Open Letter To Mark Clattenburg

[nottsblue]

The game prior he was fine.

If you were wanting me to ask him about being corrupt, at a time when the organisation I work for had paid for him to come out and successfully inspire and educate our crop of referees (who also make bad decisions on a regular basis) then you are mistaken.

Before I interviewed him I also asked dipper, rag, spud and arse friends what to ask him and they too were of the opinion that he didn't favour them. They would bring up specific instances of matches where they were fucked over by him.

Is he corrupt? Maybe. Maybe not. Was that weekend the time to quiz him over it? Hell no. Would I have kept my job if I had of? Hell no. Would it have been worth it? No.

FWIW. If he was well and truly corrupt he would have let the handball (by was it Kane?) go a bit later. He pulled that one up too.

Incompetent, yes. Corrupt, no.

No one can be that incompetent, season after season. There is a very distinct whiff of corruption in the air. Whether it is Clattenburg or people higher up the chain is yet to be uncovered. If he was really just that incompetent and the FA were clean as a whistle he'd have been pulled years ago

[patrickblue]

Does anyone remember the 3-3 draw at Bolton under Hughes? All 3 Bolton goals were at some point the result of officials' action or inaction. Bellamy was hacked down in the penalty area and booked for diving, a second offence for which he was sent off. It was also this match when the ref said to one of our coaches how much he hated Bellamy before the incident. But of course nothing comes of it.

My belief is that ref was Clattenberg.

It was.

There's definitely something underlying with Clattenberg and it's been going on for a while. I don't know if he's pissed off with us because of the Bellamy incident but another game that doesn't sit well with me was Chelsea away 2011/12. We were top of the league, unbeaten in 15 and 1-0 up after a 2nd minute Mario goal. Silva was brought down after wrongfooting Bosingwa and Clattenberg had a clear unobstructed view from a few yards away. The way we were playing it could have very perceivably been game over had he given it. He didn't. He the sent Clichy off early in the second half and gave Chelsea a penalty for handball by Lescott with 8 minutes left. I don't think he is incompetent but he definitely has something against us.

That was the game that finally made me decide that it wasn't just incompetence, but something dodgy going on. TBH, I think it was more to do with making sure we didn't get too big a lead in the title race, rather than an out and out anti City thing.
It was confirmed in my opinion the next season, when the rags were helped to beat Chelsea at the bridge, when the chavs, like us the year before looked like running away with it.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Is he corrupt? Maybe. Maybe not.
Incompetent, yes. Corrupt, no.

There's a fuckign pattern developing with you isn't there.

[Tokyo Blue]

The game prior he was fine.

If you were wanting me to ask him about being corrupt, at a time when the organisation I work for had paid for him to come out and successfully inspire and educate our crop of referees (who also make bad decisions on a regular basis) then you are mistaken.

Before I interviewed him I also asked dipper, rag, spud and arse friends what to ask him and they too were of the opinion that he didn't favour them. They would bring up specific instances of matches where they were fucked over by him.

Is he corrupt? Maybe. Maybe not. Was that weekend the time to quiz him over it? Hell no. Would I have kept my job if I had of? Hell no. Would it have been worth it? No.

FWIW. If he was well and truly corrupt he would have let the handball (by was it Kane?) go a bit later. He pulled that one up too.

Incompetent, yes. Corrupt, no.

That is a fair reply, Dazby, as I expected. I had no idea who was paying for him or that it was your job. You asked what questions we would like to ask him and I told you the questions I wanted to ask.

If you are going to be corrupt, you can't make it blatant; you have to keep a semblance of being honest. There is something about this man that sets sirens off screaming. Well, for me, anyway. And it does rather appear that I am not the only one.

By the way, I do not recall anyone here wanting him to favour us Just to get things right. Personally I do not believe that is too much to ask of professionals. And if he can't get it right, and he proved on Sunday that he can't, he should be removed in favour of someone who can. Simple as that.

[roblues]

The game prior he was fine.

If you were wanting me to ask him about being corrupt, at a time when the organisation I work for had paid for him to come out and successfully inspire and educate our crop of referees (who also make bad decisions on a regular basis) then you are mistaken.

Before I interviewed him I also asked dipper, rag, spud and arse friends what to ask him and they too were of the opinion that he didn't favour them. They would bring up specific instances of matches where they were fucked over by him.

Is he corrupt? Maybe. Maybe not. Was that weekend the time to quiz him over it? Hell no. Would I have kept my job if I had of? Hell no. Would it have been worth it? No.

FWIW. If he was well and truly corrupt he would have let the handball (by was it Kane?) go a bit later. He pulled that one up too.

Incompetent, yes. Corrupt, no.

That is a fair reply, Dazby, as I expected. I had no idea who was paying for him or that it was your job. You asked what questions we would like to ask him and I told you the questions I wanted to ask.

If you are going to be corrupt, you can't make it blatant; you have to keep a semblance of being honest. There is something about this man that sets sirens off screaming. Well, for me, anyway. And it does rather appear that I am not the only one.

By the way, I do not recall anyone here wanting him to favour us Just to get things right. Personally I do not believe that is too much to ask of professionals. And if he can't get it right, and he proved on Sunday that he can't, he should be removed in favour of someone who can. Simple as that.

There are referees who look at a tackle and call it a foul and it's all about interpretation (Foy vs Kompany, for example). But this cheat gives decisions that no on-field official could have seen even if they were correct (Sterling 'handball'), claims not to have seen things he is looking straight at (Ade vs van Persie, granted it was correctly punished in the end) and sends off players he simply doesn't like.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

The game prior he was fine.

If you were wanting me to ask him about being corrupt, at a time when the organisation I work for had paid for him to come out and successfully inspire and educate our crop of referees (who also make bad decisions on a regular basis) then you are mistaken.

Before I interviewed him I also asked dipper, rag, spud and arse friends what to ask him and they too were of the opinion that he didn't favour them. They would bring up specific instances of matches where they were fucked over by him.

Is he corrupt? Maybe. Maybe not. Was that weekend the time to quiz him over it? Hell no. Would I have kept my job if I had of? Hell no. Would it have been worth it? No.

FWIW. If he was well and truly corrupt he would have let the handball (by was it Kane?) go a bit later. He pulled that one up too.

Incompetent, yes. Corrupt, no.

That is a fair reply, Dazby, as I expected. I had no idea who was paying for him or that it was your job. You asked what questions we would like to ask him and I told you the questions I wanted to ask.

If you are going to be corrupt, you can't make it blatant; you have to keep a semblance of being honest. There is something about this man that sets sirens off screaming. Well, for me, anyway. And it does rather appear that I am not the only one.

By the way, I do not recall anyone here wanting him to favour us Just to get things right. Personally I do not believe that is too much to ask of professionals. And if he can't get it right, and he proved on Sunday that he can't, he should be removed in favour of someone who can. Simple as that.

There are referees who look at a tackle and call it a foul and it's all about interpretation (Foy vs Kompany, for example). But this cheat gives decisions that no on-field official could have seen even if they were correct (Sterling 'handball'), claims not to have seen things he is looking straight at (Ade vs van Persie, granted it was correctly punished in the end) and sends off players he simply doesn't like.

And claims to have seen things he couldn't possibly - Shrek elbow on McCarthy

[Beefymcfc]

Dear Cunt,

Fuck off!

[Im_Spartacus]

The game prior he was fine.

If you were wanting me to ask him about being corrupt, at a time when the organisation I work for had paid for him to come out and successfully inspire and educate our crop of referees (who also make bad decisions on a regular basis) then you are mistaken.

Before I interviewed him I also asked dipper, rag, spud and arse friends what to ask him and they too were of the opinion that he didn't favour them. They would bring up specific instances of matches where they were fucked over by him.

Is he corrupt? Maybe. Maybe not. Was that weekend the time to quiz him over it? Hell no. Would I have kept my job if I had of? Hell no. Would it have been worth it? No.

FWIW. If he was well and truly corrupt he would have let the handball (by was it Kane?) go a bit later. He pulled that one up too.

Incompetent, yes. Corrupt, no.

And therein lies the problem mate, self interest.

I'm certainly not goin to dig out an amateur hack for not asking the tough questions, but the whole media establishment is complicit in these outcomes, regardless wheth r you want to call it corruption or incompetence:
A: for not calling it out and identifying repetitive patterns of behaviour
B: for not demanding that refs be miked and held accountable after the game

The media alone have the power to demand this change, particularly the broadcasters who pay the big bucks for the games. They have the power to question the governance model for referees where one person decides a referees career fate etc.

[Beefymcfc]

The game prior he was fine.

If you were wanting me to ask him about being corrupt, at a time when the organisation I work for had paid for him to come out and successfully inspire and educate our crop of referees (who also make bad decisions on a regular basis) then you are mistaken.

Before I interviewed him I also asked dipper, rag, spud and arse friends what to ask him and they too were of the opinion that he didn't favour them. They would bring up specific instances of matches where they were fucked over by him.

Is he corrupt? Maybe. Maybe not. Was that weekend the time to quiz him over it? Hell no. Would I have kept my job if I had of? Hell no. Would it have been worth it? No.

FWIW. If he was well and truly corrupt he would have let the handball (by was it Kane?) go a bit later. He pulled that one up too.

Incompetent, yes. Corrupt, no.

And therein lies the problem mate, self interest.

I'm certainly not goin to dig out an amateur hack for not asking the tough questions, but the whole media establishment is complicit in these outcomes, regardless wheth r you want to call it corruption or incompetence:
A: for not calling it out and identifying repetitive patterns of behaviour
B: for not demanding that refs be miked and held accountable after the game

The media alone have the power to demand this change, particularly the broadcasters who pay the big bucks for the games. They have the power to question the governance model for referees where one person decides a referees career fate etc.

And whilst the media stick to their narrative, these disgraceful decisions will continue to happen.

Where was the big outcry; the back page news about the injustice, the wall to wall freeze-frame coverage on Sky and BT? Oh no, as it suited the media narrative, the love-in for Tottenham.

[nottsblue]

Remember the indignation and constant replaying of our second goal in the semi v Everton?

[Original Dub]

Brilliant post sparty.

It is where the problem lies. And it's why it keeps coming back to "football media" as the thread is called on here.

Because I posted so much in the likes of those threads, I had people on here telling me that I should "just ignore those articles if they annoy you".

And "why get wound up by tabloid garbage" etc.

These "journalists" have the opportunity to highlight what is wrong and help change it for the better. Instead they either choose to ignore it, or try to justify it.

Either they like it the way it is or they are scared they'll lose their job, like dazby was.

[dazby]

Brilliant post sparty.

It is where the problem lies. And it's why it keeps coming back to "football media" as the thread is called on here.

Because I posted so much in the likes of those threads, I had people on here telling me that I should "just ignore those articles if they annoy you".

And "why get wound up by tabloid garbage" etc.

These "journalists" have the opportunity to highlight what is wrong and help change it for the better. Instead they either choose to ignore it, or try to justify it.

Either they like it the way it is or they are scared they'll lose their job, like dazby was.

Even if I had of asked the question, without evidence, what response do you think I'd have got?

"Yeah Mark, there's been some accusations that you've had some gambling debts and are on the take, how do you respond to that?"

I wasn't scared to lose my job, it was just not the forum for me to ask the question. If I was an investigative journalist and had something to back up the accusation then I'd have had no issue.

[dazby]

I repeat, the rags, arse, dippers, gooners and spuds all think he's against them too.

[Original Dub]

Dazby, what are you inferring in your last post?

That every team you listed is being treated the same by officials over the last few years? Is that what you are suggesting, because I'm fucking intrigued to know??

[Wonderwall]

I repeat, the rags, arse, dippers, gooners and spuds all think he's against them too.

So you have confirmed that clattenbung is shit.

Cheers

[Tokyo Blue]

I repeat, the rags, arse, dippers, gooners and spuds all think he's against them too.

So you have confirmed that clattenbung is shit.

Cheers

I like that.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Dazby, what are you inferring in your last post?

That every team you listed is being treated the same by officials over the last few years? Is that what you are suggesting, because I'm fucking intrigued to know??

He's not quite sure mate.......Our sites very own Vicky Pollard.

[JamieMCFC]

Referee Mark Clattenburg AXED from next round of fixtures after Man City mistake

Mark Clattenburg is set to be axed from the next round of Premier League games.

It comes just a week after the referee gave a controversial penalty for Tottenham with a handball decision against Manchester City's Raheem Sterling.

Television replays suggested it hit Sterling's back and it outraged City boss Manuel Pellegrini who launched a stinging attack on the high-profile referee after his team's defeat last Sunday.

Pellegrini escaped an FA charge for his comments but ex-referee Graham Poll accused Clattenburg of "breaking the golden rule" of refereeing by "guessing."

It is understood that Clattenburg is aware that he will be "rested" for next weekend when the Premier League returns after the FA Cup.

Clattenburg is one of the Premier League's most respected officials and yet he is also facing investigation by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited after joining a management agency that also represents players.

Mark Clattenburg is set to be axed from the next round of Premier League games.

It comes just a week after the referee gave a controversial penalty for Tottenham with a handball decision against Manchester City's Raheem Sterling.

Television replays suggested it hit Sterling's back and it outraged City boss Manuel Pellegrini who launched a stinging attack on the high-profile referee after his team's defeat last Sunday.

Pellegrini escaped an FA charge for his comments but ex-referee Graham Poll accused Clattenburg of "breaking the golden rule" of refereeing by "guessing."

Action Images via Reuters / Lee SmithPablo Zabaleta remonstrates with referee Mark Clattenburg after he awarded a penalty to TottenhamMarked card: Clattenburg is being officially 'rested' after this weekend's FA Cup fixtures
It is understood that Clattenburg is aware that he will be "rested" for next weekend when the Premier League returns after the FA Cup.

Clattenburg is one of the Premier League's most respected officials and yet he is also facing investigation by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited after joining a management agency that also represents players.

The 40-year-old is due to meet referees' chief Mike Riley to discuss the move which would see him make after dinner speeches and charity events.

Clattenburg has been involved in controversy before after being stood down in the past for breaking referees' protocol by travelling to his own after a game so he could get to an Ed Sheeran concert.

He was also wrongly accused of racially abusing Chelsea's John Obi Mikel, and was suspended for eight-months following an investigation into his "private business affairs."

Clattenburg was also cleared of wrongdoing last season when Southampton claimed he had "abused and insulted" Adam Lallana.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... xt-7403477

[Hutch's Shoulder]

Referee Mark Clattenburg AXED from next round of fixtures after Man City mistake

Mark Clattenburg is set to be axed from the next round of Premier League games.

It comes just a week after the referee gave a controversial penalty for Tottenham with a handball decision against Manchester City's Raheem Sterling.

Television replays suggested it hit Sterling's back and it outraged City boss Manuel Pellegrini who launched a stinging attack on the high-profile referee after his team's defeat last Sunday.

Pellegrini escaped an FA charge for his comments but ex-referee Graham Poll accused Clattenburg of "breaking the golden rule" of refereeing by "guessing."

It is understood that Clattenburg is aware that he will be "rested" for next weekend when the Premier League returns after the FA Cup.

Clattenburg is one of the Premier League's most respected officials and yet he is also facing investigation by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited after joining a management agency that also represents players.

Mark Clattenburg is set to be axed from the next round of Premier League games.

It comes just a week after the referee gave a controversial penalty for Tottenham with a handball decision against Manchester City's Raheem Sterling.

Television replays suggested it hit Sterling's back and it outraged City boss Manuel Pellegrini who launched a stinging attack on the high-profile referee after his team's defeat last Sunday.

Pellegrini escaped an FA charge for his comments but ex-referee Graham Poll accused Clattenburg of "breaking the golden rule" of refereeing by "guessing."

Action Images via Reuters / Lee SmithPablo Zabaleta remonstrates with referee Mark Clattenburg after he awarded a penalty to TottenhamMarked card: Clattenburg is being officially 'rested' after this weekend's FA Cup fixtures
It is understood that Clattenburg is aware that he will be "rested" for next weekend when the Premier League returns after the FA Cup.

Clattenburg is one of the Premier League's most respected officials and yet he is also facing investigation by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited after joining a management agency that also represents players.

The 40-year-old is due to meet referees' chief Mike Riley to discuss the move which would see him make after dinner speeches and charity events.

Clattenburg has been involved in controversy before after being stood down in the past for breaking referees' protocol by travelling to his own after a game so he could get to an Ed Sheeran concert.

He was also wrongly accused of racially abusing Chelsea's John Obi Mikel, and was suspended for eight-months following an investigation into his "private business affairs."

Clattenburg was also cleared of wrongdoing last season when Southampton claimed he had "abused and insulted" Adam Lallana.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... xt-7403477

That's all very well, but it's no good to us it? Just means one of our rivals is soars a Clatten-cock-up.

[South Stand Balti]

He gets a weekend off. Time for him to sweep the under the carpet, go and watch a concert and back the following week.