so this agenda thing.

[squirtyflower]

http://trichotomoustriptychities.bl...was-arsenal-versus-manchester-city-fixed.html

Was Arsenal Versus Manchester City Fixed?

Arsenal have suffered repeatedly from a refereeing bias against their interests in the Premier League over the last decade. Year after year the Londoners are at the bottom of the hierarchy when the tilt in match decisions is assessed.
These biases don't even out over a season or over time.
Wenger is aware of these machinations.

But Saturday's match between Arsenal and Manchester City perfectly demonstrated the critical need for the implementation of video technology and the option of managers challenging refereeing decisions.

This match saw some very very suspicious betting patterns in the 90 minutes leading up to kick off.
For the people behind this trading, the gamble was landed as the match was drawn.

But, in reality, the match should have been a victory for the Mancunians - there were evident fouls leading up to both of Arsenal's goals and City should have been given a penalty for Jack Wilshere's handball.
2-2 becomes 0-3.

The inability of Mark Clattenburg, his assistants and 4th Official Jonathan Moss to correctly call these incidents made the game a spectacular farce - great to watch but nothing to do with the integrity of the game and with insiders making considerable money into the bargain.

Hearing that poisoned dwarf Danny Murphy defending the officials on Match of the Day would have had more resonance if Murphy wasn't linked with Moss via professional gambling football agent John Colquhoun.

Arsenal have been denied titles in recent years due to the actions of the PGMOL refereeing body and nothing in this post suggests any wrongdoing on their behalf.

But it is disturbing to be in agreement (for the very first time) with Sepp Blatter, managers must be able to challenge erroneous and not-so-erroneous decisions.
Otherwise football is just greyhound racing with coloured boots.

Posted by Ojo del Toro at 00:47

Funnily enough, he's a United fan

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Why would anyone get upset about where match of the day is broadcast from? Have those who frequent other clubs' forums visited them to see if they care that is was broadcast from OT?

Not quite the same, mate and you know it.

Course it is, they're all part of the league and one club in particular still consider themselves more rivals to united than we are. I might be wrong and on every other forum from the other 18 clubs there could be threads asking why it was broadcast from there. I suspect not though.
This is just another of those gripes which take away any credibility from more serious posts about an agenda, because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where motd is broadcast from, and it certainly doesn't suggest any form of anti-something to the other 19 clubs.

It really doesn't matter where it is broadcast from. It will still be the same shit programme it has turned into. But the point that should be raised is: Are the BBC going round the grounds to show how 'balanced' an organisation they are, and how interested they are in the game of football, or is it just more MANUre puffery to show just how 'biased' they have become?

 

[George Hannah]

Let's not be picky, we know what you mean, three out of four.

well - 2011/12 - Bayern, Napoli & Villareal 2012/13 - Dortmund, Real Madrid, Ajax,
2013/14 - Bayern, CSKA Moscow Viktoria Plzen 2014/15 Bayern, CSKA Moscow, Roma

if you compare all those with the other English clubs' groups you will find we got the most difficult - Napoli in last year's Arsenal group were nothing like the side we faced.

Best team in the world & two div one sides,i'd take that draw every year.....

let's hope the current Russian champions then and now have stayed in division one then ;-)

 

[bernabias home shirt]

http://trichotomoustriptychities.bl...was-arsenal-versus-manchester-city-fixed.html

Was Arsenal Versus Manchester City Fixed?

Arsenal have suffered repeatedly from a refereeing bias against their interests in the Premier League over the last decade. Year after year the Londoners are at the bottom of the hierarchy when the tilt in match decisions is assessed.
These biases don't even out over a season or over time.
Wenger is aware of these machinations.

But Saturday's match between Arsenal and Manchester City perfectly demonstrated the critical need for the implementation of video technology and the option of managers challenging refereeing decisions.

This match saw some very very suspicious betting patterns in the 90 minutes leading up to kick off.
For the people behind this trading, the gamble was landed as the match was drawn.

But, in reality, the match should have been a victory for the Mancunians - there were evident fouls leading up to both of Arsenal's goals and City should have been given a penalty for Jack Wilshere's handball.
2-2 becomes 0-3.

The inability of Mark Clattenburg, his assistants and 4th Official Jonathan Moss to correctly call these incidents made the game a spectacular farce - great to watch but nothing to do with the integrity of the game and with insiders making considerable money into the bargain.

Hearing that poisoned dwarf Danny Murphy defending the officials on Match of the Day would have had more resonance if Murphy wasn't linked with Moss via professional gambling football agent John Colquhoun.

Arsenal have been denied titles in recent years due to the actions of the PGMOL refereeing body and nothing in this post suggests any wrongdoing on their behalf.

But it is disturbing to be in agreement (for the very first time) with Sepp Blatter, managers must be able to challenge erroneous and not-so-erroneous decisions.
Otherwise football is just greyhound racing with coloured boots.

Posted by Ojo del Toro at 00:47

Funnily enough, he's a United fan

There were no betting patterns before the match
In fact the draw drifted in price..........

 

[Pigeonho]

Not quite the same, mate and you know it.

Course it is, they're all part of the league and one club in particular still consider themselves more rivals to united than we are. I might be wrong and on every other forum from the other 18 clubs there could be threads asking why it was broadcast from there. I suspect not though.
This is just another of those gripes which take away any credibility from more serious posts about an agenda, because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where motd is broadcast from, and it certainly doesn't suggest any form of anti-something to the other 19 clubs.

It really doesn't matter where it is broadcast from. It will still be the same shit programme it has turned into. But the point that should be raised is: Are the BBC going round the grounds to show how 'balanced' an organisation they are, and how interested they are in the game of football, or is it just more MANUre puffery to show just how 'biased' they have become?

The answer to that is obvious and what has been covered time and time again. You saw how Sky billed it, almost like a second coming of the club. Nauseating it maybe, funny too in a comical way, (I would HATE for City to become like that), but it's simply a matter of pandering to the millions of 'fans' they have. Not an anti City agenda, which is what this thread is about.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Why would anyone get upset about where match of the day is broadcast from? Have those who frequent other clubs' forums visited them to see if they care that is was broadcast from OT?

Not quite the same, mate and you know it.

Course it is, they're all part of the league and one club in particular still consider themselves more rivals to united than we are. I might be wrong and on every other forum from the other 18 clubs there could be threads asking why it was broadcast from there. I suspect not though.
This is just another of those gripes which take away any credibility from more serious posts about an agenda, because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where motd is broadcast from, and it certainly doesn't suggest any form of anti-something to the other 19 clubs.

Well, no it's not the same and your example (presumably) of Liverpool underlines that. Perhaps if we hadn't beed unfavourably and directly compared, in the media, to united, as a club and an institution, over the last six years (and for some considerable time before that too) then perhaps blues wouldn't be so tetchy and react in the way they do, to matters which may have otherwise gone unnoticed or unremarked upon.

City fans are the way they are in particular, in relation to united, for reasons which no other set of supporters can comprehend or relate to, because they've not had it perpetually shoved down their throats for the last 30 years, and not just in the media but at workplaces all across Greater Manchester during that time.

To suggest Liverpool can "feel our pain" on this particular issue is wholly wrong.

 

[Lucky Toma]

Why would anyone get upset about where match of the day is broadcast from? Have those who frequent other clubs' forums visited them to see if they care that is was broadcast from OT?

Not quite the same, mate and you know it.

Course it is, they're all part of the league and one club in particular still consider themselves more rivals to united than we are. I might be wrong and on every other forum from the other 18 clubs there could be threads asking why it was broadcast from there. I suspect not though.
This is just another of those gripes which take away any credibility from more serious posts about an agenda, because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where motd is broadcast from, and it certainly doesn't suggest any form of anti-something to the other 19 clubs.

I think it is you who seen your credibility lessen Pidge for resolutely taking the contrary stance on anything and everything that is posted on here.

No matter what someone posts you're straight in refuting it on a subject that is multifarious and contains grey areas aplenty.

It has become an auto-response and doesn't ring true anymore.

On the matter of MOTD2 broadcasting from Old Trafford on the day when their multi-million new line-up is debuted I think it's fair that Blues are pissed off with this (and far more than any other club's supporters)

It can justifiably be viewed as a celebration by the BBC, an organisation that has repeatedly taken snidey pot-shots at us for similarly spending vast amounts on players. There is a double-standards issue here and one that is depressingly predictable.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It has become an auto-response .

I get an auto-response of my own whenever you post, LT ;-)

 

[Pigeonho]

Not quite the same, mate and you know it.

Course it is, they're all part of the league and one club in particular still consider themselves more rivals to united than we are. I might be wrong and on every other forum from the other 18 clubs there could be threads asking why it was broadcast from there. I suspect not though.
This is just another of those gripes which take away any credibility from more serious posts about an agenda, because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where motd is broadcast from, and it certainly doesn't suggest any form of anti-something to the other 19 clubs.

Well, no it's not the same and your example (presumably) of Liverpool underlines that. Perhaps if we hadn't beed unfavourably and directly compared, in the media, to united, as a club and an institution, over the last six years (and for some considerable time before that too) then perhaps blues wouldn't be so tetchy and react in the way they do, to matters which may have otherwise gone unnoticed or unremarked upon.

City fans are the way they are in particular, in relation to united, for reasons which no other set of supporters can comprehend or relate to, because they've not had it perpetually shoved down their throats for the last 30 years, and not just in the media but at workplaces all across Greater Manchester during that time.

To suggest Liverpool can "feel our pain" on this particular issue is wholly wrong.

To you maybe. It's simply just a matter of motd being broadcast from old Trafford though, and I was asking if anyone has checked other clubs forums to see if they are as bothered as some on here are.

And lucky toma. As discussed yesterday with others, it's a forum. If some one posts something,mothers are entitled to disagree, agree or whatever else. Or do you want it just to become a forum full of he's men who agree on everything? If a poster has said they had a problem with motd being broadcast from a stadium, surely someone curious as to why that would be a problem is entitled to ask why?

And the subject of credibility is ironic, given much of what is posted on this thread.

 

[tonea2003]

Not quite the same, mate and you know it.

Course it is, they're all part of the league and one club in particular still consider themselves more rivals to united than we are. I might be wrong and on every other forum from the other 18 clubs there could be threads asking why it was broadcast from there. I suspect not though.
This is just another of those gripes which take away any credibility from more serious posts about an agenda, because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where motd is broadcast from, and it certainly doesn't suggest any form of anti-something to the other 19 clubs.

I think it is you who seen your credibility lessen Pidge for resolutely taking the contrary stance on anything and everything that is posted on here.

No matter what someone posts you're straight in refuting it on a subject that is multifarious and contains grey areas aplenty.

It has become an auto-response and doesn't ring true anymore.

its an auto response as none of it suggests a agenda against city which is the purpose of this thread.
we keep coming back to media and its skewed reporting which in truth has little to do with an agenda to derail city from an uefa perspective