comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
posted 2 minutes ago

You can believe that if you wish, but I think this has something to do with us being the most successful club really. They keep changing their minds on allocation, one day it was 6k now it's 5k. They're a confused lot, and as the others said our away fans are bloody vocal and they just can't stand that so reducing the allocation was the plan to lower the sound of the fans

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago

So vidic chin, what would that say about man utd who didn't allow ANY away fans for a period of time?

..................................

What period of time are you on about?

urm

"Sorry but Suarez was convicted and LFC accepted it"

Wrong! They accepted the ban, they made a statement that said they thought the 'conviction' was wrong and flawed!

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago

So vidic chin, what would that say about man utd who didn't allow ANY away fans for a period of time?

..................................

What period of time are you on about?

------
Shouldn't have to tell a man utd fan about their own club.

Vidicchin - the Devonshire of the utd board.

comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)

posted 48 seconds ago

urm

"Sorry but Suarez was convicted and LFC accepted it"

Wrong! They accepted the ban, they made a statement that said they thought the 'conviction' was wrong and flawed!
--------------------------------------

They were never going to say any different though were they? To do so would be effectively writing off 20m. The fact that they didnt even appeal speaks volumes irrespective of what they said afterwards to explain away their lack of fight.

comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886) posted 1 minute ago

urm

"Sorry but Suarez was convicted and LFC accepted it"

Wrong! They accepted the ban, they made a statement that said they thought the 'conviction' was wrong and flawed
---------------
Not even worth responding to that

Why haven't we reduced the allocation of Liverpool fans at OT for their horrible graffiting over the stadium walls and ripping up urinal's all the time. Surely they should have their allocation cut by 6k as a form of punishment?

comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886)
posted 32 seconds ago

urm

"Sorry but Suarez was convicted and LFC accepted it"

Wrong! They accepted the ban, they made a statement that said they thought the 'conviction' was wrong and flawed!

..............

We know Billy, and it has recently been proved to be a wrong decision on the part of LFC.

So much so that some racist supporter at Anfield assumed that it was OK to shout vile racist abuse at an Oldham player.

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860) posted 1 minute ago

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago

So vidic chin, what would that say about man utd who didn't allow ANY away fans for a period of time?

..................................

What period of time are you on about?

------
Shouldn't have to tell a man utd fan about their own club.
-----
Pretty sure he knows, he is just waiting on you to sat it so he can counter your argument

say^^^

Pretty sure he knows, he is just waiting on you to sat it so he can counter your argument

..............

Pretty obvious really. I don't think this guy is the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Maybe this restriction is to protect Craig Bellamy ?
I seem to recall the last time he played in front of united fans, he had Magners, and Bud bottles thrown at his head when he was trying to take a corner.

I know they need a new stadium, but if they keep losing seats at this rate they'll be nothing left.#sosad

Hahaha he's a big boy he can answer on his own.... Banging on about small clubs and all that...as man utd couldn't safely accommodate any away fans for a period of time, what would
That make man utd according to "Devonshire manc's" logic?

Arab of Mankunia - I had an arranged marriage with Kim Kardashian (U11781)

"You can believe that if you wish, but I think this has something to do with us being the most successful club really. They keep changing their minds on allocation, one day it was 6k now it's 5k. They're a confused lot, and as the others said our away fans are bloody vocal and they just can't stand that so reducing the allocation was the plan to lower the sound of the fans"

In all honesty, I guess Liverpool did offer the full allocation that was available, then the authorities changed it due to safety issues!

Liverpool itself cannot just reduce numbers, it needs justification, I presume that justification was agreed upon by a number of bodies, that's all there is to this!

So, unless the FA, LFC, the council, the police are all in cahoots with each other I cannot see how the reduction can be justified! Is it a conspiracy to deny United fans seats? Or is it simply a case of using past evidence to come up with a justifiable number of tickets?

Once again, you make a good point Billy.

So, unless the FA, LFC, the council, the police are all in cahoots with each other
***

I can certainly vouch that the Merseyside Constabulary are in cahoots with LFC. From personal experience.

URM
"So, that's two confirmed cases that are basically unconfirmed then?"

Nope, that is fact, these are two actual cases of racial abuse that have been proven..the details are available to be seen on the Home Office website.

Redinthehead

I am still waiting for you to tell me what period of time you are on about?

I can not guess at which one you mean.

So you are not debating whether or not it actually happened ? But willingly state that there may be more than one period of time when man utd didn't allow any away fans to old trafford?

comment by BillyBobTaunton (U4886) posted 2 minutes ago

URM
"So, that's two confirmed cases that are basically unconfirmed then?"

Nope, that is fact, these are two actual cases of racial abuse that have been proven..the details are available to be seen on the Home Office website.
---------------
So of late, United have 2 and Liverpool have 1 proven and 1 looking likely

I don't see what yiou are getting at

Are you really going to argue that it is far worse at one ground than the other because there may be one more case of it happening at that particular ground?

Isn't this all a bit silly?

And before you suggest that wasn't your intention, we all saw you stating the 200% percentage and we all already know why you used it

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)

So you are not debating whether or not it actually happened ? But willingly state that there may be more than one period of time when man utd didn't allow any away fans to old trafford?
----------------------------------------

Out with it! Or do you have some reason for being so cagey?

comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860) posted 1 minute ago

So you are not debating whether or not it actually happened ? But willingly state that there may be more than one period of time when man utd didn't allow any away fans to old trafford?

--------------------

My gawd man answer the question if you want a reasonable debate and quit acting like a big girl's blouse

anything to do with construction work?

VC

"So much so that some racist supporter at Anfield assumed that it was OK to shout vile racist abuse at an Oldham player."

How do you know he was a racist?

How do you know he shouted 'racist abuse'?

As far as I know, the case has yet to be determined! You should know better VC, jumping in without acknowledging the facts is never, never a good trait!