Sir Alex's apology not enough as Chief wants him banned...WHAT!?

The Horror, the horror...

So, another ridiculously over-the-top and hugely United-hating media-friendly report arose today; throwing this minor story into stratospheric insanity...if it wasn't SAF that said this, would anyone actually give a sh*t? Here is how far those oppressive bast*rds, the FA, are now willing to take it:


from www.bbc.co.uk:

The head of the referees' union wants Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson banned for claiming match official Alan Wiley was not fit enough (what, does this retard think April Fools is in October? Obviously a joke...).
Ferguson has since apologised for any embarrassment his remarks after the draw with Sunderland may have caused (end of issue?).
But Alan Leighton, head of officials' union Prospect, told BBC Radio 5 live the apology was "half-hearted" (so HE'S entitled to have a completely judgmental opinion like this but noone else is? Interesting).
"A punishment should be a Uefa-type coaching ban, which is more than a touchline ban," said Leighton.
"A Uefa ban involves a ban for a greater period of time during, before and after a game."
An analysis of Wiley's fitness following the initial remarks from Ferguson after the recent 2-2 draw at home to Sunderland showed the referee's performance proved he had run more than most of the players during the game (ok, proving Ferguson was technically wrong about hiswork rate, but we all still saw Wiley blobbing about the pitch in an 'unfit' manner! Why is he not allowed to comment on what he observed?).
The Football Association has asked the Old Trafford boss to explain his comments by 16 October and, even though he has issued an apology, Leighton has criticised the manner of it.
Ferguson said he would be contacting Wiley to talk to him personally (fair enough...) but he still left a question mark hanging over the fitness of referees in England (So!? As long as he makes it clear to Wiley what he meant, and even apologising, then why should it still go on).


As ever, the wonderful responses on 606:

"The stats [that Wiley covered a large amount of ground] were highly selective, and didn't even show that Wiley had covered more ground than average for a premier league game. They merely showed that he had run further than a couple of other refs had in a couple of other games, and that he'd run further than some of Utd's players (presumably the goalkeeper, the defence & forwards...) which is hardly surprising or unusual."

"Ferguson has brought shame on himself and his club. He should be given a lengthy ban and sent on an ANGER Management Course."

"It never ceases to amaze me that any criticism by players or managers is deemed as bringing the game into disrepute, particualrly by the FA but also the fans & media. I'm not saying I agree with Sir Alex Ferguson but where does opinion stop & disrepute start ? Apparently when you disagree with it!!"

"Fergie is a bully, simple. he thinks he's right and all around him is wrong. The Knighthood has gone to his head!"

"It is quite obviously an apology for stating it to the media rather than taking it up privately. It is not an apology for the content of what he said, as it was true and raised a very important issue which the FA will hopefully look in to.I am sure Ferguson does stand by what he says and his apology is 100% truthful. He did not question the referees decision making or integrity, thats just the image bitters like to create. All he did was question the referees fitness and perhaps rightly so, although talking to the media about it was a mistake which is why he apologised for it.Ferguson was not "wrong", if you went to the game you would of seen Wiley behind play a fair bit of the time."

"He should have apologised immediately. There is one person unfit in this story, and it isn't Wiley. Ferguson is unfit to communicate with other human beings in a civil, reasoned and just fashion. So petty and so angry, never willing to admit his own faults instead lashing out at others for the lot. Successful manager, but a total embarrassment."

"What? He said we did not win because we were rubbish not because of the referee. Talk about being swayed by the media He said himself this is an apology for speaking publically, not for what he said. He would have had every right to go to the FA with his concerns on this matter regardless of whether they believe he had a point or not. His mistake was going public, hence the apology for it.His remarks were only "out of order" because they were expressed via a public domain. Managers have every right to raise these issues to the FA just not publically. This is why he apologised for going public, not for what he said. Quite rightly."

"The FA should hammer him. This apology is 5 days late and is only a token gesture by him to avoid a ban.Throw the book at him and show that this behaviour will not be tolerated at any level."

"He questioned his fitness, not his integrity.Does everyone understand the difference?This is not a police state yet."