Linesman who told Lescott to go to City fans dropped

Peppa Pig

Independent Link

The assistant referee who told Joleon Lescott to thank the Manchester City fans at the Emirates on Sunday has been removed from duty for Tuesday's FA Cup third-round replay between West Bromwich Albion and Queen's Park Rangers as punishment by referees' officials.

<full link snipped>

I can understand that it's not really his place to tell players what to do. But it was actually a decent thing he did. A bit of consistency in dropping officials who make howlers wouldn't go amiss

bucketybuck

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Independent Link


I can understand that it's not really his place to tell players what to do. But it was actually a decent thing he did. A bit of consistency in dropping officials who make howlers wouldn't go amiss

The linesman not only needs to be impartial, he needs to be seen to be impartial. Getting involved in discussions like that implies a level of emotional involvement that a linesman really should not be displaying.

Clearly he feels the players owe the fans in those situations, so what if Lescott had not went over and applauded the fans, would he then have held it against Lescott? What if the next time he officiates a City match he flags an off the ball incident against Lescott, was it just because he held a grudge? Thats what the accusation will be.

Nobody disagrees that Lescott should applaud the fans, but its really not the linesmans place to say it, for good reason.

SEPT 23 1989

Would Arsenal have anything to do with this?

Neil3030

A version of broken windows theory, imo. Brooks' actions, while decent, could lead to officials taking bigger and bolder steps towards self-promotion (not saying this is what Brooks was doing, but others might).

Best nip it in the bud to make sure the officials do their job and their job alone.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

bucketybuck wrote: »

The linesman not only needs to be impartial, he needs to be seen to be impartial. Getting involved in discussions like that implies a level of emotional involvement that a linesman really should not be displaying.

Clearly he feels the players owe the fans in those situations, so what if Lescott had not went over and applauded the fans, would he then have held it against Lescott? What if the next time he officiates a City match he flags an off the ball incident against Lescott, was it just because he held a grudge? Thats what the accusation will be.

Nobody disagrees that Lescott should applaud the fans, but its really not the linesmans place to say it, for good reason.

Also,why not say the same to the Arsenal players for the Arsenal fans, many of whom paid even more? It obviously wasn't intentional but comes across as showing bias.

CSF

Yeah, may have been populist but wasn't an acceptable thing for an official to say.

Laika1986

I think he let the fan inside rule over him which was probably wrong from an official standpoint but i think alot of people will agree that what he said is right

CSF

Laika1986 wrote: »

I think he let the fan inside rule over him which was probably wrong from an official standpoint but i think alot of people will agree that what he said is right

I don't really. Premiership prices are the way they are for a reason.

Laika1986

CSF wrote: »

I don't really. Premiership prices are the way they are for a reason.

Because people will pay it? £62 is alot of money without factoring travelling etc. At the end of the day its a majority of working class people spending their hard earned money to go watch multi millionaires play football?

Gone Drinking

He's probably happy to take the slap on the wrist. Fair play to him anyway!

wheres me jumpa

While it's not the linesmans place to be commenting on it, it just seemed liked water cooler type conversation after the game. Just seems like another over analysed moment to me.

In the same game, the 4th official (Probert I think?) was standing next to Ballotelli when he was about to come on. He see's himself on the big screen and starts cracking jokes with Ballotelli. Self promotion at its worst. So many referees doing cool motha handshake with players. The game is rife with official self promotion it is a cancer in the game that needs to be eradicated!!! The game is ruined!!! Wont somebody think of the children!!

Zebra3

bucketybuck wrote: »

The linesman not only needs to be impartial, he needs to be seen to be impartial. Getting involved in discussions like that implies a level of emotional involvement that a linesman really should not be displaying.

Clearly he feels the players owe the fans in those situations, so what if Lescott had not went over and applauded the fans, would he then have held it against Lescott? What if the next time he officiates a City match he flags an off the ball incident against Lescott, was it just because he held a grudge? Thats what the accusation will be.

Nobody disagrees that Lescott should applaud the fans, but its really not the linesmans place to say it, for good reason.

True, but the punishment is ott imo.

A warning of some sort would have been more than enough.

CSF

Laika1986 wrote: »

Because people will pay it? £62 is alot of money without factoring travelling etc. At the end of the day its a majority of working class people spending their hard earned money to go watch multi millionaires play football?

The Premiership has become like Disneyland. Everyone in the world wants to travel there so prices skyrocket as a result. Unfortunately its the locals that suffer as a result.

Dozen Wicked Words

Cracking article from the New Statesman vaguely related to the Linesman, worth a read

A post match video soon emerged of a blasphemous linesman, John Brooks, angering the plutocratic gatekeepers of football's money cult. His crime? Merely bearing witness to an empirical reality: that away fans had paid 62 quid for the privilege of the ball-centred spectacle, and that players would be better off spending time celebrating with them than with himself, a humble linesman.

This is hard to deny. A 2011 study by Dave Boyle for the High Pay Centre found that the cheapest ticket to watch Manchester United in 1989 cost £3.50 – with a Liverpool ticket costing £4 and Arsenal £5. Adjusted for inflation, those tickets would still have been under £10 in 2011. Instead they went up between 700 per cent and 1,025 per cent, or as one senior Premier League club executive morally pronounced, "we maximise every seat for the highest amount we can get". So there! Yet as soon as the media latched on to the linesman video, the evident implication even as they silently relayed the footage without commentary was clear; the linesman's words were an underhanded attack on money in football. The response to this "transgression" by football's financial demigods was depressingly predictable.

Full article HERE from the New statesman website

CSF

dooferoaks wrote: »

Cracking article from the New Statesman vaguely related to the Linesman, worth a read



Full article HERE from the New statesman website

Yeah but what do you expect? The entire sport is different now.

inmyday

CSF wrote: »

Yeah but what do you expect? The entire sport is different now.

The entire sport is like a soap opera. Its not even about football anymore. Sometimes I really hate the sport I love.

CSF

inmyday wrote: »

The entire sport is like a soap opera. Its not even about football anymore. Sometimes I really hate the sport I love.

But its the fans who are to blame. Its all basic marketing. The supply has been catered to fit the demand.

Sir Gallagher

Linesman sounds like a bit of a Graham Poll wannabe, the less of that lark the better.

BhoscaCapall

Ironically it's clubs like City and Arsenal, facilitated by their fans, who have made English football such a joke

CSF

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Ironically it's clubs like City and Arsenal, facilitated by their fans, who have made English football such a joke

City made football a joke? Really? This was the case long before City were anything and therefore City are clearly a symptom rather than a cause. The likes of Man United and Liverpool and their fans are the ones that are much more responsible.

BhoscaCapall

CSF wrote: »

City made football a joke? Really? This was the case long before City were anything and therefore City are clearly a symptom rather than a cause. The likes of Man United and Liverpool and their fans are the ones that are much more responsible.

"Clubs like"

CSF

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

"Clubs like"

But Man City aren't one of those clubs. Man City are something else entirely, trying to become one of those clubs.

BhoscaCapall

CSF wrote: »

But Man City aren't one of those clubs. Man City are something else entirely, trying to become one of those clubs.

I think if something is the result of an issue then it is a good example to use in illustrating that issue.

Lovely Bloke

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

I think if something is the result of an issue then it is a good example to use in illustrating that issue.

It's the examples you used though.

I notice you didn't use the biggest marketing spin of them all

DoctorGonzo08

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

I think if something is the result of an issue then it is a good example to use in illustrating that issue.

How can a result be responsible for an issue? Illogogical. If you are trying to make a valid point highlight the cause of the issue, as that is what's responsible.

62 quid is a disgrace when you factor in the costs of getting from Manchester to London. We (Sunderland) were charged 25quid earlier in the season. Think city fans should have had a full boycott for this game cause while people keep paying these prices the clubs will keep charging. Should be a limit set of 30quid for away fan tickets imo.

DoctorGonzo08

Deleted User wrote: »

62 quid is a disgrace when you factor in the costs of getting from Manchester to London. We (Sunderland) were charged 25quid earlier in the season. Think city fans should have had a full boycott for this game cause while people keep paying these prices the clubs will keep charging. Should be a limit set of 30quid for away fan tickets imo.

Ticket price is nearly always the cheapest part of going to a game. £60 is a bit steep, yes, but Emirates is a nice stadium. I don't see the argument in capping away ticket prices. For Newcastle fans for example, playing Sunderland and playing Chelsea are two big cost differences for the travelling fan. So in that case is Sunderland allowed to charge £75, and Chelsea £15? Do you factor in overnight stay (Sunderland v London)?

Despite what was said in the papers, City fans didn't boycott the game based on the ticket prices. It was just a section of season ticket holders who didn't pick up on they're first refusal. Also only about 800 out of 3000 too.

And to those who are truly mortified by the ticket cost, did you have any real interest in going to the game? Because if you did, and presuming flying over from Ireland, the extra £20 you would pay for the ticket would be nothing compared to what you would spend on travel, accomodation & food & drink.

Lovely Bloke

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Ticket price is nearly always the cheapest part of going to a game. £60 is a bit steep, yes, but Emirates is a nice stadium. I don't see the argument in capping away ticket prices. For Newcastle fans for example, playing Sunderland and playing Chelsea are two big cost differences for the travelling fan. So in that case is Sunderland allowed to charge £75, and Chelsea £15? Do you factor in overnight stay (Sunderland v London)?

Despite what was said in the papers, City fans didn't boycott the game based on the ticket prices. It was just a section of season ticket holders who didn't pick up on they're first refusal. Also only about 800 out of 3000 too.

And to those who are truly mortified by the ticket cost, did you have any real interest in going to the game? Because if you did, and presuming flying over from Ireland, the extra £20 you would pay for the ticket would be nothing compared to what you would spend on travel, accomodation & food & drink.

Tell me, how many away games have you attended?

DoctorGonzo08

TheNinthGate wrote: »

Tell me, how many away games have you attended?

5 Away games this season, not including Swansea/Norwich, Villa/Southampton, United/Liverpool, and a couple of Lower League games. Why?

DoctorGonzo08

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Ticket price is nearly always the cheapest part of going to a game. £60 is a bit steep, yes, but Emirates is a nice stadium. I don't see the argument in capping away ticket prices. For Newcastle fans for example, playing Sunderland and playing Chelsea are two big cost differences for the travelling fan. So in that case is Sunderland allowed to charge £75, and Chelsea £15? Do you factor in overnight stay (Sunderland v London)?

Despite what was said in the papers, City fans didn't boycott the game based on the ticket prices. It was just a section of season ticket holders who didn't pick up on they're first refusal. Also only about 800 out of 3000 too.

And to those who are truly mortified by the ticket cost, did you have any real interest in going to the game? Because if you did, and presuming flying over from Ireland, the extra £20 you would pay for the ticket would be nothing compared to what you would spend on travel, accomodation & food & drink.

The argument was not from those outside manchester it was from people who are paying every second week to go to away games how arsenal can charge 62 quid to go to a game. Really think the clubs are pricing the fans away from football and with all the tv revenue the clubs are getting in they would be better in lowering the ticket prices having full stadiums and not alienating those who really make the club.

DoctorGonzo08

Deleted User wrote: »

The argument was not from those outside manchester it was from people who are paying every second week to go to away games how arsenal can charge 62 quid to go to a game. Really think the clubs are pricing the fans away from football and with all the tv revenue the clubs are getting in they would be better in lowering the ticket prices having full stadiums and not alienating those who really make the club.

But are Arsenal not sold out, or close to, for every home game? So why would they drop the prices? For those who choose to go to every away game the slight difference in the ticket price is not a patch on travel costs.

DoctorGonzo08

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

But are Arsenal not sold out, or close to, for every home game? So why would they drop the prices? For those who choose to go to every away game the slight difference in the ticket price is not a patch on travel costs.

Arsenal as a London Team generally have supporters who are not hit by the financial crisis to the extent of the Northern Teams. The prices these clubs are charging are putting off the away fans and the numbers we (Sunderland) are bringing down to certain grounds like QPR, Chelsea and Arsenal have dropped in recent years due to the cost of tickets. If you factor the ticket costs in for a family of 4 this would make a big difference if they dropped prices.

DoctorGonzo08

Deleted User wrote: »

Arsenal as a London Team generally have supporters who are not hit by the financial crisis to the extent of the Northern Teams. The prices these clubs are charging are putting off the away fans and the numbers we (Sunderland) are bringing down to certain grounds like QPR, Chelsea and Arsenal have dropped in recent years due to the cost of tickets. If you factor the ticket costs in for a family of 4 this would make a big difference if they dropped prices.

Family trips are always going to be expensive, regardless of home or away. But what I'm saying is that an average top flight game will cost you about £40-45. So there is £15 extra you pay to see Arsenal. A train return from Newcastle is on Average going to cost you £100. That's not taking into account food & drink, which in London is ridiculously expensive. So when you put it in the total cost, that £15 is the least of your worries.

DoctorGonzo08

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Family trips are always going to be expensive, regardless of home or away. But what I'm saying is that an average top flight game will cost you about £40-45. So there is £15 extra you pay to see Arsenal. A train return from Newcastle is on Average going to cost you £100. That's not taking into account food & drink, which in London is ridiculously expensive. So when you put it in the total cost, that £15 is the least of your worries.

Which is why I said it should be capped at £30 . Clubs are taking the football away from the fans with the cost. £62 to see a football match is way over th top. Been to the emirates twice and charged 25 and 30 quid so never had to pay that kind of money. As I have said the cost of tickets will be a deciding factor for a number coming down from sunderland and other northern teams. Buses are put on for 25 30 quid so costs are not that expensive for people traveling but the ticket cost makes them pick and choose.

CSF

Why are people so insistent that football should ignore basic economics