John Terry verdict

MyBrokenKnees

Suarez got his eight match ban on balance of probabilities is that right? not caught on camera but word of mouth?

Terry Gets his ban for been caught on camera saying not meaning it but by repeating what was said to him?

I think the F.A need a new independent panel to investigate these independent panels.

iregk

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'd say the figure is relative to wages in JT's case.

I dont know where the FA got the 40K from Suarez though.

It wouldnt be like the FA to do such wacky things.

Well that's what I was thinking as in we fine you 1 or 2 weeks wages or whatever. I'm not sure what JT is on so I'm assuming 220k is a little more than his weekly wage and a bit less than his 2 week wage. Maybe it's 150% in which case the 40k for Suarez makes no sense. Not saying Suarez deserved more by any stretch but surely there should be consistency with the games and fines.

everdead.ie

Suarez admitted to saying it I'm not understanding why people don't get that?

MyBrokenKnees

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'd say the figure is relative to wages in JT's case.

I dont know where the FA got the 40K from Suarez though.

It wouldnt be like the FA to do such wacky things.

I think that was at the time one weeks wages for Suarez(could be wrong about that). So maybe one weeks wages for Terry.

Super-Rush

So saying something racially offensive once only makes you a little bit racist but saying it four or five times makes you a bigger racist?

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that JT got away so lightly.

I can almost hear them in FA HQ.

Lets ban him but not for too long because he is white, English, and he only called him a black cnut once.

GavRedKing

iregk wrote: »

Well that's what I was thinking as in we fine you 1 or 2 weeks wages or whatever. I'm not sure what JT is on so I'm assuming 220k is a little more than his weekly wage and a bit less than his 2 week wage. Maybe it's 150% in which case the 40k for Suarez makes no sense. Not saying Suarez deserved more by any stretch but surely there should be consistency with the games and fines.

I thought JT was on £120K a week so I suppose it is 2 weeks wages.

I'd be surprised if Suarezs weekly wage is £40k, its just hard to see where they got the figures from.

Interesting to see what Chelsea will do about it now.

jaykay74

Super-Rush wrote: »

So saying something racially offensive once only makes you a little bit racist but saying it four or five times makes you a bigger racist?

Mr Suarez's behaviour was far more serious than a single use of the word "negro" to address Mr Evra in a way which would be considered inoffensive in Uruguay.

Whats not to understand about the 4 game versus 8 game ban.

If Terry had repeated the racist remarks a number of times I'm sure the ban would reflect that.

Its tinfoil hat central here at times

grames_bond

everdead.ie wrote: »

Suarez admitted to saying it I'm not understanding why people don't get that?

so did terry!

They both claimed context was the issue!

Leiva

Nah both cases are treated the same way its just us delusional Liverpool supporters see things that aint there ...

MyBrokenKnees

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/898045-racist-chelsea-fan-banned-for-abusing-didier-drogba

Will Chelsea do this to their player they did it to their fan?

tok9

everdead.ie wrote: »

Suarez admitted to saying it I'm not understanding why people don't get that?

People don't understand the inconsistency!

Saurez admitted to saying it once but they charged him on saying it several times based on probability.

Super-Rush

jaykay74 wrote: »

Whats not to understand about the 4 game versus 8 game ban.

If Terry had repeated the racist remarks a number of times I'm sure the ban would reflect that.

Its tinfoil hat central here at times

Tinfoil hat me arse.

Whether you make racist remarks once or fifty times you are still a racist.

A little bit racist is it?

Complete bollocks.

SlickRic

Leiva wrote: »

that is quite brilliant.

greendom

Leiva wrote: »

Nah both cases are treated the same way its just us delusional Liverpool supporters see things that aint there ...

How ironic is that - The Daily Mail believing that a court of law was not being too lenient. 1st time for everything I suppose.

Leiva

SlickRic wrote: »

that is quite brilliant.

Lets see if tomorrows back pages get anywhere near this little beauty...



<image of the "RACIST" headline from The Mirror removed for some reason??? >

like my hole they will !!!

SlickRic

ok, fine. Suarez said it more times, therefore by the FA's standards that means he's more racist than Terry.

can everyone else not see that's bollocks?

and that's not tinfoil hat stuff, and i'm not even suggesting the FA have it in for Suarez and/or Liverpool.

but at the very least, using the amount of times a word was used as a way of making Suarez's ban higher, therefore basically convicting him of being more racist than Terry, is a little bit retarded, no?

racism is racism is racism.

it's just pure ineptitude, and another example of FA making up shít as they go along.

citytillidie

jaykay74 wrote: »

Whats not to understand about the 4 game versus 8 game ban.

If Terry had repeated the racist remarks a number of times I'm sure the ban would reflect that.

Its tinfoil hat central here at times

Or if you read the FA statements it looks like Suarez broke 2 laws and Terry 1

Suarez broke FA Rule E3(1) and Rule E3(2) where as on Terry's statement he only broke FA Rule E3(2)

GENERAL BEHAVIOUR

E3 (1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not
act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any
one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive,
indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
E3 (2) In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more
of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation
or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall consider
the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the following entry
points:
For a fi rst off ence, a sanction that is double that which the Regulatory Commission
would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.
For a second off ence, a sanction that is treble that which the Regulatory
Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.
Any further such off ence(s) shall give rise to consideration of a permanent
suspension.
These entry points are intended to guide the Regulatory Commission and are not
mandatory.
The Regulatory Commission shall have the discretion to impose a sanction greater
or less than the entry point, according to the aggravating or mitigating factors

present in each case.

everdead.ie

grames_bond wrote: »

everdead.ie wrote: »

Suarez admitted to saying it I'm not understanding why people don't get that?

so did terry!

They both claimed context was the issue!

I know but then people keep saying video evidence(Terry) v balance of probability(Suarez) which is ridiculous because they both admitted it. So it wasn't on the balance of probability at all.

IamtheWalrus

Aren't the FA supposed to make public their reasons for the sentence? Shouldn't we wait until then?

The FA are a farce of an organisation! The video evidence was there for all to see, he should have faced a much longer ban than Suarez and instead 4 matches. Absolute disgrace.

GavRedKing

JT to score at the weekend, banker.

Leiva

GavRedKing wrote: »

JT to score at the weekend with bankers wife.

fyp

kleefarr

The FA are money grabbing barstewards, that is all they wanted.

GavRedKing

Leiva wrote: »

fyp

Hopefully, he has a fine to pay and could do with the extar few bob. :pac:

the realpigiron

everdead.ie wrote: »

Suarez admitted to saying it I'm not understanding why people don't get that?

If Suarez admitted to saying it he should have got a reduced ban for pleading guilty. Terry should have had the book thrown at him. 12 match ban at the very least, he's had way too many chances to learn to behave.

Leiva

GavRedKing wrote: »

Hopefully, he has a fine to pay and could do with the extar few bob. :pac:

I'm just hoping he ends up with Seany Fitz missus ..the shock when he realises.

That_Guy

MyBrokenKnees

That_Guy wrote: »

Lampard's face is like OH **** get that woman away from him that's all we need now!

Sgt Pepper 64

Anton Ferdinand is a joke of a player and its only a matter of time before the truth comes out

toxicity234

I think the Ban and Fine are about right for the crime.
But Suarez ban was always too high anyway.
A 4 game ban for suarez would have be about right as well but it was a Utd Player he said something to.
So you know the FA, they didn't want to upset Sir Alex.

Pro. F

MUSEIST wrote: »

Amazing that someone can be found guilty on the basis of absolutely no evidence for the offence (as demonstrated by the trial). Finding someone guilty on the balence of probability is a massive two fingers to needing proof and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Its the way justice is done in places like N korea and iraq under saddam hussein.

And the UK and Ireland in the civil courts.

Edit: and it's not the way justice is done in places like N Korea and under Saddam Hussein.

Just An Opinion

toxicity234 wrote: »

I think the Ban and Fine are about right for the crime.
But Suarez ban was always too high anyway.
A 4 game ban for suarez would have be about right as well but it was a Utd Player he said something to.
So you know the FA, they didn't want to upset Sir Alex.

Yep, clearly that's exactly what it is. Yawwwwn

J. Marston

toxicity234 wrote: »

I think the Ban and Fine are about right for the crime.
But Suarez ban was always too high anyway.
A 4 game ban for suarez would have be about right as well but it was a Utd Player he said something to.
So you know the FA, they didn't want to upset Sir Alex.

And fair play to the FA for that.

Paul Tergat

toxicity234 wrote: »

I think the Ban and Fine are about right for the crime.
But Suarez ban was always too high anyway.
A 4 game ban for suarez would have be about right as well but it was a Utd Player he said something to.
So you know the FA, they didn't want to upset Sir Alex.

You seen the bans United usually get from the FA? What a terrible post

eigrod

SlickRic wrote: »

ok, fine. Suarez said it more times, therefore by the FA's standards that means he's more racist than Terry.

can everyone else not see that's bollocks?

and that's not tinfoil hat stuff, and i'm not even suggesting the FA have it in for Suarez and/or Liverpool.

but at the very least, using the amount of times a word was used as a way of making Suarez's ban higher, therefore basically convicting him of being more racist than Terry, is a little bit retarded, no?

racism is racism is racism.

it's just pure ineptitude, and another example of FA making up shít as they go along.

and to compound it, they stated in their report that Suarez was not a racist.

bullpost

I believe its only fair now that Anton Ferdinand be given JT's place in the England team

CSF

The ban is way too short but at least he has been found guilty.

_blank_

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Anton Ferdinand is a joke of a player and its only a matter of time before the truth comes out

What is "the truth" then?

Des

Des wrote: »

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Anton Ferdinand is a joke of a player and its only a matter of time before the truth comes out

?

eigrod

eigrod wrote: »

SlickRic wrote: »

ok, fine. Suarez said it more times, therefore by the FA's standards that means he's more racist than Terry.

can everyone else not see that's bollocks?

and that's not tinfoil hat stuff, and i'm not even suggesting the FA have it in for Suarez and/or Liverpool.

but at the very least, using the amount of times a word was used as a way of making Suarez's ban higher, therefore basically convicting him of being more racist than Terry, is a little bit retarded, no?

racism is racism is racism.

it's just pure ineptitude, and another example of FA making up shít as they go along.

and to compound it, they stated in their report that Suarez was not a racist.

Labelling someone a racist would probably have legal implications.

The_Kew_Tour

TBH im not surprised at the short ban.

He ha got away with murder for such long time on the field.

Sgt Pepper 64

Terry should sue the FA

_blank_

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Terry should sue the FA

On what grounds?

Are you going to ignore this question also?

Paul Tergat

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Terry should sue the FA

Dodging the above questions. If making statements back em up with some sort of substance

The_Kew_Tour

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Terry should sue the FA

Because he cant make racist remarks?

Good one:pac:

Sgt Pepper 64

Des wrote: »

On what grounds?

Are you going to ignore this question also?

why, what other question have i ignored?

He should sue for defamation of character as he has already been found not guilty by a court of law, being put under undue stress for having to go through the whole thing again, and just everything conencted with the farce that is the FA

Ferdinand is allowed to tweet clearly racist remarks and is not given the same punishment

Its a witch hunt

jive

David Moyes said it best - Kangaroo Court. No surprises with the verdict & punishment, both of which are laughable; business as usual with the FA. They're on a par with Blatter & Platini in the bizarre bullshít category.

Thrill

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Because he cant make racist remarks?

Good one:pac:

There's no proof that he made any racist remarks. If there were proof it would have been shown in court.

They found him guilty, not on proof, but on the balance of probability.

The_Kew_Tour

Thrill wrote: »

There's no proof that he made any racist remarks. If there were it would have been shown in court.

They found him guilty, not on proof, but on the balance of probability.

every dog and cat knows what he said.

Thrill

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

every dog and cat knows what he said.

What he is accused of saying.