The mancityfans.net football forum

The annoying thing is there is no consistency. As mentioned toilet brushs elbows must be black and blue by now.

I’m going to put this out there and I know it’s going against the grain of being paranoid and a blinkered supporter and all that.

But is it just possible that Aguero is going to miss the Derby because he is actually clear as day guilty of trying to elbow an opponent in the face and is a rather stupid boy for doing something that would endanger his participation in the biggest game of our domestic season?

I know that isn’t going to sit well with those who look for a conspiracy theory in everything or those who are convinced the whole world is against us but some food for thought.

Just out of interest, why would Sky who are currently losing a battle between another commercial broadcaster which in turn may even jeopardize the entire channels future campaign to have the best player removed from its biggest domestic game this season? Or are they willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good that is this world conspiracy against City?

ross.mcfc wrote:I’m going to put this out there and I know it’s going against the grain of being paranoid and a blinkered supporter and all that.

But is it just possible that Aguero is going to miss the Derby because he is actually clear as day guilty of trying to elbow an opponent in the face and is a rather stupid boy for doing something that would endanger his participation in the biggest game of our domestic season?

I know that isn’t going to sit well with those who look for a conspiracy theory in everything or those who are convinced the whole world is against us but some food for thought.

Just out of interest, why would Sky who are currently losing a battle between another commercial broadcaster which in turn may even jeopardize the entire channels future campaign to have the best player removed from its biggest domestic game this season? Or are they willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good that is this world conspiracy against City?

Kun was stupid and can only blame himself for losing his temper and doing what he did.
But he didn't elbow anyone which is probably why the ref didn't give anything. And the ref, who did see it of that I have no doubt at all, decides to say he didn't see it even though he did.

The ref has had more than 24 hours to make that decision during which time he has constantly seen the replay of the incident and heard all the clamour to get a suspension for Kun. For me he must have felt it best for him to say he didn't see it.

Heyho we play the derby without him but if he has a little bit of a calf problem he needs a few weeks rest anyway.

Kun deserved it. I am not pleased, but that's how it is. Are decisions in this area now so inconsistent?

We are not talking about inconsistent referring about grabbing or holding in the box, or arguing with refs as I can see why that's not seen in the same category, I think. Swinging your elbow near someone's face is completely outside of the realm of what is "expected" as a footballer and they have been going after players as such rectroactively.

I could be wrong, but recently has their been anyone that has gotten away with similarly violent behaviour?

Costa? He was finally banned last season. The things he has done this season should have been punished, yes, but Sergio's, or Costa's stamps on players' chests or whatever other crazy things he's done were retaliation outside of the scope of something like a malicious or reckless tackle so it cannot be defended as possibly "within the game."

Did Marriner actually see it? Probably, but I can see why and am generally in support of finding ways to punish players for this type of thing, and get why the FA/Premier League want it out of the game entirely with today's global audience watching now.

I know there are plenty who hate us and want to see us suffer, and perhaps they did all they could to make it happen, but I think it was bound to happen anyway.

PrezIke wrote:Kun deserved it. I am not pleased, but that's how it is. Are decisions in this area now so inconsistent?

We are not talking about inconsistent referring about grabbing or holding in the box, or arguing with refs as I can see why that's not seen in the same category, I think. Swinging your elbow near someone's face is completely outside of the realm of what is "expected" as a footballer and they have been going after players as such rectroactively.

I could be wrong, but recently has their been anyone that has gotten away with similarly violent behaviour?

Costa? He was finally banned last season. The things he has done this season should have been punished, yes, but Sergio's, or Costa's stamps on players' chests or whatever other crazy things he's done were retaliation outside of the scope of something like a malicious or reckless tackle so it cannot be defended as possibly "within the game."

Did Marriner actually see it? Probably, but I can see why and am generally in support of finding ways to punish players for this type of thing, and get why the FA/Premier League want it out of the game entirely with today's global audience watching now.

I know there are plenty who hate us and want to see us suffer, and perhaps they did all they could to make it happen, but I think it was bound to happen anyway.

So you are happy with "trial by SKY" despite the ref clearly seeing the incident THEN the FA citing he (the ref) didn't see it when endless tv footage shows perfectly clearly that the ref did take a hard long look at the alleged incident ! This is clearly a stitch up before a huge derby match .

It was 5 yards from the ref's face. If he can't see that, then he shouldn't be a ref in a sunday league yet along a professional one. Bent

City64 wrote:

PrezIke wrote:Kun deserved it. I am not pleased, but that's how it is. Are decisions in this area now so inconsistent?

We are not talking about inconsistent referring about grabbing or holding in the box, or arguing with refs as I can see why that's not seen in the same category, I think. Swinging your elbow near someone's face is completely outside of the realm of what is "expected" as a footballer and they have been going after players as such rectroactively.

I could be wrong, but recently has their been anyone that has gotten away with similarly violent behaviour?

Costa? He was finally banned last season. The things he has done this season should have been punished, yes, but Sergio's, or Costa's stamps on players' chests or whatever other crazy things he's done were retaliation outside of the scope of something like a malicious or reckless tackle so it cannot be defended as possibly "within the game."

Did Marriner actually see it? Probably, but I can see why and am generally in support of finding ways to punish players for this type of thing, and get why the FA/Premier League want it out of the game entirely with today's global audience watching now.

I know there are plenty who hate us and want to see us suffer, and perhaps they did all they could to make it happen, but I think it was bound to happen anyway.

So you are happy with "trial by SKY" despite the ref clearly seeing the incident THEN the FA citing he (the ref) didn't see it when endless tv footage shows perfectly clearly that the ref did take a hard long look at the alleged incident ! This is clearly a stitch up before a huge derby match .

Of course I'm not at all pleased with what the SKY and BBC pundits have been trying to do. However, that does not take away from the actual fact of what transpired.

There is a history of mistreatment and inconsistent handing out of punishments, I am aware, but I there are different kinds of inconsistencies. Incidents that are in the scope of the game (tackles/set piece behaviours), and ones that are not (like this one) and we are in a different era where I suspect the FA/PL wants that out of the game regardless of what club does them. If we see another player on another team do the same thing and get away with it, then I will concede, but Costa and Fellani, I forgot both have been banned for similar behaviour last season.

My point is we are searching for loop holes in the rules to help when this isn't a real court trial, it is a court of public opinion. Not everyone is ruled by SKY and BBC, as I already had made a decision before this media campaign was even discussed. I haven't even seen or read a single SKY or BBC report on this in part because I am in a different country and continent and think Aguero should be banned as well if I take my blue tinted shades off.

However, it would be naive to suggest that a potential media campaign against us is not going to have an impact, but I also was watching the game, and even wrote a comment about it as it happened in the game thread that was of concern about what Kun did.

That was before any of the agenda oriented media outlets had said a thing and I was immediately thinking he would be banned.

michaelcityfan wrote:I thought sky own 10% of manure therefore is it possible they can comment impartially can we or the club complain to the broadcasting standards commission about their attempt to influence news than than report it?

Why does anyone think Sky should be impartial?

Sky is a commercial organisation. Their aim is to make money and they do that by a) stirring up controversy, whether there is cause to or not, just to get people agitated, talking and coming back for more; and b) pandering to the biggest markets - United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea. As regards Quinn, the token City pundit, I'm reminded of sister company Fox News's token Liberal, there merely to put forward his apparently own view but really just to represent Fox News's view of whatever 'Liberal' argument they want to attack. Sky Sports is part of the Murdoch sewer (as indeed is talkSPORT now) and just as odious as Fox News.

So, who has cancelled their Sky Sports subscription this week?

As regards Aguero, it looked to me like there was intent (frustration) there, it was right in front of the referee and the referee was looking towards the incident, so amazed that he reported that he didn't see it. Anyway, probably worthy of a red card then and there or retrospectively. I hope the FA show consistency the rest of this season.

We'll trash the vermin anyway. Iheanacho to get a hat-trick.

ross.mcfc wrote:But is it just possible that Aguero is going to miss the Derby because he is actually clear as day guilty of trying to elbow an opponent in the face and is a rather stupid boy for doing something that would endanger his participation in the biggest game of our domestic season?

i would hope our players treat every game as the biggest of the season. the derby is great for the fans but pep is doing god's work week in and week out.

Wow ross, you sound like a lad who used to post similar sarcastic shit on here.

Instead of trying to provoke those of us who are pointing to the inconsistency and the fact that the ref definitely saw the incident, why don't you tell us why this is perfectly acceptable and why bog brush gets away with worse?

This isn't about a linesman missing something in real time.
In each case the referees have studied footage.

It is bent at worst and incompetent at best.

You believe it's neither?

Original Dub wrote:Wow ross, you sound like a lad who used to post similar sarcastic shit on here.

Instead of trying to provoke those of us who are pointing to the inconsistency and the fact that the ref definitely saw the incident, why don't you tell us why this is perfectly acceptable and why bog brush gets away with worse?

This isn't about a linesman missing something in real time.
In each case the referees have studied footage.

It is bent at worst and incompetent at best.

You believe it's neither?

Ronan as the saying states "The truth is out there" Shame is we will never see that truth because too many fans are blinkered and will just do sky's job for them and tell us black is white.

PrezIke wrote:

City64 wrote:

PrezIke wrote:Kun deserved it. I am not pleased, but that's how it is. Are decisions in this area now so inconsistent?

We are not talking about inconsistent referring about grabbing or holding in the box, or arguing with refs as I can see why that's not seen in the same category, I think. Swinging your elbow near someone's face is completely outside of the realm of what is "expected" as a footballer and they have been going after players as such rectroactively.

I could be wrong, but recently has their been anyone that has gotten away with similarly violent behaviour?

Costa? He was finally banned last season. The things he has done this season should have been punished, yes, but Sergio's, or Costa's stamps on players' chests or whatever other crazy things he's done were retaliation outside of the scope of something like a malicious or reckless tackle so it cannot be defended as possibly "within the game."

Did Marriner actually see it? Probably, but I can see why and am generally in support of finding ways to punish players for this type of thing, and get why the FA/Premier League want it out of the game entirely with today's global audience watching now.

I know there are plenty who hate us and want to see us suffer, and perhaps they did all they could to make it happen, but I think it was bound to happen anyway.

So you are happy with "trial by SKY" despite the ref clearly seeing the incident THEN the FA citing he (the ref) didn't see it when endless tv footage shows perfectly clearly that the ref did take a hard long look at the alleged incident ! This is clearly a stitch up before a huge derby match .

Of course I'm not at all pleased with what the SKY and BBC pundits have been trying to do. However, that does not take away from the actual fact of what transpired.

There is a history of mistreatment and inconsistent handing out of punishments, I am aware, but I there are different kinds of inconsistencies. Incidents that are in the scope of the game (tackles/set piece behaviours), and ones that are not (like this one) and we are in a different era where I suspect the FA/PL wants that out of the game regardless of what club does them. If we see another player on another team do the same thing and get away with it, then I will concede, but Costa and Fellani, I forgot both have been banned for similar behaviour last season.

My point is we are searching for loop holes in the rules to help when this isn't a real court trial, it is a court of public opinion. Not everyone is ruled by SKY and BBC, as I already had made a decision before this media campaign was even discussed. I haven't even seen or read a single SKY or BBC report on this in part because I am in a different country and continent and think Aguero should be banned as well if I take my blue tinted shades off.

However, it would be naive to suggest that a potential media campaign against us is not going to have an impact, but I also was watching the game, and even wrote a comment about it as it happened in the game thread that was of concern about what Kun did.

That was before any of the agenda oriented media outlets had said a thing and I was immediately thinking he would be banned.

But the whole point of the matter in which Manchester City FC have been stitched up before a ball has been kicked in the forth coming derby is this incident WAS clearly seen by the ref which the whole world can see through clear tv footage as he was only 5 meters away BUT the FA are lying and perverting the court of football law by citing he (the ref) DIDN,T see it ! SKY and Nial fucking Quinn and Jamie Rednapp were judge and jury then SKY the very next morning put together edited lies and footage to substantiate there kangaroo court AGENDA . Felliani and Rooney get away with far worse week in week out and SKY simply don't highlight it and edit it to suit so it doesn't get into the public domain . It is the whole AGENDA issue I am putting out there and this issue stinks of corruptness FIFA and UEFA style big time .

City64 wrote:

PrezIke wrote:Kun deserved it. I am not pleased, but that's how it is. Are decisions in this area now so inconsistent?

We are not talking about inconsistent referring about grabbing or holding in the box, or arguing with refs as I can see why that's not seen in the same category, I think. Swinging your elbow near someone's face is completely outside of the realm of what is "expected" as a footballer and they have been going after players as such rectroactively.

I could be wrong, but recently has their been anyone that has gotten away with similarly violent behaviour?

Costa? He was finally banned last season. The things he has done this season should have been punished, yes, but Sergio's, or Costa's stamps on players' chests or whatever other crazy things he's done were retaliation outside of the scope of something like a malicious or reckless tackle so it cannot be defended as possibly "within the game."

Did Marriner actually see it? Probably, but I can see why and am generally in support of finding ways to punish players for this type of thing, and get why the FA/Premier League want it out of the game entirely with today's global audience watching now.

I know there are plenty who hate us and want to see us suffer, and perhaps they did all they could to make it happen, but I think it was bound to happen anyway.

So you are happy with "trial by SKY" despite the ref clearly seeing the incident THEN the FA citing he (the ref) didn't see it when endless tv footage shows perfectly clearly that the ref did take a hard long look at the alleged incident ! This is clearly a stitch up before a huge derby match .

Trial by Sky yet again. Can't help remember the Mario "Stamp", on a Spurs player if my memory serves me well. Arse wipe Sky did exactly the same

Shows all these fucktard are getting worried again.

Serg will no doubt get a ban, would love Ian to bag a hatrick with a goal as brilliant as he scored against the rags when playing for the EDS a couple of seasons back

Oh my god it's clear the media heavily influenced this decision. Clear as gin. Trial by TV.

Clear as day.
Yet there's still some out there admiring the King's clothes.

Mind boggling.

As it goes, he would likely miss the Derby anyway. The fact he had now been charged and thus likeky banned wont neccesarily affect us hugely. However when other players get trial by Sky and media it will interesting to see how their punishments pan out.

nottsblue wrote:As it goes, he would likely miss the Derby anyway. The fact he had now been charged and thus likeky banned wont neccesarily affect us hugely. However when other players get trial by Sky and media it will interesting to see how their punishments pan out.

,
The fact of the matter is we Manchester City FC are the rags biggest threat this season . SKY and the FA have clearly made the most of a situation to influence the result of a forth coming global block buster of a game AND as we all know from previous title winning campaigns where in 2012 the rags were our main challengers and in 2014 the dippers were our challengers ........ lots of issues instigated by SKY , the FA and very dodgy refereeing decisions were in place to stop us succeeding . Now this at this early stage of the season with the derby almost upon us .

City64 wrote:

nottsblue wrote:As it goes, he would likely miss the Derby anyway. The fact he had now been charged and thus likeky banned wont neccesarily affect us hugely. However when other players get trial by Sky and media it will interesting to see how their punishments pan out.

,
The fact of the matter is we Manchester City FC are the rags biggest threat this season . SKY and the FA have clearly made the most of a situation to influence the result of a forth coming global block buster of a game AND as we all know from previous title winning campaigns where in 2012 the rags were our main challengers and in 2014 the dippers were our challengers ........ lots of issues instigated by SKY , the FA and very dodgy refereeing decisions were in place to stop us succeeding . Now this at this early stage of the season with the derby almost upon us .

I fully agree its a disgrace. But it may well bite the FA/Sky later on in the season when Shrek or Bogbrush or Zlatan fall foul of the rules and they have to ban a rag because the precedent has been set with Kun

Ahh fuck it! Nacho man will do em anyway! Pricks!

nottsblue wrote:

City64 wrote:

nottsblue wrote:As it goes, he would likely miss the Derby anyway. The fact he had now been charged and thus likeky banned wont neccesarily affect us hugely. However when other players get trial by Sky and media it will interesting to see how their punishments pan out.

,
The fact of the matter is we Manchester City FC are the rags biggest threat this season . SKY and the FA have clearly made the most of a situation to influence the result of a forth coming global block buster of a game AND as we all know from previous title winning campaigns where in 2012 the rags were our main challengers and in 2014 the dippers were our challengers ........ lots of issues instigated by SKY , the FA and very dodgy refereeing decisions were in place to stop us succeeding . Now this at this early stage of the season with the derby almost upon us .

I fully agree its a disgrace. But it may well bite the FA/Sky later on in the season when Shrek or Bogbrush or Zlatan fall foul of the rules and they have to ban a rag because the precedent has been set with Kun

And if he's genuinely injured, then no better time.
More pressure on the rags to beat us without him too.
Just looking for a Silva lining to all this.