FA are bent

[bigblue]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/mar/01/rio-ferdinand-defends-fa-wayne-rooney

Rio Ferdinand has defended the Football Association's decision not to charge Wayne Rooney following his elbow on James McCarthy at Wigan Athletic on Saturday. The Manchester United defender used Twitter to remind those who think the governing body has a blind spot when it comes to Manchester United that he was banned following a similar incident last season.

Rooney escaped punishment after the referee at the DW Stadium, Mark Clattenburg, said that he had dealt with the incident during the game. Wigan's manager, Roberto Martínez, suggested after the match that had it been one of his players he would have likely been sent off.

Ferdinand was retrospectively charged for striking out at Craig Fagan in January 2010 and given a three-match ban by the FA, which was extended to four games and his appeal was deemed "frivolous". The United defender tweeted: "The FA 'bottle' it with Man utd is all I keep hearing/reading....well you never said they 'bottle' it when I got a 4game ban last season..."

The United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, has already accused the media of targeting Rooney, who is a likely starter in tonight's match against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, over the incident.

Obviously since camel toe was suspended once in his career, the FA aren't biased at all...

[john68]

Sorry lads but just can't agree.
If taggart was the manager of a small time club he would be hammered every time he steps out of line. If the rags were on a par with the likes of Bolton or Wigan, they too would be hammered and I have no doubt that Shrek would have been castrated then hanged in public for his elbow incident.
Sadly, the rags are not the size of Wigan or Bolton and the power they wield is about money. Whether we like it or not, they have become a massive global brand that attracts a global "customer" base that is worth millions of pounds of income to themselves, the FA and the Prem PLC.
They are this countries major financial football asset by a country mile and that is what our administrators want to conserve. Why would they do anything to harm the hand that feeds them? Their fear is a fear of loss of income and power and these turkeys will never vote for Xmas.

I keep referring to Rugby league, a smaller sport but a mirrir image of football on a much smaller scale. A few seasons ago, Wigan (RL's biggest club) were in danger of relegation. The RFL (ruling body) actually made an offer to the clubs in the lower division: That if they were relegated, the RFL would pay them a very large sum of money, if they chose not to be promoted to Superleague. Like the FA and Prem Plc, the RFL were frightened to death of losing or damaging their prize asset and money earner.

I will predict that when taggart retires, should the rags fall, as they did shortly after busby moved on, our own administrators will move Heaven, Earth, several other planets to keep them in the prem....and a few reffing decisions (where necessary) will be all part of it....Wait for it...you heard it here.
FOOTBALL IS AS BENT AS THE POWERS THAT RUN OUR GAME NEED IT TO BE.

[Ted Hughes]

Can someone explain how ellbowing somebody in the side of the head is not a red card offence?

That's the crux of this matter.

It's not that the FA have refused to take action, it's not that Clattenburg has missed the incident, those are red heerrings, it's purely down to the fact that Clattenburgs been asked to look at it again, has done so, & he says he took the correct action.

So, if we're being neutral here for a moment & giving him the benefit of the doubt, what particular rule is Clattenburg applying, when he says he took the correct action? Seriously. Bias apart. I can't think of any circumstance that it shouldn't be a red card other than if he thinks it was accidental.

Can anyone see a case for that being accidental? If so, should Rooney be allowed to look after children, if he's prone to accidentally lashing out at right angles with an elbow? What if they're playing in the garden then 'smack' ; poor kid's in hospital.

[Beefymcfc]

Can someone explain how ellbowing somebody in the side of the head is not a red card offence?

That's the crux of this matter.

It's not that the FA have refused to take action, it's not that Clattenburg has missed the incident, those are red heerrings, it's purely down to the fact that Clattenburgs been asked to look at it again, has done so, & he says he took the correct action.

So, if we're being neutral here for a moment & giving him the benefit of the doubt, what particular rule is Clattenburg applying, when he says he took the correct action? Seriously. Bias apart. I can't think of any circumstance that it shouldn't be a red card other than if he thinks it was accidental.

Can anyone see a case for that being accidental? If so, should Rooney be allowed to look after children, if he's prone to accidentally lashing out at right angles with an elbow? What if they're playing in the garden then 'smack' ; poor kid's in hospital.

The only thing we need to know is that players up and down the country can now elbow opposition players while telling the ref to 'Fuck Off' without any reprisal from the authorities.

That's the correct reading isn't it?

[ENIAM NAM]

It get worse!!!

Just been on SSN - James McCarthey has been banned for 3 games for headbutting Rooney's elbow!

[Beefymcfc]

It get worse!!!

Just been on SSN - James McCarthey has been banned for 3 games for headbutting Rooney's elbow!

And a 5 match ban for not falling over and writhing like a Twat, sorrry, like Nani!

[Ted Hughes]

Can someone explain how ellbowing somebody in the side of the head is not a red card offence?

That's the crux of this matter.

It's not that the FA have refused to take action, it's not that Clattenburg has missed the incident, those are red heerrings, it's purely down to the fact that Clattenburgs been asked to look at it again, has done so, & he says he took the correct action.

So, if we're being neutral here for a moment & giving him the benefit of the doubt, what particular rule is Clattenburg applying, when he says he took the correct action? Seriously. Bias apart. I can't think of any circumstance that it shouldn't be a red card other than if he thinks it was accidental.

Can anyone see a case for that being accidental? If so, should Rooney be allowed to look after children, if he's prone to accidentally lashing out at right angles with an elbow? What if they're playing in the garden then 'smack' ; poor kid's in hospital.

The only thing we need to know is that players up and down the country can now elbow opposition players while telling the ref to 'Fuck Off' without any reprisal from the authorities.

That's the correct reading isn't it?

But we all know that someone like, for instance, Balotelli will be sent off immediately by the same ref, if he even just looks a bit like he's thinking about elbowing somebody. So, how can that ref be taken seriously as a competent arbiter of the rules? When he sends someone else off for that offence, which he will at some point, it will be obvious to everybody that he's bent.

Imo his position is untenable.

Considering the size of the football business, the standard of people running the show worldwide must be of the lowest calibre of any industry. I bet those chicken farmers that took over Blackburn are shocked by the kind of idiots they now have to deal with & say things like: "this would never happen in the chicken game" etc when discussing it.

[aladdinblue]

The whole of football is scared of Ferguson. The BBC won't take him on, the referees (Clattenberg, 7 minutes injury time, Spurs over the line goal and Gomes shambles etc etc etc.), the journalists won't rock the boat.

I believe he exhibits genuine psychopathic traits that implore people to submit and do what he wishes. These traits are in many bullies and have wreaked havoc through history. After all these years it is so obvious that he has undermined fair play. It is why their success is hollow in comparison to the Busby era.

When will you begin to understand that they are not afraid of the rags...It is about profile and profit. The FA and the prem are corporate bodies. Their aim is to maximise profile and profit. Bent or otherwise, the rags are their biggest global asset. Why would they want to harm the club that has the biggest global profile and brings in the most profit for them?

It really is as simple as that.

Fair enough, but I fail to see what actual harm could be done to their profile and profit by dealing with it fairly. A red card is what he deserved and that's what he should have got. Rooney's a single player on a team which could well be judged as important to the FA and the Prem for all the reasons you've mentioned, but he's not the sole profile and profit. If the team are big enough globally, which the rags are, then they can take being without Rooney for 3 games and so can the FA/Prem xx

[john68]

@ Aladdin,
The reason the administrators get away with all this shite is simply because they view football as a business. Once you accept that and get onto their wavelength, then it becomes crystal clear.
To the fans, Rooney is a player. To them, he is a extremely marketable asset. He personally has a huge global profile and his face, as ugly as it may be, sells stuff.
The rags may well get along fine without him for 3 games but our administrators don't even have to take the risk when they don't have to. Apart from a few headlines and the footie forums going up in smoke, they know they are safe in their ivory towers and by tomorrow, the headlines will be wrapped around someone's chips. They really couldn't give a flying fuck about justice, the morals of our game....It is all about money, self interest and power....and within our game they are powerful men.

Just take a look at some of the absolutely bizarre decisions they have made and ask yourself...Was it in the interest of the game?
When you regularly find you answer no, then ask yourself, In whos interest was it?

[aladdinblue]

@ Aladdin,
The reason the administrators get away with all this shite is simply because they view football as a business. Once you accept that and get onto their wavelength, then it becomes crystal clear.
To the fans, Rooney is a player. To them, he is a extremely marketable asset. He personally has a huge global profile and his face, as ugly as it may be, sells stuff.
The rags may well get along fine without him for 3 games but our administrators don't even have to take the risk when they don't have to. Apart from a few headlines and the footie forums going up in smoke, they know they are safe in their ivory towers and by tomorrow, the headlines will be wrapped around someone's chips. They really couldn't give a flying fuck about justice, the morals of our game....It is all about money, self interest and power....and within our game they are powerful men.

Just take a look at some of the absolutely bizarre decisions they have made and ask yourself...Was it in the interest of the game?
When you regularly find you answer no, then ask yourself, In whos interest was it?

Hi John - football in general is a huge business so I'm not disputing what you've said regarding the administrators, but if getting on their wavelength means that we just shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, what can you do?" then we're all guilty of collusion. Nothing said in the forums or any number of banner headlines in the press will change things at a gallop - I'm not so naive to think it will. As you say, tomorrow's headlines will be wrapped around someone else's chips and the FA/Prem will see that they got away with something again. It doesn't make it right, though, and it's through people voicing their disapproval as loud and as long as possible at such blantantly biased judgements that the bigwigs may have to start looking over their shoulders. I, for one, am all for calling "Foul!" when I see it, regardless of how big and powerful these administrators are. As a footnote, I also just wonder if Rooney's global profile would be so huge if he played for a different team? If he played for Everton or West Ham I doubt his face would be seen nearly so often and it certainly wouldn't sell much by comparison. So I'm sticking by what I said, that I feel it's the team that is the true marketable asset for the administrators. If it isn't then the whole exercise should have collapsed when they sold Ronaldo, because he must have been more marketable for them on more fronts than Rooney is. In fact I wonder how Fergie had the temerity to sell him on? The administrators must have been choking on their cornflakes that day! xx

[john68]

I suggested getting on their wavelength, solely to allow you greater understanding of their mentality. certainly not to agree with them. But awareness is a start. With regard to being complicit in this, It would take a huge effort to change anything and I doubt if you could mobilise the support in the right places that you would need.
I spent many years of my life fighting for justice and fairness and all I and people like me really achieved was a gallant rearguard action as we were pushed backwards and became increasingly frustrated and angry.
I never said that Rooney's marketability was permanent. His star will wain and someone else will replace him. being a rag player gives him that position now but that will change, as it always has. Individuals get picked up, used then dropped as they cease to be useful.
Taggart only sold the trannie on because of financial reasons. Remember that the deal was made 12 months previously....and sadly not enough of the bastards choked on their cornflakes.

Do you think that our esteemed Sheik actually bought City for football reasons? If you read his earliest statements, City are part of a grand plan to create a global brand, from which the ADUG Group can market other things.

As for fearing the rags...Don't believe it. The likes of Blatter deal with bigger and better crooks than those at the swamp on a daily basis. They don't fear them, they simply ride on their backs and use them. Should the rags vapourise, their loyalty will simply transfer elsewhere....maybe...in a few years...it could be City.