Pierluigi Collina

Can anybody tell me what 'a conspiracy theorist' is?

If I say the guy they say shot JFK was shot by some guy who had no apparent reason for killing him, I invoke conjecture. Dead Kennedy, dead Oswald. Matters of fact.

Dunc's goal chalked off. Fact.

"Oops sorry, I didn't see you there, I'm an Evertonian you see - No Mr Clattenburg I didn't see my friend just elbow Mr Mason, you're mistaken, he's Belgian. Oh Mr Clattenburg before you go you seem to have dropped your copy of 'The Kop' magazine - good day to you sir".

NB - I don't condone any form of malicious RTA against match officials (gobshites or not).

For me, the Clattenburg derby was without doubt the most scandalous refereeing performance I have ever witnessed. You don't need reminding of the incidents but I have never seen as many injustices against one team in my life.

For example, when Gerrard dove as Hibbert was chasing him, Clattenburg pulls out the yellow. Gerrard has a quiet word and then he pulls out the red. Now if the ref sees it as a foul then it is without doubt a sending off offence but to change your mind due to a quiet word from the opposition is extremely suspect. That is just one of many incidents throughout the game.

I've no idea but I'd always believe that there was a good reason rather than some kind of anti-Everton conspiracy.

Incidentally, the Wikipedia entry quoted in the OP is factually incorrect, as Collina was not the referee in the first leg. Also, frankly, they totally outplayed us, I had no real complaints about the referee in that first game, we were just outclassed. In the end though, we scored to make it 3-3 on aggregate with c.10 mins to go and definitely had the momentum. It was a terrible, terrible decision of the type that will inevitably lead to suspicions of corruption from those who were the victims of it.

Incidentally, how nice to see an apologia for refereeing decisions from Martin Mason. Makes a change from his usual subject of veneration, Blue Bill.

Do I believe it to be true? Probably. This is one match, he's Italian. In Italy whole seasons have been fixed, and UEFA aren't averse to tampering with fixtures when it suits their needs.

As for an explanation, he gives one right here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGBjsihKRGk&playnext=1&list=PL84FF057AFBB07510&feature=results_video

He says Ferguson did not commit a foul but it was Bent that did so. I can't find a clip of the goal to see what, if anything happened. But the whole 2 legged affair stank from the off. Even without the Ferguson goal.

Another thing about this that really annoys me is that one of the top bods in The FA was on the Liverpool board and he used this position to push Liverpool's cause to UEFA when The FA confirmed only the top four would qualify. The rules were changed and Tottenham fell foul this year.

Then you would have some justification for your theory. for me it doesn't make theory level because, as in theory of gravity or relativity, a theory normally has a basis. I can't really call your comment a hypothesis as even a hypothesis is testable. No, just pure unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. :-)

Btw, I didn't apologise for refereeing decisions – only pointed out an area where, yet again, the vast majority of commentators are talking through their dung trumpets and why.

People forget we drew the Clive Thomas game, tit that he was; it was the replay we LOST. As for Villarreal, they had another 2 gears to go.

Queue twilight zone music...

Somebody conspired somewhere with someone else to create match-fixing, dodgy payments to players/agents etc.

Rangers, Juventus and Fenerbahçe all punished in some form or other for misdemeanours off the pitch as well as some lesser known officials admitting to wrong-doing on the pitch.

It is our duty as supporters of the game we love to continue to ask questions of the governing bodies and to hold them to account.

If so many people blame the bankers and financial institutions for the mess we are in; why is it so difficult to believe that the governing bodies in our sport are immune to manipulation for their own ends?

How often have the major clubs in England benefited from favourable decisions in pursuit of the prizes? How often have clubs like us gone on to compete for those trophies – hamstrung by incredulous decisions?

During our dire period 1992-2002, many of us consoled ourselves as undeserving of favourable decisions, ie, penalties awarded, and accepted because we were awful that we would rack up the bookings and sendings off we accrued.

But how is it that even today while we are playing mostly attacking football and – although tough, our tackling is far better than it was – we manage to pick up 5 yellow cards in a game we largely dominated? It takes 3 attempts to be awarded a penalty and most 50-50s are awarded to the home team.

I know I'm biased towards the Blues, but I'm not blind; this kind of officiating has been going on for far too long and it has to be regularly questioned. We may not get satisfactory answers but, if we sit back and allow it to happen, it will only get worse – not better.

Barry sorry but I think that's the most dangerous attitude of all. It's tantamount to accepting that refereeing mistakes (or worse) are absolutely fine as long as they favour the 'better' or more fancied team.

The situation, with ten minutes to go, would have been 3-3, Everton in the ascendancy, a complacent Villarreal side were stunned at the situation they found themselves in, and any further exchange of goals would have meant the away goals rule favouring us.

The previous 170 minutes become irrelevant at that point, as do possession statistics and chances created (and missed). All that would have mattered is what would have happened in the next ten minutes... or forty plus the shoot out. We were denied the legitimate opportunity to find out by, at the best, a woefully bad decision by a referee who had always been considered to be the world's best up to that point.

The idea that there is no corruption in this world staggers me. And when we claim there is we are branded as 'conspiracy theorists' (and I'm still waiting for a definition). We are accused of suffering a form of paranoia.

Well, paranoiacs are always right about one thing - eg 'you talk about me behind my back'. 'Oh no we don't' replies the person in authority, doctor or whoever. Well of course they bloody do, only they don't call it that, they call it a case conference to which the subject, the patient, isn't invited.

What were the Hillsborough families accused of again and again for all those years? Paranoia, conspiracy theory, call it what you will. They knew, felt so deep down that it hurt, that lies upon lies upon lies were being told by those in 'authority'. And bugger me, they were right.

One day, somehow, somewhere, someone who knows how FIFA, UEFA and the rest of that corrupt shower operate from within will spill it out, possibly to make themselves immune from prosecution. In the meantime, we can wait.

While Lance Armstrong was being lauded as superhuman all those years ago people in the know were asking questions and were put down.

Unless and until Collina faces the music I will always believe he was corrupted.

Similarly The "Clatternburg" derby is evidence that far more than human error was involved.

The meaning of 'conspiracy theorist' is very clear – just google it or look in any dictionary. Conspiracy theorists believe that what happens is the result of a plot which is designed to bring about the happening they observe. The key thing about CTs is that they always base their reasoning on zero evidence and they are inevitably wrong. The parallel with Armstrong is also nonsense, he was patently a drug cheat based only on his performance.

Jay, the situation with Collina is that he is innocent of any charge unless you or any other conspiracy theorist can show that he was guilty.

Can you say why him coming out of retirement constitutes a conspiracy to deceive?

To suggest that he was brought out of retirement to do a job for Uefa is utterly ludicrous. We were out of our depth, as subsequent games showed.

Having said that, I would be happy to see Collina investigated. If there really was cheating in the Villarreal game, when there was no reason whatsoever for it, then the game is corrupt beyond redemption.

Didn't the Italian Prime Minister recently suggest that the Serie A should be placed on hold for 2-3 years to get the corruption under control??

ALL people will cheat a bit if they can get away with it and face no repercussions (studies prove this).

For crying out loud, how many scandals have we come across?? Lance Armstrong, The Italians, The Germans, The Caribbean FA, 100s of baseball players, AN NBA REFEREE! — I could spend the rest of my day listing these scandals.

What repercussions could/would Collina face by coming out of retirement for one match?? My guess is that the only downside is he'll never be able to come to Liverpool. I bet he has a million reasons not to anyways...

Maybe he did; maybe he didn't? The real shame of course is that one decision has altered the course of Evertonia as we know it. We've been plodding around trying to get out of our own way for the past 7 years having to sell to buy when it all could've been so, so different.

You still haven't shown that he made even a mistake never mind a conspiracy. Absolute rubbish I'm afraid and more fire to those who accuse us of being bitter Blues. FFS Lance Armstrong was nothing to do with our CL exit, do you not find it strange that some see us as swivel-eyed spit-flecked lunatics?

The Italian game is rife with corruption so I wouldn't put it past the cunt to have thrown the game.

Oddly, Chambers doesn't go on to say that zero evidence is involved and that those who hold such a belief are inevitably wrong.

Like, for example, the Hillsborough families. They believed that their 'misfortune' was caused by the police (note to Martin Mason – an example of "a powerful agency"). They further believed that powerful agencies – police, a coroner's court, media and at least one MP – then went about altering evidence, excluding evidence and producing 'disinformation' (lies) in a way which supported the 'powerful agency' and laid blame for the 'misfortune' on others.

Inevitably wrong? Careful who you say that to Martin.

There are facts which are well known concerning the assignment of Collina to that match. It is a fact that he has said that he disallowed the goal because Bent was fouling a defender. It is also a fact that Uefa then suspended Collina for financial irregularities (accepting money for commercial endorsements contrary to regulations, which incidentally, he was doing at the time he took charge of the game) and he never reffed another match. Clearly this has not stood in his way in continuing his career in football administration.

Now did the dying Horatio Nelson say "Kiss me Hardy", "Kismet Hardy" or none of the above? We can't know because we weren't there, and nobody's telling, least of all Nelson. Just as we can't know what happened in those senior police meetings in the aftermath of Hillsborough, or what was said to Collina when he got his surprise call-up.

But we do know as a fact that they made an exception to their own rules concerning retirement age to do so, just as they had changed their rules to accommodate LFC into that year's tournament. We have no access to any records there may be of any internal discussions in this 'powerful agency'. So we make our judgements based on the outcomes we can observe based on the facts available to us. As all scientists do.

As the Hillsborough families did.

And some may find it interesting to note that the FA has also suspended Mark Clattenberg while disputes in his private business affairs were sorted out. Fact. I draw no conclusions with so little to go on.

Do I think it was a mistake? Yes. Do I think it was some utterly glaring cheat like Clive Thomas, or the Clattenberg derby? Not even close.

I would not call it apples and pears as the referee in question is Italian and as Keith summarily pointed out, has somewhat of a checkered past financially.

Here's a link if you'd like to read it and make up your on mind on the subject.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/italian-pm-calls-for-serie-a-suspension-for-next-two-years-7800924.html

To suggest that this doesn't happen or that we are all "conspiracy theorists" I ask you to google the name Tim Donaghy - a lovely peach of a man who worked for the NBA as a referee and fixed games so that he could repay gambling debts. He pled guilty and spent over a year in jail. He's now out and often times writes about outcomes of future games suggesting that corruption and match fixing is still rampant in the NBA. Is the NBA the Champions League? No, but it's the same thing and certainly not apples and pears.

the Collina 'decision' stands apart from the other two in one important respect. The winners of the Villarreal tie were guaranteed a shed load of money. Excuse my lack of figures, but I'm sure you couldn't disagree. Although the EFC/RS games will have had financial outcomes too, they were nothing in comparison to entering the TV rights funded elite club of the CL.

This doesn't mean that Collina was paid off. It doesn't mean that UEFA didn't want 5 PL teams in the competition proper. But cui bono has always been at the heart of investigations. To whose benefit?. In the Watergate affair Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein to 'follow the money' and you know what? They got there, just like a yellow brick road.

With so much money involved there is likely to be pressure to ensure an outcome. Cricket, lovely cricket suffers from it, and that seems to be mainly driven by underground bookies throughout Asia. Whatever else Lance Armstrong's blood boosters did, they made millions upon millions of £/$/euros for him and his - yes the word is - conspirators.

So where does poor little Everton fit into this big nasty world out there? Well maybe that's it. Not enough plain brown envelopes.

A mate of mine was fed up with being an arms dealer (Manchester is full of them - fact). The day he sent a weapons system off to Iran instead of Iraq didn't help his standing in the firm, but that wasn't it. He wanted a clean break. And got a good admin job with a large scale building firm. Once he was settled in he began to realise what his primary function would be. He was dispatched to various town halls all over the place to locate named persons and to deliver plain brown envelopes to them, which incidentally, seemed to contain many documents. He went back to being an arms dealer. He said he felt cleaner.

And Robin - a scuffle as a corner comes across happens in every game from the Sunday league upwards. Stoke could concede a penalty every time they defend a corner. But refs don't blow up. I think they should. The point is they can blow up any time they like - its up to them to choose, if that's what's on their mind. Collina chose a very specific moment to exercise this right. And that's a fact.

Being from the country with the undefeated champion of conspiracy, JFK's murder, my take is people get more mileage (and fun) out of made-up shit then looking at the facts. Anyone taking even a skimming read on JFK's murder will see conclusive evidence that Oswald, a complete fucking nut, did it and did it all by himself. The Dallas police even solved an attempted murder by Oswald from some months prior to that day.

Yet, we have magic bullets, grassy knolls, LBJ and his Texas war-monger, buddies, 4 shots not 3 (and from 2 different locations!), and a fair percentage of Americans who still believe in 1, 2 or all of these conspiracy theories.

Nothing corrupt out of Serie A would suprise me. But refs being what they are, I'll raise my hand to the "Collina-just-screwed-the-pooch" option. Of course, if he WAS slipped a brown envelope, I'm all ears. That he's just another shit ref is dull and boring.

Oh, and in the spirit of this conversation, Donaghy didn't fix games. He bet on them, no question, but he didn't fix them. He went to prison for telling his partner, a professional gambler, which games (and there were dozens) to bet on which side of the spread based on his knowledge of how other refs called games. Only one of all those games (verified by the FBI) was a game he officiated himself.

Now which sounds better (and more fun)?

A) That a degenerate gambler used his knowledge of his profession to make winning wagers (The win rate was over 80%) or

B) Some NBA ref fixed dozens of games he officiated and, boy, he wasn't the only one. It's STILL going on. The NBA is covering it up.

Did you choose B? Let me help get you started. "Only one of all those games (verified by the FBI) was a game he officiated himself".

"Only one, James? And verified by the FBI, you say"? "You mean, James, the SAME FBI claimed Oswald murdered JFK alone"? Jesus, how pathetically naive, you are. What's next, James, the tooth fairy"? "Everyone KNOWS Donaghy wasn't the only . . . .

Even based on your criteria – who benefited? Certainly not Uefa, who had the unfashionable Villarreal, stadium capacity less than 25,000, in the group stages.

Uefa would, in fact, likely have financially benefited from five Premier League teams in the competition, in terms of crowds, television coverage etc. Far more so than by having Villarreal in the competition.

It was a poor call, but I think that's all it was. No hidden agenda, no desperately unfair bias, just one of those things. It sucked, and I almost got thrown out of the bar where I was watching the game because of my reaction, but this is a case where the disappointment of what we missed out on has exaggerated the memories of how bad that call was.

The Collina thing involves the irregularity, given the governing body's rules, of someone being selected to take on a match when presumably the next guy from Belgium or Serbia was already packing his overnight bag and spare whistle ready to head for Spain. It's not just regular incompetence we are looking at here.

Collina was hand-picked for the job. 'Because he was the best ref in the world' we seem to accept it without question.

But why? It was only a game between Villarreal and Everton. Who and who? It wasn't El Classico. It wasn't a final. "Collina called back from a too early retirement to ref Man United vs Chelsea at the San Siro" the headlines might have exclaimed. No. It was a poxy second-leg qualifier between two newbees. Why did they need, breaking their own rules to do it, 'the best ref in the world'? Kev Johnson could have done it. On reflection, maybe not, as when we were awarded our 5th pen eyebrows might have been raised.

Anything from a Muppet Show to the War of the Spanish Succession can be analysed to produce more questions than answers, with perhaps the latter being simpler. But, and I do not use the parallel lightly, just as the Hillsborough affair shows that those in authority routinely lie and attempt to cover their tracks when something goes wrong, I believe (as I can't prove) that the Collina appointment is so unusual as to indicate the probable role of official collusion.

Why they should bother to do such a thing is entirely a matter of conjecture. But they did something, something unusual, out of the normal run of things. That, to me, seems to be incontrovertible. And should at some stage be the point at which further investigation should be started.

As I said - it was a no mark, poxy, second leg qualifier.

Why? Why bring 'the best ref in the world' out of retirement to officiate?

Why?

Unfashionable Villarreal. cap 25,000. Fashionable EFC cap 35,000 and PL glamour boys to boot. We want them. Think of the TV audience.

OK, let's get Collina in to make sure the Blues get through.

Never forget, they got Collina in - they didn't have to.

They bent (now there's a good word) their own rules to get him to officiate.

I think we're talking about the bloke who chalked off a perfectly good goal that would have levelled the tie here.

Something else was occurring.

I just think Collina fucked-up. Since refs do it all the time everywhere at every level amateur or pro, why is baldy's fuck-up different? My theory?

This massive club tournament happens every year in the midst of the regular (and more important) Tables, plus various national club tournaments. The governing body has to shuffle how many refs to cover all these things at once? I'd be willing to believe Collina was brought back in to officiate the game on a, "Yes we know you retired, but we're in a spot and can you help us? Goodness, it's only Everton-Villarreal. Not like we're asking you to ref Man United vs Chelsea at the San Siro" game. So he said "Yeah, OK. I'll do it".

He was past it and rusty; resulting in his fucking up. Unless, Villarreal's stadium lay at the foot of a grassy knoll. Then it's on!

In the absence of that there was no wrongdoing other than a narcissist of a ref having a bad game , or not depending whose side you are on.

Unfortunately for us, we were chosen as the fall guys, since we had been (unluckily!!) drawn against the top seeds (who went all the way to the semi final) and it looked like we would throw away our chance to progress to the League ourselves anyway. I think he was given the simple remit "we would be very happy if Villarreal make it through, as we cannot have one country 'dominating' the competition".

I don't think anyone really expected us to actually win anyway, considering we were so poor in the first leg. When Mikel put us level on the night with that brilliant free kick, Villarreal started to panic and we were all over them like a rash.

I have only seen one other decision like Collina's (to disallow a goal or give a penalty for a foul that occurs yards away from the action and in no way interferes with play) in all the years I have been watching matches. That was when Man U were given a penalty against City when Cantona was held down when the ball flew 10 foot over his head at a corner.

In our case, even if Bent had fouled the defender, he was nowhere near Big Dunc and would not have blocked the header — it was more than a 'just' a stinker of a decision.

The fact that he retired again soon after added fuel to the fire.

Conspiracy? Not sure... but I am convinced that Uefa did everything they could to make sure that there were a maximum of 4 English clubs in the League stage.

Now that's the kind of evidence-based statement I like.

Martin Mason of course.

I had always thought the "goal" was disallowed because of a non-existent foul by Big Dunc. I was never aware of Marcus Bent's infringement and I've ranted about Pierluigi ever since

Now that I've had a chance to look at the footage, I see it.

Lee had it spot on, the other fifty-odd posts are redundant.

If you went to Villarreal at GP then you would have seen that they were more than capable of beating us – which they did. It was a piss-poor season, we finished somewhere down the bottom of the EPL and got wacked in both of the cups. If anyone wants to recall, we got a total smacking at Dinamo Bucaresti as soon as we entered the Uefa Cup.

Our football that season was shite so blame it where ever you want or on what ever ref you like but it was still shite: winning 1 - 0 away was not happening, EPL teams were onto us and European teams just smashed us. So blame the Collina all you like but in my opinion he did us a favour because fuck knows how many Barcelona or Real would've put into the net.

'Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency'.

Sound familiar Martin?

All UEFA have to do is answer a few simple questions, which would, probably, put many Evertonians fears to rest.

Why the change of heart (and policy) to let the Shite into a competition, they hadn't qualified for?

Who took that decision?

Why was Collina brought out of retirement, for this game and this game only?

Answer these questions, provide evidence, and there is no conspiracy.

I think Keith Glazzard nails it. The Hillsborough families were considered conspiracy theorists, totally going against the excepted wisdom and the word of the authorities, and......they were right.

Let me ask you to answer a question. What is wrong or unusual or in any way anti-Everton in bringing Collina out of retirement for a game.

The reason why it was imperative for Liverpool to get into the competition was because they had just won it and they shed enough tears for Uefa to consider it essential that they be allowed to defend it. They had never been in the situation before and they flapped over it.

The Hillsborough victims were not considered conspiracy theorists and even if they were they being correct doesn't make the crazy hypothesising on here correct.

If you want to know why Uefa did anything then write and ask them instead of expounding totally unsupported hypotheses on here.

CTs are not just people who ask questions, they are people who give answers, answers that are totally without foundation and answers which are inevitably incorrect.

Uefa would have been far better just changing the law and not allowing Everton into that year's competition and that would have been in accordance with the wishes of all European soccer who were against England having 5 teams in the competition. Can you imagine the wailing that this would have generated?

Come on, one shred of evidence that there was corruption involved and the answer is not that there is corruption in soccer therefore it must have been corruption.

The corruption that I see was only that Uefa was allowed to be influenced by the whining from Anfield to get themselves entry into a competition that they had not qualified for under the rules. That was the disgrace and it doesn't need whacko nut job CT.

You're that far up your own arse, you may need a couple of your over qualified engineer colleagues to get you out.

Apologies for resorting to crudity, as you won't give specific answers it becomes a futile operation.

Good lad, Martin, give ,em some!

I have agreed that the corruption, if you can call it that, was allowing Liverpool in and after that there's not a shred of evidence of a conspiracy against Everton. You can't call it corruption though because EUFA is permitted to make its own rules.

When you actually come up with something I can give a specific answer to I'll be very glad to put you right.

"CTs are not just people who ask questions, they are people who give answers, answers that are totally without foundation and answers which are inevitably incorrect." Martin Mason

And, of course, if these "answers", "inevitably incorrect" turn out to be correct, it means that these people who offered them couldn't have been conspiracy theorists – like the Hillsborough families.

Martin might apply for the job of groundsman at GP – this was a very neat movement of the goalposts.

If I wanted to be a conspiracy theorist, how could I be sure that my chosen theory was "inevitably incorrect"?

Surely this would keep me up all night with the worrying!

The Hillsborough disaster was never a case of conspiracy theory because the police caused the deaths by opening the doors and allowing crowds of fans to crush people already in the ground to death. Hard facts that's all and the problem was for the families to make this accusation stick against an establishment determined to not be held responsible. That is not conspiracy but achieving justice when the evidence was always writ large and always on the side of the fans. CT by definition is always fantasy because no proof is ever offered.

@573

You can always easily answer whether your theory had any chance whatsoever of being correct by asking yourself what actual evidence you have to support it. If none then it is fantasy, if lots then it isn't conspiracy theory. Everything you've raised so far is fantasy.

Is that clearer? It doesn't need me to move any goalposts.

I don't have to come up with any reason why Collina was brought out of retirement for only one game because I'm not making accusations against him. You are making accusations so the onus is 100% on you to back them up. I know hundreds in my business who come out of retirement on request, soccer players have done it, in fact it is absolutely commonplace and there is no conspiracy attached to any of it.

Collina is innocent of any conspoiracy against us until it can be shown that he is guilty or that weight of evidence would give support to that theory.

1) Everton would not win the tie, thus preventing 5 English teams being in the group Stages,

2) Villarreal would not lose the tie as they were on the verge of going bust or at the very least having to sell their best players if they never got the Champions League cash windfall.

And if you don't believe this then I ask you to rewatch the entire 2nd leg and see just how against Collina was towards us and also ask yourself the question... Why was he brought out of retirement for one game only — to retire straight away?

Then provide some evidence for this, you have provided none. That he was brought out of retirement for one game doesn't show there was conspiracy. Why do you feel this is significant? I saw the games.

I know I'm going to get nowhere with this.

a) the initial draw (I firmly believe it was fixed considering we got the best team in the comp whilst Liverpool played TNS, FBK Kaunus and CSKA Sofia)

b) Collina's performance or at least ask the question why he was in charge in the first place and then retired.

Yet another example of how we have been ripped off in games that could have changed our entire history.

You will get nowhere with this because 99% of Evertonians firmly believe we were ripped off (again) by a corrupt official and competition.

Why would there be a need to to bring a ref OUT of retirement for ONE game only for that ref to retire more or less straight after the game?!?

Much much easier to hide a corruption when the corrupt person is no longer involved in the sport...

The fact that we were outplayed for most of the 2 games does not matter, as soon as we were on top, and we were for 20 mins prior to Duncs "goal", Collina put a stop to any chance we had of progressing... and that makes me sick to the stomach even now.

If you think there's a case to answer it is not a conspiracy theory.

Is someone else thinks there is a case to answer (and you don't) it is a conspiracy theory.

Take your time - I'm off to La Avenida for lunch.

Now try and look at that sentence from an outsider's point of view and ask yourself if it looks suspicious or not? If you say it doesn't then you are a liar.

I disagree completely that it's easier to hide corruption after the person has retired in fact exactly the opposite. See the case of Jimmy Savile and Lance Armstrong. They were untouchable before they retired and easily exposed afterwards (Linford Christie too). There is no link between using this ref for one game and corruption.

The reality is also that there was no need for corruption, we were always going to get beaten by the first decent side we played. They didn't need to corrupt us out.

I’m looking at it from an outsider's view and it’s total nonsense. I guess that English, comprehension and logic weren’t your best subjects?

Doesn't matter anyway, you are a liar in my eyes and for that reason, I'm out!

I think that all that can be said was that some of the referee's decisions were controversial but Villarreal beating EFC wasn't. There was no evidence of wrongdoing and it doesn't befit us as Blues to be "bitter" about it. What I'd be bitter about and treat as a form of corruption was Uefa changing their rules to allow Liverpool back in. There's no conspiracy over that, why was that allowed? I can't think of many cups where the holders automatically get back in to defend it.

"I also believe that 99% is itself not reality." (Martin Mason)

"The reality is also that there was no need for corruption, we were always going to get beaten by the first decent side we played. They didn't need to corrupt us out." (Martin Mason)

Anyone who challenges this view of reality can be dismissed as being incapable of recognising the blindingly obvious 'truth'.

They are, and I quote: "the CTs"

It's interesting to note when the term 'conspiracy theory' was used officially in connection with the Hillsborough disaster. The South Yorkshire Police sought to persuade the Taylor enquiry that large numbers of Liverpool supporters had deliberately arrived late in the hope of gaining entry without tickets. Lord Justice Taylor dismissed their 'conspiracy theory'.

I'll come back to this later as I'm still trying to figure out how, after what has been witnessed over the last 23 years someone can say:

"The Hillsborough disaster was never a case of conspiracy theory because the police caused the deaths by opening the doors and allowing crowds of fans to crush people already in the ground to death." (Martin Mason)

You really don’t help yourself when you come out with this pseudo-intellectual rubbish.

This is not a court of law, it is an internet forum. As such, posters do NOT require proof of anything to make an assertion of their beliefs. Mr Collina is – unfortunately – not being tried for a crime, there is no ‘burden of proof’ and anybody is quite within their rights to suggest that they believe there was something dodgy going on in that game.

As mentioned earlier, the situation does just seem a bit odd, regardless of whether there truly was any scandal. Everybody knows that 5 English teams in the CL was a potential problem, Villarreal were very definitely the most difficult side we could have been drawn against, a referee who had previously retired came back to officiate in the game, a seemingly perfectly valid goal was ruled out, said official retired again, later details came out about irregularities with Collina’s finances. As I say, I’m not claiming this is conclusive proof but it’s not exactly a wild conspiracy based on nothing is it?

No doubt that you’d have said in the 60s that there was no way that Bronco Layne and Tony Kay could possibly have fixed games, or Segers later on, or that anybody who thought Ben Johnson wasn’t the fastest man alive was a ‘CT’.

I don't believe there was some conspiracy to screw Everton. I think there was a bad call by a referee, but not so bad as to be clearly and blatantly corrupt.

In terms of why it was Collina's last game, that can also be explained by his issues with the Italian FA. They had raised the mandatory retirement age for referees from 45 to 46, which meant that he was still able to referee. But Collina signed a personal sponsorship deal with a company that was also a major sponsor of AC Milan. Given that potential conflict of interest, he was basically banned from refereeing Italian league matches. That all happened at pretty much the same time (Aug 2005) as our match, and he resigned as a referee with the Italian FA, which obviously ended his refereeing career.

In response to Stu(580) - the actual draw isn't particularly suspicious. Once UEFA had capitulated and let Liverpool into the tournament, they obviously get seeded as holders, so they're only going to play unseeded opponents. Villareal, after solid UEFA Cup campaigns the previous two years were seeded in qualification, we weren't. Was it unfortunate that we got stuck against one of the strongest teams in the final round of qualification? Sure. But based on the seed vs non-seed method of the draw, it's not exactly evidence of conspiracy.

Now I think it's fair to say that UEFA brought this whole conspiracy theory upon themselves by letting Liverpool into the tournament, given the flaws in their rules at the time. The whole unhappy compromise means that there's enough to give ammunition to any claim that we were unfairly treated. That a conspiracy was possible doesn't, however, mean that a conspiracy existed.

It's purely a subjective thing anyhow. I think we got a shit call against a good team, and got screwed. I don't think it was necessarily anything more mysterious than that.

This is simply and straightforwardly not true. You seem to be conflating all conspiracy-theory with whack job 9/11-Kennedy assassination-Diana Car Crash type theories.You are therefore basing your entire argument in a premise that is mistaken. In fact, in doing so you've created a circular argument where you have to right.

If you believe (have a theory) that there has been a conspiracy to cover up an unpalatable truth then you have a conspiracy theory. The term may have become a tarnished by multiple negative associations but it can still be used in its simplest form.

The Hillsbrough families are the perfect example. The official police and government reports gave a version of events. The families believed (had a theory) that there had been a conspiracy to cover up the most accurate version of the events because it made the police look bad. It turns out that they were able to uncover this after 23 years of organised work and pressure.

Other cases may never see the light of day, most of the time authorities are able to control and suppress evidence, even in supposedly 'free' democratic societies, meaning the conspiracy theorist can't prove anything, and were never going to have the chance to prove anything. That doesn't mean that their theory is incorrect.

In the Collina case, the evidence and circumstances to hand suggest the possibility of something deliberately corrupt, and at the very least was staggeringly incompetent.

I tried to defend you on another thread, as I think at times you are treated unreasonably by other posters, but in this case you seem to be being deliberately provocative, and basing your arguments on, at best, some fairly basic misunderstandings of the English language.

Nothing to do with the conspiracy theory aspect, but the fact that he tries to deny the rumblings of a conspiracy in the provocative way I set out that one sentence.

Oh and man never landed on the moon in the 60's either.....chew on that, liar!.....(ok I'm bored on that now too)

This is one of those strange situations when you hope the Echo has a headline tonight saying:

"Collina admits corruption over Everton game".

Never would being proved wrong be so therapeutic.

You used Paul Scholes as an analogy to emphasise your point re Collina coming out of retirement for one game.

Did Scholes play one game then go back into retirement?

Paul Andrews, the referee wasn't brought back for just one game and why does the number of games make a difference. You need to show corruption and you can't.

So there was a dispute over it.

We've allowed Martin pretty much to have free reign despite numerous annoying tendencies that get him labelled as WUM, troll, and worse. Let's see if we can develop some guidelines that might help elevate the discussions Mr Mason contributes to:

1) Opinions vs Facts. Let's just have an end to that whole business. I trust most people are contributing what they believe or feel to be true, just as Martin is — only he refuses to recognize that what he posts is primarily his opinion. In most threads, this is accepted for what it is, with much information now commonly known or at least widely available. Discuss the issues without descending into this pointless and ridiculous 'opinions vs facts' nonsense.

2) Challenges. No more challenges. If you believe something, put it forward as your belief. If you want to cite something to support that belief, fine. But no more challenges. Same applies to anyone questioning something. It's a discussion forum. Not the Colosseum.

3) Evidence. No more ridiculous demands for evidence. This is part of accepting that this is a discussion forum, and not a court of law. People are exchanging general information or personal perceptions which may or may not be based on limited information.

4) Retire defeated/undefeated. No. No more of that nonsense either. Just stop posting, or continue to post, but discuss the issues. Or next time it will be made permanent.

5) Personal crap. No. Any personal crap will just be deleted and future posts put on hold. That includes any descriptors like WUM, troll and the like. Either discuss the issues or don't post. The third option being have your posts (and you) removed.

The most annoying thing I find about Martin's posts is his complete rejection of the commonly and widely held perceptions surrounding past events and current situations; however, we understand that alternative interpretations such as he expounds may be possible but, for them to have credibility, there needs to be a reciprocal recognition that others hold alternate views, often for very good reasons. It seems this is where Martin often fails.

And people wonder why we have CT's!!!!

Like many things when it comes to decision making and conspiracy theory in general he asked the reader to apply Occams Razor to the situation – which in it’s simplest form means the simplest explanation for something is usually the correct one.

So – if we apply Occams Razor to the Villareal game what would the simplest answers be to the questions below?

1) Why was Collina chosen for the Everton fixture?

2) Why did Collina disallow Fergusons goal?

Write down the answers and according to Occam the chances are you’ve got the right ones.

Everton had it's fair share of nutters, but we took tens of thousands to Rotterdam, two weeks before Heysel, with no trouble at all.

1) Because he was still, at the time, an active referee available for assignment to UEFA sanctioned matches.

2) He thought that Bent committed a foul in the area.

Tell me what difference it makes. No fantasy please, let's try reality. The best referee in the World 6 years on the run and he can't handle a good Spanish side against a small English Club.

1) Because they viewed him to be the best man for the job to officiate the tie (see 2).

2) I genuinely think he bottled it. I believe there was an undercurrent of feeling that Villareal, possibly simply for being a better footballing side, were the team UEFA and Collina wanted to progress and there was enough going on the box for him to disallow the goal and help Villareal through.

2) Because he was given a remit "Do as much as you can to make sure the English club do not go through".
1) Because by doing 2) if it looked a bit dodgy, he could retire (again) and people would think that he "just" had a bad game and decided to call it a day (properly).

It was no more dodgy than Clive Thomas, Graham Poll, Mark Clattenburg, Martin Atkinson, the ref who didn't see Hansen's hand ball in 84 League Cup final, the ref who didn't send Gerrard off for his two footer on Gary Naysmith . . .

Or tarring Everton fans with the same brush as Liverpool fans after Heysel (although we can also thank Mrs T for that; as she told Moynahon to get all English teams kicked out.

Or Liverpool getting planning permission for Stanley Park when Everton had previously had it turned down....

CT's? Love em.

It is also completely irrelevant that we would have been battered in the group stages - we would have had £20m TV money to reinvest in the team. I think that we fell away so badly that season because the players (and Moyes) knew that we'd been shafted by the authorities and that we somehow came to believe all the media hype of how we didn't really deserve to be in the champs league anyway! Example - just the other week, Jason Cundy on Talksh*te said that we "sneaked" into the top 4 that season - strangely forgetting that we were in the top 4 from September all the way through to May!

I totally agree - always have seen it that way. Same for Thomas and even, though slightly scewed, for Clattenberg. They don't have to be corrupt to behave the way they do, not in a criminal way.

The more self-important a referee feels, the more he is likely to have his own agenda. He decides who the 'best' team is, never mind the 'result' and does his best to serve 'justice' as he sees it.

Clattenberg believed he was a 'friend of the famous' and was seduced - groomed might be a better word - by Stevie GBH and others for future use. And, by heck, didn't a few drinks and slaps on the back pay off. Better than a pay-off, cheaper.

So Martin Mason, as far as I'm concerned you've been tilting at windmills - a reference to Cervantes as you will no doubt recognise due to your superior erudition. Far from being one of "the CT's", I think what I think, and say what I can substantiate either empirically or through rational argument.

Ah yes: you said of one poster -

"English, comprehension and logic weren’t your best subjects".

Logic, as far as I know, isn't a school subject. There was a maths paper called 'logical thinking' - flow charts, that sort of thing. Is that what you excelled at? I'll show you my qualification if you'll show me yours.

Anyway that's me done on this thread, except to congratulate Martin Mason for this -

at least he can spell Villarreal correctly.

Amen.

The question is on Collina's performance that game. Collina fucked up. Nothing more or less. An over-rated official to begin with screwed up.

In these last couple weeks, we've dropped 4 points from officiating crews' fuck-ups. In these last couple weeks! We should be on 18 points right now.

Collina's fuck-up hurt us and fair. But he was assigned specifically to fuck over Everton? C'mon

It's about the press, but does it apply to referees?

You cannot hope to bribe, or twist
(Thank God!) the British journalist
But seeing what the man will do
unbribed,
there's no occasion to.

Humbert Wolfe

I have no idea what games he refereed. Perhaps you can tell me what difference it makes, he retired as is his prerogative.

Any more questions?

Fantastic.

There was never a suggestion that drunken fans stormed a gate. It was always accepted that the police opened the gate to reduce congestion outside the ground. No conspiracy at all.

Do you really expect somebody to just accept “commonly and widely held perceptions” when they are totally unsubstantiated and often plainly incorrect? — What we need you to do is (a) accept that people do hold such views, especially if you don't, and (b) acknowledge that there may be reasonable grounds for holding those views, as there obviously are in this case. You sort of got close in almost reiterating that 99% of Evertonians might accept the Great Villarreal Ripoff... but then you spoilt it with this pearler: "I also believe that 99% is itself not reality." (Martin Mason)

Do you really feel it’s wrong to ask people to substantiate their opinions and if so why? — I think the way you go about it is both unnecessary and unproductive. While there may be some people who do agree with some of your points, the arrogant intransigence and self-righteous pomposity are simply offensive to most. (See John Keating @ 674)

"Challenge is how you get to the likely truth." — That sounds all well and good, but in a case like this, it's almost guaranteed that no-one reading this page knows the truth — least of all, you. Yet you are the one who not only proclaims to know the truth but who is insistent on applying a series of unmeetable standards that must be meet before you would even consider amending your perception of the truth. Such arrogance eventually becomes intolerable.

Jim Kelly’s observations are, whilst correct, not applicable to me. — What was I saying about arrogance?!?

You need to decide whether you want this board to be a vibrant forum where Evertonians express and discuss their views in an open manner. — That's absolutely what we want, but that is absolutely not what you are contributing because you close off all potential openings and require only an absolute and rigorous adherence to what is – at the end of the day – just your personal perception.

I'd ask you again to look at the rules I proposed and tell me exactly and precisely (as only an engineer can), why it is unreasonable for us to expect you to abide by them?

Your portrayal of the Hillsborough tragedy is shocking in the extreme.

There was never a suggestion that drunken fans stormed a gate. — that, is pretty much the essence of the story put about by the South Yorkshire Police via White's News Agency: drunken ticketless fans who then went on to urinate on the dead/police and pick their pockets. It was only the families and their supporters who thought otherwise, and knew that a conspiracy to deceive had been perpetrated.

For you to say there was No conspiracy at all is absolutely incorrigible. What do you think the enquiry was all about? What do you think the families of the dead were trying to prove all these years if it was not a conspiracy by the police and others in authority to deflect any and all blame?

I have never read anything about the Hillsborough tragedy from day one (I only read the broadsheets though) that said anything other than that the police opened the gates and let fans in. I never read anywhere that the fans broke down the gates. The conspiracy that I saw was that the police claimed that they had to do it because of drunken fans. I did not say that there had been no conspiracy, there was a conspiracy of the absolute worst kind which was obvious from day one. Not conspiracy THEORY but blatant and obvious criminal conspiracy to deny justice to the victims. How can I possibly discuss anything when you won't even give me the respect of reading what I say?

Martin Says (#721): I did not say that there had been no conspiracy...

Oh deary me...

How can I possibly discuss anything when you won't even give me the respect of reading what I say?

Precisely. End of.

Please let me answer your points in order of paragraph. I’m not going to get into a pissing competition with you though so I will say this once only and try to be short.

I unconditionally accept that any other person can have an opinion on any issue, so we agree. All I say is that opinion is not sacrosanct and is worthless unless it has a basis. I didn’t acknowledge “reasonable grounds” for the Villarreal Conspiracy Theory because none were offered, as was the case with the “99% of Evertonians” comment.

So, you agree that it isn’t wrong to ask people to substantiate their opinions? Of course it isn’t. “Arrogance, intransigence, self righteousness and pomposity" are figments of your imagination as you don’t know me from Adam.

You agree that challenge is how you get to the likely truth? Excellent! That I’m the only one on here who proclaims to know the truth is incorrect. For example I don’t say that Collina was innocent of any charge leveled against him only that he wasn’t shown to be guilty. See the difference?

Jim Kelly’s observations on proof are correct but I’m careful to define what proof is in the context of a forum discussion. When you read my definition you’ll see that Jim’s comments don’t apply to me because my request isn’t proof at a court of law level. No arrogance needed, none displayed.

You agree that there needs to be vibrant discussion? Excellent! Your comments here that I “close off all potential openings and require only an absolute and rigorous adherence to what is – at the end of the day – just your personal perception.” is incorrect.

I will accept any reasonable point made by anybody; I will also accept any point where I’m shown to be incorrect.

you seem to contradict yourself on a regular basis, as pointed out by Michael @725.
If you have a point of view stand by it man.

The Sir Humphrey Appleby of Toffeeweb, minus any of the wit, strikes.

And so we reach another depressingly familiar conclusion to yet another thread

I also no longer post on threads in which Mr Mason contributes, as life is frankly too short. However, I will say this and no more regarding the gate issue:

Conspire: verb

1) Make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act.

2) (of events or circumstances) seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someones detriment

This is what was happening, what the police conspired to do, in the immediate aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster. The cover up commences and mis-information was spread.

FA Chief Executive at the time, Graham Kelly, told the media that Liverpool fans had forced the gate. This information came from... the man in overall control of the police operation on the day Chief Superintendent Duckenfield, who had witnessed everything from the control room and gave the order to open the gate.

And so the campaign of lies began with the assistance of MP's and Whites, the Sheffield Press Agency.

Now cease the ill-informed bullshit, Mason.

He didn't actually come out of retirement. He was due to retire due to the mandatory age limits at the end of the previous season. The Italian FA increased the mandatory retirement age from 45 to 46, thus making him free to continue refereeing.

There was then subsequently a dispute because Collina took a sponsorship deal with Opel, who were one of Milan's main sponsors. This was considered a conflict of interest, so the Italian FA said that Collina would only be able to referee Serie B games, not Serie A. As a result, Collina resigned as a referee with the Italian FA on 29 August (5 days after our game with Villarreal). Having resigned as a referee with the Italian FA, and thus effectively retired.

So he wasn't exactly brought back specially for one game only. The Italian league had not kicked off yet, so the third qualifying round of the Champions League was the first set of high profile games for which he'd be available to referee – in a season which, prior to his resignation from the Italian FA, he was expected to be fully available to officiate throughout the year.

He resigned on August 29th.

When, we might ask did the IIF inform him that he could only ref Serie B matches? That day, that week? We don't know.

When did he conclude his deal with Opel? That day? That week? We don't know. Any TWebber with experience of business would probably estimate at least three months previously. He would have been involved in the photo shoots, video production etc for some time.

Is he likely to have entered into this contract without legal representation? Most unlikely. So will his counsel have been aware of his profession and the contractual obligations it placed him under? Most likely. Did he know that the IIF would have to downgrade him if he continued to take the money? My conclusion would be yes, others may think what they wish. Naive Signor Collina? I don't think so.

So he took the Villarreal job knowing fully well that he was a second division ref in his own country. If that.

Had this been announced to the world before the match -

we've got the best ref in the world for this one*, but he's only allowed to ref second division games in his own country otherwise accusations of corruption would come thick and fast.

I can imagine that David Moyes and others might have lodged a complaint.

So there we have the man at the centre of all this, Collina - no stuffed envelopes, no winks and nudges, no instructions. Just Pierluigi. Knowing full well that he was taking money (as perhaps all of us might have done) in defiance of his employers. Knowing, in other words, that he was making himself ineligible to referee a game at the highest level.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It rarely happens in real life and it sure as hell doesn't happen in court. But Collina never told anybody (as far as we know) that he was going to resign five days after this match, something I suspect he didn't do on the spur of the moment. Unless, well you know what Italians are. Do you?

A man of honour, in my estimation, in that position, would never have taken the game. But we're talking about Perluigi Collina.

* one that still bugs me. Why did they need 'the best ref in the world' for this one? Was it going to get out of hand, be s bloodbath? No evidence for that. Oh, unless you count Big Dunc as a likely assassin. Someone has already said that intheir estimation Collina watched him like a hawk. Imagine his displeasure when the man rose cleanly to nod firmly into the net. What could he do? He did a Clive Thomas - blew his whistle and then got his story straight.

Wanker.

The Serie A season kicked off on 27 August – 3 days after our game. They might have told him on the Thursday/Friday that he couldn't do the top division games, causing him to retire.

(Ahem, cough, cough.)

In regards to "why did we need the best referee in the world?" - that's just as easily "why did we need a UEFA ref who was, at the time, fully available for assignment to Champions League fixtures?"

If you take the title of this thread and then add on your final nine words that, my friend, is that. End of story. Perfectly summed up.

I remember clearly, despite my youth at the time, the suggestion that police had to open the gates because the fans were trying to force their way through. Others have offered specific details, perhaps someone can point to a newspaper article that carries this, I'm not much of an archive researcher.

This is still separate from the 'conspiracy' charge. I don't know how you interpret recent events Martin, but it seems that it has been officially recognised that there was a conspiracy by the police to blame the disaster on the Liverpool fans. The infamous Sun newspaper coverage played a part in this.

"the majority that don’t are inevitably reduced to ad hominem because they cannot argue their points."

You ignored my careful explanation of how your entire argument was based on a false premise, a careless and ignorant conflation, and a surprising misunderstanding of the English language. You still haven't responded to it. In fact, you still seem to think that the definition of a conspiracy theory requires there to have not been a conspiracy. This is not the case! This makes your argument tautologous, circular and entirely pointless. (#616 if you fancy checking it again).

I happen to think there was plenty of reason for UEFA not to want five English clubs in the tournament and plenty of reason for them to want Everton to be the one not to make it. These reasons have been outlined elsewhere on this thread. If we had been able to win 5-0 in both legs they'd have had to take their medicine, but is it really so unlikely and difficult to imagine that an official winked at the ref and said "hey, you know, if you get the chance... don't make it too obvious like..."? Far worse things have happened in top level sport.

In fact, we become more and more aware of far more serious and organised corruption at the top level of sport all the time. This one may not have happened, Collina (who was a genuinely very good referee by the way, despite the retrospective bashing he now receives, understandably, on here) may just have made an absolutely dreadful decision. I'd be comfortable believing either, despite the fact that both are outrageous.

I will thank Mike Green, and although I fervently hope I never need a CV again, I would try to work that in.

I fully sympathise with Mike Allison, who I have quoted, who has to rage against the unreasonable. As a critical friend, or an old fart pedantic ex teacher, take your pick, I would only point out that tautology, needless repetition, and circular argument tend to come to the same thing. But point for point I enjoy the logic.

And loads of others up there, whose gut feelings can be wrong, but when 20 or 30 guts point the same way that's called a force of nature. Politicians ignore it at their peril.

I will mention Martin Mason twice more -

They say that if you batter your head against a brick wall you feel better when you stop. True perhaps. This particular brick wall sharpened me. I am quite sure it is an unintended consequence of his intransigent, and basically fallacious, position

But you do have to justify yourself. One academic position has it that there is nothing outside the text. Questioning myself, I went back to what I was being accused of - I think we should all have CT badges so we can recognise each other at GP - MM's text, the very words. Nothing more, in this forum, exists. And it made me feel better, helped me to take the next step.

And make no mistake. We have been in very serious territory here. Sport corruption is bad enough, but for the dead of Hillsborough, and the many, many years of anger fuelled grief for their families and friends, and fellow travellers, makes sport look like a game of Ludo.

So good on you Martin, I had to think harder, much as I did as an undergraduate. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But, I did ask you what your claim to any qualification vis a vis 'logic' was. Common sense I will, as anybody would, accept. Although my more or less uneducated mother was fond of saying that 'common sense is not so common".

I await your reply.

Otherwise. Are we done here?

And thanks to you all for your good wishes! I'm actually in northern Spain on the beautiful Bay of Roses. The flat is a nice 25C without the benefit of a heater, but I will put a jacket on if I pop out for a canya later (I can hear the sharp intakes of breath even from this distance).

The (stupid) way the fixture list has worked this year (please note Lyndon/Michael - I do always try to get the football in somewhere) means that I miss only a few games if I have a good long stay at what the locals say is the best time of the year anyway. The big decision was the derby. My season ticket is in very good hands, and I don't enjoy those games so much to be honest - its like being a passenger in a car driven by a madman, potentially thrilling, potentially disastrous but scary, bloody scary. And at 90mph there's bugger all you can do about it.

So as winter drawers on (Paul please note) I'll stay a little longer, keep in touch with the son on facebook and you lot on TW.

What did we used to do before Toffeeweb?

Boom boom.

But this will have to wait for another time on another thread as the canya will be going warm standing on the bar, and Marilena will be worried that the police have found out where I live, or worse.

That makes 99.9% of what you spout bollocks.

i went into Merthyr Tydfill.

Oh fuck it. I am particularly impressed, if that's the right word, that someone called Mason cannot believe that conspiracies exist. A secret society, with connections to royalty, the financial world, the police and probably Uncle Tom Cobbly, tax exempt because they are a registered charity, like Eton College, the Freemasons permeate every town hall and lord knows what in the land.

Who knows, certainly not me, they may be on their last legs, trousers rolled up of course, and their power may have expired. Or they may be recruiting and moving into other more lucrative areas. Football perhaps?

Clive Thomas, Pierluigi Collina, Mark Clattenberg. Past Masters of the Scottish Rite (just to prove that I don't know what I'm talking aboot).

The trouble is, it's not impossible.

I'll get me coat.

It did remind me of a great conversation about opinion between Dilbert and Wally - link below.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-10-07/

Sorry, Michael I know you put details in another thread about pasting links, but I can't remember where it is - any chance of putting things like that in an FAQ section along with things like the guidance about posting from #651.

The match was fixed... I can't prove it – but it was.

The Friendship, massive pub on the corner of the main road, is Fallowfield, and would be Withington if it was on the opposite corner. Rusholme starts about half a mile along Wilmslow Road into town. Known for its curry houses, it in fact had some of the best Irish boozers outside of Dublin. A mate of mine who grew up there is as big a name in Irish fiddling as you can get. I told you, you get all the stars on TW, although he is of the Manure. Great lad though.

I'll be looking for a link later this afternoon. Mark Hughes is desperate for a result and that can be very dangerous, so dogs of war will do me. COYB!

And Mike - was it study that took you there?

I used to serve Bernie day and night. There was a hardcore of about half-a-dozen blokes who you could almost guarantee would be in there, drinking in the back bar which was their domain. Kevin Kennedy was one of them, which was quite ironic at the time as, when he was all over the papers for being an alcoholic, I was the one serving him Lowenbrau (or "Laughing Brew" as he called it!) whilst the others took the piss out of him for being in the papers.

Bernie was a nice bloke, I can't remember what his pint was (I think it was straight lager) but he always let me take "mine" when I poured him a pint and yes – he could have married Imelda Marcos... If he's passed on now then RIP.

Other faces that drank in the cellar bar at the time were Shaun Ryder and the Stone Roses, which was something.

It was a solid City pub, but the landlord then was a Man Utd fan called Ken who on my first day showed me where the "weapons" were behind the bar before he taught me how to pour a proper pint. Priorities!

Yes, I was in Manchester for 5 years and left with a BA (Hons) in History and Philosophy and a girl who has been my wife now for 13 years. I'm taking her and the kids to Ascot today to see Frankel, but if you want my NAP it's Society Rock in the second.

Then tomorrow it's the Blues! Hopefully it'll turn out to be a good weekend all round.

Take it easy. COYB.

Paul Heaton (Housemartins/Beautiful South) apparently has said that The Orion on Burton Rd is one of the best pubs in the world. I like his music, but doubt his judgement!

Hope your PC gets better, especially if you need a link! COYB!

But the result part of a Uefa "conspiracy"?

No way.

If they hadn't wanted five English teams in the CL, then all they had to do was to stick by their righteous (IMO) ruling that the previous season's winners weren't given automatic entry in the next season's competition.

I'm not sure The Orion was the best pub on Burton Rd never mind the world. I lived half way up on the corner to Straford Avenue opposite Paul Arthurs of Oasis - if you look at the cover of Definitely Maybe my place was just out of shot to the left. Happy Days. Must move on to Everton as Ed will get irritated...

All too predictable a result and performance today given who weve got out. Pienaar red card another kick in the teeth in advance of the derby - why is it they always seem to get a break? Taking my lad (5) to his first game on Sunday, so here's hoping he gets off to a winning start.

COYB.

A combination of poor reffing and Moye's starting 11 did for us. So it turned out to be a point won. How about that for looking on the bright side?

What's your lad's name? He has the very best wishes from all of us I'm sure. COYB.

My lads names Liam. Says he's a bit nervous about the noise on Sunday but he'll be OK so long as he's allowed to be noisy too if it is. I said I thought he might just about be all right then.... :)

God I hope we turn it on on Sunday. COYB!

1. Villarreal
2. Wimbledon relegation game.

Was right on both 'n' all.