Sky 'do up' Summerbee

[mancunial]

i sent a complaint yesterday saying exactly what was posted that they did not fool anyone with their false stats, and that i thought redknapp and chamberlain acted like a couple of middle class wideboys, and that a apology would be in their best interests but i did not think they were men enough to do that seeing as they were ignoring a man who represented his country and won every domestic honor plus a major european trophy, also added that when are they going to be retrained has it won,t be long before they actually start behaving like the last two idiots who you have got rid of? just to end it i added that tyler is the most biased commentator that has ever been? to end this rant i also left a message for that peice of shit on you tube messaging board, siagondisco, who gave some of the most disgusting messages ever seen stating things about m v foe and niel young, i have let him know i will get his face and ram it up his own arse? what that club and sky have bred in this country is really sinister brainwashing the nazis and the bushido would have been proud of?

 

[bluejean1]

Well according to the Daily Mirror possession was 50/50, they had more fouls than us, we had more corners, just, so I reckon Summerbee was spot on to have a go at them.

 

[unexpected item]

Maybe Keys and Gray should debate it in the morning on talkshite. I'm sure they know all the tricks that Sky get up to.

 

[straighttalker]

Here's a view from a red and I'm being as fair as I can.

Firstly I can understand him wanting to fight his corner, it's actually admirable. For those to say he was fitted up I think that's just too far fetched.

Mike Summerbee was the first to mention stats, he said City had had 60% of possesion and more chances on goal. How would Sky know in advance he was going to say this in order to make him look wrong? I suppose they could have altered the figures quickly after he mentioned stats himself, but why would they? Even if Sky were out by a few and City had more possesion, it makes them both wrong surely. If the correct stats were eg 53% City, they stil would have shown him being wrong as it wasn't 60% the number that Mike quoted. The guy hosting the show even made the point of saying "They agree with what you're saying Mike as they both had 10 chances, Utd had 5 on target and City 3". He actually said this even though Mike had said City had more chances. So they may both had been out somewhat but I can't see an agenda. Sky want viewing figures but I seriously doubt they try to 'fit up' guests as it serves no purpose.

His loyalty was admirable but as a pundit he should be getting his facts right also rather than making them up. Sky should have the correct stats also. If Sky hadn't displayed any stats then other people may have been as annoyed as some on here are, as Mike would have told the nation the wrong stats also. I'm not trying to be argumentative as everyone has their own interpretation, but I see no purpose in fitting somebody up?

 

[Longsight-memories]

Here's a view from a red and I'm being as fair as I can.

Firstly I can understand him wanting to fight his corner, it's actually admirable. For those to say he was fitted up I think that's just too far fetched.

Mike Summerbee was the first to mention stats, he said City had had 60% of possesion and more chances on goal. How would Sky know in advance he was going to say this in order to make him look wrong? I suppose they could have altered the figures quickly after he mentioned stats himself, but why would they? Even if Sky were out by a few and City had more possesion, it makes them both wrong surely. If the correct stats were eg 53% City, they stil would have shown him being wrong as it wasn't 60% the number that Mike quoted. The guy hosting the show even made the point of saying "They agree with what you're saying Mike as they both had 10 chances, Utd had 5 on target and City 3". He actually said this even though Mike had said City had more chances. So they may both had been out somewhat but I can't see an agenda. Sky want viewing figures but I seriously doubt they try to 'fit up' guests as it serves no purpose.

His loyalty was admirable but as a pundit he should be getting his facts right also rather than making them up. Sky should have the correct stats also. If Sky hadn't displayed any stats then other people may have been as annoyed as some on here are, as Mike would have told the nation the wrong stats also. I'm not trying to be argumentative as everyone has their own interpretation, but I see no purpose in fitting somebody up?

but I see no purpose in fitting somebody up?
So what your trying to say it was not a granma the twat fucked?

 

[straighttalker]

Here's a view from a red and I'm being as fair as I can.

Firstly I can understand him wanting to fight his corner, it's actually admirable. For those to say he was fitted up I think that's just too far fetched.

Mike Summerbee was the first to mention stats, he said City had had 60% of possesion and more chances on goal. How would Sky know in advance he was going to say this in order to make him look wrong? I suppose they could have altered the figures quickly after he mentioned stats himself, but why would they? Even if Sky were out by a few and City had more possesion, it makes them both wrong surely. If the correct stats were eg 53% City, they stil would have shown him being wrong as it wasn't 60% the number that Mike quoted. The guy hosting the show even made the point of saying "They agree with what you're saying Mike as they both had 10 chances, Utd had 5 on target and City 3". He actually said this even though Mike had said City had more chances. So they may both had been out somewhat but I can't see an agenda. Sky want viewing figures but I seriously doubt they try to 'fit up' guests as it serves no purpose.

His loyalty was admirable but as a pundit he should be getting his facts right also rather than making them up. Sky should have the correct stats also. If Sky hadn't displayed any stats then other people may have been as annoyed as some on here are, as Mike would have told the nation the wrong stats also. I'm not trying to be argumentative as everyone has their own interpretation, but I see no purpose in fitting somebody up?

but I see no purpose in fitting somebody up?
So what your trying to say it was not a granma the twat fucked?

Sorry mate, you've completely lost me?

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Here's a view from a red and I'm being as fair as I can.

Firstly I can understand him wanting to fight his corner, it's actually admirable. For those to say he was fitted up I think that's just too far fetched.

Mike Summerbee was the first to mention stats, he said City had had 60% of possesion and more chances on goal. How would Sky know in advance he was going to say this in order to make him look wrong? I suppose they could have altered the figures quickly after he mentioned stats himself, but why would they? Even if Sky were out by a few and City had more possesion, it makes them both wrong surely. If the correct stats were eg 53% City, they stil would have shown him being wrong as it wasn't 60% the number that Mike quoted. The guy hosting the show even made the point of saying "They agree with what you're saying Mike as they both had 10 chances, Utd had 5 on target and City 3". He actually said this even though Mike had said City had more chances. So they may both had been out somewhat but I can't see an agenda. Sky want viewing figures but I seriously doubt they try to 'fit up' guests as it serves no purpose.

His loyalty was admirable but as a pundit he should be getting his facts right also rather than making them up. Sky should have the correct stats also. If Sky hadn't displayed any stats then other people may have been as annoyed as some on here are, as Mike would have told the nation the wrong stats also. I'm not trying to be argumentative as everyone has their own interpretation, but I see no purpose in fitting somebody up?

He's not a pundit he was a guest giving his opinion as he saw it. He's no more a pundit than Charlton is. Mike Summerbee,in my opinion looked like a man that is fed up with sky fucking our team over. He certainly wasn't taking any from those fuckin wanabes.He still talks in pounds,shillings&pence with no need of script or make-up.

 

[Blue Blur]

Hes a fucking legend, in his playing career he pissed all over the holy trinity of best, charlton and law, everytime he played them in a league game home and away.

Anyway he could stand on one leg and swear blind the the moon was square for me, whatever he says goes as far as im concerned, and any proper blue should be behind him 100% n all.

 

[Breadsnapper]

Here's a view from a red and I'm being as fair as I can.

Firstly I can understand him wanting to fight his corner, it's actually admirable. For those to say he was fitted up I think that's just too far fetched.

Mike Summerbee was the first to mention stats, he said City had had 60% of possesion and more chances on goal. How would Sky know in advance he was going to say this in order to make him look wrong? I suppose they could have altered the figures quickly after he mentioned stats himself, but why would they? Even if Sky were out by a few and City had more possesion, it makes them both wrong surely. If the correct stats were eg 53% City, they stil would have shown him being wrong as it wasn't 60% the number that Mike quoted. The guy hosting the show even made the point of saying "They agree with what you're saying Mike as they both had 10 chances, Utd had 5 on target and City 3". He actually said this even though Mike had said City had more chances. So they may both had been out somewhat but I can't see an agenda. Sky want viewing figures but I seriously doubt they try to 'fit up' guests as it serves no purpose.

His loyalty was admirable but as a pundit he should be getting his facts right also rather than making them up. Sky should have the correct stats also. If Sky hadn't displayed any stats then other people may have been as annoyed as some on here are, as Mike would have told the nation the wrong stats also. I'm not trying to be argumentative as everyone has their own interpretation, but I see no purpose in fitting somebody up?

Thanks for the lesson on patronising people. Now fuck off you rag ****. That's a lesson in being rude.
Can you change your witty response too as friend and good evening are getting a tad boring.

 

[lunebleu]

'Buzzer' was a true scrapper when he played for us[for those old enough to see him play regularly] and hated losing,especially to the Rags. That said the team he was in normally beat 'em!. I was proud of the guy to defend our corner and for me his 'stats' were spot on.That team he played in were tough guys who would literally be happy to 'have a personal chat' to any Rag player after the game. That attitude showed in the post match disscusion.