The Chelsea Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ramires
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 35K
  • Views Views 3M
CJACKO11 said:
Was actually a good peice in the Dail Mail today (shock horror) by Martin Samuel about this whole JT case.

When JT said the FA had made his place untenable Alex Horne (FA general secretary) released a statement saying this. "I don't see how we have made his place untenable, i'ts something which happened in a match between Chelsea and QPR. "That's a very different process from my perspective, from our England procedures".

Martin Samuel's response: In which case, why did the FA strip him of the England captaincy? At least pretend there is consistancy.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It took a bad middle ground to try and please everyone, and actually pleased no one. Terry actually has had leeway here, on two counts, firstly the FA could easily have stood him down for England completely pending investigation. Secondly when previous players have had some kind of upcoming court case, they have been prohibited from playing while the case is underway. Terry was actually quite lucky to be allowed to play in the Euros. His position was not untenable, nor was he victimised.
 
In many ways its a shame for him to end his England career this way, but he has handled it pretty badly IMO. And so did the FA initially too. You either back him totally at the start, or you drop him totally at the start.
 
Just in case it gets brought up. The ban for abusing another player is 2 games. For Suarez the base charge was increased by 2 games for the amount of times he was found guilty of abusing evra. Then with the aggravating factor that it was racially motivated it was doubled to 8 games.
Terry only found guilty of racially abusing Ferdinand once.
 
Mike. said:
Partly because many people don't like him, party because its totally deserved.
Click to expand...

Of course it's because people don't like him, if this is deserved as you say it is the charge is using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour which included reference to colour and/or race. Okay now there is nothing to prove he used these words to Anton as was sorted in a court of law for one but if you can be charged for using abusive/insulting words to someone then why was Anton not charged too? ******* joke mate, no consistency at all.
 
CJACKO11 said:
Of course it's because people don't like him, if this is deserved as you say it is the charge is using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour which included reference to colour and/or race. Okay now there is nothing to prove he used these words to Anton as was sorted in a court of law for one but if you can be charged for using abusive/insulting words to someone then why was Anton not charged too? ******* joke mate, no consistency at all.
Click to expand...

Well, that's something new.
 
Statement from FA:

n Independent Regulatory Commission has today [Thursday 27 September 2012] found a charge of misconduct against John Terry proven and has issued a suspension for a period of four matches and a fine of £220,000, pending appeal. The Football Association charged Mr Terry on Friday 27 July 2012 with using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.
The charge was the result of The FA’s long-standing investigation into this matter, which was placed on hold at the request of the Crown Prosecution Service and Mr Terry’s representatives pending the outcome of the criminal trial.
A hearing took place from 24-27 September 2012 before an Independent Regulatory Commission of The FA to consider the charge.
The decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission is as follows:

  • Mr Terry be suspended from all domestic club football until such time as Chelsea’s First Team have completed four competitive matches
  • Fined the sum of £220,000
The Independent Regulatory Commission will provide written reasons for its decision in due course. Mr Terry has the right to appeal the decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission to an Appeal Board. An appeal must be lodged within 14 days from receipt of the written reasons for the decision.
The penalty is suspended until after the outcome of any appeal, or the time for appealing expires, or should Mr Terry decide not to appeal. The reason for this is to ensure that the penalty does not take effect before any appeal so that Mr Terry has an effective right of appeal.

(FA.com)
 
CJACKO11 said:
Of course it's because people don't like him, if this is deserved as you say it is the charge is using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour which included reference to colour and/or race. Okay now there is nothing to prove he used these words to Anton as was sorted in a court of law for one but if you can be charged for using abusive/insulting words to someone then why was Anton not charged too? ******* joke mate, no consistency at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure on this but I think that because what Anton said came out in evidence they can't/won't charge him as it would discourage people coming forward in the future if they thought they'd get banned too.
 
Nick Chelsea said:
Well, that's something new.
Click to expand...

And just to make things every worse Rio who used a racial slur on Twitter so there was conclusive proof towards Ashley Cole got just a fine! Where was his ban? Look i am not happy JT got this ban but if there was some sort of consistency then it would sit better with me.
 
19-11-08 said:
I'm not entirely sure on this but I think that because what Anton said came out in evidence they can't/won't charge him as it would discourage people coming forward in the future if they thought they'd get banned too.
Click to expand...

But thats ******* ludacris! So it's okay to insult someone as long as it's not racial abuse. I have a funny feeling this is not the end of this, heard from a member of his legal team that they may take this to the top.
 
CJACKO11 said:
And just to make things every worse Rio who used a racial slur on Twitter so there was conclusive proof towards Ashley Cole got just a fine! Where was his ban? Look i am not happy JT got this ban but if there was some sort of consistency then it would sit better with me.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He did not use a racial slur. can we stop cherry pick because of club colours.

He retweeted it, got a 45k ban, and was lucky not to get a game ban
 
CJACKO11 said:
But thats ******* ludacris! So it's okay to insult someone as long as it's not racial abuse. I have a funny feeling this is not the end of this, heard from a member of his legal team that they may take this to the top.
Click to expand...

What top? They will go to CAS, and lose.
 
So, if he appeals it and the appeals gets turfed out, will the ban be extended like the majority or will it stay the same? Not sure in this situation
 
CJACKO11 said:
But thats ******* ludacris! So it's okay to insult someone as long as it's not racial abuse. I have a funny feeling this is not the end of this, heard from a member of his legal team that they may take this to the top.
Click to expand...

Well yes, in terms of the laws nothing would have happened to either player, until he used racial abuse. Laws of the game. Frankly there shouldnt be any abuse allowed, but that is the current nature of the game
 
CJACKO11 said:
But thats ******* ludacris! So it's okay to insult someone as long as it's not racial abuse. I have a funny feeling this is not the end of this, heard from a member of his legal team that they may take this to the top.
Click to expand...

Why is it? People get plea bargains to give evidence, even when they've committed a crime too, in a court of law that you're so fond of bringing up whenever this subject coms up.
 
ajt09 said:
So, if he appeals it and the appeals gets turfed out, will the ban be extended like the majority or will it stay the same? Not sure in this situation
Click to expand...
It depends on whether they think the appeal is frivolous. I doubt it would be extended though; I think they only do that when the charge is really clear cut.
 
ajt09 said:
So, if he appeals it and the appeals gets turfed out, will the ban be extended like the majority or will it stay the same? Not sure in this situation
Click to expand...

Suarez would have had his ban extended if they still found him guilty IIRC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top