Clattenburg cleared by FA

The_Kew_Tour

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.

Well I hope you are right.

They have got away with so much in past.

To try ruin a mans career and reputation is just not acceptable.

bucketybuck

MUSEIST wrote: »

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.

If the alleged abuse was so easily contradicted by the witnesses at the scene, as per the FA statement, then I would suggest that Chelsea should not have ran bleating to the press immediately after the game screaming racist abuse.

Perhaps if they had considered their options and gathered all the facts they wouldn't have made such arses of themselves again.

Sgt Pepper 64

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well I hope you are right.

They have got away with so much in past.

To try ruin a mans career and reputation is just not acceptable.

Are you just in wind up mode or do you honestly believe that Chelsea DIDNT have a duty to report the comment, and that they honestly thought "we lost the match, now lets make up some spurious racial comment and ruin the mans career, even though we are likely to be castrated for it!"
Seriously?

This is pretty good comment

Today has been a busy day in the office for Chelsea Football Club. On the one hand, Rafael Benitez has been confirmed as the new interim manager of the club after the sudden (yet completely unsurprising) departure of Roberto Di Matteo, whose luck ran out following Tuesday nights thrashing at the hands of Juventus in Turin, but the bigger headlines in tomorrow mornings newspapers are likely to be made by the Football Associations announcement that no further action will be taken over the incident involving referee Mark Clattenburg after the clubs Premier League match against Manchester United last month.
If the appointment of Benitez had become little more than an open secret within hours of Di Matteos departure from Stamford Bridge, there had also been an air of open secret concerning the Clattenburg incident. Although the hunch was not based upon anything particularly solid, there were few who believed that anything would come from the allegations made by the club. From the outlet, it seemed scarcely credible that a Premier League referee would have made the comments against Mikel John Obi that Clattenburg was alleged to have made. Such were the nature of the seriousness of the allegations, however, that the Football Association had to investigate, and the sort of delays that come with this have a tendency to allow rumour, conspiracy and innuendo to fester.
There are criticisms of the way in which Chelsea acted over this which do deserve to be heard out. While a story of this nature was always going to attract massive interest in the press, the haste with which the club seemed to push the story into the public domain allowed the viewpoint to form that they were doing so in order to pursue some sort of agenda. With the benefit of hindsight, we could consider that it might have been wiser for the club to act with a little more circumspection, to understand the seriousness of the allegations that were being made and to pass the details of the allegations to the Football Association in confidence. Such a scenario surely shouldn’t be unthinkable, after all. The clubs case seemed further undermined by the way in which the precise allegations being made seemed to have so little consistency about them, and in some respects it could be argued that the decisions taken by both the police and the Football Association that there wasn’t too much of a case to answer in this case is something of an embarrassment for the club.
The case for an apology, then, might appear strong. It seems unlikely that this story will be completely forgotten quickly and Mark Clattenburg, an innocent party in all of this, will have to deal with whatever the ongoing fallout from it turns out to be. There will, undoubtedly, be a tiny minority who are insistent enough to believe that the allegations were true enough to keep repeating them, and there will likely be a larger number who will consider repeating them to be an acceptable form of gamesmanship in the ongoing battle between referees and, it frequently seems, the entire rest of the game to try and get some sort of influence over their decisions in the future. For better or for worse, the Premier Leagues referees list will quite possibly be distorted by Clattenburg not officiating at Stamford Bridge for some time to come, and conspiracy theorists will interpret that as they wish.
Having said all of that, however, there is a case for saying that the incident should now be set to one side. The FA has already stated that Ramires had made the claims in good faith and Chelsea believed they had a duty of care to the player to take such allegations seriously. And this, of course, is absolutely true. As employers, the club had little option but to report the incident to the FA – what, we might wonder, have been the reaction of Ramires and/or Mikel been had they not done so? – and if those looking in from the outside are content enough to accept the verdict of FA investigations on other subjects, then the assumption can only be that they have acted correctly in this case as well. There is an increasing tendency on the part of football supporters these days to allow their partisanship to cloud every element of the way that they think about football these days. A little even-handedness, however, is the only way that the game in England can drag itself from the sorry mess of accusation and counter-accusation that has made for such a galling spectacle over the last thirteen months or so.
So, should Chelsea apologise to Mark Clattenburg? Well, yes and no. In the sense that the club had little choice but to put forward its allegations, then clearly not. However, it would be nice if, just for once, a football club actually took an admirable and honorable stance over a situation such as this rather than one which said just enough to cover its own backside for legal reasons. If Chelsea were to issue a statement which acknowledged the distress that this incident has caused the referee, explained coolly that it was left with no option but to take the action that it did and stated that it comprehensively and vehemently disagrees with all of those that choose to see conspiracy in Premier League refereeing where none exists, it would earn deserved commendation from many quarters. We will have to wait and see whether this happens, but – and this is not a reflection on Chelsea Football Club itself, rather it is a reflection on the extent to which no football club seems able to see beyond the end of its own nose these days – there is little to suggest that any such statement will be forthcoming.

MUSEIST

bucketybuck wrote: »

If the alleged abuse was so easily contradicted by the witnesses at the scene, as per the FA statement, then I would suggest that Chelsea should not have ran bleating to the press immediately after the game screaming racist abuse.

Perhaps if they had considered their options and gathered all the facts they wouldn't have made such arses of themselves again.

They hired an independant law firm to investigate the evidence to insure their case was not frivilous. They were certainly thorough and thoughtful about making such calims. Even the Fa have said that chelsea acted correctly and that ramires made his claim in good faith.

The_Kew_Tour

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Are you just in wind up mode or do you honestly believe that Chelsea DIDNT have a duty to report the comment, and that they honestly thought "we lost the match, now lets make up some spurious racial comment and ruin the mans career, even though we are likely to be castrated for it!"
Seriously?

Wind up? Jesus cant take some basic facts and common knowledge. That is then your problem.

Drumpot

bucketybuck wrote: »

If the alleged abuse was so easily contradicted by the witnesses at the scene, as per the FA statement, then I would suggest that Chelsea should not have ran bleating to the press immediately after the game screaming racist abuse.

Perhaps if they had considered their options and gathered all the facts they wouldn't have made such arses of themselves again.

This is the biggest issue I would have with Chelsea and as a cynic I think they might of jumped the gun on this to take the focus off the poor actions of their players. What would also be of concern is the fact that they have thrown out accusations against Clattenberg (not sure if directly or indirectly) that he said that Terry deserved to be thought a lesson (or something on those lines) in a game with the intention of suggesting that the referee intends on giving poor decisions against them before a game starts.

Did chelsea have to go public with their report ?

Was there anything stopping them submit a report to the FA after conducting their own investigation ? (even let the dust settle and make sure the players want to make the complaint)...

At best, I think they handled this poorly, but it isnt the first time . .

Wonder if Rafa will write a letter of fachts (that arent really facts) against Clattenberg . .

Mr.Nice Guy

I never believed believed this allegation to have been true. The whole thing seemed very dodgy and I think Clattenburg was treated terribly by the whole affair. Chelsea should never have gone public with this.

weldoninhio

MUSEIST wrote: »

They hired an independant law firm to investigate the evidence to insure their case was not frivilous. They were certainly thorough and thoughtful about making such calims. Even the Fa have said that chelsea acted correctly and that ramires made his claim in good faith.

Must have been Clattenburg that ran to the press with the allegations then, eh?? :rolleyes:

Mr.Nice Guy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I never believed believed this allegation to have been true.

I doubt anyone did, some may have hoped though. :pac:

Did anyone see the guy from the Society of Black Lawyers on SSN there? I've seen darker-skinned Nazis.

thegreengoblin

MUSEIST wrote: »

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.

Let's call a spade a spade here. If Chelsea had won that game against United they wouldn't have reported Clattenburg. They needed a scapegoat and he was it. He was never even close to being actually charged with anything. The fact that Chelsea haven't had the basic decency to apologise to the man for wrongly besmirching his good name is disgusting.

The_Kew_Tour

Deleted User wrote: »

some may have hoped though. :pac:

That's the sad part.

Sgt Pepper 64

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Wind up? Jesus cant take some basic facts and common knowledge. That is then your problem.

Oh so you are then!
Cos otherwise you wouldnt be ignoring the facts or the FA statement that said that Chelsea were right to report it, which isnt quite the same as "To try ruin a mans career and reputation is just not acceptable." now is it?

But as I said, it doesnt take a genuis to work out just how much you hate Chelsea or how biased you are towards the club with statements like
"They have got away with so much in past."

Enjoy the rest of the evening and I look forward to reading your comments in the match thread come sunday

MUSEIST

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade here. If Chelsea had won that game against United they wouldn't have reported Clattenburg. They needed a scapegoat and he was it. He was never even close to being actually charged with anything. The fact that Chelsea haven't had the basic decency to apologise to the man for wrongly besmirching his good name is disgusting.

The fa describe the complaint to have been made in good faith. That means that a player genuinely believed a racist slur had been made (possibly/probably misheard due to lack of english). Are you honestly telling me that chelsea should have ignored that. Imagine the up roar if it later came out that chelsea failed to report that one of their players heard a racial slur and chelsea decided not to report is.

Sgt Pepper 64

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade here. If Chelsea had won that game against United they wouldn't have reported Clattenburg. They needed a scapegoat and he was it. He was never even close to being actually charged with anything. The fact that Chelsea haven't had the basic decency to apologise to the man for wrongly besmirching his good name is disgusting.

OMG, i think you actually believe this ill informed and quite frankly deluded drival!

weldoninhio

MUSEIST wrote: »

The fa describe the complaint to have been made in good faith. That means that a player genuinely believed a racist slur had been made (possibly/probably misheard due to lack of english). Are you honestly telling me that chelsea should have ignored that. Imagine the up roar if it later came out that chelsea failed to report that one of their players heard a racial slur and chelsea decided not to report is.

No-one at all has said that Chelsea should not have reported it. What they should not have done is barged the referees room after full time and leaked the accusation to the newspapers. It was this action that caused the innocent referees name to be dragged through the mud for the past 3/4 weeks. If you can't see that this was wrong then here is no point debating here because you can't see the real world through your blue-tinted glasses.

The_Kew_Tour

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But as I said, it doesnt take a genuis to work out just how much you hate Chelsea or how biased you are towards the club with statements like
"They have got away with so much in past."
/QUOTE]

Do you want me to go over them with you. I be more then happy to?

Once it did not derail the thread after for everyone else?

bucketybuck

MUSEIST wrote: »

They hired an independant law firm to investigate the evidence to insure their case was not frivilous. They were certainly thorough and thoughtful about making such calims. Even the Fa have said that chelsea acted correctly and that ramires made his claim in good faith.

They were so thorough they didn't realise that the witness statements contradicted the claims of racist abuse, as per the FA statement?

By the way, I wouldnt cling too hard to the FA line about accepting Chelsea acted in good faith. Thats just the FA pre-emptively ensuring that they don't face a barrage of people demanding they charge Chelsea FC with misconduct. Thats obvious to anybody.

Instead they can hope this all goes away now.

Sgt Pepper 64

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But as I said, it doesnt take a genuis to work out just how much you hate Chelsea or how biased you are towards the club with statements like
"They have got away with so much in past."
/QUOTE]

Do you want me to go over them with you. I be more then happy to?

Once it did not derail the thread after for everyone else?

Yes please. Could you do me an essay in 500 words entitled
"Why I feel such irrational hatred for a club I have no connection too, is in a completely different country and is completely outside my everyday reality?"

Have on my desk for Monday, theres a good boy

Mr.Nice Guy

MUSEIST wrote:

The fa describe the complaint to have been made in good faith. That means that a player genuinely believed a racist slur had been made (possibly/probably misheard due to lack of english).

It doesn't necessarily mean that. It means that the investigator who spoke to the player was told by the player that the complaint was being made honestly and in good faith, and that the investigator decided to believe him.

It can't actually be proven if the complaint was made in good faith. The investigator has given the player the benefit of the doubt - which would be the easy thing to do when you think about it - but one shouldn't automatically assume that this was some unfortunate misunderstanding.

I think a lot of people are choosing to believe this to try and move on from the episode, but it all seems rather unpleasant.

Red Crow

Mikel being charged is a good thing for Chelsea as he is a completely average midfielder.

MUSEIST

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It doesn't necessarily mean that. It means that the investigator who spoke to the player was told by the player that the complaint was being made honestly and in good faith, and that the investigator decided to believe him.

It can't actually be proven if the complaint was made in good faith. The investigator has given the player the benefit of the doubt - which would be the easy thing to do when you think about it - but one shouldn't automatically assume that this was some unfortunate misunderstanding.

I think a lot of people are choosing to believe this to try and move on from the episode, but it all seems rather unpleasant.

So we should CHOOSE to believe that he's lying because it suits our cynical viewpoint.

The_Kew_Tour

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I think a lot of people are choosing to believe this to try and move on from the episode, but it all seems rather unpleasant.

and that's why this whole thing is bad taste.

Chelsea players going be treated much different now to the way Clettenburg would of if he had been found guilty.

jonnyfingers

As bad as the fact is that Chelsea's only evidence was something only Ramires heard, which no other players close to the referee heard, and that Ramires wasn't even sure at what point hr heard the remark......the real issue here is that someone within Chelsea leaked the story that Clattenburg had been accused to the media with 45 mins of the game ending.

This shows that a fair investigation was not the priority for someone.

Also the complaint was made to the police, wasn't it? With that flimsy evidence?? Ridiculous.

The worst thing is that when Terry was accused he was free to play for nearly a year, in the PL, CL and the Euros. Even when charged he only got a 4 match ban.

When Clattenburg was accused he was immediately prevented from reffing a game and will miss at least 3 games, and was forbidden from telling his side of the story, all while having "no case to answer" when it comes to the accusation. This is terribly unfair on the guy.

I agree that Chelsea had a duty of care to take Ramires' accusation seriously. But on the evidence they had they should never have involved the police, and leaking it to the media is disgraceful.

Clattenburg is owed an apology fot that if nothing else

MUSEIST

jonnyfingers wrote: »

As bad as the fact is that Chelsea's only evidence was something only Ramires heard, which no other players close to the referee heard, and that Ramires wasn't even sure at what point hr heard the remark......the real issue here is that someone within Chelsea leaked the story that Clattenburg had been accused to the media with 45 mins of the game ending.

This shows that a fair investigation was not the priority for someone.

Also the complaint was made to the police, wasn't it? With that flimsy evidence?? Ridiculous.

The worst thing is that when Terry was accused he was free to play for nearly a year, in the PL, CL and the Euros. Even when charged he only got a 4 match ban.

When Clattenburg was accused he was immediately prevented from reffing a game and will miss at least 3 games, and was forbidden from telling his side of the story, all while having "no case to answer" when it comes to the accusation. This is terribly unfair on the guy.

I agree that Chelsea had a duty of care to take Ramires' accusation seriously. But on the evidence they had they should never have involved the police, and leaking it to the media is disgraceful.

Clattenburg is owed an apology fot that if nothing else

chelsea did not involve the poloce.

jonnyfingers

MUSEIST wrote: »

chelsea did not involve the poloce.

Yes, just realised they involved a QC, so I will retract that.

My other points are still valid I feel.

Mr.Nice Guy

MUSEIST wrote: »

So we should CHOOSE to believe that he's lying because it suits our cynical viewpoint.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying we can't know if he's lying or not. That's the point. So when you say 'a player genuinely believed a racist slur had been made', well we don't know that for sure so why believe it for sure?

The bad tempered match, and the fact the allegations were leaked to the media so quickly, brings an element of cynicism into this.

Al Capwned

Should Chelsea have reported it? I would say yes?

Should it have gone public? No.

Should Mark Clattenberg receive an apology? Yes...

pistolpetes11

alproctor wrote: »

Should Chelsea have reported it? I would say yes?

Should it have gone public? No.

Should Mark Clattenberg receive an apology? Yes...

I may be wrong on this but I remember a couple of journalists on twitter the next day saying that were all sat near the tunnel rite beside the refs room and heard all the commotion going on so the story was going to break one way or the other.


"Following the angry scenes in the referee’s room, witnessed by Clattenburg’s assistants Michael McDonough and Simon Long, Chelsea discussed the incident at length. Mikel was taken away from the corridor that leads to the tunnel so the media, separated from the dressing-room areas by the width of a wall, could not hear what was said."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2225063/Mark-Clattenburg-John-Obi-Mikel-racism-row-latest-How-erupted.html#ixzz2D01GAu8Z
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

kippy

jonnyfingers wrote: »

The worst thing is that when Terry was accused he was free to play for nearly a year, in the PL, CL and the Euros. Even when charged he only got a 4 match ban.

When Clattenburg was accused he was immediately prevented from reffing a game and will miss at least 3 games, and was forbidden from telling his side of the story, all while having "no case to answer" when it comes to the accusation. This is terribly unfair on the guy.

This is my opinion has hit the nail on the head.
One rule for the multimillionaire footballer (english lion etc etc) one for the referee.
Who lost out more?

MUSEIST

kippy wrote: »

This is my opinion has hit the nail on the head.
One rule for the multimillionaire footballer (english lion etc etc) one for the referee.
Who lost out more?

In this case terry obviously.

geeky

The same people slating Chelsea for acting on this are the same people who'd be slating the club if they hadn't done anything.

Chelsea, like many clubs, just can't win with some people.

kippy

MUSEIST wrote: »

In this case terry obviously.

How do you figure that?

geeky

Worth noting the FA's statement on the matter, for those who thing Chelsea shouldn't have done anything.

"Furthermore, all Participants are advised to report any such alleged misconduct to The FA. In this case, the player and club were correct in reporting the matter to The FA and it was appropriate and proper for such an allegation to be thoroughly investigated."

Full version here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/22/mark-clattenburg-fa-statement-chelsea

TheDoc

So the laughing stock of Europe gives us one more big laugh,

I'd saw Clattenburg will just get on with it, and as much as people may dislike his ability as a ref, I'd the utmost sympathy for him the last few weeks. Like the amount of ****e spun from the media coined as exclusives that basically outlined what he "said".

While I get that he will plough on and might take no action against Chelsea, would love to see him pursure legal action against the rags for defamation, alot of them ran some seirously stupid headlines and articles claiming exclusives from "match day sources" who "confirmed what he said" and all that bollox.

thegreengoblin

If something like this happens in every day life, people can often be accused of wasting police time. What's the difference here? There wasn't a shred of evidence to damn Clattenburg, the cops washed their hands of this pretty quickly. With every passing minute that Chelsea don't apologise to him, the more their already rotten reputation sinks into the slime.

geeky

thegreengoblin wrote: »

If something like this happens in every day life, people can often be accused of wasting police time. What's the difference here?

*bashes head against wall*

There was a complaint made by a player in good faith. The FA have specifically stated this. The FA have further stated that both Ramires and Chelsea acted correctly in acting on the complaint. Oh, and they didn't go to the police - they went to the FA. This stuff has all been covered earlier in the thread.

Is that difference enough?

thegreengoblin

geeky wrote: »

*bashes head against wall*

There was a complaint made by a player in good faith. The FA have specifically stated this. The FA have further stated that both Ramires and Chelsea acted correctly in acting on the complaint. Oh, and they didn't go to the police - they went to the FA. This stuff has all been covered earlier in the thread.

Is that difference enough?

The FA stated the complaint was made in good faith but at the end of the day...so what? The complaint was based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In other words, Chelsea acted too quickly without having the cop on to cross check with other potential witnesses and at least try to get their makey-up complaint to stand on its own legs. In other words, they made a complete balls-up of their complaint.

As soon as the complaint was made it was clear that the whole thing was a charade and a waste of time, and that has now been proven.

geeky

thegreengoblin wrote: »

The FA stated the complaint was made in good faith but at the end of the day...so what?

So what? So they followed correct procedures, as the FA have specifically stated.

They had evidence - the testimony of one of their employees, who was convinced of what he had heard. They went to great lengths investigating the issue themselves, and cooperated fully with the FA after passing on the complaint. Indeed, the evidence they gathered contributed to clearing this matter up. You seem to think they should be punished for relaying a complaint by their employee through the proper channels.

Some people want to paint this as an act of vindictiveness by Chelsea or sour grapes. But anyone who thinks they shouldn't have acted on an allegation of racial abuse is either disingenuous or, frankly, daft.

jonnyfingers

geeky wrote: »

So what? So they followed correct procedures, as the FA have specifically stated.

They had evidence - the testimony of one of their employees, who was convinced of what he had heard. They went to great lengths investigating the issue themselves, and cooperated fully with the FA after passing on the complaint. Indeed, the evidence they gathered contributed to clearing this matter up. You seem to think they should be punished for relaying a complaint by their employee through the proper channels.

Some people want to paint this as an act of vindictiveness by Chelsea or sour grapes. But anyone who thinks they shouldn't have acted on an allegation of racial abuse is either disingenuous or, frankly, daft.

Your points are valid. However it's the way they acted on the allegation that is the problem.

If they did investigate "to great lengths" as you said they would have found that a single player, Ramires, heard something he took to be racial abuse. Players that were close to the ref, including Mikel (who the remark was apparently aimed at) and Cole, did not hear a thing, immediately casting doubt on Ramires's claim. Backing that up is that Ramires can't remember when exactly he heard the alleged comment. If I was investigating this I would conclude that Ramires is genuine in what he believes he heard but most likely misheard something, based on the evidence. Because of that I wouldn't discount his claim as he feels it's valid, but I would deliberate very carefully about making an official complaint. I'm sure the Chelsea investigation found similar.

This is where some common sense should come in. In today's modern age of instant information Chelsea should have known that any claim made against Clattenburg would come out in the press. Based on the evidence they had to them they should have carefully considered going ahead with that claim, knowing the consequences of it on Clattenburg, and Chelsea's, reputation, if Clattenburg is found to not be at fault. Yes they had every right to make a complaint to the FA but in this case, based on the evidence, I think it was unwise. And it seems this decision was made very quickly, further casting doubt on their "full investigation".

Now Chelsea may well have decided to make a complaint in good faith, as is their right to do so as set out by the FA procedures, but it should have never come out in public before any FA investigation could take place. This is the real issue. Allowing the media to find out, however that happened, is the real crime, especially considering the flimsy evidence. Equal care should have been given to keep this matter private between only the parties involved and the FA.

This is where Chelsea are at fault and I think someone needs to own up to it. Someone mentioned earlier that the media overheard a conversation so Chelsea are not at fault for the leak, well that conversation should never have taken place within earshot of the media.

Regardless of how it happened, the allegation against Clattenburg became public knowledge before any of the evidence did and, even though he has been cleared of any wrong doing, his reputation and his livelihood has been adversely affected through no fault of his own. For this Chelsea owe him an apology.

Al Capwned

jonnyfingers wrote: »

<snip>

Regardless of how it happened, the allegation against Clattenburg became public knowledge before any of the evidence did and, even though he has been cleared of any wrong doing, his reputation and his livelihood has been adversely affected through no fault of his own. For this Chelsea owe him an apology.

This bit..... In a nutshell, is exactly spot on.

The_Kew_Tour

TheDoc wrote: »

So the laughing stock of Europe gives us one more big laugh,

I'd saw Clattenburg will just get on with it, and as much as people may dislike his ability as a ref, I'd the utmost sympathy for him the last few weeks. Like the amount of ****e spun from the media coined as exclusives that basically outlined what he "said".

While I get that he will plough on and might take no action against Chelsea, would love to see him pursure legal action against the rags for defamation, alot of them ran some seirously stupid headlines and articles claiming exclusives from "match day sources" who "confirmed what he said" and all that bollox.

Careful now.

Most Chelsea fans think media is out to get them;)

Sgt Pepper 64

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Your points are valid. However it's the way they acted on the allegation that is the problem.

If they did investigate "to great lengths" as you said they would have found that a single player, Ramires, heard something he took to be racial abuse. Players that were close to the ref, including Mikel (who the remark was apparently aimed at) and Cole, did not hear a thing, immediately casting doubt on Ramires's claim. Backing that up is that Ramires can't remember when exactly he heard the alleged comment. If I was investigating this I would conclude that Ramires is genuine in what he believes he heard but most likely misheard something, based on the evidence. Because of that I wouldn't discount his claim as he feels it's valid, but I would deliberate very carefully about making an official complaint. I'm sure the Chelsea investigation found similar.

This is where some common sense should come in. In today's modern age of instant information Chelsea should have known that any claim made against Clattenburg would come out in the press. Based on the evidence they had to them they should have carefully considered going ahead with that claim, knowing the consequences of it on Clattenburg, and Chelsea's, reputation, if Clattenburg is found to not be at fault. Yes they had every right to make a complaint to the FA but in this case, based on the evidence, I think it was unwise. And it seems this decision was made very quickly, further casting doubt on their "full investigation".

Now Chelsea may well have decided to make a complaint in good faith, as is their right to do so as set out by the FA procedures, but it should have never come out in public before any FA investigation could take place. This is the real issue. Allowing the media to find out, however that happened, is the real crime, especially considering the flimsy evidence. Equal care should have been given to keep this matter private between only the parties involved and the FA.

This is where Chelsea are at fault and I think someone needs to own up to it. Someone mentioned earlier that the media overheard a conversation so Chelsea are not at fault for the leak, well that conversation should never have taken place within earshot of the media.

Regardless of how it happened, the allegation against Clattenburg became public knowledge before any of the evidence did and, even though he has been cleared of any wrong doing, his reputation and his livelihood has been adversely affected through no fault of his own. For this Chelsea owe him an apology.

Do you really think that the media wouldnt have found out, and found out quickly?
And once Chelsea had made the complaint, the FA had to suspend him. How could they have kept that quiet?

As has been oft stated. Chelsea knew it was a **** storm in the making and made sure there was grounds before complaining, but they simply had to follow through with it for the players sake.
Yes there are certain aspects they could and should have handled better, and an apology should be coming from the player (although he may still feel he is sure that is what he has heard and that is why he hasnt)

For all that, it would have been impossible to keep it under wraps for very long and to think otherwise is to be very naive.

jonnyfingers

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Do you really think that the media wouldnt have found out, and found out quickly?
And once Chelsea had made the complaint, the FA had to suspend him. How could they have kept that quiet?

As has been oft stated. Chelsea knew it was a **** storm in the making and made sure there was grounds before complaining, but they simply had to follow through with it for the players sake.
Yes there are certain aspects they could and should have handled better, and an apology should be coming from the player (although he may still feel he is sure that is what he has heard and that is why he hasnt)

For all that, it would have been impossible to keep it under wraps for very long and to think otherwise is to be very naive.

You've basically backed up my point. This was always going to come out in the press and be a **** storm as you put it. You know it, I know it and you can be sure Chelsea knew it. You would think, based on the very poor evidence, they would have felt there was very little chance that Ramires' version of events was what actually what happened. As I already said I have nothing against him as I'm sure he thought he heard something. The club also feel this way, I'm sure, and they have every right to stand by their player.

But Chelsea had a choice to make, go forward with an official complaint that had very little chance of being upheld, which was going to come out in the press and have a serious effect on Mark Clattenburg's career and reputation. Or they could have decided the evidence shows that Ramires most likely misheard something, give Clattenburg a chance to clear up any confusion, and nipped everything in the bud.

The fact they went ahead with the complaint means they obviously decided it was important enough to risk affecting Clattenburg's career and reputation. Now that we see how poor the evidence was, and the FA has found he has no case to answer for, this was a misguided decision by Chelsea in my opinion and he deserves an apology at least.

Also I'd like to say I'd feel the same if it was any club or referee or player involved. A reputation is something that takes years to build up but can be ripped down in a second by a false accusation.

bucketybuck

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Also I'd like to say I'd feel the same if it was any club or referee or player involved. A reputation is something that takes years to build up but can be ripped down in a second by a false accusation.

Oh, but its ok, for Clattenburg is hardly innocent now is he!!! He had some poor refereeing performances, so he probably deserved all this. :pac::pac::pac:

Thats chelsea logic for you.

The_Kew_Tour

bucketybuck wrote: »

Oh, but its ok, for Clattenburg is hardly innocent now is he!!! He had some poor refereeing performances, so he probably deserved all this. :pac::pac::pac:

Thats chelsea logic for you.

Its sad to read that its laughable to think that Clattenburg is the victim here.

Sgt Pepper 64

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Its sad to read that its laughable to think that Clattenburg is the victim here.

He's not a victim. Very few people actually believed this he was guilty, in fact no one really apart from Ramires. Now he has been vindicated.
Hopefully the FA will learn from this and review their procedures.
Chelsea should also learn to be a lot smarter PR wise

jonnyfingers

And it's worth bearing in mind that this is completely separate to his refereeing performance. He can be freely judged on that as the evidence is plain to see.

But I really hope everyone can move on from this.

Mr.Micro

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

He's not a victim. Very few people actually believed this he was guilty, in fact no one really apart from Ramires. Now he has been vindicated.
Hopefully the FA will learn from this and review their procedures.
Chelsea should also learn to be a lot smarter PR wise

Indeed the whole issue has clouded how bad he refereed the match. A bit of retraining might not go amiss, as well as going to specsavers, with his other on the day officials.:D

davyjose

I'd say it's in Chelsea's best interest to apologise tbh. I'm not saying that refs would blatantly call anything against them, but they certainly won't be getting any favours of the referees for the forseeable. Those 50/50 decisions can have a big impact on a season.

Mr.Micro

davyjose wrote: »

I'd say it's in Chelsea's best interest to apologise tbh. I'm not saying that refs would blatantly call anything against them, but they certainly won't be getting any favours of the referees for the forseeable. Those 50/50 decisions can have a big impact on a season.

True, but in fairness they are supposed to be above all that, and nobody wants to see bias, how ever slight towards any team, a big club or a small club. Chelsea need to be big enough now to say that they made a mistake in pursuing a virtually unprovable allegation, even if Chelsea assumes the moral high ground.