The Chelsea Thread
- Thread starter Ramires
- Start date
- Replies 35K
- Views 3M
I think you fine he quote re-tweeted it and said "ha yer choc ice". He repeated it himself. Like i keep saying no consistency. This has absolutely nothing to do with me supporting Chelsea. Remember back to the Suarez case and I saw his side to it and i hate Liverpool more than anything ever.
Laws of the game state using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour carries a 2 game ban.
But in that court case JT was found not guilty but Anton admitted using them words to him. This whole situation just stinks full stop. I am 100% against racism and everyone should be but when the FA seem to protect the black people in this case and fine the white one it sends out the wrong message completely.
Yeah i bet you would have........
No he didnt, he said haha yeah good one. hence improper conduct under e1. still should have got a game ban imo though (although no player has actually ever been banned for a any similar tweet)
The abuse wasnt reported by the ref since there was an aggravated altercation involved, otherwise we'd be having players banned every game (i actually agree with you that this rule should be ruthlessly enforced by the way, cut out all abuse).
No they are protecting the player who was abused, who happens to be black. Terry shouldn't have said it, period. Since it has unlikely that he was merely repeated what Anton said, it was always against him in an FA court. That said, the FA should either have dropped him completely, backed him completely till the process was done.
Last edited:
How can you say this has nothing to do with you being a Chelsea fan?
You're asking for Ferdinand to get the same punishment as Terry despite the clear differences in the case on the pretext of consistency. Yet if he had been banned he would have been the first player to be banned for a post on twitter when the precedent set by other players ( Carlton cole, Macheda, Babel) has been a fine.
You're also complaining that Anton Ferdinand wasn't banned for being abusive which is apparently inconsistent when I can't personally think of a single player banned for using abusive language where there wasn't an aggravating factor. By the letter of the law what he said probably would have been a ban (if it didn't come out in court) but by the actual application of the law it would have actually be crazily inconsistent to ban him.
I am not suggesting Terry didn't deserve anything, all i am saying is that all parties should have been charged.
Where did i say Ferdinand deserves the same punishment? I said both Ferdinand's deserve punishment but of a lesser charge. Again as i said earlier this has absolutely nothing to do with me supporting Chelsea otherwise i would not have backed Suarez in his case too. This is about having a level playing field in football which is not happening here.
I can see where you are coming from 2 game ban for anton, 6 for terry. But the FA have to use sense here. How many players are going to react (quite naturally) if they get racially abused? and then the FA are going to then give them a ban when reporting it? It's not just about this case, its about precedent.
Ferdinand did get a lesser charge. just E1, and E1(2) like Terry.
Genuine possibility. Look how they are dealing with the abuse of Mikel.
I also believe they will tell Terry to accept the charges.
Who is defending him exactly?
Not a chance, club will stick by him as he cleared his name in court. I will be astounded if he is stripped of his captaincy.
But surely you can't have one rule for one and one for the other? they banned a fan for racial abuse, and they have said they respect the decision made by the FA. They have zero tolerance of this sort of thing?
This ain't a vendetta btw-just an opinion on the whole situation and the club policy
Well, if they were banning him the least he could get would be 2 games as the aggravating factor doubles it but fair enough if you didn't want the same ban for Rio, I'll take that bit back. I don't think it affects any of the points I made though.
He was found not guilty on the basis of lack of evidence due to difference in the levels of proof required by criminal and civil courts. He was found guilty by a civil court, which is still a guilty verdict. You say you're not defending him, you've said for weeks that he's innocent because of a lack of evidence, which is using a horrendous argument to excuse his guilty verdict today, which by my definition is defending him.
Nick Chelsea
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Good one.
Think the club will take the court verdict rather than the FA's, how many times have the FA been right?
So everyone from now on who gets a not guilty verdict because of this whether it's racial abuse, rape, murder or anything else should still be seen as guilty? If a normal person me or you was found not guilty in a court of law because of the lack of evidence but then was sacked or suspended or fined at work because of it you could take them to court for breach of court ruling simple as that.
Sigh.
on the first point, more likely to listen to the FA, as they still have power over further punishment. And as the CAS is a civil court, their judgement is a barometer for what would follow. And the FA have been many more times than wrong.
second point: No and No. You know that's not the point.
And by the way, workplaces are entitled to sack you if you are taken to court, regardless of wether you are later found guilty or not, this is in your work contract, so you know of this beforehand.
Fair to say Joey isn't taking it well.
@Joey7Barton
12 games!!! By the FA's perverse reckoning, I'd of got less of a ban for racially abusing the Man City players than tickling them as I did.
@Joey7Barton
12 games!!! By the FA's perverse reckoning, I'd of got less of a ban for racially abusing the Man City players than tickling them as I did.