Mike Riley

[johnmc]

They had never been asked not to publish details of these sort of meetings (all previous PpB and the like) before so why would they expect this one to be any different? A transfer meeting is nothing like this and of course one would expect total confidentiality.

I shall keep questioning your intelligence if you continue to ask bizarre questions.

Do you really think this thread by PB was a "look at me, aren't I special" thread?

And how does this thread suit "my agenda"? What is "my agenda"?

I have not had a direct go at PB have I? I dont think the intention of his thread was for attention, if you can show me where I said this please do.

Just stating that I think honouring the word of a professional referee representative is hardly something that needs to be adhered to is it. What could have possibly been said that would be so private that only a select few were allowed the details and thats as far as it can go. I am not having a go at anyone who was there by saying they are just blues as you and I, they don't deserve this information anymore than you or I so what is so confidential about it? Did Riley do a check on the attendees to see how trust worthy they were before divulging any information? No he gave it to them freely as if they were the normal man in the street/room. There is no good reason why the info should be confidential. It doesnt need to be and there are no possible consequences for making it public - unless you know of some law that says otherwise.

Your agenda is trying to attack my posts, not the first thread you have done it on, not the first thread you have tried to act the clever man in is it. I'm not the only poster you have done it to either.

Not sure why you have even took it upon yourself to reply to my original post? It was in no way aimed at you, yet you have replied like it was. Yet if I post in a thread giving an opinion that you dont like you said I should leave. Are you a mod now?

 

[monkey-trousers]

I'd love to see the chain of events expressed with the use of lego.

Step 1. The 'over aggressive' tackle

 

[allan harper]

I'd love to see the chain of events expressed with the use of lego.

Step 1. The 'over aggressive' tackle

Fucking quality !

 

[johnmc]

Was thinking that myself.

What the hell did he mention that for?

To confirm PB's previous stated intent on giving the forum all the details of the meeting as opposed to him starting a thread saying "I know something you don't know". Again, I have to question whether people are being purposefully dim.

Shite explanation

 

[Nascent Blues]

I'd love to see the chain of events expressed with the use of lego.

Step 1. The 'over aggressive' tackle

What's the referee saying to the player he just given a red to, or aren't you allowed to tell us?

 

[Matty]

I'd love to see the chain of events expressed with the use of lego.

It would be difficult as I would imagine some of the pieces would end up being eaten by those upset with the thread.

Well, eating them is preferable to the suppository approach I assumed they'd take.

 

[johnmc]

I'd love to see the chain of events expressed with the use of lego.

It would be difficult as I would imagine some of the pieces would end up being eaten by those upset with the thread.

Well, eating them is preferable to the suppository approach I assumed they'd take.

Oh look, we are so much cleverer, me and you, lets try and be funny

 

[SWP's back]

They had never been asked not to publish details of these sort of meetings (all previous PpB and the like) before so why would they expect this one to be any different? A transfer meeting is nothing like this and of course one would expect total confidentiality.

I shall keep questioning your intelligence if you continue to ask bizarre questions.

Do you really think this thread by PB was a "look at me, aren't I special" thread?

And how does this thread suit "my agenda"? What is "my agenda"?

I have not had a direct go at PB have I? I dont think the intention of his thread was for attention, if you can show me where I said this please do.

Just stating that I think honouring the word of a professional referee representative is hardly something that needs to be adhered to is it. What could have possibly been said that would be so private that only a select few were allowed the details and thats as far as it can go. I am not having a go at anyone who was there by saying they are just blues as you and I, they don't deserve this information anymore than you or I so what is so confidential about it? Did Riley do a check on the attendees to see how trust worthy they were before divulging any information? No he gave it to them freely as if they were the normal man in the street/room. There is no good reason why the info should be confidential. It doesnt need to be and there are no possible consequences for making it public - unless you know of some law that says otherwise.

Your agenda is trying to attack my posts, not the first thread you have done it on, not the first thread you have tried to act the clever man in is it. I'm not the only poster you have done it to either.

Not sure why you have even took it upon yourself to reply to my original post? It was in no way aimed at you, yet you have replied like it was. Yet if I post in a thread giving an opinion that you dont like you said I should leave. Are you a mod now?

If you post on the open forum then anyone can reply john, if you don't like that, I am sorry but perhaps a pm would have been better when you questioned the original poster?

Those that attended were invited by the club and the club asked them to keep it private. There is no law no, they were not made to sign a secrets act either, as well you know, but they respect the wishes of the club. The club browse this forum often (as ric can attest) and if they were asked to keep it private, I can certainly understand them wanting to do so, so as to not endanger future possible invites.

If anyone feels left out or that it is elitist, then they can always attend meetings such as PoB that are open to all and perhaps get an invite next time. I certainly will be doing as I, like you no doubt, would have liked to hear what Riley had to say for himself and his band of bell ends.

And no, you didn't have a "direct go" at PB, but you did question why this thread was made. I tried to answer that (without the use of lego at present).

As for an agenda against you? What? I usually spend time telling people you are not a boring **** but actually very dry and very funny when they "don't get you", you are one of my favourite posters so I don't know where you got that from.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

I guess it is impossible to answer this question without breaking the official secrets act so by all means feel free to ignore it.

However, did he give an indication that he feels that English football refereeing has a problem, more so than other sports officials, with their ilk being unable to avoid undue influence from teams, press, players, officials and crowds? And did he give any genuine, tangible reason to think that he is actively seeking to address this disgraceful state of affairs?

That is the crux of the matter for me.

I ill have my mortgage on him paying lip service to it but in reality doing absolutely fuck all to address it, lest too many people be upset by it.

Cheers mate, I think that's the only question that needed to be answered.

This is primarily why I've little interest in being a witness to such a meeting (other than to see proof for myself of the 'see no evil' stance on that specific issue, and possibly to get some sort of sad pleasure at trying to tie him up in knots on it).

There is not a cat in hell's chance of him admitting that his officials are the most influenced and susceptible to pressure in world sport (bar the out and out corrupt officials in sport). An admittance of such a thing is tantamount to a resignation.

And that is also the reason why the FA have got no interest in taking up the matter either. Whoever is the first person in power to admit this is an issue will be persona non-grata throughout English football, such are the repercussions of acknowledging this obvious, weak willed and disgraceful attitude to officiating.

 

[SWP's back]

Was thinking that myself.

What the hell did he mention that for?

To confirm PB's previous stated intent on giving the forum all the details of the meeting as opposed to him starting a thread saying "I know something you don't know". Again, I have to question whether people are being purposefully dim.

Shite explanation

Thanks for the feedback.