John Terry retires from the England team

beer enigma

Just announced

Quote: "I feel The FA, have made my position with the national team untenable."

copacetic

International football/Natonal team, All over twitter, etc.

Terry says: "I feel the FA, in pursuing charges against me ... have made my position with the national team untenable."

MrStuffins

As opposed to International?

So he's JUST going to play for England?

dahat

Yeah right..........right before he gets a hefty ban off the FA or maybe he retires to avoid a hefty ban..........pathetic all round

efb

Andip wrote: »

Just announced

Quote: "I feel The FA, have made my position with the national team untenable."

Would JT know what untenable means???

GavRedKing

Good for Chelsea, as I said England have alot of good young CB's so they'll be ok in the short term.

Amirani

efb wrote: »

Andip wrote: »

Just announced

Quote: "I feel The FA, have made my position with the national team untenable."

Would JT know what untenable means???

Group of numbers that don't add up to 10?

beer enigma

MrStuffins wrote: »

As opposed to International?

So he's JUST going to play for England?

Just amended the heading - he will no longer play for the England team

MrStuffins

efb wrote: »

Would JT know what untenable means???

It's when one of his team-mates in the starting XI is single.

That way, he can only shag 9 of his team mates' wives. Nineable, but untenable!

super_furry

The FA, in finding Luis Suarez guilty with much less evidence have backed themselves into a corner. They have to ban Terry and he's obviously got word that its going that way.

greendom

Jumping before he was pushed ?

MagicMarker

Now that dude whose wife he shagged can become an England regular... what was his name again?

Oat23

#MancienneForEngerland

Pepe LeFrits

Good. Now if only Cashley would retire too, I'd be able to like the England team again...

Mr.Nice Guy

I would have thought his recent form had made his position with the team untenable.

A Dub in Glasgo

It can only be good for football if Terry just retires from anything to do with football including any management thingy he thinks he can do although cbeebies may need a football presenter but they will have to do without Terry

daithijjj

super_furry wrote: »

The FA, in finding Luis Suarez guilty with much less evidence have backed themselves into a corner. They have to ban Terry and he's obviously got word that its going that way.

The FA are unfit for purpose, there have been calls for them to change their set up for at least 7 years but their isnt the political will to pressure them into change. Its obvious to anyone with a grain of sense that they are not impartial.

How can Terry have made this decision without the bat signals being sent?, its appalling. Old boys club saving their own arse as best they can after backing themselves into a corner with a nonsensical disciplinary set up.

JaMarcus Hustle

Rory Smith ‏@RorySmithTimes
Farewell, JT, embodiment of the Three Lions badge. If you assume he's the top lion, on top of the middle lion, who's the bottom lion's wife.

Caveman1

Regardless of whether or not people like Terry, you cant argue that he's been messed about big time by the FA, I'm surprised its taken him this long to call time on his England career. All this should of being dealt with months ago, if the four member independant committee now find Terry innocent how will that make the FA look?

They have handled this extremely unprofessionaly IMO

jive

People can say what they want about JT cause he's the guy everyone loves to hate (and for the most part rightfully so). At the end of the day he was cleared in a court of law. The FA made Capello's position untenable and clearly Terry has also decided that enough is enough. The Terry haters will be happy but the England team will be a poorer team without him in it and that's the bottom line. He was selected over the years by various managers and was an integral part of the team for a reason even up until now. The FA handled the situation incredibly poorly and have paid the price.

For what it's worth I think he's a díck of a human being but has acted admirably throughout this process and this is probably the right decision.

daithijjj

Caveman1 wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not people like Terry, you cant argue that he's been messed about big time by the FA, I'm surprised its taken him this long to call time on his England career. All this should of being dealt with months ago, if the four member independant committee now find Terry innocent how will that make the FA look?

They have handled this extremely unprofessionaly IMO

They have found him guilty and told him via a third party (my opinion). I dont think there is any other way to explain why Terry would wait this long to make that decision. He made that decision now because it gives both him and the FA a way of making the whole thing less of a PR disaster for both parties. Terry has retired to avoid the disgrace of the incoming punishment and the FA have advised him to so that they dont have to show their hand, thats my opinion and i believe it shows up this 'kangaroo court' (David Moyes words) of an FA for what it is.

Leiva

daithijjj wrote: »

How can Terry have made this decision without the bat signals being sent?, its appalling. Old boys club saving their own arse as best they can after backing themselves into a corner with a nonsensical disciplinary set up.

^this^. /close thread.

He obviously has been given the heads up by a supposedly sound unbiased disciplinary process.

This just shows leaky kangaroo court it is.

Oscorp

John Terry has retired from the national team to spend more time with various people's families.

daithijjj

jive wrote: »

People can say what they want about JT cause he's the guy everyone loves to hate (and for the most part rightfully so). At the end of the day he was cleared in a court of law. The FA made Capello's position untenable and clearly Terry has also decided that enough is enough. The Terry haters will be happy but the England team will be a poorer team without him in it and that's the bottom line. He was selected over the years by various managers and was an integral part of the team for a reason even up until now. The FA handled the situation incredibly poorly and have paid the price.

For what it's worth I think he's a díck of a human being but has acted admirably throughout this process and this is probably the right decision.

Sure, he was cleared in a court of law, theres burden of proof in a court of law, theres no burden of proof within the FA. 'Balance of probabilities' is what they use at the FA, there is no real transparency with this system, its just opinions. Should be seen for what it is, independent panel?......how is anything independent when it is paid for by the prosecution?. It resembles a monty python sketch more than anything judicial.

Caveman1

daithijjj wrote: »

They have found him guilty and told him via a third party (my opinion). I dont think there is any other way to explain why Terry would wait this long to make that decision. He made that decision now because it gives both him and the FA a way of making the whole thing less of a PR disaster for both parties. Terry has retired to avoid the disgrace of the incoming punishment and the FA have advised him to so that they dont have to show their hand, thats my opinion and i believe it shows up this 'kangaroo court' (David Moyes words) of an FA for what it is.

I wouldn't say you're too far from the truth there but is it not meant to be an independent panel which includes a QC? surely that means it would all have to be above board.

ctrl-alt-delete

I bet it is not the last we see of him in an England kit, he is sure to turn up and celebrate with the lads when they qualify for the World Cup.

Thrill

Leiva wrote: »

^this^. /close thread.

He obviously has been given the heads up by a supposedly sound unbiased disciplinary process.

Does anyone need to be told though?

The chances of being found not guilty by the FA once they charge you is almost zero. They have a 99.5% conviction rate.

Leiva

Thrill wrote: »

Does anyone need to be told though?

The chances of being found not guilty by the FA once they charge you is almost zero. They have a 99.5% guilt rate.

True but look past that. Daithijj has it spot on . This was leaked to save oul JT and them the embarrassment of a media sacking from the national team.

Absolute joke and they have to answer to nobody.

The British government know that and called for them to be broken up but no one has the apatite to run with it.

And don't get me started on club board members also sitting at the FA round table.

daithijjj

Caveman1 wrote: »

I wouldn't say you're too far from the truth there but is it not meant to be an independent panel which includes a QC? surely that means it would all have to be above board.

The QC (status) is an irrelevant person in this because he holds the same wait as any other individual on the panel. They are there more for the procedural role from what i have read. His or her vote on 'guilt' is the same as any other panel member. It isnt based on proof, thats the crux of the point. Its based on whether you think it was done or not, thats not impartial.

Caveman1

daithijjj wrote: »

The QC (status) is an irrelevant person in this because he holds the same wait as any other individual on the panel. They are there more for the procedural role from what i have read. His or her vote on 'guilt' is the same as any other panel member. It isnt based on proof, thats the crux of the point. Its based on whether you think it was done or not, thats not impartial.

So if a situation similar to this happened to an ordinary person, could you be sacked from your job if you were found not guilty in court?

I find this a bit mad to think a made up panel of pen pushers can basically say they dont agree with a courts ruling

Leiva

Caveman1 wrote: »

So if a situation similar to this happened to an ordinary person, could you be sacked from your job if you were found not guilty in court?

I find this a bit mad to think a made up panel of pen pushers can basically say they dont agree with a courts ruling

Try be branded a racist without one shed of evidence bar a statement from your accuser.

Oh and a (allowed) doctored statement from the accuser.

Kinda glad this happened. Shows them up which was bound to happen sooner or later, glad its sooner.

Paul Tergat

2nd attempt Sarge?

daithijjj

Caveman1 wrote: »

So if a situation similar to this happened to an ordinary person, could you be sacked from your job if you were found not guilty in court?

I find this a bit mad to think a made up panel of pen pushers can basically say they dont agree with a courts ruling

Thats exactly what it is. You dont need proof to bring a case, they dont need proof to find you guilty. If you got sacked from your job you would have other avenues to explore, its a bit more difficult if you had to bring your appeal up in front of the people who found you guilty without proof in the first place. Hence, many dont bother appealing, they will just give you heavier punishment for waiting their time and money. Its literally a farce.

GavRedKing

We're done.