taxfree Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Mitro haters Just ignore the plebs. http://www.themag.co.uk/assets/aleksander-mitrovic-goal-celebration-kissing-shirt-spurs-newcastle-united-nufc-650x400.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnNUFC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Loan out Mitrovic, sell Gayle and not bring anyone in, wouldn't put it past Ashley tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemtizz Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 What the fuck, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 If we loaned him out before the Swansea match, would his ban be activated when he returned? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 What's the fucking point of loans, we make a couple of million. Fuck off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Marseille can fuck off with a loan. They sell players to us who flop, we loan them back as they haven't got the cash to buy then after a year they pay much less than we bought the player off them for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Loan out Mitrovic, sell Gayle and not bring anyone in, wouldn't put it past Ashley tbh. We're not selling Gayle or letting mitro leave on loan. It's all smoke and mirror bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 If we loaned him out before the Swansea match, would his ban be activated when he returned? Yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiston Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 He has nearly as many missed games due to bans than he does goals, he is nothing more than a liability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiston Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Banned for three games after the FA reviewed a decision that the referee saw and dealt with when it happened, completely against their own rules. Less than 24 hours after Mike Riley was on SSN explaining how they don't want to "re-referee" games. Superb. Do we even know what the ref said about the incident ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfella Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Banned for three games after the FA reviewed a decision that the referee saw and dealt with when it happened, completely against their own rules. Less than 24 hours after Mike Riley was on SSN explaining how they don't want to "re-referee" games. Superb. Is the only genuine complaint we can have. He's still an idiot and a liability, it deserved a ban. Wether we think Mitrovic is guilty or not is neither here nor there .They have clearly made up the rules as they go with this one. If this was happening to any of the top clubs there'd be absolute hell on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Banned for three games after the FA reviewed a decision that the referee saw and dealt with when it happened, completely against their own rules. Less than 24 hours after Mike Riley was on SSN explaining how they don't want to "re-referee" games. Superb. Do we even know what the ref said about the incident ? No, so figures talking BS as per usual unless he has 1st hand access to PL match reports by referees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Most likely the ref saw the tackle but didnt see the elbow. Dont think theres a problem if that is the case? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Who needs strikers anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Banned for three games after the FA reviewed a decision that the referee saw and dealt with when it happened, completely against their own rules. Less than 24 hours after Mike Riley was on SSN explaining how they don't want to "re-referee" games. Superb. Do we even know what the ref said about the incident ? No, so figures talking BS as per usual unless he has 1st hand access to PL match reports by referees. Neesy, you really are utterly boring. My post was based on witnessing the referee discuss the incident with the West Ham players (the one that he didn't see) in conjunction with nufc.com who also confirm what I thought I saw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Most likely the ref saw the tackle but didnt see the elbow. Dont think theres a problem if that is the case? Mitro was shown to elbow Manuel Lanzini and although referee Neil Swarbrick saw it and told the West Ham players that he didn't deem it intentional, the FA reviewed the footage and opted to charge him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Most likely the ref saw the tackle but didnt see the elbow. Dont think theres a problem if that is the case? But wouldn't that be the case with a hell of a lot of fouls where the ref seems it a yellow at worst when replays show studs up etc? Ref sees an incident and rules it as he sees fit, end of story for the incident surely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Most likely the ref saw the tackle but didnt see the elbow. Dont think theres a problem if that is the case? But wouldn't that be the case with a hell of a lot of fouls where the ref seems it a yellow at worst when replays show studs up etc? Ref sees an incident and rules it as he sees fit, end of story for the incident surely? Absolutely Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Well when you put it like that. On the other hand I consider elbowing someone in the face in the same category as punching someone during a game and it should always be punished if its deliberate. So if they've judged this wrong then the rules are wrong in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 He stupidly elbowed someone in the head off the ball with no chance of it getting any advantage for us at all. Only one person to blame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 At 2-0 up in the midst of a great atmosphere, no less. He's more touched than Shelvey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Banned for three games after the FA reviewed a decision that the referee saw and dealt with when it happened, completely against their own rules. Less than 24 hours after Mike Riley was on SSN explaining how they don't want to "re-referee" games. Superb. Do we even know what the ref said about the incident ? No, so figures talking BS as per usual unless he has 1st hand access to PL match reports by referees. Neesy, you really are utterly boring. My post was based on witnessing the referee discuss the incident with the West Ham players (the one that he didn't see) in conjunction with nufc.com who also confirm what I thought I saw. You saw him discuss something with the westham players, but what he discussed you cannot see. Not taking sides, but their is no way you can SEE what was discussed. As I said earlier it seems the most likely thing he said was: "listen lads, I'm sorry but I didn't see it. I'll look at it again and if you're right I'll ask the FA to look at it. But for now we have to get on with the game." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Most likely the ref saw the tackle but didnt see the elbow. Dont think theres a problem if that is the case? Mitro was shown to elbow Manuel Lanzini and although referee Neil Swarbrick saw it and told the West Ham players that he didn't deem it intentional, the FA reviewed the footage and opted to charge him. Do NUFC.com have access to the referees match report then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsted Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Can we get him and Shelvey to fight and then just keep one of the cunts? No forbidden curses allowed Better? Shouldn't that be "...he and Shelvey"? You trying to bait me? I mean, maybe. The existential dread of you having your grammar corrected by an American would be palpable across the Atlantic. :lol: I don't actually recall the rules for it; it just seemed the right time to strike. Well anyway, no. He's the object of the sentence, so "him" is correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now