The Football Thread - Season 2012/2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
Get the crowd singing, joe. Not sure I've ever heard such a quiet game!
 
Why's Bellamy being boo'd? Poor liverpool players aren't popular today!
 
fabs said:
Never had any problem getting real ale when I've been there.
Click to expand...

The pub right next to the ground smitts something or other. 1 pump with nout on it. Poor show.

Not only that but there is no bovril!!!!
 
Last edited:
TriggerHappy said:
Get the crowd singing, joe. Not sure I've ever heard such a quiet game!
Click to expand...

Nobody knows what to sing. We tried CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP GB it sounded weird.

Come on GB just doesn't sound right.

It's weird. Plus it's full of family's and children.
 
joescrivens said:
2nd tier. Row 14 a good view of the whole dirty stadium unfortunately.
Click to expand...

At least you don't have to keep one hand on your wallet at all times :naughty:
 
Shocking way to throw away 2 points.

Senegal were reckless and dangerous in the tackle, why the ref didn't take a harder line on it I do not know!

On the plus side Ramsey was looking to have recovered some of the energy he lost during a relentless season.
 
Nothing more frustrating than being 2 mins away on my sat nav but literally not moving in traffic
 
Nevermind. At least you saved a couple of quid.
 
Junior Hoilett signing confirmed - still amazed we got him. :clap:
 
You couldn't make it up! The inept and clueless FA charge terry. Not content with making a hash out of over-riding the manager and taking the captaincy off an innocent man, they are now trying to make some mud stick buys charging a man who was found not guilty in a court of law.

Will they be doing similar charges to rio who retweeted and endorsed a racist comment?
 
cambsno said:
You couldn't make it up! The inept and clueless FA charge terry. Not content with making a hash out of over-riding the manager and taking the captaincy off an innocent man, they are now trying to make some mud stick buys charging a man who was found not guilty in a court of law.

Will they be doing similar charges to rio who retweeted and endorsed a racist comment?
Click to expand...

The FA charge has got nothing to do with the court case.

The FA charge does not need a 'beyond any reasonable doubt' decision.
 
cambsno said:
You couldn't make it up! The inept and clueless FA charge terry. Not content with making a hash out of over-riding the manager and taking the captaincy off an innocent man, they are now trying to make some mud stick buys charging a man who was found not guilty in a court of law.

Will they be doing similar charges to rio who retweeted and endorsed a racist comment?
Click to expand...

There was a good article in The Times today by Oliver Kay.

FA's process does not need same burden of proof as court case.

If the FA were looking for a time to bury bad - or uncomfortable news, 5.45pm on the night that the Olympic Games came to London seemed ideal. But even as the eyes of the world fell on Stratford, the impact of the FA's decision to charge John Terry over the Anton Ferdinand affair sent a shudder through British Sport.

It has been nine months since that awful moment when, during a bad-tempered Barclays Premier League match between Queens Park Rangers and Chelsea at Loftus Road, Terry said the words"f***ing black c***" at Ferdinand. At Wesminster Magistrates' Court a fortnight ago Terry was found not guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence, even if though the magistrate suggested that the former Englands captain's defence - that he was sarcastically repeating a phrase he had been accused of uttering - was "certainly under the cold light of forensic examination very unlikely"

How can the FA charge Terry after the magistrate found him not guilty ? Because it is not even the same charge as that levelled by the Cown Prosecution Service and, perhaps more troubling for Terry, because the FA's disciplinary process does not demand the same burden of proof as the courts do.

Of the 473 FA cases heard by an independent commission since 2011 only 2 have resulted in "not guilty" verdicts.

As was spelt out on page 23 of the FA commissions's findings on the Louis Suarez affair - when the Liverpool forward was banned for eight matches after being found guilty of the same charge during an on-pitch spat with Patrice Evra - "breach of rule E3(1), whilst a serious matter does not ammount to a criminal defence, the criminal standard of proof does not apply and criminal sactions are not imposed on those in breach"

In other words, the court's findings on the Terry case, while relevant, are not instructive.

So what's next for Terry? It started last night with the familiar sound of the Chelsea defender denying the charge and he will request a personal hearing. At the end of it all, one way or the other, there will be a bombshell statement on the FA website - no doubt at a time when public and media are distracted-and a few days later, the release of a 100 plus page document that will contain the written reasons for the verdict and sentance. (In Suarez's case this was released late on New Year's Eve.)

If guilty, Terry could face a ban similar to that served by Suarez; there would be outrage at Liverpool were it anything less. But whatever the verdict, this unsavoury episode has left a seroius stain on Terry. The FA's statement said that he would be eligible to play for England while the investigation continues but here is a safe prediction: he will not. Roy Hodgson wished to use the August friendly against Italy to look at younger players. By the time all this is over, whether found guilty or not, the England manager may have decided that, at 31, the defender is no longer worth the risk of the ever-increasing baggage that comes with him.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
Of the 473 FA cases heard by an independent commission since 2011 only 2 have resulted in "not guilty" verdicts.
Click to expand...

This is the key part for me. The Fa are a bunch if hypocrites.

They cried and moaned when England didn't get the World Cup under calls that FIFA were a law unto themselves, yet they are the same spineless cretins themselves. They proved it with the Suarez incident and have just confirmed it with terry.
 
The season has not yet started but I see the all too predictable FA bashing has **sigh**
 
akr said:
The season has not yet started but I see the all too predictable FA bashing has **sigh**
Click to expand...

I don't think it ever stops does it?

The FA has been gutless and cretiness for years, it doesn't start and stop with each season end and beginning
 
joescrivens said:
I don't think it ever stops does it?

The FA has been gutless and cretiness for years, it doesn't start and stop with each season end and beginning
Click to expand...

Spot on. One farce to another. I believe that there s plenty of reasonable doubt. Terry's argument is that he repeated what Ferdinand said home and I can't see how you can prove or disprove either way, so plenty of reasonable doubt. I feel this is a total stitch up by the FA to justify them telling capello who to pick as captain and him walking out. Terry has been involved in many dust ups on the pitch (as would any player of his experience) and I don't recall him being accused in this way before.

I ask again, rio publicly endorsed a racist tweet about Ashley cole and for me is far more guilty of racial abuse yet is he under the same charge?
 
Uruguay have looked terrible against Senegal. Terrible defensive positioning. Cavani has looked completely disinterested. Suarez over-dribbled every chance and has been very wasteful with the opportunities he's had. I'm very optimistic for when GB play them! That's not for a few days though. We play UAE later which could be an unpredictable one!
 
Last edited:
great result from team gb, and I thought they had lost it. Looking good against uraguay, just need a draw.

in other shock news, spain are out!
 
joescrivens said:
I don't think it ever stops does it?

The FA has been gutless and cretiness for years, it doesn't start and stop with each season end and beginning
Click to expand...

We can certainly agree on your first line.

And we can disagree on your second line :)
 
cambsno said:
Spot on. One farce to another. I believe that there s plenty of reasonable doubt. Terry's argument is that he repeated what Ferdinand said home and I can't see how you can prove or disprove either way, so plenty of reasonable doubt. I feel this is a total stitch up by the FA to justify them telling capello who to pick as captain and him walking out. Terry has been involved in many dust ups on the pitch (as would any player of his experience) and I don't recall him being accused in this way before.

I ask again, rio publicly endorsed a racist tweet about Ashley cole and for me is far more guilty of racial abuse yet is he under the same charge?
Click to expand...

Have you read the quote by Dinners from the Times article? It explains clearly why he has been charged.

As for Rio, well I was surprised nothing further has happened in that regard. I guess in comparison to the Suarez and Terry incidents, he has not actually said anything himself, and the person it was directed at (Cole) did not want to take it any further, whereas Evra and Ferdinand did.
 
akr said:
Have you read the quote by Dinners from the Times article? It explains clearly why he has been charged.

As for Rio, well I was surprised nothing further has happened in that regard. I guess in comparison to the Suarez and Terry incidents, he has not actually said anything himself, and the person it was directed at (Cole) did not want to take it any further, whereas Evra and Ferdinand did.
Click to expand...

I did and to me it is still a farce.

Who cares if Cole didnt want to take it further. The fact is that whatever Terry might have said it was only between him and the even *****ier Ferdy (unless you are sad enough to watch on slow motion and can lip read) whereas the not quite so crap brothers tweet contained racist terminology in an insulting and derogatory manner.

All the FA are trying to do is defend their position over Terry/Capello.
 
akr said:
Have you read the quote by Dinners from the Times article? It explains clearly why Oliver Kay thinks he has been charged.
Click to expand...

corrected that for you

akr said:
As for Rio, well I was surprised nothing further has happened in that regard. I guess in comparison to the Suarez and Terry incidents, he has not actually said anything himself, and the person it was directed at (Cole) did not want to take it any further, whereas Evra and Ferdinand did.
Click to expand...

it had nothing to do with ferdinand wanting to take it further, it was a member of the public who made the complaint. The FA are a law unto themselves, they will decide to or not investigate something by their own regard whether somebody complains or not.
 
joescrivens said:
corrected that for you



it had nothing to do with ferdinand wanting to take it further, it was a member of the public who made the complaint. The FA are a law unto themselves, they will decide to or not investigate something by their own regard whether somebody complains or not.
Click to expand...

No need to correct it for me, it was clear. :)

Anyway, me you and Cambsno are not going to agree on this so I suggest we leave it there before we go into 10 pages of disagreements. :eek:

So any thoughts on Portsmouth's plight?
 
akr said:
No need to correct it for me, it was clear. :)
Click to expand...

Not really, it came across more like you were saying what Phil had posted were the factual reasons for him being charged, rather that it just being someones opinion on why he was charged. There is a huge difference.

akr said:
Anyway, me you and Cambsno are not going to agree on this so I suggest we leave it there before we go into 10 pages of disagreements. :eek:
Click to expand...

agreed:thumbs:

akr said:
So any thoughts on Portsmouth's plight?
Click to expand...

nope, not from me.
 
joescrivens said:
Not really, it came across more like you were saying what Phil had posted were the factual reasons for him being charged, rather that it just being someones opinion on why he was charged. There is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

That article I posted did give the reasons for him being charged - Breach of Rule E3 (1)

Terry was acquitted by chief magistrate on the grounds there was reasonable doubt over whether Terry intended to be abusive. Rule E3 (1) simply relates to the use of abusive or insulting words and doesn't matter whether or not the alleged offender intended his words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting.
 
dinners said:
Rule E3 (1) simply relates to the use of abusive or insulting words and doesn't matter whether or not the alleged offender intended his words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting.
Click to expand...

thats not right phil.

If ferdinand did actually say to john terry "Did you call me a black c*nt" and terry replied "No, I did not call you a black c*nt" and this whole conversation was captured on video and audio. John terry would not have been charged simply for using saying an offensive term.

Also, if what you are saying is true and that the FA will simply use Rule E3 (1) to charge anyone who uses "abusive or insulting words" then 90% of the footballers in the prem would be charged every week because they all tell the ref to "***** off" at some point.

So considering john terry used abusive or offensive language the same as anyone else does day in day out, the mentioning of rule e3 is not the reason the FA have charged him, the rest of what Oliver Kay says is his opinion.

in summary Rule e3(1) is what they have charged him with breaking, it isn't why they have charged him.
 
Last edited:
I don't have an opinion one way or the other Joe, I was just stating that the article does tell you what he's been charged with rather than it just being the writers opinion.

With regards to everybody doing it (breach of that rule) - I agree although I suspect (as with Suarez) it's been the racial aspect that has made it stand out.

If you go on the FA website........

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary

........you can see all the recent charges and decisions. The list of rule E3 charges is very long LOL
 
dinners said:
I don't have an opinion one way or the other Joe, I was just stating that the article does tell you what he's been charged with rather than it just being the writers opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that, it does indicate what he was charged with. What Al and I were disputing is why he had been charged. That's Oliver Kay's opinion.

:thumbs:
 
joescrivens said:
I don't disagree with that, it does indicate what he was charged with. What Al and I were disputing is why he had been charged. That's Oliver Kay's opinion.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Isn't 'what' and 'why' sort of the same ?

He's been charged with being in breach of E3 (1) because what he said was in breach of E3 (1)
 
So Gareth Bale has labelled Charlie Adam a 'coward' following a tackle that's injured his ankle.

I have to say having watched the video it was nothing more than a lazy trip which you'll see every saturday and sunday during the premier league season. Perhaps if he went to the Olympics rather than overplaying an injury he'd have been ok :lol:

As for saying he expected an apology but wouldn't accept it anyway...that's just incredibly bad sportsmanship. I really do despise Bale.
 
yeah it was funny when he complained about not recieiving an apology, but saying he wouldn't accept it anyway
 
dinners said:
Isn't 'what' and 'why' sort of the same ?

He's been charged with being in breach of E3 (1) because what he said was in breach of E3 (1)
Click to expand...

no what and why are two totally different things in this case. Because everyone week in week out breaches e3(1) - but they are not charged. The FA therefore select which ones they will charge based on their own reasons. The why is therefore up for debate and opinion.

For me it's because the FA have no backbone at all, as soon as the word racism is spouted about they just crumble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top