Chris Foy

[Major Tom]

Not really, fungus.

 

The blogger makes a terrible case. But believers gotta believe.

 

You and me agree on this, though. So, you should have no bone to pick here.

[Guest davelfc]

Forgive me for saying but you appear to simply be taking a contrary position for the sake of it.

 

About fucking time... :wallbutt:

 

Can people now just ignore it and stop quoting him. It's an attention seeking contrary prick and some really good points are being ignored by some to feed its ego.

Edited October 3, 2012 by davelfc

[Lurtz]

[YOUTUBE]kQFKtI6gn9Y[/YOUTUBE]

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

The details in the original blog article aren't that great really. There's loads of people on facebook going mental over the fact that a ref gave a bad decision and then didn't ref at Old Trafford again for a year - well, yes. There's only 19 games at United and if there's about the same amount of refs it's going to be about that long.

 

Stats like the Atkinson one where a trend of lots of games turns into a trend of few is interesting, cherry-picking random events with little context is just annoying for a reader unwilling to go and fish for additional data.

It is a badly done blog I have to agree on that.

 

He is making some good points but isnt backing them up with anything.

 

If you read the stuff he has wrote about Liverpool as well,it is also quite poorly written.

[Major Tom]

What is this, pick on Major Tom day?

 

Crikes, rough treatment, man.

[Reacher]

YouTube Link

 

Boss that Lurtz, painfully true too.

[Trumo]

Major Tom,

 

I understand that the whole thing might not be of great interest to you, or more likely that you have other things going on in your life that (rightly) matter much more than whiling away the hours on an internet forum, but would it be possible for YOU to do a little digging around, find some facts and information, and then present them here with your own conclusions?

 

It might be of so little importance that there is no need or wish to be inquisitive in any way, but while you acknowledge - in numerous if not all threads on here - the possibility that something did or did not happen with regards to whatever the subject of discussion might be, you never suggest anything that hints at being more inquisitive on your own part. Instead, you frequently question others on why they want to dig deeper and ask them to come up with something that can provide more conclusive proof, or at least make their argument more compelling for you.

 

I realise this is merely a message board for discussion and that we aren't investigative journalists, and nobody is asking you to back up each of your assertions in this way (nor should they), but a lot of us have a curiosity that makes us look into things in a bit more detail. Much of the time it might be looking for something that isn't there - wishful thinking if you like - but it's done because of a feeling that things aren't quite right. There's no denying there might be a element of paranoia in that, but it would be wrong to imply that everybody who does a little bit of digging is that way inclined.

 

I've tried to word this in a way that isn't intended to have a dig. Like many on here, I'm sure I've questioned you in the past, in a fit of pique, whether or not you are actually a Manc, simply trolling or just playing devil's advocate. That's born of frustration at the 'sitting on the fence' stance you seem to have set for yourself so frequently.

 

I might be reading you wrong. Your stance appears to be that of questioning why others are looking for something that isn't there, and in that sense, you've already made your mind up that something definitely isn't there, and that others are simply pissing into the wind or barking up the wrong tree, or whatever metaphor can be inserted here.

 

At this point, I'd like to make it clear that I don't wish to offend or insult you or make any insinuations about you with this next bit, so apologies if it does, but bear with me.

 

The families of the 96 and many more people besides were told time and again that there wasn't anything there, that they were looking for something that they'd never find, and that they should just accept things for what they are and move on. These people never listened to that. Instead, they kept fighting. Lo and behold, what they suspected all along was found to be the case, and much worse besides.

 

The subject matter of this thread is nowhere near as important and never will be. Nor am I suggesting that evidence of wrongdoing will certainly be uncovered if somebody takes up the challenge and does a real probe into this. It is only a game after all. But your stance on so many subjects has often given the same impression of 'move along, there's nothing to see here'.

 

Am I reading you wrong? Over to you.

[ngogswilly]

The details in the original blog article aren't that great really. There's loads of people on facebook going mental over the fact that a ref gave a bad decision and then didn't ref at Old Trafford again for a year - well, yes. There's only 19 games at United and if there's about the same amount of refs it's going to be about that long.

 

Stats like the Atkinson one where a trend of lots of games turns into a trend of few is interesting, cherry-picking random events with little context is just annoying for a reader unwilling to go and fish for additional data.

 

I'd agree that Blog isn't great but just have a look at this which was posted earlier.

 

Some referee facts:

 

1. Mike Dean, referee, when Blackburn beat Manchester United 3-2 and hasn't refereed a Manchester United game since.

 

2. Mike Dean - referee, in 2010, after Manchester United's defeat to Chelsea, was demoted to the Championship.

 

3. Alan Wiley, called "fat and unfit" by Alex after Manchester United's draw with Sunderland," agreed to retire" that season, he was also the ref on OT when the mancs lost 1-4 to Liverpool.

 

4. Mark Clattenburg refereed Manchester United's 6-1 defeat to Manchester City, hasn't refereed a single Manchester United game after that Manchester derby. (has acted as 4th official in 3)

 

5. Martin Atkinson -Involved in Manchester United's defeat to Chelsea, criticized by Alex, ha...sn't refereed Manchester United game since.

 

6. Ex referee Jeff Winter openly stating that he hadn't been given a Manchester United game for 2 years after sending Roy Keane off.

 

7. Howard Webb has been Manchester United's most used referee since the defeat to Manchester City

 

8. More than 18% of the penalties Webb has awarded in his 8 year career have been to Manchester United.

 

9. Manchester United's CEO is on the board of The FA.

 

10. Alex Ferguson not happy with Chris Foy after their 3-2 defeat to spurs, Foy demoted to a League Two game between Accrington Stanley and Rochdale this weekend. something he hasn't done since 2008.

 

Theres probably more examples out there.

 

But I think its undeniable at this point things have gone on which are beyond a mere case of ref's being scared of Ferguson. It's obvious people in the FA are making decisions based on what suits him.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I'd agree that Blog isn't great but just have a look at this which was posted earlier.

 

Some referee facts:

 

1. Mike Dean, referee, when Blackburn beat Manchester United 3-2 and hasn't refereed a Manchester United game since.

 

2. Mike Dean - referee, in 2010, after Manchester United's defeat to Chelsea, was demoted to the Championship.

 

 

Yes the very same Mike Dean who has awarded United 9 penalties in only 29 matches(Howard Webb has awarded them 9 in 30 games).

[coops_lfc]

It's a complete joke.

Can't wait til the day he retires but something tells me he'll be given a nice cosy role at the FA and the corruption will continue' date=' or perhaps get worse as he coaches eager little pups to take over from him when he eventually goes.[/quote']

 

Rejoice, He'll die one day.

[Stu Monty]

I'd agree that Blog isn't great but just have a look at this which was posted earlier.

 

Some referee facts:

 

1. Mike Dean, referee, when Blackburn beat Manchester United 3-2 and hasn't refereed a Manchester United game since.

 

2. Mike Dean - referee, in 2010, after Manchester United's defeat to Chelsea, was demoted to the Championship.

 

3. Alan Wiley, called "fat and unfit" by Alex after Manchester United's draw with Sunderland," agreed to retire" that season, he was also the ref on OT when the mancs lost 1-4 to Liverpool.

 

4. Mark Clattenburg refereed Manchester United's 6-1 defeat to Manchester City, hasn't refereed a single Manchester United game after that Manchester derby. (has acted as 4th official in 3)

 

5. Martin Atkinson -Involved in Manchester United's defeat to Chelsea, criticized by Alex, ha...sn't refereed Manchester United game since.

 

6. Ex referee Jeff Winter openly stating that he hadn't been given a Manchester United game for 2 years after sending Roy Keane off.

 

7. Howard Webb has been Manchester United's most used referee since the defeat to Manchester City

 

8. More than 18% of the penalties Webb has awarded in his 8 year career have been to Manchester United.

 

9. Manchester United's CEO is on the board of The FA.

 

10. Alex Ferguson not happy with Chris Foy after their 3-2 defeat to spurs, Foy demoted to a League Two game between Accrington Stanley and Rochdale this weekend. something he hasn't done since 2008.

 

Theres probably more examples out there.

 

But I think its undeniable at this point things have gone on which are beyond a mere case of ref's being scared of Ferguson. It's obvious people in the FA are making decisions based on what suits him.

 

Yes, but they're really shit facts. They don't tell me whether it's it's of the ordinary, whether it's a change in a normal trend to an odd one, whether the same applies for other clubs. That's why I said the Atkinson one where he refs them 4 times a season then refs them one time a season after that is better.

 

For all I know 16% of the penalties Webb has given might be to Arsenal? That figure might be meaningless, I'm not given the context to judge it.

[Iceman]

How the Refs treated Man U last season | Referee Decisions

 

Team of qualified refs analyzing refs performances. Detailed and specific. Get your stat fap tissues out.

[TheHowieLama]

Trumo, without having a dig you are telling him to do a little digging

 

I can dig it

[Iceman]

How the Refs treated Man U last season | Referee Decisions

 

"FINAL CONCLUSION

 

There is no denying the fact that Manchester United had a clearly positive bias from the refs in general. If you want to deny it be my guest and go through all the 32 games and point at where we are wrong in our numbers. It is in the open and you can check each decision.

 

In fact those few games when the ref made mistakes that went against United they dropped points. And maybe that is the best indication of them all that shows how important the refs can be."

 

 

 

Very specific, very detailed and not written by a Liverpool fan. Pretty conclusive and damning evidence. Couldn't find much wrong in their methodology either.

[JagSquared]

Nice

[JohnnyH]

I think what some are saying is that without examples of what happened to referees that made mistakes for other “big” clubs, we don’t know if the details in the (poorly) written blog are a normal reaction, or out of the norm. Webb gave 18% of his pens to Man Utd, but he might have given 15% to Chelsea, and with the amount of attacking runs they make, the average figures might stand up? Without context, we don’t know.

 

No argument like this is worth even the tiniest bit of salt without context. I’d like to see what has happened to referees who have given poor decisions to us, and Arsenal and Chelsea for example. We’ve been denied penalties in each of our last 3 games. What has happened to those refs compared to what has happened to the Utd refs detailed?

 

It’s worth saying that I do think Ferguson has such a strangle hold over the English league that they get huge amounts of decisions and events decided in their favour. I think the way he gets his pals in the press and other managers to exert pressure on other managers and referees is disgusting and I think there will be a huge shift in the favours Man Utd get once he hangs up his cloak and broom. I think the next Man Utd manager is going to be in for a very tough time from refs who will now feel a certain level of freedom to ref properly against them that they never had while Ferguson was in charge.

[Reacher]

I think what some are saying is that without examples of what happened to referees that made mistakes for other “big” clubs' date=' we don’t know if the details in the (poorly) written blog are a normal reaction, or out of the norm. Webb gave 18% of his pens to Man Utd, but he might have given 15% to Chelsea, and with the amount of attacking runs they make, the average figures might stand up? Without context, we don’t know.

 

No argument like this is worth even the tiniest bit of salt without context. I’d like to see what has happened to referees who have given poor decisions to us, and Arsenal and Chelsea for example. We’ve been denied penalties in each of our last 3 games. What has happened to those refs compared to what has happened to the Utd refs detailed?

 

It’s worth saying that I do think Ferguson has such a strangle hold over the English league that they get huge amounts of decisions and events decided in their favour. I think the way he gets his pals in the press and other managers to exert pressure on other managers and referees is disgusting and I think there will be a huge shift in the favours Man Utd get once he hangs up his cloak and broom. I think the next Man Utd manager is going to be in for a very tough time from refs who will now feel a certain level of freedom to ref properly against them that they never had while Ferguson was in charge.[/quote']

 

In reference to your last paragraph, I hope so. I just dread that when he retires it will be that deeply instilled that it will carry on. Or that he'll be in the background pulling strings for them.

[Trumo]

Major Tom,

 

I understand that the whole thing might not be of great interest to you, or more likely that you have other things going on in your life that (rightly) matter much more than whiling away the hours on an internet forum, but would it be possible for YOU to do a little digging around, find some facts and information, and then present them here with your own conclusions?

 

It might be of so little importance that there is no need or wish to be inquisitive in any way, but while you acknowledge - in numerous if not all threads on here - the possibility that something did or did not happen with regards to whatever the subject of discussion might be, you never suggest anything that hints at being more inquisitive on your own part. Instead, you frequently question others on why they want to dig deeper and ask them to come up with something that can provide more conclusive proof, or at least make their argument more compelling for you.

 

I realise this is merely a message board for discussion and that we aren't investigative journalists, and nobody is asking you to back up each of your assertions in this way (nor should they), but a lot of us have a curiosity that makes us look into things in a bit more detail. Much of the time it might be looking for something that isn't there - wishful thinking if you like - but it's done because of a feeling that things aren't quite right. There's no denying there might be a element of paranoia in that, but it would be wrong to imply that everybody who does a little bit of digging is that way inclined.

 

I've tried to word this in a way that isn't intended to have a dig. Like many on here, I'm sure I've questioned you in the past, in a fit of pique, whether or not you are actually a Manc, simply trolling or just playing devil's advocate. That's born of frustration at the 'sitting on the fence' stance you seem to have set for yourself so frequently.

 

I might be reading you wrong. Your stance appears to be that of questioning why others are looking for something that isn't there, and in that sense, you've already made your mind up that something definitely isn't there, and that others are simply pissing into the wind or barking up the wrong tree, or whatever metaphor can be inserted here.

 

At this point, I'd like to make it clear that I don't wish to offend or insult you or make any insinuations about you with this next bit, so apologies if it does, but bear with me.

 

The families of the 96 and many more people besides were told time and again that there wasn't anything there, that they were looking for something that they'd never find, and that they should just accept things for what they are and move on. These people never listened to that. Instead, they kept fighting. Lo and behold, what they suspected all along was found to be the case, and much worse besides.

 

The subject matter of this thread is nowhere near as important and never will be. Nor am I suggesting that evidence of wrongdoing will certainly be uncovered if somebody takes up the challenge and does a real probe into this. It is only a game after all. But your stance on so many subjects has often given the same impression of 'move along, there's nothing to see here'.

 

Am I reading you wrong? Over to you.

 

I've just had a PM from MT in reply to this. Just a fair and frank discussion to which I've replied back. One thing I forgot to mention in the reply is that I don't think that there is corruption in the sense of bribery, people receiving kick-backs or people gaining or retaining status and power for their actions or non-actions. I do think there might be something in it though in terms of an institutionalised acceptance to turn the other cheek because the system has created a situation where there is nothing to lose in doing so. It does need a thorough and independent analysis to bring things out into the light.

[MLB]

There is something a bit odd about Ferguson, in the same way as there was with Jimmy Savile. Not in that he's a nonce, but in his connections and his ability to wield power and influence over people. It's all a bit odd really, isn't it.

[Guest davelfc]

There is something a bit odd about Ferguson, in the same way as there was with Jimmy Savile. Not in that he's a nonce, but in his connections and his ability to wield power and influence over people. It's all a bit odd really, isn't it.

 

That's a terrible thing to say, I'm shocked. He may or may not have been a jingle jangle, teenage touching, rabid rapey, touchy feely nonce but comparing him to ferguson is beyond the pale.

[gumps]

..............

It’s worth saying that I do think Ferguson has such a strangle hold over the English league that they get huge amounts of decisions and events decided in their favour. I think the way he gets his pals in the press and other managers to exert pressure on other managers and referees is disgusting and I think there will be a huge shift in the favours Man Utd get once he hangs up his cloak and broom. I think the next Man Utd manager is going to be in for a very tough time from refs who will now feel a certain level of freedom to ref properly against them that they never had while Ferguson was in charge.

 

I agree with this and have thought so for years. The man has been around the English game for over 25 years! That's a quarter of a century. No person can be around so long in any walk of life without building up influence and network. I would wager that he has been around before anyone currently in the FA and PL.

 

Thankfully, I believe that he is the last of his kind in the game and that noone else will be able to stay in a position enough to repeat it.

[gumps]

That's a terrible thing to say, I'm shocked. He may or may not have been a jingle jangle, teenage touching, rabid rapey, touchy feely nonce but comparing him to ferguson is beyond the pale.

 

Not wanting to compare Ferguson to an "alleged" child abuser, but perhaps some truth might come about once he has passed away.

 

Despite Major Tom's posturing that why has nothing been done about this if it's so obvious, we have seen recently that it can sometimes take a long time for the truth to be exposed, and people to come forward.

[Guest davelfc]

Not wanting to compare Ferguson to an "alleged" child abuser, but perhaps some truth might come about once he has passed away.

 

Despite Major Tom's posturing that why has nothing been done about this if it's so obvious, we have seen recently that it can sometimes take a long time for the truth to be exposed, and people to come forward.

 

I'm not so sure of that, in child abuse there is always a victim. In the case of a figure having power or influence like he clearly has, well there's not really a victim.

 

Anyone coming forward that admitted having being influenced would be ruined because it would call into question their whole career. When he retires or passes away be sure that utd will still get consideration for a considerable time.

 

Those that are influenced are willing participants, in my opinion they will feel a duty to continue after he has gone.

[TheHowieLama]

I've just had a PM from MT in reply to this. Just a fair and frank discussion to which I've replied back. One thing I forgot to mention in the reply is that I don't think that there is corruption in the sense of bribery, people receiving kick-backs or people gaining or retaining status and power for their actions or non-actions. I do think there might be something in it though in terms of an institutionalised acceptance to turn the other cheek because the system has created a situation where there is nothing to lose in doing so. It does need a thorough and independent analysis to bring things out into the light.

 

This is the one thing there is solid proof of - refs having their workload/career/paycheck affected by decisions.

[TheHowieLama]

 

For all I know 16% of the penalties Webb has given might be to Arsenal? That figure might be meaningless, I'm not given the context to judge it.

 

That is one stat that has context - in 8 years how many teams have been in the league that entire time - more than 10? Do the math, then look to see if he is doing a disproportionate amount of games for certain teams. If he is not, then it is skewed - if he is, why?