Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2018 (MOD NOTE: POST #2805)

~Rebel~

theoneeyedman wrote: »

This has been a Fvcking disgrace IMHO.

Anyone unsubstantiated claim, a reputation tarnished on live prime time tv on BBC1, and no punishment. Obviously, there is no place for racism in the game or society on general, but likewise, there is no place for playing the race card for personal gain.
Has there been an apology issued to Bobby by the Fa, Everton, Holgate, or the BBC /Shearer??

Demanding an apology for a genuine mistake in reporting something serious is a dangerous game though. To be honest, i'm reasonably fine with how it's all turned out. It just should have been done much much faster.

Personally, I think Holgate should choose to publicly say "fair dues, i could've misheard", but I don't think it should be any sort of requirement.

fyfe79

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trend, one team is rising, one is dropping.
Dec 1st to Today

I'm a fan of Alexis Sanchez but it would be fairly humorous if Utd got bounced out of Europe by Seville and finished the league in 5th place, while Arsenal win the Europa and qualify for CL football next season.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Demanding an apology for a genuine mistake in reporting something serious is a dangerous game though. To be honest, i'm reasonably fine with how it's all turned out. It just should have been done much much faster.

Personally, I think Holgate should choose to publicly say "fair dues, i could've misheard", but I don't think it should be any sort of requirement.

Indeed. Firmino has been cleared / found not guilty. Job done, not done promptly of course.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed. Firmino has been cleared / found not guilty. Job done, not done promptly of course.

That's the problem with these cases, and why it's so serious to make false allegations, because they didn't say that.
They said "Having considered all of the available evidence, we consider it is not sufficient to raise a charge against Firmino."
So basically, we didn't have enough evidence to proceed further with our witch hunt.
They didn't say "cleared" or "not guilty". They've have been quick to use strong terms if found guilty.

And of course, releasing it during a CL game, so try keep it from the headlines is typically of the politics within the FA (7 weeks late).

Noticed they haven't open proceedings for Holdgates actions on the night or his own previous homophobic comments. Time to sweep it all under the carpet now.....

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

That's the problem with these cases, and why it's so serious to make false allegations, because they didn't say that.
.....

Perhaps the allegations were actually made in good faith though? You seem to be totally dismissing that possibility.

Kerrigooney

Augeo wrote: »

Perhaps the allegations were actually made in good faith though? You seem to be totally dismissing that possibility.

I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't have crossed Holgate's mind that maybe he misheard. There were several players and the ref right there when it happened but he was the only one that heard it? He would have spoken to his team mates about it. Do you not think after all his team mates said "sorry, didn't hear him say what you think he said" he would have doubted himself?

~Rebel~

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't have crossed Holgate's mind that maybe he misheard. There were several players and the ref right there when it happened but he was the only one that heard it? He would have spoken to his team mates about it. Do you not think after all his team mates said "sorry, didn't hear him say what you think he said" he would have doubted himself?

All of this could well have happened though, and we'd never know obviously. It doesn't make it a false allegation though. He thought he heard something, he reported it, and its up to the powers that be to take it from there. And that's what's happened.

Agent Coulson

Anyone see the supposed leaked pic of next seasons pink jersey?

Utopia Parkway

munstermagic11 wrote: »

That's the problem with these cases, and why it's so serious to make false allegations, because they didn't say that.
They said "Having considered all of the available evidence, we consider it is not sufficient to raise a charge against Firmino."
So basically, we didn't have enough evidence to proceed further with our witch hunt.
They didn't say "cleared" or "not guilty". They've have been quick to use strong terms if found guilty.

And of course, releasing it during a CL game, so try keep it from the headlines is typically of the politics within the FA (7 weeks late).

Noticed they haven't open proceedings for Holdgates actions on the night or his own previous homophobic comments. Time to sweep it all under the carpet now.....

Well exactly. The way it's worded makes it seem like they just couldn't find the evidence to charge Firmino.

If I was him I would have liked something a good bit stronger than that to keep my good name.

Kerrigooney

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't have crossed Holgate's mind that maybe he misheard. There were several players and the ref right there when it happened but he was the only one that heard it? He would have spoken to his team mates about it. Do you not think after all his team mates said "sorry, didn't hear him say what you think he said" he would have doubted himself?

Well as sure as you believe that I think it's quite likely holgate is more sure of what he heard / thought he heard

Can you not appreciate that?

robwen

https://twitter.com/RedsTicket/status/966416506157436928

~Rebel~

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Well exactly. The way it's worded makes it seems like they just couldn't find the evidence to charge Firmino.

If I was him I would have liked something a good bit stronger than that to keep my good name.

It wasn't a case though... like, he was never up for doing anything wrong, there was just allegation an made, and so the FA had to look into it to see if there were charges that would be brought against him, in which instance as I understand it he would then mount a defence and such. So this thing ended before it ever began. It doesn't feel like that, because they took nearly 2 months, but as far as the process goes, the thing died at its first step before any charges were even made.

All of this would have been totally fine if it was done in a timely fashion - if, say, two days after the event, there was this same thing saying there would be no charges against Firmino, we'd be happy out I think. it's just the time involved makes it feel like there was some sort of court case type thing going in the interim, which there wasn't.

robwen

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Anyone see the supposed leaked pic of next seasons pink jersey?

https://twitter.com/LFCVine/status/966384772955205633

garra

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Demanding an apology for a genuine mistake in reporting something serious is a dangerous game though. To be honest, i'm reasonably fine with how it's all turned out. It just should have been done much much faster.

Personally, I think Holgate should choose to publicly say "fair dues, i could've misheard", but I don't think it should be any sort of requirement.

Holgate deliberately obfuscated the situation and successfully avoided penalisation during the game and post-match by "mis-hearing" a curse spoken in Portuguese - a language he would not be fluent in - and happily tarnished the reputation of a fellow professional in order to escape punishment.
Since then has made no attempt to redeem himself or rescind his charge. British media have stood by their man, the inverted racism of the episode leaving johnny foreigner Brazilian to suck it up and move on.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Augeo wrote: »

Perhaps the allegations were actually made in good faith though? You seem to be totally dismissing that possibility.

It was clear for a while that there wasn’t a case.
If in good faith, where’s his apology that he made a mistake?

Raisins

munstermagic11 wrote: »

That's the problem with these cases, and why it's so serious to make false allegations, because they didn't say that.
They said "Having considered all of the available evidence, we consider it is not sufficient to raise a charge against Firmino."
So basically, we didn't have enough evidence to proceed further with our witch hunt.
They didn't say "cleared" or "not guilty". They've have been quick to use strong terms if found guilty.....

In fairness that's because they didn't find him not guilty. You can't find someone not guilty or cleared of something to which they were never charged. It's like the DPP saying someone is not guilty when they decide not to charge somebody. It wasn't the purpose of the investigation and it doesn't even arise.

~Rebel~

garra wrote: »

Holgate deliberately obfuscated the situation and successfully avoided penalisation during the game and post-match by "mis-hearing" a curse spoken in Portuguese - a language he would not be fluent in - and happily tarnished the reputation of a fellow professional in order to escape punishment.
Since then has made no attempt to redeem himself or rescind his charge. British media have stood by their man, the inverted racism of the episode leaving johnny foreigner Brazilian to suck it up and move on.

See this in itself is an unfounded allegation. Sure, it's possible, but there's no tangible proof to back it up beyond opinion. For a process like this to work, you have to take everyone at face value, and investigate accordingly to find the truth of the matter.

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

It was clear for a while that there wasn’t a case.
If in good faith, where’s his apology that he made a mistake?

I have no idea if he'll be apologizing or not. That has nothing to do with the allegation being made in good faith or not though.

corwill

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It wasn't a case though... like, he was never up for doing anything wrong, there was just allegation an made, and so the FA had to look into it to see if there were charges that would be brought against him, in which instance as I understand it he would then mount a defence and such. So this thing ended before it ever began. It doesn't feel like that, because they took nearly 2 months, but as far as the process goes, the thing died at its first step before any charges were even made.

All of this would have been totally fine if it was done in a timely fashion - if, say, two days after the event, there was this same thing saying there would be no charges against Firmino, we'd be happy out I think. it's just the time involved makes it feel like there was some sort of court case type thing going in the interim, which there wasn't.

They've explained that they interviewed 12 players and staff, the ref and the 4th official, consulted with linguists and examined a lot of footage, so I can accept that all of that takes time.

What I'm not exactly chuffed with is the contrast between the mealy-mouthedness of Bobby's exoneration, by reference to an insufficiency of evidence, when contrasted with the pains taken to emphasise Holgate's bona fides. It's pretty poor that neither the FA nor EFC could bring themselves to allude to the possibility that Holgate appears to have been mistaken, however sure he might have been in the moment of what he thought he heard, or however honest his mistake might have been.

Given the form of words adopted by the FA in their statement, EFC's statement appears to imply that they and Holgate stand over the allegation, notwithstanding the outcome of the investigation. Which is pretty ****ing unsatisfactory from Bobby's point of view, I believe.

corwill

corwill wrote: »

....

Given the form of words adopted by the FA in their statement, EFC's statement appears to imply that they and Holgate stand over the allegation, notwithstanding the outcome of the investigation. Which is pretty ****ing unsatisfactory from Bobby's point of view, I believe.

Appears to imply.... that of course is extremely subjective. I didn't see that implication in evertons statement TBH. I read it literally and saw nothing wrong with it, all considered.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Raisins wrote: »

In fairness that's because they didn't find him not guilty. You can't find someone not guilty or cleared of something to which they were never charged. It's like the DPP saying someone is not guilty when they decide not to charge somebody. It wasn't the purpose of the investigation and it doesn't even arise.

Plenty of people screamed “guilty” with the BBC focusing on “clearly hearing something racist” at HT.
And someone doesn’t need to be charged before you can deem them “not guilty” or “innocent”. The FAs statement deliberately focuses more on Holdgate being pure and just not enough evidence to proceed further against Firminho.

corwill

~Rebel~ wrote: »

See this in itself is an unfounded allegation. Sure, it's possible, but there's no tangible proof to back it up beyond opinion. For a process like this to work, you have to take everyone at face value, and investigate accordingly to find the truth of the matter.

I think it goes a bit far to say it's unfounded. 14 witnesses interviewed, camera footage examined from several angles, and Firmino's evidence of what he said appears to have been preferred to Holgate's. It's a bit difficult to understand how Holgate could have been quite so mistaken. That's a reasonable foundation, purely for discussion purposes, for inferring that Holgate was, perhaps, not making a mistake but instead was fully aware of what was or wasn't said.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Augeo wrote: »

I have no idea if he'll be apologizing or not. That has nothing to do with the allegation being made in good faith or not though.

Yes it does. If he was of such good faith, he would apologize for being wrong. 12 players, ref, camera angles, lip readers etc.... all said nothing was said (a word that would stand out). He alone thinks he heard it. He was wrong (maybe deliberately wrong); he should apologize.

corwill

Augeo wrote: »

Appears to imply.... that of course is extremely subjective. I didn't see that implication in evertons statement TBH. I read it literally and saw nothing wrong with it, all considered.

I've pretty clearly set out my position, I'm not sure where you're identifying any subjectivity in it, let alone extreme subjectivity. As subtextual analysis goes, my post is hardly that complicated.

garra

~Rebel~ wrote: »

See this in itself is an unfounded allegation. Sure, it's possible, but there's no tangible proof to back it up beyond opinion. For a process like this to work, you have to take everyone at face value, and investigate accordingly to find the truth of the matter.

Holgate played the race card and we all know it. It's not fine to be politically correct when a man's reputation is on the line, even a foreign man's reputation. If you make a charge of racism and cannot prove it, which he cannot possibly do as he does not speak Portuguese, he should be liable to the same punishment as that which firminho would have faced if guilty.

corwill

corwill wrote: »

I've pretty clearly set out my position, I'm not sure where you're identifying any subjectivity in it, let alone extreme subjectivity. As subtextual analysis goes, my post is hardly that complicated.

"Appears to imply......" v the likes of "it is implicitly stated...." .... can you see the difference? One is a subjective viewpoint, one is a factual statement.

Others have commented that they saw nothing wrong with evertons statement, you seem to have issue with it due to a seeming implication.

corwill

Just to emphasise, here's the relevant portion of the FA's statement:

'Having considered all of the available evidence, we consider it is not sufficient to raise a charge against Firmino.

However, we are completely satisfied that the allegation was made in absolute good faith by Holgate and that there is no suggestion of this being an intentionally false or malicious allegation.'

So there's 'not sufficient' evidence for a charge against Bobby. But there's a basis for 'complete satisfaction' that Holgate made the allegation in good faith, and 'no suggestion' of falsity or malice.

The contrast in the strength of language employed in those two passages is extremely marked.

corwill

corwill wrote: »

Just to emphasise, here's the relevant portion of the FA's statement:

'Having considered all of the available evidence, we consider it is not sufficient to raise a charge against Firmino.

However, we are completely satisfied that the allegation was made in absolute good faith by Holgate and that there is no suggestion of this being an intentionally false or malicious allegation.'

So there's 'not sufficient' evidence for a charge against Bobby. But there's a basis for 'complete satisfaction' that Holgate made the allegation in good faith, and 'no suggestion' of falsity or malice.

The contrast in the strength of language employed in those two passages is extremely marked.

But this was what you said about EFCs statement"appeals to imply that they and Holgate stand over the allegation, notwithstanding the outcome of the investigation" .... and I reckon that's extremely subjective a view.

corwill

Augeo wrote: »

"Appears to imply......" v the likes of "it is implicitly stated...." .... can you see the difference? One is a subjective viewpoint, one is a factual statement.

Others have commented that they saw nothing wrong with evertons statement, you seem to have issue with it due to a seeming implication.

There is no meaningful or useful difference, in this context, between 'appears to imply' and 'imply', or "it is implicitly stated', bar, perhaps, tone.

Others are free to comment as they wish, but if you're attempting to refute my point, by all means go ahead and do so. Simply telling me that you or others don't agree with me doesn't amount to refutation.

j8wk2feszrnpao

corwill wrote: »

The contrast in the strength of language employed in those two passages is extremely marked.

Absolutely.
Noticeable they didn’t state it as:
“We are completely satisfied that the allegation has no evidence to support it and Firminho in absolute good faith co-operated to defend his name”.
They concentrated more on forming Holdgates inoccence than the person falsely accused.

corwill

Augeo wrote: »

But this was what you said about EFCs statement"appeals to imply that they and Holgate stand over the allegation, notwithstanding the outcome of the investigation" .... and I reckon that's extremely subjective a view.

Please explain why you think what I have posted is "extremely subjective"; simply repeating your assertion is doing nothing to actually explain your position.

corwill

corwill wrote: »

There is no meaningful or useful difference, in this context, between 'appears to imply' and 'imply', or "it is implicitly stated', bar, perhaps, tone.

....

Of course there's a difference.
You are welcome to apologise for being incorrect though when you realise that

corwill

Augeo wrote: »

Of course there's a difference.
You are welcome to apologise for being incorrect though when you realise that

Here you go again, just asserting, not engaging, and attempting to derail.

I'm just going to take it as read that, as usual, you're not in a position to stand over whatever stance you've adopted in a Pavlovian reaction to posters towards whom you bear a personal animus, and move on.

Let this be my annual reminder not to waste my time attempting to engage with you.

corwill

corwill wrote: »

Please explain why you think what I have posted is "extremely subjective"; simply repeating your assertion is doing nothing to actually explain your position.

To imply is to hint at something... f you think something appears to imply then it is inherently a subjective viewpoint.

You think EFC are appearing to imply something.... you are concluding what that is. As they are only implying though your conclusion may not be correct.

I do hope that clears things up for you.

~Rebel~

garra wrote: »

Holgate played the race card and we all know it. It's not fine to be politically correct when a man's reputation is on the line, even a foreign man's reputation. If you make a charge of racism and cannot prove it, which he cannot possibly do as he does not speak Portuguese, he should be liable to the same punishment as that which firminho would have faced if guilty.

I've no problem with people being punished for purposefully making false allegations - but in this instance how do you possibly prove that?

All that would be accomplished with your suggestion is that no-one would ever report racism, because it could well turn out to be more trouble than it's worth. I think this is a big part of their choice of wording to say that they're treating Holgate's words in good faith, because the alternative is to accuse him of lying, and, once again, making it a more hostile atmosphere for anyone to report events in the future.

No, I firmly believe the actual course of events that has unfolded is about the best we can hope for in a system - aside from timeliness. Sure, I would have liked nicer wording from the FA, but thats a minor grievance in comparison to some.

shamrock55

Poor fcuker can't even go to the chippy without some gob****e sticking a phone in his face

~Rebel~

shamrock55 wrote: »

Poor fcuker can't even go to the chippy without some gob****e sticking a phone in his face

I know, I hate that.... and like, what do you do with that video then anyway? Just a picture of a famous guy uncomfortably waving to camera. I mean, there's a thousand pictures of him on the internet anyway... what difference having one taken on your phone specifically? Like, surely the actual experience of meeting him would be far more memorable if there isn't a phone held out between you? Did he even look directly at Mo, or just see him through his little 3 inch screen?

I understand the getting a photo together with someone you admire thing, but I really don't understand going up to a guy holding a phone in his face, and strolling off.

HandsomeBob

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Demanding an apology for a genuine mistake in reporting something serious is a dangerous game though. To be honest, i'm reasonably fine with how it's all turned out. It just should have been done much much faster.

Personally, I think Holgate should choose to publicly say "fair dues, i could've misheard", but I don't think it should be any sort of requirement.

Bobby does deserve an apology from at least the BBC but you're right, it's one of those situations where you just have to sit tight and be happy with the outcome, even though you'd be privately seething about what happened.

No good will come from looking for recriminations unfortunately. The club's statement was the definition of restrained which it had to be.

5starpool

munstermagic11 wrote: »

It was clear for a while that there wasn’t a case.
If in good faith, where’s his apology that he made a mistake?

If he still believes he heard it then why would he apologise? No proof he said it isn't the same as proof that he didn't say it. The handshake at Goodison will be scrutinised anyhow.

The theory that Holgate decided to make it all up in the spur of the moment to escape punishment for the push is like something you'd hear from Fox News.

garra

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I've no problem with people being punished for purposefully making false allegations - but in this instance how do you possibly prove that?

All that would be accomplished with your suggestion is that no-one would ever report racism, because it could well turn out to be more trouble than it's worth. I think this is a big part of their choice of wording to say that they're treating Holgate's words in good faith, because the alternative is to accuse him of lying, and, once again, making it a more hostile atmosphere for anyone to report events in the future.

No, I firmly believe the actual course of events that has unfolded is about the best we can hope for in a system - aside from timeliness. Sure, I would have liked nicer wording from the FA, but thats a minor grievance in comparison to some.

Incorrect. What would be accomplished is that people from countries which don't speak English would be free to curse and abuse their English counterparts on an equal basis, without the fear of being labelled racists and having to then be judged by a media and FA seeking to protect their own. The real racism is lurking underneath the surface of the issue and of course the system is enabling it.

gimli2112

5starpool wrote: »

The theory that Holgate decided to make it all up in the spur of the moment to escape punishment for the push is like something you'd hear from Fox News.

I believe he decided to make it up on the spot to escape punishment , however, having considered all of the available evidence, I consider it is not sufficient to raise a charge against Holgate.

5starpool

gimli2112 wrote: »

I believe he decided to make it up on the spot to escape punishment , however, having considered all of the available evidence, I consider it is not sufficient to raise a charge against Holgate.

That is a batsh1t theory in fairness. Do you think Holgate, in the midst of a match is that cunning? The most that footballers come up with in that regard is to pretend to be injured so the ref will not leave them alone, I doubt he in the reincarnation of machiavelli or anything.

gimli2112

I don't think cunning has much to do with it but yeah I do think he knew what he was doing.

corwill

5starpool wrote: »

That is a batsh1t theory in fairness. Do you think Holgate, in the midst of a match is that cunning? The most that footballers come up with in that regard is to pretend to be injured so the ref will not leave them alone, I doubt he in the reincarnation of machiavelli or anything.

Bar one of us manifesting psychic powers, we're never going to be able to say with certainty what was on Holgate's mind in the moment.

What bothers me now is that none of Holgate, EFC, or the FA, to have had seemingly no corroboration of his claim, not even from either a teammate or a referee who both stood closer to Firmino at the time, after a lengthy and exhaustive investigation, and in the teeth of contrary explanations and evidence, which were preferred by the FA to his own, can own up to even the possibility that Holgate was mistaken. It's pretty cheap.

corwill

corwill wrote: »

................

What bothers me now is that none of Holgate, EFC, or the FA,........................can own up to even the possibility that Holgate was mistaken. It's pretty cheap.

Surely by saying the allegation was made in good faith the FA are implying that there's a possibility he was mistaken? And Everton are then accepting the FA's stance in their statement?

Enzokk

munstermagic11 wrote: »

That's the problem with these cases, and why it's so serious to make false allegations, because they didn't say that.
They said "Having considered all of the available evidence, we consider it is not sufficient to raise a charge against Firmino."
So basically, we didn't have enough evidence to proceed further with our witch hunt.
They didn't say "cleared" or "not guilty". They've have been quick to use strong terms if found guilty.

And of course, releasing it during a CL game, so try keep it from the headlines is typically of the politics within the FA (7 weeks late).

Noticed they haven't open proceedings for Holdgates actions on the night or his own previous homophobic comments. Time to sweep it all under the carpet now.....

Surely it is a case that, in a robbery someone was in the area and was seen interacting with the robbers before they robbed a store. Now this person only stopped and had a pleasant conversation about the weather to a stranger, it happens. Then as police are investigating they find this person talking to the suspects, but they cannot find any other evidence that he was in on the robbery. You cannot find him not guilty as he is not charged with a crime, but there is no evidence to suggest he was involved.

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Well exactly. The way it's worded makes it seem like they just couldn't find the evidence to charge Firmino.

If I was him I would have liked something a good bit stronger than that to keep my good name.

The only problem I can see is if someone uses this against him in an article or in commentary. If he is referred to as racist or there is a hint that he has a black mark against him then there is something you can do seeing as he wasn't even charged with anything. The FA looked and saw nothing so there is nothing to see or report on. I mean if people will use that against him then anyone can say they think footballer X is a murderer but there just hasn't been evidence against him yet. Extreme example I know, but seems slightly relevant.

robwen wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LFCVine/status/966384772955205633

That looks a lot like a special Cancer Awareness shirt, with the pink all over. It's a bold choice if it is the official kit for next year.

j8wk2feszrnpao

5starpool wrote: »

If he still believes he heard it then why would he apologise?

Because 12 other players, the ref, the 4th official mike'd up, tv replays, lip readers....... all found nothing. At some point the tin foil hats must come off and you need to stop watching Fox News. Firminho didn't make the alleged remark (an obvious insult that couldn't be missed by all the others around, esp the ref who was in between them).

5starpool wrote: »

No proof he said it isn't the same as proof that he didn't say it.

And this highlights exactly why the FAs statement and the false allegations are such a serious issue. Nobody heard it (replays and lip readers confirmed it wasn't said) except the guy who potentially was looking at receiving a red card for pushing Firminho into the crowd.

Did he make it up? Only he knows. All the evidence points to the remark never being said.
He owes Firminho an apology; he was wrong.

Most in here aren't in the "innocent until proven guilty" camp anyway it seems, or at least they fear the rest of the world aren't.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Augeo wrote: »

Most in here aren't in the "innocent until proven guilty" camp anyway it seems, or at least they fear the rest of the world aren't.

As you don't know 'most' (if anyone at all) in here, that's a pretty false claim to make.

PhuckHugh

I'm not a told you so kind of guy - But I said Couthino is vastly over rated and has as many bad games as he does good and that they Liverpool were mad not to take anything north of 90m-100m for him --- The balance of the team is much better and fluid without him.