Mike Riley

[SWP's back]

i dont think its " fair play" at all, there's a hint of snobbery and elitism about it all.

the attendees are not CIA fucking spooks ffs

Someone's a little upset aren't they.

What do you want them to do?

 

[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.

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?[/quote]

The audience ended up being about 25. It was attended by the guys who go to the POB meetings - the invitation I received was as simple as: "you attended the last POB meeting, fancy coming along to this?".

 

[Bill]

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!!

dont have a clue who was and wasn't invited or why. there were people there i had never seen before and people i knew but had no clue they were going to the meeting.the only one i knew was going was colin and thats because i passed him at a game and he said see you thursday. there were a fair few usual pob attendees not there. sorry i dont know any more than that.

 

[SuperKevinHorlock]

I would really struggle to control my temper and no amount of 'he is a nice bloke' would have stopped me. The best season in my lifetime and the game I love is being ruined by corrupt officials.

I hope my fellow paranoid agenda colleagues put that message across to Mr Riley?

 

[york away to this!]

was there an agenda for this secret, invite only, dont spill the beans, "there is no agenda" meeting?

be warned! it is here before us in black and white, fellow blues - the FA are paying off the high priests of bluemoon itself.

whatever you do, don't speak with anyone at the ground next week....there are spies in our camp, mercenaries in our midst, turncoats in the cloakroom.

be afraid, say nothing, write nothing, think nothing........







mcfc - ruining perfectly good conspiricy theories since 2012......

 

[Dextersmate]

I would really struggle to control my temper and no amount of 'he is a nice bloke' would have stopped me. The best season in my lifetime and the game I love is being ruined by corrupt officials.

I hope my fellow paranoid agenda colleagues put that message across to Mr Riley?

We,ll never know bud.

 

[Bill]

I would really struggle to control my temper and no amount of 'he is a nice bloke' would have stopped me. The best season in my lifetime and the game I love is being ruined by corrupt officials.

I hope my fellow paranoid agenda colleagues put that message across to Mr Riley?

We,ll never know bud.

i think its fair to say it was an open forum and everybody had their say.

 

[SuperKevinHorlock]

I would really struggle to control my temper and no amount of 'he is a nice bloke' would have stopped me. The best season in my lifetime and the game I love is being ruined by corrupt officials.

I hope my fellow paranoid agenda colleagues put that message across to Mr Riley?

We,ll never know bud.

i think its fair to say it was an open forum and everybody had their say.

Thanks mate I know we sing from the same hymn sheet on this issue.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

right, guys.

The stuff like "where was Lee Mason?" is exactly the sort of thing that means the specifics can't be brought up, and let me assure that Bill didn't give Mike a minute's peace and Mike was very open and honest with him back, but there's just some things in life that if a mate or family member told you but asked to keep quiet then you would do, nothing sinister but some of those "why did that happen?" questions got re-assuringly answered very honestly imo.

I'm not posting any tidbits or very general stuff unless I get told I can, whether it be from certain people on this forum or not. I expect there will be an OS statement at some point, but I'm not stepping on toes, because a few people know who I am and I wouldn't get away with it. I don't want to come across the wrong way but I choose to go to these meetings, I choose to write down as many notes as I possibly can and it's not for me, it's for you guys, and I'd liked to have that choice in the future. We all got shiny new jotters that everybody(not me) were amazed because they had a pen hidden in the middle, but I doubt anyone else came away last night with 10 sides of notes for you guys, it's not special, I'm not a York away or Napoli-esque supporter, I have less than 4,000 points, don't have grey hair and have been to a handful of home games and 1 away this season as I live away. I happened to be on the email list because of a few past PoB meetings I happened to go to and I was home so took the chance to go, especially as I knew refereeing was a hot topic and wanted to bring information back to you guys.

I'm sorry guys, but there's not a lot else I can do about it, I just wish I'd spent my time writing notes on what Bill said, because you'd have had a nice stand up comedy script to chuckle over this morning.

 

[The Future's Blue]

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.

3 very good posts, right there. Hasn't Riley just had them all over a barrel, by coming across as a nice bloke? Surely this meeting was designed to discuss how these things keep happening and what are they doing to sort the problem? A simple 'We are not bias/They make mistakes' just isn't the answer because we keep seeing the same errant decisions over and over again.

As for Riley being a 'Nice Bloke'. This man is payed a wad of money to do a job, hell, he'll even have been claiming enormous expenses just to be there last night. He did not get to where he is by being a nice guy, he got there by other means and the nice guy image is just there for a control measure.

Earlier in the season he did a bit of a media round due to poor decisions bringing the Referee's into the spot-light. I seen the interview on Sky and listened to the one on TalkSport and although a little drab, quoting the party line, he came across well. However, when pushed on certain issues his demeanour changed and he became very defensive, not answering the original question but reverting it back to the party line. This alone showed what the interviews were designed for.

Riley may be a 'Nice Man' but he is just trying to show face for a faceless organisation that answers to 'Who'?