Chelsea Lodge Complaint Against Mark Clattenberg

Turtyturd

quarryman wrote: »

Cmon now. Utd invented and patented that shít.

Seems Leeds started it.

Rekop dog

Seems like this has got Neil Warnocks ire up! Fairly lol comments from him, not like him to stick his oar in on these things.

The_Kew_Tour

Rekop dog wrote: »

Seems like this has got Neil Warnocks ire up! Fairly lol comments from him, not like him to stick his oar in on these things.

Whats he said? Or do I want to know:pac:

mike65

The problem with this is that unless there is some pretty clear cut evidence as to what Clattenburg said he won't really be able to clear his name if he's innocent.

mitosis

mike65 wrote: »

The problem with this is that unless there is some pretty clear cut evidence as to what Clattenburg said he won't really be able to clear his name if he's innocent.

He can't be innocent. When allegations were made against players they were found to be probably not innocent - except in a court of law where the verdict was not guilty - under very similar circumstances, people not involved complaining.

The entire thing is poxed. English football is a joke. Even the Italian papers cried foul after the game, and they had Catania v Juventus for comparison (if any of the football fans here are aware of what happened there).

I doubt there was any racist intent, but local usage of language is not a defence (Suarez). Despite what Sky and the FA would have you believe, the racist problem in England is as bas as anywhere in Europe - maybe not as open, but it's on the field, among the players, and in the stands always. Because it is deeply engrained socially in England.

amiable

mitosis wrote: »

He can't be innocent. When allegations were made against players they were found to be probably not innocent - except in a court of law where the verdict was not guilty - under very similar circumstances, people not involved complaining.

The entire thing is poxed. English football is a joke. Even the Italian papers cried foul after the game, and they had Catania v Juventus for comparison (if any of the football fans here are aware of what happened there).

I doubt there was any racist intent, but local usage of language is not a defence (Suarez). Despite what Sky and the FA would have you believe, the racist problem in England is as bas as anywhere in Europe - maybe not as open, but it's on the field, among the players, and in the stands always. Because it is deeply engrained socially in England.

I think you'll find you could be getting a little confused.
The FA don't just automatically charge eveybody accused of something.
They tend to review the evidence like in the Terry and Suarez cases and then decide if they will be charged.
Granted once a player is charged they are usually found guilty.

The FA will review the evidence against Clattenburg before deciding if he has a charge to answer.

Caveman1

amiable wrote: »

I think you'll find you could be getting a little confused.
The FA don't just automatically charge eveybody accused of something.
They tend to review the evidence like in the Terry and Suarez cases and then decide if they will be charged.
Granted once a player is charged they are usually found guilty.

The FA will review the evidence against Clattenburg before deciding if he has a charge to answer.

Isnt it something like 99% of all people charged with something by the FA are found guilty?

Will I Amnt

They could hardly finish his career could they? If found guilty obviously.
Anything more than a 4-8 game ban wouldn't be fair considering the standard they have already set.

Cantona's Collars

'CFC - standing up to racism since last Sunday'

Caveman1

cambo2008 wrote: »

They could hardly finish his career could they? If found guilty obviously.
Anything more than a 4-8 game ban wouldn't be fair considering the standard they have already set.

I think if this was an isolated case it might of ended his career but seems how Suarez/Terry only got a fine and a few games suspension I cant see the FA giving Clattenburg a more sever punishment if found guilty of course.

cambo2008

cambo2008 wrote: »

They could hardly finish his career could they? If found guilty obviously.
Anything more than a 4-8 game ban wouldn't be fair considering the standard they have already set.

Never heard of a referee in England getting a ban for racist language

He is supposed to be an authority figure who enforces the laws of the game. I would say if a referee was found to have racially abused a player he'd suffer a much stiffer penalty.

Lord TSC

mitosis wrote: »

He can't be innocent. When allegations were made against players they were found to be probably not innocent - except in a court of law where the verdict was not guilty - under very similar circumstances, people not involved complaining.

Couldn't the difference be that both Suarez and Terry admitted to using the word they were accused of (in the process of trying to defend the context) while Clattenberg could simply refuse to admit it, even if he did say it.

I often though with Suarez in particular that if he shut his mouth and played dumb, rather than trying to justify what he said, they wouldn't have been able to do much about it.

Will I Amnt

rarnes1 wrote: »

Never heard of a referee in England getting a ban for racist language

He is supposed to be an authority figure who enforces the laws of the game. I would say if a referee was found to have racially abused a player he'd suffer a much stiffer penalty.

So are managers meant to be an authority figure. They get punished similar to players.
I don't see how they can allow a player convicted of racist abuse continue his career after a few game ban and then turn around and ban a referee for longer or forever for the same thing.

cambo2008

cambo2008 wrote: »

So are managers meant to be an authority figure. They get punished similar to players.
I don't see how they can allow a player convicted of racist abuse continue his career after a few game ban and then turn around and ban a referee for longer or forever for the same thing.

I'm not sure if they can or not.

Knowing the FA it's probably less punishment.

PeterTwo

cambo2008 wrote: »

So are managers meant to be an authority figure. They get punished similar to players.
I don't see how they can allow a player convicted of racist abuse continue his career after a few game ban and then turn around and ban a referee for longer or forever for the same thing.

Refs are directly employed by the FA, if they are allowed to continue their job it would appear that the FA is condoning racism. Managers and players are 3rd parties, they do not directly represent the FA.

Will I Amnt

PeterTwo wrote: »

Refs are directly employed by the FA, if they are allowed to continue their job it would appear that the FA is condoning racism. Managers and players are 3rd parties, they do not directly represent the FA.

It's still up to the FA to decide punishment for both parties.
They decided on the length of ban suitable for the offence.

markesmith

Bottom line is that Chelsea's retention of John Terry as captain means that they have shot themselves in the foot in crying 'racism', simple as that.

You can't have a captain who's essentially a poster-boy for the far right, and then lodge a complaint if (big if) something was said to one of your black players.

You live by the sword of hypocrisy, you die by it.

markesmith

markesmith wrote: »

Bottom line is that Chelsea's retention of John Terry as captain means that they have shot themselves in the foot in crying 'racism', simple as that.

You can't have a captain who's essentially a poster-boy for the far right, and then lodge a complaint if (big if) something was said to one of your black players.

You live by the sword of hypocrisy, you die by it.

Hypocrisy and football goes hand in hand.

DB10

I wonder if the fact David Gill was made FA vice chairman last week and is pally with refs chief Mike Riley, have any affect on this case? Hopefully Gill will walk away and let other neutrals in the FA sort this mess out. It certainly doesn't help him being FA vice chairman, with Uniteds alleged gaining advantages from referees. Does not look good, I believe he should have turned down the role.

Will I Amnt

DB10 wrote: »

I wonder if the fact David Gill was made FA vice chairman last week and is pally with refs chief Mike Riley, have any affect on this case? Hopefully Gill will walk away and let other neutrals in the FA sort this mess out. It certainly doesn't help him being FA vice chairman, with Uniteds alleged gaining advantages from referees. Does not look good, I believe he should have turned down the role.

Yea, remember how he got Rooney cleared for swearing on camera?
Or how he regularly gets Fergie off touchline bans?

Ordinary man

DB10 wrote: »

I wonder if the fact David Gill was made FA vice chairman last week and is pally with refs chief Mike Riley, have any affect on this case? Hopefully Gill will walk away and let other neutrals in the FA sort this mess out. It certainly doesn't help him being FA vice chairman, with Uniteds alleged gaining advantages from referees. Does not look good, I believe he should have turned down the role.

Arsenal had their man in there for years and he wasn't able to help them improve on being "also rans"

SantryRed

DB10 wrote: »

I wonder if the fact David Gill was made FA vice chairman last week and is pally with refs chief Mike Riley, have any affect on this case? Hopefully Gill will walk away and let other neutrals in the FA sort this mess out. It certainly doesn't help him being FA vice chairman, with Uniteds alleged gaining advantages from referees. Does not look good, I believe he should have turned down the role.

You're an Arsenal fan. David Dein was on it for ages was he not?

DB10

cambo2008 wrote: »

Yea, remember how he got Rooney cleared for swearing on camera?
Or how he regularly gets Fergie off touchline bans?

Ferguson barely gets any censure for the mayhem he gets away with it. He practically selects referees and demotes them at his whim. Sure Clattenberg hadn't refereed United before last Sunday for a year because the last time he did they lost to City 6-1. He had Chris Foy refereeing in League 2 a while ago because they lost to Spurs.

Obviously the referees are scared of this and dont want to be demoted to lower leagues and the likes. Subconsciously it obviously works for Fergie on his referees.

DB10

It's no conspiracy theory. Why are these referees removed from United games for long periods, obviously he has a word with Reilly. Its happened several times, I seen a list on facebook . These are all true, its just so commonly accepted as the norm nobody really bats an eyelid! Sure Reilly himself was known as "Red Mike" after ending Arsenals invincible run! He done well out of it obviously. Nice retirement package.

adox

DB10 wrote: »

I wonder if the fact David Gill was made FA vice chairman last week and is pally with refs chief Mike Riley, have any affect on this case? Hopefully Gill will walk away and let other neutrals in the FA sort this mess out. It certainly doesn't help him being FA vice chairman, with Uniteds alleged gaining advantages from referees. Does not look good, I believe he should have turned down the role.

Benimar

Ordinary man wrote: »

Arsenal had their man in there for years and he wasn't able to help them improve on being "also rans"

Not saying Dein had influence or not, but he was VC for 4 years, in which time Arsenal won two titles. Also-rans my a**!

DB10

Dein was removed because of his role with Arsenal?

Is the appointment of Gill thus not hypocritical?

Rayne Wooney

DB10 wrote: »

It's no conspiracy theory. Why are these referees removed from United games for long periods, obviously he has a word with Reilly. Its happened several times, I seen a list on Facebook . These are all true, its just so commonly accepted as the norm nobody really bats an eyelid! Sure Reilly himself was known as "Red Mike" after ending Arsenals invincible run! He done well out of it obviously. Nice retirement package.

Holy shît :eek: it must be true if you seen it on Facebook :eek:

Will I Amnt

DB10 wrote: »

Ferguson barely gets any censure for the mayhem he gets away with it. He practically selects referees and demotes them at his whim. Sure Clattenberg hadn't refereed United before last Sunday for a year because the last time he did they lost to City 6-1. He had Chris Foy refereeing in League 2 a while ago because they lost to Spurs.

Obviously the referees are scared of this and dont want to be demoted to lower leagues and the likes. Subconsciously it obviously works for Fergie on his referees.

Any proof of how Fergie selects referees or how he had Chris Foy working in League 2.
Why did Clattenburg get a big game like that if he was referee of a previous big game United lost? That doesn't fit in with your theory, why not give him a game involving a team in the bottom half?

What a crock of bollox :pac:

Will I Amnt

DB10 wrote: »

It's no conspiracy theory. Why are these referees removed from United games for long periods, obviously he has a word with Reilly. Its happened several times, I seen a list on facebook . These are all true, its just so commonly accepted as the norm nobody really bats an eyelid! Sure Reilly himself was known as "Red Mike" after ending Arsenals invincible run! He done well out of it obviously. Nice retirement package.

You seen a list of games referees had involving United.
If I was to research the same for another club I'm sure I could piece together some bullshìt conspiracy.

Will I Amnt

DB10 wrote: »

Dein was removed because of his role with Arsenal?

Is the appointment of Gill thus not hypocritical?

He wasn't removed because of his role at Arsenal it was because of something he did at Arsenal involving transfers.
If anything that highlights a stance that the FA don't entertain the behaviour you're suggesting.

Crackle

markesmith wrote: »

Bottom line is that Chelsea's retention of John Terry as captain means that they have shot themselves in the foot in crying 'racism', simple as that.

You can't have a captain who's essentially a poster-boy for the far right, and then lodge a complaint if (big if) something was said to one of your black players.

You live by the sword of hypocrisy, you die by it.

Not gonna get drawn into a JT argument, but that is pretty bs logic.

Let's look at it this way. If the ref has made a racial remark, or if at the very least, the players believe he has done so, how would it look for the club if they didn't pursue it, if they were seen to be not backing their players, especially in a situation like this? It would be a far worse situation for them to be in if they were seen to be overlooking an incident like this, simply because it's inconvenient timing.

Mr.Crinklewood

Chucky the tree

cambo2008 wrote: »

So are managers meant to be an authority figure. They get punished similar to players.
I don't see how they can allow a player convicted of racist abuse continue his career after a few game ban and then turn around and ban a referee for longer or forever for the same thing.

Really? I thought it would be pretty obvious how the outcomes of a player and referee would be completely different. If he's found guilty there is no way he can continue. What happens the next time he doesn't give a peno when a black player is involved? Easy to imagine the can of worms that would open.

Will I Amnt

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Really? I thought it would be pretty obvious how the outcomes of a player and referee would be completely different. If he's found guilty there is no way he can continue. What happens the next time he doesn't give a peno when a black player is involved? Easy to imagine the can of worms that would open.

Maybe so when you look at it that way but if he's convicted of making a racist remark but not deemed a racist, similar to Suarez and Terry, would that not go in his favour?

Chucky the tree

cambo2008 wrote: »

Maybe so when you look at it that way but if he's convicted of making a racist remark but not deemed a racist, similar to Suarez and Terry, would that not go in his favour?

Not really. You can't prove someone is a racist because they made a racist remark. Also possible from a legal stand point the FA didn't want to come out and call both players racists.

redzerdrog

Ordinary man wrote: »

Arsenal had their man in there for years and he wasn't able to help them improve on being "also rans"

maybe you should compare what Arsenal won while Dein was on the board and what they have won since

maybe these lads have a point after all

:-)

Will I Amnt

redzerdrog wrote: »

maybe you should compare what Arsenal won while Dein was on the board and what they have won since

maybe these lads have a point after all

[COLOR="White"]:-)[/COLOR]

Or maybe you should compare the players Arsenal had in that period to the players they had after it.

amiable

New twist coming up in the papers shortly

Will I Amnt

amiable wrote: »

New twist coming up in the papers shortly

Spill.

The_Kew_Tour

amiable wrote: »

New twist coming up in the papers shortly

Do tell?

Rayne Wooney

Don't know of it's posted already, but Mikel is claiming Clattenberg called him a monkey?

I find it hard to believe Clattenberg is that stupid, he had a shocking game in the first place and then he goes and racially abuses a player with cameras there to prove it if he did..

Duck Soup

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Don't know of it's posted already, but Mikel is claiming Clattenberg called him a monkey?

I find it hard to believe Clattenberg is that stupid, he had a shocking game in the first place and then he goes and racially abuses a player with cameras there to prove it if he did..

Well, as we found out with the Terry case, having cameras is no guarantee of establishing what was said. Unless the directional microphones are pointing in that direction, we're left with lip-reading.

Police have now confirmed that they're launching a police investigation into the allegations, which brings about the likelihood that Man Utd players will also be questioned.

Like I said, there is no way that this ends well. Apparently, the three other match officials will back up Clattenburg. On the other hand, as many as four Chelsea players will go on record as hearing Clattenburg using racial abuse.

The only way the FA gets out of this one is to borrow the verdict used in Scottish courts of 'not proven'. In Scotland, a verdict can be guilty, not guilty or not proven. I'm guessing that's where the FA would like to steer the inquiry.

What would cause maximum clusterfcuk would be to have 4 match officials giving statements that the comments were never made, 4 Chelsea players saying that they were and then a Man Utd player saying that he too heard the comments.

Rayne Wooney

Duck Soup wrote: »

Well, as we found out with the Terry case, having cameras is no guarantee of establishing what was said. Unless the directional microphones are pointing in that direction, we're left with lip-reading.

Police have now confirmed that they're launching a police investigation into the allegations, which brings about the likelihood that Man Utd players will also be questioned.

Like I said, there is no way that this ends well. Apparently, the three other match officials will back up Clattenburg. On the other hand, as many as four Chelsea players will go on record as hearing Clattenburg using racial abuse.

The only way the FA gets out of this one is to borrow the verdict used in Scottish courts of 'not proven'. In Scotland, a verdict can be guilty, not guilty or not proven. I'm guessing that's where the FA would like to steer the inquiry.

What would cause maximum clusterfcuk would be to have 4 match officials giving statements that the comments were never made, 4 Chelsea players saying that they were and then a Man Utd player saying that he too heard the comments.

I've heard from a few blogs that every word spoken between the match officials over the headsets is recorded, if this is true it would be pretty easy to clear this all up but we all know what the FA are like with technology so it might not be true

Duck Soup

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I've heard from a few blogs that every word spoken between the match officials over the headsets is recorded, if this is true it would be pretty easy to clear this all up but we all know what the FA are like with technology so it might not be true

No recordings are made of what is said by match officials, except very, very occasionally for training purposes. So there's no recording of this one.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/1030/1224325895331.html

markesmith

amiable wrote: »

New twist coming up in the papers shortly

Well?

TerryTibbs!

markesmith wrote: »

Bottom line is that Chelsea's retention of John Terry as captain means that they have shot themselves in the foot in crying 'racism', simple as that.

You can't have a captain who's essentially a poster-boy for the far right, and then lodge a complaint if (big if) something was said to one of your black players.

You live by the sword of hypocrisy, you die by it.

Are you 12?

This is a post a 12 year old makes.

JimsAlterEgo

according to Guardian Chelsea have not made an official complaint yet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/30/mark-clattenburg-set-deny-allegations

But on Tuesday night it emerged that Chelsea were still considering whether to press ahead with an official complaint to the Football Association, with the club aiming to conclude their internal investigation before Thursday with the aid of outside legal counsel.

It has emerged that despite Chelsea on Sunday drawing the Premier League match delegate's attention to their allegations regarding Clattenburg, a formal complaint was not lodged by the club with the FA.

Once Chelsea have taken all relevant statements from players and staff through their secretary, David Barnard, they will decide whether to contact the FA over the matter for the first time. The governing body in the meantime has been making inquiries on the back of the match delegate's report.

Nothing will come of this. The other officials from the day are backing up the referee and saying he said nothing as they were all miked up.

Case closed.

MagicMarker

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

according to Guardian Chelsea have not made an official complaint yet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/30/mark-clattenburg-set-deny-allegations

Why didn't they do all this before unleashing a shít storm?

Joke of a club.