I don't 'slag you off' at all. However, I do have a moan because it seems all the threads you create are in some way related to Man Utd! Having seen god knows how many of your comments, it is clear that you truly hate Man Utd and will take every opportunity to have a go at the club. Don't get me wrong, I don't exactly condone this behavior as I don't like Man Utd myself (without the need to go on the constant attack, the posters on here are not the reason I dislike the club!), but I don't see the need for you to make new threads about the same or similar issues all the time. All of which end up in the same squabbling manner as all the others Obviously, it doesn't help with you being banned from the Man Utd My opinion of you has changed over the last couple of weeks because I've had a couple of decent debates/conversation with you. Could it be coincidence that there hasn't been many mancs about too?
When have you ever shown any evidence of United posters you think have been out of order and shown evidence of it? I've never had an email. You talk a lot mate but have done naff all to do anything about it.
And I don't expect you'd have not defended Schmeical being called a 'dirty racist' on exactly the same level of evidence that Suarez was banned 8 games for. Indeed less - several lipreaders confirmed that Schmeichal had called Wright a 'Dirty black bastard'. There is, for the umpteenth times of retelling, absolutely NO evidence of Suarez saying anything other than what he admitted saying (even though there was no evidence to prove he'd even said that before he offered it up himself), though there was physical, recorded evidence that Evra had - in Spanish - called Suarez's sister a whore: an action brushed off as an exclaimation by a Frenchman as if he'd just caught his thumb in a car door, and that was instinctively what he'd innocently say. Nonetheless, I'm under no illusion that we could ever convince anyone who'd never een read the summary, let alone the full 115 page turgid, self-contradicory, minutes of the witchtrial that passed as an 'investigation', and nor have I ever. Suffice to say your own club have already waved the racism flag before when an innocent Chelsea groundsman was branded as such by a United coach who wasn't even there - but I expect that's one FA report you don't simperingly and unquestionably accept. But as for someone who "doesn't care", then all I have to ask is this - why do you and several of the United posters never miss an opportunity to comment on it? Ban someone who dares comment on the several posts raised on the subject (even now, and especially by Limpwristed Smith) on your own board, but feel free to dive in on here whenever the urge takes you to show how much you don't care. As said, it feels as if this site is run by an FA panel appointed by Slurgusson.
That is ****ing rubbish and you know it. Every club has fans which defend the indefensible. Eric Cantona kicks a fan? That's what he deserved for shouting abuse at him Roy Keane plays a part in ending someone's career? Well he injured him first, so that's what he deserves. As evidenced by this thread it seems Donga isn't the only person incapable of impartiality on this thread. You are just as guilty. Infact, it is almost in the DNA of football supporters to be biased towards their own team and against rival teams.
Just for clarification. I thought what cantona did was refreshing.. The f ucker got what he deserved. We didn't complain at the level of punishment metered out. Re Keane what he did was abhorrent, no united fan defends that. Though check you facts as it was his other leg which forced him to retire not the leg Keane crunched. Donga: With your post you have proved why you are banned from our board as you miss the point any of us make and carry on babbling on regardless. I will try writing in capitals to see if it makes any difference. IT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED WHICH IS THE ISSUE, IT IS THE WAY THE CLUB, YOUR MANAGER HANDLED THE SITUATION WHICH HAS MADE PEOPLE LOSE THEIR RESPECT OF ONE OF THE BIGGEST CLUBS IN THE WORLD.
That is why I said played his part, rather than actually forcing him to retire. But it is obvious from what Haaland says about it that it did play a major part in his retirement: 'The knee still hurts, that isn't going to go away. I have to accept that. Did that tackle end my career? Well, I never played a full game again, did I? It seems like a great coincidence, don't you think?' As for Cantona, I simply disagree with you, but thats what being a football fan is about isn't it? Most football fans apart from a majority of the Man Utd ones find what Cantona disgusting & dangerous. Man Utd fans think it was justified based on the abuse he received from the fan. It is much the same with Suarez. Most football fans outside of Liverpool fans believe Suarez is guilty of racial abuse and what he did was disgraceful. A lot of Liverpool fans believe he has been harsly treated by the FA and that he was found guilty even before the trail. Surely you can accept that, even if you disagree with it? It is much easier to be impartial over something/someone when its not your club involved, isn't it?
But none of you has said that what saurez did was disgraceful. As far as I'm aware you are the first I've encountered to say this. All we have seen is everyone attacking the victim in all of this. Personally I don't care. I was bored hence I commented and added my pennies worth.
Can I just correct this football myth. What Keane did to Haaland was the actions of a nutter. BUT! Haaland's career ended due to his other knee giving in ie not the knee that Keane whacked. Carry on. EDIT: just seen that this has already been noted by my learned colleague. Carry on.
Sometimes when one leg is injured, the other one is used so much (both during healing and afterwards due to overcompensation and protection) that the opposite leg becomes a bigger problem. This might have been part of the problem.
The Norwegian professes no lasting bitterness towards the Irishman. But he has not forgotten. 'It is still there, every day,' said Haaland, 35. 'The knee still hurts, that isn't going to go away. I have to accept that. Did that tackle end my career? Well, I never played a full game again, did I? It seems like a great coincidence, don't you think?' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Haaland-horror-injury-2001.html#ixzz2GT1pANOn Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook ​I'd say it contributed greatly to Haaland's retirement after reading his own words.
Thats not true, you just can't see the wood for the trees! People that agree his actions were out of order are not going to be debating it with someone that has the same view are they?
Bit like sweats wasing saying here... ...its not about whether Keane actually ended Haaland's career or not, its about Keanes intentions!
Like you say, it's about being a fan, but there's also more to it. The Cantona case is highlighted and held up largely because of who he was and the fact the plays for Utd - pretty much everyone loves to have a pop at us. Was what Carragher did when he threw a coin into the crowd a few years back not as disgusting and dangerous as Cantona? IIRC he physically wounded two people, and yet faced no charge or anything other than a standard three game ban. Ditto Drogba against Burnley (IIRC) and Bellamy when he punched that Utd fan who was being held by three stewards at the time. I don't think many Utd fans would defend Cantona for his actions, tho' I'm sure plenty of us understand why he did it. But most of us object to the continuous decision to single Cantona out as some sort of supervillain for something many other players have done without anything near the same level of media attention or constant repetition by fans over the past couple of decades. You guys probably feel the same about Suarez, but do you seriously think people will still be talking about his incident in 16 years time? Personally I think both views are right. Suarez undoubtedly called Evra a negro, and did so with the intent to wind him up and get under his skin - he has admitted as such. That's against the FA rules and he had to be punished for it. But there was obviously a decision within the FA that they had to take a strong stance on this due to the media attention, much the same as with Cantona in 95, and so the verdict and punishment were probably largely determined beforehand so the FA could claim to be "tough" on racism (for all the good it did them). Tho' it has to be said Suarez and Liverpool largely stitched themselves up with their handling of the affair and overall "**** you" attitude to the FA, the media and pretty much anyone else who dared to criticise St Luis of the White T-Shirt. Suarez might have avoided much of the punishment with a bit of humble pie from him and Liverpool. Tho' Utd and Cantona tried that in 95 and ended up with an eight month ban, so maybe Suarez got off lightly in that regard...
Has to be said...after the Cantona incident United immediately suspended him for the rest of the season...after the Suarez incident...you all know the rest!
When the seagulls follow the trawler...it's because the trawler is wearing a ****ing stupid t-shirt with the trawler's face on it.
"Suarez undoubtedly called Evra a negro, and did so with the intent to wind him up and get under his skin - he has admitted as such. " NO HE ****ING DID NOT! And this is why bores like me keep banging on about this case - the misinformation and ignorance perpetuated by some, especially those in the media. Suarez admitted, under cross-examination that the EFFECT, not intent, of his arm-pinching was not 'concilitary' (a word, it's obvious, Suarez barely understands - which was Liverpool's fault for his appalling legal briefing and defence). From this the panel inferred his whole mood from start to finish at all stages of the confrontation was hostile, therefore the use of the word 'negro', despite the majority of what the language experts said, was derogatory. Considering the commission spent the first thirty paragraphs outlining that as Suarez was the player indicted, and that his reputation was at stake, and that a 'high-level' of evidence ws needed to 'prove' guilt, it's flabbergasting that this, and the contradictory evidence of Kuyt and Commolli over an expression tht evra never even claimed Suarez said until he saw the FA's evidence, was what Suarez was found guilty of racially abusing Evra seven times on. But Swarbs, as previously, you have three options. Point to the bit in the 115 page report where Suarez admits he called Evra a negro to wind him up, just simply take the ChristianSmith attack that I'm an obsessed KKK member and therefore I'm racist for even criticising anyone who calls someone a racist with no evidence; or just try and get me banned again. so far, at least, there's been a propensity to take the second and third approaches by united fans, and very little effort to argue the 115 page report. So go on, surprise me. Btw, go back to January (and even October 10) and I, and many fans, said that if Suarez had 'accidentally' abused Evra or anyone else the club SHOULD apologise for the ignorance and misunderstanding, without prejudicing the findings of the panel. I was under the impression that the club had, infact, done such a thing in January. I, the club and most of its supporters do not apologise for Suarez deliberately, and with intent and malice, continuously ranting and racially abusing Evra seven times in a crowded goalmouth without anyone hearing it, any cameras picking it up or the referee and his assistants not seeing or hearing it either - BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED.
logic only gets you smart ass lame out of context comebacks on that board. As soon as you make the mistake of sinking to their level you get banned
