Chelsea Lodge Complaint Against Mark Clattenberg

gerryo777

What's it got to do with ferguson anyway?
It's between Chelsea FC and the officials.
The old man can't keep it shut.

niallo27

Eli Manning wrote: »

But that doesn't matter to you. If he said nothing he would of been called spineless for not having an opinion. It's the same old boring story.



Of course I have. I'm just looking for an example.

No I wouldn't have said a thing if he had kept quiet, why would I call him spineless, it had nothing to do with utd.

RasTa

Wenger said: “Honestly, I didn’t follow the whole story completely. My opinion is just that I prefer, when I didn’t behave well, that I have an explanation with the referee at the end of the game, or another day, [rather] than going public with little proof.

“I’m not a great believer in making these stories public.”

Now please stop moaning.

Just An Opinion

Seriously what is it with some of you here, he was asked his fcuking opinion, he gave it, like others did today. Because it's Ferguson it's all 'what's it got to do with him' in that case what's it got to do with anyone then outside of Chelsea and Mark Clattenburg? Including the genius lot in here!

Red Crow

Turtyturd wrote: »

Someone should create a search engine for stuff like that.

I want your example of the childish mind games that you obviously have in your head.

Actually, I just googled 'Turtyturd's brain'. A picture of Leo Messi in a Liverpool jersey appears. The adage 'a picture is worth a thousand words' is very appropriate here.

gerryo777 wrote: »

What's it got to do with ferguson anyway?
It's between Chelsea FC and the officials.
The old man can't keep it shut.

lol childish

Saying you shouldn't go public on the matter hardly is the same as what Fergie said ffs.

Sad to have to point this out.

Rayne Wooney

gerryo777 wrote: »

What's it got to do with ferguson anyway?
It's between Chelsea FC and the officials.
The old man can't keep it shut.

"You asked me a question about last Sunday and that's what I think"

The reporter asked him for his opinion and he gave it, relax.

RasTa

rarnes1 wrote: »

Saying you shouldn't go public on the matter hardly is the same as what Fergie said ffs.

Sad to have to point this out.

No it's the same, Fergie just doesn't mince his words you should know what Scots are like by now.

Why is what Arsene said acceptable i.e little proof?

The_Kew_Tour

niallo27 wrote: »

Do you lot honestly not think he should have just keep quiet today, never mind what anyone else said.

Yes he should if im honest.

But why mention Ferguson and not the other managers?

TBH this proves why United fans get fed up of having to listen to stuff about them but when it happens to another club its gets ignored and not deemed as important.

there is far more to worry about then Ferguson's comments too in world of football. But anything to make a fuss.

niallo27

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Yes he should if im honest.

But why mention Ferguson and not the other managers?

TBH this proves why United fans get fed up of having to listen to stuff about them but when it happens to another club its gets ignored and not deemed as important.

there is far more to worry about then Ferguson's comments too in world of football. But anything to make a fuss.

It's comes with the territory though, he is one of the biggest names in football, him saying something carries a lot more weight than any other manager.

The_Kew_Tour

Eli Manning wrote: »

From Liverpool fans, I think that is key.

If rarnes, niallo, turtyturds etc. weren't coming in here to criticise Manchester United then there is a problem.

well one of them has me on ignore cause he got little annoyed when I found him out for being troll last season:D

I still think other 2 are sound, just need teach them few things.:)

The_Kew_Tour

niallo27 wrote: »

It's comes with the territory though, he is one of the biggest names in football, him saying something carries a lot more weight than any other manager.

I see what you are saying. But still thats not good enough excuse to have go at him and him only

Red Crow

niallo27 wrote: »

It's comes with the territory though, he is one of the biggest names in football, him saying something carries a lot more weight than any other manager.

Why? Is Rodgers going to reveal his answer to us in an evenlope at the end of the season? Is Kenny priniting t-shirts about the issue?

Oh look, I'm doing it too. We can do this back and forth forever but its sad.

You don't care about anything except that he's the manager of Manchester United and you'll use any stick to beat him with. Stop pretending to care about the issue at hand becuase some Liverpool fans on here showed nothing short of absolute embarrassing opinions on racism in the racism thread last year and all of a sudden are now are pretending to care about racism.

niallo27

Eli Manning wrote: »

Why? Is Rodgers going to reveal his answer to us in an evenlope at the end of the season? Is Kenny priniting t-shirts about the issue?

Oh look, I'm doing it too. We can do this back and forth forever but its sad.

You don't care about anything except that he's the manager of Manchester United and you'll use any stick to beat him with. Stop pretending to care about the issue at hand becuase some Liverpool fans on here showed nothing short of absolute embarrassing opinions on racism in the racism thread last year and all of a sudden are now are pretending to care about racism.

I think your reading too much into this, ferguson was wrong to come out with the comments today, you know that yourself. I don't know why you feel he is above criticism.

Fergie shouldn't have said what he said, while an investigation is pending. Simples.

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

Fergie shouldn't have said what he said, while an investigation is pending. Simples.

Why?

The_Kew_Tour

rarnes1 wrote: »

Fergie shouldn't have said what he said, while an investigation is pending. Simples.

+1

but so should the rest of them.

whatnext

Simple fact
Fergie was asked a question by a journo and he answered it. It was not a Fergie press release or a statement he issued.

If he chose not to answer there would be as many questions asked as to the validity or otherwise of the accusations made by a player with proven high ethical standards and respect for the law and contracts he signs

eagle eye

Why does anybody give a continental what Ferguson said about it? Or any other manager for that matter.

I don't know whats going on but it all stinks to me of Chelsea challenging the FA because of the way they treated Terry. I have no proof of anything but I've watched and been impressed by Mark Clattenberg's refereeing on many occasions. He had a bad game but I think he is just a pawn in all of this. Unfortunately his job is on the line.

markesmith

rarnes1 wrote: »

Fergie shouldn't have said what he said, while an investigation is pending. Simples.

He's no fool, I'd say he knows something behind the scenes

jaykay74

Any evidence come out to support these claims yet like John Terry style youtube clips ? Rumours that the PL refs are considering refusing to ref Chelsea games.

I would imagine if there was any evidence against Clattenberg that refs/ex players/managers would be distancing themselves from him and that the tabloids would stick the knife in but maybe the evidence is being closely guarded or something...

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/916850-referees-could-boycott-chelsea-games-over-mark-clattenburg-claims

Fuhrer

jaykay74 wrote: »

Rumours that the PL refs are considering refusing to ref Chelsea games.

So, no change there then, eh?

hur hur hur

Beefy78

Stan Collymore ‏@StanCollymore

A little story for you…. A players remonstrates with ref. Ref listens,then says "I don't give a monkey's" Case,as they say,closed.

If Stan is right then it's a disgrace that it's gone this far.

homerjay2005

Beefy78 wrote: »

Stan Collymore ‏@StanCollymore

A little story for you…. A players remonstrates with ref. Ref listens,then says "I don't give a monkey's" Case,as they say,closed.

If Stan is right then it's a disgrace that it's gone this far.

well if reports in the papers are true that the stormed the dressing room and threatened him, i would hope a lengthy ban is coming for Mikel and anybody else who did it, with a points deduction for Chelsea for threatening to control their players.

JimsAlterEgo

homerjay2005 wrote: »

well if reports in the papers are true that the stormed the dressing room and threatened him, i would hope a lengthy ban is coming for Mikel and anybody else who did it, with a points deduction for Chelsea for threatening to control their players.

if thats what was said Chelsea are rightly up the creek

LiamoSail

I don't see an issue with fergies comments. He said what every one else thought, that it's unthinkable for a ref to say what's been accused, both from the point of view that he's a ref, and also that if he was to have been abusing players in such a way, he'd have been found out long before this

I think Chelsea have dug themselves into a real hole with this one, particularly if what collymore has eluded to is true.

The players would want to be very certain of what they heard before they go throwing around those sort of allegations. I mean, surely Chelsea of all clubs know how a harmless phrase such as 'don't give a monkeys' or 'you black Cnut' can so easily be misinterpreted as racist

Either way, of your going to make those sort of allegations against a ref, you'd want to make sure you've got solid evidence

TheDoc

rarnes1 wrote: »

Fergie shouldn't have said what he said, while an investigation is pending. Simples.

The longest serving manager in English football, since the iteration of the PL was asked his opinion, and asked had any of his players ever complained about referees giving abuse. And he gave his answers, as did Wenger, as did pretty much every manager.

You may not know this, but every week there are managerial press conferences. And when there is a big issue, most managers get asked the same questions. Every manager got asked on the incident, and most responded.

Of those that were actually interesting, they appeared on a SSN newsreel, including SAF, Wenger, Allardyce, Martinez, Rogers and Jol.

So why doesn't everyone chill the **** out.

By the same point, why are you all posting in a thread discussing the incident, with a pending investigation, posting just about every rumour and assumption under the son.

Get the ****ing boat.

MagicMarker

LiamoSail wrote: »

I mean, surely Chelsea of all clubs know how a harmless phrase such as 'don't give a monkeys' or 'you black Cnut' can so easily be misinterpreted as racist

Only one of those can be misinterpreted as being racist.

LiamoSail

MagicMarker wrote: »

Only one of those can be misinterpreted as being racist.

It was tongue in cheek. Only Chelsea could claim that 'black Cnut' wasn't racist but accuse others of being racist for using the phrase 'give a monkeys'

I don't think there's any interpretation involved. One is racist, the other clearly isn't

TheDoc

LiamoSail wrote: »

It was tongue in cheek. Only Chelsea could claim that 'black Cnut' wasn't racist but accuse others of being racist for using the phrase 'give a monkeys'

I don't think there's any interpretation involved. One is racist, the other clearly isn't

If it does turn out to be a perfectly innocent phrase completely mis-interpreted, I genuinely cannot wait to see how stupid Chelsea end up looking.

Your Airbag

Beefy78 wrote: »

Stan Collymore ‏@StanCollymore

A little story for you…. A players remonstrates with ref. Ref listens,then says "I don't give a monkey's" Case,as they say,closed.

If Stan is right then it's a disgrace that it's gone this far.

I get the impression Stan is making a guess at what happened rather than revealing some new information.

Beefy78

Your Airbag wrote: »

I get the impression Stan is making a guess at what happened rather than revealing some new information.

I don't know. Stan is usually the first to jump on any sort of allegation of racism, plus he'll have a fair few contacts at most clubs I'd imagine through his playing and media careers.

Your Airbag

Beefy78 wrote: »

I don't know. Stan is usually the first to jump on any sort of allegation of racism, plus he'll have a fair few contacts at most clubs I'd imagine through his playing and media careers.

Well if this turns out to be true I hope Chelsea are heavily punished. The players, the manager and the behind the scenes staff who pushed ahead with the complaint.

They have effectively tried to ruin a mans reputation, and life some what by trying to paint him as a racist and take away his job in the process.

There is no way any of the English staff at the club could have seen this for anything else than the commonly used phrase it is. I can understand Ramieres and Mikel not understanding but they should have been told by others around them it was not racist. That's if they metnioned the "I don't give a" part when reporting the incident.

Maybe in the heat of battle and knowing they were staring defeat in the face after feeling the ref was against them they said what they said to Mikel and the manager and then were too proud to back down.

Either way Chelsea took a couple of days to log their complaint and should have not done so unless they were 100%.

I still think its Stan having a guess at what happened. The next question would be that if that is what was said is it right of Stan to reveal it in this manner? There is going to be an investigation and a procedure is in place for all this but now it seems social media can circumvent all of this and give the public its own "version" of a verdict. Privacy and legal rights have not caught up with social media.

The way the law is dealing with social media is a mess right now imo. People can reveal sensitive information related to a legal case with little consequence such as Giggs being widely know as the EPL player having an affair whilst a super injunction is in place but others can be jailed for offensive tweeting as in the Liam Stacey case.

Your Airbag

Pro. F wrote: »

That is not what happened. You clearly have not read or have completely forgotten what was said in the report.

This is what happened and I did read the report. Did you read the report or my post properly?

Extract from the report in which Suarez explains himself

Mr Suárez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?". He said that he used the word "negro" at this point in the way that he did when he was growing up in Uruguay, that is as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned or even just black-haired. He said that he used it in the same way that he did when he spoke to Glen Johnson, the black Liverpool player. He said in no way was the use of the word "negro" intended to be offensive or to be racially offensive. It was intended as an attempt at conciliation.

Keep in mind I am not saying I believe Suarez didn't know what he was being offensive but this is his reported take (excuse) for it. The FA said it was racist, which I mentioned I agree with. Suarez said otherwise.

Chucky the tree

LiamoSail wrote: »

It was tongue in cheek. Only Chelsea could claim that 'black Cnut' wasn't racist but accuse others of being racist for using the phrase 'give a monkeys'

I don't think there's any interpretation involved. One is racist, the other clearly isn't

It's actually quiet easy to to claim saying black **** isn't racist. If I say "I never said he was a black ****" that doesn't make me a racist for using the word black ****.

GavRedKing

Clattenberg dropped again for this weekends games.

Sgt Pepper 64

Beefy78 wrote: »

Stan Collymore ‏@StanCollymore

A little story for you…. A players remonstrates with ref. Ref listens,then says "I don't give a monkey's" Case,as they say,closed.

If Stan is right then it's a disgrace that it's gone this far.

Seriously? Was Stan in a car park when he tweeted that?
I cant believe people are deluded enough to think that the chelsea board would consider that an insult and complain
Obviously a wind up. As Ive said before, chelsea are not so silly as to bring this unwanted attention on themselves unless there was serious grounds for it. (at least I would hope not! :eek:)

amiable

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Seriously? Was Stan in a car park when he tweeted that?
I cant believe people are deluded enough to think that the chelsea board would consider that an insult and complain
Obviously a wind up. As Ive said before, chelsea are not so silly as to bring this unwanted attention on themselves unless there was serious grounds for it. (at least I would hope not! :eek:)

Chelsea have had their lawyers look over this before going ahead with the official complaint.
Either these lawyers feel the complaint is worthwhile or they themselves would like a big payday.

On another note. If Chelsea hadn't acted on this complaint by Mikel and swept it under the carpet I think it would have caused an even bigger controvery.
Imagine a club who retained John Terry as captain after being found guilty of a racial incident knowingly sweeping under the carpet an accusation of racism where one of their players was the victim.

bucketybuck

Or, as I said before, once the initial allegation was made Chelsea felt they had no option but to follow through to the bitter end.

If Chelsea had turned around and said that actually they don't have a complaint they would have been castigated for making such serious allegations frivolously.

If they plough ahead anyway, they may be hoping that the case fizzles out as "unproven", sparing their blushes.

LiamoSail

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's actually quiet easy to to claim saying black **** isn't racist. If I say "I never said he was a black ****" that doesn't make me a racist for using the word black ****.

You can use that to explain away any comment or insult. While not wanting to get into a discussion on what terry actually meant, personally I would find it difficult to believe that particular excuse

LiamoSail

Beefy78 wrote: »

Stan Collymore ‏@StanCollymore

A little story for you…. A players remonstrates with ref. Ref listens,then says "I don't give a monkey's" Case,as they say,closed.

If Stan is right then it's a disgrace that it's gone this far.

Tbf, when it comes to using the names of various types of animals to describe actions, there's few who can speak on the subject with the same level of authority as stan

Sgt Pepper 64

bucketybuck wrote: »

Or, as I said before, once the initial allegation was made Chelsea felt they had no option but to follow through to the bitter end.

If Chelsea had turned around and said that actually they don't have a complaint they would have been castigated for making such serious allegations frivolously.

If they plough ahead anyway, they may be hoping that the case fizzles out as "unproven", sparing their blushes.

utter nonsense

Chucky the tree

LiamoSail wrote: »

You can use that to explain away any comment or insult. While not wanting to get into a discussion on what terry actually meant, personally I would find it difficult to believe that particular excuse

You really couldn't though. If a camera is on some and 10 seconds into he goes "you ****ing black ****" it's not really possible for him to claim he was simply saying he was just saying "I never meant to call you a black ****".

bucketybuck

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

utter nonsense

On the contrary, its a completely logical thought process.

LiamoSail

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You really couldn't though. If a camera is on some and 10 seconds into he goes "you ****ing black ****" it's not really possible for him to claim he was simply saying he was just saying "I never meant to call you a black ****".

I don't get your point, maybe I'm misreading it? Firstly you said you could easily explain it away in terms of ''I didn't call you..', now your saying you can't?

I never claimed the above is a genuine excuse, just that it's highly unlikely IMO and in the case of terry, highly improbable

Chucky the tree

LiamoSail wrote: »

I don't get your point, maybe I'm misreading it? Firstly you said you could easily explain it away in terms of ''I didn't call you..', now your saying you can't?

I never claimed the above is a genuine excuse, just that it's highly unlikely IMO and in the case of terry, highly improbable

I mean if a camera is on a person and he's mouth isn't moving and obviously not talking and then after 10 seconds of being filmed he just shouts "you ****ing black ****" then he can hardly claimed he said it as something other than an insult.

LiamoSail

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I mean if a camera is on a person and he's mouth isn't moving and obviously not talking and then after 10 seconds of being filmed he just shouts "you ****ing black ****" then he can hardly claimed he said it as something other than an insult.

He can, just not with credibility. Which is something I wouldn't have associated terry/Chelsea with anyway

I don't think we're in disagreement here.

Pro. F

Your Airbag wrote: »

This is what happened and I did read the report. Did you read the report or my post properly?

Extract from the report in which Suarez explains himself

Keep in mind I am not saying I believe Suarez didn't know what he was being offensive but this is his reported take (excuse) for it. The FA said it was racist, which I mentioned I agree with. Suarez said otherwise.

That is not what happened. The FA did not accept Suarez's description of what he had said was a true account. They said they believed that he had said and done things differently from what he had claimed and that they found the true account of what he said to be racist. This changed the whole context of Suarez's use of the word "negro". The FA also didn't just say that Suarez using words like "negro" was automatically racially offensive. They took account of the normal usage in Spanish and in Latin America and they took account of the context of the discussion between himself and Evra.

The hearing found that Suarez's account was inaccurate and that - even though using words like ''negro" could be acceptable in Uruguay and might generally be unacceptable in England - the way Suarez used the words when talking to Evra would be considered racially offensive even in Uruguay.

390. Mr Suarez used the word "negro" in his comments to Mr Evra because Mr Evra's skin
colour is black. In our judgment, Mr Suarez's words were insulting when he used the
word "negro" in each of the comments to Mr Evra which we have identified in paragraph
388 above.

391. Taking each of these comments in turn, and referring to the English translation only in this paragraph (the full Spanish comment being set out in paragraph 388 above):

(1) Mr Suarez used insulting words in telling Mr Evra that he kicked him because he was black. We do not believe this requires any elaboration. The Spanish language experts, whose evidence was accepted by Mr Suarez, said that this comment 99 would be interpreted in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America as racially
offensive.

(2) Mr Suarez used insulting words in telling Mr Evra that he did not speak to blacks. Again, this requires no elaboration. The Spanish language experts said effectively the same about this comment as they did about the previous comment.

(3) Mr Suarez used insulting words in saying to Mr Evra "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". Here, Mr Suarez was using the word "negro" as part of their argument in which he was trying to wind up Mr Evra. The Spanish language experts said that in the context of the previous usages of "negro" and "negros", this usage would retain its provocative and offensive connotations, even though, in a different context, the phrase "Dale, negro" could easily be inoffensive in Uruguay.

(4) Mr Suarez used insulting words when he used the word "negro" when speaking to Mr Evra just before they were spoken to by the referee for the first time. We do not know what Mr Suarez said to which he attached the word "negro". However, given that it was said as part of the continuing confrontation and argument between the two players, and following the three previous comments when the word was used in an insulting way, we find that it was also insulting on this fourth occasion. For a Uruguayan to address a black opponent who understands Spanish as "negro" in a football match in England, in the context in which the word was used, is insulting.

(5) Mr Suarez used insulting words when he said to Mr Evra "Why, black?" after the referee had spoken to them for the second time and Mr Evra had said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him. Again, given that this was said as part of the continuing confrontation and argument between the two players, it followed the four previous comments using the word “negro” and, furthermore, given that Mr Evra had made clear that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, in all the circumstances the use of the word was insulting on this occasion also.

amiable

Sky are saying the police are no longer investigating

Vertigo100

amiable wrote: »

Sky are saying the police are no longer investigating

Good stuff. I hope he is cleared and sues the pants off them. .