Chelsea Lodge Complaint Against Mark Clattenberg

Turtyturd

GavRedKing wrote: »

So what your saying is, if you think somebody has been racially abused you shouldnt bring a case against the individual, basically covering it up.

I'm not saying Clattenberg said anything, he more then likely did not but by not at least raising the issue you leave it go and let it slide.

An appropriate punishment would be to disband the Society of Black attention seeking lawyers, or at least ban them from hopping on any bandwagons for the next 5 years.

ThunbergsAreGo

Seems to be
Suarez/Terry are dislikable people therefore must be guilty. Clattenberg accused by dislikable club must be innocent. Clattenberg is not a saint at all. I find the differences in how allegations have been treated in all cases fairly crazy.

On a side note, should all players not be miked to stop incidents such as this occuring?

Also i am glad that nothing seems to be coming of this but is the suggestion that they should have met after the came talked it out and apologising not (A) exactly what Blatter got lambasted for saying and (B) what should have happened in all cases (the discussion not handshake)

jonnyfingers

GavRedKing wrote: »

So what your saying is, if you think somebody has been racially abused you shouldnt bring a case against the individual, basically covering it up.

I'm not saying Clattenberg said anything, he more then likely did not but by not at least raising the issue you leave it go and let it slide.

I think the key point is if the allegation is proved to be frivolous. The same as if you make a serious criminal allegation that is proved to be frivolous you are punished. I'm sure this isn't the case in this case, most likely it's a misunderstanding heard in the heat of the moment or something inappropriate that Clattenburg said.

However if there is evidence that there was nothing said that would remotely lead to the allegation questions need to be asked of why Chelsea made that allegation. And if so a punishment would be fitting. Although the punishment would most likely be a libel case made by Clattenburg and not an FA sanction.

GavRedKing

Turtyturd wrote: »

An appropriate punishment would be to disband the Society of Black attention seeking lawyers, or at least ban them from hopping on any bandwagons for the next 5 years.

They do look like their trying to earn some PR from this.

TBF, the FA have a very sensitive case again right at its door step.

I dont think Clattenberg called Mikel a monkey but if someone has over heard it or something along them lines then not taking any action would be stupid.

If its proved Clattenberg said nothing and TBH, if it goes to a court, it mot likely will then it should just end there and then.

Punishing players for raising an issue will mean less players coming forward about racial abuse if you cant 100% prove it.

jonnyfingers

naughtb4 wrote: »

Also i am glad that nothing seems to be coming of this but is the suggestion that they should have met after the came talked it out and apologising not (A) exactly what Blatter got lambasted for saying and (B) what should have happened in all cases (the discussion not handshake)

That's not exactly my point. My point is that a meeting should have taken place to get both sides of the story first before deciding to make an official allegation. I'm not suggesting for one moment that if something was said an apology and a handshake should be the outcome. But if there was a genuine misunderstanding it's an opportunity to set it somewhat right before making serious, and possibly criminal, accusations.

It's also an opportunity to tell the other party that you intend to make an official complaint, rather than them reading it in The Sun the next morning.

Henlars67

Henlars67 wrote: »

The punishment should be the same as the punishment Clattenberg would have received.

Throw them out and let them start again in the Blue Square or lower.

That's quite lenient don't you think?

GavRedKing

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I think the key point is if the allegation is proved to be frivolous. The same as if you make a serious criminal allegation that is proved to be frivolous you are punished. I'm sure this isn't the case in this case, most likely it's a misunderstanding heard in the heat of the moment or something inappropriate that Clattenburg said.

However if there is evidence that there was nothing said that would remotely lead to the allegation questions need to be asked of why Chelsea made that allegation. And if so a punishment would be fitting. Although the punishment would most likely be a libel case made by Clattenburg and not an FA sanction.

Thats the thing, if it goes to a court of law, like the Terry/Ferdinand case it will more then likely find in favour of Clattenberg and he'll get off.

If the FA investigate, due to the lack of evidence they'll more then likely reach the same conclusion as the courts and as such Clattenberg will be an innocent man.

Lets say for example I call a guy in work a monkey and he has a witness saying I said and I have witness saying it never happened. All the HR department can do is try and investigate and with a lack of evidence supporting either side they can hardly punish the guy for bringing it up or me for supposedly saying it.

Mitch Connor

GavRedKing wrote: »

Sure while were at it might as well break up the team and give back the trophies we've won.

There is no appropriate punishment really, all the FA can do is maybe fine Chelsea for wasting their time they'll be no bans or suspensions or points taken off or kicking out of the football league.



LOL

IF the allegations are proven to be false, I wouldn't expect chelsea to receive much of a punishment.

However, it would be very interesting to see how refs would react to them. Could go nicey nice trying to show they aren't being swayed by the issue. Could see them book and send chelsea players off a bit more readily for using 'inappropriate language'. You can be sure chelsea players will swear at them every game, as it always happens with every team, but by law players doing it should be cautioned - could see chelsea fall foul of it a bit more than most.

GavRedKing

Mitch Connor wrote: »

IF the allegations are proven to be false, I wouldn't expect chelsea to receive much of a punishment.

However, it would be very interesting to see how refs would react to them. Could go nicey nice trying to show they aren't being swayed by the issue. Could see them book and send chelsea players off a bit more readily for using 'inappropriate language'. You can be sure chelsea players will swear at them every game, as it always happens with every team, but by law players doing it should be cautioned - could see chelsea fall foul of it a bit more than most.

Well thats the flip side of the coin, ref's may apply the laws to the letter of the book and be less lenient when making calls regarding free kicks/penos and cards.

Its something that Di Matteo has to let the players know before the go out on the pitch.

Mitch Connor

GavRedKing wrote: »

Well thats the flip side of the coin, ref's may apply the laws to the letter of the book and be less lenient when making calls regarding free kicks/penos and cards.

Its something that Di Matteo has to let the players know before the go out on the pitch.

I know I certainly felt United were punished by refs after Fergie called one of them (physically) 'unfit'. There were a lot of calls in games United had that season that were just shocking - and I'd blame human nature and Fergie's comments for that.

GavRedKing

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I know I certainly felt United were punished by refs after Fergie called one of them (physically) 'unfit'. There were a lot of calls in games United had that season that were just shocking - and I'd blame human nature and Fergie's comments for that.

You can complain about the standards of ref's but its usually the Ref's assessor that makes calls if they're up to standard.

I do expect us to get less decisions now and maybe a few soft ones agaisnt us but I dont want to think to much about itas that gets into conspiracy theories and going down that road is something I'd rather avoid for my sanity. :pac:

greendom

GavRedKing wrote: »

So what your saying is, if you think somebody has been racially abused you shouldnt bring a case against the individual, basically covering it up.

I'm not saying Clattenberg said anything, he more then likely did not but by not at least raising the issue you leave it go and let it slide.

Where did I say it should be covered up ? - I'm saying if this is a false accusation it needs to be suitably punished

Chucky the tree

I don't think Mike Phelan and United were punished when their allegation against the chelsea groundsman was deemed to be bull**** by the FA so I doubt this will be any different.

mitosis

TheDoc wrote: »

Obviously there is more incidents and situations, in my eyes, that make them for me, the running joke at the moment.

This team should have been back challenging for the league, and winning neutrals back onside. I don't know one neutral fan who likes Chelsea, not one.

I was excited to see them in action this season, even as a rival, with their forward lineup. I've great time for Mata and Torres, and want to see what we missed out on with Hazard.

But the way in which the club is run, is managed, how senior players seem to rule the roost, it just comes across as a oddly, poorly run club. Hopefully Hazard quickly rues his decision and turns Red

Is this the new Man Utd fan favoured term of abuse now? Gone is "Bitters" and in vogue is "Joke of a club".

Your Airbag

naughtb4 wrote: »

Seems to be
Suarez/Terry are dislikable people therefore must be guilty. Clattenberg accused by dislikable club must be innocent. Clattenberg is not a saint at all. I find the differences in how allegations have been treated in all cases fairly crazy.

On a side note, should all players not be miked to stop incidents such as this occuring?

Also i am glad that nothing seems to be coming of this but is the suggestion that they should have met after the came talked it out and apologising not (A) exactly what Blatter got lambasted for saying and (B) what should have happened in all cases (the discussion not handshake)

Why? Who has he ever racially abused in the past? If you are saying getting decisions wrong makes him out to be the same as Terry and Suarez then that's just rubbish.

GavRedKing

greendom wrote: »

Where did I say it should be covered up ? - I'm saying if this is a false accusation it needs to be suitably punished

You didnt, but to punish a guy for bringing it to the authorities will send the wrong message, I dont think anything will happen anyway to anyone involved.

pistolpetes11

secman wrote: »

BBC are reporting that the 2 assistant refs and 4th official who are miked up to ref and can hear everything he says throughout the match are backing him saying he said nothing racist during the match. Hard for FA to go against that direct evidence.


Well done to chelsea last night, great entertainment, but really thought we had it at 93 mins !
Secman

Is this not supposed to have in the Referees dressing room after the game , I thought this was the case myself

pistolpetes11

greendom wrote: »

But how is a financial penalty suitable for Chelsea. Falsely accusing a referee of racism (if that is what happened) is seriously bringing the game into disrepute, and the punishment should be something that hurts. 10 point penalty perhaps ?

If a player goes to the club and puts forward an allegation against the ref and has witnesses to back him up how is this the fault of the club ?

If the allegation is not proven because of a lack of evidence , how is the club and player at fault ?

If the player and club both come out and say " actually this did not happen, we were just trying it on " then and only then could they be held accountable

ThunbergsAreGo

Your Airbag wrote: »

Why? Who has he ever racially abused in the past? If you are saying getting decisions wrong makes him out to be the same as Terry and Suarez then that's just rubbish.

Did i mention his past racial abuse? nope dont think i did. i was referring to the below and mentions on Football Weekly i think it was he had been done for intimdating various business assciates regarding the debt

"Following the investigation into his personal life and business debts, the referees' governing body dismissed Clattenburg, citing a breach of contract. He denied all the allegations and appealed the decision. On 18 February 2009 the Professional Game Match Officials Board reinstated Clattenburg as a Select Group referee. However, he had to serve an eight-month suspension, starting from his original suspension date of 6 August 2008. Upon his return from suspension on the last day of the Premier League season, Clattenburg refereed a fixture between Manchester City and Bolton Wanderers — his only domestic appointment of that season."

" Sportsmail first revealed how he was suspended after he was accused of sending an email threatening the family of a business associate. He was dropped from August’ s Community Shield at Wembley just hours after the FA and the PGMO were alerted to the accusation. An internal investigation was immediately launched into his business dealings and alleged debts of almost £175,000 and then, after receiving an anonymous letter, into his personal life. Clattenburg denied the allegations and, in an interview with Sportsmail, insisted he would clear his name and return to football. But at a meeting last Wednesday, officials are said to have informed him that he no longer had a future officiating top-flight football. He is believed to be the first referee in the modern era to be dismissed. Last night, the Premier League said the ‘disciplinary process’ was ongoing. But an insider confirmed: ‘He was sacked at a meeting last Wednesday. He has since lodged an appeal against the decision so, as far as the authorities are concerned, the process is still ongoing.’"

Sgt Pepper 64

I cant believe that people would actually think that the club hasnt carefully considered this and the storm and attention it would bring before making the complaint and making damm sure that they have a complaint. We know they did because dropped on the other complaint.
good grief!

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Will I Amnt

Henlars67 wrote: »

There was a pic of Enda Kenny in last weeks indo which looked like he was making a nazi sign though he most certainly wasn't doing that, not in public anyway.

Ah come on now, the ronnie puts it in no doubt.

osarusan

greendom wrote: »

I'm saying if this is a false accusation it needs to be suitably punished

But there is a big difference between genuinely thinking something racist had been said and between a maliciously motivated accusation. This is why not everybody acquitted of a crime can seek to punish the person who accused them - a criminal act might not be established beyond reasonable doubt but it could still be reasonable for the accusor to believe a crime had taken place.

Only if it can be proven that Chelsea had no reasonable basis to make the accusation in the first place and set out to discredit Clattenburg by knowingly falsely accusing him of racist comments could any punishment happen. I think it's called malicious prosecution (though it applies to the accusor, not the prosecutor).

The above would apply in a court of law - I have no idea how the FA would approach things.

greendom

Yes I agree it's all down to the motivation behind the accusation. If it was done for genuine reasons, but the FA don't have enough evidence to punish Clattenburg then it should just be let go.

There will only be a problem for Chelsea if Clattenburg can prove that the accusation was driven by malice.

GavRedKing

greendom wrote: »

Yes I agree it's all down to the motivation behind the accusation. If it was done for genuine reasons, but the FA don't have enough evidence to punish Clattenburg then it should just be let go.

Agreed, if theres not enough evidence it should be dropped by the FA.

There will only be a problem for Chelsea if Clattenburg can prove that the accusation was driven by malice.

Well if Clattenberg goes down that route it will go through what I presume the civil court for damages.

bucketybuck

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I cant believe that people would actually think that the club hasnt carefully considered this and the storm and attention it would bring before making the complaint and making damm sure that they have a complaint. We know they did because dropped on the other complaint.
good grief!

With all due respect, its plainly obvious that the club did not fully consider the ramifications of making the complaint at the time they did. Word of Chelsea making a complaint against Clattenburg was spreading within an hour of the match on Sunday, why was that?

Strong leadership at Chelsea would immediately have recognised that even if the allegations were true, that they should tread very carefully about what their next step was. The ramifications are enormous, and it was a time for Chelsea management to have cool heads.

Instead players were allowed to go shout at the ref again, and obviously people felt free to go tell the press. Following that, an official statement stated that there were indeed comments made. Now Chelsea's path was set. Once they told the press that racist comments were made they had to follow through with an official complaint otherwise they would have been pilloried for making spurious, unfounded allegations through the press. They had to stick with it, even though I bet they already know that this cannot end well for them.

When the players came into the dressing room after the game talking about the alleged comments, what the Chelsea management should have done is immediately tell the players to say nothing for the time being. They should have closed up shop, gathered some info, and sat down to seriously consider the effect of what they were about to do. I guarantee that in the other dressing room Fergie would have done exactly that. But Chelsea don't have Fergie, they have a young manager and a squad that likes to dictate whatever they want.

Now, even if the allegations are true, they will be unable to prove them, they will be dragged through the press, and they will have referees just waiting for their chance.

"Carefully considered" my arse.

GavRedKing

bucketybuck wrote: »

With all due respect, its plainly obvious that the club did not fully consider the ramifications of making the complaint at the time they did. Word of Chelsea making a complaint against Clattenburg was spreading within an hour of the match on Sunday, why was that?

Strong leadership at Chelsea would immediately have recognised that even if the allegations were true, that they should tread very carefully about what their next step was. The ramifications are enormous, and it was a time for Chelsea management to have cool heads.

Instead players were allowed to go shout at the ref again, and obviously people felt free to go tell the press. Following that, an official statement stated that there were indeed comments made. Now Chelsea's path was set. Once they told the press that racist comments were made they had to follow through with an official complaint otherwise they would have been pilloried for making spurious, unfounded allegations through the press. They had to stick with it, even though I bet they already know that this cannot end well for them.

When the players came into the dressing room after the game talking about the alleged comments, what the Chelsea management should have done is immediately tell the players to say nothing for the time being. They should have closed up shop, gathered some info, and sat down to seriously consider the effect of what they were about to do. I guarantee that in the other dressing room Fergie would have done exactly that. But Chelsea don't have Fergie, they have a young manager and a squad that likes to dictate whatever they want.

Now, even if the allegations are true, they will be unable to prove them, they will be dragged through the press, and they will have referees just waiting for their chance.

"Carefully considered" my arse.

Chelsea didnt complain to the FA about Clattenberg until sometime Wednesday, at which time they didnt complain about the Mata incident.

Chelsea held their own internal investigation and deemed that not enough evidence was available to complain about the Mata incident.

bucketybuck

GavRedKing wrote: »

Chelsea didnt complain to the FA about Clattenberg until sometime Wednesday, at which time they didnt complain about the Mata incident.

Chelsea held their own internal investigation and deemed that not enough evidence was available to complain about the Mata incident.

Who said otherwise.

Sgt Pepper 64

GavRedKing wrote: »

Chelsea didnt complain to the FA about Clattenberg until sometime Wednesday, at which time they didnt complain about the Mata incident.

Chelsea held their own internal investigation and deemed that not enough evidence was available to complain about the Mata incident.

Exactly - and what are Chelsea supposed to do?
"Mikel, even though you were racially abused by the ref, you are on your own, cos we cant be seen getting into all this again. Oh and please keep quiet also and ignore your rights even though we have been reminded of exactly what they are recently."

"Oh and please keep wearing the T-Shirt!"

GavRedKing

bucketybuck wrote: »

Who said otherwise.

My post was addressing this part of your post :

"Carefully considered" my arse.

Your Airbag

naughtb4 wrote: »

Did i mention his past racial abuse? nope dont think i did. i was referring to the below and mentions on Football Weekly i think it was he had been done for intimdating various business assciates regarding the debt

"Following the investigation into his personal life and business debts, the referees' governing body dismissed Clattenburg, citing a breach of contract. He denied all the allegations and appealed the decision. On 18 February 2009 the Professional Game Match Officials Board reinstated Clattenburg as a Select Group referee. However, he had to serve an eight-month suspension, starting from his original suspension date of 6 August 2008. Upon his return from suspension on the last day of the Premier League season, Clattenburg refereed a fixture between Manchester City and Bolton Wanderers — his only domestic appointment of that season."

" Sportsmail first revealed how he was suspended after he was accused of sending an email threatening the family of a business associate. He was dropped from August’ s Community Shield at Wembley just hours after the FA and the PGMO were alerted to the accusation. An internal investigation was immediately launched into his business dealings and alleged debts of almost £175,000 and then, after receiving an anonymous letter, into his personal life. Clattenburg denied the allegations and, in an interview with Sportsmail, insisted he would clear his name and return to football. But at a meeting last Wednesday, officials are said to have informed him that he no longer had a future officiating top-flight football. He is believed to be the first referee in the modern era to be dismissed. Last night, the Premier League said the ‘disciplinary process’ was ongoing. But an insider confirmed: ‘He was sacked at a meeting last Wednesday. He has since lodged an appeal against the decision so, as far as the authorities are concerned, the process is still ongoing.’"

So he was accused, sacked, then suspended, investigated, cleared and reinstated but he is branded as still being branded a sinner by you? It just goes to show how the accusers seem to have all the protection and even when the accused is found innocent your reputation is tarnished forever and people are only to happy to harp back to the original accusation without mentioning the outcome of a trial.

An internal investigation was immediately launched into his business dealings and alleged debts of almost £175,000 and then, after receiving an anonymous letter, into his personal life

An anonymous letter? His personal life? Its so shady its laughable. He tried to setup his own or invested in an electrical company from what I know. Obviously it didn't work out and the anonymous letter was probably some business partner who lost as much as Clattenburg in the deal and they exchange heated emails in what would have been a stressfull time.

Why was the letter sent to the FA and not the police? If he threatened a family with a letter there would have been an arrest and a charge. Mr anonymous sent it to the FA in a desperate attempt to get back at him. He didn't send it to the police because he knows unlike the Police who have actual laws and procedures to back them up the FA are a jumped up governing body who think they have the right to hold legal procedures and suspend and fine at will on the most flimsy of evidence. The letter could have been a complete fabrication and is losing money on a business deal, as long as it was strictly legal, reasons for dismissal? Starting a business of any sort is high risk but the FA decided to sack him to compound his woes.

he was accused of sending an email threatening the family of a business associate

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People will say he threatened physical harm against a mans wife and kids, he is a disgrace and wont care for any facts. It could have been along the lines of I 'll sue you but one thing is for sure the police would have taken action if there was any hard evidence but the letter went to the FA more than likely after the police informed them it was not concrete evidence or they don't listen to fabrications.

in an interview with Sportsmail, insisted he would clear his name and return to football.

Which he did. It didn't stop the FA from sacking/suspending him hours after getting an anonymous letter. Guilty until proven otherwise is their policy, what a joke the FA are.

Last night, the Premier League said the ‘disciplinary process’ was ongoing. But an insider confirmed: ‘He was sacked at a meeting last Wednesday. He has since lodged an appeal against the decision so, as far as the authorities are concerned, the process is still ongoing.

So the PL say a disciplinary process is ongoing but the FA sack him, then carry out an 8 month investigation and reinstate him. Are they even communicating with each other? Once again the FA really are a joke.

When you mentioned Clattenburg not being a saint earlier you said this right after referencing Terry and Suarez. So you indirectly grouped him in with the other sinners, who's sins were racism. A better way of wording it would have been "he has a history of being falsely accused but is no way in the Terry Suarez category".

bucketybuck

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Exactly - and what are Chelsea supposed to do?
"Mikel, even though you were racially abused by the ref, you are on your own, cos we cant be seen getting into all this again. Oh and please keep quiet also and ignore your rights even though we have been reminded of exactly what they are recently."

"Oh and please keep wearing the T-Shirt!"

Honestly? Ignoring the wider ethical issue or what I might do in the same situation, and thinking about what would have been better for the club, it probably would have been better for Chelsea to keep quiet.

Maybe not the right thing to do, but this is a lose-lose situation for them. If I was their chief executive, I would want the player to report the allegation and say nothing to the press. I would then go directly to the FA and make my concerns known privately and let action be taken privately.

Many internet warriors will take the moral high ground on this, but if the question is what is best for the club, then that's what the club should have done. What should not have happened is the BBC being able to report nationally one hour after the game that a referee was being accused of making racist remarks. Ain't nobody winning from that scenario.

ThunbergsAreGo

Your Airbag wrote: »

So he was accused, sacked, then suspended, investigated, cleared and reinstated but he is branded as still being branded a sinner by you? It just goes to show how the accusers seem to have all the protection and even when the accused is found innocent your reputation is tarnished forever and people are only to happy to harp back to the original accusation without mentioning the outcome of a trial.



An anonymous letter? His personal life? Its so shady its laughable. He tried to setup his own or invested in an electrical company from what I know. Obviously it didn't work out and the anonymous letter was probably some business partner who lost as much as Clattenburg in the deal and they exchange heated emails in what would have been a stressfull time.

Why was the letter sent to the FA and not the police? If he threatened a family with a letter there would have been an arrest and a charge. Mr anonymous sent it to the FA in a desperate attempt to get back at him. He didn't send it to the police because he knows unlike the Police who have actual laws and procedures to back them up the FA are a jumped up governing body who think they have the right to hold legal procedures and suspend and fine at will on the most flimsy of evidence. The letter could have been a complete fabrication and is losing money on a business deal, as long as it was strictly legal, reasons for dismissal? Starting a business of any sort is high risk but the FA decided to sack him to compound his woes.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. People will say he threatened physical harm against a mans wife and kids, he is a disgrace and wont care for any facts. It could have been along the lines of I 'll sue you but one thing is for sure the police would have taken action if there was any hard evidence but the letter went to the FA more than likely after the police informed them it was not concrete evidence or they don't listen to fabrications.



Which he did. It didn't stop the FA from sacking/suspending him hours after getting an anonymous letter. Guilty until proven otherwise is their policy, what a joke the FA are.



So the PL say a disciplinary process is ongoing but the FA sack him, then carry out an 8 month investigation and reinstate him. Are they even communicating with each other? Once again the FA really are a joke.

When you mentioned Clattenburg not being a saint earlier you said this right after referencing Terry and Suarez. So you indirectly grouped him in with the other sinners, who's sins were racism. A better way of wording it would have been "he has a history of being falsely accused but is no way in the Terry Suarez category".

Atually the point i was making was that cases should be judged on thier merits and that previous issues/activities should have no bearing on what happens.

Yet because Terry sleeps around and Suarz dives the majority of people thought they were guilty when it was one persons word agains the other.
At the time of the cases neither of their sins was racism but rather accused rascism, just a Clattenburg is now. I dont believe either are racist but thats another story. Racist is a very strong word and is being overused in these discussions

I dont recall calls for Evra and Utd to be docked points if the issue was found to be false etc. Until we know the facts that is a ludicrous call as it will only discourage people reporting abuse

On "It didn't stop the FA from sacking/suspending him hours after getting an anonymous letter. Guilty until proven otherwise is their policy, what a joke the FA are." So Suarez and Terry are "sins were racism" as proven by the FA yet Clattenbergs convictions can be overlooked. Is that a contridication? Terry was acquitted by the law remember. The FA for some reason have a ridiculous guilty until proven innocent outlook which is another discussion.

I dont think he was guilty just fail to see why the public reaction has been so different in two/three cases which on the front of it seem to be similar.

[-0-]

Forgive me for not reading through the 36 pages.

Given the crap refs have to deal with every game, who cares? Seriously. Are refs gonna start bringing players to court when they are insulted? That would be a dream come through - I've always wanted the refs to have the respect they do in games like rugby.

JimsAlterEgo

naughtb4 wrote: »

Atually the point i was making was that cases should be judged on thier merits and that previous issues/activities should have no bearing on what happens.

Yet because Terry sleeps around and Suarz dives the majority of people thought they were guilty when it was one persons word agains the other.
At the time of the cases neither of their sins was racism but rather accused rascism, just a Clattenburg is now. I dont believe either are racist but thats another story. Racist is a very strong word and is being overused in these discussions

I dont recall calls for Evra and Utd to be docked points if the issue was found to be false etc. Until we know the facts that is a ludicrous call as it will only discourage people reporting abuse

On "It didn't stop the FA from sacking/suspending him hours after getting an anonymous letter. Guilty until proven otherwise is their policy, what a joke the FA are." So Suarez and Terry are "sins were racism" as proven by the FA yet Clattenbergs convictions can be overlooked. Is that a contridication? Terry was acquitted by the law remember. The FA for some reason have a ridiculous guilty until proven innocent outlook which is another discussion.

I dont think he was guilty just fail to see why the public reaction has been so different in two/three cases which on the front of it seem to be similar.

both terry and suarez admitted saying what they said

adox

[-0-] wrote: »

Forgive me for not reading through the 36 pages.

Given the crap refs have to deal with every game, who cares? Seriously. Are refs gonna start bringing players to court when they are insulted? That would be a dream come through - I've always wanted the refs to have the respect they do in games like rugby.

Theres being insulted and then theres what Chelsea have alleged to have happened. It isnt really that difficult to understand.

I`ve no issue what so ever with a ref telling players to **** off if they are in his face but alleged racist comments of course have to be investigated.

[-0-]

adox wrote: »

Theres being insulted and then theres what Chelsea have alleged to have happened. It isnt really that difficult to understand.

I`ve no issue what so ever with a ref telling players to **** off if they are in his face but alleged racist comments of course have to be investigated.

If anyone deserved it, it's a soccer player. If the ref did what is alleged then I have no issue with it. It's about time refs took a stand against the bullying they get daily from fans and players.

adox

[-0-] wrote: »

If anyone deserved it, it's a soccer player. If the ref did what is alleged then I have no issue with it. It's about time refs took a stand against the bullying they get daily from fans and players.

Well shame on you then.

GavRedKing

[-0-] wrote: »

If anyone deserved it, it's a soccer player. If the ref did what is alleged then I have no issue with it. It's about time refs took a stand against the bullying they get daily from fans and players.

So its right to racially abuse someone if they're a footballer because they might be in your ear contesting a decision?

O.....K......

Turtyturd

[-0-] wrote: »

If anyone deserved it, it's a soccer player. If the ref did what is alleged then I have no issue with it. It's about time refs took a stand against the bullying they get daily from fans and players.

They should implement this in schools....' Stand up against bullying......with racial abuse'.

Your Airbag

naughtb4 wrote: »

Atually the point i was making was that cases should be judged on thier merits and that previous issues/activities should have no bearing on what happens.

Yet because Terry sleeps around and Suarz dives the majority of people thought they were guilty when it was one persons word agains the other.
At the time of the cases neither of their sins was racism but rather accused rascism, just a Clattenburg is now. I dont believe either are racist but thats another story. Racist is a very strong word and is being overused in these discussions

I dont recall calls for Evra and Utd to be docked points if the issue was found to be false etc. Until we know the facts that is a ludicrous call as it will only discourage people reporting abuse

On "It didn't stop the FA from sacking/suspending him hours after getting an anonymous letter. Guilty until proven otherwise is their policy, what a joke the FA are." So Suarez and Terry are "sins were racism" as proven by the FA yet Clattenbergs convictions can be overlooked. Is that a contridication? Terry was acquitted by the law remember. The FA for some reason have a ridiculous guilty until proven innocent outlook which is another discussion.

I dont think he was guilty just fail to see why the public reaction has been so different in two/three cases which on the front of it seem to be similar.

There were many fans, UTD fans included that said Evra should be punished if his claims are found to be false but Suarez was undeniably guilty of using racist comments and yes whether he is a racist is a different discussion.

I'm well aware of the fact Terry was acquitted in a court of law but that was my point. A court judges you beyond reasonable doubt. The FA judges you on here say, likeability, personal grudges, internal conflict, who knows really?

That is why Mr Anonymous sent a letter to the FA and not the police and tha'ts why I took exception to you citing it as evidence that Clattenburg has previous history of being "no angel", which is you basically saying he was guilty of something before. He also cleared his name and got his job back so actually he only has a past of proving wrong false claims.

Leiva

Your Airbag wrote: »

but Suarez was undeniably guilty of using racist comments and yes whether he is a racist is a different discussion.

How is it undeniable?

You do realise that the judgement in the Suarez/Evra case was made purley on probability which is a million miles away from undeniable.

I dont wanna open up that can of worms again so if you want take this to PM i am happy, so not to bog down this.

bucketybuck

Leiva wrote: »

How is it undeniable?

Suarez admitted to making the comments in question.

But you already know this.

Will I Amnt

Leiva wrote: »

How is it undeniable?

You do realise that the judgement in the Suarez/Evra case was made purley on probability which is a million miles away from undeniable.

I dont wanna open up that can of worms again so if you want take this to PM i am happy, so not to bog down this.

Read the report!!!
Remember that one?
Oh how I miss that racism thread.

Seriously though, am I remembering things wrong or did he not admit to calling him negro??
That's pretty undeniable.

Neil3030

bucketybuck wrote: »

When the players came into the dressing room after the game talking about the alleged comments, what the Chelsea management should have done is immediately tell the players to say nothing for the time being. They should have closed up shop, gathered some info, and sat down to seriously consider the effect of what they were about to do. I guarantee that in the other dressing room Fergie would have done exactly that. But Chelsea don't have Fergie, they have a young manager and a squad that likes to dictate whatever they want.

Fergie? Didn't he accuse Suarez of making racist remarks in the immediate post-game interview?

bucketybuck

Neil3030 wrote: »

Fergie? Didn't he accuse Suarez of making racist remarks in the immediate post-game interview?

No, he didn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15308775

Will I Amnt

Neil3030 wrote: »

Fergie? Didn't he accuse Suarez of making racist remarks in the immediate post-game interview?

What made you think that??
The first anyone heard of it was after Evras interview with Canal +.
I seem to recall everyone on Uniteds end being very hush hush and letting Liverpool get on with embarassing themselves further.

killwill

cambo2008 wrote: »

What made you think that??
The first anyone heard of it was after Evras interview with Canal +.
I seem to recall everyone on Uniteds end being very hush hush and letting Liverpool get on with embarassing themselves further.

Now the can has been opened!!!

Will I Amnt

killwill wrote: »

Now the can has been opened!!!

Well that's how I'm remembering it

Your Airbag

Leiva wrote: »

How is it undeniable?

You do realise that the judgement in the Suarez/Evra case was made purley on probability which is a million miles away from undeniable.

I don't wanna open up that can of worms again so if you want take this to PM i am happy, so not to bog down this.

There is no need to go to PM. Suarez admitted over using a certain phrase that he saw to be harmless due to its meaning in his homeland but the FA deemed it racist. Was Suarez trying to wind Evra up, yes no doubt, is Suarez a racist? I don't think so, he is no angel and passionate about winning and will use any means to wind up an opponent. Lets not forget Evra started on his sister and language like this is going to be used especially in a UTD v Pool match.

Suarez was found guilty of using language the FA deemed racist. I said he was undeniably guilty of using racist comments. I never said he was a racist. It was a punishment from the FA to let him know he can't use language like this as the whole racial area is so sensitive and the FA are backing the stamp it out campaign.

I'm sure Suarez has no problem with Johnson and Sterling but was merely trying to wind up Evra.


This was my reply to the "Clattenburgs no angel, he has a past" comment

Why? Who has he ever racially abused in the past? If you are saying getting decisions wrong makes him out to be the same as Terry and Suarez then that's just rubbish.

I said both were guilty of racist abuse, not that they were racist. The problem is a lot of people wont be as forgiving and the "You know what you are chants" will continue.

In Terrys case the FA Regulatory Commission reached a different conclusion to the clear not guilty verdict of a court of law. You have to ask yourself who you trust more, the court or the FA.

Two expert lip readers were used in court and apparently it was hard to keep track of the amount of times "c***", "shagging" and the phrase "f****** black c***" had been used. So the phrase black c*** is not deemed racial abuse in a court of law but it is by the FA and so is negrito or whatever Suarez used in. Black followed by the c word is not racial abuse but an N word is.

Will players use any language to wind up opponents? Yes.

Will players use racially charged language to wind up opponents? Yes.

Does this mean they are racist? Not always. Sore losers, hell yes but who isnt.