Its not often I back Alex Ferguson, but...

[NMH]

If they feel the need to avoid being direct in criticizing pro refs, most other league managers do that with a bit of creative language.
Refs can't criticize managers or players to the press, and don't even get a voice except through their association.

We all know managers judge unfairly and myopically, as do we when it comes to our own club - but Wenger and Ferguson are ott most of the time.
'Class' is what is missing from these chaps in that department.

I like that AF has been supportive of us in the past, but wish he'd get a measured view of the game and its' adjudication sometimes.

 

[glasfryn]

It's in the Premier League rules. And in most forms of pro football around the world, I reckon.

Ferguson is a VERY bad loser. End of.

spot on

 

[Tooting Gull]

I don't think managers should be able to say much more about a poor refereeing decision than 'we got a really bad one there'. Anything else, especially character assasinations of the officials and claiming it affected the whole game, they should get fined.

ONLY IF all 11 player plus subs did everything perfectly in the game - marked properly at every corner, made every tackle, passed the ball every time to a team-mate, never surrendered possession, got every shot on target, and just basically never made a mistake - should they be allowed to get on their high horse about the ref making maybe one error. And as we all know, this would mean never.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

The thing is I could imagine Gus taking a similar stance in the future, he gets very emotional about his team and what happens on the pitch and can be very outspoken about referees. If he had a run of bad decisions that proved very costly, I can see him just staying quiet rather than talk himself into trouble.

 

[Acker79]

I'd like to think Gus is a bit more intelligent and mature and understands that bad refereeing isn't the fault of the TV sponsors.

I think Sir Alex understands this too. I don't believe he is doing this to et to the media, I believe he is ding what Harry Redknapp threatened earlier this season. If he is going to be punished for criticising the ref (deserved or not) in the heat of the moment because the interview is done so soon after the game, he just isn't going to bother with the interview at all.

Gus may understand it's not the bbc's fault we have league one level referees who make mistakes occasionally, but he would also realise he is much less likely to get in trouble for criticising the ref in press interviews if he simply doesn't do them.

 

[Easy 10]

The thing is I could imagine Gus taking a similar stance in the future, he gets very emotional about his team and what happens on the pitch and can be very outspoken about referees. If he had a run of bad decisions that proved very costly, I can see him just staying quiet rather than talk himself into trouble.

Really ?
They don't call Gus "The Radio" for nothing. He doesn't shut up !
I can't imagine Gus ever being childish enough to blank the media, he likes to have his say. Sometimes he does say a little too much, but he's passionate, honest and speaks from the heart. The words "Gus" and "staying quiet" really do not belong in the same sentence.

 

[Titanic]

But will Sky, BBC or Talksport (the media rights holders) actually complain to the Premier League about this?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

If you're going to ciritcise anyone it should be either the premier league or the FA - whoever is supposed to enforce the rules. The fact that he has been allowed to get away with it for so long is their fault. Anyone will push the boundaries as far as possible.

According to MOTD, it was pre-announced before his wekend that he wasn't going to talk to any press at all. As far as not talking to the BBC, as far as I remember, it was nothing to do with refereing decisions, it was about a documentary that had a go at his son (not Darren).

 

[Spiros]

I've always felt that the BBC have gone about the Fergie silence thing the wrong way. Rather than allowing Man U to put up players and assistant managers to speak the BBC should simply say 'without any interview from Ferguson we're not showing any Man U reaction'. The after each game show a longer interview from the opposition manager and players only with the added statement 'we asked Ferguson for an interview but he declined'. Man U and their fans would soon get pissed off with this and Fergie would get pressurised from within his own club to speak to the BBC.

 

[Easy 10]

But will Sky, BBC or Talksport (the media rights holders) actually complain to the Premier League about this?

If he continues with this petty and childish stance then I'm sure they will.

They pay top dollar to cover Manures games, that includes some access to the manager for his thoughts after the game. Man U's emergence as a dominant force came about in no small part to the millions Sky pumped into the game - he NEEDED that cash and was happy enough to spend it. So to start blanking the organisation that enables him to write the cheques is misguided, arrogant and stupid.

But then its United innit. You don't expect anything less.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

Really ?
They don't call Gus "The Radio" for nothing. He doesn't shut up !
I can't imagine Gus ever being childish enough to blank the media, he likes to have his say. Sometimes he does say a little too much, but he's passionate, honest and speaks from the heart. The words "Gus" and "staying quiet" really do not belong in the same sentence.

Oh I completely agree about him being a red-blooded latino spirit and that's what I think will get him into trouble in the future. It wouldn't necessarily happen until Gus reached the Premiership and was under the spotlight a lot more than he is in League 1, but I really wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with a touchline ban one week after making comments in a post-match interview, then a few weeks later being on the receiving end of some more bad decisions and choosing to swerve the press for 24 hours while he calmed down and got to the point he could talk about it without getting himself into trouble.

 

[Titanic]

If he continues with this petty and childish stance then I'm sure they will.

They pay top dollar to cover Manures games, that includes some access to the manager for his thoughts after the game. Man U's emergence as a dominant force came about in no small part to the millions Sky pumped into the game - he NEEDED that cash and was happy enough to spend it. So to start blanking the organisation that enables him to write the cheques is misguided, arrogant and stupid.

But then its United innit. You don't expect anything less.

I'd love to believe you are right. Somehow, I fear that they will kowtow once again to the special ones.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

If he continues with this petty and childish stance then I'm sure they will.

His silence with the BBC has gone on for 4 years nearly now.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

I've always felt that the BBC have gone about the Fergie silence thing the wrong way. Rather than allowing Man U to put up players and assistant managers to speak the BBC should simply say 'without any interview from Ferguson we're not showing any Man U reaction'. The after each game show a longer interview from the opposition manager and players only with the added statement 'we asked Ferguson for an interview but he declined'. Man U and their fans would soon get pissed off with this and Fergie would get pressurised from within his own club to speak to the BBC.

I'm not sure they would. I think the club would be delighted not to have to talk to the media afterwards and the fans would get used to it. They can then issue their own statements/press conferences in the week entirely to their own agenda.

His silence with the BBC has gone on for 4 years nearly now.

I thought it was a lot longer than that?

 

[Gritt23]

Feguson gets no money from the media wankers

And of course, his wage is currently about the same as it was in the late 80s, barring some inflationary increases? Of course not, he is on a mahoosive wage, and that is thanks to the media companies that pump endless money, and exposure to the game in general, and ManUre in particular.

Football has sold out to the media companies on a number of fronts, and accepting what they want, from post-match interviews to different kick-off times is all part of the deal. Having taken the money, clubs are no more allowed to refuse the interviews, than they are to say "sod you, we're kicking off at 3pm on a Saturday."

What I will say though, is that it was NOT in response to the defeat, as I believe he announced the media blackout on Friday. But what a childish prank. It would take a completely gutless set of authorities to let him get away with this, seeing as it's in clear conflict to the rules laid down by the Premier League. Therefore, I do expect him to ... get away with it completely.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

2004, 7 years of sulking with the Beeb.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I thought it was a lot longer than that?

That was from a quick google - could be wrong.

 

[Easy 10]

I'd love to believe you are right. Somehow, I fear that they will kowtow once again to the special ones.

His silence with the BBC has gone on for 4 years nearly now.

I just can't see Sky wearing it. Unlike the BBC, Sky have paid BILLIONS for the right to show the likes of Man Utd live, its their premium product and United will draw in their biggest viewing figures. I don't believe they would just silently accept being blanked by SAF. They are a commercial organisation, they have responsibilities to numerous sponsors, so having NO access to the Manchester United manager for his remarks in the build-up and aftermath of Premiership matches would totally undermine them.

This might be accepted as a one-off, but if Ferguson thinks he can permanently blank Sky, I think he'll find he'll have a fight on his hands - and one which MUFC would certainly not welcome.

Someone'll have a word.

 

[drew]

They are happy to take MILLIONS of POUNDS every season off the TV companies... they should meet their very small obligations to provide a post-match interview. Pathetic.

This.

Feguson gets no money from the media wankers, and eveything he says is blown up to cause controversy.
I wouldn't blame him if he never speaks to the press again.

I certainly wouldn't in his position.

In fact, I have heard that he might be taking legal action against he Premier League for an infringement of civil liberties.

I hope he does.One of the funniest comments on here. Where exactly did you here this. Your mate down the pub who happens to be an expert on civil liberties. Very funny.

The Premier League officials are all money-grabbing tosers.
You can't force somebody to talk to the press ffs!!!!! And Ferguson isn't! I wouldn't be surprised if he earns more than any of his players, money that comes from the media in part.

To be precise he will be fined by the FA for not talking to the BBC - the state broadcaster. He can choose as he sees fit who else to talk to. The reason that this is iomportant is that many people (worldwide) cannot afford SKY TV and they will not hear him speak if he chooses to snub the BBC. I would have thought that socialist, man of the people 'Sir' Alex would have appreciated that, but apparently not.

It's got nothing to do with the BBC being a state broadcaster. The only reason he is obliged to talk to the BBC is that they are a media rights holder. He cannot chose who else to talk to as there are other media rights holders, principally Sky! Besides, I thought I had read some time ago that there is an automatic fine for him not speaking to the BBC but it is a paltry amount that MU just absorb. They are hardly going to get rid of their most successful manager because he won't talk to the media. His success insulates him from redundancy.

I've always felt that the BBC have gone about the Fergie silence thing the wrong way. Rather than allowing Man U to put up players and assistant managers to speak the BBC should simply say 'without any interview from Ferguson we're not showing any Man U reaction'. The after each game show a longer interview from the opposition manager and players only with the added statement 'we asked Ferguson for an interview but he declined'. Man U and their fans would soon get pissed off with this and Fergie would get pressurised from within his own club to speak to the BBC.

I doubt that MU and their fans would give two hoots so long as they are challenging for trophies. If he had a run like Wenger then it would be a different story.

 

[Gritt23]

2004, 7 years of sulking with the Beeb.

I think the technicality of it is that Man Utd have provided a spokesman for interviews. I don't think there is anything in the rules that states it must be Fergie, and not his no.2.

Whereas after the Liverpool game, no-one was put in front of the cameras, or microphones for a post-match interview.