for this) that he "was not one of those managers who makes a song and dance of it when his side score." I don't think making this observation necessarily means James Ducker was trying to stir it or have a dig at Mourinho.

StringerBell

Yeah, other than ignoring the context of course.

The_Kew_Tour

It's good to see Mckenna seemingly trying to influence on the team too and the way he likes to play.

He be a wanted Man for management soon. Definitely seen that the last 2 games

S.M.B.

Shaw comes across well in the interview that is doing the rounds. It's very easy for me to sit here and judge a guy for not reaching his potential but I can't imagine what it would be like to go through a bad leg break like that.

Hopefully he can stay clear of any knocks over the next few months.

Rayne Wooney

Very very very early days with Shaw

We have been here before

bangkok

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Very very very early days with Shaw

We have been here before

Early days but he has been fantastic.

Dare i say it, like a new signing

Lord TSC

Anyone wanna educate me on what a "Director of Communications" does?

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1036873627235430401

RobbingBandit

Minister of Propaganda springs to mind

Glorified press agent but do we want a Nike associate in such a role just burn it isn't the right frame of mind for Jose and Ed tussle.

Loafing Oaf

Lord TSC wrote: »

Anyone wanna educate me on what a "Director of Communications" does?

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1036873627235430401

Trigger

Lord TSC wrote: »

Anyone wanna educate me on what a "Director of Communications" does?

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1036873627235430401

This springs to mind

Drumpot

Lord TSC wrote: »

Anyone wanna educate me on what a "Director of Communications" does?

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1036873627235430401

StringerBell

Lord TSC wrote: »

Anyone wanna educate me on what a "Director of Communications" does?

https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1036873627235430401

Toby Ziegler in The West Wing.

Lord TSC

StringerBell wrote: »

Toby Ziegler in The West Wing.

Well, damn, now I want to see a show of Toby and Josh and CJ trying to manager a football team.

TheDoc

Mitch Connor wrote: »

have to say I am getting more and more shocked by how quickly people dismiss the media and things they say, how quickly they jump to the assumption the media is lying or making things up.

If the things the media said were being made up, surely we would see more court cases on libel grounds?

I do think there are some outlets that twist facts to push a narative. Daily mail and they hatred of Raheem Sterling for example - they are reporting things that have happened, but their spin is basically racist hatred put to print. But this general abusing of the media is a worrying trend, that we have seen result in Trump and Brexit, and still people don't learn. still people cling to the beliefs that the entities that they tribally follow are bastions of truth and goodness.

I've been honestly shocked by some of the comments we have seen in here - assertions that the media are making up stories about issues between Mourinho and Martial or Pogba for example - based on United not saying publicly that there was an issue. "If the club don't confirm it is true, then it is a lie" is basically what i have seen from some.


The recent decision to by r/reddevils to ban ESPN is a disgrace - and I've unsubbed from the community as a result.

Have to agree. If ever there was a time to ensure you supported independent , neutral journalism.

Anyone with half an eye on trends and speculation, knows clubs like ours are moving to entirely control the media world that eminates from them.

While people might not like papers or whatever, the journalists are crucial.

It’s pretty obvious that if our club continues the way it is it’s merely a few years from moving away entirely from third party reporting and controlling everything via our own social media and website.

Press conferences will be done by in-house mutv and distributed via there. And if you’ve ever watched the mutv press conf stuff, it’s generally laughable.

So we can enjoy 24/7 puff pieces with absolutely no objectivity or questions asked of players, the manager or clubs.

You **** over journalists at your own peril tbh

Drumpot

TheDoc wrote: »

Have to agree. If ever there was a time to ensure you supported independent , neutral journalism.

Anyone with half an eye on trends and speculation, knows clubs like ours are moving to entirely control the media world that eminates from them.

While people might not like papers or whatever, the journalists are crucial.

It’s pretty obvious that if our club continues the way it is it’s merely a few years from moving away entirely from third party reporting and controlling everything via our own social media and website.

Press conferences will be done by in-house mutv and distributed via there. And if you’ve ever watched the mutv press conf stuff, it’s generally laughable.

So we can enjoy 24/7 puff pieces with absolutely no objectivity or questions asked of players, the manager or clubs.

You **** over journalists at your own peril tbh

True... But let’s make sure we arent bias against stories that don’t paint our players are great fellas..

Remember the slagging Liverpool rightly got for the Suarez t-shirts?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/21/manchesterunited.premierleague1

I don’t remember too many united fans being outraged at these stories painting Ronaldo as an obnoxious self absorbed asshole....

In many cases people say they want transparency and independent journalism but just not when it exposes things they would rather not know or hear....

Adamocovic

Crazy to think this time in 2 weeks the CL is back, can't wait!