Chelsea Fans Stop A Black Man Boarding A Train In Paris (Read Mod Note in OP)

DVDM93

efb wrote: »

You know they had tickets to the match?

No, he doesn't. But common sense would tell you that they were over there for the game. They hardly spent a few hundred quid between getting to and from Paris to racially abuse a man off a train. It's alright to be wrong sometimes you know?

How do I know they spent a few hundred quid?

Giggsy11

efb wrote: »

So you acknowledge they are not part of Chelsea Club then?

And I'm out..

efb

DVDM93 wrote: »

No, he doesn't. But common sense would tell you that they were over there for the game. They hardly spent a few hundred quid between getting to and from Paris to racially abuse a man off a train. It's alright to be wrong sometimes you know?

How do I know they spent a few hundred quid?

They could have gone to Paris to congregate with like minded idiots using the match as a cover

efb

Giggsy11 wrote: »

And I'm out..

Good bye

Mickeroo

efb wrote: »

Hope can you be rascist and support a team with players of different races?

Since when did logic ever apply to the mindset of a football fan when it comes to their chosen team? They get a free pass because they play for their team, it's really that simple.

efb

Mickeroo wrote: »

Since when did logic ever apply to the mindset of a football fan when it comes to their chosen team? They get a free pass because they play for their team, it's really that simple.

So they don't really support the team then

KingdomYid

Giggsy11 wrote: »

And I'm out..

I am with you man, is like banging your head off a brick wall.

efb

Reminds me of that Harry Enfield sketch

ArmaniJeanss

efb wrote: »

How can you be rascist and support a team with players of different races?

I assume the mentality of racism would mean that you'd consider it ok to allow the big strong athletic racially inferior black man to 'work' for you. But you'd baulk at him wanting to date your daughter, be educated with you, share your bus, have the vote etc.

DVDM93

efb wrote: »

They could have gone to Paris to congregate with like minded idiots using the match as a cover

So they book flights, hotel and other expenses to go over to racially abuse a man off a train, but weren't at the match?Is that what you're saying and genuinely believe?

efb

KingdomYid wrote: »

I am with you man, is like banging your head off a brick wall.

Don't do that - you might hurt yourself

efb

DVDM93 wrote: »

So they book flights, hotel and other expenses to go over to racially abuse a man off a train, but weren't at the match?Is that what you're saying and genuinely believe?

Im saying there is no evidence of them being at a football match

ronjo

Not my place to say it I grant but this thread is going around and around and absolutely nowhere at this stage.

DVDM93

efb wrote: »

Im saying there is no evidence of them being at a football match

No, there isn't. But as I said common sense would tell you that they were. Are you that naive or just stubborn? Whether you like it or not they were over they're representing Chelsea as their football fans. Not in a way Chelsea as a club obviously want or the likes of Zola want. But at the end of the day any action taken towards them now or in future doesn't take away from the fact that there were a group of idiots over in Paris Tuesday night to support Chelsea and they racially abused a man off a train. They are Chelsea supporters, not a separate group altogether. You can support a club and be a racist at the same time you know?

efb

DVDM93 wrote: »

No, there isn't. But as I said common sense would tell you that they were. Are you that naive or just stubborn? Whether you like it or not they were over they're representing Chelsea as their football fans. Not in a way Chelsea as a club obviously want or the likes of Zola want. But at the end of the day any action taken towards them now or in future doesn't take away from the fact that there were a group of idiots over in Paris Tuesday night to support Chelsea and they racially abused a man off a train. They are Chelsea supporters, not a separate group altogether. You can support a club and be a racist at the same time you know?

But Zola et al has disowned them as real fans- I agree- they are not real fans

grumpymunster

Chelsea are the only football club worldwide to support the right to play campaign and received special dispensation from UEFA to wear the right to play logo on their Champions League shirts. There is no doubt that Chelsea are not a club that condones racist actions as has also been seen by the prompt response to the video going on line.

It is quite amazing though that no one on here other than Chelsea fans condemned Chelsea travelling disabled fans getting pelted with missiles inside the ground at the CL match last year. Had that been the other way around the usual would have been on here pontificating what a classless and bigoted club we are. It seems Chelsea can be sinned against and that is OK, is that not bigoted?

Like every club in the world I would hazard a guess not all of our supporters are of exemplary behaviour but the vast majority are decent. All the club and decent supporters can do is condemn the actions which all have done. That is not good seen to be good enough for some of the pontificating masses on here well then I believe that is their problem, the obvious hatred of Chelsea clouds the vision. Is there any real difference between this and the bigoted behaviour of those on the train, not really for me.

peteeeed

DVDM93 wrote: »

No, there isn't. But as I said common sense would tell you that they were. Are you that naive or just stubborn? Whether you like it or not they were over they're representing Chelsea as their football fans. Not in a way Chelsea as a club obviously want or the likes of Zola want. But at the end of the day any action taken towards them now or in future doesn't take away from the fact that there were a group of idiots over in Paris Tuesday night to support Chelsea and they racially abused a man off a train. They are Chelsea supporters, not a separate group altogether. You can support a club and be a racist at the same time you know?

very true , but every english club has an element when playing away in europe, liverpool as a club did not want their fans going on the rampage in heysel , chelsea do not want this, name , shame, ban , prosecute

Pro. F

efb wrote: »

But Zola et al has disowned them as real fans- I agree- they are not real fans

What are your definitions of real fans and non-real fans?

ronjo

grumpymunster wrote: »

Chelsea are the only football club worldwide to support the right to play campaign and received special dispensation from UEFA to wear the right to play logo on their Champions League shirts. There is no doubt that Chelsea are not a club that condones racist actions as has also been seen by the prompt response to the video going on line.

It is quite amazing though that no one on here other than Chelsea fans condemned Chelsea travelling disabled fans getting pelted with missiles inside the ground at the CL match last year. Had that been the other way around the usual would have been on here pontificating what a classless and bigoted club we are. It seems Chelsea can be sinned against and that is OK, is that not bigoted?

Like every club in the world I would hazard a guess not all of our supporters are of exemplary behaviour but the vast majority are decent. All the club and decent supporters can do is condemn the actions which all have done. That is not good seen to be good enough for some of the pontificating masses on here well then I believe that is their problem, the obvious hatred of Chelsea clouds the vision. Is there any real difference between this and the bigoted behaviour of those on the train, not really for me.

Wow, sticking your neck out there :pac:

efb

Pro. F wrote: »

What are your definitions of real fans and non-real fans?

For starters real fans wouldn't bring the clubs name into disrepute or use it to promote illegal behaviours

DVDM93

efb wrote: »

But Zola et al has disowned them as real fans- I agree- they are not real fans

But on Tuesday night they were over in Paris repfesenting Chelsea Football Club supporters. This was before Zola banished them as "real fans".

They support and follow Chelsea whether you like it or not. Just not in the way Chelsea fans should and the majority do like our very own Gavin, the King of Red.

I see the "other people who picked the same club as me are nicer than those who picked the same club as you" debate grinds on.

DVDM93

peteeeed wrote: »

very true , but every english club has an element when playing away in europe, liverpool as a club did not want their fans going on the rampage in heysel , chelsea do not want this, name , shame, ban , prosecute

I agree with that, 100%. But efb is trying to say that they weren't over they're supportIng Chelsea????? Ridiculous statement.

Were they they're to visit the Louvre and Eiffel Tower and sample the French cuisine?

Pro. F

efb wrote: »

For starters real fans wouldn't bring the clubs name into disrepute or use it to promote illegal behaviours

I didn't ask for a "for starters", I asked for a definition. Can you not provide one?

DVDM93

DVDM93 wrote: »

But on Tuesday night they were over in Paris repfesenting Chelsea Football Club supporters. This was before Zola banished them as "real fans".

What's this "representation" thing?

Were Liverpool fans represented by those who tried to crush some poor guys skull in Bulgaria by dropping a paving stone on it? I think there was 10 of them in that attack (more than the Chelsea fans in the video, so perhaps "more representative").

Surely not?

peteeeed

DVDM93 wrote: »

I agree with that, 100%. But efb is trying to say that they weren't over they're supportIng Chelsea????? Ridiculous statement.

Were they they're to visit the Louvre and Eiffel Tower and sample the French cuisine?

i do get both points , i'm a chelsea fan of 35 years,idiots like these do travel with a 'little englander fighting for the british empire' approach that is alien to the large majority , thank f...

chelsea is doing its bit so dopes like these will have to follow chelsea from their armchair from now on .

what ive seen over the last couple of days is people really looking to stick the boot into chelsea because they don't like them

grumpymunster

DVDM93 wrote: »

I agree with that, 100%. But efb is trying to say that they weren't over they're supportIng Chelsea????? Ridiculous statement.

Were they they're to visit the Louvre and Eiffel Tower and sample the French cuisine?

I have been lucky enough to go to Paris about 8 times during which I have seen 1 soccer match and 5 rugby matches. I am a Chelsea supporter but have never seen them play there so your point is what exactly?

efb

DVDM93 wrote: »

But on Tuesday night they were over in Paris repfesenting Chelsea Football Club supporters. This was before Zola banished them as "real fans".

They support and follow Chelsea whether you like it or not. Just not in the way Chelsea fans should and the majority do like our very own Gavin, the King of Red.

They can support whoever they wish, but i am agreeing with Zola and challenging the assertion made here they are 'real fans'

Scumbag real fans.
Non scumbag real fans.


Don't see why it's so hard to distinguish between the two

efb

DVDM93 wrote: »

I agree with that, 100%. But efb is trying to say that they weren't over they're supportIng Chelsea????? Ridiculous statement.

Were they they're to visit the Louvre and Eiffel Tower and sample the French cuisine?

I didn't say that

DVDM93

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's this "representation" thing?

Were Liverpool fans represented by those who tried to crush some poor guys skull in Bulgaria by dropping a paving stone on it? I think there was 10 of them in that attack (more than the Chelsea fans in the video, so perhaps "more representative").

Surely not?

Yes. Liverpool fans were represented by this, but represented very poorly. It doesn't say what Liverpool and Chelsea fans are like as a whole but there's no hiding from the fact that those in Paris and those in Bulgaria went over to support our respective clubs and represented our clubs in a disgusting way.

efb

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't ask for a "for starters", I asked for a definition. Can you not provide one?

What's yours? I gave the example relevant to the discussion

DVDM93

grumpymunster wrote: »

I have been lucky enough to go to Paris about 8 times during which I have seen 1 soccer match and 5 rugby matches. I am a Chelsea supporter but have never seen them play there so your point is what exactly?

My point is that these groups were over in Paris the night their team was playing a match? So I assumed it was fair to imshome they were over there at the match? I guess not.

efb

DVDM93 wrote: »

My point is that these groups were over in Paris the night their team was playing a match? So I assumed it was fair to imshome they were over there at the match? I guess not.

Assume doesn't hold water

DVDM93

efb wrote: »

I didn't say that

Sorry. What I meant was that you think they spent hundreds on flights and accom over to Paris the night of their clubs game but weren't at the game supporting Chelsea?

What were they doing over there if not at the game?

efb

I don't support Chelsea fc

ronjo

efb wrote: »

Assume doesn't hold water

FFS they were obviously over for the match.

You accused me of aboutery earlier on in the thread but you are doing the same thing over and over again.

efb

DVDM93 wrote: »

Sorry. What I meant was that you think they spent hundreds on flights and accom over to Paris the night of their clubs game but weren't at the game supporting Chelsea?

What were they doing over there if not at the game?

I can't say for definite- can you?

efb

ronjo wrote: »

FFS they were obviously over for the match.

You accused me of aboutery earlier on in the thread but you are doing the same thing over and over again.

So going over there to cause trouble and not be in the stadium isn't plausable???

efb

efb wrote: »

I can't say for definite- can you?

Maybe they weren't Chelsea fans at all. They just like John Terry or perhaps just like the song

efb

rarnes1 wrote: »

Maybe they weren't Chelsea fans at all. They just like John Terry or perhaps just like the song

It's all conjecture

Grayditch

efb wrote: »

I can't say for definite- can you?

Ah, here.

DVDM93

peteeeed wrote: »

i do get both points , i'm a chelsea fan of 35 years,idiots like these do travel with a 'little englander fighting for the british empire' approach that is alien to the large majority , thank f...

chelsea is doing its bit so dopes like these will have to follow chelsea from their armchair from now on .

what ive seen over the last couple of days is people really looking to stick the boot into chelsea because they don't like them

I don't dislike Chelsea more than any others I hear of involved in this sh1t. I support Liverpool and I just as much despise the number in Bulgaria. The minority of Liverpool fans disrespecting the Munich tragedy and the likes of the Chelsea and United fans disrespecting Hillsborough.

I'm not poking Chelsea with a stick, just those who partake in this sh1t.

lee_baby_simms

efb wrote: »

So going over there to cause trouble and not be in the stadium isn't plausable???

No but its far less likely to be true.

One of the alleged is a season ticket holder, he wasn't over there to loiter around the stadium.

efb

Grayditch wrote: »

Ah, here.

Leave ih ouh!

Pro. F

efb wrote: »

What's yours? I gave the example relevant to the discussion

I don't make the pointless distinction between real and non-real fans, so I don't need a definition. You are the one who is trying to make the distinction yet you don't even have a functioning definition.

DVDM93

rarnes1 wrote: »

Maybe they weren't Chelsea fans at all. They just like John Terry or perhaps just like the song

+1 on the song theory. Read today that they're an up and coming boy band who take their busking gig around different cities across Europe.

efb

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

No but its far less likely to be true.

One of the alleged is a season ticket holder, he wasn't over there to loiter around the stadium.

If he's guily he won't for long.

Soups123

efb wrote: »

So going over there to cause trouble and not be in the stadium isn't plausable???

Its a stupid argument as a whole, but this point is just silly and disagreeing for disagreeings sake.

They are on the tube in paris heading in the direction of the game of course they were going the game, its unfortunate this happened and its not reflective of the majority of Chelsea fans but it has happened and its the minority of there fan base that have acted like scum

efb

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't make the pointless distinction between real and non-real fans, so I don't need a definition. You are the one who is trying to make the distinction yet you don't even have a functioning definition.

I was challenging those that said Zola was incorrect to say they weren't real fans- I explained why. Where's the difficuulty?