Mike Riley

[Lancet Fluke]

I can't post anything because people would know it's me and I wouldn't get invited back, I'm not prepared to do that because I like to go to these things.

[bigimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NRKTzpXreWM/TUq6jofrT5I/AAAAAAAAARg/HBom3oldYtk/s400/1132259166_esfist-one.jpg[/bigimg]

Viva la revolution!

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

And the most pointless thread of the year goes to....


From my part the request for confidentiality just reinforces what most fans already know about the FA and its referees, they are out of touch with the game and hold themselves aloof from the fans....you and I.

Ridiculous that some on here who went feel they are obliged to keep the proceeds confidential, you signed no agreement, and it was a request not an instruction...<br /><br />-- Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:31 am --<br /><br />

Good to know some kind of fan consultation is being trialed. A bit concerned by structure of process. As someone who runs public consultation meetings as part of my job I know some of the tricks of the trade to get the answers you want. Making people feel privileged and on the inside tends to make them want to protect that position and not rock the boat. This is reinforced by invitation only system. It allows the organisation to say following consultation we can confirm that they (the fans in this case) believe x,y and z. The real question is how much were you allowed to rock the boat or even feel inclined to do so? A genuine consultation would have generated some heated questioning (as seen on this forum). Did this happen?
As I said, not interested in the content but the process and wether this is simple manipulation by them to deflect from key issues.

i totally agree with this p.o.v. its all kiddology and pulling wool over your eyes. i am certain that there is no blatant corruption in the game (reffereeing wise) as it would be just suicidal for any of the refs to take anything, and there will always be a paper trail, somebody somewhere would know. this meeting was to try and influence a number of influential fans to change their viewpoint on refs.

but, the fact that there are blatant biased decisions can only point to the referees having an unconcious bias toward or against a certain team.

for example, lets say that the scum are playing bolton, its 0-0 and its all utd, they get a goal after playing bolton off the pitch for 85 mins. then bolton get a break and one of their players are brought down in the box by a rag. the chances of the ref giving the penalty are lower than normal because he (unconsciously) thinks the scum deserve to win the game, they have made all the pressing and attacking play and to have the scores end up level would be UNFAIR!!!! you see how easy it is? this actually happened at the swamp against fulham.

or, if the scum are 1 down and they are again figthing back to get even and are doing all the attacking. the ref will give a lot more decisions to them bacause of the effort they have put in and the dagerous situations they have created. yet again, unconscious bias comes in to award the attacking team more of a chance to get something. battling to get even or to win a game is looked upon with higher refereeing regard than trying to keep a lead or to defend well to keep the scores level for some reason.

i have mentioned this in another thread, but i am convinced that referees see city as many people see us, as buying our way to the title, of having a team full of mercenaries, of ruining the foundations of football in this country. why should we be allowed to win it, what message does it send out? this why we have had many controversial decisions go against us. the refs unconsciously see things in a biased way, they dont even know it, ask a ref if he discrimates against city and he will honestly put his hand on his heart and say no. but it is there, they will make us pay for our good luck, for being cheats!!

to me, these are the only explainations that offer a logical reason behind many shitty decisions this year.

excellent post, totally agree.

 

[The Future's Blue]

Can we at least know who exactly got an invite; who was on the list?

 

[burning blue soul]

Can we at least know who exactly got an invite; who was on the list?

they could tell you, but then they would have to kill you mate!!

 

[thetaxman]

Can we at least know who exactly got an invite; who was on the list?

Everyone who went along to the last Points of Blue a few weeks ago and left an email address on the sign in sheet got an invite.

 

[The Future's Blue]

Can we at least know who exactly got an invite; who was on the list?

they could tell you, but then they would have to kill you mate!!

Please don't kill me!

Can we at least know who exactly got an invite; who was on the list?

Everyone who went along to the last Points of Blue a few weeks ago and left an email address on the sign in sheet got an invite.

I was just wondering how large the audience was, and from which segment of supporters they came from.

So, all those at the PoB meeting (who left e-mail address) were invited, not just the select few?

 

[SWP's back]

pisses me off the people who think they are " celebrity" blues and better than the rest of us .

whats the point of this thread ???





sort it !

Colin and Bill are better than most of us. In every which way.

I don't know how eccles & jmw got in though. They must have posed as waiters I think.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Good to know some kind of fan consultation is being trialed. A bit concerned by structure of process. As someone who runs public consultation meetings as part of my job I know some of the tricks of the trade to get the answers you want. Making people feel privileged and on the inside tends to make them want to protect that position and not rock the boat. This is reinforced by invitation only system. It allows the organisation to say following consultation we can confirm that they (the fans in this case) believe x,y and z. The real question is how much were you allowed to rock the boat or even feel inclined to do so? A genuine consultation would have generated some heated questioning (as seen on this forum). Did this happen?
As I said, not interested in the content but the process and wether this is simple manipulation by them to deflect from key issues.

i totally agree with this p.o.v. its all kiddology and pulling wool over your eyes. i am certain that there is no blatant corruption in the game (reffereeing wise) as it would be just suicidal for any of the refs to take anything, and there will always be a paper trail, somebody somewhere would know. this meeting was to try and influence a number of influential fans to change their viewpoint on refs.

but, the fact that there are blatant biased decisions can only point to the referees having an unconcious bias toward or against a certain team.

for example, lets say that the scum are playing bolton, its 0-0 and its all utd, they get a goal after playing bolton off the pitch for 85 mins. then bolton get a break and one of their players are brought down in the box by a rag. the chances of the ref giving the penalty are lower than normal because he (unconsciously) thinks the scum deserve to win the game, they have made all the pressing and attacking play and to have the scores end up level would be UNFAIR!!!! you see how easy it is? this actually happened at the swamp against fulham.

or, if the scum are 1 down and they are again figthing back to get even and are doing all the attacking. the ref will give a lot more decisions to them bacause of the effort they have put in and the dagerous situations they have created. yet again, unconscious bias comes in to award the attacking team more of a chance to get something. battling to get even or to win a game is looked upon with higher refereeing regard than trying to keep a lead or to defend well to keep the scores level for some reason.

i have mentioned this in another thread, but i am convinced that referees see city as many people see us, as buying our way to the title, of having a team full of mercenaries, of ruining the foundations of football in this country. why should we be allowed to win it, what message does it send out? this why we have had many controversial decisions go against us. the refs unconsciously see things in a biased way, they dont even know it, ask a ref if he discrimates against city and he will honestly put his hand on his heart and say no. but it is there, they will make us pay for our good luck, for being cheats!!

to me, these are the only explainations that offer a logical reason behind many shitty decisions this year.

This broadly reflects my view. I'm of the opinion that the bias is not through genuine corruption - although to think that there is corruption is 'close to home' is always unimaginable to most until it is proven. Most close to those who are corrupt will genuinely express shock and amazement when it is uncovered.

Anyway, I agree with the subconscious bit but would add that it is not as 'sporting' as often wanting to reward the attacking team, even though that occurs, or, more specifically, finding it easier to give decisions for the team 'expected' to win. If the end result is that expected it makes it a little less open to scrutiny. Witness the United-QPR result. Discussed in detail, but always with the caveat "well, they'd probably have won anyway. The same decision the other way would have rumbled on for weeks and have been a national controversy.

But on top of this there is also the intimidation that clubs like United apply to refs and the fear of giving the wrong decision against them. It will result in you being national news for at least a week. More so than against any other club. Their manager has more influence than others. He is given more air time than others. He is more bitter and aggressive in his criticisms than others. And he is proven to be able to bar, or influence someone leading to a bar, refs from being involved in their matches for long periods.

This is always in the mind of the ref. Also, it would be remiss not to say that City have sometimes started to benefit occasionally from such a thought process against some 'small teams'. For similar reasons. But no team gets close to benefiting in the way that they do.

The quote by Hart of the Matter is also obviously true and the way that such things work.

Is anyone really interested as to whether Mike Riley is a nice bloke? Most people are. Him being nice or not is nothing to do with anything. However, personal contact and someone showing themselves to be human and nice automatically puts people on the back foot. Automatically partially defuses a desire to aggressively or intrusively question. And automatically encourages people to believe that such a nice person would not be involved in anything.

The only genuine question that needs asking to this bloke is why he is happy to oversea a collection of referees that is the most susceptible to being intimidated and influenced in the whole of the sporting world?

And that should be rammed down his throat again and again.

What is he doing about it? I know the answer - it is nothing as to do something would to admit that such a phenomenon exist and could cost a lot of them their place on the gravy train (ironically, the exact reason that it happens in the first place).

So what if he is a nice bloke. So is my barber and he would be totally incompetent in that job.

He will deny that such things exist and just write it off as mistakes that happen at every game. But that is total nonsense and to swallow it poor.

The only genuine benefit from such meetings is to get across to this prat that such weak and easily influenced officiating is not tolerated on such a mass level (not just in favour of United but also, to a lesser degree in favour of most bigger clubs) in any other sport. And he is a joke for being in charge of a body of officials that are the weakest and most easily influenced in sport.

I bet he didn't leave with such a message ringing in his ears. After all, he is a nice bloke. And that is exactly the reason for these meetings in the first place.

Oh, and someone should have asked the mealy-mouthed apologist why he is so vehemently opposed to referees ever wearing microphones. It works well in rugby and his opposition is for one reason and one reason only - it would shed light on this easily influenced mess and how weak they are in the way that they allow players, some much more than others, address them. And how they pathetically almost beg some players to "please clam down" in a desperate effort to get out of having to take the correct action against them there and then. I would love to hear this prat explain the exact reason why such transparency works in other sports but would not work in football. There is no excuse and it all goes back to concealing the weakness of his officials.

 

[SWP's back]

Pathetic , isn't it... secret seven

I've no idea whether it pathetic or not. I know nothing about it. Just asking the question.

Not for my benefit, if we totalled up who gets to most home and away games over the last few seasons then I certainly wouldn't be 'deserving' on that score. And I've not got much interest in hearing a rehash of the official FA/refereeing line in person.

Just wondered how it was 'chosen' though.

when you go to Points of Blue you put your email for contact, then we contacted asking if we wanted to go, we said yes and we went.

I'm certainly not the biggest blue by a million miles, I'm a young lad who just takes an interest and goes to games when I can.

Nothing special.

I think you're special mate

 

[Dextersmate]

Good to know some kind of fan consultation is being trialed. A bit concerned by structure of process. As someone who runs public consultation meetings as part of my job I know some of the tricks of the trade to get the answers you want. Making people feel privileged and on the inside tends to make them want to protect that position and not rock the boat. This is reinforced by invitation only system. It allows the organisation to say following consultation we can confirm that they (the fans in this case) believe x,y and z. The real question is how much were you allowed to rock the boat or even feel inclined to do so? A genuine consultation would have generated some heated questioning (as seen on this forum). Did this happen?
As I said, not interested in the content but the process and wether this is simple manipulation by them to deflect from key issues.

Correct and concise insight.