Football betrayed. Swansea v Stoke; a manager speaks out against corruption and incompetence

By Tony Attwood

First off, I know of course that this is the third FOOTBALL BETRAYED article in a row.  I think the issue of how lazy journalists restrict analysis is important – and having decided to write about it, I’m amazed at how each day there is example after example.  I don’t even have to go searching.

But please don’t think Untold is going to be nothing but “Football betrayed” articles from now on.   We publish three articles a day through the week – and this could be four if we get enough interesting stuff to publish.   So there is plenty of room for everything that we normally offer, plus a continuing FOOTBALL BETRAYED series.

So here, before we move onto other items later today I want to cover the Swansea Stoke game from the weekend especially how the comments of Garry Monk, the Swansea manager, were reported – and how this fits into the notion of “lazy journalism” betraying football.

Stuart James in the Guardian today for example says,  “The Swansea City manager [Gary Monk] rounded on Mike Riley, the general manager of Professional Game Match Officials Limited, whom he accused of “poor leadership” after failing to make any contact with the Welsh club following a number of controversial refereeing decisions in recent weeks.

“Monk revealed that Swansea have now gone above Riley’s head and sent a letter of complaint, complete with DVD footage, to John Williams, the chairman of the PGMOL, highlighting perceived injustices. There is likely to be another in the post after this defeat. Monk, who was absolutely furious, described Oliver’s decision to point to the spot when Moses tumbled under minimal contact from Angel Rangel as “disgraceful” and “disgusting”.”

The manager also is reported as saying, “I’ve spoken to the referees and the association about it, and I don’t hear anything coming back to me from Mike Riley at all which I find poor leadership. The whole thing is mounting up now, which is becoming a very worrying situation.”

After more quotes along the same lines the journalist has now set the scene.  And what is his response?  It was be good to know how he saw the challenges.  It would be good to bring in an expert witness such as a retired referee, or a ref from another league, who could speak out.  It’s not hard to do that.  After all Untold does that all the time.  So what does Stuart James do?  He calls this statement an “outburst”.

Now “outburst” means a “sudden and violent release or outpouring” and used in this sense is pejorative, suggesting a statement that is not thought through, that is highly emotional, and perhaps to be regretted.

But we’ve already seen that the Swansea manager is not acting on the spur of the moment.  He has previously spoken to PGMOL about this.  This is a carefully planned campaign by Swansea.

However countering a point in an argument, not by dealing with the point, but by speaking about the manner in which the point is made, is a sure sign of lazy journalism.   “I don’t want to bother with this – let’s call it an outburst” is what lies behind comments like…

“Monk’s outburst will almost certainly result in him facing a Football Association disciplinary charge”  He then goes on to tell us that “Mark Hughes… argued with just about everything that Monk said, including the accusation levelled at Moses.”

Of course Hughes would.  That tells us nothing.  That is perfect lazy journalism again – as if by offering two points of view he is something being “balanced”.   Issues like this are not balanced – invariably someone is right and someone wrong, and the good journalist sets about finding out who and why.

Jon Culley in the Independent does much the same.  He must know (for if he doesn’t he should be sacked at once) that serious accusations have been made against PGMOL and the referees it employs – this is an attack on the very heart of football’s integrity.  Untold’s being making these points for five years.  The BBC has interviewed two of our correspondents on the issue.  Here’s a PL manager saying the same thing.  Surely a matter of interest for any passing football journalist.

But no.  We get the whole statement by the manager reduced to being called a “rant” a favourite word of lazy journalists – used when any manager speaks out (except where it was Sir Alex Ferguson – for some reason journalists learned not to call what he said “a rant”.)

A rant, like “outburst” is normally used in a pejorative way,   It means speaking in a violent or extravagant manner, and is associated with loud and bombastic declamations.  The phrase “rant and rave” gives a clear insight into its usage – the “rave” part suggesting something out of control, not logical, not organised, just a stream of words from someone who is (at least momentarily) unhinged.  Indeed the word “rant” comes from the Dutch ranten meaning to rave,  Walter may have more insights into that origin.

What lazy journalists do is dismiss any expression by a manager that they don’t want to analyse as a “rant”.  Instead of asking, “does this manager have a case?” and “is this something that we as investigative journalists should be looking into” the lazy journalist will focus on the mode of discussion, rather than the truth or otherwise of the allegations as in…

“The Monk rant overshadowed a victory for Stoke,”

Worse, the whole episode is redefined as something that managers do when they don’t like a decision.  “Hughes, no stranger to outspoken outbursts himself when the mood has taken him, felt Monk would have been wiser to calm down and making a more measured assessment of what happened.”

So we have a perfect example of lazy journalism.  Instead of investigating the affair, instead of saying “this is a major assault on the integrity of PGMOL and the whole of Premier League football – so let’s try and see if there is a case here in this game and in the previous games” we get (in both papers) a patronising comment from Hughes:

“You get a bit emotional after games, especially when you have lost a game when you were leading.”

The allegation of the corruption or incompetence of referees is invariably treated in this way – silly little managers getting all steamed up.  Ah, poor chaps.  “Calm down, calm down,” as Harry Enfield used to say.

So not only do these two writers in the Guardian and Independent not contemplating any issue within the story, they do something far, far worse.  In these desperation to do no work at all, they trot out a line that has been around for 30 years – that managers get worked up and that this  manager is bound to face a charge from authorities for speaking in that way.

That notion is both lazy and daft.   The issues are

1.  Despite knowing the dangers of speaking out against the Secret Society that is PGMOL here we have a manager who has spoken out, and gone so far as to create recordings of bad incidents and send them to PGMOL.   Why has he taken such a risk?

2. The allegation is that this is happening in match after match against Swansea is a serious allegation.  Is there anything in it?  Let’s get the recordings and look and see.  Untold did it across the league via the Referee Decisions web site, and we don’t have the resources of a national newspaper.  It is not hard.

3. The issue is being ignored by the rest of the media – so it is a great chance for an exclusive.  Why do the editors allow their journalists – or even encourage their journalists to be this lazy?

Swansea’s complaint is a huge issue in football.  Today, as every day, the football going public is short changed by lazy journalists who take the money and fail to do their job.  The fact that the issue is highlighted by blogs like ours shows how desperate the situation is.

The Untold index to anniversaries and articles is on the home page. 

129 Replies to “Football betrayed. Swansea v Stoke; a manager speaks out against corruption and incompetence”

  1. I have just watched the interview with Gary Monk. While he does not mention or even imply anything anything about corruption, he does call out the PGMOB and specifically Mike Riley for failing to respond to this concerns regarding decisions made against his team. Hopefully he will go further and explain his concerns in public but I suspect he will have been muzzled under threat by this afternoon.

    What strikes me here is that Gary Monk, less than 1 year in management, has done what most of us have wanted our manager to do for the past 10.

  2. Thanks for re-enforcing my thoughts on this Tony…again a well written article from UA!

  3. Initials BB, whenever Wenger did they took points away from Arsenal by making even sillier decisions. 2007/2008 was a good example. The 4-4 at Newcastle just after the Everton offside goal incident is another one.
    In both cases the referee decisions broke the team.

    He now still mentions them as he did after Hull but he has learned his lesson.

  4. Fact is that the MEDIA have got too much power…almost to the extent that they feel they can direct it any way they wish. This has to stop.

    The same applies to referees – they don’t own the game, they are there to officiate in a FAIR and HONEST way…as well as be accountable (as we all are in) in the job/responsibility given them.

    This taboo of reacting against a ref decision after match must be modified – especially when there is substantiating evidence of wrong doing!

  5. Walter.

    So Arsenes answer was to ignore the injustice and hope someone else tackles it? The example you mention is 5 years ago and the campaign against us only intensified during those 5 years, culminating in us having strange decisions against us in practically every match now. By your logic Arsene just decided to put up with it.

  6. “Football betrayed” – if this is a question, from what we see happening all over the PL (and in particular against certain teams) and indeed in many other parts of the world – the answer must most certainly be YES.

  7. @InitialsBB
    October 20, 2014 at 10:14 am

    I would say that AW’s skepticism at present is along the lines of once bitten twice shy…especially when we end up with points deductions as well as the unfair – point costing decisions, we could easily be looking at hovering around the 16th position after 8 games!!

    If you were AW – would you risk it?!

  8. IMHO Gary Monk has opened the gates for the matter to be now handled from the board/Gazidis and not have Wenger being the focal point!

  9. Initials BB,
    I can only say about things we see. I don’t know if Arsenal has done anything in that period. If they did, it sure didn’t help them. Coming out didn’t help. doing nothing also didn’t help. Working behind the scenes didn’t help.

    Unless a change of regime in the PGMOL nothing will help I think.

  10. Here is a thought; perhaps all PL teams who feel strongly enough about UNFAIR and continuous ref decisions – should strike – maybe extreme but think of the turmoil that would cause.

  11. Good article Tony and a very interesting development. I would read one aspect of the Guardian report slightly differently – I don’t believe it is lazy journalism, it looks more like a move to ridicule, discredit and marginalize Monk’s complaint.

    I rather like the fact that DVD evidence was sent to Williams, that’s something we could consider.

    The PGMOL secret society will, as you suggest stifle the complaint and protect themselves by launching an unfair disciplinary hearing against Monk. Such a response has been used previously by the PGMOL to protect their biased manipulations.

    What we really need is to gather sufficient DVD evidence to show that there is a case to answer – let Gazidis take it to Williams and/or the Minister of Sport – if there is no response, then use some of our earnings to take litigation against the PGMOL.

  12. well done to Gary Monk, he deserves support, but unlikely to get it. I hope we are raising this as well.
    Swansea were of course up against Bet365 Stoke- seems like Hughes team get quite an easy ride with officials

  13. Good article.

    But let’s forget lazy journalism and get on to reality.

    Tiny, little Swansea have the balls to make an issue out of this.

    As an Arsenal fan, I am constantly frustrated by having exactly the same sentiments game after game.

    Surely it is time for this great club of ours to stand up and be counted.

    This aspect is turning football enjoyment into an absolute nightmare.

  14. Walter I totally disagree. How could any person never mind AW, the biggest advocate of fair play in the world game, not believe that exposing this injustice not have helped AFC or the game itself in the long term?

    It is not very difficult to understand that if it was repeated often enough, Mike Riley and the PGMOB named and shamed by someone as respected globally as AW, that the football supporting world
    would have to listen and perhaps even investigate as Tony suggests.

    I do hope now that one manager and club had the guts to make an issue of it that we will at least see others back them up and step up the effort. Well done Gary Monk and Swansea. Thank you for saying publically ehat frustrated gooners have wanted to hear for a decade

  15. I suspect that nothing will result from any of this. The guys making the money and fixing the matches are well entrenched and have their poodles in the media covering their backsides.

    I also suspect that Garry Monk will disappear from football after this, they’ll make sure to hound him out. If he won’t play by the fixers accepted code then they’ll force him out. I suspect they’re trying the same with Arsenal and Arsene Wenger, as I couldn’t see him playing by their rules.

    Sadly I’ve now lost all enthusiasm for football. Watching a “Pass the Parcel” between bent clubs and bent refs brokering a scripted season is just too boring.

    I still read this site because of nostalgia for some of the good times I had on the terraces but there’s no chance of change without a fresh element thrown into the mix. Garry Monk is not that element. They’ll just throw him to the wolves barring a major whistleblowing from inside.

    I feel for Swansea and their fans, they’re the innocent victims of the match fixing cartel. Change? I really can’t see it.

  16. Maybe Wenger will say quite a lot after he has departed, and safely away so the club dont get the repercussions. There has to be quite an interesting book in him, as long as he avoided legal pitfalls, he could bring the whole lot of them down …if he chose to..

    On the subject of lazy journalism, apparently we are going to sell Ozil to City at a 10million loss to pay for his crocked mate to come in…who apparently wants to join Chelsea. Ok…..

  17. @InitialsBB
    October 20, 2014 at 11:11 am

    When you expand like that, I tend to agree with you, and for sure we must applaud Gary Monk for speaking out; the jury is still not out: A/ As to what action the FA and PGMOL will take against him, B/ Who will follow him in speaking out, C/ What influence this outbreak will have in exposing whatever needs exposing in order to finally get FAIR-PLAY from referees.

  18. InitialsBB,
    Those gentlemen in the FA and PGMOB are in business. Arsenal is also in business. When you want to help a business run better, but instead your team is penalized at every turn just because you ointed our certain injustices, in the end you give up. What Gary Monk is doing is commendable, in fact we need a few more managers to do this, then the FA and PGMOB will be under a lot of pressure to change. But should he be isolated, you will see Swansea losing more points through silly refereeing mistakes. They will isolate Monk and Swansea, just like they did to Arsenal.

  19. @InitialsBB

    If the Jury comes out and throws the book at Monk…then the Media will get on board and the scenario as put by bjtgooner
    October 20, 2014 at 10:41 am – will be what can be expected!

  20. I don’t know how many of you watched the game but with the exception, of the penalty Swansea really didn’t get treated badly.Oliver , the ref, made call after call and in truth the Stoke supporters were chanting throughout that “Your not fit to referee”

    The ref made a very brave call to give Swansea their penalty. Yes it was a penalty but it is very rare that any club is penalised in similar situations.

    Later on Crouch had his shirt tugged in the box and Swansea, based on the earlier decision , could well have had another penalty against them.

    Turning to Tonys 3 points.

    1) Had the incident not happened at yesterdays match would Monk or anyone from Swansea made public the fact that they have submitted a DVD? I doubt it. So with that in mind is it not reasonable to assume that other clubs & mangers have likewise entered into dialogue with the powers that be?

    2) I haven’t watched enough of Swansea’s games to draw any conclusion but in the two games I have seen of theirs other than yesterdays penalty not sure that you can make any sort of such claims. Also I would point out that when you looked at the incident from near enough the same angle as the ref the arm movement of Angel & the movement of Moses gave a different view of the incident.

    3) Journalists are lazy and offer an opinion. I don’t but a newspaper anymore for that reason.

    Just one last point namely on Riley talking to Monk, or should I say not talking to Monk. Two seasons ago it was Riley’s policy to phone manager up and talk through incidents but when Steve Clarke (then WBA manager) went public having received an apology during one such conversation the managers near enough to a man said that Riley shouldn’t be doing that.

  21. And as well as Gary Monk I would like to add my appreciation to Tony and Walter and acknowledge their endurance in continuing to highlight this matter and stand up for us in public when others, including our club, have refused to do so. While I do not always agree with the content and much of the hyperbole used to fight the hyperbole, I have to say good job lads.

  22. Thank you Tony for an interesting and important post. I would like to broaden it slightly to include the TV perspectives. Sky at the time remarked that there always is a lot of physical contact in the penalty area at corners and we all know that this comes from both attackers and defenders. However the Sky commentator percipiently noticed that referee Oliver spoke to Shawcross immediately before the corner was taken. In spite of this Shawcross held both Boney’s arms and literally threw him to the ground. A clear and unquestionable penalty according to Sky both in commentary and what they showed. Contrast this with the BBC who let their commentators without pictures running say that what happened was entirely normal and by implication to be allowed by referees regardless of both Laws of the Game and fair play.

    In contrast on the second penalty for Stoke, Sky pointed out quite correctly as again shown by their concurrent pictures that both players had put out an arm to impede the other and that there was minimal contact followed by a clear dive. BBC had tired ex-players maintaining that this was an equally clear and valid penalty as that for Swansea. Certainly my feeling is that the Stoke penalty was given by a weak referee who had both Hughes and thew crowd on his back and was trying to “level up” his decisions and stop the game sliding out of his control.

    For me the BBC who had several hours to review both incidents got both clearly wrong and I can only presume this is because the have an agenda on such matters.

    Arsenal should publicly back Monk and offer support for improvements essential in PGMOL and their referees from evidence from their own matches.

  23. After seeing how Arsenal works(not that i understand everything) but I think Arsenal are done “reacting”.

    Reacting angrily looks to be a futile attempt to fix something that is wrong, especially if one then gets penalised for it.

    Arsenal are now becoming “preventative” i think, even though we may not see it at this moment. They are probably looking to long term planning to restore football.

    In time we will see the results of this.

    Some like Swansea may even be the first prong of an attack(hopefully coordinated by the affected teams) that will take the PGMOL down and supervise a replacement.

  24. Mike T. You miss the pount. Regardless of the game yesterday and what did or did not happen, the whole episode puts the microscope, or at least should, on Mike Riley and the role of the PGMO, and hopefully provide the impetus for other managers to air their views truthfully and publically.

    What I expect though is the PL to send a memo to all clubs reminding their managers to behave in a bid to silence any potential dissenters

  25. @bob mac
    Total agreement with you, your last sentence in particular.
    I watched four matches over the weekend and in all of them the final score was as much influenced by the refs ineptitude as the actions of the players. In three of them not only the scores were influenced but probably the result as well were all decided by referee incompetence. As long as we live in the dark ages regarding video replay this absolute farce will continue.
    Good luck to Gary Monk and Swansea, at least they are showing a bit of fight. If Arsenal were to do the same we might stand a chance of someone in the media taking this threat to our game seriously, their apparent inactivity is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of the paying supporter.

  26. How many of have watched gamed not featuring Arsenal and still questioned the officiating?

    I find myself constantly asking “how is that a foul is that other one wasn’t”

  27. The first obvious question is , are those jurnalists you mention in fact investigating reporters , football beat reporters or general , run of the mill sports pages reporters ?.

    The second question might be how will Gary Monk react when his team gets a bad call going their way. Will he own up to the fact or will he pull a Mark Hughes , who called the Swansea pen a dive by Bony and Moses’s clear dive ‘ going to ground under some contact while at speed’,

    Nothing really new there . Bruce did this on Saturday. Rogers did this all of last season with Suarez’s dives. Mourinho has done it throught out his career as well as SAF and the fans are no different.

    That’s why there will never be a united front against PGMOL and Riley knows it .

    And if Riley were to comment on the Moses penalty , I’m sure he would say there was a shirt pull by the defender so the decision was correct.

    Contrary to what Gary Monk said , this was nowhere near the ‘worst dive’ you will ever see in football and his frustration with the call maybe had something to do with his team’s poor finishing on the day. Swansey should’ve won comfortably on the chances they created but failed to convert.

  28. We must unite with Swansea and other teams that have suffered an abnormally large number of incorrect key decisions this season. But we must focus on a single issue, we cannot take a scatter gun approach and try and solve all the issues we see wrong with football and referees and the PGMOL etc at the same time. Protests are stronger if everyone is campaigning for the same change and against the same issue, political protests are the same else people get confused and some support some of the arguments and not others.

    In this case the issue is key refereeing decisions being called incorrectly or not at all which would have an undeniably large impact on the game. This includes clear penalties given or denied, blatant diving, horrible red card tackles all seen this season. We can speak out about this in ways commentors here have discussed but Arsenal hierachy must speak on this issue. Silence solves nothing. If enough influential people do it then those at the top will be put under pressure to explain decisions or transparently review refereeing culture. MOTD alluded to Michael Oliver being influenced by the Stoke crowd. Difficult to prove but that should not be happening, in the same way players and managers produce imaginary cards and crowding the referee to influence decisions which is ridiculously wrong. Chelsea did this against Palace with the Delaney second yellow but they are far from the only team that do this. Refereeing is a very tough and often thankless job I am sure but they need more authority and clarity in the rules and decision making on the pitch.

  29. Fair play to Garry Monk. He will be charged for “bringing the game into disrepute” or whatever it is called because “you can’t call someone a cheat in a press conference”. He was angry and emotionally charged but was also brutally honest and I wish more managers felt they could do the same. Of course they risk financial punishment or bans but they shouldn’t if they are justified to do so in the case of Moses yesterday.
    Most managers protect their players, rightly or wrongly but I wish sometimes they would come out and say eg. “That wasn’t a penalty, Moses went down with absolutely minimal to no contact and we will deal with this internally. We don’t want this behaviour at our club”. Similar to how United dealt with Ashley Youngs repeat offenses if I remember correctly.

  30. The first solution is to introduce a challenge system a la Field Hockey and a little like Rugby video referees.
    Managers get 1 or 2 challenges per match and can use them to review a refereeing decisions or something not given. There would have to be a time period after the incident that you would have to challenge by. The incident then goes to a 5th video official or the 4th official with a screen on the side of the pitch and can view the incident from as many angles as is necessary to make a more informed decisions than the referee might be able to in the heat of the moment. An over-rule can then happen and you keep the challenge, lose it if the decision is not changed.
    The arguments of those who don’t want this or similar change is that it will disrupt the flow of the game, maybe but it works in other sports and there are plenty of other disruptive tactics used in football other than that.
    Then there’s the age old FIFA line of “well it wouldn’t be introduced at all levels of the game including grassroots” but neither is it in tennis for example. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t improve the game.

    A point on tennis. I have line umpired at the highest level where Hawkeye is in use and I’ll tell you that it puts extra pressure on you to concentrate and make as many right decisions as humanly possible because if you get it so blatantly wrong and the player challenges then you look like a right fool. Having a challenge system in football might actually improve refereeing by the same logic…a thought.

    Sorry for the triple post, I’m very passionate about these issues ruining the beautiful game!

  31. Correct me if I am wrong; but SAF hardly ever gave after match speeches/question,answer sessions to BBC!!!

    This should become optional for managers who have the ability to give their take on a match through their respective clubs’ websites.

    If managers are questioned after a match, then so should referees!

    Managers who stand up in front of Media with an Agenda are just asking to become cannon fodder – their every word can be twisted to suit the reporter and every question is laced with traps should the manager be from a team which the Media have an agenda for.

    Then we get a storm of false headlines with odds picked out of such interviews.

  32. @apo
    SAF boycotted the BBC for a long time before they ran a documentary in 2004 which I believe was called Father and Son which suggested his son who was/is an agent used and exploited his father’s influence. Slightly different situation.

    I agree entirely that referees should answer to decisions so blatantly wrong but caution would be required so they are forced to explain absolutely everything. That will only have a negative effect I fear.
    Yes some reporters who conduct post match interviews do attempt to put words into mouths by asking questions in a clever or provokative way to illicite a certain response. Certainly players are given media handling training, don’t know about managers. There’s a responsibility both sides not to ask unfair questions or those not relating to the match but also on managers not to fall into the traps often not at all subtle.

  33. Apo

    For every interview that Fergie refused to give the BBC Manchester United received a fine, and paid it. Managers are contractually obliged to give interviews to Sky/ BT/ BBC and anyone else who has paid the club for the rights to show matches/ highlights.

  34. Just a quick update from BBC news- “Garry has made a direct assertion that a letter or DVD has been sent to Mike, but he has not received either,” said an unnamed PGMOL spokesman. “The PGMOL has an open-door policy if any manager or club wants to contact us about an issue.”

    PGMOL later confirmed a letter from Monk arrived on Monday morning and Riley would respond personally to the Swansea boss.

  35. Want to know lazy and desperate journalism, search for post match interview Arsene Wenger and that bitch, Jacqui Oakley.

  36. Initals BB

    I don’t miss the point at all.
    Other than a headline yesterday and today and the FA charging Monk you wont hear anything of note re what he aid

  37. This reminds of the Rafa ‘rant’, journos queued to bash benitez up instead of trying to find out what he was really saying. In the end all we heard was all sorts of ridiculing statements like ferguson got under his skin, Rafa lost it, etc.

    What Monk has done should be applauded, but he’s certainly not the first manager to do this. I think the main difference is he’s spoken out in public about the action he has taken, whereas others might have had private communications with the highly secretive pgmob. I would be surprised if Arsenal haven’t spoken with someone regarding the bad decisions we get. If the referees’ ex chief can come out speaking on how badly we were treated at Chelsea I don’t expect everyone at our club was ok with that. The main issue is if we don’t hear anything in the media we assume nothings being done about it. You then hear comments such as the club should be advising the players against this or that type of ref. Such naivety always makes me laugh; surely if an ordinary man like me is aware that Dean is not good for Arsenal, what makes me think the players who actually get to speak with the official on the pitch, tunnel, or wherever else, doesn’t have a clue? It’s kind of preposterous to think that way. These guys have access to footage that you and I will never have access to, so to think they’re not aware is ridiculous.

    I think the main reasons why players or managers don’t come out attacking the officials publicly is the political correctness thing, compounded by the lack of action that thecompliant FA will take. If they do take any action at all its to punish whoever complained.

    Why don’t we put together a dvd ourselves, sure we have the resources to do that, and send it off to the pgmol, copying the media in. We are immune to the PC thing, while our chairman or manager aren’t.

  38. @ Initals BB

    I don’t miss the point at all.Its just that yours and most of those that post on here now expect more to happen but there is no way managers in public,will line up behind Monk in questioning the integrity of referees. Quite simply that wont happen. The focus will be on simulation and that will be the story
    As things are you have a very inexperienced manager calling a player a cheat, not the referee, and that will be the story and no doubt will be the basis of the charge that the FA will almost certainly now issue

  39. @Al

    Hackett didn’t actually say how badly Arsenal we were treated at Chelsea. What he actually said was Atkinson should have sent off three players in that game and that to get one wrong , maybe, but not three.

    I guess will put a different view but I suspect he was talking about Cahill, Wellbeck, & Koscienly

  40. @Mike T
    You’re right there. The media are poodles. They’ll bend the knee and kiss butt to the Bent Overlords and say what they are told. Any who step out of line will get crucified by their brethren and stitched up in a bent libel case.

    Nothing will change unless an insider defects and drops a bombshell that’s just too big for the Bent Overlords to do emergency fire fighting. With organized crime involved (allegedly) I just can’t see that happening.

    This has been going on for a very long time and these guys are skilled enough to keep their arses out of the fire.

  41. Mike T- you fully miss the point.

    I don’t think anyone is naive enough to expect the managers to line up in public behind Monk in questioning the integrity of referees. In fact Monk never mentioned anything about their integrity in the first place. However what Monk has said creates a platform for others to question Riley and the workings of his organisation. What is most pleasing, and what you are missing, is the fact that referees poor decision making as well as Mike Rileys leadership and the PGMOL have been called into question publicly, and that is a good start for me. Will they be watching how they conduct themselves knowing that their decisions will be under even more scrutiny over the coming weeks? One would certainly think so. And even if the whole episode only stimulates a little debate on the PGMOL- all it takes is one lazy journalist to pick up on the power these egomaniacs who earn a fraction of what footballer does have been given.

  42. Mike T
    Hackett wasn’t just talking about red cards, he was referring to a lot that went on in that game; unpunished fouls, managers bust up, etc. I could argue he was referring to Cahill, fabregas (blatant handball) and Welbeck. Basically, if he’d punished Cahill he would NOT have lost control of that match, that’s what he said. And there might not have been that bust up between the two managers, and subsequently the other bad tackles.

  43. Point is let’s not try to defend these morons called refs. Even a layman like me knows a referee doesn’t stop play to warn a player about persistent fouling. Even if the foul warrants a yellow card(like playing advantage), ref should wait for play to stop before going back to said player. He only stops play if he’s awarding a free kick, and card the player at the same time. Are we to assume Atkinson doesn’t know this? He shouldn’t be ref then if he doesn’t.

  44. The point is that Monk has admitted opening the door regarding making complaints to the PGMOL, why – because he is unhappy with the standard of refereeing and an apparent match by match series of decisions which he considers unfairly hurt Swansea.

    The degree of accuracy or correctness of Monk’s statements is not the issue – the important fact is that Monk has taken action – and while the iron is hot we should be trying to increase the pressure for fair play – we don’t want Atkinson permitting Mike T’s Chelski to kick us around again next time.

    So – first step – how about compiling the series of ref permitted serious fouls Arsenal have suffered over the last few years (as previously discussed). We can include wrong decisions on major incidents e.g. penalties, red cards etc – and run this on a third Untold string, running parallel to UA and UH.

    Secondly – send a DVD copy to Gazidis requesting him to take it further with Williams/Sec of State for Sport.

  45. Anyone who has ever watched a few games of football or played in the park, once or twice, will understand how and why the referee mentioned above lost control of the game. Anything else is just deliberate and disingenuous twaddle.

  46. Monk is not the first who the press corps will try to discredit or ignore.

    Rafa Benitez during his “rant” as described by the press, which was a calm and reasonable press conference for all who watched it. So why the lie? Propaganda is the technical term for such things. This attempted and failed smear by these neutral upstanding football journalists was probably a result of Benitez daring to highlight the PGMOBs previous favouritism towards Don Ferguson. Did they not like that.

  47. I’m with bjt on this, 3:32pm. As supporters we can surely do something about this? A demo, a petition, banners, a lawsuit, thousand possibilities. Even if whatever action we take doesn’t bear fruit, having it in the public domain will bring some kind of pressure on the bent officials to at least try and tone things down. Last season we had five or six games where one could say we were robbed (Chelsea was one of these, incidentally), but so far this season we’ve virtually been robbed in every match bar the Aston Villa one. And we’re only like what, six or seven games in? It’s getting worse. Something needs to be done. Talking about it is the first step, but should certainly not be the last.

  48. Agree with you bjtgooner. Enough is enough, lets pick up the baton and run with this one. No other sport has to put up with all this crap week in and week out. We all, as supporters, have to put pressure on Arsenal to take some visible action. I will be contacting the club via email complaining about our treatment at the hands of PGMOL and asking what they propose to do, if anything. If past experience is anything to go by I will not get a reply other than the standard acknowledgement but at least I will have made an effort, however small. Maybe lots of small individual efforts will count for something.

  49. Mick,
    I agree with all you say, but don’t you feel writing to the club is targeting the ‘wrong’ audience? I don’t, but I think the club’s hands are pretty much tied up regarding these things….

  50. off topic, but hilarious tweet from Poldi today!Aha!take that BBC!
    COYG! Aha and Amen!

  51. @Al

    But he doesn’t say Arsenal were treated badly he says Atkinson had a poor game, is a poor referee & managed the game badly whatever and refers to the three potential sending offs.

    Initals BB

    Of course he is questioning the integrity of the referees. Indeed if you read Tonys comments he says in the article;

    “this is an attack on the very heart of football’s integrity.

    I will watch with interest how your campaign goes and irrespective of the rights and wrongs my attention is drawn to Cervantes!

  52. Mr. Monk certainly you win many fan heart.Unlike other over rated managers including ours that care mutch of their pockets than true.

    We will see if any manager will back you but as I said they care about their pocket and will be left hanging out dry.

    A true manager like you that works his socks the entire week deserve more respect than the pussy we had it at home.

    Mr. Monk you sweetened my anger after the loss to Hull had similarities and when it comes to Wenger he bottle it.

  53. @Alan_Gooner
    October 20, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Ok I remembered something was going on with SAF…but couldn’t remember the details (thanks)!

    As for this part of your second paragraph; “…but caution would be required so they are forced to explain absolutely everything…” I totally agree!!! No point in having reporters ask irrelevant or weak question, bi-passing the crucial decisions!!

    October 20, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    Point taken, however it would be wise to insert certain clauses in the agreements next time round binding the clowns who call themselves reporters to behave appropriately and FAIRLY!

  54. Hopefully at least one journalist decides to do some real work this week. In any event, I am off to the land of no internet for the week. We get to play Sunderland, after they lost 8-0 on Saturday. They will not be in a normal frame of mind, which probably means a good time to adjust the referee assignments to “help” the game to the desired conclusion.

    I am hoping for the best on player rehab, and no injuries in training.


  55. AL
    I reckon it has got to the point where the club should take the view of ‘bugger the consequences. As for targeting the wrong audience nothing to stop us targeting every other relevant party, the press, radio stations, blogosphere, Minister for Sport and any others you can think of.

  56. Journalism is all but dead. Be it sports or any other. Now its just reporting. All they do is just say as things happened or say the third party account of the things. And then there are others, the mouth pieces or the propaganda machines of the powerful.

    But within this big media houses are the junior reporters. They actually do the ground work, but their work doesn’t get air time as its less glamorous or against the tide. Can’t they contribute here???…

  57. Mick
    Yeah, makes sense. Like you I’ll be sending an email to the club as well, awaiting the next action people deem necessary.

    I’m also of the view a petition can be a powerful thing. It doesn’t have to be Arsenal-centric, but one that just talks about the bad decisions in all, and touching on issues like why we should have only 16 refs in the PL, you know, most things Hackett touched on, etc. Sure if enough signatures are collected, which I would not expect to be an issue(see Monk’s ‘rant’), then forward that petition to the relevant people such as the minister of sport, FA etc.

  58. @Mick & AL

    I’ll join you guys in sending an email to the club re action regarding the poor refereeing.

    However, what I think will be effective is the Untold compilation of unfair/incompetent/biased decisions – the visual evidence – but we need Walter/Tony to initiate this.

  59. @Mike T. You clearly believe that your team has not benefitted from the refereeing – we disagree there but the essence of this article is not that but rather that the refereeing level is poor. Your comments seem only designed to disagree with posters not to offer anything of value or positive moving forward. That is sophistry. What are your recommendations? You went a bit far with the Cervantes quip and devalued your comments. Do you mean to say that there is no problem or a way to improve things?

  60. Mike T
    Hackett said ‘we saw a catalogue of weak officiating…’ and I have no doubt many of these decisions he talks of went against Arsenal. Its ok to mention the three reds he mentioned as having been missed, but I’m positive that is not the only things Hackett was not impressed with in that match. Oscar was fouling constantly and just getting warning after warning (weakness number 1), Ivanobitch clotheslined Ozil at the same time Cahill was chopping down Alexis, your cnut of a manager took the ball from the ball boy (he should never be handling the ball unless it lands right where he’s standing – weakness number 2?), he exonerates the spat between the managers as being a result of poor officiating by the ref up to that point (catalyst) – the Welbeck incident had not happened by then but we had had the Cahill/Alexis and Hazard/Chambers incidents (so we can see why he thinks Atkinson’s failings caused this), I could go on…., but apart from the Welbeck foul which came with seconds remaining I can’t see how any of the officiating that went on before that could be said to have favoured Arsenal. I don’t think Hackett would be screaming about a penalty plus a yellow, given against Koscielny, as an outrageously terrible decision, unless he meant the penalty shouldn’t have been one in the first place. This leads me to suspect he may be talking of another decision which did not even get the sort of punishment it warranted (the Fabregas handball?).

    Anyway, the bottom line is if everyone agrees a ref has had a stinker, then its more than likely the side that would have come out with positive results will have benefited the most from his poor decisions. Anyway, I have no desire to get into another long-running argument with you Mike; I’ll hold the view Hackett was not impressed by the way Atkinson refereed that game which many mistakes’ outcome favoured Chelsea, and you can hold your own view. Let’s agree to disagree.

  61. bjt
    I agree with the idea of compiling bad/biased decisions. Even having a place online where these videos are available alone is a good start.

  62. @AL
    October 20, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    That will for sure be a good start…I look forward to this getting ‘substance’.

  63. @AL

    Some of the incidents may be online, already U tubed. But all the recent matches should still be on Arsenal Player.

    It should be possible to make a compilation from these sources. It is something which I have never attempted so I am not quite sure of the methodology.

  64. Off Topic, but good to see Galatasaray have been fined 39,000+ for the flares, and have to pay for damages to the Emirates 🙂

  65. bjtgooner, I like the idea of compiling all available video evidence of skulduggery against Arsenal, starting with Mike Riley torpedoing our unbeaten run in October 2004. It would be brilliant (and depressing!) to have it all available in one place. Who knows, if it was up and running we may even be able to shake off our deluded tag.

  66. @Mick

    The Riley v the Invincibles is already somewhere on U tube. What we need is someone or a group with the skill and time to pull it all together.

  67. @Al
    Other than what Hackett said re specifics how do you know what he meant? I am not disputing your view I am merely pointing out what was actually said as opposed to what is thought to have been said.

    @Going Going Gooner

    Yes I agree the essence of the argument is that the referees are poor and I don’t think anyone is arguing with that but the trouble is sort of reflected in the very title of this article for time and time again that basic argument is lost because far too many say a referee made a bad decision not because he is a poor official but because he is corrupt, bias or whatever whereas the simple reason is probably down to one thing namely the lack of ability.
    Where is the independent evidence to support peoples suspicions? Has anyone seen money change hands ? Has any one copies of emails? Where is the hard evidence?
    The referee reviews on here are not comprehensive although I accept they are informative and lovingly prepared, the scoring employed in those reviews is not valid whereas I believe the scoring and statistical regime the FA rely on is audited by an outside body.
    For every poor decision given against Arsenal the opposition will no doubt point to the exact opposite.
    As I have pointed out on many occasions most decisions in football are based on the referees opinion he is the one there he has one view of the incident no different camera angles to help him out and on many occasions he has a player in his line of vision.
    Hence why I mention Cervantes for if you look at this issue objectively what is there to support the claims that the poor referring is about anything other than ability and without hard evidence and validated statistics you are spitting in the wind.

  68. @Mick

    From what I can see it should be possible to uplift clips using Windows Movie Maker. I’ll give it a try when I get a chance.


    If you have been following this thread and have any technical advice I would appreciate it. I am using Windows 7. Thanks.

  69. @ Mike T

    ‘But he doesn’t say Arsenal were treated badly he says Atkinson had a poor game…’
    I guess that settles it then. It exonerates the thug mentality as displayed by cahill and oscar, instructed by the gouging one.

  70. @Mike T

    Point taken and whereas we will disagree on the validity of the referee reviews presented here, I should again point out that the biggest bugbear of most here is in the seemingly absolute disdain that the PGMOL and by extension all footballing authorities have of fans who simply want a level playing field. Of course,some will never be satisfied as there are paranoid people out there (some even in here)however most would be happy with SOME effort to meet them halfway. The authorities are keeping the refereeing environment an absolutely closed and secret club. No one outside the group is allowed to know the most basic things about how referees are selected or adjudicated. That this breeds ill feelings can hardly be doubted and yet the authorities do NOTHING.

  71. bjt/AL
    Well my email has gone off to Arsenal. The email address for anyone else who wants to send one is
    Thanks for the link to the Riley debacle, I get so angry every time I see it. No wonder Reyes went back to Spain, he was a broken leg waiting to happen.

  72. Well the fix is on, blatant foul for the utd goal, hand ball by the utd player goes unseen, the lino failing to see foul for the west brom player.

    Berahino has just scored.

  73. Dan
    Am not watching(couldn’t be bothered), but a colleague just texted me saying he’s appalled by the refereeing going on in that match. I asked who the ref was and he said Dean…. some things never change 🙂

  74. Meanwhile just seen this on the BBC website when I went there looking for a score update;

    “What a game we’ve had tonight, two teams have gone for it and it’s been a great advert for the Premier League” – Robbie Savage.
    It struck me that I hear these pundits use this line almost all the time. All about marketing; instead of these supposed experts to be giving us fans a deeper analysis of the match, they’re there for marketing reasons.

  75. Been also watching the WBA vs ManUre match…another abysmal referee performance!!! But then again it was Dean!!!

  76. Thing is as poor as ManUre are (undisputedly even by their loving pundits), SOMEHOW we are behind them…this can ONLY happen in the PL at the moment!

  77. @Mike T at 4:31 pm

    If you look at the first comment on this article I commented that I did not agree with Tony’s view that Monk alleged any corruption- neither did he question the integrity of the referee or the PGMOL. What he did was complain about a series of decisions going against his team, detail that he sent a letter accompanied by a DVD to Riley and the PGMOL highlighting his issues, and questioned Mike Rileys professionalism for not answering his letter/ query. At no point did he question any persons integrity apart from Moses, and further he will not be charged with questioning the integrity of a referee or any related charges.

    Whether he was inferring that the PGMOL is corrupt is up for debate. His words seemed pretty calculated and he looked composed to me, but there is zero evidence to display that he did.

  78. @InitialsBB
    October 20, 2014 at 10:25 pm


    I have also said in a comment here, that Monk did very well and chose his words very well…

  79. Think Arsenal would have every right to go to Riley , quoting the rules on fouling, what constitutes cards, penalties, and time wasting, show him some video analysis and ask him why his referees are consistently not refereeing our games as the laws of the games intend.
    In fact, I would imagine quite a few teams could go to Riley saying the same thing.
    Would like to see a multitude of teams putting a lot of public pressure on him and his Scudamore puppets, make him squirm.
    Riley is in this position not due to any ability as a referee, or a referees manager, but because he clearly likes Utd, bowed down to Fergie, and would have been recognised as an establishment yes man, a character not likely to rock the boat of the powers that be. The clubs should take this fraud , and his right hand man, Keren Barratt away from any position of power or influence in English football

  80. @Mandy Dodd
    October 20, 2014 at 10:41 pm

    Agree totally and want to emphasize this from your post: “…Riley is in this position not due to any ability as a referee, or a referees manager, but because he clearly likes Utd, bowed down to Fergie, and would have been recognised as an establishment yes man, a character not likely to rock the boat of the powers that be…”

    and of course your last sentence!!

  81. @ Intials BB

    So when Monk said this (source BBC)

    The Swans boss also criticised referee Michael Oliver for making a “disgusting decision” to award the spot-kick

    Not quite sure what he is saying if he is not questioning the ref

  82. @Mike T
    October 20, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    Who the hell made Oliver God that no one can question his decisions??!!!!

  83. @ Mike T

    ‘Where is the independent evidence to support peoples suspicions? Has anyone seen money change hands ? Has any one copies of emails? Where is the hard evidence?”

    Other than the Dean Dance we got nothing. I guess you’re right, epl referees are straight, morinho is great, your oil money is clean. UA should just shut down.

  84. @wengerson
    Oh come on now, no need to be facetious. Mike T is right, everyone here who has suggested inherent bias or the rather more serious corruption at the top as the reason for the serious of poor decisions against us has failed to produce any hard evidence to prove it.

    Before you jump on me, that doesn’t mean that it does not exist! Just you have no evidence to prove it. When the day comes that you do, we will stand up, bow down to you and say you were right all along.

    The stats and pictures of the clear red card tackles prepared by Walter et al are great evidence and proof of a series of referees clearly unable to do their jobs properly and we should use this evidence actively to challenge this along with Mr Monk.
    You can of course, as many here have, draw different conclusions from the data and pictures.
    1) We’re just unlucky and it’ll even itself out – no I think it’s beyond that now
    2) Incompetent referees, we need answers why this is happening and what is going to be done – that’s my conclusion
    3) Referees are biased against Arsenal – my question here that hasn’t been answered with any hard evidence is why would they be? Wenger? Our style of football? Neither seem valid reasons for such punishment but again that doesn’t mean some refs aren’t.
    4) PGMOL are corrupt and someone has paid them or refs to fix matches/league by making these decisions – they may well be, where’s your evidence though? I don’t want to believe this, not because my head is in the sand so to speak because I know corruption and bribery exists in sport and business but because I love football and this sort of scandal could destroy the game in this country. With the “dirty” undercover tactics of investigative journalists and their fake sheikhs and whatnot, bribery, corruption and celeb scandals is much easier to bring to light. And you bet the papers would feed off corruption at the highest levels of English football!

  85. bjt/AL
    re email to Arsenal
    I have had an acknowledgement from Arsenal so I know they have received it. Whether it will get to Mr Gazidis (I addressed it to him) or not is another matter!

  86. @Alan_Gooner
    October 21, 2014 at 7:28 am

    Your point 4; I am trying to understand what you are trying to say. It seems as though you “don’t want to believe this” because you “love football and this sort of scandal could destroy the game in this country”???

    That is very romantic I must say, but many of us Love our club (as I am sure you do) and we also love our current and players past who have had their legs broken (some of them more then once)…and we have seen enough evidence (There are two types of evidence; namely, direct evidence
    and circumstantial evidence) and we have witnesses well and truly enough of the latter over the past decade (and intensifying over the last 3-4 years) to justify our comments!

  87. Circumstantial Evidence: Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from which a person may reasonably infer the existence or non- existence of another fact. A person’s (ref/s) guilt of a charged crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  88. Mike T. Put simply, just because someone makes the wrong decision, no matter how poor, it is not an attack on their fairness or integrity and could be as easily attributed to incompetence. In fact it was so carfully worded, it allows the audience to interpret the many potential reasons why the decision could be viewed as disgusting. Hopefully the PL/ FA will write to him asking him to explain himself. I await the developments with interest.

  89. @ apro Armani

    Be careful how you answer as you are now very close to possibly committing libel where is your evidence be it circumstantial or otherwise that an individual or individuals have acted “unlawfully”
    Its no point saying its the FA or PGMOL where is the evidence ?
    Yes its perfectly reasonable to say someone fingerprints on the safe is a piece of circumstantial evidence so using that analogy do you evidence of someone’s fingerprints

  90. @InitialsBB
    October 21, 2014 at 10:38 am

    “…makes the wrong decision, no matter how poor, it is not an attack on their fairness or integrity and could be as easily attributed to incompetence….”

    This is true IF its a ONE-OFF, then perhaps it could be put down to even oversight and indeed incompetence, however, if there is a continuous string of such errors by the same ref in the same game where by he shows to make these ‘mistakes’ to the detriment of one side, then ITS THE REF who should/MUST explain himself and not the manager for making the observation!

  91. @Mike T
    October 21, 2014 at 10:50 am

    You must just like to come up with just anything for the sake of writing…sad really!!

  92. The fingerprints are VIDEO evidence, over the past decade and more, take for example Riley:

    what he lets go with warnings on one side, he books to the other…multiply this behavior (and back it up with video evidence like in the Chelsea game – remember) and you have a continual PATERN of circumstantial evidence.

  93. Gentlemen, you do realize that arguing with the constant beneficiaries of the “poor officiating” is going to be a never ending affair, right? Might as well drop it and focus on trying to get a demonstration of some sort going at the Ems – don’t get distracted.
    As a start, Id suggest that all who are reading this thread (excluding the beneficiaries of “poor officiating”) send an email to the club asking what’s being done about the regular “poor officiating” we’ve been experiencing this season, which has consistently been in favour of our opponents (pure coincidence, I’m guessing. I expect this to even out by the end of the season), costing us plenty of points. I’ll be sending my email in a few minutes.

  94. Initals BB

    Up till last season the FA have always dealt with comments such as these based on exactly what was said however they, the FA, in effect changed the rules and will now charge the manager based on what they believe is being inferred.
    We can argue till the cows come home what we think he was inferring but he certainly wasn’t offering up his compliments and by sending a video of different games officiated by different referees and stating that Swansea are being singled out ( not Swansea and say Arsenal or say WHU) it may well be viewed he is suggesting something about referees and Swansea.
    Managers will get away about making comments about a specific incident but its a whole different matter when the comments go wider

  95. @C4
    Already done last night, see my previous posts, email sent to Gazidis at
    The more supporters who email Gazidis the more likely we are to initiate some sort of response by the club whose silence on this is deafening.

  96. @ C4 (11:03)

    Spot on! The constant beneficiaries of the “poor officiating” are here to muddy the waters. We should never expect Mike T and his ilk to acknowledge the probability of corruption in the epl, as his oilers are (almost) always advantaged by these shady refs. What I do expect from him/them though, is to not rubbish the hard work done by UA, without putting anything on the table ie. referee reviews.

    I will also be sending and email to Arsenal.

  97. Mike T.

    Yes, I can just see him being charged with what he could have been inferring. Well done you

  98. @apo Armani

    What do they say about pot & kettle.

    There comes with free speech certain responsibilities.

    I have advised caution and of course you are free to ignore those warnings but some of the comments are dangerously close, if they aren’t already, to stepping way over the line.

    The owners and moderators of sites such as this one have responsibilities in law and no doubt will not welcome the need to move away from the freedom to debate which currently exists.

    To think that this site is too small to get noticed would be unwise.

  99. Freedom of expression

    You have the right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

    This includes the right to express your views aloud or through:

    published articles, books or leaflets
    television or radio broadcasting
    works of art
    communication on the internet.


    Although you have the freedom to express your views and beliefs, you have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.

    Public authorities may restrict your right to freedom of expression if they can show that their action has a proper basis in law, and is necessary and ‘proportionate’ in order to:

    protect national security, territorial integrity or public safety
    prevent disorder or crime
    protect health or morals
    protect the rights and reputations of other people
    prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
    maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


  100. @Mike T
    October 21, 2014 at 11:37 am

    You may well be right in that many of us have come close to if not over the line when expressing our opinions.

    There is certainly a fine line – in this point I will agree with you!

  101. @ Alan Gooner (7:28)

    “… everyone here who has suggested inherent bias or the rather more serious corruption at the top as the reason for the serious of poor decisions against us has failed to produce any hard evidence to prove it.”

    – What UA has done is to provide enough information for the authorities start an Investigation. This is all we want. Some people are high on oil if they expect us to show them “money change hands”.

    With their logic, murders will never be investigated unless we all witness all the elements as it happens ie. gun fired, etc.

    We all know this is not the case. A (murder) investigation can be initiated based on just the amount of blood left behind, without a body/corpse.

  102. @apo Armani

    I really enjoy the debate on here and on many occasion we will have to agree to disagree but my word of caution is offered for the best of reasons.

    I have no doubts that people have strong views and indeed suspicions whispering them in private is a whole different matter to posting them on a forum.

    From your last but one post its this bit that is relevant

    Although you have the freedom to express your views and beliefs, you have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights

    Anyways enough of this its time for lunch and then off to SB

  103. @wengerson
    October 21, 2014 at 11:58 am

    As C4 put it “the beneficiaries of “poor officiating” – would certainly like us to sweep all this under a magic carpet (powered by oil)


  104. @Mike T
    October 21, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Yes I take on what you say…but when provocation through controversialist comments are posted, then of course we all have the right be it that we get carried away with ‘certain’ words!!

    Enjoy your lunch!

  105. @ Apo Armani

    They would like to wish UA away, wouldn’t they! I’m also going out for lunch, wish I would also be washing it down with oil…

  106. @Mike/AL

    I have followed through with an email to Arsenal FC, as promised and on the basis of our earlier discussions.

  107. “Where is the hard evidence?”

    Ask the disingenuous ones.

    As Mike Gatting the former England Cricket Captain would say, sacked for arguing with an official, the evidence was and is and always will be upon the field of play. That offical in question would say the same thing, ironically using such simple acceptable and easy to understand logic an excuse for their clear bias on e pitch (it’s a long story, the short of it is that cricket got neutral umpires and replays in the end – job done). Same as it is in Rugby, American Football, Cricket, Field Hockey, athletics etc. and every other sport under the sun, they have all used video replay for a while now.

    Save for Association Football. The worlds richest and most lucrative sport.

    To repeat: there is no rational or reasonable argument that can be used to defend the status quo.

  108. @finsbury
    October 21, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    Quite right…as we have stressed several times here on UA…the PROOF/EVIDENCE is already on VIDEO (hundreds of them).

    And we here base our arguments based on what we have seen live/TV/Video – as does the rest of the world.

    In-fact we have more tangible evidence then most defending lawyers have when defending other crimes!

    Should an enquiry be launched, and archives of blatant unfair decision gathered…there would be no arguments and plenty would need to be accounting for their actions!

  109. Mike T
    October 20, 2014 at 11:59 am

    I have not read all the comments, but Koscelny was red carded for holding in the box. So, this is not a precedent. An official who appears to be balanced can very easily satisfy an agenda with a single decision.

  110. I watched the interview, and to be honest, I don’t see what the big deal is. Just another attempt to paint AW in a bad light. Did he really do or say anything wrong? His points were all perfectly valid. The reporter asked him her questions, and he answered them. Granted, she tried to lead him down the well worn path of “you need a DM and a CB”, but he wasn’t having it, and he let her know as much. Should be the end of it. Just because he shot down her attempts to go down that route, it seems to have disappointed a lot of journalists and fans alike, as this would have provided them with fodder for their favourite pastime: AW bashing. But he refused to give them that fodder, and now the dummies have been spat out. In the absence of the old default stick of “no trophies in x years” the journo’s and “fans” have been yanked out of their comfort zone and are looking for new lazy lines to spout repeatedly. Hence a run of the mill interview has been twisted into a bigger deal than it is, since the reporter failed (or wasn’t allowed) to turn it into a “you need a DM and a CB” frenzy. Much ado about nothing if you ask me. I’m convinced that if this was any other manager being asked identical questions and giving identical answers, it would have faded away much like all the other manager interviews from this weekend did (apart from Mr. Monk).

  111. “Winning purely gives you more satisfaction then cheating to get a result” Gary Monk

    Interesting to also note him saying; “”We fine players for simulation, for surrounding refs, for questioning decisions given in training.

    “So when we follow those rules, but get punished on a weekend, it is hard for me to convince the players to keep following those rules.

    “But I have said to them if we are going to win, we will win properly because you will get more satisfaction out of it…”

  112. The comments here about Arsene not tackling either corruption/collusion, yes I believe to a degree he has given up on it, but I for one am looking forward to reading the book he often mentions possibly writing once he retires from management, I hope he gets it all down!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *