Those who think there's no agenda need to read this...

[r.soleofsalford]

I often wonder why they bother, and if they would just prefer it if we were shit and skint again.

And 'Friend', bravo sir. Brafuckingvo![/quote







here something incredible, a none city fan sjk2008 and pigeonho a "city fan" who doesnt actually go to games, discussing what a deluded set of cunts city fans are.

let me say i think there is a definite leaning towards giving united more than they should get. i dont think it has anything to do with brown envelopes. but i do believe that referee have learnt that if they want to climb as high as they can in there profession, upsetting fergie and not getting united games is not the way to do it.

this deluded **** has been to every game this year bar the demolition and will be at will be at all remaining games.

forgive me if i come over a bit touchy but i think you can understand why

Spot on Pete absolutely spot on, hope you are well fella.

hi kev, up and down mate, but unfortunately not much heavy breathing involved. :(

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

can anyone smell anything?

The stench is overwhelming.

time for some spring cleaning me thinks.

Briliant.

So yet again the inevitable 'rag' insults appear.

I've been on this forum a good while now and yet because I strongly disagree with a topic on corruption which, on this occasion, means the flipside can come across as me 'defending' United I am labelled one of them.

It's a fucking joke. Time and time again I see people on here who've made 2 or 3 posts coming out of the woodwork when they win and masquerade as City fans yet I've been on here for ages, made 800+ posts, contributed to hell of a lot of other discussions besides this and now the mod squad decide to go all gung-ho and threaten to get rid because they like to think I'm a fucking United fan.

I'd rather you PM'd me to discuss this as I do think that's a fair way of approaching it and it pisses me off to no end that you're trying to get everyone else thinking I'm one of them.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Well that' it for me, i'm converted. It's on a football blog therefore it MUST be true. Didsbury Dave, there IS an agenda afterall.

I found it funny yesterday on the balotelli thread where one poster even went as far as to say that the FA now have no need to make it look so obvious that there's an agenda, therefore by not punishing Balotelli further it makes it look like we are favoured, or at least like there is no conspiracy. Basically he was saying that if we were still top then Balotelli would have got the book thrown at him.

I looked at the whole Balofuckingtelli thing as the ref saw it, and that was that. For the record it shows how shit refs are as a whole, because Balofukingtelli should have gone for that challenge on Song, but he didn't and not only that, he's not been punished any further. Agenda?

Thing is, it was proven by the television that the ref didnt see the incident he was blocked off by at least two players, therefore under this ridiculous law,as the ref didnt see it, he could have been retrospectively punished......but he wasn't

The mere fact that everyone agrees it was an atrocious tackle and yet the fa deem it not worthy of punishment yet a sending off that everyone universally agrees was wrong and its not rescinded doesnt even strike you as strange? The thing is they can even break their own rules as they did in the ben thatcher case and yet STILL they dont deem it worthy of retrospective punishment.

Bear in mind many of us blues have been going on about this inbuilt bias long before the ridiculous decisions at fulham and subsequently QPR.

How many more crazy decisions in favour of the rags will it take for you to believe that everything is not as you hope?

 

[YaYa's Left Peg]

The stench is overwhelming.

time for some spring cleaning me thinks.

Briliant.

So yet again the inevitable 'rag' insults appear.

I've been on this forum a good while now and yet because I strongly disagree with a topic on corruption which, on this occasion, means the flipside can come across as me 'defending' United I am labelled one of them.

It's a fucking joke. Time and time again I see people on here who've made 2 or 3 posts coming out of the woodwork when they win and masquerade as City fans yet I've been on here for ages, made 800+ posts, contributed to hell of a lot of other discussions besides this and now the mod squad decide to go all gung-ho and threaten to get rid because they like to think I'm a fucking United fan.

I'd rather you PM'd me to discuss this as I do think that's a fair way of approaching it and it pisses me off to no end that you're trying to get everyone else thinking I'm one of them.

Me thinks he protesth too much...

 

[Pigeonho]

Well that' it for me, i'm converted. It's on a football blog therefore it MUST be true. Didsbury Dave, there IS an agenda afterall.

I found it funny yesterday on the balotelli thread where one poster even went as far as to say that the FA now have no need to make it look so obvious that there's an agenda, therefore by not punishing Balotelli further it makes it look like we are favoured, or at least like there is no conspiracy. Basically he was saying that if we were still top then Balotelli would have got the book thrown at him.

I looked at the whole Balofuckingtelli thing as the ref saw it, and that was that. For the record it shows how shit refs are as a whole, because Balofukingtelli should have gone for that challenge on Song, but he didn't and not only that, he's not been punished any further. Agenda?

Thing is, it was proven by the television that the ref didnt see the incident he was blocked off by at least two players, therefore under this ridiculous law,as the ref didnt see it, he could have been retrospectively punished......but he wasn't

The mere fact that everyone agrees it was an atrocious tackle and yet the fa deem it not worthy of punishment yet a sending off that everyone universally agrees was wrong and its not rescinded doesnt even strike you as strange? The thing is they can even break their own rules as they did in the ben thatcher case and yet STILL they dont deem it worthy of retrospective punishment.

Bear in mind many of us blues have been going on about this inbuilt bias long before the ridiculous decisions at fulham and subsequently QPR.

How many more crazy decisions in favour of the rags will it take for you to believe that everything is not as you hope?

What it will take, is a document which a retired ref produces which is dated 1st of August of any year post 1992. If that document says 'protect our cash cow at all costs', then I will gladly bow down to those who believe this to be the case. Now for United to be protected it would take communication from the powers that be to those who officiate the games, yes? Where is it then? Why hasn't a ref who wasn't paid as much in the early years of the prem not come forward with such a document and made himself a millionaire? I am going to go all crazy and hazard a guess that it's because such a document doesn't exist. That maybe me being too practical and all, but practical is what I am. No evidence = no agenda.

 

[redmizzle]

This talk could be dismissed if only there was a city fan in a position of influence at English footballs governing body. Surely he'd be able to see through all this corruption.
Until then, the FA are in united's pocket.
Oh.

Nonsense.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Well that' it for me, i'm converted. It's on a football blog therefore it MUST be true. Didsbury Dave, there IS an agenda afterall.

I found it funny yesterday on the balotelli thread where one poster even went as far as to say that the FA now have no need to make it look so obvious that there's an agenda, therefore by not punishing Balotelli further it makes it look like we are favoured, or at least like there is no conspiracy. Basically he was saying that if we were still top then Balotelli would have got the book thrown at him.

I looked at the whole Balofuckingtelli thing as the ref saw it, and that was that. For the record it shows how shit refs are as a whole, because Balofukingtelli should have gone for that challenge on Song, but he didn't and not only that, he's not been punished any further. Agenda?

Thing is, it was proven by the television that the ref didnt see the incident he was blocked off by at least two players, therefore under this ridiculous law,as the ref didnt see it, he could have been retrospectively punished......but he wasn't

The mere fact that everyone agrees it was an atrocious tackle and yet the fa deem it not worthy of punishment yet a sending off that everyone universally agrees was wrong and its not rescinded doesnt even strike you as strange? The thing is they can even break their own rules as they did in the ben thatcher case and yet STILL they dont deem it worthy of retrospective punishment.

Bear in mind many of us blues have been going on about this inbuilt bias long before the ridiculous decisions at fulham and subsequently QPR.

How many more crazy decisions in favour of the rags will it take for you to believe that everything is not as you hope?

What it will take, is a document which a retired ref produces which is dated 1st of August of any year post 1992. If that document says 'protect our cash cow at all costs', then I will gladly bow down to those who believe this to be the case. Now for United to be protected it would take communication from the powers that be to those who officiate the games, yes? Where is it then? Why hasn't a ref who wasn't paid as much in the early years of the prem not come forward with such a document and made himself a millionaire? I am going to go all crazy and hazard a guess that it's because such a document doesn't exist. That maybe me being too practical and all, but practical is what I am. No evidence = no agenda.

Do you believe that some referees are conciously/subconsciously biased and lack, in varying degrees, the prerequisite that is surely the cornerstone of honest and therefore competent refereeing: the prerequisite being impartiality?

 

[Blue Mooner]

Well that' it for me, i'm converted. It's on a football blog therefore it MUST be true. Didsbury Dave, there IS an agenda afterall.

I found it funny yesterday on the balotelli thread where one poster even went as far as to say that the FA now have no need to make it look so obvious that there's an agenda, therefore by not punishing Balotelli further it makes it look like we are favoured, or at least like there is no conspiracy. Basically he was saying that if we were still top then Balotelli would have got the book thrown at him.

I looked at the whole Balofuckingtelli thing as the ref saw it, and that was that. For the record it shows how shit refs are as a whole, because Balofukingtelli should have gone for that challenge on Song, but he didn't and not only that, he's not been punished any further. Agenda?

Thing is, it was proven by the television that the ref didnt see the incident he was blocked off by at least two players, therefore under this ridiculous law,as the ref didnt see it, he could have been retrospectively punished......but he wasn't

The mere fact that everyone agrees it was an atrocious tackle and yet the fa deem it not worthy of punishment yet a sending off that everyone universally agrees was wrong and its not rescinded doesnt even strike you as strange? The thing is they can even break their own rules as they did in the ben thatcher case and yet STILL they dont deem it worthy of retrospective punishment.

Bear in mind many of us blues have been going on about this inbuilt bias long before the ridiculous decisions at fulham and subsequently QPR.

How many more crazy decisions in favour of the rags will it take for you to believe that everything is not as you hope?

What it will take, is a document which a retired ref produces which is dated 1st of August of any year post 1992. If that document says 'protect our cash cow at all costs', then I will gladly bow down to those who believe this to be the case. Now for United to be protected it would take communication from the powers that be to those who officiate the games, yes? Where is it then? Why hasn't a ref who wasn't paid as much in the early years of the prem not come forward with such a document and made himself a millionaire? I am going to go all crazy and hazard a guess that it's because such a document doesn't exist. That maybe me being too practical and all, but practical is what I am. No evidence = no agenda.

The evidence is presented to you week in week out, stat after stat, new regulation after new regulation.

It doesnt need to be written down, actions speak louder than words, sorry to debase the conversation but just to make my point, do you think the nazi's ever wrote down what should happen to jews? It just happened, people understood what needed to take place, they took verbal orders, yet in the face of overwhelming evidence ther e are still holocaust denyers. Do we really need something written down to prove it, course not

Not sure what you do for a living but where i work there are things i need to do, like send e-mails at 11.00pm at night to make it look like im working all the hours, thats not written down i just see other people do it, amongst other things, and seen how those people tend to get promoted and started to understand the things that will help me get on, and the culture takes hold, virtually everyone does it and those that dont, dont get on. There is no better example than the referee getting a month long ban for the wrong decision for newcastle against the rags. That could send no stronger message to the rest of the referees. Does it happen in similar circumstances like the sunderland offside? Does it hell.

Anyone who cant see the bias taking place just doesnt want to believe that the beautiful game they love isnt quite what it seems. I dont want to believe it, but everything i see week in week out tells me its taking place.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Thing is, it was proven by the television that the ref didnt see the incident he was blocked off by at least two players, therefore under this ridiculous law,as the ref didnt see it, he could have been retrospectively punished......but he wasn't

The mere fact that everyone agrees it was an atrocious tackle and yet the fa deem it not worthy of punishment yet a sending off that everyone universally agrees was wrong and its not rescinded doesnt even strike you as strange? The thing is they can even break their own rules as they did in the ben thatcher case and yet STILL they dont deem it worthy of retrospective punishment.

Bear in mind many of us blues have been going on about this inbuilt bias long before the ridiculous decisions at fulham and subsequently QPR.

How many more crazy decisions in favour of the rags will it take for you to believe that everything is not as you hope?

What it will take, is a document which a retired ref produces which is dated 1st of August of any year post 1992. If that document says 'protect our cash cow at all costs', then I will gladly bow down to those who believe this to be the case. Now for United to be protected it would take communication from the powers that be to those who officiate the games, yes? Where is it then? Why hasn't a ref who wasn't paid as much in the early years of the prem not come forward with such a document and made himself a millionaire? I am going to go all crazy and hazard a guess that it's because such a document doesn't exist. That maybe me being too practical and all, but practical is what I am. No evidence = no agenda.

The evidence is presented to you week in week out, stat after stat, new regulation after new regulation.

It doesnt need to be written down, actions speak louder than words, sorry to debase the conversation but just to make my point, do you think the nazi's ever wrote down what should happen to jews? It just happened, people understood what needed to take place, they took verbal orders, yet in the face of overwhelming evidence ther e are still holocaust denyers. Do we really need something written down to prove it, course not

Not sure what you do for a living but where i work there are things i need to do, like send e-mails at 11.00pm at night to make it look like im working all the hours, thats not written down i just see other people do it, amongst other things, and seen how those people tend to get promoted and started to understand the things that will help me get on, and the culture takes hold, virtually everyone does it and those that dont, dont get on. There is no better example than the referee getting a month long ban for the wrong decision for newcastle against the rags. That could send no stronger message to the rest of the referees. Does it happen in similar circumstances like the sunderland offside? Does it hell.

Anyone who cant see the bias taking place just doesnt want to believe that the beautiful game they love isnt quite what it seems. I dont want to believe it, but everything i see week in week out tells me its taking place.

Nail on fucking head.

 

[friend]

Thing is, it was proven by the television that the ref didnt see the incident he was blocked off by at least two players, therefore under this ridiculous law,as the ref didnt see it, he could have been retrospectively punished......but he wasn't

The mere fact that everyone agrees it was an atrocious tackle and yet the fa deem it not worthy of punishment yet a sending off that everyone universally agrees was wrong and its not rescinded doesnt even strike you as strange? The thing is they can even break their own rules as they did in the ben thatcher case and yet STILL they dont deem it worthy of retrospective punishment.

Bear in mind many of us blues have been going on about this inbuilt bias long before the ridiculous decisions at fulham and subsequently QPR.

How many more crazy decisions in favour of the rags will it take for you to believe that everything is not as you hope?

What it will take, is a document which a retired ref produces which is dated 1st of August of any year post 1992. If that document says 'protect our cash cow at all costs', then I will gladly bow down to those who believe this to be the case. Now for United to be protected it would take communication from the powers that be to those who officiate the games, yes? Where is it then? Why hasn't a ref who wasn't paid as much in the early years of the prem not come forward with such a document and made himself a millionaire? I am going to go all crazy and hazard a guess that it's because such a document doesn't exist. That maybe me being too practical and all, but practical is what I am. No evidence = no agenda.

The evidence is presented to you week in week out, stat after stat, new regulation after new regulation.

It doesnt need to be written down, actions speak louder than words, sorry to debase the conversation but just to make my point, do you think the nazi's ever wrote down what should happen to jews? It just happened, people understood what needed to take place, they took verbal orders, yet in the face of overwhelming evidence ther e are still holocaust denyers. Do we really need something written down to prove it, course not

Not sure what you do for a living but where i work there are things i need to do, like send e-mails at 11.00pm at night to make it look like im working all the hours, thats not written down i just see other people do it, amongst other things, and seen how those people tend to get promoted and started to understand the things that will help me get on, and the culture takes hold, virtually everyone does it and those that dont, dont get on. There is no better example than the referee getting a month long ban for the wrong decision for newcastle against the rags. That could send no stronger message to the rest of the referees. Does it happen in similar circumstances like the sunderland offside? Does it hell.

Anyone who cant see the bias taking place just doesnt want to believe that the beautiful game they love isnt quite what it seems. I dont want to believe it, but everything i see week in week out tells me its taking place.

<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:18 pm --<br /><br />

Thing is, it was proven by the television that the ref didnt see the incident he was blocked off by at least two players, therefore under this ridiculous law,as the ref didnt see it, he could have been retrospectively punished......but he wasn't

The mere fact that everyone agrees it was an atrocious tackle and yet the fa deem it not worthy of punishment yet a sending off that everyone universally agrees was wrong and its not rescinded doesnt even strike you as strange? The thing is they can even break their own rules as they did in the ben thatcher case and yet STILL they dont deem it worthy of retrospective punishment.

Bear in mind many of us blues have been going on about this inbuilt bias long before the ridiculous decisions at fulham and subsequently QPR.

How many more crazy decisions in favour of the rags will it take for you to believe that everything is not as you hope?

What it will take, is a document which a retired ref produces which is dated 1st of August of any year post 1992. If that document says 'protect our cash cow at all costs', then I will gladly bow down to those who believe this to be the case. Now for United to be protected it would take communication from the powers that be to those who officiate the games, yes? Where is it then? Why hasn't a ref who wasn't paid as much in the early years of the prem not come forward with such a document and made himself a millionaire? I am going to go all crazy and hazard a guess that it's because such a document doesn't exist. That maybe me being too practical and all, but practical is what I am. No evidence = no agenda.

The evidence is presented to you week in week out, stat after stat, new regulation after new regulation.

It doesnt need to be written down, actions speak louder than words, sorry to debase the conversation but just to make my point, do you think the nazi's ever wrote down what should happen to jews? It just happened, people understood what needed to take place, they took verbal orders, yet in the face of overwhelming evidence ther e are still holocaust denyers. Do we really need something written down to prove it, course not

Not sure what you do for a living but where i work there are things i need to do, like send e-mails at 11.00pm at night to make it look like im working all the hours, thats not written down i just see other people do it, amongst other things, and seen how those people tend to get promoted and started to understand the things that will help me get on, and the culture takes hold, virtually everyone does it and those that dont, dont get on. There is no better example than the referee getting a month long ban for the wrong decision for newcastle against the rags. That could send no stronger message to the rest of the referees. Does it happen in similar circumstances like the sunderland offside? Does it hell.

Anyone who cant see the bias taking place just doesnt want to believe that the beautiful game they love isnt quite what it seems. I dont want to believe it, but everything i see week in week out tells me its taking place.

Great. Someone who talks sense. All I need to see now to be convinced is this evidence you refer to. I must have missed the weekly presentation.