The European Leagues & Competitions Thread V2

[Dion 2,476]

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/reportage/referees-are-manchester-united-biased-heres-the-evidence-from-qualified-refs/

[bushman 2,043]

Manure as that " chosen team " were always favored over the other teams. How many times we have seen disputable dives, called in their favor ? Plenty, in my view.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/reportage/referees-are-manchester-united-biased-heres-the-evidence-from-qualified-refs/

Meaningless to me because the site breaks down calls into "correct" and incorrect" and variations of those and it's not that simple. How many 50/50 calls are there? How many off-sides are impossible to tell? Referees will call fouls differently at different parts of the game. (Let it flow early and call fouls if starts getting chippy) And who exactly is doing the referee reviews? Which clubs do they support? (originally, all Arsenal). Do they have a bias in their analysis? Does their idea that ManU gets all the calls play into their watching of the game? What were the bad calls that went for United? Were they meaningless calls that didn't actually effect their record? (Getting a penalty in 5-1 win, etc..) The problem is that the site is trying to pretend that its math is objective, complete with charts and graphs, when it is subjective analysis analyzed.

And anyway, here's this which says exactly the opposite for last year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9258810/Manchester-United-have-cause-for-complaint-as-unique-survey-highlights-Premier-League-errors.html

[Dion 2,476]

You can't just look for "key" decisions. A wrong yellow card given to a defender wouldn't be considered a key decision by that article's criteria but still could lead to a goal because that specific defender would be now afraid to make a wrong tackle and be sent off etc. You have to look to the whole spectrum. And in doing that, you see Man Utd is favoured more than others.

I actually had another (better) article in mind to bring in here, I just couldn't find it. I'm not saying they bribe refs or there is some conspiracy, but refs seem to be biased towards them more often than not. How much those decisions affect the game seem to me as more random than how consistent refs are in favouring Man Utd.

[Santiago. 1,500]

Well I believe that they r involved in corruption and certain other illegal practices and I am pretty confident m8. They usually win by luck and r quite a boring side to watch (something we were criticised for by Manure which I found hypocritical).

Nonsense

[Santiago. 1,500]

Could you elaborate here ? How did Chelsea do more damage to football ?

Are you serious?

[bushman 2,043]

Are you serious?

I don't like them at all but we and City have certainly done more damage in the past decade to football than ManU has

If I read these statements, then I like to know how Chelsea....wouldn´t you ?

[Leif 6,006]

We didn't damage football ffs lol. Prices for players were always going to go up, weren't they? If anything we saved football, especially in England. Tell me, how many teams were competing for the Premier League title before Roman came along? How many English teams were a threat in the Champions League? Which team made the game in general up their safety etc. and get ambulances in place around the stadiums just incase something happened? (It could be argued that Muamba would be dead right now if not for us.) Which team set the blueprint for teams like PSG (who have now made Ligue 1 actually exciting) or Manchester City who've now also upped the excitement of football in the Premier League? If the argument for us damaging football is 'we made the prices of players go up', err, no, we didn't. The clubs who sell off those players choose to sell said players at high prices because everything increases in time, especially in the recession. Players had gone for way bigger fees than the ones we paid before we were a top club.

I think saying we damaged football is just going along with the popular, deluded and ignorant opinion which has been adopted by many of our opposition's fans due to the media needing a scapegoat which has been us for a decade.

[bushman 2,043]

Well, if I may...

for me, money in football is a force of good which has revolutionized the game for better.

Of course, I am not going to deny the power & influence that money has in football. The other day I read, Sky TV was changing the face of the game & I agree.

Today´s football is a billion pound business for those that can afford to buy it & pay extraordinary wages for footballers.

Football to me is more than a game, these days. The most popularized sport in the world, I feel.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

We didn't damage football ffs lol. Prices for players were always going to go up, weren't they? If anything we saved football, especially in England. Tell me, how many teams were competing for the Premier League title before Roman came along? How many English teams were a threat in the Champions League? Which team made the game in general up their safety etc. and get ambulances in place around the stadiums just incase something happened? (It could be argued that Muamba would be dead right now if not for us.) Which team set the blueprint for teams like PSG (who have now made Ligue 1 actually exciting) or Manchester City who've now also upped the excitement of football in the Premier League? If the argument for us damaging football is 'we made the prices of players go up', err, no, we didn't. The clubs who sell off those players choose to sell said players at high prices because everything increases in time, especially in the recession. Players had gone for way bigger fees than the ones we paid before we were a top club.

I think saying we damaged football is just going along with the popular, deluded and ignorant opinion which has been adopted by many of our opposition's fans due to the media needing a scapegoat which has been us for a decade.

We didn't damage football on our own. Real Madrid, City, Liverpool, Barcelona, ManU, (and now clubs like PSG and Zenit) and other clubs helped, but we played and continue to play a massive role in the explosion of transfer fees and salaries. In 02-03, the net spending for all the teams in the Premier League was 181M pounds. Then Roman came along and spent that 100M more than that over the next two years. The most any English club had ever spent in one year was roughly 40M pounds. Roman spent 150M in the first year. We didn't care how much we spent. Roman just wanted someone and bought them. City did the same sort of thing. It's been awful for football.

[bushman 2,043]

Roman is a billionaire. He has no problem with 150m.

There is no such a thing as damage ! It´s called PROGRESS.

[Milan 17,955]

[NishC300 1,865]

They don't win by luck. They win because they're a better team than most teams and because the other top clubs this season in the Premier League are in poor form. Home clubs get extra calls, good clubs get extra calls, and big clubs get extra calls but even these are fairly minor and they apply across the board. Chelsea get calls too. ManU are not particularly lucky but peoples' perception of randomness and how common things actually occur is off (which leads to conspiracy theories in general) ManU have had plenty of bad calls against them as well and we get plenty of good calls. What about last season? Referees could have handed ManU the title with ease by just calling one innocuous foul at the end of the last City game or having a little less extra time making a comeback impossible. It would have so easy. ManU win more late games because they are better than most teams. Teams that win more games are more likely to win more games late as they are likely to win more games early and more games in the middle. Anyway, just to show you how ridiculous this whole "ManU always pulls it out in the last minute" thing is. You know how many wins ManU has getting the winning goal in the 80th minute or later this season?.Five. Chelsea? Also five.

And Luck? What about our last year in the CL. One of the luckiest runs in football history. Roman must have bribed people, right? In order for there to be some sort of conspiracy in football, it would have to involve hundreds of people, be completely unnoticed by neutral observers and objective statistics, cost millions and millions of pounds, and never have a single leak... for what reason? What benefit is there to anybody other than Manu that ManU wins games? And if there were a conspiracy, why would ManU buy expensive players at all. They could win and save tens of millions of pounds every year. Why wouldn't it ever be noticed by objective journalists? Why would no record of it ever be found? This is why I hate conspiracy theories. They don't make any sense if you look at them rationally. You either think that ManU is the best team in the Premier League this season or that there is some massive conspiracy. Occam's razor wins again. And how are ManU boring to watch? They're the highest scoring team in the Premier League and they concede plenty of goals as well. I don't like ManU, but I'm sick of the ridiculous conspiracy theories. I also hate the "Manure" and "Liverscum" sort of thing. We're not Chel$ki and we're not 12 years old. It's possible to dislike other clubs without resorting to childish name calling every single time you reference them. I have friends who are supporters of most of the clubs in the Premier League. We disagree obviously, but I don't understand why "I support Chelsea" also has to turn into "every other club is shit and they're useless scum who need to die and even writing a proper name for their shit clubs is offensive" I don't care about Spurs or Liverpool or Barcelona. I want Chelsea to do well. That's what supporting a club is about. (rant over)

Nonsense

read www.diminbeirut.typepad.com (there are others) U can't deny they r not lucky! They were outplayed by Galatasray at Old Trafford! They were lucky to lose just 1-0 against Galatasray! They only win when they're opponent isn't playing well! Even then! Remember the clash last season at Old Trafford! Ever seen a team get more lucky??? Against Liverpool in the League at Anfield? I have barely seen a game where Man United can say that they were the better side! How many are there? (i am a bit busy atm I will write more later)

[NishC300 1,865]

Gaychester United

[DONI. 1,291]