Fergie at FA today

Originally Posted by Tiberian

No, just remember Fergie mentioning it in the post match interviews, had a quick google to see if I could turn it up but no sign.

bong

Originally Posted by thatsfuctit

bong

Good work, so we have the possibility of the ref admitting that he was feeling the pace by the end of the match and we still get this campaign of self righteous indignation from the Refs

Originally Posted by Tiberian

Good work, so we have the possibility of the ref admitting that he was feeling the pace by the end of the match and we still get this campaign of self righteous indignation from the Refs

Unbelievable isn't it.

I just want to hear them all choke when Fergie wins the league again.

1. so the press have never criticised a referee?

2. ex referees criticise players and managers in the press regularly, maybe they should consider their double standards

3. what other profession can you be financially fined for 'misconduct' other than sport. its ludicrous

4. how are you supposed to 'respect' a body of people who refuse to justify their actions, admit mistakes and who conduct all their business behind closed doors governed by themselves?

5. Was there individual punishment after Chelsea drove that ref to retirement through incendiary rhetoric that mobilised their knuckle dragging fans?

6. When other managers say ferguson bullies referees into decisions against them is that not questioning both their competence and credibility?

7. I was at the game and the fat @#%&! was breathing out of his arse for the entire second half

Arsene Wenger inferred Darren Fletcher was Anti-Football. A far more derogatory and slanderish remark than has been made by most managers. Maybe even a case for defamation of character. Everyone knows he's Uncle-Football.

Weight Watchers have released a statement thanking Fergie for the £8 a month they are now recieving from a Mr A Wiley of Fatville Close, Tubbytown.

This was not questioning whether the ref was upto scratch, it was a personal attack on the ref. Of course it will bring a higher punishment than otherwise.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

This was not questioning whether the ref was upto scratch, it was a personal attack on the ref. Of course it will bring a higher punishment than otherwise.

God?

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

God?

I think he's outsourced it to the FA.

"The FA had a chance to make a point and they flunked it - we don't think this is sending the right message out to other managers"

- Alan Leighton, head of referee's union Prospect

what more do you want you £#%&!ing @#%&!? a public stoning? every response to this £#%&!ing embarrassment of an affair and it's "that's not good enough" "that's not good enough" etc etc. i know in football referees have some sort of point but as people they are complete and utter cretins. time to let it go you sad bastards.

Originally Posted by taff

what more do you want you £#%&!ing @#%&!? a public stoning? every response to this £#%&!ing embarrassment of an affair and it's "that's not good enough" "that's not good enough" etc etc. i know in football referees have some sort of point but as people they are complete and utter cretins. time to let it go you sad bastards.

takes the heat off their little band of incompetents who are under such great scrutiny due to a string of high profile shocking decisions ans performances

maybe they could explain sundays decisions while they're at it because i thought "thats not good enough" at the time

Originally Posted by taff

what more do you want you £#%&!ing @#%&!? a public stoning? every response to this £#%&!ing embarrassment of an affair and it's "that's not good enough" "that's not good enough" etc etc. i know in football referees have some sort of point but as people they are complete and utter cretins. time to let it go you sad bastards.

he was on talksport on my way home, thought he should have been banned from the stadium for a few matchdays

Originally Posted by fred tissue

Sir Alex Ferguson was given a touchline ban for criticising Alan Wiley, but some feel the real punishment is being handed out on the pitch

Are you a fussy eater? Do you ask for slight menu alterations: no lettuce, maybe, or nothing remotely healthy on the plate please? If so, you were born into a world of pain, because if your specific request is not adhered to, you are exposed to the ultimate social dilemma: whether to send the plate back.

On the one hand you may get the food you want; on the other, a grouchy waiter or waitress may wonder what your problem is and why the hell you can't just move the thing you don't like on to the side plate. And if they are having a particularly bad day, and if the legend of the piqued waiter is true, and if you've just ordered cream of mushroom soup, well …

Of course this should not happen, but human nature and not doing something unspeakably vulgar to an entirely innocent person's food are sometimes locked in an impossible conflict. Same with human nature and professionalism: these things should not happen, but of course they do.

Some would argue that they are happening to Manchester United right now. Sir Alex Ferguson was given a touchline ban for his criticism of Alan Wiley (can we please stop melodramatically calling it a rant? It was calculated, not a rant. We're not 12 years old), yet arguably the real punishment is being enacted on the pitch. Indeed the former referee Jeff Winter came tantalisingly close to justifying his continued presence in the public eye when he predicted as much in the aftermath of Ferguson's comments about Wiley. "I think Sir Alex may have overstepped the line this time and he may be about to get his comeuppance," Winter said. "Human nature's a funny thing. Sir Alex might just find a few refereeing decisions going against him."

And so they have, most notably at Anfield and Stamford Bridge. It might be coincidence; it might not. But the perception that referees have closed ranks in the last month certainly exists. Most of the big decisions in the matches at Liverpool and Chelsea were sufficiently borderline to ensure those who defended Andre Marriner and Martin Atkinson would not be discredited, although some of the smaller ones have also raised eyebrows. Dimitar Berbatov's booking at Anfield was particularly hard to fathom.

Whether United are being victimised by referees at some level is in the eye of the beholder. Such a process could theoretically work two ways: either as an outright rejection of Ferguson or, more probably, a subconscious desire not to give in to his bullying. Either way, the implications for fair play would be terrifying. Yet the majority of football fans would eschew such rational concerns in favour of an emotional response: that Ferguson has had it coming for years.

What is arguably more disconcerting than these dubious decisions is the manner in which former referees, most notably Winter and Dermot Gallagher, have defended them after the event. Some of their arguments have been woolly in the extreme; Winter even said Didier Drogba should not necessarily have been penalised for fouling Wes Brown because such things happen all the time, an argument so spectacularly moronic that we feel slightly unclean even mentioning it.

While our lawyers can't stress enough that there is no suggestion of foul play in the recent treatment of United, there is enough past evidence in sport to at least invite the perception that officials do not always judge incidents on merit. To suggest otherwise would almost redefine naivety.

In cricket, in 1994, the match referee Peter Burge nailed the England captain Mike Atherton for a trivial offence during the Oval Test against South Africa, having waited a month to punish him following Atherton's perceived duplicity during the dirt-in-the-pocket affair.

In the same year, Eric Cantona was sent off for nothing more than a collision with Tony Adams at Highbury, a decision that many feel was partly or wholly the consequence of what his studs had done to Norwich's John Polston and Swindon's John Moncur in the preceding months.

Ferguson harnessed that experience positively, fostering a rewarding siege mentality that drove his side to United's first double. He may as well try to do the same this time, because the arguments about referees aren't going to go away in a hurry.

• Sir Alex Ferguson
• Referees
• Manchester United

Rob Smyth

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds






More...

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

Originally Posted by thatsfuctit

he was on talksport on my way home, thought he should have been banned from the stadium for a few matchdays

Shortly after Fergie questioned his fitness this union #@&%! wanted SAF to be given a life ban from managing a football club.

Unions.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

Unions.

The best help you can have at work. Otherwise there is absolutely nothing stopping £#%&!er bosses shitting all over you from a great height.

Originally Posted by TravellingRed81

The best help you can have at work. Otherwise there is absolutely nothing stopping £#%&!er bosses shitting all over you from a great height.

That's a big debate to have and not the time nor the place but I take issue with what you said. If someone feels that they are underpaid or can get better working conditions then they can leave and go somewhere that will give them what they feel they deserve.

Full employment increases wages, benefits and working conditions quicker than any union can by going on strike and strangling the business. The stricter the employment laws are, the higher the unemployment as businesses seek to invest where they can get the best deal for their business. This is why Britain did so well in seeking foreign investment compared to say France who have very strict rules on employment. Germany have strict laws and we've definitely benefited from that too.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

That's a big debate to have and not the time nor the place but I take issue with what you said. If someone feels that they are underpaid or can get better working conditions then they can leave and go somewhere that will give them what they feel they deserve.

Full employment increases wages, benefits and working conditions quicker than any union can by going on strike and strangling the business. The stricter the employment laws are, the higher the unemployment as businesses seek to invest where they can get the best deal for their business. This is why Britain did so well in seeking foreign investment compared to say France who have very strict rules on employment. Germany have strict laws and we've definitely benefited from that too.

That's why France and Germany still have shipyards, car plants and build aircraft and Britain has sent it all to China and other low cost countries. The things they get away with at our base in Aberdeen, that isn't unionised, are a £#%&!ing scandal compared to how we have it here, where we are unionised. We also happen to be one of the only bases making any money at the minute as well.
Your talking shite but I'm not getting into an argument about it.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

Full employment increases wages, benefits and working conditions quicker than any union can by going on strike and strangling the business. The stricter the employment laws are, the higher the unemployment as businesses seek to invest where they can get the best deal for their business. This is why Britain did so well in seeking foreign investment compared to say France who have very strict rules on employment. Germany have strict laws and we've definitely benefited from that too.

so the full employment of the middle years of the last century (when labour laws were strict, regulation was rigorous and trade was controlled) were an illusion? and the mass unemployment brought about by the deregulation of business and erosion of worker rights through the 70s and 80s didn't happen? ok.

have you ever been to germany? serious question. it's not exactly an economic backwater.

britain's economy has benefitted from the growth in service industries, especially finance, and a willingness to engage in a race to the bottom in terms of worker rights and safeguards. it has attracted foreign investment. it has also destroyed its manufacturing base and gutted its technical and industrial capacity and know-how.




anyway, there's no doubt referees are not giving us anything this season. £#%&!ing joke tbh.

Originally Posted by TravellingRed81

That's why France and Germany still have shipyards, car plants and build aircraft and Britain has sent it all to China and other low cost countries. The things they get away with at our base in Aberdeen, that isn't unionised, are a £#%&!ing scandal compared to how we have it here, where we are unionised. We also happen to be one of the only bases making any money at the minute as well.
Your talking shite but I'm not getting into an argument about it.

I'm not, I'm talking generally and you're citing one offs. Generally speaking, if the business you work for were to expand, they would generally expand the site that's cheaper to recruit for and has less red tape when getting rid of staff if it doesn't work out. It's why Peugeot has expanded it's sites in the UK and not in France, It's more expensive to recruit and lay off employees in France.

Anyway, I'm not talking shit. Have a good evening.

Originally Posted by borsuk

so the full employment of the middle years of the last century (when labour laws were strict, regulation was rigorous and trade was controlled) were an illusion? and the mass unemployment brought about by the deregulation of business and erosion of worker rights through the 70s and 80s didn't happen? ok.

have you ever been to germany? serious question. it's not exactly an economic backwater.

britain's economy has benefitted from the growth in service industries, especially finance, and a willingness to engage in a race to the bottom in terms of worker rights and safeguards. it has attracted foreign investment. it has also destroyed its manufacturing base and gutted its technical and industrial capacity and know-how.

I've never worked in Germany but I've been to European meeting where we had a few people from every country in Europe and we were discussing recruitment. The facts are that businesses are more likely to expand in countries where there are fewer rights for workers. That's why we have lower unemployment than France and Germany.