- Oct 5, 2018
Yeah completely irrelevant to my point. That every other club in the land would piss themselves laughing that a 60 page plus thread such as this exists. It's never our fault.....Given that one of the main themes of this thread is the media’s anti-LFC bias, of course it’s relevant.
So why does the government need to be involved? Neither party is going against the interests of big business so why would the government need to be involved? They could just let Murdoch do what he wants without actively playing a part.Because New Labour were in thrall to big business and did everything they could to suck up to media moguls and their ilk.
What's your reference to Labour being in government for 13 years (a period when we still didn't win the league) got to do with there being a moratorium?What's that got to do with the assertion that the UK Government conspired to stop us winning the title which is what COG believes...
Really? I can't believe that's what posters are reducing this to in addition to the earlier reference.Yeah completely irrelevant to my point. That every other club in the land would piss themselves laughing that a 60 plus thread such as this exists. It's never our fault.....
Err no....just an absence of conspiring that we couldn't take advantage of. If it was just the Tory government that were in on it.....but from what I now understand he meant Labour as well so we were well and truly shafted.What's your reference to Labour being in government for 13 years (a period when we still didn't win the league) got to do with there being a moratorium?
Wouldn't we needed to have won the league in that period?
In my opinion, the ball was set in motion under Thatcher and New Labour were too overawed by the media to intervene. Blair’s government didn’t need to actively do anything; they just let Murdoch et al continue as normal.So why does the government need to be involved? Neither party is going against the interests of big business so why would the government need to be involved? They could just let Murdoch do what he wants without actively playing a part.
I’ll readily admit to coming late to this, so now obviously understand that coming last in a table of bad decisions means you got the most, not least! It’s inverted to the usual way tables form, with most at the top, least at the bottom, but again, I’m late to this and only skim read your post, and haven’t followed the thread closely, so guilty as charged!That depends on your perspective. You're the only poster not to have understood, plus you could have followed the links.
A mixture, sure. Nobody's saying we only get bad decisions. But we don't get our fair share of bad decisions, not even close.
Except that it was the other way round: it was designed to keep discussions in one thread. The fact that some decided to poke fun about other opinions, or that people interpreted it as poking fun, was a regrettable side-effect.Summary.
This thread was created to poke fun at the "tin foil hat" people, and the fact it kept those discussions in one thread was an added bonus.
The use of conspiracy allegations all came from the side arguing against bias, with one user constantly refusing to even understand the meaning of the word. He eventually asked to be blocked from entering the thread.
Even after 60 pages, comparisons to flat earthers were still being thrown in there.
Some believe we're affected adversely more than other by bias, others dont. There will never be a middle ground agreement.
Car crash of a thread, debate became a bit more amiable when one user disappeared for a while, but no surprise to see who were waiting at the door when it was unlocked a couple of days ago.
Yeah, that is a concern. If this discussion spills over the rest of the forum, we'll have no choice but reopening it or create a new one. But on the other hand, the matter has been discussed to death, and apart from personal arguments in the last days, there isn't much in it anymore. Hence us thinking we can close it. But we could be proven wrong about that.I appreciate this thread has become difficult to moderate. However, if you close it the same arguments will spread right across the forum into multiple threads which is the situation we had before it was opened and that's even harder to moderate. It was ruining the forum. At least now posters can be told to go to this thread.
Some people have strong views on this topic and it gives them a place to argue it out whilst others, like me, who have no interest can just ignore it. Why close it? It's run 61 pages and is the most consistently active thread on the entire forum. This is in a season where we are going for a PL and CL double. If people think the debate has run it's course then they don't have to contribute and the thread will die a natural death.
Again, i replied to a specific post, where the poster openly admitted to believing in a government conspiracy against our club. At the same time, I responded by admitting I had not read the thread in its entirety. So not sure where I am out of order.Really? I can't believe that's what posters are reducing this to in addition to the earlier reference.
Grouping people as conspiracy theorists was bad enough.
I have purposely isolated this piece of your post.And this is why I brought the flat earth movement up - not because you share the same level of delusion
I said that was my last attempt at explaining this. I’m not wasting anymore time on it. Everything I have said is still there, and I can’t put more clearly than I have.I have purposely isolated this piece of your post.
I dont share the same level of delusion.
Second or third time you have likened this side of the debate to flat earthers, then attempted to qualify the remark by saying you are not comparing us to them.
Why mention them?
No, you aren’t. Your claim is substantially more extraordinary than mine.Regarding your assertion that I think bias has been proved. Too right it has. Its probably all about opinion until we get a confession from a referee anyway. And in that respect I am just as likely to be correct as you are.
Is it a fact? By suggesting that the number of flagrant professional fouls he gets away with is excessive aren't you by necessary implication accepting that there is an acceptable amount of flagrant professional fouls that a player ought to be able to get away with? Isn't that a personal judgement call rather than a fact?Fernandhino gets away with too many flagrant, counter attack stopping fouls. Conspiracy, bad reffing, matches being played at home?
The first line is a fact. The rest of it is all open to debate.
I suggest that the context around what city do as a team (Fernandhino being it main benefactor) is only lately being impressed upon by other clubs, and trust it will soon be better marshalled.Is it a fact? By suggesting that the number of flagrant professional fouls he gets away with is excessive aren't you by necessary implication accepting that there is an acceptable amount of flagrant professional fouls that a player ought to be able to get away with? Isn't that a personal judgement call rather than a fact?
lolExcept that it was the other way round: it was designed to keep discussions in one thread. The fact that some decided to poke fun about other opinions, or that people interpreted it as poking fun, was a regrettable side-effect.
I see Fernandhino get away with a lot of fouls. That's a fact.Is it a fact? By suggesting that the number of flagrant professional fouls he gets away with is excessive aren't you by necessary implication accepting that there is an acceptable amount of flagrant professional fouls that a player ought to be able to get away with? Isn't that a personal judgement call rather than a fact?
But still a red card? Is that correct. In today's interpretation? Does the player tackling have to be in control, and not go through his opponent? I think it's a red, but only because I think that is how it would be called.Virgil clearly wins the ball.
Says the man who wrote this just a few hours ago.What issue? That we haven't won the league for years?! Pisses me right off but no need to vent here about it being everyone else's fault. Murdock doesn't even like footie!
Everything that's wrong with this forum in 60pages of nonsense!
If Thatcher wrote off Liverpool in secret cabinet files, why is it so difficult to believe in a conspiracy against the football team, particularly when there is vast sums of money at stake and dodgy russian and Abu dhabi involvement?
Fwiw, I don't think you need a conspiracy against LFC just tolerance or acceptance of FFP manipulation and cynical fouls by Citeh and their foul owners. Same goes for tolerance of Ferguson's bullying behaviour in the past.
For 20 odd years we were pretty fucking shyte, and the excuses started piling up. Fact is we had poor staff on and off the field through most of it.Why havent we won the league for so long? We havent been good enough and then when we have been, there's a team that has been better. Frankly, I dont see next season being any better, city will likely dominate the PL while Gaurdiola is in situ. We've had a club record breaking season and it is still in the balance whether we'll be top of the pile when it all ends. I hope against hope we are.
Both tackles were straight reds then on that basis..........@RedLar here are the FA rules:
“A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.”
As with many rules, both in football and elsewhere, the wording is deliberately vague and open to interpretation.
Did Virgil use “excessive force or brutality” or did he simply win the ball and the other player happened to be there to suffer his follow through? There is, in my opinion, a huge difference between the two challenges: Virgil was aiming for the ball; Kompany wasn’t.Both tackles were straight reds then on that basis..........
I say refs should be allowed to blow the whistle before the corner is taken, but let them take it anyway to see what would have happened. Nature demands it.I don't think any ref is immune to bias and that the bias can evolve as a game is actually being played. Doesn't necessarily mean he wanted either team to win or lose before the kick off either.
As a minor example.
Consider a team 2-0 down suddenly gets a goal, to make it 2-1. It's in injury time and they get a late corner and the home crowd gets themselves into a fervor and a level of expectancy for the ensuing cross. How many times have you ever seen the ref blow it up before the corner is taken, even though time on the clock has run out. Never!!! The ball gets cleared by the defence. Ref blows his whistle. This happens 9 times out of 10. Is it conspiracy, or simply human nature on the part of the official? I suggest a lot of the latter happens, where officials become part of the occasion.
If time is up, the ref should just blow his whistle. Not wait to see if it goes in, for the sake of even the neutral fan. His job is to keep time and blow is whistle at 90 minutes.
Point is, refs are all swayed by the occasion, and often by the home team support. When Kompany fouled salah at their place there was zero reaction from the crowd. Ref felt comfy not pulling out an early red card. If it happened at anfield, then the crowd response would have demanded immediate / sterner action from the ref. Happens all the time. Some refs are eager to go to their pocket, others not so.
I suggest we have had several games this season were home fans have been so pissed their own team were so poor, that they start looking for any soft fouls from the ref, to appease the situation. In some cases the ref accommodates them. It's not right, but it's the way it goes.
Refs also book players out of reputation. It's not correct. Fernandhino situation is simply mid boggling to me. List is endless, and much of what happens is simply human. Match is also being played by humans let's remember.