Trophyless Manager Blames Refereeing Decisions on Successful Manager

There was mad beef in the football world today as Man United manager Ole Gunnar Semifinalist took a swipe at Liverpool head coach Jürgen ‘Winner’ Klopp, claiming that the German’s moaning about penalties back in January was influencing refereeing decisions in September.

Said Semifinalist: “I know we’ve just bought one of the most infamous divers in football, but how many times does Cristiano have to run into an opponent’s legs before we get a penalty? It’s seriously affecting Bruno Penandes’ scoring record and I’ve got him in my Fantasy Team, which is why I never sub him, even when he’s playing terribly. I’m missing out on serious points. And we’re losing all our midweek games too.”

Semifinalist’s criticism of Klopp and the standard of refereeing raised eyebrows, with many observers suggesting that the Norwegian PE teacher might want to focus on his team of overpaid prima donnas actually winning something instead of bottling it like Spurs in big games. Or in the first round of the Caffeine Cup against West Ham’s reserves.

“That’s another one,” continued Semifinalist as most sensible journalists trickled out of the news conference and went home for their fish and chips. “We see the old man [Mark] Noble give Jesse [Lingardinho] a tug – and it’s a clear tug. No penalty. I know they wanted Jesse down there, but they can’t just offer sexual favours. We needed the money to waste on a winger that we didn’t need, instead of a competent defensive central midfielder who can pass a ball 10 yards to his own teammates.”

The soccer authorities said sweet FA about the specific comments, but one ex-referee now stealing a living by always backing his ex-colleagues on the Sky Sports Amateur Gossip Channel, claimed: “Ole needs to remember that referees are only human. They’re definitely not going to be influenced by an intimidating man who has won both the Champions League and Premier League, who now looks especially dreamy without his glasses. Sigh.”

Following the rant, The Daily Wibble fully expects Man United to be awarded a dubious penalty in their match against Prince William’s XI tomorrow lunchtime. Watch this space. Or instead watch a proper football match between two genuine title challengers – Chelsea and Man City.

Lawyer Pens Very Long Essay to Appeal to People who Voted for Three-Word Slogans

The leader of the Loser Party, Sir Keith Spanner, has authored an extremely long-winded and cliché-ridden essay in a bid to convince voters that he should be Prime Minister, despite the people showing a clear preference for three-word slogans such as “Take Back Control”, “Get Brexit Done”, and “P*** Off, Socialists.”

In over 14,000 short words, Sir Keith draws on all his legal experience and fearsome intellect to say practically nothing, except “I’m not like the last guy or the other guy, honest.”

The document, which absolutely nobody has read – especially not the scholarly hacks here at The Daily Wibble – is predicted to become the longest suicide note in history, taking the mantle from the Loser Party’s disastrous 1983 election manifesto.

Said one Red Wall-y: “I didn’t like that Jezza fella and I don’t know what this lawyer bloke stands for. But if he thinks I’m gonna read a hundred words, let alone 14 bloody thousand, he can get stuffed. If it doesn’t fit on the side of a bus, I’m not interested.”

The ruling Con Artist Party responded to the news of Sir Keith’s rambling monologue with derisory laughter, followed by more mocking laughter. They are expected to still be laughing, all the way to the next election, which they will likely win by a landslide.

Between guffaws and thigh slaps, a government spokesperson (who also works for the BoJo Broadcasting Corporation) said: “Spanner’s essay is an absolute gift to the Con Artists. Expect a jibe at the next World King’s Questions along the lines of ‘They write undergraduate essays while we get on with the grown-up business of running the country’ or something similarly brilliant, assuming your standards of brilliance are rather low.”

A left-wing commentator who claims to be a member of the Loser Party despite constant criticism of it, said: “I don’t think writing an essay is the best way to oppose the Con Artists during a pandemic and energy crisis. It just shows that the right wing of the party is vindicative and prefers to be divisive at a time when we should be united in following the left-wing policies that lost us the last two elections.

“We should also be united in calling all the government’s supporters racists and bigots, because that’s even less likely to bring them over to our side, which is of course the right side of history.”

A more centrist member of the opposition front bench said she felt the essay was “a genuine attempt by the elected leader to articulate an ambitious vision…” Our reporter fell asleep at that point.