- All the tricks that ManC might be preparing to pull – or might not
- How can Arsenal justify removing staff and putting up prices?
By Tony Attwood
One of the great problems with football used to be the lack of information that was made available, by which I mean that in olden times there was just one view announced and that was that. And sometimes there wasn’t even that.
Then the internet broke out, and gradually details of all sorts of facts emerged. And for a while there was no recognition that things could go wrong, largely because there will little differentiation between official statements of fact, and personal opinion.
And maybe I have been too slow to catch up on this, but a day or two back we saw a piece published on such sites as CardiffCityForum, (although that post is now blocked but if you are interested the original posting was here and on x here which is essence said,
BREAKING: MICHAEL SALISBURY ISSUES PUBLIC APOLOGY TO ARSENAL FANS
It then went on MchaelSalisbury: “Yesterday, I made a serious mistake. I wrongly sent off Max Dowman, a 17-year-old, during the match between Arsenal and Fleetwood Town. After reviewing the incident, I recognise that my decision was incorrect.”
“I failed to see the full picture in the heat of the moment, and I take full responsibility for my actions. Max is only 17 years old, with a bright future ahead of him. I understand the disappointment this decision has caused him, his teammates, Arsenal Football Club, and millions of fans. It was never my intention to unfairly punish a young player, but I understand that intentions do not erase the consequences of my decisions. I sincerely apologise to Max Dowman, Arsenal, and everyone affected by my mistake. As a referee, I am expected to make the right decisions, and today, I fell short of that responsibility. I will learn from this experience and work to ensure such an error does not happen again. I am truly sorry.” — Michael Salisbury, Referee”
But then we were told, Arsenal’s appeal against Max Dowman’s red card in their Carabao Cup defeat at Fleetwood and the three-match suspension imposed has been rejected by an independent commission.The 16-year-old Dowman was sent off for a kick out at Harrison Neal following a bruising tackle in the 85th minute of the game, which Fleetwood won on penalties after a 1-1 draw.The story was that “Arsenal subsequently lodged an appeal, but the Football Association confirmed on Thursday an independent commission had dismissed claims of both wrongful dismissal and excessive punishment for Dowman.“
So the net result is that Dowman will be suspended for Sunday’s Premier League trip to Liverpool as well as their home game with Hull and trip to Newcastle either side of the international break.“The FA said the written reasons for the commission’s decision to dismiss the claims would be published in due course.”
Then we were told that “Arsenal’s appeal against Max Dowman’s red card in their Carabao Cup defeat at Fleetwood and the three-match suspension imposed has been rejected by an independent commission.” That was in the Guardian and that seems to be the right story.
It wasn’t just me, but a number of writers who wrote up the story that the card had been withdrawn – and it seems not that these were just a slight misinterpretation of a situation, but a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. A bit like saying Tottenham had beaten Arsenal 2-0 when in fact Arsenal had beaten Tottenham 3-1.
Now this has been going on for some time and I am not sure what happened to me yesterday that I didn’t spot this one as a hoax, but obviously that was my fault. All I can say is that it wasn’t just me that was taken in, but the story then appeared on several sites.
So this seems to be a widespread approach so each day it is quite possible that you will see on the internet stories that are not simply a personal opinion, but stories which are reversal of the facts. Which of course is what has been happening for years with reference to transfer tales – as we have so often pointed out. Only 3% of transfer rumors turn out to be true.
I guess this can happen because we have got used to Facebook etc of not revealing sources, so that one cannot go back and check the validity of reports. All I can suggest is that if a story appears without a reference back to the original source which you can check, and which to you looks valid, it probably isn’t real.
So my apologies, I am really sorry. We have seen this for years with transfer tales which the newspapers have been running without any thought of validity (our tests a few years ago revealed that only 3% of stories about who Arsenal were buying were true) but it now appears to be even more blatant. With the transfers the sources were always able to say, “the deal was there but Arsenal were too slow” but this is different.
So apologies. I know I look pretty stupid not picking up on this before, but at least I got there in the end.
