Jump to content

  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Martin Samuel

RobbieOR

By RobbieOR,
in FF - Football Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

FanchesterCity Mentor

FanchesterCity

Posted
Posted

Unless Terry gets a punishment roughly comparable with that of Suarez, I'll maintain my belief that the FA are at best woefully inconsistent, and at their worst, biased.

 

I'm not 100% certain on this, but I think the 'judges' are a former player, a barrister and an FA representative?

Either way, unless I have some fundamental facts wrong, there's arguable more video evidence against Terry than there was of Suarez (accepting that even in Terry's case, it's not exactly conclusive proof).

 

On the surface the two cases look similar - a minor spat on the pitch, in which one accuses the other of racist remarks.

 

I wonder if Ferdinand's 'character' seems more reliable than Terry's? (since a a great deal was mean of Evra's testimony being given more weight due to his character).

 

I think the Suarez verdict was wrong, so it's hard to ask for an 8 game ban for Terry, but at least they'd be consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedPaul Collaborator

RedPaul

Posted
Posted
The fucking hypocrisy and back-pedalling by some of the media over Suarez/Terry cases is disgusting.

 

They were all for the result and procedure in Luis' case, but now it is deemed unfair and inadequate!

 

Fucking sickening!

 

Be interesting to compare the back page headlines too if the panel comes to a similar conclusion. To be honest I don't know what to make of it all. How one player can be so castigated by the press here for saying something that is not offensive in his own language (as confirmed by the language experts used by the panel), yet another is portrayed as a more or less a victim for using language that is offensive in his own language! It's just completely bonkers. Oh and bordering on racist itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest San Don

Guest San Don

Posted
Posted

 

The fat fuck. Not you robbie, bluto.

 

Im not surprised he's two faced. His fucking head is big enough to have more than two faces on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LFC64 Community Regular

LFC64

Posted
Posted

This is comedy gold!

 

His makes no attempt to disguise his hypocrisy probably because he knows full well yesterday's papers mean fuck all to anyone and out of the sheer complacency that comes from the self appointed god given right of every journo not to be challenged over double standards he predictably defends Terry with all the arguments he dismissed in the defence of Suarez:

 

'Clearly, they have a principled stance against racism to uphold, and there is considerable outside pressure to take the matter seriously. On this, the FA want to be seen as proactive.

Yet there is also vested interest'

 

 

Typically, one couldn’t presume guilt with such certainty. Presumption is considered prejudicial to a fair trial. Saying it about Terry, however, doesn’t much matter because FA disciplinary proceedings do not aspire to the high standards of the law courts. Criminal and civil courts make rigorous demands of prosecutors. FA hearings don’t even require proof. In this, at least, Terry has a point.

 

 

It concerns the balance of probabilities, the method by which he will be found guilty. In fact, it is on the balance of probabilities that we can make assumptions concerning the outcome of Terry’s hearing. In 2011, there were 473 FA disciplinary cases with a conviction rate of 99.5 per cent. That is what happens when the folk doing the prosecuting get to appoint the judge.

 

 

The hearing begins on Monday morning, but weeks have already been spent in legal argument. The reason such time has elapsed since Terry’s charge is that his counsel have been challenging the make-up of the panel. Now only the chairman is the FA’s man. The rest are independents, including former Blackburn Rovers midfield player Stuart Ripley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
No2 Grand Master

No2

Posted
Posted
This is comedy gold!

 

His makes no attempt to disguise his hypocrisy probably because he knows full well yesterday's papers mean fuck all to anyone and out of the sheer complacency that comes from the self appointed god given right of every journo not to be challenged over double standards he predictably defends Terry with all the arguments he dismissed in the defence of Suarez:

 

'Clearly, they have a principled stance against racism to uphold, and there is considerable outside pressure to take the matter seriously. On this, the FA want to be seen as proactive.

Yet there is also vested interest'

 

 

Typically, one couldn’t presume guilt with such certainty. Presumption is considered prejudicial to a fair trial. Saying it about Terry, however, doesn’t much matter because FA disciplinary proceedings do not aspire to the high standards of the law courts. Criminal and civil courts make rigorous demands of prosecutors. FA hearings don’t even require proof. In this, at least, Terry has a point.

 

 

It concerns the balance of probabilities, the method by which he will be found guilty. In fact, it is on the balance of probabilities that we can make assumptions concerning the outcome of Terry’s hearing. In 2011, there were 473 FA disciplinary cases with a conviction rate of 99.5 per cent. That is what happens when the folk doing the prosecuting get to appoint the judge.

 

 

The hearing begins on Monday morning, but weeks have already been spent in legal argument. The reason such time has elapsed since Terry’s charge is that his counsel have been challenging the make-up of the panel. Now only the chairman is the FA’s man. The rest are independents, including former Blackburn Rovers midfield player Stuart Ripley.

 

We really fucked up hiring Lidl solicitors, probably saved a few quid in wages though:wallbutt:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisM Community Regular

ChrisM

Posted
Posted

That wanker Barclay is at it too. From todays mediawatch on F365 -

 

A Page-Turner Strong stuff from Gerry Anderson puppet and occasional writer Patrick Barclay on Tuesday.

 

Paddy appeared on SHOUTsport to give his opinions on the John Terry farrago. And boy did he have some opinions...

 

Barclay called the FA's tribunal investigating Terry a 'kangaroo court' because of their notoriously bob-on conviction rate, commenting that the burden of proof required in these cases was 'laughable'.

 

He said: "The problem is if found guilty John Terry will be stigmatised for the rest of his life. The rest of his life will be defined by this."

 

Barclay then lamented that, should Terry be found guilty by the FA, he won't be able to get any media work after his retirement -a horror and a tragedy for sure.

 

So presumably Barclay has held similar views about other investigations into on-pitch racial abuse, right?

 

Well...ish.

 

He wrote in The Evening Standard on January 17:

 

'The dunderhead fringe of Liverpool's support don't half like an apology. They seemed to want Roy Hodgson to apologise for not being Kenny Dalglish and, when observers requested a fair chance for Hodgson, demanded we recant or face the wrath of the believers.

 

'Yet, while only too keen to take, they appear oddly reluctant to give, certainly in the case of the wronged Patrice Evra, whom a Football Association commission found to have been subjected to a racially objectionable word by Luis Suarez during the League match against Manchester United at Anfield.'

 

Paddy did have an explanation for that on the wireless -specifically that he accepted the Suarez report because it was very thorough and "incredibly textured and interesting".

 

Hmmm. It does seem slightly unfair to compare the elegant prose of the Suarez report with the Terry report, when the latter hasn't been written yet. Who knows, Paddy - perhaps that will be a real page-turner too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LFC64 Community Regular

LFC64

Posted
Posted

 

If you compare his article of yesterday with this it seems he's checked himself or has been checked and has toned down yesterday's defence of Terry and his criticism of the FA which smacked of bias and was steeped in ridiculous hypocrisy.

 

What still comes through loud and clear though is his concern for Terry and his 'reputation' and the article is his little personal prayer that we all go easy on the Lionhearted one because wouldn't it be awful if an England captain

got some of the treatment Suarez has had to endure. That just wouldn't do would it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reckoner Grand Master

Reckoner

Posted
Posted (edited)

Poor old jt, what other thug would get favourable press?

"He was said to have told doorman Trevor Thirlwall: "Do you know how much I earn? I earn more in a day than you earn in a week. Do you know who we are? We could get you sacked."

Mr Donne said they pushed their way back into the club and forced Mr Thirlwall back across the reception area with the "ferocity of the attack".

But it was when the fight spilled back outside that Mr Terry is accused of hitting Mr Thirlwall in the face with a bottle.

Mr Donne said: "Trevor Thirlwall immediately felt what he described in a statement to police as an explosion of pain in his eye followed by the loss of vision in it."

 

Chelsea player John Terry punched a nightclub bouncer so hard he broke a bone in his hand, a court has heard.

Terry, 21, allegedly suffered what doctors call a "boxer's fracture" to his right hand when he punched doorman Trevor Thirlwall, 28.

 

Now it has been claimed that Terry agreed to pay Miss Perroncel himself to stop her inflicting even more damage on his reputation by discussing their liaison in detail.

The Mirror reported that the £170,000-a-week Chelsea star had agreed a £800,000 deal, while The Times said he may have paid as much as £400,000.

 

In November last year he was revealed to have offered undercover reporters a tour of the Chelsea training ground in exchange for a £10,000 cash payment, paid to an associate that he said would go to charity.

Earlier this week Telegraph Sport revealed that Terry is in dispute with his former agent Aaron Lincoln over a six-figure commission payment on his £4 million Umbro boot deal.

 

Source: the Internet

Edited by Reckoner
Bored
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lario Veteran

Lario

Posted
Posted
Poor old jt, what other thug would get favourable press?

"He was said to have told doorman Trevor Thirlwall: "Do you know how much I earn? I earn more in a day than you earn in a week.

 

"Well you must be a shit footballer then, 'cause I earn fuck all per week!" wouldv'e been my witty retort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...