The mancityfans.net football forum

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:

phips wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Numerous camera angles have him looking straight at the incident. To then say he didn't see it is laughable. Not even close

so if there's no way he didnt see it, given the camera angles, then what is his rationale for:

A. not sending Sergio off in the match (or even talking to Sergio)
B. saying that he didnt see it

im genuinely curious. as a stupid American im used to writing off all fan conspiracies as stupid complaints from bitter fans. since so many of you believe there's a conspiracy i want to know more.

How gracious of you.

Us real fans our busy being pissed off by the double standards that will see our superstar miss the derby for an action Rooney and fellani have been let off for numerous times, but at least you're letting us have our little whine on such a trivial matter.

Condescending cunt.

hey, piece of shit, it was sincere question. talk about a condescending cunt...

so many people are claiming there's no way he could've missed it. so then why did he lie? what are the theories?
and if he couldn't have missed it then why didnt he send him off?

I think my overriding feeling is confusion as to a) how he missed it, or b) why he is saying he missed it he frankly can't have done.

If he did miss it, he absolutely should not have done because he could not have been in a better position to see it if someone had picked him up and placed him just where he needed to be in order for him to see it. That would be no more than incompetence or blindness on a grand scale. Either way he would not be fit for purpose and he is cutting his own refereeing throat by saying he has missed it, as far as I am concerned.

And if he did see it and lied when he said he didn't, why do that other than to wantonly get Sergio banned? I have seen no other decent reason why he would lie other than to affect City. Mister Look-at-me-I'm-dead-controversial-me ross came up with nothing but snidey little comments, as per fucking usual - what can you expect from a pig but a grunt? - and you have provided nothing to go on either. We just need lookmum and Dazby and we've got the full set of ostriches here and not one other common sense explanation for the facts than what we have come up with.

So, you people, tell me what we are missing here.

freshie wrote:

Hazy2 wrote:Sergio who speaks little Inglish has been an extra 24 hours as it was explained he had not been asked to be a fan by the FA.

Is that you Sergio?

no, no soy yo gracias

Marriner is on the take, he lies because he is told to lie by deathshead dermot - otherwise he's off the list and missing his PLmatch fees.
Standing orders from the swamp - all possible means must be used to stop City.

or it's just what it is

'In May 2013 he refereed the FA Cup final between Manchester City and Wigan Athletic at Wembley Stadium. Marriner described the appointment as a "great honour".Wigan won the final 1–0, with a stoppage time goal from Ben Watson. Marriner dismissed City's Pablo Zabaleta six minutes from time for a second yellow card offence.

During a March 2014 Premier League match between Chelsea and Arsenal, in the 15th minute, when Chelsea were 2–0 up, Marriner mistakenly dismissed Arsenal's Kieran Gibbs for a deliberate handball on the goal-line, the offence having actually been committed by Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain. After the game, which finished 6–0 to Chelsea, the Professional Game Match Officials Board stated: "Incidents of mistaken identity are very rare and are often the result of a number of different technical fact ors. Whilst this was a difficult decision Andre is disappointed that he failed to identify the correct player." Chelsea manager José Mourinho said: "It is the kind of situation where if you have a TV, the fourth official could see it was not Gibbs."

City will contest the charge, on SSN

How can we contest. Strange. Here's hoping

Our only ammo surely is that the REF must have seen the incident, as he was looking right at it.

Simple for City. the ref saw no foul, wtf is going on here.

phips wrote:

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:

phips wrote:

nottsblue wrote:Numerous camera angles have him looking straight at the incident. To then say he didn't see it is laughable. Not even close

so if there's no way he didnt see it, given the camera angles, then what is his rationale for:

A. not sending Sergio off in the match (or even talking to Sergio)
B. saying that he didnt see it

im genuinely curious. as a stupid American im used to writing off all fan conspiracies as stupid complaints from bitter fans. since so many of you believe there's a conspiracy i want to know more.

How gracious of you.

Us real fans our busy being pissed off by the double standards that will see our superstar miss the derby for an action Rooney and fellani have been let off for numerous times, but at least you're letting us have our little whine on such a trivial matter.

Condescending cunt.

hey, piece of shit, it was sincere question. talk about a condescending cunt...

so many people are claiming there's no way he could've missed it. so then why did he lie? what are the theories?
and if he couldn't have missed it then why didnt he send him off?

PBL might be a "not watched the match but here's my thoughts" doucher but he's not a piece of shit. I'll defend him in that regard.

So fuck off you absolute wind up merchant weirdo fuck.

Jeers

Just switched Talkspite on a little while ago and thought I must have tuned in to the wrong station.

Patrick Barclay and Dean Ashton were in the studio and pronounced that Sergio's alleged elbowing was "nothing at all" and they couldn't see what all the fuss was about and why the FA should get involved.

Couldn't believe what I was hearing and then the interviewer (Sam Matterface, or some such other 'dummkopf') piped up and said WHEN Sergio gets a ban (so, no change there then), the footballing fans in this country would be actually "cheated" because one of the Premier League's great players, in a key fixture, would be prevented from playing.

Don't know what they said afterwards because I couldn't take any more of this hypocrisy/change of attitude/apparent fairness and, because it was so out of character and unsettling, I switched over to 5 Live instead.

Wonder if anyone else heard it and listened at greater length to all that was being said.

appeal put in because the potential extra game ban would be served vs swansea in the league cup? a game that serge wouldn't play in anyway??

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:Just switched Talkspite on a little while ago and thought I must have tuned in to the wrong station.

Patrick Barclay and Dean Ashton were in the studio and pronounced that Sergio's alleged elbowing was "nothing at all" and they couldn't see what all the fuss was about and why the FA should get involved.

Couldn't believe what I was hearing and then the interviewer (Sam Matterface, or some such other 'dummkopf') piped up and said WHEN Sergio gets a ban (so, no change there then), the footballing fans in this country would be actually "cheated" because one of the Premier League's great players, in a key fixture, would be prevented from playing.

Don't know what they said afterwards because I couldn't take any more of this hypocrisy/change of attitude/apparent fairness and, because it was so out of character and unsettling, I switched over to 5 Live instead.

Wonder if anyone else heard it and listened at greater length to all that was being said.

That was the end of the spiel mate and it was exactly as you say. I was gobsmascked as well. However, the point they raised was a valid one where the tussle was just that, blown out of all proportions by the powers that be.

Their main thoughts were like many proper footballer fans, they want to see 2 of the suggested best sides in the league go head-to-head with their best players. Sky and the Rag hoards have tried to rob the country of that and their are a few who have taken umbridge at the way they are dealing with it, or dealing with it at all.

Nigels Tackle wrote:appeal put in because the potential extra game ban would be served vs swansea in the league cup? a game that serge wouldn't play in anyway??

Isn't Serge looking at three game ban?
If so, the additional ban would be Swansea away in the league. The league cup is played just before the league game

Moonchesteri wrote:

Nigels Tackle wrote:appeal put in because the potential extra game ban would be served vs swansea in the league cup? a game that serge wouldn't play in anyway??

Isn't Serge looking at three game ban?
If so, the additional ban would be Swansea away in the league. The league cup is played just before the league game

And that's where I see the issue. You automatically think that this is a frivolous appeal when the reality is that he hasn't even faced the charge yet.

He isn't appealing, he's just not admitting the charge.

Moonchesteri wrote:

Nigels Tackle wrote:appeal put in because the potential extra game ban would be served vs swansea in the league cup? a game that serge wouldn't play in anyway??

Isn't Serge looking at three game ban?
If so, the additional ban would be Swansea away in the league. The league cup is played just before the league game

unless im mistaken they no longer add matches for failed appeals....

Tokyo Blue wrote:And if he did see it and lied when he said he didn't, why do that other than to wantonly get Sergio banned? I have seen no other decent reason why he would lie other than to affect City. Mister Look-at-me-I'm-dead-controversial-me ross came up with nothing but snidey little comments, as per fucking usual - what can you expect from a pig but a grunt? - and you have provided nothing to go on either. We just need lookmum and Dazby and we've got the full set of ostriches here and not one other common sense explanation for the facts than what we have come up with.

So, you people, tell me what we are missing here.

okay, that seems to be the overarching thought: to fuck over City.
but why? because the Premier League doesnt want City to win it? well City just won it twice.
to keep the old guard in power? Arsenal hasn't won it in ages, United have been shit since SAF left, and Liverpool were so close a few years ago yet City went on to win it.
he's just a biased twat acting out at his own discretion? maybe. im sure if you checked though you'd find City matches that he officiated that City won.

im just trying to follow the thought process backwards to try and come up with a logical guess behind it all.

Another "decent" reason he "lied" could be that the FA doesn't want players getting away with violent behaviour because of a technicality when it was seen by a global audience and talked about everywhere in world football.

What would it say for the PL/FA to not even bother to charge a player who did what Aguero did because the ref didn't see it? Rule snobs and lawyers will agree with our complaints, but average fans will think he deserves the ban everywhere and not just in England and from United supporters.

In the most recent NBA Finals a similar ruling was handed out against another player for violent behavior towards its biggest star, Lebron James. Certain fans complained that Lebron always gets special treatment and believe there was a conspiracy to help him and show why because he gets away with breaking another rule all of the time, which he does.

However, the rules he is allowed to break are more "within the game" and encourage what the league wants, which is a free flowing entertaining sport. Getting rid of violence in non violent sport is better for business. I know I am not popular for not towing the line of the SKY4 agenda against us line of reasoning in this case, but I think it could be as much about weeding out this behaviour, as seems to be the direction the FA is going, in general (i.e. rules to minimize the physical nature of the league).

Meanwhile, the technicality seems like a primary main reason Aguero is planning to contest the ban, other than to ensure he can play in the derby (assuming he will be fit). Marriner very likely had to have seen it based on his positioning, so how can he say he didn't?

phips wrote:

Tokyo Blue wrote:And if he did see it and lied when he said he didn't, why do that other than to wantonly get Sergio banned? I have seen no other decent reason why he would lie other than to affect City. Mister Look-at-me-I'm-dead-controversial-me ross came up with nothing but snidey little comments, as per fucking usual - what can you expect from a pig but a grunt? - and you have provided nothing to go on either. We just need lookmum and Dazby and we've got the full set of ostriches here and not one other common sense explanation for the facts than what we have come up with.

So, you people, tell me what we are missing here.

okay, that seems to be the overarching thought: to fuck over City.
but why? because the Premier League doesnt want City to win it? well City just won it twice.
to keep the old guard in power? Arsenal hasn't won it in ages, United have been shit since SAF left, and Liverpool were so close a few years ago yet City went on to win it.
he's just a biased twat acting out at his own discretion? maybe. im sure if you checked though you'd find City matches that he officiated that City won.

im just trying to follow the thought process backwards to try and come up with a logical guess behind it all.

Arsenal haven't won it in ages but how much help from refs do they get toward the end of the season? Last 4-5 games or so you'll see them get decisions that could go either way. Or could just be the fact that they haven't bought anyone decent for about 500 years?

Liverpool were close a couple of years ago. Why? When we played them should Suarez have been sent off? Yes. Was he? No! Again, everything was done to help them win the league.

Every time we've won the league it's been against every shit refereeing decision against us.

So if Tokyo finds a City match that City have won where Marriner has officiated that's proof that he's not biased? Why ask such a stupid question?

Beefymcfc wrote:

Moonchesteri wrote:

Nigels Tackle wrote:appeal put in because the potential extra game ban would be served vs swansea in the league cup? a game that serge wouldn't play in anyway??

Isn't Serge looking at three game ban?
If so, the additional ban would be Swansea away in the league. The league cup is played just before the league game

And that's where I see the issue. You automatically think that this is a frivolous appeal when the reality is that he hasn't even faced the charge yet.

He isn't appealing, he's just not admitting the charge.

So is he looking at one game ban only no matter what the result? Or 1+1?

Don't you still get a three game ban for straight red? I'm confused help me out guys please

Your all looking at why he said what he did when it would seem impossible for him to have missed it in other words motivation. I think he may have switched off and is trying to weasel out of being seen to be incompetent. As a city supporter it's really hard to feel were treated fairly we aren't, Fellani and Costa get away with blue murdrr and the Scum /Scousers axis really affects press reporting. Sky own 10% of the rags so they are bad too.I hope we win this appeal and shame the (scum or is it Scousers that's there preference as long s it's red )Blazers at the FA.
Anyway fear not fellow blues we have a lad arriving in January who is a lethal goal scorer like they have never seen , Jesus and Sergio together will be a potent strike force and we'll win the fucking league anyway despite the whining cunts. And again and again until they have to let us keep it. City till I die.