Fergie Yet more Hypocrisy From most hated man in football

its sporadically used, why?

 

This thread has'nt been running as long as TSGAT on the Utd board but as with that this will gradually die a slow death in the same way or be deleted soon.

 

That would be you!

Any comment over the statement that De Gea also calls Evra "Negrito"? or will that "arguing blindly about something out of devotion to a football club" cause you to come up with a legal argument that it was not in the F.A. report, so it mustn't be true?

By the way, I'm bored now, so you'll be talking to yourself from here on in.

 

yes but the purposes of the thread are different... that was set up just to talk bollocks which has largely transferred to the banter thread.. not split hairs over pointless ****e.

My point with this thread is its boring pointless ****e mud slinging, which in my opinion you scousers are making yourself look like bigger muppets than you already do flogging a subject to death with no end. Dragging up ancient ****e to deflect from the shambles your club is in due to dealing with a situation badly. I personally couldn't give a flying **** about Liverpool FC I will always think it is a shower of ****e though have always respected it. What you all fail to see is that your club has gone someway to losing that respect it holds in world football, due to bad decisions by dalgleish and the board.

I do not give a **** what any of you think of fergie, i would find it more bizarre if you all liked him.. You are not meant to like him. Though did he and other United players not all donate large sums of cash to the hillsborogh appeal fund?? all in all this deflection is pointless stop whinging about it and move on and prove to the rest of the world you're not a bunch of hard done by mopes its boring.. this whole subject is boring.

 

JJ

I didn't really discuss it before Saturday game. It was a small issue, overblown, and handled badly. I've never thought Suarez is racist, but I think he got caught out saying something racist in the heat of a game. On Saturday, he compounded all of that with a petulant act.

Page_Miss

Rooney was acting in his own interest - not the clubs. Ferguson did not go on record as saying 'I know Wayne will sign a new contract', nor did Rooney, only that he hoped to retire there. None of these things are contradictory and are not comparable to an incident where a player commits a stupid act, gets controversially supported by the club, is found guilty, then promises to commit a deed in the interest of putting the incident to bed and then fail to do so.

This is not moving the goal posts. These things have similar elements but are completely different. Rooney, Ferguson and Gill did not have to come out and feel the need to apologise after it.

 

Don't worry. Your input won't be missed and if it is i'll cut and paste some of your insults from your previous posts

Negrito may well be a word that Latin American speakers use as a form of address. The difference is though, Suarez has been deemed to be using the term as a negative - to cause offence.

I've seen black people in the US calling each other the n-word as a friendly remark. But I also know that its not something a white person can say to a black person, even if he means it in the same way. Maybe Suarez doesn't know he isn't black, or maybe that greeting is just something he uses when he is trying to run around and make new friends while playing football matches.

It's anyones guess.

 

I find it even more bizare that you've brought Hillsborough up,you already admit that you expect us not to like the twat(no surprise there then),A thread about Fergies hypocrisy has been hijacked by mainly Utd fans and twisted into the Suarez/Evra thing.

Mancs massaging their ego's and taking the moral highground on the LFC board will always get short shrift from our posters,its a natural reaction.

 

Still true though! Still no agreed definition of "a hypocrite"

Let's try shall we, various defs found:

A hypocrite is a person who pretends to have certain beliefs, attitudes or feelings when they really do not. (noun) :

hypocrite - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective

This argument might be useful to you Tucker which appears to go against directly above:

Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.[2]

So on under above we could theorise that Fergie would love to sack everyone of his players that he believes to have crossed his moral threshold but just because he doesn't (say for business reasons) this does not make him a hypocrite. Weak character maybe, in that he puts his own job or financially security of the club before his morals but because he truly holds these beliefs, he's not a hypocrite. This seems to suit your position tucker.

The other three definitions here seem to suit most LFC fans. He is expecting others to hold and PRACTICE a moral standard that even if he internally holds himself he does not practice. The expectation on others is the hypocritical act.

And I think that is the weakness of the other argument. If Fergie had said It might be better for LFC morally to get rid but he understood they could not then he would not be a hypocrite but insisting that someone else put his morals into practice when he himself would or could not is the hypocritical act in my opinion.

So for example: he is against Racism (moral stance) supports Evras (his player) position because he is the "victim" doesn't support Wright because Scmeichal (his player) is the "aggressor". Not hypocrisy so far ;weak in morals & character but not hypocrisy.

Going on to criticise LFC for taking exactly the same approach as him (defending their own player) and not taking the action he would like to take is however hypocritical. It's a narrow distinction but an important one.

Calling Torres or Suarez a Diver but staying silent on Nani or Ronaldo (going as far as asking for protection) is not hypocrisy. Saying refs should do something about one set of players but criticizing them for taking same action against his players is hypocritical.

Would continue with examples but this has become a book.

 

Fergusons comments on Suarez have not been shown to be hypocritical. The OP and subsequent points in support have been made with some pithy unrelated examples of cases of bad publicity in years gone by in incomparable scenarios.

I'm not taking the high ground. A Liverpool fan started this article. I'm not massaging my ego. I'm defending my manager, who is entitled to his opinion. I have neat little tricks for not listening to a person opinion on tv - I press mute or change the channel.

It is stunning how much Fergie's opinion has got to some of you.

 

**** off lad.

You started your bs saying Fergie has never made a hypocritical statement,then when numerous examples were thrown at you you then manipulated the argument and have been good entertainment since.

 

Dirtyfrank

A nice contribution indeed. However (there has to be a however, doesn't there).....

We have established earlier than Ferguson could been seen to have acted hypocritically in the past. Page_Miss made a good point regarding Stams disclose of being 'tapped up' by Fergie before he signed, and then how he berated Real Madrid for their 'tapping up' of Ronaldo.

Regarding this case, Ferguson's support of Schmeichel remains valid, in light of the fact that the investigation was dropped. Had Schmeichel been proved to have used a racist remark, Ferguson subsequent actions would have been interesting and perhaps made your point - if he had gone on to support Schmeichel. In any case, even if it had been proven, Schmeichel would have had to have mislead Ferguson over his intentions in any subsequent act of reconciliation (i.e. shaking hands) and bring further disgrace to the club/situation.

Fergusons comments were not hypocritical in this instance, nor where they in any cited in the OP.

 

Wrong. Time and time again - I said his comments regarding Suarez were not hypocritical.

The moment you cited Stam/Ronaldo I said you had a good case. But that cannot be applied to being a hypocrite for his comments on Suarez.

 

And tucker strip away the detail: hypocrisy is about morals: we have to start with accepting they exist & that the majority of society formulates their rules based on them stemming from natural law or religious background.

So if we accept this premise. Ferguson makes public declarations about his morals all the time through giving his opinion.

He has given enough opinions over the years for the public to presume he doesn't like cheating. And yet over those same years when he had a position at his own club to stop it, he didn't, in fact he defended those that did. His actions then suggest he does agree with cheating. Hypocrisy.

Recently he has given enough opinions on racism to suggest he finds it unacceptable. And yet in practice with the same level of proof that he agreed was acceptable to convict another teams player he doesn't convict his own (I.e it boils down to one word against another. Let's not get into the debate again or who was more believable, there was no physical corroborating evidence to back either version of events. Same with the S&W event.) no detail about it not going to the FA. If he was truly against Racism in the way that he has publicly proclaimed, he would not have tolerated Scmeichal on his team.

You can argue" but but but "all day on the detail but strip it away and his words against others rarely tally with his own actions when faced with the same dilemma.

 

But he hasn't been faced with the same dilemma as we are discussing (Suarez) and he never had to question or tolerate Schmeichel's position on the team because Schmeichel was never found to have been racist.

His words aren't legally binding. You don't actually have to sell Suarez now because he said so.

 

Now if we want to narrow it even further to attribute fergusons comments solely to the action of Suarez not shaking hands. Not unreasonable as both clubs supposedly drew a line under the original event before this inccident. then we can only assume that this in fergies opinion was a matter of disrespect as the physical act or non act had no other detrimental effect on Evra.

If Suarez hadn't been in the team there would have been no expectation of participation and hence no disrespect.

So in proclaiming his opinion: he has set a moral standard he expects to be upheld with the penalty for said failure also proclaimed and yet he and other united fans make a justification for Ferdinand having the same response. Take away what everybody else thinks about the two events below & focus purely on fergies proclamation.

Let's break it down: fact:

Suarez did not shakes hands because Evra has done something he doesn't like.

Rio did not shake hands because Suarez did something he didn't like.

This is the problem with giving a moral opinion Tucker: once given you tie yourself to your proclamation, you make it a black & white, no grey are issue.

The absence of action (criticism/stated penalty) by Ferguson for the same offense when he is in the position to take the action he advised was warranted makes his proclamation hypocritical: he never had or has the intention of following his own standard.

Under 3 of the 4 definitions I randomly copied that makes him a hypocrite. You are free of course to select the 4th definition but then we're back to having two different arguments.

 

That's ironic. Presumption and suggestion. The two things you say were used against Suarez in the report in place of proof are the two things you use to make a point against Fergie.

Help me with this;

Defacto:

1. Wright says Schmeichel used a racist remark.
2. Schmeichel denies it (one word against the other).
3. Ferguson supports his own player until proven guilty.
4. Case dropped. No investigation.

so you think 3. should be: Ferguson supports opposition player

? Guilty until proven innocent ?

 

No we don't have to listen to him or accept his advice but we do have to respond to the effect his declaration has on others.

I can be the only Gay man in church as the minister tells the congregation that Gay men should just kill themselves. Now I can ignore his advice but Because he's influential and as such people hold his standards as an example I'll then have to live my life plagued by others as to why I haven't taken his advice yet. If i then hear that the minister knows his son is gay but hasn't told him to kill himself and is happy he Continues to live then I'm well within my rights to call him a hypocrite.

 

Well. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right - but did Ferguson publically state to the the media Ferdinand would shake hands with Suarez?
Of course, there was an expectation that it would happened there but it is 'sympathetically condonable' in support of the seeing his teammate get snubbed. The public at large seem to think that is understandable (rightly or wrongly). Had Rio not shaken Suarez's hand before Suarez had snubbed Evra, then there might be an issue, but i'm willing to bet Rio would be at the epicentre of the media ****storm if that had been the case. No-one seems to mind that Reina shoved Evra away from Suarez when Evra grabbed his wrist, or that he was shoving Evra while he celebrated infront of Suarez despite the referee being close at hand to move Evra away. Like the Rio snub, its not the issue.

Was Ferdinand exacerbating a situation he created where he had brought waves of bad publicity (unintentionally) onto Man United?

 

By all means, be pissed of that he is influential. But in the case of Liverpool, they'd do the opposite anyway.

But I can cite the Sunday Mirror that said, in light of his remarks after the game;

The Sunday Mirror doesn’t always agree with Sir Alex Ferguson, but on this occasion he was spot on.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/sir-alex-ferguson-attacks-footballer-682030

 

Exactly; Fergie has given his opinion that racism is wrong,but more importantly in this case that he was happy with the process. outcome and punishment.

So he is very publicly happy to see a person convicted of an offence with the same amount of evidence that did not lead to a conviction with his own player.

So when morals don't suit his business
He ignores them. he didn't insist the same process for both players.

That's what makes him a hypocrite.

To not be a hypocrite he should have:

reiterated his stance on racism but said while he believed his player; there was no more evidence to convict Suarez than there was Scmeichal. Now as you state the FA don't have to listen to him and could go ahead but he wouldn't be a hypocrite.he would be taking the same stance in both cases whether it was as detrimental to his overall cause this time as it was advantageous the last.