Not sure if you're wumming or being ironic! Rising to the bait - it was 8-1 and City had a man sent off early for DOGSO (wouldn't be now) so it was 8-1 against 10 men (and most of them not trying). And City beat United twice that season (I like the thought they were worse than nothing) and finished 9th. But yes, it has come as a shock to know that not all big clubs get the decisions. We thought once Ferguson quit, the refs would stop bottling it (as in a Rooney elbow to the head is a "coming together"), but with Gill at the FA not much has changed.
This is serious stuff. The FA is not "a public body" and as far as I can see has no published code of ethics, but the standard public body requirement is that
"You must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between your public duties and your private interests, financial or otherwise.
"You must comply with the rules of the body on handling conflicts of interests. As a minimum, these will require you to declare publicly any private interests which may, or may be perceived to, conflict with your public duties. The rules will also require you to remove yourself from the discussion or determination of matters in which you have a financial interest. In matters in which you have a non-financial interest, you should not participate in the discussion or determination of a matter where the interest might suggest a danger of bias."
If you're a director a football club (or the CEOs of Norwich and Scunthorpe) on the FA board, how do you avoid a danger of bias?