Whelan escapes FA action.

Sibrady said:
It's an absolute disgrace this decision which ever way you look at it!! I totally disagree with the argument that it doesn't benefit us!! Lets say this challenge was from Van Persie against us and was missed! If he was to receive retrospective punishment and a 3 game ban, although he would not miss games against us it would no doubt weaken his team in 3 upcoming games which would be an indirect benefit!!

Again though, this is not the point!! The FA surely should be there as an independent body showing CONSISTENCY in all decisions made whether it be for or against us!! They really are making lots of true fans (including myself) fall out of love with the game!!

Possibly the most ludicrous post I've ever seen on Bluemoon and I remember joolsbikini. The debate is whether a retrospective ban for Glenn Whelan of Stoke City would be of any advantage to us. You say it would be and back up your view by asking us to pretend it wasn't Whelan for Stoke but in fact van Persie from our title rivals United. I can clearly see how United missing their top goalscorer would benefit City but, and here's the important bit, it was Glenn fucking Whelan from Stoke City.
 
citykev28 said:
Sibrady said:
It's an absolute disgrace this decision which ever way you look at it!! I totally disagree with the argument that it doesn't benefit us!! Lets say this challenge was from Van Persie against us and was missed! If he was to receive retrospective punishment and a 3 game ban, although he would not miss games against us it would no doubt weaken his team in 3 upcoming games which would be an indirect benefit!!

Again though, this is not the point!! The FA surely should be there as an independent body showing CONSISTENCY in all decisions made whether it be for or against us!! They really are making lots of true fans (including myself) fall out of love with the game!!

Possibly the most ludicrous post I've ever seen on Bluemoon and I remember joolsbikini. The debate is whether a retrospective ban for Glenn Whelan of Stoke City would be of any advantage to us. You say it would be and back up your view by asking us to pretend it wasn't Whelan for Stoke but in fact van Persie from our title rivals United. I can clearly see how United missing their top goalscorer would benefit City but, and here's the important bit, it was Glenn fucking Whelan from Stoke City.

Yes.....but he got MOM don't you know??...Lol!

-- Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:48 am --
 
citykev28 said:
Sibrady said:
It's an absolute disgrace this decision which ever way you look at it!! I totally disagree with the argument that it doesn't benefit us!! Lets say this challenge was from Van Persie against us and was missed! If he was to receive retrospective punishment and a 3 game ban, although he would not miss games against us it would no doubt weaken his team in 3 upcoming games which would be an indirect benefit!!

Again though, this is not the point!! The FA surely should be there as an independent body showing CONSISTENCY in all decisions made whether it be for or against us!! They really are making lots of true fans (including myself) fall out of love with the game!!

Possibly the most ludicrous post I've ever seen on Bluemoon and I remember joolsbikini. The debate is whether a retrospective ban for Glenn Whelan of Stoke City would be of any advantage to us. You say it would be and back up your view by asking us to pretend it wasn't Whelan for Stoke but in fact van Persie from our title rivals United. I can clearly see how United missing their top goalscorer would benefit City but, and here's the important bit, it was Glenn fucking Whelan from Stoke City.


You have completely missed the point mate!! I was trying to get across how much of a disgrace the FA are!! I couldn't give 2 hoots whether he gets banned as like you've pointed out, it wouldn't benefit us (and at no point did I say it would or wouldn't!)

I was using the example as an argument against anyone who believes it doesn't matter if he faces punishment or not as we wouldn't benefit from it! Like I said in my original post, for me it's all about consistency! If stoke were truly in a relegation battle, the decision not to give him retrospective punishment could go against other teams in the dog fight, regardless if stoke play them or not!!
 
Sibrady said:
citykev28 said:
Sibrady said:
It's an absolute disgrace this decision which ever way you look at it!! I totally disagree with the argument that it doesn't benefit us!! Lets say this challenge was from Van Persie against us and was missed! If he was to receive retrospective punishment and a 3 game ban, although he would not miss games against us it would no doubt weaken his team in 3 upcoming games which would be an indirect benefit!!

Again though, this is not the point!! The FA surely should be there as an independent body showing CONSISTENCY in all decisions made whether it be for or against us!! They really are making lots of true fans (including myself) fall out of love with the game!!

Possibly the most ludicrous post I've ever seen on Bluemoon and I remember joolsbikini. The debate is whether a retrospective ban for Glenn Whelan of Stoke City would be of any advantage to us. You say it would be and back up your view by asking us to pretend it wasn't Whelan for Stoke but in fact van Persie from our title rivals United. I can clearly see how United missing their top goalscorer would benefit City but, and here's the important bit, it was Glenn fucking Whelan from Stoke City.


You have completely missed the point mate!! I was trying to get across how much of a disgrace the FA are!! I couldn't give 2 hoots whether he gets banned as like you've pointed out, it wouldn't benefit us (and at no point did I say it would or wouldn't!)

I was using the example as an argument against anyone who believes it doesn't matter if he faces punishment or not as we wouldn't benefit from it! Like I said in my original post, for me it's all about consistency! If stoke were truly in a relegation battle, the decision not to give him retrospective punishment could go against other teams in the dog fight, regardless if stoke play them or not!!

It must be my eyes playing tricks on me.
 
citykev28 said:
Sibrady said:
citykev28 said:
Possibly the most ludicrous post I've ever seen on Bluemoon and I remember joolsbikini. The debate is whether a retrospective ban for Glenn Whelan of Stoke City would be of any advantage to us. You say it would be and back up your view by asking us to pretend it wasn't Whelan for Stoke but in fact van Persie from our title rivals United. I can clearly see how United missing their top goalscorer would benefit City but, and here's the important bit, it was Glenn fucking Whelan from Stoke City.


You have completely missed the point mate!! I was trying to get across how much of a disgrace the FA are!! I couldn't give 2 hoots whether he gets banned as like you've pointed out, it wouldn't benefit us (and at no point did I say it would or wouldn't!)

I was using the example as an argument against anyone who believes it doesn't matter if he faces punishment or not as we wouldn't benefit from it! Like I said in my original post, for me it's all about consistency! If stoke were truly in a relegation battle, the decision not to give him retrospective punishment could go against other teams in the dog fight, regardless if stoke play them or not!!

It must be my eyes playing tricks on me.

Fair play mate that does look like that's what I meant!!

Sorry, it was meant to aimed at anyone who thinks he shouldn't face punishment as the decision wouldn't benefit us.
Sorry about that!
 
citykev28 said:
Sibrady said:
Fair play mate that does look like that's what I meant!!

Sorry, it was meant to aimed at anyone who thinks he shouldn't face punishment as the decision wouldn't benefit us.
Sorry about that!

S'alright you cheeky young scamp.

Great stuff lads. Now all you need to do is make it official with a mutual bumming. Shudehill bus station should do it.
 
johnny on the spot said:
citykev28 said:
Sibrady said:
Fair play mate that does look like that's what I meant!!

Sorry, it was meant to aimed at anyone who thinks he shouldn't face punishment as the decision wouldn't benefit us.
Sorry about that!

S'alright you cheeky young scamp.

Great stuff lads. Now all you need to do is make it official with a mutual bumming. Shudehill bus station should do it.

Way too cold mate, no chance!!!
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.