Mike Riley

[Prestwich_Blue]

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

As has already been said, it was the people who go to Points of Blue who were invited. The ones who get off their backsides and go along once every couple of months to ask the questions and raise the complaints that people make on here. They're like the fans' shop stewards if you like and, like most shop stewards, they get a load of shit when they do something that the people who aren't prepared to stick their heads above the parapet don't like.

We didn't know it was going to be run under so-called 'Chatham House' rules and I think they should have made that clear beforehand simply out of common courtesy and so there were no misunderstandings. I could have been tweeting or posting stuff on here.

For what it's worth I think they're wrong in that because it was a bold move to do what they did and it deserves the right sort of publicity. I don't see the problem in issuing an approved/sanitised report of the meeting because it's good PR in my view. I don't like the way the PL operate generally with their "everything's rosy in the garden" attitude but I reluctantly accept that there could be good reasons for restricting this.

One is that they are just piloting this format so don't want to prejudice any future events. We've been asked to provide feedback in order to shape future events. If the price of other fans either at City or other clubs being able to experience this is my respecting their request for confidentiality then that's a price worth paying in my view.

Another is that, although nothing wildly controversial was said, there were some very pointed questions and Riley gave honest answers. As many journos and fans of other clubs read these threads there is the danger of misinterpretation and things being sensationalised or blown out of proportion.

Do I still believe there's an "agenda" or powers that the authorities have no control over operating to the detriment of the game? Too fucking right I do. But last night gave me and the others an insight into the context of top-class refereeing and I'm grateful for that.

 

[Anonymous]

so you lot didn't burn him at the stake?

 

[The Future's Blue]

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?".

Fair one, and it's good to see that it wasn't just designed for BM purposes. And I can understand why they've asked to keep it confidential but it doesn't look good that even though it was a semi-open forum, that they now wish to keep it secret. It just adds another tick in the box for those who believe that there is something not right in the game, no matter how innocent it is.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

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.

That's all fair enough. I don't think you are under any obligation to explain more.

(It does sound like a PR, propaganda exercise to me though and I would have good money on the feeling in the room at the end of the night being "isn't Mike a nice chap, hasn't this all been very interesting, I'm glad I was invited" rather than "this bloke has just spent 2 hours avoiding addressing the concerns about how easily influenced his officials are and fobbed it off with nonsense about mistakes, what a condescending pillock")

 

[Eccles Blue]

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

As has already been said, it was the people who go to Points of Blue who were invited. The ones who get off their backsides and go along once every couple of months to ask the questions and raise the complaints that people make on here. They're like the fans' shop stewards if you like and, like most shop stewards, they get a load of shit when they do something that the people who aren't prepared to stick their heads above the parapet don't like.

We didn't know it was going to be run under so-called 'Chatham House' rules and I think they should have made that clear beforehand simply out of common courtesy and so there were no misunderstandings. I could have been tweeting or posting stuff on here.

For what it's worth I think they're wrong in that because it was a bold move to do what they did and it deserves the right sort of publicity. I don't see the problem in issuing an approved/sanitised report of the meeting because it's good PR in my view. I don't like the way the PL operate generally with their "everything's rosy in the garden" attitude but I reluctantly accept that there could be good reasons for restricting this.

One is that they are just piloting this format so don't want to prejudice any future events. We've been asked to provide feedback in order to shape future events. If the price of other fans either at City or other clubs being able to experience this is my respecting their request for confidentiality then that's a price worth paying in my view.

Another is that, although nothing wildly controversial was said, there were some very pointed questions and Riley gave honest answers. As many journos and fans of other clubs read these threads there is the danger of misinterpretation and things being sensationalised or blown out of proportion.

Do I still believe there's an "agenda" or powers that the authorities have no control over operating to the detriment of the game? Too fucking right I do. But last night gave me and the others an insight into the context of top-class refereeing and I'm grateful for that.

Thank you PB, that sums it up almost exactly. De Niro asked some very pertinent questions, as did others, and Mike Riley answered them honestly as far as I could tell.

The people who attended, who also attend PoB meetings, had no agenda in my humble opinion.

Like PB I usually take lots of notes when I go to meetings, a fall back to when I was a 'shop steward' and Local Union Secretary, however last night I was not feeling very well and just listened (& coughed :-)!!!)

But if I had taken notes I would have abided by the request for confidentiality.

 

[gaudinisbodyshop]

Upon reading this thread, I only really have one thing to say......KANSAS CITY SHUFFLE....that is all.

 

[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.

That's all fair enough. I don't think you are under any obligation to explain more.

(It does sound like a PR, propaganda exercise to me though and I would have good money on the feeling in the room at the end of the night being "isn't Mike a nice chap, hasn't this all been very interesting, I'm glad I was invited" rather than "this bloke has just spent 2 hours avoiding addressing the concerns about how easily influenced his officials are and fobbed it off with nonsense about mistakes, what a condescending pillock")

would Mike have bothered to come up to me at the end to tell me that I asked really good questions about the whole process/different issues if we'd just sat around being fobbed off?

Would I be trying to tell you how influential Bill was if we were all sat around going "aww yeah, he's clearly a dodging, cheating bastard but he's a nice guy"?

I'm trying to give you hints here, he didn't get a moment's fucking peace.

 

[Anonymous]

back to being serious.... the main concern is technology. it HAS to be introduced for our beloved game to progress.

blatter, platini and the FA should get a fucking grip and sort the fucker out.

goal line technology with a chip in the ball and a 5th official watching on loads of different tv angles, talking to the ref throughout the game through headsets.

it won't take long for him to say "that's offside"/ "thats a penalty".

it's not just us paying our money wanting to see a fair game, it's peoples fucking jobs on the line.

 

[Hart of the Matter]

Thanks for the insights and appreciate some of you pushing your personal boundaries in trying to enlighten the rest of us. From what has been said or inferred I still can not see why this meeting of 25 plus people could or should be confidential.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Would I be trying to tell you how influential Bill was if we were all sat around going "aww yeah, he's clearly a dodging, cheating bastard but he's a nice guy"?

I think that sums de niro up to a tee actually.