Sep 19
John Terry, AIG and Fergie’s Rant on Hackett
We all, by now, are aware that John Terry’s red card has been rescinded. The word, I can’t seem to find the link, goes that his punishment (i.e., the one match ban) has been ‘reduced’ rather than his red card being revoked. This in itself strikes me as strange, because I would imagine a red card would at least warrant a one match suspension.
My second gripe about this whole fiasco is about the nature of the card itself. The referee’s decision to send Terry off was not for a professional foul — which is rather easy to detect with video footage — but for “serious foul play”. This would be a matter of opinion and interpretation of rules by the on field referee, and if the FA are really concerned about the integrity of their “Respect” themed Premiership season, then undermining what seemed like a referee decision doesn’t sound like a good way to start.
It really makes no sense whatsoever. Either the red card has to be rescinded — which it cannot because it was a refereeing decision — or there has to be a one match ban at least, because it was a red card.
I, for the life of me, cannot understand this. Someone in the know, kindly educate.
This, of course, has not gone down well with Ferguson, whose rant against Keith Hackett has been well documented last season.
“By the letter of the law it was not a goalscoring opportunity. Maybe it’s good to have an FA panel people can go to but it certainly opens the gate to that kind of thing now. If it had been a Manchester United player Hackett would never have done this for us.”
I don’t buy the last statement, because I know it’s just his anger getting to him. But I do understand Fergie’s concern that this decision is yet another instance of inconsistency in the appeals process. He should have kept his mouth buttoned about the last line though. That could get him in trouble again.
Finally, something I’ve been meaning to write for a while but didn’t. AIG collapsed but has been rescued by the US Treasury. Which makes the US Treasury the shirt sponsor of United. People have expressed concerns about how AIG’s collapse might affect United’s sponsorship deal. But I say all that is unfounded. If AIG is to walk away from our contract, we only have everything to gain. Our brand value — on the back of having won consecutive Premier Leagues and a Champions’ League — has never been higher. So we will demand an even hefty sum from a prospective sponsor. At the moment, AIG survives, so we’ll still have that ugly looking logo on our shirt. (Yes, I have never been particularly crazy about having AIG on a United shirt.)
Related items from Red Rants:
- On Vidic’s red card
- The Glazers’ Busby Babes Tribute Madness – Sign the Petition
- United We Rant: Vent Your Spleen
- International roundup and a link fest
- Man Utd 0-0 Villarreal: Ronaldo Returns
Tags: Manchester United News
Opti (541)
Stephen (479)
RedDevilEddy (459)
Craig Mc (345)
Moscow is my heaven (272)
exactly right!! couldnt have put it better meself
Like?
0 
0
whats wrong with with having AIG on the shirt?
Afterall it means Alex Is God
Sagar
Like?
0 
0
the rentboys unbeaten streak at the bridge must end some time right? nothing lasts forever, and what justice a win will be after cunt terry’s card was revoked,
terry is a cunt.
terry or no terry, bring on the rentboys
Like?
0 
0
..can’t wait to beat those pensioners at the bridge!! Lampard’s been runnin his mouth recently, and it would be nice to see him eat his words… maybe some tears by ‘Cry baby’ Terry will make it all the sweeter!
Like?
0 
0
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article4754216.ece
“The FA is unable to downgrade cards from red to yellow, so Chelsea must demonstrate that Terry should not have been booked to get the decision overturned, an unlikely proposition.”
by taking Terry’s red card away the FA has made a statement that they didn’t even believe the foul to be worthy of a yellow card. so by rescinding John’s card the FA have vindicated his actions & all together validated foul play.
i’ve had too many lengthy discussion about this already this week so will keep it short but the FA’s a disgrace.
Like?
0 
0
The ideal would be United to win the match via a Terry own-goal! Justice!
Like?
0 
0
@james f: That would be brilliant. I wouldnt be able to watch the match, cos id be laughing that much if it happened.
Those pensioner rentboys are gonna get some!
Like?
0 
0
justice will be served at the bridge.
Like?
0 
0
I think it will be a draw at the Bridge this weekend. They may have had a barnstorming start, but ‘Big Phil’ hasn’t had a true acid test yet, which will come on Sunday in the form of Manchester United. We always respond well when our backs are against the wall and I expect us, with Berbs and Ronaldo restored to attack, to come out all guns blazing and take out our frustrations on Chelski for what has been a truly wretched start to the season. Of course, the Chavs will certainly need no motivation to get fired up for this game, what with getting revenge for what happened in Moscow and all that, so I think it’ll be honours even: 1-1.
Re: AIG – I couldn’t give a shit if AIG went bust, as they represent the American values which have seen us plunged in debt, to the tune of £660m, and I would certainly welcome the arrival of a new sponsor. Also agree with RR’s point of our current stock being high due to on-field success, hence there would be no problem in securing a new sposorship deal.
Having said that…I have gotten used to seeing the AIG logo on our shirts over the last two seasons, and, call me a crackhead if you like, I kind of think it looks imposing/menacing
….
Like?
0 
0
@Nino: I have to agree with you mate about AIG. I could care less if they went into the tank or not. The fact that the American government bailed them out is absolutely disgusting to me. Let them go bankrupt I say. However, having said that, your comment on “American values” is insulting. Like most governments in the world the idea that they represent the values of those they govern would be an ignorant conjecture. As an American I have always built my values based on core priniples of liberalism. Which is why comments like yours make you sound very glib on the subject.
As for United, I feel Chelsea is a challenge we are up to. I just want to see a smashing match. I must admit there are times when I watch the Red Devils play and I hope for a cracking goal. Often I don’t want to see tap-ins and the like. But as for this weekend, I don
Like?
0 
0
My comments were cut off, but what I was stating is that I do not care how we score or what United player scores…I will take a tap in just as easily as I would a cracker from Nani at this point!
Like?
0 
0
@RichmondRed: With regard to my previous comment, the point I intended to convey was that it was the Glazers who brought about the sponsorship deal with AIG through their business contacts, and so consequently, as a supporter, seeing the AIG logo on our shirts is a constant reminder of them and the levels of crippling debt that the family has brought upon us. I admit my choice of words was poor and certainly did not intend to insult any Americans, so I apologise for any offence caused, but not for my stance on the issue
Like?
0 
0
hmm strange the FA screw united over rooney and scholes which had nothing to do with the premiership and neither were redcards yet the FA were happly to let terry off scott free, coincidence that terry’s next game he would miss the united game. I wonder if the FA would go through the trouble to get a united player off with a suspension.
Like?
0 
0
Its Berba 9 Time!
Seriously hoping that Rooney plays behind the Berba!
If we do that!
We will atleast score two against the rent boys!
Seriously!
And one more thing! All of Chelsea’s physicality? Yeah its with Ballack and Essien!
And they wont play!
WOO HOO!
Like?
0 
0
How could we possibly even think of playing Chelski on Sunday with out JT? What better game could there be for 3000 odd voices to sing for 90 minutes, all together now, ‘Viva John Terry, Viva John Terry……..
Like?
0 
0
@Nino: I understand your harsh words for the Glazers but I see the owners as sound business men who have brought to the club nothing but positives. Yes the club is in debt and yes that is never a choice place to be, however the constant reminding of the debt that we are in as a club seems overrated. The club has been moving in the right direction since the takeover in my opinion. Back-to-back league crowns, the Champions of Europe ect.. It seems to me that the Glazers not only have begun to pay down debt owed, but have reinvested in the club with the aim to never rest on past accomplishments. I don’t know what else you would want from an owner quite honestly. In fact, the Glazers have also done a noble job of staying out of the limelight by remaining behind the scenes and allowing the club to function according to the manager and David Gill. I for one think they are wonderful owners, with the club, fans and players interests foremost on their minds.
Like?
0 
0
@jason: I presume that is in reference to the Amsterdam Tournament a couple of years back? The FA gets alot of bad rep for supposed double standards because a Liverpool player (Gerrard?) got off without a ban in similar circumstances. In reality the issue was whether the referee included the incident in his match report (the referee for our game did and the one for Liverpool did not). Once it was included in the match report and forwarded to the Dutch FA, the English FA had no option but to enforce the bans.
@RichmondRed: I’m not as critical of the Glazers as some have been, but do you have any evidence that they have begun to pay the debt owed? If anything the restructuring efforts have increased our debt (currently upward of £600m). I believe that the club has been run well since the takeover but from a financial viewpoint I still can’t see where they are going to get their money back, unless they plan to sell off at some point to an oil rich Arab.
Like?
0 
0
RichmondRed there are three things that I want from those idiots, 1 the ticket cup scheme broken up, 2 the dept on our club vanished, 3 the glazers gone. If they achieve these three goals I will be happy then. And please don’t get suckered in because the team as done well they are great. I do not trust them at all still and that is never going to change and real united fans all know this. and why should any money go to the banks when that money could be invested into the team, make old Trafford a much bigger stadium to get more people into the games that would mean less money charged and more money is made, and future players will see united as this monstress place to play football.
Like?
0 
0
@Nino: @RichmondRed: Although this is a football blog I thought it might be worth saying a couple of words on AIG. Saying just let them go bust is taking a very simplistic view of the situation. The American government couldn’t afford to let the world’s largest insurance company go to the wall as the damage it would do to the global financial markets would have been almost unimaginable. As bad as this week was for the financial sector, it would have been far worse if AIG had gone under. It might also be worth sparing a thought for the 100,000 plus staff worldwide that would have been left jobless if the American government had decided to do as you suggested.
Like?
0 
0
JB to be honest I won’t be happy if our club was bought by some Arabs and I will be just as opposed to them as the glazers, Manchester utd should be run in the same way as real Madrid and Barcelona to be honest all clubs should be. I am not happy with these people buying up our clubs there has got to be morals and souls in our football clubs. in these moments in football I wish I was Spanish and supported a Spanish club because I know my club is almost like my second home and not spending a fools ransom on tickets, real Madrid and Barcelona maybe a nutcase places at times but they never forget about the fans.
Like?
0 
0
I heard Berba is fit is this true??????
Like?
0 
0
The Glazer’s get 20 million euros per year from AIG… AIG is struggling… in addition, the Glazer’s other company First Allied Corporation could be in trouble due to the mortgage crisis in the US…
BE SCARED:
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.readers-edition.de%2F2008%2F09%2F16%2Faig-nicht-mehr-in-der-champions-league%2F&lp=de_en&btnTrUrl=Translate
Like?
0 
0
Be scared:
AIG down but pays Glazer’s 20 million euros per year.
Glazer’s own a company in the real estate business, the mortage crisis could be hurting them there (its a private company so we cannot check if that is the case).
Be scared… be very scared:
Source
Like?
0 
0
JB you are right and AIG is a multinational firm with holdings all over the world. Going under would have caused a downturn of the economies of many nations besides the US. This economic downturn is not just because of the
but the spending practices of people in places such as Ireland where the housing market mirrored that of the US. Causing US “based” (some in the Caribbean) multinational finance companies to fail.
Yes they lent money to people that should not have been given loans. But natural disasters destroying whole towns and cities full of houses with insurance claims among many other stresses that caused this crisis to financial institutions.
and i am the last person that would make excuses for companies like this. I have been railing against this for years when i was trying to buy a house 3 yrs ago i could see that the market was way over valued and that the prices were not maintainable. the problem now is that the executives are making off with millions while the employees and the common shareholders are left cleaning out their desk or holding an empty bag. Hopefully they will one day be held accountable for their part in this like the average citizen is being burdened now with this mess.
Like?
0 
0
@JB: I never suggested that AIG should go under I just said I could care less if it did. However, in saying that I did not give any thought to the thousands of people who would be unemployed because of it. So with that in mind I would not want the company to go under. However, I was thinking in terms of our beloved football club and in the light I could careless about AIG. The sponsers would be lining up at the door to have their name posted upon the front of the most popular football shirt in all of the world. Personally I would prefer another sponser name on the front of the shirt anyway even if I have grown somewhat less opposed to it as I was when the sponser deal first broke through.
Anyway, none of it is in our control. All that is in our control is our love and passion for the Red Devils. I for one cannot wait for Sunday to get here. Come on you Red Devils! Wipe the floor with the rentboys.
Like?
0 
0
RichmondRed why are you taking you’re anger with united’s dept and blamming AIG, they have nothing to do with the dept blame it all on the scum the glazer famly that is it, all AIG are doing is sponsering united that is it, they are no different from any other sponser, only anger I have with AIG is their sponser on the 58 team photo that was put up on the east stand. I would love to see united have no sponser on the front of the united shirt
Like?
0 
0
@RichmondRed: Well saying “let them go bankrupt” does sound fairly harsh
I have to say I’m not sure I would be as confident about the sponsorship issue as everyone else seems to be. In the current economic climate there are alot of companies having to tighten their belts just to survive. I’m sure throwing money at United to plaster your logo on their shirts wouldn’t be at the forefront of many CEO’s minds. Not that I’m saying we wouldn’t get a sponsor, I just don’t think it would be as easy an ask as some are suggesting.
@Mads in USA: As far as I am aware the Glazer’s holding companies have a wide variety of businesses, such as healthcare, broadcasting, food processing and real estate amongst others. How much the current economic situation has affected their holdings is impossible for us, and the reporter in your link, to determine. Idle speculation at this stage (and the article was prior to the Fed’s rescue of AIG).
@maroon 14: He’s fit.
@gator: AIG can consider themselves fairly unfortunate that they are in this situation. They were not providing mortgages/loans to people who could not afford them but they providing financial institutions with insurance incase of defaults. There troubles seem to have arisen from the lax attitude to risk of a number of banks and the general malaise in the housing market rather than greed/incompetence on AIG’s part.
Like?
0 
0
@maroon 14: Yeah its on the website, in the same article Fergie said he’s unsure whether to start Ronaldo tomorrow.
On the last point Fergie made, i kinda agree with him, I’m not saying the FA has some kinda vendetta against Man Utd, but I’m pretty sure if that was Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra or Brown, the best we’d have gotten would have probably been a one-match ban…
Like?
0 
0
The AIG logo sucks. it’s the one reason that i think twice about wearing a jersey. their situation hasnt made it much easier either.
Like?
0 
0
red ranter at his best!
Like?
0 
0
It seems the london teams are the chosen ones for the FA ..then why can’t they have a LPL …and have multiple chelski teams like chelski 1,chelski 2 , chelski 3 play..then they can kick each other to their heart’s content ..and can decide the winners
Like?
0 
0
@MUFC Fan in America: i think its nice, its slick and classy.
i wear my new berba shirt every time me and my mates play. 
Like?
0 
0
i had a dream last night, i saw manucho score a cracker against chelsea, and we won the game, u hope this is a sign.
Like?
0 
0
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article1712348.ece
Carlos Tevez is what man utd players should be modelled upon!!!
Like?
0 
0
@dan(u-ol): I also had a dreamlast night, that we tore chelsea apart and were 3-0 up at half time!
Like?
0 
0
@OllieY: i like that dream!
Like?
0 
0
@OllieY: i think manu will win 3-0 with rooney scoring 2 and ronnie 1!
Of course, rooney will score a volley and chip while ronaldo will score a 30 yard freekick
Like?
0 
0
Berba fit = Rooney on the left.
i await another Roon bashing evening tomorrow.
Like?
0 
0
if berba, ronnie = fit
we have a chance to end those scums’ streak
terry is a cry baby though <– and that is a fact. feckin twat that cunt terry is
Like?
0 
0
@RichmondRed: OK, granted the Glazers have indeed kept a low profile since they took over and haven’t messed about with on-field affairs or anything; but you are missing the key point: nobody wanted them there in the first place!!
What was wrong with staying as a PLC? Malcolm Glazer could have had a small stake e.g. 20% in the club, I wouldn’t have a problem with that, and if he really wanted it: a place on the board, like Stan Kroenke at Arsenal this week, offering his business acumen and experience, but there was no need to borrow so heavily to buy the club. If you don’t have the money….
I do not see the benefits of having the Glazers on board as owners. You refer to the on-field success of the last two years; however that is down to one man only (Hint: It’s not Malcolm Glazer). His name is Alex Ferguson. We shall continue to win trophies while this gentleman is at the helm of the club; our success has nothing to do with the Glazers in my opinion.
Like?
0 
0
@jason: Mate you come up with some very good points there. Theoretically, I would also like to see United in the hands of the people who truly care about the club, and do not see it as some kind of sports ‘franchise’: the supporters. However, the system at R. Madrid and Barca, where the club is owned by the ‘socios’, could not work over here. (Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but) R.Madrid and Barca, as well as a lot of other clubs on the continent, are not just football teams. They are sports clubs, with various departments such as basketball, athletics, tennis, etc. (some clubs even have chess teams!) and the members of these clubs are the ones who own them. As far as I am aware, Man Utd is not a sports club and so this system could not work for them. In addition, the system at Real in particular, where the president (who more often than not turns out to be a complete fassy) interferes with the managers role and overrules him, and takes command of transfers, is not ideal at all, especially in light of the situations with Keegan and Curbishley recently.
I also agree with your point of United not having a shirt sponsor at all. Teams such as West Brom and West Ham have set a trend (unknowingly!) and I would like to see United follow suit. It’s kind of heartbreaking to see such a sacred shirt desecrated by a sponsor; it is like selling out your soul to the devil, and that is why I used to admire Barcelona a lot back in the day when they did not have a shirt sponsor (even R. Madrid had a pure white shirt during their centenary year a few seasons back) and which is why I also abhor Arsenal for selling the rights to their stadium name to Emirates.
Like?
0 
0
I hate AIG too…reminds me of those smug dipper c*nts with the almost in greece bit…
Who would you like to see on Uniteds shirt?
It has to be a big big company, but an ethical one also, and an american insurance company is somewhat putting off..
Google?
Like?
0 
0
@jason: I’d also like to comment on your point about stadium expansion. That would not be financially sound, as to expand the South Stand and make it into a tiered stand like the others would involve buying the plot of land behind it (the one with the railway line) and the many council houses nearby, which would cost us around £120m and put us further in debt. Thats a bit too much money just to expand one stand, especially when you consider that other clubs can build a whole new stadium for that kind of money. If we were to expand the South Stand though, the capacity would rise to 96,000; bigger than Wembley even! Now that certainly would re-inforce the general ideal amongst the Utd faithful that United > England!!! (Unlike most fellow Utd supporters, I am also an proud England fan too!)
Like?
0 
0
@nagraj: Although I said earlier that I would like to see United’s shirt sponsorless, I realise that in this day and age it’s almost near impossible to do so, due to the lucrative revenues the club will miss out on, and so I wouldn’t mind seeing us sponsored by a huge respected electronics company like Sony; maybe go down the Chelski route and be sponsored by Sony Ericsson lol; have Walkman/VAIO/Cyber-shot logos on our kits; now that would look pretty cool imo…
Like?
0 
0
AIG is a good logo IMO. Not too flashy like most big companies would have it. I can’t think of many companies that size who would look much better
Like?
0 
0
Bayern 2-5 Werder
Liverpool 0-0 Stoke
Like?
0 
0
@JB: annoys me more than anything. The fact that we lost to them (and drew with Newcastle) has really gotten some perspective today
Like?
0 
0
btw, everyone disagreed when I said that Pool play better without Torres and Stevie
Like?
0 
0
Has it come to this? We waste time and space debating over the incredibly dull and pointless logo and our sponsors AIG. Like I give a damn about the logo or advertisers on the bloody shirt. It’s who’s wearing the shirt I care about. I’d rather talk United vs Chelsea. Let the Glazer’s worry about whether AIG will remain or should remain our sponsor. I’m more concerned about how we are going to score enough goals to beat Chelsea. Last week Liverpool opened a big door for us to stampede through when they never started Gerrard and Torres. We never took advantage of it. Now we have a Chelsea team that are ripe for the picking because they have no Terry, Essien and probably Ballack. This is an ideal scenario where we can end their unbeaten run at the Bridge and kick start our season as well. And yet, I have a feeling we are once again going to lay another egg because there is something seriously wrong with our intensity, focus, conditioning and desire. Hopefully Fergie will iron things out sooner than later. And if Drogba doesn’t start we should win this game. Lets hope for the best. Hopefully a healthy Ronaldo and Berbatov will make the difference.
Like?
0 
0
@Grognard: Terry is back lol ^^
Like?
0 
0