blueinsa said:
I agree that it could be cited tha there is a conflict of interest. I assume this is covered by their governance arrangements. It should be noted that other members of the FA board have current (or historical) connections with clubs.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mr Clattenburg / The FA {merged}
- Thread starter BornLate58
- Start date
I agree that it could be cited tha there is a conflict of interest. I assume this is covered by their governance arrangements. It should be noted that other members of the FA board have current (or historical) connections with clubs.
BornLate58 said:Could it be possible that those bent gets at the FA instructed a certain referee Mr Atkinson to redress the balance last night.
This would take the pressure of Shrek and themselves in light of there incompetance.
Just a thought?
Has it occur to you that Mr Atkinson was 'instructed to be impartial' to ensure that
1. Rooney (a known serial diver & elbow thug) doesn't get the benefit of doubt? Now the playacting & rolling on the turf in agony looks like he was shot by Cole rather than by a challenge by Luiz
2. Vidic, a renowned shirt puller & backstabbing elbow specialist (victimized Torres or by him?) who should have been rightfully send off '2 warnings' earlier.
Now IMO CA (MOTM) was the manager of the day for his courage to remove Luiz knowing that he will be send off for his next challenge.
Did the arrogant SLUR had the foresight (given the whole of 2nd half to do so) to sub out Vidic?
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
friend said:blueinsa said:Answer my point if you will please.
Do you think it right and proper that Gill sits on the board of the FA as well as that of Utd?
Surely a conflict of interest, especially when it comes to discussing possible action against his own club, manager or players?
I agree that it could be cited tha there is a conflict of interest. I assume this is covered by their governance arrangements. It should be noted that other members of the FA board have current (or historical) connections with clubs.
Gartside and Sheepshanks spring to mind but i remember right after the Adebayor incident against Arsenal a self confessed gooner at the FA was on every tv and radio show demanding that his own FA open a case against him and hey fucking presto, that's exactly what happened and amazingly, the ref Clatternburg managed to change his story to suit that time around.
As ive said, the FA is not fit for purpose and needs to be overhauled completely with an independent tribunal set up to govern all disciplinary hearings from now on with no interference from any professional football club whatsoever.
This is the reply I got from the FA, FWIW...
Thank you for contacting The Football Association.
The FA are only able to use retrospective action in incidents that are ‘not seen’ by referees. In reference to the Wayne Rooney incident this was clarified as having been ‘seen’ by the referee - who awarded a free-kick at the time - therefore ruling out the potential use of retrospective action. The guidance for this is issued by the world governing body FIFA. The FA apply this rule consistently across all levels of the game for which we are responsible.
The Football Association receives many e-mails and letters from supporters of clubs complaining about what they see as favourable or unfavourable treatment. Football is a game of opinions, but our concern is to be even handed across the board. We are confident that the disciplinary procedures off the pitch as well as the Referees on the pitch uphold the laws of the game without any bias to player, manager or club.
The FA strongly refutes any suggestion that Manchester Utd (or any other club for that matter) are treated differently. As evidence of this please see the statistics below, noting the 3 charges against Manchester United, two of which relate to Wayne Rooney (v Bolton 2006) and Rio Ferdinand (v Hull 2010). From the 2004/5 season onwards (the first season the Fast-Track system replaced the previous system) these are the stats relating to individual player charges that were ‘not seen’ by the referee.
58 players have been charged, 29 from the PL, including:
Man City 5
Newcastle 4
Arsenal 4
Man United 3
Tottenham 2
Birmingham 2
Blackburn 2
Bolton 1
Chelsea 1
Everton 1
Fulham 1
Stoke 1
WBA 1
Wigan 1
Whilst we appreciate that this may not alleviate your concerns we hope that this clarifies the issue.
Thank you for contacting The Football Association.
The FA are only able to use retrospective action in incidents that are ‘not seen’ by referees. In reference to the Wayne Rooney incident this was clarified as having been ‘seen’ by the referee - who awarded a free-kick at the time - therefore ruling out the potential use of retrospective action. The guidance for this is issued by the world governing body FIFA. The FA apply this rule consistently across all levels of the game for which we are responsible.
The Football Association receives many e-mails and letters from supporters of clubs complaining about what they see as favourable or unfavourable treatment. Football is a game of opinions, but our concern is to be even handed across the board. We are confident that the disciplinary procedures off the pitch as well as the Referees on the pitch uphold the laws of the game without any bias to player, manager or club.
The FA strongly refutes any suggestion that Manchester Utd (or any other club for that matter) are treated differently. As evidence of this please see the statistics below, noting the 3 charges against Manchester United, two of which relate to Wayne Rooney (v Bolton 2006) and Rio Ferdinand (v Hull 2010). From the 2004/5 season onwards (the first season the Fast-Track system replaced the previous system) these are the stats relating to individual player charges that were ‘not seen’ by the referee.
58 players have been charged, 29 from the PL, including:
Man City 5
Newcastle 4
Arsenal 4
Man United 3
Tottenham 2
Birmingham 2
Blackburn 2
Bolton 1
Chelsea 1
Everton 1
Fulham 1
Stoke 1
WBA 1
Wigan 1
Whilst we appreciate that this may not alleviate your concerns we hope that this clarifies the issue.
marco
Well-Known Member
a guilty party allways has some form of evidence up his sleeve to prove he is not guilty
laserblue
Well-Known Member
friend said:*not mischief making*
Didn't see the game but a couple if journos on Twitter have mentioned a Balotelli elbow on Herd (?). Owt in it?
i didn't get a good view of it but houllier was only a few yards away & said it was accidental. if it's good enough for him it's good enough for me.
The Fat el Hombre
Well-Known Member
friend said:*not mischief making*
Didn't see the game but a couple if journos on Twitter have mentioned a Balotelli elbow on Herd (?). Owt in it?
Wasn't an elbow. And they said on motd (or whatever the game was shown on when I got home) that 'How can clattenburg book balotelli for that when he didn't book rooney for his?'
Judge Roughneck
Well-Known Member
Mr Clattenberg kept a low profile last night. Perhaps that's the best time to get him as a referee, right after a rag outrage.
Anyway, the spotlight's off him now and on the Arterail faced Knunt of the realm again.
Anyway, the spotlight's off him now and on the Arterail faced Knunt of the realm again.
friend said:blueinsa said:Answer my point if you will please.
Do you think it right and proper that Gill sits on the board of the FA as well as that of Utd?
Surely a conflict of interest, especially when it comes to discussing possible action against his own club, manager or players?
I agree that it could be cited tha there is a conflict of interest. I assume this is covered by their governance arrangements. It should be noted that other members of the FA board have current (or historical) connections with clubs.
Benítez might have gone mad with the FACTS towards the end but he indentified the Gill situation.
Doesn't happen in law. Imagine a relative of the accused sitting on the jury YCNMIU