The FA Corruption Thread

[Major Tom]

 

Where does it end with the FA being weak and inept before you think there is a more deep seated issue?

 

Probably when there is proof. You may well be right, of course, and corruption could be rife. I don't think you are, personally, but time could well prove you so.

 

All fans seem to think other clubs/managers get preferential treatment. And they will all swear to you till they are black and blue they are right and the opposite view is wrong. You all could be right, it's possible. Maybe the FA is taking backhanders to favour certain clubs/managers. As I say I don't think so. But I could be wrong.

[LFC64]

corruption is a possibility but, personally, I don't think it exists within the FA.

.

 

An English institution corrupt? Pull the other string, I mean the other one.

[Red Banjo]

Probably when there is proof. You may well be right, of course, and corruption could be rife. I don't think you are, personally, but time could well prove you so.

 

All fans seem to think other clubs/managers get preferential treatment. And they will all swear to you till they are black and blue they are right and the opposite view is wrong. You all could be right, it's possible. Maybe the FA is taking backhanders to favour certain clubs/managers. As I say I don't think so. But I could be wrong.

 

I just think its all too coincidental to be anything but bent. Its the same old people, the same old clubs, the same old issues.

 

I'll admit i am still very raw about the treatment of Kenny and Suarez from last season, but at the same time that's when i started to believe there is something more to the FA and Manchester United than meets the eye. For our manager and best player to be absolutely crucified by everyone inside and outside of football on the word of the Manchester United captain and manager - suggests to me that there is a greater connection between certain people than there should be.

 

It would not surprise me if Ferguson made a call to somebody in a certain position, who in turn made a phone call to Mike Dean to tell him not to make a complaint to his boss about his behaviour. Irrespective of money changing hands or not, this is still an outside influence - which is corruption.

[A_S]

Having your CEO on the FA board can't hurt can it? Such a blatant conflict of interest it's not funny. Be nice if someone in the media took issue with it......anyone?

[manwiththestick]

Should start docking points (Yeh, right) as the bans don't work. He got a two match suspended ban for comments against Wiley, he then ripped into Atkinson and got a three game ban and the suspended two. He obviously doesn't care about the bans as his comments probably have more long term effects than him sitting in the stands for a couple of games.

[Red Banjo]

Having your CEO on the FA board can't hurt can it? Such a blatant conflict of interest it's not funny. Be nice if someone in the media took issue with it......anyone?

 

Board? He's the Vice-President now!

 

Why Barrett or someone of the ilk hasn't made an issue of it by now, i'll never understand.

[Nomad]

I don’t necessarily see it as being bent. More so just absolutely incompetent. I believe there is also bias towards certain teams and that’s always going to happen. People that high up in a Football Association that don’t have allegiances to certain clubs? There is no way that does not happen but I don’t think brown envelop corruption is the case. Maybe along the line one individual has been paid off but on a big scale?? there’s far to many people for it not to be leaked.

 

I am sure though that a United board member should not also be on the board of the FA, that I find surreal.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

I just don't understand how people can say it is incompetence. Refereeing decisions on the pitch may be (I don't think they are just incompetence though) but stuff like this isn't. Because the FA are perfectly competent when they want to be. When they want they'll respond in minutes and issue the fines and bans without a blink of the eye. When its somebody who doesnt hold much influence, that is.

 

If it isn't corruption it is a bias so severe that it may as well be corruption. Corruption just means you have to pay for the privilege of said bias. There are far too many cases and examples to even remember. People say that it is impossible for things to be bent because of the magnitude of the operation - that it would come out in some way. Thats rubbish. Most corporate, political and institutional corruption will never be heard about because its in nobodies interests to whistleblow - and it may not be formalised anyway. Its not like they're going to have minutes from meetings in which they discuss how to screw Liverpool over scattered about.

 

Oh and people wonder why I still wish Rafa was here. Because when I'm at home screaming at the TV for somebody to call them odious bunch of cunts just that, I know if there was one person who would it was him. He was a fighter. Do you think we would ever have been screwed with decisions like recently under him? Never. Maybe once or twice but for a year or two? People feared him and us. We need to get that back, hopefully Rodgers can.

[Nomad]

. Most corporate, political and institutional corruption will never be heard about because its in nobodies interests to whistleblow -

.

 

Fair points, what does this actully mean?? whos interests. Im interested and im sure most people in the UK would be if there is major corruption and im sure there is genuine people who would love to lead a great organisation who would whistleblow

[oldhallst]

Sets a precedent for other managers.

 

Dean could have been killed, there.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

Fair points, what does this actully mean?? whos interests. Im interested and im sure most people in the UK would be if there is major corruption and im sure there is genuine people who would love to lead a great organisation who would whistleblow

 

By that I mean that nobody within the organisation would be benefited by whistleblowing. Either they'll be caught up in it or would fear the backlash of doing so. Look at the number of scandals that come about years after they occurred. Even the Jimmy Savile case.

[Major Tom]

By that I mean that nobody within the organisation would be benefited by whistleblowing.

 

How many people do you think are involved? The whole of the FA are in on it? All the refs as well?

 

edit: And what do you think they have to gain by favouring Utd over us or Chelsea or Arsenal?

[Nomad]

On the point about Fergie not getting charged. I wonder if Redknapp will be charged for his comments on Chris foy and the lineman.

 

BBC Sport - Harry Redknapp criticises referee after QPR's loss to West Brom

 

Queens Park Rangers boss Harry Redknapp was furious with two "scandalous" refereeing decisions during their 2-1 home defeat by West Brom on Boxing Day.

 

Referee Chris Foy allowed an own goal by QPR keeper Robert Green to stand and did not penalise Albion defender Liam Ridgewell for an apparent handball.

 

On the goal, Redknapp fumed: "It's a blatant foul. He [Marc-Antoine Fortune] is backing [Green] into the goal.

 

"And at the end it's a blatant penalty, Ridgewell's got his hands up."

 

The penalty shout came in the closing minutes as QPR, who returned to the bottom of the Premier League following the defeat, pressed for an equaliser.

 

Stephane Mbia's header clearly struck Ridgewell on the arm, a fact conceded by Albion manager Steve Clarke, who claimed that the referee "can't give it because it has hit Liam's arm from one yard".

 

Clarke demands Baggies 'respect'

"If it hadn't have hit his hand it would have hit his face so I think it's the correct decision," the Baggies boss said.

 

However, Redknapp countered: "We see penalties given when the ball is kicked from a yard away and Ridgewell's got his hands up.

 

"I asked the linesman how did he not see the penalty. Ridgewell's hand was up there, it's the most blatant handball and he couldn't see it.

 

"The linesman said it was murky down in that corner and he couldn't see it, so maybe he should go to an opticians.

 

"I can't do nothing about it. It's just poor refereeing. I had him [referee Foy) at Stoke last year when I was Tottenham manager and he let three penalties go, so what's the point in talking to him?

 

"We have had two terrible decisions that have cost us dearly."

 

The other decision, which happened earlier in the second half, led to West Brom opening a 2-0 lead through Chris Brunt and Green's own goal.

 

Armand Traore, in attempting to head Brunt's corner clear, succeeded only in sending the ball high into the air and towards his own goal-line.

 

Home keeper Green, who claimed he was being impeded by Fortune, could only palm the ball into his own net but Foy waved away QPR's protests.

 

"It was a foul," said Redknapp, who saw Djibril Cisse score a consolation for his side. "He's [Fortune] got no intention of playing the ball. He couldn't get a punch on the ball.

 

"How can a goalie get to the ball when someone who's got no intention of playing the ball is pushing into you?

 

"If he [Green] pushes him [Fortune] over or out the way, it's a penalty. It's a scandalous decision. Poor refereeing."

 

Clarke, however, felt Fortune would have been unfortunate to have been penalised.

 

"I've seen it on the video and I don't think Marc did a lot wrong," Clarke stated. "He stood his ground and Rob didn't get round him.

 

"But I don't want to talk about controversial decisions, I want to talk about having 33 points after 19 games and the gulf between the teams.

 

"It could have been 4-0 before they got their goal. Up until 68 minutes we had complete control and people should give us some respect."

[FrenchEyeGlass]

How many people do you think are involved? The whole of the FA are in on it? All the refs as well?

 

edit: And what do you think they have to gain by favouring Utd over us or Chelsea or Arsenal?

 

Not at all MT, there is no bias/corruption in any form. I also shit flowers. Life is perfect.

[LFC64]

Having your CEO on the FA board can't hurt can it? Such a blatant conflict of interest it's not funny. Be nice if someone in the media took issue with it......anyone?

 

 

Manchester United's manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, left, speaks with chief executive David Gill at a press conference in New York. Photograph: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

 

The English are incorruptible you Aussie cynic!!

[Major Tom]

Not at all MT, there is no bias/corruption in any form. I also shit flowers. Life is perfect.

 

Like I have always said, corruption is a possibility. For me it's not happening. For you it is.

 

I just wanted to hear your theory behind this alleged corruption.

[Nomad]

Like I have always said, corruption is a possibility. For me it's not happening. For you it is.

 

I just wanted to hear your theory behind this alleged corruption.

 

Tom, how do you define corruption? As stated earlier I dont think their is corruption (paying off) but I do think there is natural bias which cant lead towards one sided decisions.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

Like I have always said, corruption is a possibility. For me it's not happening. For you it is.

 

I just wanted to hear your theory behind this alleged corruption.

 

No, you don't. I've done this dance with you before. Have a nice day. If you have any other questions, refer to the tags on this thread.

[Major Tom]

No, you don't. I've done this dance with you before. Have a nice day. If you have any other questions, refer to the tags on this thread.

 

Haha.

 

Storming off in a huff, FEG?

 

It's not often that the guy who isn't the conspiracy theorist is ostracised!

[Major Tom]

Tom, how do you define corruption? As stated earlier I dont think their is corruption (paying off) but I do think there is natural bias which cant lead towards one sided decisions.

 

Corruption to me (in this instance) is money (or favours) changing hands in return for preferential treatment.

 

And if someone (the FA) is giving someone else (Utd/Ferguson) preferential treatment, there surely has to be something in it for them. So, what? Not a question for you, RR, just a general one.

[Red Banjo]

Corruption to me (in this instance) is money (or favours) changing hands in return for preferential treatment.

 

And if someone (the FA) is giving someone else (Utd/Ferguson) preferential treatment, there surely has to be something in it for them. So, what? Not a question for you, RR, just a general one.

 

Gill is head of the FA. Manchester United get decisions and therefore trophies.

 

Is it really that hard to work out?

 

Manchester United is English Football's biggest club, if they stay successful, they get bigger, this only benefits the FA.

 

You can't see that for yourself?

[TheHitman]

Any idea who was the biggest whinger when Dein was at the FA.

 

Sir Alex Ferguson last night backed Jose Mourinho's attack on the FA by insisting: Arsenal have been running the fixture list for years. The Manchester United boss said: "He's only taken a year to find that out. I've been complaining about that for seven years and no one listens to me. Maybe they'll listen to Mourinho more! He's dead right, by the way. He's spot on. You look at the fixtures Arsenal have after European games — it's been going on for years." Chelsea boss Mourinho is furious that his side face away games after their first five Champions League matches, while Arsenal are at home. Mourinho also suggested David Dein, who is both Arsenal vice-chairman and an FA board member, has too much influence. The Portuguese's comments provoked a fierce reaction from the FA, who insisted they were ‘unnecessary, unhelpful, bad for the image of the game and inaccurate'.

[LFC64]

Winter, Wiley Clattenburg and a fair few others are testimony to what happens if a referee makes a decision which Alex Ferguson disagrees with. They get demoted and or they don't get another Man United game for a period hugely disproportionate with the average 4 or 5 times a season a ref can generally expect to be selected for any other particular club.

So usually, not always, Ferguson has referees on his approved list refereeing his games.

Natural curiosity I suppose or 'paranoia' depending on your stance leads some to question who may be behind these decisions to allow this to happen.

[piscinin]

Corruption to me (in this instance) is money (or favours) changing hands in return for preferential treatment.

 

And if someone (the FA) is giving someone else (Utd/Ferguson) preferential treatment, there surely has to be something in it for them. So, what? Not a question for you, RR, just a general one.

 

So your position isn't so much that the system of governance of football in england is not corrupted, but rather envelopes aren't being traded.

 

There are very different senses of corruption, you seem to be considering only one and assuming everyone else is doing likewise.

[Guest The Big Green Bastard]

Corruption to me (in this instance) is money (or favours) changing hands in return for preferential treatment.

 

And if someone (the FA) is giving someone else (Utd/Ferguson) preferential treatment, there surely has to be something in it for them. So, what? Not a question for you, RR, just a general one.

 

What about getting another teams manager to recall loan players because their son has been sacked?

 

mong on.