I might be mistaken but how does Wenger's comments compare to Mourinho's?
Mourinho was charged for commenting about the ref before the match, which is categorically not allowed. Wenger made his complaints after?
Jose | Water(bottle)gate and refs in zoos
- Thread starter RedMachine03
- Start date
Mourinho was charged for commenting about the ref before the match, which is categorically not allowed. Wenger made his complaints after?
Just curious will Klopp ever get sanctioned for his constant yelling at ref's...
It doesn't take an ABU to see that Mourinho is treated much more harshly than his "charismatic" counterparts. They bring a lot of character to the league and therefore should be allowed to jump up and down like lunatics, ranting and raving at refs and linesmen as much as they like, and saying what they want before and after games.
Absolute shite organisation with even more shocking officials. Wankers.
Absolute shite organisation with even more shocking officials. Wankers.
Mourinho was once that "charismatic" guy the media pandered to. Then his rhetoric got old and embarrassing. At Utd he has generally toned down but it seems his past actions are counting against him.
You can't comment on refs as it can influence their decisions - even if it will be their future decisions against different opponents. That's the logic, at least
That isn't right though.
I have nothing against Mourinho being banned(When he deserves it) ,I just hate double standards.
This..
Can´t have one set for Jose and another set for the the Wengers and Klopps...
My take on this is, it's borderline scandalous but like most of us here, I'm a United fan so I can't exactly call myself a rational neutral.
What do opposition fans here think? Is Mourinho being targeted because of past discretions, and if he is, is that the way for the FA to mete out punishments?
What do opposition fans here think? Is Mourinho being targeted because of past discretions, and if he is, is that the way for the FA to mete out punishments?
To be fair, even when he was at Chelsea I thought that the FA were harsh on Mourinho on many an occasion, and displayed double standards in their treatment of him vs. other managers. That was when I did not like him at all.
In fact, didn't the FA fine Chelsea more than City in the match where City had 2 players sent off for disgraceful behaviour? Absurd (assuming I remember correctly). We clearly are not the only ones on the FA naughty list.
at thread titleChelsea are repeat offenders, thats why they were fined more
I may have missed something, but wasn't it 2 sendings off to 0 for City? Not sure what Chelsea repeat offended. Anyway if I were a Chelsea supporter I would be annoyed.
Sorry to derail the topic.
When you watch Wenger in press conferences mouthing off about referees and see Klopp screaming at fourth officials, you have to assume that either the FA don't like Mourinho or they are taking his reputation and previous offences into account. They've always been inconsistent though.
There might be a scenario where they are trying to use Mourinho to show that they won't allow managers to do/say as they like, but then if that's the case then why hasn't anything been done about Wenger? Why hasn't anything been said about other managers who have questioned referee's this season, or kicked up a fuss on the side of the pitch? I think Mourinho's his own worst enemy at times but there's definitely evidence that he's being targeted by the FA in my opinion.
The water bottle thing was ridiculous. I'd be fuming if Klopp had been punished for that.
Oh yes. Spurs fought with us last season and got a player having a 6 game ban, yet we got a heavier fine than Spurs. Against city, we again got a heavier fine for receiving that career ending tackle from aguero and them getting 2 reds. The fecking FA is always against us whoever our manager maybe. We have got 1 penalty in 17 games this season while pool and Spurs get 5-6. Scandalous.
No you didn't get the heavier fines for the sending offs. You have ben involved in more instances of failing to control players.
(Chelsea fan here) Not as annoyed as we were after last seasons Spurs game. Spurs came with a couple of intentions... to bait Costa, to try and wind us up and if that failed, to kick us and particularly hazard off the park. Spurs received an incredible 9 yellows and could easily have had 3 players sent off. One of them got a retrospective ban for eye gouging, but other incidents were a stamp on Fabragas hand, an off the ball kick in the ribs to Chelsea player lying on the floor, Walker flicking snot and blood from his nose in Costa face and three or four quite awful fouls against Hazard that could have done him serious damage. On top of that Gus Hiddink (a 67 year old man) was pushed over in the tunnel at the end by a Spurs player. Chelsea got 3 yellows , two of them received for complaining to ref for more protection.
The FA fined Chelsea a whopping £375,000 and Spurs got ..... about half that. Regardless of what people call "form" even oppo fans must look at that and think "what the feck?" So we get another black mark (for doing pretty much nothing) and then the next incident we react to when being assaulted on the football pitch (Man City) we again get double the punishment of City and talk of a points deduction. And when i say react, we had one player (Chalobah) push Aguero for trying to break a fellow pro's leg (as he has done before with Luiz). City (as you rightly point out) got 2 sent off for violent behaviour. Figure that out. Which players (plural) exactly did we fail to control?
The FA I'm afraid are bent and bear grudges against certain clubs and individuals. They also have their favourites of which Wenger is one. Last season Gabriel (I think) was sent off for donkey kicking Costa off the ball. The ref saw it and called it. Wenger somehow got that decision rescinded.
Mourinho will be picked on by the FA no question. Will anyone care or fight your corner? Of course not. Did you care when he was our manager? The media is more United friendly than Chelsea friendly but nevertheless JM will fight a lonely furrow against the powers that be. I know - we've been there.
Last edited:
Do you call the Spurs and City incidents "offences" by Chelsea? Or do you call them understandable (and not over the top) reactions to violence stamping , eye gouging, career ending tackles against our players. Yet we now have two more offences on our record for the FA to throw at us and maybe deduct points, the next time we are assaulted. Just put yourself in our shoes for a few seconds and be honest.
I agree with every point you made. And it strengthens the point I was trying to make before.
I remember the Gabriel decision, a decision that once against went in Wenger's favour. I was surprised and disappointed because the referee saw it and so the FA should not have stepped in. The fact that they did, to the benefit of someone who kicked another player, by rescinding the red, was hypocritical and a huge double standard. In fact, it contradicts their own rules. But those rules apply to some, not to others it seems.
Spineless, that sums up the FA.
According to the FA rules its an offense not to control your players. I dont make up the rules
Very good post. I remember being legitimately angry watching that game. Spurs absolutely capitulated like I've never seen before (both in terms of result and just going apeshit) and I thought it was appalling. They went massively down in my estimations that game.
Good post. I couldnt belive that Chelsea's fine was higher than City's.
Can't argue with this, mate.
People's reputation or alleged reputation precedes them unfortunately. Refs and the FA should do more to factor this out, but in practice that doesn't happen. The press and pundits are complicit in characterising people that way as well.
So you get someone like Payet for W.Ham who is a serious cheat and a serial diving offender, but that get's overlooked by pundits and the press who are falling over themselves to talk him up. With Jose, the press do have a different tone with him than for any of the other "big" Premier League managers. Coupled with the fact that he's at United and he will be under more scrutiny and in all likelihood judged that bit harsher when it comes to FA punishments. Though I'm not one for FA conspiracies really, I think it's inconsistencies are down to it not being fit to govern the game full stop.
The misbehaviour of managers is a weird one as well, in that it does really add to the entertainment, and the FA, Sky etc.. must appreciate this. Certainly more so than the players, they're there to play and that's their bit. With managers, the bigger the character, the bigger the draw.
SAF would be a great example, I was lucky enough to meet him very informally & he was really charming, not at all as he was often characterised.
So you get someone like Payet for W.Ham who is a serious cheat and a serial diving offender, but that get's overlooked by pundits and the press who are falling over themselves to talk him up. With Jose, the press do have a different tone with him than for any of the other "big" Premier League managers. Coupled with the fact that he's at United and he will be under more scrutiny and in all likelihood judged that bit harsher when it comes to FA punishments. Though I'm not one for FA conspiracies really, I think it's inconsistencies are down to it not being fit to govern the game full stop.
The misbehaviour of managers is a weird one as well, in that it does really add to the entertainment, and the FA, Sky etc.. must appreciate this. Certainly more so than the players, they're there to play and that's their bit. With managers, the bigger the character, the bigger the draw.
SAF would be a great example, I was lucky enough to meet him very informally & he was really charming, not at all as he was often characterised.
As you said there is a clear bias against certain clubs and managers, the "repeat offender" part is just the FA's excuse to shaft Chelsea again.
I hope that decision comes back the haunt the FA because they set a dangerous precedent . Essentially they accepted that Costa had been kicked off the ball with a sly donkey kick. They couldn't really deny this because the cameras caught it and fortunately so did the ref. The argument that Wenger used and was accepted by the FA (they not only rescinded Gabriels red but they gave Costa a retrospective ban) was that Gabriel had been wound up by a previous exchange with Costa and was merely retaliating. Excuse me!! When Chelsea players retaliate against Spurs or City in a far less aggressive way we get the book thrown at us but when Arsenal do it the whole refs decision is reversed. How was this not challenged by anybody?
But at least now we all know. So when you next play Arsenal get one of your players to up to Gabriel off the ball and kick him hard on the knee. When the ref goes to send your player off all he has to say to the ref is "he just told me my dad has an inverted penis and my mother shags farm animals so I was merely retaliating". Let's see how the FA handles that one.
Did they ask Jose about the supposed departures if Martial and Rashford to decking West Ham?!?
Why in the ever living feck would we consider off loading two of the brightest young players in European football?
Why in the ever living feck would we consider off loading two of the brightest young players in European football?
Mourinho:
http://www.espnfc.com/manchester-un...ose-mourinho-defensive-chelsea-tough-to-catch
Another ban incoming
http://www.espnfc.com/manchester-un...ose-mourinho-defensive-chelsea-tough-to-catch
The media is mainly ex scousers and they hate us. I remember the old if that had happened at Old Trafford it would have been a penalty. That even carried on in 2010/11 when we had more penalties against us than for us.
This season we have had 1 penalty for and 2 against but at the weekend the BT were running a piece 'have the Refs favored Man Utd this season.'
I'm afraid that's just not true. Of course you will have a scouse/ex pool pundit such as Jamie C, Rednap, or Phil T who don't like you (but believe me the hatred between Pool and Chelsea is equally intense) but you are also represented with pundits such as Rio and the Nevills. Chelsea have no permanent pundits of a blue nature on MOTD, BT Sport or Sky. But my main point is this . Sky and BT need a strong Man Utd team that is doing well in all comps. The reason of course is because you have one if not the biggest worldwide support of any club. You put bums on seats (or sky dishes on walls) and that is extremely important financially to them. Trust me they don't want to piss you lot off and if you got relegated (unlikely I know) it would be catastrophic for them.They also need you regularly in the CL. The Premier league is worth £4 billion (thats what they were recently paid for TV rights) and they want to appear the best most exciting, most competitive league in the world, and that has to be with a successful United.
The press however are a law unto themselves. With JM now your manager you will not have an easy ride. It's very easy to get paranoid too. I'm still paranoid and I've got more conspiracy theories that I can shake a stick at. But the way i see it , you can be paranoid but you can still be right.
Such pansies, led by the biggest cnut of them all SuarezTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sky and BT don't necessarily need a strong Man United team as there are loads of United fans paying subscriptions anyway, although it would help BT to have them in the Champions League. There might be more United fan pundits in the media, but there are four current or ex Chelsea players who might be going into the media big time in the next year or so, Terry, Lampard(who were both on Soccer AM the other day, Ashley and Joe Cole.). Lampard has been appearing on Sky in his off season in the US, Ashley Cole appeared for the Crystal Palace game. If anything Sky and BT are/were delighted by the emergence of Chelsea and later Man City to make the league more competitive, and would want other teams like Tottenham to be doing well.
Pundits like Scholes and Neville have been very objective in their coverage, they have not been acting as cheer leaders for the club. To be fair you have Hoddle who has done a lot of punditry, Ray Wilkins has done quite a bit and has been more pro Chelsea than United in his views. Not to mention Gullit has done a fair amount of punditry. You have relative no marks like Cundy with a show on Talksport(and he is very pro Chelsea in his coverage), Tony Cascarino etc. The reason there have been more United pundits than Chelsea is that the United players have tended to be more high profile, plus Chelsea have had a higher proportion of foreign players who are more likely to go back to their own country when they retire. But the four players I mentioned will probably go into the media big time if they want to.
Also I can't think of a United journalist who is pro United in the national media to the extent someone like Rob Beasley has been . United got a lot more criticism for their season than Chelsea last season, the coverage with Chelsea seemed more focused on Mourinho losing the players, and once he was sacked there seemed little criticism of Chelsea. I would admit that United as a club historically are respected more than Chelsea but that doesn't mean they are criticised less in the media. Although they probably have been the two clubs with the most media criticism for several years.
Mou is actually playing a blinder here. I can't remember us fans as galvanized and behind our manager against the world since the SAF days. He is about to recreate the us vs the world aura we had under Fergie and you can tell from refs, media and oppo's they are starting to dislike us again, just the way it should be.