By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Interesting 'exclusive interview' with the same paper that published the various stories on him after the video was circulated on social media.
Obviously his refereeing career is over. I'm also not sure how relevant his sexuality is for the reason of his actions (But don't doubt it was difficult in that envrioment). But it does highlight some huge issues on how referees are treated, stories of him receiving death threats and people wishing he was paralysed really shouldn't be the outcome of a decision he made at the weekend.
I have no idea how the PGMOL do anything to improve that?
He'll rightly never referee in the english game again as his integrity here is gone. But hopefully a opportunity opens up abroad so he can have a second chance.
We do however care that he might have influenced results in a sport based on his personal feelings, which is wrong and I imagine not limited to him.
Surely it goes without saying referees have at least some bias, even if it's relatively unconscious bias based on experiences of certain players/managers and experiences before. Human nature.
But you have to trust they do their best to referee fairly, unfortunately for Coote he said comments publically which indicated he might be influenced. All his integrity gone in a few seconds of stupidity.
I imagine historically in the game some people would have cared. I don’t think you can say nobody does just because you don’t?
I think you're maybe taking him a little literally? Or maybe I'm giving too big-a-benefit of the doubt.
There is something that feels a bit icky to me about how Coote has decided to use this as an opportunity to inform people of his sexuality. I totally appreciate that he was a gay person working in a highly homophobic enviroment and the challenges that must bring, I'm just not sure that rolling that fact out after he's potentially outed himself as not being very professional is particularly relevant or helpful to other gay people working in the industry.
Not a fan of this at all. You've got The Sun, who ruined his career, now trying to help him save face. You've also got Coote seeming to use his sexuality to try and buy some sympathy.
It feels quite insulting to all of those in the LGBTQ+ community who can't simply use their sexuality as a cheap points-scoring exercise.
Then you've also got the allegations from some quarters that this is all very conveniently timed, given the focus on Michael Oliver's standard of refereeing, particularly when it comes to Arsenal.
We do however care that he might have influenced results in a sport based on his personal feelings, which is wrong and I imagine not limited to him.
Nobody cares that a referee is gay until they make a contentious decision to the opposition and then the chants and abuse will begin. And that will happen without doubt.
It wouldn't surprise me if The Sun pulled the same trick they did with the late Stephen Gateley of Boyzone - "We're going to run the story that you're gay whether you like it or not. You can either give us an exclusive interview and we can paint you in a sympathetic light, or we'll run a negative story about it, and trash your reputation.
Of course the drawback with that theory is that Coote's reputation is in the dirt anyway.
Listening to a radio phone-in at the moment and the host was talking about Steven Gatley who used to be in Boyzone. The Sun told him that unless he cooperated with them then they will ‘out’ him and by cooperating they meant give them an exclusive interview that he was gay.
Listening to a radio phone-in at the moment and the host was talking about Steven Gatley who used to be in Boyzone. The Sun told him that unless he cooperated with them then they will ‘out’ him and by cooperating they meant give them an exclusive interview that he was gay.
Vile paper.
The fact that The Scum still seems to think that, in 2025, someone being gay is front page news speaks volumes.
They are that of course - it’s the Sun, so very scummy. In this example he’s chosen to sell his story to them - takes two to tango and all that.
Assuming, as others have pointed out, that it has been his choice.
It's equally within the realms of reason that they've done a 'gotcha' on him, with the 'consideration' having been going easy on him in return for the exclusive.
Nobody cares that a referee is gay until they make a contentious decision to the opposition and then the chants and abuse will begin. And that will happen without doubt.
I am aware homophobia exists, I am aware referees get abused. I am not excusing that or pretending it doesn't exist, but in the context of Coote, it's not what we care about, not one jot. This is a distraction tactic.
The issue is that this guy has admitted on camera costing a team points because he didn't like their manager. He was also allegedly using drugs. He didn't do that based on any homophobic abuse he may have (or not have) received by people knowing he was gay, he did that because he was someone well below the standards expected of a professional referee in this country. Being gay is irrelevant to that, and a distraction tactic from the bigger issue, we often question referees' decisions and we have seen some strange ones ourselves every week. So what is going on? Just look at the diving from Arsenal against us, or Brighton wiping out our keeper and us getting squat for it. Something is not right.
I believe Coote was involved with the decision to award a penalty against us for City at a crucial time in the game, and then involved with the decision to deny us one with almost an identical foul not long after that. I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall that was the case.
For our club, and our investors, these petty, unprofessional decisions could cost us millions and it's something the smaller clubs right across the EPL and EFL need to start challenging.
Even going back to our last top-flight relegation, when Ruud Van Nilsteroy decided to make the most obvious dive we ever saw at Portman Road when we were playing them on pretty equal footing, to get a penalty, a goal and we lost a vital 1/3 points in a relegation battle that costs us millions and consigned us to 24 years in the EFL.
Horrendous folk at that paper. Can't believe it's still going.
This has raised bit of a point on referee workload. If we want referees to perform at the highest standard that's a lot of games when you consider the VAR duties as well given they have to drive to Stokley Park. That's also a lot of time spent in a car on your own which probably isn't fun in such a high pressure job.
Surely they could assign VAR to some of the older refs who now think they're television celebrities.
Assuming, as others have pointed out, that it has been his choice.
It's equally within the realms of reason that they've done a 'gotcha' on him, with the 'consideration' having been going easy on him in return for the exclusive.
Possible I suppose. He’s already shown his judgement isn’t the best and he’s easily influenced.
I am aware homophobia exists, I am aware referees get abused. I am not excusing that or pretending it doesn't exist, but in the context of Coote, it's not what we care about, not one jot. This is a distraction tactic.
The issue is that this guy has admitted on camera costing a team points because he didn't like their manager. He was also allegedly using drugs. He didn't do that based on any homophobic abuse he may have (or not have) received by people knowing he was gay, he did that because he was someone well below the standards expected of a professional referee in this country. Being gay is irrelevant to that, and a distraction tactic from the bigger issue, we often question referees' decisions and we have seen some strange ones ourselves every week. So what is going on? Just look at the diving from Arsenal against us, or Brighton wiping out our keeper and us getting squat for it. Something is not right.
I believe Coote was involved with the decision to award a penalty against us for City at a crucial time in the game, and then involved with the decision to deny us one with almost an identical foul not long after that. I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall that was the case.
For our club, and our investors, these petty, unprofessional decisions could cost us millions and it's something the smaller clubs right across the EPL and EFL need to start challenging.
Even going back to our last top-flight relegation, when Ruud Van Nilsteroy decided to make the most obvious dive we ever saw at Portman Road when we were playing them on pretty equal footing, to get a penalty, a goal and we lost a vital 1/3 points in a relegation battle that costs us millions and consigned us to 24 years in the EFL.
It's one rule for them, another for us.
I don't think he admitted to costing teams points because he didn't like their manager?
Horrendous folk at that paper. Can't believe it's still going.
This has raised bit of a point on referee workload. If we want referees to perform at the highest standard that's a lot of games when you consider the VAR duties as well given they have to drive to Stokley Park. That's also a lot of time spent in a car on your own which probably isn't fun in such a high pressure job.
Surely they could assign VAR to some of the older refs who now think they're television celebrities.
Think a different bunch of school kids should get the role each week. Kind of a like a school project.
“Today’s VAR is being monitored by St Leonard Kindergarten class in Barnet. Match decisions will be being called by Jaysin, Peachy and Pubert”.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
