How do you NOT start Matic and Hazard in the toughest game in the group?
Because they're both seriously out of form. Hazard did nothing after coming on and Matic was no better than Mikel.
How do you NOT start Matic and Hazard in the toughest game in the group?
Because they're both seriously out of form. Hazard did nothing after coming on and Matic was no better than Mikel.
Like most every other Chelsea player isn't?
Don't get how you leave your best player, in form or not, out of such a key game.
its not all that key really, win your home games and sneak an away win very rare teams go out on 12 points. You would fancy Chelsea to beat Tell Aviv away and then Dynamo and Porto both at home
Like most every other Chelsea player isn't?
Don't get how you leave your best player, in form or not, out of such a key game.
cannot do the twitter thing because I am **** at tech
The reason he wasnt charged is because the FA decided not to call ANY witnesses or actually look at any evidence. FA board member Heather has just put out a furious statement on it. Which is not what would happen in a legal case.Also no one has mentioned this yet but Mourinho has not been charged for what he happened to Carneiro. Again, she has no chance in **** in winning that case in court if she takes it there, unless the FA only looked into what Mourinho said at the time and not subsequent action, but that would seem pretty odd.
The reason he wasnt charged is because the FA decided not to call ANY witnesses. Which is not what would happen in a legal case.
But there must be a reason for that. It's not like they just glanced at it, said "meh, whatever" and then threw it out. If anything, the fact that they felt the case wasn't strong enough to even call witnesses is very telling.
I will happily donate £50 to the Base if she wins a constructive dismissal case. It just isn't going to happen.
I'm definitely going with woefully negligent. But then FA are looking at sexist comments, she is looking at constructive dismissal in her case.I agree with all of that and think the club should be punished and it should be looked into in more detail. The problem is that if the FA has chosen not to even investigate, they're either woefully negligent/sexist (in which case she would then have a legal case against them as well, as the relevant governing body in what you would have to describe as systematic issues) or they feel like the case was not going to be decisive. Seeing as how the FA tend to use a much lower burden of proof than the courts, you have to figure that she has very little chance of winning a case.
I'm definitely going with woefully negligent. But then FA are looking at sexist comments, she is looking at constructive dismissal in her case.