The mancityfans.net football forum

We were unlucky not to win it, lucky not to lose it.

@Saul Goodman, come on fella, surely you can appreciate that your conclusion about us being the lucky ones in a game packed with instances that could be construed as luck for both sides will wind people up.

You're on a City forum, now I'm not saying you should wear blue tints and interpret things all one way but I would expect a leaning towards City at the very least.

We were playing against one of Sky's favs at a Sky gig with the ref and a Lino doing there upmost to get the right result . We "missed" several clear cut chances and still didn't lose ! Result !

Saul Goodman wrote:

Original Dub wrote:No, I don't get your opinion on this at all saul goodman.

Include the fact that we should have had a penalty and they would have been down to ten men and you could all but guarantee a hiding after that

Well you dont understand my opinion and I don't understand yours. Guess that's that.

And there you go again with hypotheticals. Shoudlve had a penalty. Wouldve been a hiding.
My post clearly and plainly stated based on what happened on the pitch. On the pitch the penalty wasnt given. On the pitch they had 11 men.

Hold on one second.
Are you saying Sterling wasn't upended in the box by James Milner? Are you saying that didn't "happen on the pitch".

Would you agree that Livepool were very, very lucky not to be down to ten men and one nil down?

Original Dub wrote:

Saul Goodman wrote:

Original Dub wrote:No, I don't get your opinion on this at all saul goodman.

Include the fact that we should have had a penalty and they would have been down to ten men and you could all but guarantee a hiding after that

Well you dont understand my opinion and I don't understand yours. Guess that's that.

And there you go again with hypotheticals. Shoudlve had a penalty. Wouldve been a hiding.
My post clearly and plainly stated based on what happened on the pitch. On the pitch the penalty wasnt given. On the pitch they had 11 men.

Hold on one second.
Are you saying Sterling wasn't upended in the box by James Milner? Are you saying that didn't "happen on the pitch".

Would you agree that Livepool were very, very lucky not to be down to ten men and one nil down?

It is not inconsistent to say "Livepool were very, very lucky not to be down to ten men and have a penalty against them" (as there was no guarantee that we would have scored from the penalty) and to say that City were lucky that Lallana didn't score that tap in (as the game was 1-1 at the time so Liverpool could have gone on to win).

It would also not be inconsistent to say that Aguero could have won the game for us with the type of goal he normally scores, nor to say that if Aguero hadn't stumbled he could have put us 2-1 up earlier in the game.

If it didn't happen, it didn't happen and the game was as it was. It is only what-ifs right at the end of a game that could definitely change the outcome of a game. (Anyone remember that game, must have been in the latter half of the 70s, where City had the ball in the net, from a corner as I remember, but the ref blew the whistle just before it had gone in? See, they've been against us for decades!)

But perhaps a bit naughty of SG to pick out that one Liverpool chance to say that we were lucky not to lose.

Justified logic wrote:

Original Dub wrote:

Saul Goodman wrote:

Original Dub wrote:No, I don't get your opinion on this at all saul goodman.

Include the fact that we should have had a penalty and they would have been down to ten men and you could all but guarantee a hiding after that

Well you dont understand my opinion and I don't understand yours. Guess that's that.

And there you go again with hypotheticals. Shoudlve had a penalty. Wouldve been a hiding.
My post clearly and plainly stated based on what happened on the pitch. On the pitch the penalty wasnt given. On the pitch they had 11 men.

Hold on one second.
Are you saying Sterling wasn't upended in the box by James Milner? Are you saying that didn't "happen on the pitch".

Would you agree that Livepool were very, very lucky not to be down to ten men and one nil down?

It is not inconsistent to say "Livepool were very, very lucky not to be down to ten men and have a penalty against them" (as there was no guarantee that we would have scored from the penalty) and to say that City were lucky that Lallana didn't score that tap in (as the game was 1-1 at the time so Liverpool could have gone on to win).

It would also not be inconsistent to say that Aguero could have won the game for us with the type of goal he normally scores, nor to say that if Aguero hadn't stumbled he could have put us 2-1 up earlier in the game.

If it didn't happen, it didn't happen and the game was as it was. It is only what-ifs right at the end of a game that could definitely change the outcome of a game. (Anyone remember that game, must have been in the latter half of the 70s, where City had the ball in the net, from a corner as I remember, but the ref blew the whistle just before it had gone in? See, they've been against us for decades!)

But perhaps a bit naughty of SG to pick out that one Liverpool chance to say that we were lucky not to lose.

But Sky and the FA and PIGMOL decided that ONLY Liverpool could win the game before a ball was even kicked ? The cunts then charge us with a fake trumped up MCFC player revolt to claw some cash back after somehow Liverpool didn't win . I guess it is easy for folk living on the other side of the world and not akin to the blatant corruption in the PL to say Liverpool should have won because it was put on a plate for them to win but the scouse cunts fucked up the plot ........ or maybe City despite the odds almost pulled off a miracle ?

City64 you may not be completely on the money, but you have a fair point when it comes to experience of watching the premier league, whether it's a foreign fan or not.

I wasn't always banging on about unfair officiating because the only part of the bias that stuck out to me was the obvious leaning towards united and at the time, it never really directly affected us because they were on a different level. It was sickening of course, but we had bigger fish to fry with relegation, promotion, relegation etc...

Anyway, watching Sky begin to mould the "Big Four" was the sickening and watching them lose the chasing pack as a result of this was so disheartening at the time, but it was the takeover that cemented everything.
The rules were not spread evenly after that and they have gotten so far beyond disgraceful that it's now impossible to hide, but they don't mind because they don't need to hide it anymore. The big four is gone - obliterated by little old city and now the full mission is to push us back as much as ppossible.
I don't know a good enough reason for this - new money? racism? the fear of change? Maybe a bit of everything... but the fact is that we play by different rules.
Soon we will have ten years of video evidence to look at.

If anyone can tell me that the games in which the officials directly took the result away from us is the same (or even 25%?!) as those handed to us by officials in that time, then I will say there is no bias.

If I'm right and the last ten years has seen us unfairly officiated for the majority of that time, then we have a big, stinking problem that won't go away by just ignoring it.

Taking all of the above on board, how is some new fan that comes along in the last 2 or 3 years going to know what is really happening?
They won't. And I don't expect them to. But what I won't take is these new guys calling us paranoid or conspiracy theorists.

It's like a kid calling you a sceptical old cunt because you're trying to explain to him that Santa isn't real.

Original Dub wrote:City64 you may not be completely on the money, but you have a fair point when it comes to experience of watching the premier league, whether it's a foreign fan or not.

I wasn't always banging on about unfair officiating because the only part of the bias that stuck out to me was the obvious leaning towards united and at the time, it never really directly affected us because they were on a different level. It was sickening of course, but we had bigger fish to fry with relegation, promotion, relegation etc...

Anyway, watching Sky begin to mould the "Big Four" was the sickening and watching them lose the chasing pack as a result of this was so disheartening at the time, but it was the takeover that cemented everything.
The rules were not spread evenly after that and they have gotten so far beyond disgraceful that it's now impossible to hide, but they don't mind because they don't need to hide it anymore. The big four is gone - obliterated by little old city and now the full mission is to push us back as much as ppossible.
I don't know a good enough reason for this - new money? racism? the fear of change? Maybe a bit of everything... but the fact is that we play by different rules.
Soon we will have ten years of video evidence to look at.

If anyone can tell me that the games in which the officials directly took the result away from us is the same (or even 25%?!) as those handed to us by officials in that time, then I will say there is no bias.

If I'm right and the last ten years has seen us unfairly officiated for the majority of that time, then we have a big, stinking problem that won't go away by just ignoring it.

Taking all of the above on board, how is some new fan that comes along in the last 2 or 3 years going to know what is really happening?
They won't. And I don't expect them to. But what I won't take is these new guys calling us paranoid or conspiracy theorists.

It's like a kid calling you a sceptical old cunt because you're trying to explain to him that Santa isn't real.

Fair points OD and the TRUTH is in there somewhere . Don't know if you go on twitter but plenty of blues have latched onto Gill with his dual role in the FA and the rags . Again global posters and global fans don't see the real picture IMHO

Original Dub wrote:City64 you may not be completely on the money, but you have a fair point when it comes to experience of watching the premier league, whether it's a foreign fan or not.

I wasn't always banging on about unfair officiating because the only part of the bias that stuck out to me was the obvious leaning towards united and at the time, it never really directly affected us because they were on a different level. It was sickening of course, but we had bigger fish to fry with relegation, promotion, relegation etc...

Anyway, watching Sky begin to mould the "Big Four" was the sickening and watching them lose the chasing pack as a result of this was so disheartening at the time, but it was the takeover that cemented everything.
The rules were not spread evenly after that and they have gotten so far beyond disgraceful that it's now impossible to hide, but they don't mind because they don't need to hide it anymore. The big four is gone - obliterated by little old city and now the full mission is to push us back as much as ppossible.
I don't know a good enough reason for this - new money? racism? the fear of change? Maybe a bit of everything... but the fact is that we play by different rules.
Soon we will have ten years of video evidence to look at.

If anyone can tell me that the games in which the officials directly took the result away from us is the same (or even 25%?!) as those handed to us by officials in that time, then I will say there is no bias.

If I'm right and the last ten years has seen us unfairly officiated for the majority of that time, then we have a big, stinking problem that won't go away by just ignoring it.

Taking all of the above on board, how is some new fan that comes along in the last 2 or 3 years going to know what is really happening?
They won't. And I don't expect them to. But what I won't take is these new guys calling us paranoid or conspiracy theorists.

It's like a kid calling you a sceptical old cunt because you're trying to explain to him that Santa isn't real.

What's this you're saying about Santa?

City64 wrote:I guess it is easy for folk living on the other side of the world and not akin to the blatant corruption in the PL to say Liverpool should have won because it was put on a plate for them to win but the scouse cunts fucked up the plot ........ or maybe City despite the odds almost pulled off a miracle ?

I don't think where you are has got a great deal to do with it, mate. You see what is in front of you and you interpret it your own way. For me, there has been only one way to interpret it for many years, basically from alf gray onwards. I tell whoever will listen (not that many, to be fair) that the Premier League is corrupt from top to bottom and has been since the name change. Maybe fans new to the game or with a perspective different from mine believe everything martin tyler or ferret-face tell them. That's up to them.

What I do know is that we are a very good team indeed to even be in contention with all the crookedness we have got to deal with. This is why I am not really willing to slag off our players - they do not operate under the same conditions as any other team in the division.

Tokyo Blue wrote:

City64 wrote:I guess it is easy for folk living on the other side of the world and not akin to the blatant corruption in the PL to say Liverpool should have won because it was put on a plate for them to win but the scouse cunts fucked up the plot ........ or maybe City despite the odds almost pulled off a miracle ?

I don't think where you are has got a great deal to do with it, mate. You see what is in front of you and you interpret it your own way. For me, there has been only one way to interpret it for many years, basically from alf gray onwards. I tell whoever will listen (not that many, to be fair) that the Premier League is corrupt from top to bottom and has been since the name change. Maybe fans new to the game or with a perspective different from mine believe everything martin tyler or ferret-face tell them. That's up to them.

What I do know is that we are a very good team indeed to even be in contention with all the crookedness we have got to deal with. This is why I am not really willing to slag off our players - they do not operate under the same conditions as any other team in the division.

In one aspect it does matter. I hardly ever watch Sky or BT, listen to Talkshite, or read British media. That means that I'm spared the worst bias City bashing. Had i have to endure that on top of what i see going on on the pitch, i would probably be as livid as OD.

You'd swear I enjoy being pissed off and ranting about the media and ref bias/corruption/incompetence but I'd love nothing more than for it to rarely crop up.

I know we're finally on the verge of the introduction of video replay assistance after years and years of resistance but it would have come a lot quicker if the media had been screaming about the weird decisions every week. They rarely, if ever did though and I think that tells you all you need to know about the connection between the two machines.

Uefa will roll out their next attack soon. Just watch

Tokyo Blue wrote:

City64 wrote:I guess it is easy for folk living on the other side of the world and not akin to the blatant corruption in the PL to say Liverpool should have won because it was put on a plate for them to win but the scouse cunts fucked up the plot ........ or maybe City despite the odds almost pulled off a miracle ?

I don't think where you are has got a great deal to do with it, mate. You see what is in front of you and you interpret it your own way. For me, there has been only one way to interpret it for many years, basically from alf gray onwards. I tell whoever will listen (not that many, to be fair) that the Premier League is corrupt from top to bottom and has been since the name change. Maybe fans new to the game or with a perspective different from mine believe everything martin tyler or ferret-face tell them. That's up to them.

What I do know is that we are a very good team indeed to even be in contention with all the crookedness we have got to deal with. This is why I am not really willing to slag off our players - they do not operate under the same conditions as any other team in the division.

Good post Tokyo , your always a very knowledgeable and eloquent poster .

Just another thought on the issue and this is on top of the Chelsea game and Spurs game were we all know what controversy happened whilst "live" on tv , I always record games I go to at the Etihad so I can compare the shit Sky or whoever spout about the game I have watched myself with mates live right there with my own eyes . Almost all of the shit which openly went against City v Chelsea was dismissed and later edited after the game as if it didn't happen . The clear pen and red card on Sterling v Spurs not given and dismissed by tv until later that night and the Sky cunts even tried to mug the public off last sunday by claiming the double fouls and stonewall pens on Aguero and Sterling with the net gaping was IMPOSSIBLE to see , yes IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE as if it never happened but the fucking ref was only 5 yards away and clearly saw it .......... WE ALL FUCKING SAW IT 50 YARDS AWAY !!!

This is the shit and corruptness Sky is brainwashing viewers with !

City64 wrote:Just another thought on the issue and this is on top of the Chelsea game and Spurs game were we all know what controversy happened whilst "live" on tv , I always record games I go to at the Etihad so I can compare the shit Sky or whoever spout about the game I have watched myself with mates live right there with my own eyes . Almost all of the shit which openly went against City v Chelsea was dismissed and later edited after the game as if it didn't happen . The clear pen and red card on Sterling v Spurs not given and dismissed by tv until later that night and the Sky cunts even tried to mug the public off last sunday by claiming the double fouls and stonewall pens on Aguero and Sterling with the net gaping was IMPOSSIBLE to see , yes IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE as if it never happened but the fucking ref was only 5 yards away and clearly saw it .......... WE ALL FUCKING SAW IT 50 YARDS AWAY !!!

This is the shit and corruptness Sky is brainwashing viewers with !

Sky are the controllers, the PL are the instigators and PiGMOL are the gate keepers. All tucked up in a cozy little cartel.

Even Rags are seeing how games are being manipulated to suit certain teams, even though they don't like to admit it.

The thought of a bias existing against us is quite insane on the face of it, and at first I was also of the opinion that these crazy decisions are 'strange coincidences'. However, after some time, you cannot ignore what is obvious in front of your face every week. Eventually the giant white elephant in the room has to be pointed out and ultimately addressed.

It has now got to the point where before we play, especially a big game, I am EXPECTING ridiculous decisions to go against us throughout the match.

The vast majority of my thoughts to do with football are now focused on refereeing decisions and the expectation of us having the match stolen from us due to these decisions.

It is extremely sad times that football matches are no longer about the football played.

I never believed there was any agenda until two games at Chelsea, the first against us, in our first title winning season when we were one up and big Dave was denied a clear penalty, then they were given one they shouldn't have, and we had a man sent off.
The second was the next season when the rags miraculously won there, despite getting a hiding.
Now, I realise a lot of it was to do with the Govan pisshead going out on a high, only for us to piss on their fireworks at the first attempt, but it was all so blatant, the wool came straight off of my eyes, and has been off ever since.

patrickblue wrote:I never believed there was any agenda until two games at Chelsea, the first against us, in our first title winning season when we were one up and big Dave was denied a clear penalty, then they were given one they shouldn't have, and we had a man sent off.
The second was the next season when the rags miraculously won there, despite getting a hiding.
Now, I realise a lot of it was to do with the Govan pisshead going out on a high, only for us to piss on their fireworks at the first attempt, but it was all so blatant, the wool came straight off of my eyes, and has been off ever since.

And you hit the root of the problem bang on the nose.

Tokyo Blue wrote:

patrickblue wrote:I never believed there was any agenda until two games at Chelsea, the first against us, in our first title winning season when we were one up and big Dave was denied a clear penalty, then they were given one they shouldn't have, and we had a man sent off.
The second was the next season when the rags miraculously won there, despite getting a hiding.
Now, I realise a lot of it was to do with the Govan pisshead going out on a high, only for us to piss on their fireworks at the first attempt, but it was all so blatant, the wool came straight off of my eyes, and has been off ever since.

And you hit the root of the problem bang on the nose.

Anfield - Skirtl punched the ball away.- Clatenburg 10 yards away watching the only player with a sleeve tattoo win the game for them. They still fucked it up and we have had some piss taking decisions since that day. I watched Oliver last Thursday night he is not only poor, he is a prick with his looking above you into space. How the lino missed Milner a meter behind Sterling, needs an answer, otherwise he is either blind or bent, take yer pick.

There are too many incidents to list off, but some great examples above.

We should have won the league in 2012 by about 14 points. In 2014 we should have won it by about 8. And the thing is, sky repeatedly tell the world that we "barely won either", or that we have "never won it convincingly".

In fact, Sky repeatedly tell the world that we have massively underachieved in the last 6 years. I hear that every second week at least.

They don't like us - for whatever reason. But the propaganda machine not liking you is very, very dangerous and it has cost us trophies.

Foreverinbluedreams wrote:We were unlucky not to win it, lucky not to lose it.

@Saul Goodman, come on fella, surely you can appreciate that your conclusion about us being the lucky ones in a game packed with instances that could be construed as luck for both sides will wind people up.

You're on a City forum, now I'm not saying you should wear blue tints and interpret things all one way but I would expect a leaning towards City at the very least.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence. Thats basically what i was saying.
Aguero had about 5 chances to win it for us. Lallana had his one. All i was saying was that i gauged Lallana's miss to be worse, as in youd expect people to score that chance more times than they would Aguero's chances. Absolutely he couldve scored and it couldve revved up our squad to go score 2 goals in reply. We wont ever know. All i was saying was that i was more breathing a sigh of relief at the 1 point than cursing the 2 that we didnt get.