Clattenburg cleared by FA

SantryRed

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

It wasnt aimed specifically at you or kippy, just at the mindless morons who can only post " I hate chelsea" and what a disgraceful club they are blah blah blah

But again, why should they apologise? Its clear that Mikel thought he was racially abused, but just cant prove it.
Did Ferdinand apologise to Terry? Do you think he should have after being cleared after the court case?
Of course not

Did Terry not admit to it eventually?

Pj!

You'll get some Chelsea fans who will stand by them throughout it all. Others haven't been very happy about the whole Clattenburg thing since day one and have had no problem saying as much.

thegreengoblin

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

It wasnt aimed specifically at you or kippy, just at the mindless morons who can only post " I hate chelsea" and what a disgraceful club they are blah blah blah

But again, why should they apologise? Its clear that Mikel thought he was racially abused, but just cant prove it.
Did Ferdinand apologise to Terry? Do you think he should have after being cleared after the court case?
Of course not

Seriously, if you have to ask that question you should read the facts of this case again.

super_furry

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But again, why should they apologise? Its clear that Mikel thought he was racially abused, but just cant prove it.
Did Ferdinand apologise to Terry? Do you think he should have after being cleared after the court case?
Of course not

Out of recognition for the needless worry and stress the man had been put through? Out of basic human decency? Whether the entire farce was down to a misunderstanding or a mishearing or whatever, a basic recognition that an innocent man was accused of something he didn't do shouldn't be too much to ask.

This issue isn't about Ferdinand or Terry, and I've no desire to make it about that however, Terry was found guilty and accepted an FA charge, so why would Ferdinand apologise after Terry made a tacit admission?

SantryRed

Why did Chelsea have to publicly admit this whole thing was going on too? It was a vendetta from the word go.

Sgt Pepper 64

Pj! wrote: »

You'll get some Chelsea fans who will stand by them throughout it all. Others haven't been very happy about the whole Clattenburg thing since day one and have had no problem saying as much.

Terry was completely in the wrong and I was disgusted with his behaviour.
But it should have been dealt with immediately and the FA were to blame for that.
Mikel obviously felt he was racially abused and Clattenburg had to be suspended and the FA should have done the same with Terry.
As Chelsea said, they have a duty of care, and theres no way they would have willingly brought the **** storm onto themselves, especially after the Terry case. But they were dammed if they did and dammed if they didnt.
As far as I can see, Chelsea have done nothing wrong but it is the FA who helped drag all this out.

SantryRed

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Terry was completely in the wrong and I was disgusted with his behaviour.
But it should have been dealt with immediately and the FA were to blame for that.
Mikel obviously felt he was racially abused and Clattenburg had to be suspended and the FA should have done the same with Terry.
As Chelsea said, they have a duty of care, and theres no way they would have willingly brought the **** storm onto themselves, especially after the Terry case. But they were dammed if they did and dammed if they didnt.
As far as I can see, Chelsea have done nothing wrong but it is the FA who helped drag all this out.

Seriously, I'm trying real hard not to insult you but you don't have a clue.

THE FA COULD NOT DEAL WITH JOHN TERRY AS IT WAS GOING TO COURT. THEY COULD NOT DO ANYTHING AS IT WOULD HAVE JEOPARDISED THE COURT CASE.

Chelsea have clearly brought this **** storm on themselves. Chelsea have done a crap load wrong in this whole thing, remember they also stormed into the dressing room after the game. It's blatantly ****ing obvious they had a big problem with the way Clattenburg performed in the match, and they let this cloud their judgement on this issue.

They are a disgrace of a club and the sooner RA leaves and they crash and burn, the better.


EDIT: Your club obviously doesn't give a **** about racism too with the way they dealt with the Terry situation.

jaykay74

Interesting to see if Clattenburg gets a Chelsea game anytime soon.

Sgt Pepper 64

SantryRed wrote: »

Seriously, I'm trying real hard not to insult you but you don't have a clue.

THE FA COULD NOT DEAL WITH JOHN TERRY AS IT WAS GOING TO COURT. THEY COULD NOT DO ANYTHING AS IT WOULD HAVE JEOPARDISED THE COURT CASE.

Chelsea have clearly brought this **** storm on themselves. Chelsea have done a crap load wrong in this whole thing, remember they also stormed into the dressing room after the game. It's blatantly ****ing obvious they had a big problem with the way Clattenburg performed in the match, and they let this cloud their judgement on this issue.

They are a disgrace of a club and the sooner RA leaves and they crash and burn, the better.


EDIT: Your club obviously doesn't give a **** about racism too with the way they dealt with the Terry situation.

And theres the hate - trousers down?

SantryRed

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

And theres the hate - trousers down?

Why don't you answer my points rather than saying about the hate. Everything I said is valid. So why not reply instead of the usual crap you come out with?

Pj!

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

As far as I can see, Chelsea have done nothing wrong

:rolleyes:






Even storming the dressing room?
What about Mikel's misconduct charge?

Sgt Pepper 64

Pj! wrote: »

:rolleyes:






Even storming the dressing room?
What about Mikel's misconduct charge?

That was individuals, not the club. and yes Mikel was stupid to do that.
Yes chelsea should taken the higher moral ground and handled it behind closed doors, but seeing as Ferdinand(s) took to twitter and handled it out in the open, can you blame them?

J. Marston

jaykay74 wrote: »

Interesting to see if Clattenburg gets a Chelsea game anytime soon.

Can't see him ever getting a game with Chelsea involved again.

super_furry

SantryRed wrote: »

Why don't you answer my points rather than saying about the hate. Everything I said is valid. So why not reply instead of the usual crap you come out with?

Indeed. If you're going to pretend to be interested in a debate, at least address the points put to you rather than resort to petty masturbation slurs.

Sgt Pepper 64

J. Marston wrote: »

Can't see him ever getting a game with Chelsea involved again.

Well poor old clattenburg didnt get to ref an everton game for FIVE years, after his dreadful performance in the merseyside derby in 2007.

and in 2009, he asked the city bench how they worked with Craig Bellamy all week, just before sending him off in the second half.

But I'm sure he apologised both times

But hey, Im supposed to debate
"They are a disgrace of a club and the sooner RA leaves and they crash and burn, the better."

cos thats a well thought out arguement right there!

bucketybuck

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Oh and Clattenburg is such an innocent and never been in trouble has he?;)

You never bothered responded to my points in the other thread about why Chelsea allowed the allegation to be released to the press almost immediately following the game, rather than stepping back and taking stock, so I have little faith you will respond honestly, but...

Did you just blame the ****ing victim?

Let me guess, rape victims shouldnt have worn those slutty clothes eh? :rolleyes:

Pj!

When all is said and done, I seriously doubt that Chelsea will try anything like this again.

Sgt Pepper 64

bucketybuck wrote: »

You never bothered responded to my points in the other thread about why Chelsea allowed the allegation to be released to the press almost immediately following the game, rather than stepping back and taking stock, so I have little faith you will respond honestly, but...

Did you just blame the ****ing victim?

Let me guess, rape victims shouldnt have worn those slutty clothes eh? :rolleyes:

i already said they should have handled it in house, but you obviously didnt bother to read.
Just like you choose to believe that Clattenburg is innocent when in fact, it just couldnt be proven - big difference
Like I said, it doesnt matter because chelsea are an easy target - all that money, throwing their weight around etc etc
All you hear is Chelsea=Wrong, wrong, wrong

bucketybuck

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

i already said they should have handled it in house, but you obviously didnt bother to read.
Just like you choose to believe that Clattenburg is innocent when in fact, it just couldnt be proven - big difference
Like I said, it doesnt matter because chelsea are an easy target - all that money, throwing their weight around etc etc
All you hear is Chelsea=Wrong, wrong, wrong

Its a fallacy to simply assume that I have a vendetta again Chelsea. I'm not twelve years old, I prefer to deal with facts and reality.

I would also suggest refraining from spreading the lie that the FA simply couldn't find any proof that Clattenburg did what he was accused off. As I see it, this is not like the Terry case with an absence of proof. Instead they had the evidence, and were convinced that it was simply a misunderstanding.

Knowing your bias, I fully expect to see you repeat that claim again in other threads.

MUSEIST

Not suprised by the result but pleased that the FA accept the chelsea complaint was made in good faith and they also accept that chelsea went down the correct channels with their complaint. Bearing that in mind I don't see how clattenburg warrents getting an apology

Sgt Pepper 64

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its a fallacy to simply assume that I have a vendetta again Chelsea. I'm not twelve years old, I prefer to deal with facts and reality.

I would also suggest refraining from spreading the lie that the FA simply couldn't find any proof that Clattenburg did what he was accused off. As I see it, this is not like the Terry case with an absence of proof. Instead they had the evidence, and were convinced that it was simply a misunderstanding.

Knowing your bias, I fully expect to see you repeat that claim again in other threads.

So now I am lieing?
The FA actually said

"Having considered all of the available evidence it was the opinion of David Waters QC, independent counsel, that the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover it was contradicted by other witnesses and does not cross the evidential threshold required to bring a charge against Mark Clattenburg.
"Having considered Counsel's opinion, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, The FA does not believe that there is a case for Mr Clattenburg to answer.
"Equally The FA is satisfied that the allegation against Mark Clattenburg by Ramires was made in good faith. It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief.

Now, that quite clearly says "the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence"
They then say "It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief"

So that is Ramires word against Clattenburg, but they play it safe by saying "it is entirely possible".
They dont say that Ramires has admitted he was mistaken or that he could have misheard, or that he misheard because english isnt his first language"

Now, if you believe that "Shut up, you monkey" could somehow be misheard, then as what? "Shut up you moanie?" "Shut up Minnie"?

Like I said, there is no evidence, its one word against another, so it cant be proven and the easy way out is to say "its entirely possible"
Not "he misheard or he was mistaken", but its entirely possible

Oh and if Ramires felt that he "genuinely" misheard and that he was wrong, its up to Ramires and NOT the club to apologise. The club merely followed up Mikels complaint

jive

It is widely recognised that Chelsea did the correct thing by reporting it. So there was not enough evidence and he's not found guilty - that doesn't mean he deserves an apology. You can't have a situation where you can't report these things unless you have conclusive evidence because then nobody would report anything. This applies to more than just referees, btw. If you accuse someone of raping you and they go free you don't ask the victim to apologise to the rapist, I don't see why Chelsea should have to apologise just because he wasn't found guilty. The FA have no strategy when it comes to race, it's a kangaroo court by all accounts, Moyes' hit the nail on the head.

Mikel is being charged for acting the bollocks after the match by swearing etc. in the officials' changing room and rightly so. Then again, it's not like the referees aren't abused for 90 minutes on the pitch but it's nice to see they draw the line somewhere.

Also one thing I don't understand is why the FA investigate these matters when it comes to referees who are FA employees are they not? The referees should be mic'd up and only captains should be allowed talk to them like in rugby... officiating and technology in football is a hundred years behind every other sport.

Crackle

Side stepping the **** throwing, I'm glad that this whole thing is finally over.

I would share the opinion that the club were right to make the report if Ramires genuinely believed Clattenburg abused Mikel.

Btw it wasn't "Chelsea" that stormed into the dressing room, it was Mikel (which is why he is the only one facing a charge out of this) and he will, quite rightly, be punished.

However, the one thing I am disappointed about is the fact that the club didn't issue some sort of apology to Clattenburg in their statement.

Pj!

You do realise that there is public relations in operation here Sgt Pepper don't you?

It would be very naive of you to think that the FA would ever state anything different to the above.

jaykay74

Interesting to see if Clattenburg takes any legal action.

Your Airbag

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

"

Now, if you believe that "Shut up, you monkey" could somehow be misheard, then as what? "Shut up you moanie?" "Shut up Minnie"?

Like I said, there is no evidence, its one word against another, so it cant be proven and the easy way out is to say "its entirely possible"
Not "he misheard or he was mistaken", but its entirely possible

Apparently Stan Collymore heard from some players in the game that Clattenburg said "I don't give a monkeys" when Mikel was complaing to him. He tweeted it. Make of that what you will.

bucketybuck

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

So now I am lieing?
The FA actually said

"Having considered all of the available evidence it was the opinion of David Waters QC, independent counsel, that the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover it was contradicted by other witnesses and does not cross the evidential threshold required to bring a charge against Mark Clattenburg.
"Having considered Counsel's opinion, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, The FA does not believe that there is a case for Mr Clattenburg to answer.
"Equally The FA is satisfied that the allegation against Mark Clattenburg by Ramires was made in good faith. It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief.

Now, that quite clearly says "the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence"
They then say "It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief"

So that is Ramires word against Clattenburg, but they play it safe by saying "it is entirely possible".
They dont say that Ramires has admitted he was mistaken or that he could have misheard, or that he misheard because english isnt his first language"

Now, if you believe that "Shut up, you monkey" could somehow be misheard, then as what? "Shut up you moanie?" "Shut up Minnie"?

Like I said, there is no evidence, its one word against another, so it cant be proven and the easy way out is to say "its entirely possible"
Not "he misheard or he was mistaken", but its entirely possible

Oh and if Ramires felt that he "genuinely" misheard and that he was wrong, its up to Ramires and NOT the club to apologise. The club merely followed up Mikels complaint

To the unbiased neutral that statement does not say:

"We could not find any evidence so we will do nothing".

It says:

"We looked at the reasons Chelsea brought this allegation, and found them mistaken, so Clattenburg does not have a case to answer".

Sgt Pepper 64

bucketybuck wrote: »

To the unbiased neutral that statement does not say:

"We could not find any evidence so we will do nothing".

It says:

"We looked at the reasons Chelsea brought this allegation, and found them mistaken, so Clattenburg does not have a case to answer".

It could be interpreted any number of ways.
But until Ramires himself comes out and says "I misheard him"
I will believe my version, but I accept it is entirely possible that he said "i dont give a monkeys" although how you get from "shut up you" to "I dont give a"
is a bit of a mystery

J. Marston

he asked the city bench how they worked with Craig Bellamy all week, just before sending him off in the second half.

What's wrong with that? It's obviously a jokey remark. And what were the circumstances of Bellamy's sending off? Was it the correct decision?

Sgt Pepper 64

J. Marston wrote: »

What's wrong with that? It's obviously a jokey remark. And what were the circumstances of Bellamy's sending off? Was it the correct decision?

In December 2009, Clattenburg took charge of a tie between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City. City personnel alleged that at half-time Clattenburg asked members of their bench: "How do you work with Craig Bellamy all week?" In the second half that followed, he booked Bellamy twice, once for dissent and then for diving, although replays suggested he was actually fouled. City manager Mark Hughes later said: "I've seen Mark Clattenburg have a lot better games than he's had [here today]"[29] and described his decision to send off Bellamy as "laughable".[30]

LiamoSail

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

and in 2009, he asked the city bench how they worked with Craig Bellamy all week, just before sending him off in the second half.

Am u alone in seeing nothing wrong with this? I mean, from a refs point of view, Bellamy would be a pain in the hole. He was just making a light hearted comment during work

Sgt Pepper 64

LiamoSail wrote: »

Am u alone in seeing nothing wrong with this? I mean, from a refs point of view, Bellamy would be a pain in the hole. He was just making a light hearted comment during work

Are you alone in not realising the ref is supposed to be impatial and there he is singling out a player who he later sends off?
Good grief!

So, no truth that refs target certain players then!

J. Marston

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Are you alone in not realising the ref is supposed to be impatial and there he is singling out a player who he later sends off?
Good grief!

So, no truth that refs target certain players then!

Oh hush up. You're looking for something to be outraged about when there's nothing there.

Just heard on Talksport that Clattenburg is available for selection for all games. I'd love to see him get a Chelsea game.

Sgt Pepper 64

J. Marston wrote: »

Oh hush up. You're looking for something to be outraged about when there's nothing there.

Just heard on Talksport that Clattenburg is available for selection for all games. I'd love to see him get a Chelsea game.

I think we all would - and for enraged, you need to read back a few pages at all the anti chelsea rubbish.
We'll see just how impatial and in love with Clattenburg, when he ref's your teams game eh?

thegreengoblin

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

In December 2009, Clattenburg took charge of a tie between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City. City personnel alleged that at half-time Clattenburg asked members of their bench: "How do you work with Craig Bellamy all week?" In the second half that followed, he booked Bellamy twice, once for dissent and then for diving, although replays suggested he was actually fouled. City manager Mark Hughes later said: "I've seen Mark Clattenburg have a lot better games than he's had [here today]"[29] and described his decision to send off Bellamy as "laughable".[30]

How is any of that stuff relevant to this debate? It's just a smokescreen.

The_Kew_Tour

Media will let Chelsea off like they usually do.

Cant touch John Terry, Frankie and the boys in London.

Poor Clattenburg though. The real victim.

Sgt Pepper 64

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Media will let Chelsea off like they usually do.

Cant touch John Terry, Frankie and the boys in London.

Poor Clattenburg though. The real victim.

How can the "media" let anybody off, seeing as they have been gunning for terry, frankie and all the boys in london?
Terry was charged and sentanced by the FA.
What has Frank done in all this?
Yeah, what a victim Clattenburg is.
He's been cleared and gone back to work and had a few weeks off

Isnt it strange how they are now going to consider recording refs?

The real witch hunt has been BY the media at CHELSEA and you suck it all up.

" a real victim" what a laugh!

weldoninhio

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

So now I am lieing?
The FA actually said

"Having considered all of the available evidence it was the opinion of David Waters QC, independent counsel, that the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover it was contradicted by other witnesses and does not cross the evidential threshold required to bring a charge against Mark Clattenburg.
"Having considered Counsel's opinion, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, The FA does not believe that there is a case for Mr Clattenburg to answer.
"Equally The FA is satisfied that the allegation against Mark Clattenburg by Ramires was made in good faith. It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief.

Now, that quite clearly says "the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence"
They then say "It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief"

So that is Ramires word against Clattenburg, but they play it safe by saying "it is entirely possible".
They dont say that Ramires has admitted he was mistaken or that he could have misheard, or that he misheard because english isnt his first language"

Now, if you believe that "Shut up, you monkey" could somehow be misheard, then as what? "Shut up you moanie?" "Shut up Minnie"?

Like I said, there is no evidence, its one word against another, so it cant be proven and the easy way out is to say "its entirely possible"
Not "he misheard or he was mistaken", but its entirely possible

Oh and if Ramires felt that he "genuinely" misheard and that he was wrong, its up to Ramires and NOT the club to apologise. The club merely followed up Mikels complaint

It quite clearly says that Ramires statement was contradicted by other witnesses. So it was not just his word vs Clattenbergs.

But don't bother with the facts eh? :rolleyes:

MUSEIST

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Media will let Chelsea off like they usually do.

Cant touch John Terry, Frankie and the boys in London.

Poor Clattenburg though. The real victim.

"Media will let chelsea off", you must be fu(king joking. The complete opposite is true.

and let chelsea off for what exactly, chelsea did everything by the book in this case.

The_Kew_Tour

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

How can the "media" let anybody off, seeing as they have been gunning for terry, frankie and all the boys in london?
Terry was charged and sentanced by the FA.
What has Frank done in all this?
Yeah, what a victim Clattenburg is.
He's been cleared and gone back to work and had a few weeks off

Isnt it strange how they are now going to consider recording refs?

The real witch hunt has been BY the media at CHELSEA and you suck it all up.

" a real victim" what a laugh!

Oh so its ok to accuse somebody of racism is it? On your bike!!!

MUSEIST wrote: »

"Media will let chelsea off", you must be fu(king joking. The complete opposite is true.

and let chelsea off for what exactly, chelsea did everything by the book in this case.

Wrong. Chelsea are the most loved club by Media in London. Thats common knowledge over in England.

Fuhrer

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

How can the "media" let anybody off, seeing as they have been gunning for terry, frankie and all the boys in london?
Terry was charged and sentanced by the FA.
What has Frank done in all this?
Yeah, what a victim Clattenburg is.
He's been cleared and gone back to work and had a few weeks off

Isnt it strange how they are now going to consider recording refs?

The real witch hunt has been BY the media at CHELSEA and you suck it all up.

" a real victim" what a laugh!

A witch hunt by the media?

Really?

Given that chelsea have been proved wrong on all this issues, seems a pretty fair course of action from them.

MUSEIST

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Oh so its ok to accuse somebody of racism is it? On your bike!!!



Wrong. Chelsea are the most loved club by Media in London. Thats common knowledge over in England.

LOL, I get it, you are taking the piss. Fair enough.

MUSEIST

Fuhrer wrote: »

A witch hunt by the media?

Really?

Given that chelsea have been proved wrong on all this issues, seems a pretty fair course of action from them.

Incorrect.

The_Kew_Tour

MUSEIST wrote: »

LOL, I get it, you are taking the piss. Fair enough.

Nah. The proof is in the pudding. Chelsea have got away with so much down the years. But believe what you want to make you feel better.

Sgt Pepper 64

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Oh so its ok to accuse somebody of racism is it? On your bike!!!



Wrong. Chelsea are the most loved club by Media in London. Thats common knowledge over in England.

I wouldnt normally bite, but I bet when you heard Terry was accused of racism, I bet you instantly believed it long.
And yes, as the FA confirmed, it was right and proper to bring the complaint.
Or do you think theres one rule for players, particualry chelsea players and another for the blameless squeaky clean officials?

Why dont you just admit, you are a chelsea hater?
I bet you wouldnt give a toss if it was any other club involved

MUSEIST

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Nah. The proof is in the pudding. Chelsea have got away with so much down the years. But believe what you want to make you feel better.

Ok. Sure, good man;)

The_Kew_Tour

MUSEIST wrote: »

Ok. Sure, good man;)

Hit a nerve;)

The_Kew_Tour

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I wouldnt normally bite, but I bet when you heard Terry was accused of racism, I bet you instantly believed it long.
And yes, as the FA confirmed, it was right and proper to bring the complaint.
Or do you think theres one rule for players, particualry chelsea players and another for the blameless squeaky clean officials?

Why dont you just admit, you are a chelsea hater?
I bet you wouldnt give a toss if it was any other club involved

Believed it????

Ah well the world saw it.

Bit of difference.

Give toss if it was another club? The irony in that eh?;)

thegreengoblin

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Media will let Chelsea off like they usually do.

Cant touch John Terry, Frankie and the boys in London.

Poor Clattenburg though. The real victim.

Not this time. I've seen a couple of back pages and it's strong stuff and rightly so. TBH, anyone defending Chelsea in all of this is talking through their arse.

MUSEIST

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Not this time. I've seen a couple of back pages and it's strong stuff and rightly so. TBH, anyone defending Chelsea in all of this is talking through their arse.

So you are saying chelsea should not have reported to the fa that one of their players claimed to hear racist abuse. Thats a dubious position to have.