• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Snatchday 1: Nottingham Forest Vs the PGMOL

Mr. Blonde

Jack Burkitt
Not saying they are.

But Forest's thinly veiled threat to involve legal action might spur the PL to lean on the FFP panel to give us some points back... On the basis we agree to not follow through with our threats.
Well the panel are independent of the Premier League so they can do all the leaning they want; unless there truly is corruption going on it will have zero effect on their decision
 

JohnnyCarey

Viv Anderson
Another point to be considered here is that Forest may well end up paying Attwell a shitload of money. The libel laws place the onus of proof on whoever makes the allegation. We have effectively pointed the finger at Attwell for being corrupt. That's the most serious allegation we could possibly make against both his personal character and his professional standing. If he sues -- and I would bet that there are money-grubbing lawyers on the phone to him right now -- NFFC has to prove in court, not that Attwell made poor judgements, but that he did so deliberately and for a corrupt purpose -- i.e. to help Luton. But that's unprovable. How we can show what was going on in his head?
So sickening as it may be to contemplate we could well end up giving Attwell the price of a nice house and having to issue a grovelling apology to him. Is that really what the club thought it was doing?
 

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
I admire the faith of all those saying "it can't be corruption".

There's money involved. Lots and lots of money.

There's probably some incompetence but the rest stinks to high heaven of corruption.
Probably the same people that would have said "FIFA, the worlds governing body are corrupt, give over"

Just because we've had it so good for so long people think it won't happen here. It's the same with wars, there's hardly anyone alive the last time this country was attacked on theses shores and people think it could just couldn't possibly happen because it's so far out of their own bubble of reality.

Money corrupts, it happens with our politicians, our police officers, universities, and publicly trading companies. Yet somehow people think that a few refs and executives at the PL are immune to it? Unbelievable naivety.
 

magicwoand

It tizwas it is
This is the straw that broke the camels back. We have been on the wrong end of numerous bad decisions since the Bournemouth game, we have complained , we have appointed a former referee as an intermediary, but we have never had any answers. Liverpool got the VAR transcript when they were wrong per and a grovelling apology. We’ve had nothing. Then in a crucial, relegation battle game we have an inexplicable 3 penalties missed by the referee but also by VAR that had the power to correct the poor decision. What else can the club do? Nothings happened up to now,

For those that say we shouldn’t have tweeted it, what are they gonna do not give us some decisions?
 

eyupmeduck

Geoff Thomas
Well the panel are independent of the Premier League so they can do all the leaning they want; unless there truly is corruption going on it will have zero effect on their decision
Who appoints the independent panel and who pays them? Its a genuine enquiry btw not one I'm making from inside my bunker with my little tin foil hat on suspecting further wrongdoing.

I'm just interested as to whether the club/premier league have any say and where the cash comes from.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 

magicwoand

It tizwas it is
Another point to be considered here is that Forest may well end up paying Attwell a shitload of money. The libel laws place the onus of proof on whoever makes the allegation. We have effectively pointed the finger at Attwell for being corrupt. That's the most serious allegation we could possibly make against both his personal character and his professional standing. If he sues -- and I would bet that there are money-grubbing lawyers on the phone to him right now -- NFFC has to prove in court, not that Attwell made poor judgements, but that he did so deliberately and for a corrupt purpose -- i.e. to help Luton. But that's unprovable. How we can show what was going on in his head?
So sickening as it may be to contemplate we could well end up giving Attwell the price of a nice house and having to issue a grovelling apology to him. Is that really what the club thought it was doing?
I hope he does then he can explain why he didn’t give the 3 penalty decisions. We can show him the one he gave against us for Manchester a United.
 

HappyHappyJoyJoy

Viv Anderson
Neville and Carraghers self righteous hypocrisy is even more pathetic than the tweet.

If those 3 pens are not given for their beloved teams or any other of the Sky Big Six they would never shut up about it and scream corruption.

And that's why that would never happen and they always get the decisions.

The media are as guilty as anyone of feeding the hype machine that makes the Prem such an uncompetitive league, all their hand wringing makes me nauseous.

f*** em.
 

carlosmerino

Viv Anderson
Semantics I know but the we could have X number of penalties surely isn't accurate. Not to go all sliding doors but we get the first one and that changes the whole game and the other two incidents wouldn't play out as they did unless we believe everything is already mapped out in front of us. We could have got the first and Everton go all out attack and beat us for instance.
Bit deep for a Sunday evening but hope you catch my drift.
 

chaospunx

Geoff Thomas
Semantics I know but the we could have X number of penalties surely isn't accurate. Not to go all sliding doors but we get the first one and that changes the whole game and the other two incidents wouldn't play out as they did unless we believe everything is already mapped out in front of us. We could have got the first and Everton go all out attack and beat us for instance.
Bit deep for a Sunday evening but hope you catch my drift.
I'm only laughing because I constantly have this argument with people it's one of my favourites and you are of course 100% right
But I think the way we got none of 3 pretty blatant ones especially when we have seen nearly the exact replica of each one given against us this year
 

JohnnyCarey

Viv Anderson
I hope he does then he can explain why he didn’t give the 3 penalty decisions. We can show him the one he gave against us for Manchester a United.
I really wish this were the case, but all he has to say in court is that he made those judgements in good faith, even if they were mistaken. Corruption (which is in effect the allegation we've made) is not about whether a decision was right or wrong -- it's about whether it was made for the right or wrong reasons. I can't stress enough -- and I have a lot of personal experience of this -- that the onus would be 100 per cent on NFFC to prove, not just that he f---ed up, but that he f---d up deliberately. We have to be able to show that he coldly chose to deny us clear penalties in order to help Luton. You and I may well think that but proving it is a whole other ball game.
 

NFFC_Josh

Grenville Morris
Semantics I know but the we could have X number of penalties surely isn't accurate. Not to go all sliding doors but we get the first one and that changes the whole game and the other two incidents wouldn't play out as they did unless we believe everything is already mapped out in front of us. We could have got the first and Everton go all out attack and beat us for instance.
Bit deep for a Sunday evening but hope you catch my drift.
Not deep at all mate. We get an equaliser in any of those penalty shouts, it completely changes the game. I was at the ground and you could feel an anxiousness around the stadium.
 

bearwood red

A. Trialist
I don’t think the issue is corruption (although it was a stupid appointment for this game). The issue is that PGMOL don’t want incidents ‘re-refereed’ so have set the bar really high for the VAR to intervene. I can understand why they would want that. But it’s fundamentally flawed because you’re giving all the influence to the official with the worst view. It doesn’t help referees when their mistakes are not corrected. I’m sure most just want to get the right decision.

Forest tweet borne out of understandable frustration but not a smart move. We’ve now lost the moral high ground and it will achieve nothing positive.
 

Cloughie1975

John Robertson
I don’t think the issue is corruption (although it was a stupid appointment for this game). The issue is that PGMOL don’t want incidents ‘re-refereed’ so have set the bar really high for the VAR to intervene. I can understand why they would want that. But it’s fundamentally flawed because you’re giving all the influence to the official with the worst view. It doesn’t help referees when their mistakes are not corrected. I’m sure most just want to get the right decision.

Forest tweet borne out of understandable frustration but not a smart move. We’ve now lost the moral high ground and it will achieve nothing positive.
Just bin VAR in that case-it’s more trouble than it’s worth.
 

NFFC_Josh

Grenville Morris
Thanks for posting just look at the comments on YouTube, Sky will have a relationship with PGMOL, Saha not giving a crap if he is invited back, notice the few taps on his arm to try and guide him to stop talking against.
No worries! Yeah I highly doubt they will allow Saha back again :ROFLMAO: The majority of the comments do support what we said.
 

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
I really wish this were the case, but all he has to say in court is that he made those judgements in good faith, even if they were mistaken. Corruption (which is in effect the allegation we've made) is not about whether a decision was right or wrong -- it's about whether it was made for the right or wrong reasons. I can't stress enough -- and I have a lot of personal experience of this -- that the onus would be 100 per cent on NFFC to prove, not just that he f---ed up, but that he f---d up deliberately. We have to be able to show that he coldly chose to deny us clear penalties in order to help Luton. You and I may well think that but proving it is a whole other ball game.

We're not claiming corruption against Atwell but against PGMOL.

We don't need to demonstrate anything extra in that regard: we asked for a change of VAR official for impartiality reasons, we weren't granted it and we've been on the receiving end of 3 game changing decisions.
 

magicwoand

It tizwas it is
I really wish this were the case, but all he has to say in court is that he made those judgements in good faith, even if they were mistaken. Corruption (which is in effect the allegation we've made) is not about whether a decision was right or wrong -- it's about whether it was made for the right or wrong reasons. I can't stress enough -- and I have a lot of personal experience of this -- that the onus would be 100 per cent on NFFC to prove, not just that he f---ed up, but that he f---d up deliberately. We have to be able to show that he coldly chose to deny us clear penalties in order to help Luton. You and I may well think that but proving it is a whole other ball game.
At least we’d get to here the explanation of why he made those decisions, I want to here the transcripts particularly the 3rd penalty. id like him to explain why he gave Marcus Rashford a penalty at old Trafford and not Reyna at Goodson.
 

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
Another point to be considered here is that Forest may well end up paying Attwell a shitload of money. The libel laws place the onus of proof on whoever makes the allegation. We have effectively pointed the finger at Attwell for being corrupt. That's the most serious allegation we could possibly make against both his personal character and his professional standing. If he sues -- and I would bet that there are money-grubbing lawyers on the phone to him right now -- NFFC has to prove in court, not that Attwell made poor judgements, but that he did so deliberately and for a corrupt purpose -- i.e. to help Luton. But that's unprovable. How we can show what was going on in his head?
So sickening as it may be to contemplate we could well end up giving Attwell the price of a nice house and having to issue a grovelling apology to him. Is that really what the club thought it was doing?
That might be the case but they have stopped short of saying that Attwell was corrupt.

The three penalties and the VAR being a Luton fan are separate paragraphs, it is only by implication that the two are linked.

shatwell shouldn't be on VAR in a match which the outcome affects his team even if his team are not involved. Everton were ahead of us so it makes more sense to keep Forest down (i.e. a Forest win being less preferable to a draw) from a Luton perspective as it's one less point they need to get.

He was the ref for the Man U game and I think Taylor was on VAR that day but he hasn't reffed us in the league since. Taylor did Man City, Newcastle and Brighton (ironically our only pen) before today.

If that happens though I suspect they'll just pay shatwell some money so it doesn't go to court and it's all brushed under the carpet.
 

Masuka

Jack Burkitt
We're not claiming corruption against Atwell but against PGMOL.

We don't need to demonstrate anything extra in that regard: we asked for a change of VAR official for impartiality reasons, we weren't granted it and we've been on the receiving end of 3 game changing decisions.
Exactly he should never have been on VAR duty. If the league don’t allow refs to referee the team they support then they must agree that supporting a team could cloud a referees judgement. So how has he still ended up on VAR in a game involving 2 relegation rivals of his team even after we complained about it.
 
Top Bottom