Board index ‹ Other Sports ‹ Other Sports ‹ The Football Chat (cont)

[Dead Man Walking]

Chelsea buy Eden Hazard for £52 million.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Clearly the law isn't just the law.

If you're accused of killing someone, you're going to jail on remand, because it's a serious charge. If you are accused of stealing a chocolate bar, the cop might let you go with a warning and a ban from the shopkeeper. That's if a cop can even be bothered to turn up.

and yet neither bowyer or woodagte were on remand.....even worse one got community service and the other found not guilty......yet his England career was over before it ever started (not a fan of him by the way....but think it shows massive double standards both by the FA and clearly by you who thinks it was ok because of the nature of the 'crime'!)

Dead Man Walking wrote:

Chelsea buy Eden Hazard for £52 million.

£32m.

SimonBarrett wrote:

and yet neither bowyer or woodagte were on remand.....even worse one got community service and the other found not guilty......yet his England career was over before it ever started (not a fan of him by the way....but think it shows massive double standards both by the FA and clearly by you who thinks it was ok because of the nature of the 'crime'!)

You're saying "the law is the law". I'm saying that different laws apply for different crimes.

The FA will say that they judge each case on its merits. Clearly having a blanket ban on anyone with a court case against them is ridiculous, but it's what you seem to be arguing for.

And why are you only arguing for it now? What about all the other players who have been in the courts since then?

It is strange that they felt they wanted to strip the captaincy off him but still allowed him to play. This seemed to be a strange act.

For me it probably should have been captain and playing or not captain and not playing. All or nothing.

The FA opted for some middle ground which somehow implied some form of guilt, but not too much.

Ajw71 wrote:

It is strange that they felt they wanted to strip the captaincy off him but still allowed him to play. This seemed to be a strange act.

For me it probably should have been captain and playing or not captain and not playing. All or nothing.

The FA opted for some middle ground which somehow implied some form of guilt, but not too much.

I think JT being stripped of the captaincy because he supposedly screwed Wayne Bridge's ex girlfriend was ridiculous.

But I think the FA had no option to strip him of the captaincy this time. He's just got too many enemies, he's been involved in too much nonsense to be able to be captain.

Like I said, if he's found guilty by the courts, then he'll be done by the FA after. Going by the Suarez ruling he'll get a 3 match ban. Nobody is going to be booted out of the England team for an offence that carries a 3 match ban, so it would have been ridiculous for the FA to suspend him from playing when that would carry a harsher punishment than he'd even get after being found guilty.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

One is a Liverpool player found guilty of racial abuse. The other is a Chelsea player alleged by a youtube viewer to have racially abused someone.

Of course, it's really difficult to think of which one you've snapped your back in half to defend.

One was a case with no evidence, decided on who the panel 'preferred' to believe, using probability rather than any actual fact. The other is a video of a man shouting "fuckingblackcunt,nobhead" at an opposing player, where it will probably end up being Terry's excuse/version versus the clear video/probable evidence from players.

Forget the whole Suarez affair, Terry is clearly a 'problem'. If you're the FA and you have a problem player on your hands (not forgetting the problem is racism, at an international tournament), and the player is causing possible problems in the squad, you rid the squad of the problem before anything else. The FA stripped him of his captaincy, so he's clearly upset them, but then they've preferred to stand by his side rather than take Ferdinand. Those trying to say Ferdinand hasn't been picked due to footballing reasons are hugely ignorant and dim. He's clearly not been picked because of the ongoing case involving his brother, Anton. The FA should have stood by Ferdinand immediately if there was a choice between the two. Ferdinand shouldn't have to say he'll play alongside Terry to get picked, if Rio has a problem with somebody who's widely believed to have racially abused his brother, he should have the FA's backing completely. If it was a foreign player abusing Ferdinand for England, they'd be condemning the foreigner, asking for bans and publicly supporting their player. But when it's Terry causing the issues, the FA turn a blind eye to it and hide it behind the 'innocent until proven guilty' drivel.

Cibaman wrote:

Asim wrote:

FFS are you being deliberately stupid?

The scheduling of John Terry's court case has nothing to do with the FA, they cannot set a date for a trial. He is also far from the only person to have a case scheduled to take into account other things that are going on in their lives.

It is entirely reasonable that the FA wait until the outcome of a court case before taking any action, they do not over-ride the law of the land and should not do anything that could prejudice that case.

I agree up to a point. But if the FA had suspended Terry pending an investigation (something which often happens when such an allegation is made) I suspect the court case would have been dealt with some time ago.

As other players have not been suspended pending the outcome of court cases in recent times (notably Gerrard) I don't see how the FA could suddenly decide to suspend Terry without it prejudicing the case against him.

What the FA probably should have is a solid rule that any player charged with a criminal offence is suspended from duty pending the outcome.

Asim wrote:

As other players have not been suspended pending the outcome of court cases in recent times (notably Gerrard) I don't see how the FA could suddenly decide to suspend Terry without it prejudicing the case against him.

What the FA probably should have is a solid rule that any player charged with a criminal offence is suspended from duty pending the outcome.

I think the offense that Terry is alleged to have committed, racism during the course of a football match, falls into a different category than some of the off the field, non football related incidents that have been in the courts. Its much closer to home for the FA, something for which they have a direct responsibility. If it hadn't been for the police investigation the FA would have had to act. In those circumstances I think the FA should have the discretion to suspend a player from England (not club) matches until the incident is dealt with by the courts.

For other, non football related, allegations I think they should have a rule, but not for all criminal offenses. Just those potentially carrying prison sentences longer than 6 months, cases to be heard in the Crown Court.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Rio took the captaincy off John Terry, even though it was revealed in court that he'd had 10 women on the side while he was with the mother of his children.

If you count major honors, Ferdinand has won 10 trophies, John Terry has won 11. Seeing as you're a Manc you won't know this, but 11 is a bigger number than 10.

I don't dislike Rio Ferdinand, because I don't know him. But the manner in which he goes about his life doesn't seem too far removed from the way that John Terry does. But it seems that Man United are joining Arsenal and Liverpool in hypocritically condemning others for things they do themselves.

Rio has won 15. Classic.

Did Huddersfield have any dodgy players when you supported them?