C & P

Vieira: Comments were misrepresented

Patrick Vieira has reacted with fury to what he claims is a "serious and cynical misrepresentation" of an interview he gave at the Soccerex conference in Manchester. Having stoked the flames of controversy last week by suggesting it had been a desperate measure from Manchester United to bring Paul Scholes out of retirement in January, Vieira seemed keen to stay out of the headlines when he attended Wednesday's conference.

The former France midfielder attended one discussion about youth football with Stuart Pearce, Gerard Houllier and David Sheepshanks and carried out a pre-arranged interview with the BBC. However, in the interview, he seemed to suggest United were benefiting from refereeing decisions, which has been a hot topic since Monday, when Fulham were denied a last-minute penalty in their 1-0 defeat at Old Trafford when Michael Carrick barged Danny Murphy inside the box.

Although City have not denied Vieira made the comments that have been reported, the club have released a strongly-worded statement condemning the manner in which they were used during an interview which was supposed to be part of Vieira's charity work for Football Against Hunger, a campaign to tackle starvation in Africa. "Patrick Vieira has expressed his disappointment and anger at what he feels is a serious and cynical misrepresentation of an interview he gave to the BBC," the statement read. "Manchester City's Football Development Executive gave the interview at the annual SoccerEx exhibition at the GMEX Convention Centre on Wednesday afternoon. He was representing Football Against Hunger, a campaign to tackle starvation in Africa.

"An interview given to the BBC's Dan Roan contained what Patrick feels was a very leading line of questions regarding Manchester United supposedly receiving favourable treatment by referees. Patrick feels that his views have been deliberately taken out of context."

Vieira said: "I am very angry with Dan Roan. I feel he has misrepresented me. I made it clear in the interview twice that I wanted to avoid criticising United and even stated that I didn't watch the United game against Fulham and had not seen the incident to which the reporter referred. That part of the interview was ignored and my comments were taken completely out of context. I called the reporter twice to ask for a retraction and an apology, which has not come. I feel Dan Roan and the BBC have shown a complete lack of respect for me, the 'Football Against Hunger' charity and Manchester City Football Club."

The statement continued: "Manchester City support Patrick in his strong feelings on this matter and have confirmed to the BBC that the reporter will now be banned from all Manchester City media activity."

Chief communications officer Vicky Kloss said: "Despite the Charity arranging the interview with Dan Roan for the purposes of promoting the Football Against Hunger campaign, the reporter pursued a leading and aggressive line of questioning, through which Patrick was very careful to tread a diplomatic path.

"A misrepresentative article by Dan Roan appeared on the BBC's website a short time later which omitted significant comments of clarification and took the interview completely out of context. Manchester City promotes a positive and welcoming approach to media outlets; however, it is felt in the absence of any correction or apology that there is no option but to issue an immediate ban to Dan Roan from future media activity."

The BBC has as yet refused to remove the interview from its website.

Tigger Tiggy..

Its Squicky Bum time!! Dont bring Ref excuses. This is when we see what stuff teams are made of. dont be so scared, 7 more games to go anything can happen. After the way we played against Fullham I wont say nothing until April 30th. Unless you slip up this weekend again .

Here is another view on your conspiracy theories below;

A Penalty, Sure, But No Conspiracy

Rob McNichol is sure that Fulham should have been given a penalty at Old Trafford on Monday, but is equally sure there is no nefarious conspiracy going on here...

It seems as though we have to start at Old Trafford, where the conspiracy theorists were out in force again after Fulham were denied a penalty in the closing stages.

I'm in no way making apologies for the decision. It was a total clanger. Michael Carrick ran into the back of Danny Murphy and knocked him over. There is no doubt in my mind that it should have been a penalty kick, and Manchester United will surely know they got away with one.

What I can't bear is the hand-wringing from those who incessantly drone on about United getting all the decisions while conveniently forgetting the occasions when things do go against Alex Ferguson's men.

I can remember Darren Fletcher being sent off against Arsenal for basically winning the ball. I remember United being denied a clear penalty against Everton in a cup semi-final, which they went on to lose on penalties. I remember a handball that wasn't given when United drew at home to Sunderland. I recall Richard Dunne clattering Nani in the area but nothing being given. And how about when Jamie Carragher raked Nani and should have walked? And when Frank Lampard handled in the area at Old Trafford last year and nothing was given? And Ashley Cole poleaxing Javier Hernandez and not seeing red?

And what about the best tackle Rio Ferdinand has made in years on Hatem Ben Arfa which resulted in a penalty to Newcastle?

Now of course, I'm being deliberately over the top. Plenty of decisions go their way. But they do for Wigan. And Chelsea. And Reading and Alloa and Birmingham and Walsall and Maccaibi Haifa and Lowestoft Town and Brentford and Arsenal and every football team in the world. They also get loads of bad ones too. It's the way of the world.

I don't believe that things necessarily 'even themselves out' as the way of the world is not to be fair to all, but while I accept that from time to time a referee bottles out of something at Old Trafford, I think many officials do it at many home grounds. It's become the easy answer for those that are jealous of United's continuing success to suggest that they get decisions because of officials. It's lazy and it ought to stop.

Of course this was a terrible decision. And if I was a Fulham fan (or a Manchester City fan for that matter) I'd feel pretty aggrieved. But it's a bad moment, not a conspiracy.

*****

While I'm being possibly controversial and unpopular, and I don't want to sound disrespectful, but is it on the harsh side to say that, if Bolton had not had the traumatic week they have had, that Andre Marriner might have given them a penalty for the foul - and it was a foul - by Gretar Steinsson on Junior Hoillett?

Perhaps it was simply a terrible decision on Mr Marriner's part. But the conspiracy theorist in me feels that the script was set for Bolton, and perhaps a touch of emotion stopped the referee from seeing a very obvious block by the Trotters' full-back.

That probably is too harsh. I doubt that thought seriously crossed Marriner's mind, I'm simply playing devil's advocate. But that argument isn't brought up because it doesn't suit people's agendas.

*****

I have to commend Lee Mason and his team for getting two huge decisions right at Anfield.

It doesn't matter what happened to the header after Victor Moses got something on it. The fact is Martin Skrtel kicked him in the chest or the face. There was contact and it was dangerous, and being stood only a few yards away, Mr Mason had no choice other than pointing to the spot.

The decision to rule out a potential goal by Luis Suarez was a very brave call by the official, and one which with the benefit of replays I think he got absolutely spot on.

To begin with I thought it might have been for a foul, or a nudge in the back, as Suarez jumped. If that had been the case I would have been fine with this, too. Suarez led with his knee in an unnatural position and it went into the back of the defender. It would certainly have been a foul.

However, it was not really a foul which would have deserved a caution, so I have to assume that Suarez was cautioned for flicking the ball into the net with his hand, which it looks fairly likely, judging by replays showing that he seemed to do it intentionally.

*****

Djibril Cisse - and players of his ilk - must be the bane of manager's lives. It's been the oddest of seasons for QPR, but after fighting back from 2-0 against Liverpool recently, you felt that perhaps they might have turned a corner, that they could use that amazing three points to propel their season and escape the drop.

So then, with this mind, imagine how decidedly miffed Mark Hughes must have felt when Cisse lunged in on Fraizer Campbell on Saturday, with Rangers a goal down to Sunderland.

Hughes later described the tackle as 'crazy'. It was two-footed, high and late. And it was a little crazy, too. Cisse might have been prone to the histrionics of throwing himself to the floor in surprise when shown the red card, but when even your manager can't defend you, you know you overstepped the mark.

spurs!!!!!!!!! now on level with asnl, anything can happen for 3rd

The Kop Squad is fast becoming a shame. All that money spent and they languish 31 points behind the league leaders. Their descent has been gradual, yet it feels like a free fall... like gravitus is in action. Sad, so so sad. Atleast their Carling Cup win will enable them to play in Europa League next season.

OMG Who's the ref at Ewood Park tonight? He will surely confirm Veira's sentiments.B'Burn are facing 12 men.