Clattenburg under investigation after Southampton accuse him of abusing Adam Lallana

Fair enough, then. It was said by many at the time, that Mike Riley had made a massive rod for his own back. He has.

Now Saints are indignant about poor decisions, and wanted a bit of fairness or acceptance from officials.

That's not happened. On top of that, we didn't get what we felt, was a penalty.

To compound all of this, the referee then made a jibe about our player's reputation.

On top of all that (!!!), they then received what they feel was a patronising reply.

 

If this saga ends now and we don't hear anymore from saints about what was said, then I think we shouldn't have done what we have. Some people aren't going to like that, but that's my thought on it with what I have read and heard to date. Regardless of whether it is really about feeling hard done by on decisions, I think we picked the wrong fight and went about it wrongly.

If no more comes out, let's hope the dodgy dealing manager story hits the headlines soon and our little story is quickly forgotten.

 

It's going to make referees not like us. We're going to get even fewer decisions now.

 

Or make them think twice?

 

And if Cortese records that Saints get even less 50\50 decisions, he'll have a bigger case to argue with. If I was a referee's authority I would be directing my officials not to even remotely consider going down that avenue.

 

I find it difficult to accept that we are being ridiculed for asking for a bit of fairness, not too much to ask is it?

 

Yet Fergie, Mourinho et al constantly moaning at referees had the opposite effect.

Vin

 

As we don't get our share of decisions (in Saints opinion), I think it will do good. Refs will not want to be caught giving obviously bad decisions, so will at least give it that extra second of thought.

 

A little naive in my opinion (to ask, not your post). It has to be assumed that fairness is given. Every single team in history can claim they have had unfair decisions and if this really is our beef, then it is a poor show in my opinion. One of the enchanting parts of our sport (professional though it is), is the discussing and debating of those decisions. I am sorry folks but I hope that this letter wasn't really about a feeling of being hard done by. I love my club, but come on... That would be playground stuff.

 

And every decision we do get, the opposition will be banging on that its just because we complained and pretty soon, there will be more complaining about that and the pendulum could swing against us again.

If this is how it gets viewed, we could get panned by refs, fans and opposing players. I can see managers talking to refs before games or on touchlines warning them not to he soft on us just because we complained.

Since NC took over, there seems to have been quite a few old school people within the game and the media who want him to fail. They smeared when he said he would run it like a business and that the 'Southampton way' was te way forward; they've become niggled that he/we seem to be succeeding when they all said it couldn't work. Well this could just be the chance for a few to see that we get put in our place. IF, and a big if, this is the way we have presented this case, it may really back fire.

I hope that we haven't and that I'm just reading into some of the posts I read on here.

 

All things pass...won't have any detrimental effect on us.

 

I hope this is correct Fran.

 

Think about problems and embarrassments that other teams have lived down over the years...struggling to think of examples? Exactly...they are tomorrow's chip paper (as said before).

 

I really don't know what to make of it at all. However, at least that article takes the pressure off Lallana and puts the club in the spotlight instead.

 

The fat sam stuff will be next.

 

I'm yawning as I read this thread, mostly because it's the same nonsensical manufactured outrage that we saw last time this happened. With the same ref, which i'm sure is just a huge coincidence.

 

And therefore the ploy has worked.

 

Another view with some interesting points
Here

 

Pretty typical piece. It pretends to come at the 'story' from a different angle, but in the end it's just the same old stuff spouted out.

 

Mulling over the situation I was wondering who the PGMOL is responsible to? Presumably the Premier League / Football Association must have some jurisdiction over the Referees Association, perhaps a Statement from them (FA), one way or another could put an end to what appears to most to be a petty matter. I hope that they make it clear that Adam was not the villain here, more the victim, and that the PGMOL should step back from their Free Masonic Lodge type stance.