It's this notion that people who want to disprove the whole thing go "well it can hardly be an orchestrated campaign where every game is rigged and everyone's following orders, can it? There would be proof, it would leak"
Going back to Bozzie's post, there are some games, as proved by Matt Le Tissier, where certain things are attempted to be fixed. Then there are others where the result is attempted to be fixed, but it doesn't always work, it's not 100% foolproof but it doesn't mean it wasn't attempted. We refer back to Atkinson, at 0-0 he held some sway and had an influence, at 2-0 he had little influence but back at 2-2/3-2 he had a lot of influence and decided the result. Anthony Taylor at 5-0 v Watford gives us a penalty, Craig Pawson at 3-0 v Swansea gives us a penalty, they can't make a difference so a) it doesn't matter and b) it balances their record. At 0-0 v Chelsea, at 0-0 away at Leicester, at 1-0 v Spurs and 0-0 v Arsenal in the cup semi-final these referees have continually avoided giving us decisions and in only one of those instances did we win the game.
Different referees will have vested interests. Is it hard to imagine that Taylor as a rag wouldn't want to disrupt City a little bit out of personal bias? When people publish links between Moss/Hodgson, or Clattenburg gets linked to certain people, you get to realise that different people back different horses for different reasons, and then you add Scudamore's comments, the influence of senior United executives within the PL, FA, UEFA and FIFA and Lahoz being in the pay of the Spanish FA and he happens to get 2 City games where he gives 2 penalties against us, disallows a perfectly good goal and sends the pro-Catalan Pep off. All of these influences, biases and then add on a bit of financial incentive and pressure, and you build a picture.
