|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 20, 2014 17:31:23 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. “It's happening week after week and it's always against us“ Gary Monk not charged And from the interview I saw Monk called the referee a cheat it was only afterwards he changed it to Moses cheated the ref who then cheated us.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 20, 2014 17:33:44 GMT
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. What I've done above is to present purely factual information about the definitions, how the process works and PC's membership of the FA Council. As I am on the panel of members of Regulatory Commissions I am rightly not allowed to make public comment on individual charging decisions or cases, I'm afraid Onionman. What I can say is that the members of regulatory commissions are independent of those who take the decisions whether or not to charge and have no involvement at all in those decisions. It also won't surprise you to know that I cannot sit on any case involving Stoke City.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 20, 2014 17:39:27 GMT
What a bunch of cunt nuggets.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Nov 20, 2014 17:43:32 GMT
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. What I've done above is to present purely factual information about the definitions, how the process works and PC's membership of the FA Council. As I am on the panel of members of Regulatory Commissions I am rightly not allowed to make public comment on individual charging decisions or cases, I'm afraid Onionman. What I can say is that the members of regulatory commissions are independent of those who take the decisions whether or not to charge and have no involvement at all in those decisions. It also won't surprise you to know that I cannot sit on any case involving Stoke City. Fair enough. I did often wonder, though, whether Coates was previously allowed to push his luck a little bit because he was one of the boys at the FA. He was far more aggressive to Martin Atkinson last Christmas, and once or twice when we were getting a rough time from refs under Pulis. I didn't complain at the time, because that would be like slagging off the ref for giving Stoke a dodgy penalty, but I think the fact they've taken action for these comparatively tame comments is quite telling. EDIT: I don't believe he was charged for this: "The performance of the referee and his officials was a disgrace, and we will certainly be complaining to the relevant authorities," he said in the Daily Telegraph. "We cannot accept what happened to us at Newcastle without making some form of representation. It's then up to the officials what they do, but we found it hugely disappointing because there were so many poor decisions. "There was no common sense applied and I don't think either of the yellow cards for Glenn Whelan were deserved. For one of the goals I could clearly see the ball was out of play, sitting high up in the stands. "The sendings-off completely changed the game. We were playing ever so well up to the dismissals, leading 1-0, but when you're down to nine men you've got no chance. It's not a case of sour grapes, we simply cannot accept what happened."
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Nov 20, 2014 17:43:53 GMT
Has no bugger else realised it's to do with the arsenal comment? Wenger would have been straight onto the fa with highlighting them.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 20, 2014 17:45:53 GMT
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. What I've done above is to present purely factual information about the definitions, how the process works and PC's membership of the FA Council. As I am on the panel of members of Regulatory Commissions I am rightly not allowed to make public comment on individual charging decisions or cases, I'm afraid Onionman. What I can say is that the members of regulatory commissions are independent of those who take the decisions whether or not to charge and have no involvement at all in those decisions. It also won't surprise you to know that I cannot sit on any case involving Stoke City. Who decides which comments deserve a charge? Is it an individual or a panel? That's where the inconsistency seems to come from.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:48:32 GMT
Staggering.
Speechless.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Nov 20, 2014 17:50:53 GMT
Peter made the mistake of questioning the refs integrity, Monk never did this, he only questioned his ability. Monk called the ref a disgrace Peter questioned whether there was a bias towards other teams.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:52:42 GMT
Has no bugger else realised it's to do with the arsenal comment? Wenger would have been straight onto the fa with highlighting them. I was thinking along the same lines. He's made them sound like a right bunch of sissys.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Nov 20, 2014 17:53:28 GMT
And this is what Coates said after the Liverpool game last season. Again, he wasn't charged.
"The game changes when the referee gives a penalty for the merest of touches. The player dived," Coates told the Sentinel. "There was also a handball by Sterling before the penalty, one the linesman didn't see, and that is a game changer.
"We are again victims of poor refereeing and I am sick of it. We had it against Newcastle and Tottenham, and now Liverpool. You get fed up with it because these are big decisions that affect the games you play in, so you are bound to get very upset by it.
"It is well known that the big clubs, especially at home, but often away too, get the big shouts. I am not questioning any referee's integrity, it's human nature. It's always been like that and it never changes."
Coates believes previous comments from the Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers about decisions that went against his own team in games with Chelsea and Manchester City may have played a part in Taylor's thinking.
"If you remember, Brendan Rodgers was rather annoyed not to get a penalty recently," added Coates. "He made a big play of it and the media made a big play of it, so you do wonder if it crosses the referee's mind. I am not accusing referees of cheating, just acting subconsciously under various different pressures."
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Nov 20, 2014 17:55:28 GMT
What I've done above is to present purely factual information about the definitions, how the process works and PC's membership of the FA Council. As I am on the panel of members of Regulatory Commissions I am rightly not allowed to make public comment on individual charging decisions or cases, I'm afraid Onionman. What I can say is that the members of regulatory commissions are independent of those who take the decisions whether or not to charge and have no involvement at all in those decisions. It also won't surprise you to know that I cannot sit on any case involving Stoke City. Who decides which comments deserve a charge? Is it an individual or a panel? That's where the inconsistency seems to come from. 3.1 The decision that facts or matters may give rise to Misconduct and that a Charge be brought will be made by the Chief Regulatory Officer (or his nominee) on behalf of The AssociationThere is a department of the FA which deals with such matters, the football equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service if you like. To follow that analogy, the Independent Regulatory Commissions are the equivalent of the magistrates or juries.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Nov 20, 2014 17:57:39 GMT
Not a surprise and I'm not sure why people are comparing it with Monk, Coates has broken the rules buy saying that refs are (or seemingly) biased against us or whoever, its not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Nov 20, 2014 17:59:11 GMT
Not a surprise and I'm not sure why people are comparing it with Monk, Coates has broken the rules buy saying that refs are (or seemingly) biased against us or whoever, its not allowed. Is that why he's bieng charged then?
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Nov 20, 2014 17:59:20 GMT
Has no bugger else realised it's to do with the arsenal comment? Wenger would have been straight onto the fa with highlighting them. I was thinking along the same lines. He's made them sound like a right bunch of sissys. We only started having problems with Wenger and his crusaders after Tomas Sorensen called his team a bunch of softies when we beat them in 2008. Since then he's been like a class snitch at every opportunity, from his attempt to ban throw-ins to the time he falsely claimed Shawcross had kicked the Spurs goalie. Guess what, Wenger, we're still here.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Nov 20, 2014 18:00:34 GMT
Not a surprise and I'm not sure why people are comparing it with Monk, Coates has broken the rules buy saying that refs are (or seemingly) biased against us or whoever, its not allowed. Why was he allowed to make the exact same point after the Liverpool game last season though?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Nov 20, 2014 18:01:50 GMT
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. What I've done above is to present purely factual information about the definitions, how the process works and PC's membership of the FA Council. As I am on the panel of members of Regulatory Commissions I am rightly not allowed to make public comment on individual charging decisions or cases, I'm afraid Onionman. What I can say is that the members of regulatory commissions are independent of those who take the decisions whether or not to charge and have no involvement at all in those decisions. It also won't surprise you to know that I cannot sit on any case involving Stoke City.
Doh! Malcolm I TOLD you to tell them you support the Vale!
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Nov 20, 2014 18:02:57 GMT
Not a surprise and I'm not sure why people are comparing it with Monk, Coates has broken the rules buy saying that refs are (or seemingly) biased against us or whoever, its not allowed. Is that why he's bieng charged then? I can't see what else it could be, it could have been something else but I doubt it from those comments.
|
|
|
Post by terrorofturfmoor on Nov 20, 2014 18:05:01 GMT
The sad thing is.....he's fuckin bang on, and he gets charged for it!!!
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Nov 20, 2014 18:05:53 GMT
Not a surprise and I'm not sure why people are comparing it with Monk, Coates has broken the rules buy saying that refs are (or seemingly) biased against us or whoever, its not allowed. Why was he allowed to make the exact same point after the Liverpool game last season though? Consistency isn't their strong point, as I say I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Nov 20, 2014 18:18:28 GMT
Mr. Coates is a businessman - seize the chance to pay the fine and explain it was for the following comment...then reads out what he said again.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Nov 20, 2014 18:20:47 GMT
Whatever happened to free speech?
|
|
|
Post by BigKahunaBurger on Nov 20, 2014 18:32:27 GMT
I hope this doesn't affect my wages
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 18:34:06 GMT
Coates could of made the most of the his fine.......call the FA a bunch of corrupt bastards and tell them feck off (will I get fined for that?!). He can return the fine envelope back to FA headquarters with a pile shit in....with compliments.
Bastards.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 18:35:51 GMT
Just to clarify, if Coates had just come out and labelled them cheats, the FA would have been fine with that?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 20, 2014 18:49:50 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."This is a fair, dignified and accurate account of the reaIity of the situation by Peter. We are lucky to have him in charge of our club. The FA could do worse than make him Chairman to bring some honesty and commonsense to the game.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Nov 20, 2014 18:55:47 GMT
It is supporters of football clubs that are biased, not referees.
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Nov 20, 2014 19:03:09 GMT
It is supporters of football clubs that are biased, not referees. Well that rules you out of being biased, as you're not a supporter of any club are you. Merely an 'interested observer' that was your definiton wasn't it..?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Nov 20, 2014 19:03:15 GMT
It is supporters of football clubs that are biased, not referees. So why, during Fergie's time at Man Utd, did they tend to have longer periods of added time at the end of home games when they were losing or drawing than when they were winning? I've never believed that refs in this country are corrupt but some of them ARE biased. The statistics show quite clearly that some refs favour the bigger clubs and some favour the home side. The fact that it isn't deliberate bias doesn't alter the fact that it does exist.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Nov 20, 2014 19:03:33 GMT
Referees are not cheats and are not biased, but they make mistakes, that is called being human. Didn't you say Garry Monk didn't say anything wrong though?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 19:03:42 GMT
It is supporters of football clubs that are biased, not referees. So saith the WUM.
|
|