I can't find the link to the Sun article but according to Sunday Supplement the article on what Mikel said to Clattenburg includes Halsey admitting that he was on very friendly terms with Ferguson and they would regularly text eachother. This was the man that was already in trouble with the Premier League for taking free tickets to a Man United game and attending an event by one of Chelsea's main sponsors without letting the PL know. It should be no surprise to us that refs are blurring the lines and getting far too chummy with certain managers but none the less it's still an incredible lack of integrity and really highlights the need to step in and monitor referees more closely and critically. Who knows what else is going on without our knowledge, we've only seen the results and had our suspicions about referees having unproffessional relationships with certain clubs, players and managers. It's a disgrace and I hope the PL treat this very, very seriously.
These unprofessional relationships occur in every industry, every sport so you wonder why some refuse to believe it happens in football as the mentality of certain refs makes you wonder why they shy away from decisions. I don't believe its in anyway as bad as Italian football, where it was bribery and match fixing, yet refs who have too close a relationship with managers and player's are bound to let it sway them at certain moments, especially when you have other managers attacking refs.
The PL gets so much exposure now that even the refs are household names/faces these days. Some like the limelight and will happliy take the opportunity to brag about how they are on first name terms with certain players, managers etc. It enhances their celebrity status. I think it all needs to be taken with a pinch of salt though. I don't see any evidence of corruption amongst refs in our game. I don't believe any players or managers socialise with refs. I don't believe the majority of refs would risk compromising themselves in this way. If any refs have an ego, then it comes from being in charge on the pitch and not from being beholden to the demands of others.
I will be very surprised if it is squeaky clean. There is far too much money involved for corruption not to be present. Can't expect a neautral view from a Man U. supporter can we.
It's not even necessarily corruption. It's perfectly plausible that you will subconsciously favour someone who you're friends with over a stranger, infact it's not just plausible it's very bloody likely. Up to Halsey opening his trap and dropping himself and Fergie in it there was no solid evidence of managers and refs having an unprofessional relationship either, it doesn't mean that it wasn't true last week when no one knew about it. Even if there was corruption you could bet it's very difficult to uncover, it's not like in other nations where it doesn't matter if there's blatant corruption as it's either ignored or treated less seriously. So far Fergie has been found out to be giving tips to someone on which teams to bet on, he's consistently dodged charges about his conduct on the touchline and in interviews and now he's been found to be getting chummy with a ref. This is all stuff that he knows is wrong yet has/will get away with and we're supposed to believe that an FA and PL filled with United fans and businessmen with United connections give United no advantage whatsoever. Sorry but I don't buy it and I think anyone that does is very naive.
YV, everybody has their preferences, prejudices, preconceptions and bias - conscious or subconscious. We're all human beings and are bound to approach any issue from our own perspective. Refs are no different; nor are judges or any form of assessor or adjudicator in any walk of life. Refs will be football fans themselves; there will be teams they like or dislike. There will those who feel welcome or unwelcome at certain grounds, who take criticism personally, who are weak under pressure, who are stubborn etc. It's human nature. Judges are friendly with some of the barristers who appear before them, managers are friendly with some employees they have to appraise etc etc. It's often the case in my experience that people can do their jobs properly without being unduly influenced. Nothing has been raised here which should cause concern IMO. I can't accept that in the split second it takes to call a foul etc that any ref, focused solely on the game, suddenly thinks how he prefers manager A to manager B and allows that unduly influence his decision..
Has anybody counted the favouable decisions at O.T. compared to those detrimental to the home side. It's purely coincidence of course, what else could it be?
There is a very rational explanation. All things being equal, Utd should, statistically, get more favourable decisions than most opponents at OT. Over the years Utd have had more possession generally, more in advanced areas of the pitch including the penalty area, quicker and more skilful players who are more likely to be fouled and have put the opposition under greater pressure for longer (how often have we seen the "alamo" at the end where opposition players have had make desperate last ditch tackles or clearances?). I've often wondered how some defenders get away with the wrestling, blocking and lunging which goes on at those times.
I think spurf probably meant favourable incorrect decisions, both for and against which renders the quality of the teams largely irrelevant
Falls apart when you consider that neither Spurs nor Swansea got a penalty for the whole of the last campaign though, Lidls. Also fails to explain why Ashley Young gets away with diving all the time, yet Bale was repeatedly punished for being hacked down.
But these are isolated decisions and you are misrepresenting the facts anyway. Young was booked yesterday. He has been booked before. Utd got two home penalties last season - joint 10th most. City and Chelsea have had far more home penalties in recent seasons. Since 2006-7 Utd have had 28 home pens to City 34, Chelsea 29, Arsenal 27 and erm, Spurs 17 - not a massive disparity when you consider how dominant Utd's home record has been over this period, with the attacking players in the team over this period including Ronaldo. Penalties against are few for all these sides, but how often do the majority of PL teams threaten the top sides away from home. Palace had no shots on target yesterday.
Young has been repeatedly given penalties for awful, blatant dives. He should've been sent off yesterday, but instead got a penalty and his opponent was dismissed. The last game that Bale played for us resulted in him being hauled down in the box and given a booking. How is that similar? Spurs are wrongly punished for a foul, while Man Utd are rewarded for something that isn't a foul. When you're claiming that Spurs getting 50% less penalties than some of our competition over a 7 year period isn't a "massive disparity", then I think you know you're wrong. Pointing out that Palace didn't have any shots on target when they were incorrectly reduced to 10 men for most of the game is clearly ridiculous, too. Norwich only managed to produce one, despite having all eleven players on the pitch, and I can't remember it.
It'll be Jimmy Savile Mk 2. Will all come out years after. Anyone that thinks its squeaky clean needs their heads checked. Difference is in this country there's a general reluctance to confront corruption. Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith couldn't happen in Italy (or most other countries), it'd be impossible. Corruption at Sky virtually goes unchecked. Shares in Man Utd, the club they coincidentally used as a platform to promote their Premier League brand. Sky buy the rights to La Liga coverage (all 38 Barca and Madrid league games) and yet SSN the biggest promotors of this Bale deal to go through. Hmmm... Any journalists that even as much as tried to uncover corruption would either get laid off by the paper that employs them or bumped off. It couldn't ever come out that the PL even has a shred of corruption, would taint its brand image.
Reported today that SAF has commented that he didn't strike up a friendship with Mark Halsey, but offered him some support when he was diagnosed with cancer - which is very typical of the man and not something he would usually speak about. Puts the thread in an entirely different context doesn't it?
No, as it's transparently untrue. Halsey said, "It took time to gain Sir Alex Ferguson's respect but in the end we had a very good relationship." Clearly not the words of two people that started to contact each other when one of them had cancer. Halsey also talks about his close relationship with Mourinho, claiming that they only became close friends after the No Longer Special One left the country. He was quite obviously in contact with both of them while they were managers in the Premier League. A clear conflict of interest.
That's the point isn't it. Regardless of whether being friendly with the manager causes you to favour his team (I would argue it clearly does, either directly or subconsciously), the relationship itself, by its very existence, allows those accusations to be made.
He would say that though, wouldn't he (apologies Mandy Rice-Davies). Not exactly in SAF's interest to agree he had an unfair advantage.
Hasly asked fergie to speak out for him regarding the Obi mikel situation - im sure thats not the only "favor" called in between them two.
I somehow think referees at Man U home games have their mind swayed by the noise of the home crowd as they seem to make more noise than any where else.60,000 screaming for a penalty could make up a referees mind. Those Southern United fans do make a noise you know!!!!? Funny.No ones mentioned the love affair between Howard and United........
United just the other day launched an initiative to boost their atmosphere in home games so I don't think that's been the problem. Fergie's excuse doesn't mean much either. Speaking out when he's widely criticised in the media is normal practice for him, as it is for most.The media never really latched on to his betting "tips" yet they did pick up on several accusations of getting favourable decisions so its no surprise which received a more public response. That's the way it goes.
