|
Post by geoff321 on Nov 20, 2014 16:50:57 GMT
So I take it pistol that when Gary Monk spoke out you supported him.
|
|
|
Post by ryouonthistrain on Nov 20, 2014 16:53:18 GMT
So Gary Monk gets away with calling all and sundry a cheat but now Peter Coates is getting charged for saying it seems that refs are reffing our games with a certain bais due to a media idea that we rough house teams. Laughable really.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 16:54:03 GMT
What really really gets on my tits with the FA is that instead of actually investigating the performances of their referees and if they screwed up any decisions, they prefer to throw a few charges around at the people who speak out against them. It's like they're untouchable, always right and can't have anything pointed out that might be wrong. A bunch of jokers isn't a strong enough description. COMPLETELY missed the point here!!! you have to remember that refs can NEVER EVER EVER do anything wrong, get any decisions wrong or be questioned in any way whatsoever by anyone! that's why they sit down with managers at the start of the season and explain in plain english exactly how they will interpret certain rules i.e. to ensure that the players know exactly what the rules mean in real terms and so that they can feel comfortable that those rules will be enforced in the same way by every single ref.oh,erm, actually hang on a min........ sorry, got it now, it's so the refs can ignore it all and make it up as they go along and then the FA can receive a nice bit of wedge anytime someone justifiably says "Oi ref what the fuck are you doing you dozy bastard?" our FA are just as corrupt as fucking FIFA are
|
|
|
Post by slicko on Nov 20, 2014 16:55:49 GMT
You can call a player an outright cheat, but can't imply a referee is biased.
Game's gone crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 16:56:06 GMT
Has he said anything controversial? I assume it must relate to something he has said in the last week. Must be this? link"We feel we don't always get fair treatment and that is all we are asking for"
"There does seem to be a bias towards other teams. You always feel that because we have a good crowd that gets behind the team, referees seem to think 'I will show them who's in charge here.' Perhaps it's a macho thing.
"You do get a bit fed up getting fouls against us and decisions having an effect on games, such as a two-footed challenge that doesn't even get a booking or a foul. I do feel that we get treated more harshly than the opposition."
"Yes, there is an element of this," he affirmed. "It's like the Shawcross thing. Frankly, everybody pushes and shoves, but Shawcross gets vilified more than anybody else.
I think we have got a reputation. They say we are the biggest team in the league. We are not. I think we are about the fifth.
"This reputation goes back a long way, to this aggressive game we were supposed to play, but we are no different to anybody else. That reputation is wrong, but it goes before you.
"I don't think we have ever been nasty and aggressive. We press strongly, but so does everybody, except perhaps Arsenal, but everybody is different to Arsenal.
"We are and have been a strong side that can push and press, but nothing more than that."
"I think he (Monk) got off very lightly because of what he said and the fact he kept repeating it. Good luck to him, but he was certainly fortunate because he was wrong."I'm no expert but his use of wording such as " there seems to be" and "perhaps it's a macho thing" along with " I don't think" suggests that Pete has covered his arse already on this . It's not like he's gone on national TV and called an individual a cheat FA, like my arse!! The same FA that makes apologies for England fans singing against terrorist organisations.that have murdered innocent British civilians.
|
|
|
Post by snapotter on Nov 20, 2014 16:56:51 GMT
I think Coates knows what he is doing, and is taking one for the team. He has made the point for the club whilst letting Hughes get on with managing the team. Ten grand well spent.
Yes..... I do think he is that shrewd.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Nov 20, 2014 16:58:28 GMT
Referees are not cheats and are not biased, but they make mistakes, that is called being human.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 16:58:18 GMT
So I take it pistol that when Gary Monk spoke out you supported him. isn't the point that Monk did speak out and wasn't charged. Warnock spoke out and was charged PC spoke out and has been charged. how is anyone supposed to know what is or isn't acceptable to say about refs when there's absolutely NO consistency shown by the FA?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Nov 20, 2014 16:59:43 GMT
There's no consistency mick in life in general, why expect it in football?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 20, 2014 17:00:10 GMT
How can they charge Coates? He's a chairman? Not a manager. He isn't technically part of the playing or managerial staff? How can he even be bound by the FA? If I was Peter, I'd tell them sue him. I'd love to take on the fucking FA. He can be charged because he's a "participant", the definition of which is " an Affiliated Association, Authorised agent, competition, club, club official, licensed agent, player, official, match official, management committee member, member or employee of an affiliated club and all such persons who are from time to time participating in any activity sanctioned directly or indirectly by the Association"
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 20, 2014 17:02:25 GMT
How can they charge Coates? He's a chairman? Not a manager. He isn't technically part of the playing or managerial staff? How can he even be bound by the FA? If I was Peter, I'd tell them sue him. I'd love to take on the fucking FA. He can be charged because he's a "participant", the definition of which is " an Affiliated Association, Authorised agent, competition, club, club official, licensed agent, player, official, match official, management committee member, member or employee of an affiliated club and all such persons who are from time to time participating in any activity sanctioned directly or indirectly by the Association" It's a still a joke wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:02:25 GMT
Referees are not cheats and are not biased, but they make mistakes, that is called being human. "The ref's cheated us" words of Garry Monk...any idea why he wasn't charged geoff?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:03:55 GMT
There's no consistency mick in life in general, why expect it in football? because, unlike in life in general geoff, there are rules set down that the FA themselves HAVE to follow yet consistently don't. there's your answer..thanks for writing in
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 20, 2014 17:03:57 GMT
Doesn't Peter Coates hold some post or other on the FA? Or did I dream it? He was a member of the FA Council until last year when he reached the compulsory retirement age of 75.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Nov 20, 2014 17:04:33 GMT
The referee made a mistake and therefore cheated us, that is not the same as saying the referee is a cheat.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:06:07 GMT
Doesn't Peter Coates hold some post or other on the FA? Or did I dream it? He was a member of the FA Council until last year when he reached the compulsory retirement age of 75. Thanks Malcom. I've been sitting here wracking my brains trying to remember.
|
|
|
Post by ianstokie on Nov 20, 2014 17:08:33 GMT
Completely bent
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:10:35 GMT
The referee made a mistake and therefore cheated us, that is not the same as saying the referee is a cheat. so why has Coates been charged here exactly? he doesn't say anywhere that any refs have cheated or that they are biased, merely that it "Seems to be" the case that there is bias which is nothing other than a personal opinion. in fact, it's actually very well worded in the same way Monk's was to get the point across without actually stating anything as definitive fact and therefore it isn't an accusation it's simply a personal opinion about what seems to be the case. why has Coates been charged when Monk wasn't?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 20, 2014 17:13:33 GMT
You would hope that mangers / assistants / owners who get fined, would get together and ask for a bit of consistency - after all that's what this is all about. This reaction is just unbelievable - the FA took ages to decide on what to do after Monks statement and now nearly 5 WEEKS later issue this charge. Can we appeal? At this stage he's been charged with breaking the relevant rule, not found guilty. He must first decide whether to accept the charge (i.e plead guilty). If he does, an independent regulatory commission will decide the sanction and he can make a plea in mitigation. If he contests the charge, an independent regulatory commission will decide whether he is guilty of breaching the relevant rule, and , if he is found guilty of doing so, decide on sanction. He can ask for a personal hearing. If he is found guilty, having contested the charge, he can appeal.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Nov 20, 2014 17:15:55 GMT
IF mick Peter Coates implied referees are biased then that would lead to charges, in the case of Monk he said Moses had cheated the referee which had led to the referee cheating us.
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Nov 20, 2014 17:16:20 GMT
Bunch of corrupt cronies. Hope old Pete tells 'em firmly to sit on it and swivel.
|
|
|
Post by robstokie on Nov 20, 2014 17:17:24 GMT
I like to think that, in this day of play-acting, lying and general corruption, we are the only fuckers who play fairly. It seems we are FA scapegoats for a lot of things that others would get away with. Ah well, if we cant beat them, we might as well join the others in lying, slagging off others and conning the ref.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Nov 20, 2014 17:17:40 GMT
Doesn't Peter Coates hold some post or other on the FA? Or did I dream it? He was a member of the FA Council until last year when he reached the compulsory retirement age of 75. Malcolm, would it be fair to say Coates has made stronger comments than this in the past, while he was a member of the FA Council, and was not charged? I wonder if being a member of the FA Council gave him some kind of freedom to speak out, which in itself throws up questionable ethics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:18:35 GMT
Peter is definitely right when he mentions bias by the referees. Most of them are anti Stoke City. There is no doubt in my mind about this. As another poster has said, he should tell them where to go, but then again, that would land him in more trouble. You can't beat em, and you can't join em. Completely unfair scenario! Just wait till Saturday and the clown we've got in charge, Atkinson!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:19:51 GMT
IF mick Peter Coates implied referees are biased then that would lead to charges, in the case of Monk he said Moses had cheated the referee which had led to the referee cheating us. he hasn't though..he's said "It seems to be the case" and then goes onto explain why. that is simply stating his personal opinion based on the facts he uses as an explanation. saying "It seems that there may be a bias" is simply offering a possible explanation, it's not stating that that IS the case at all
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:26:14 GMT
The referee made a mistake and therefore cheated us, that is not the same as saying the referee is a cheat. If someone cheats someone else, how can they (the cheater) not be a cheat?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Nov 20, 2014 17:26:58 GMT
Only Peter Coates knows what he actually meant to say, but the comment was ( I think ), " there does seem to be bias towards other teams ".
I would think mick that is why the F.A. have reacted, nothing surprising here.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Nov 20, 2014 17:28:06 GMT
Who if anyone can address the situation of inconsistency re decisions being commented on, by anyone formally associated with a football club?
Is there a definitive understanding of what is and isn't acceptable when managers, people associated are asked for comments?
Do they have an association to represent them?
It's an unwelcome distraction 5 weeks after the game v Swansea, Monk and Swansea have been able to move on unscathed
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Nov 20, 2014 17:29:49 GMT
Who if anyone can address the situation of inconsistency re decisions being commented on, by anyone formally associated with a football club? Is there a definitive understanding of what is and isn't acceptable when managers, people associated are asked for comments? Do they have an association to represent them? It's an unwelcome distraction 5 weeks after the game v Swansea, Monk and Swansea have been able to move on unscathed I don't think it'll have Hughes and the players having sleepless nights to be honest. Coates will deal with these cock-a-roaches
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Nov 20, 2014 17:31:16 GMT
Looks like the FA are getting a bit of (deserved) shit on twatter I might get myself a twatter account just to join in
|
|