What made the Suarez situation much worse, IMO, was Liverpool's reaction to it.
They should have just said either:
a) we've informed Luis of his responsibilities and told him that he shouldn't be using this word, in this context, in the UK
b) denied it
Let's face it the whole t-short thing was ridiculous and was really poor from a well-respected club.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 41 seconds ago
What made the Suarez situation much worse, IMO, was Liverpool's reaction to it.
They should have just said either:
a) we've informed Luis of his responsibilities and told him that he shouldn't be using this word, in this context, in the UK
b) denied it
Let's face it the whole t-short thing was ridiculous and was really poor from a well-respected club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember seeing the clips come out from the warm up where they had them on. Straight away it was a jaw dropping ‘what have they done’ moment. How did they think it was a good idea
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 9 seconds ago
On one hand there is the obvious need to familiarize people but at the same time where do you draw the line in a sort of what we say goes regardless of your culture.
-----------------------
Yea, it's a tricky one and context would always have to be central. Eg, these are the rules when acting on behalf of your club (on or off the field).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember a while back some new entrants into britain got in trouble for not having car insurance. Basically it wasn't a thing in their home countries. They weren't "let off" as it wasn't an excuse. Which is fair enough.
At the same time I was involved in a recent discussion about people speaking their home language in public, and there was a "speak English now you are in england" tone by some. Yet there was a point made that many countries have a national language but have dialects in localities that are completely different so to them speaking in a certain language/dialect even in company wasn't rude. It was norm.
This is when it gets sticky, if that makes sense?
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 1 minute ago
But, but, but negerito is ok if you're Uruguayan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate, honestly. I think you are a decent poster but you are embarrassing yourself here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could not agree more. I genuinely think a few Liverpool fans came over to the United board expecting to find hypocrisy and backtracking. Finding none, they typed out all the things they'd prepared anyway, as it would be a shame to waste them. This thread is full of non sequitur responses that are not replies to any comment and don't fit with what people have said. Why? Because you are watching people having an imaginary argument.
The first I heard about this Cavani thing was when I saw some Liverpool fans discussing it on the live football thread yesterday. I saw stuff about him using "the exact same word" as Suarez and that it should be fun watching "the gymnastics" of the United fans.
Initially, my heart sank. I thought maybe Cavani had had an argument with a Southampton player and called him that. When, a few minutes later, I read the actual story, I breathed a sigh of relief, though was still a little disappointed. Now why, I wonder, was my emotional response to these two completely different scenarios completely different? The answer is in the question.
He will likely get a 3 or 4 game ban under the current guidelines. Whilst the term is deemed socially acceptable in Uruguay and other parts of the World, the FA will make a judgement on what is acceptable in the UK and their regulations. If I recall correctly, John Terry got a 4 game ban, but Suarez's was doubled because the panel decided it was likely that he repeated the word multiple times rather than just once.
Regarding Suarez. My opinion is that he didn't use the term itself as a way of insulting or abusing Evra. He undeniably antagonised Evra and made the reference to skin colour whilst doing so and that is still not acceptable.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 2 minutes ago
What made the Suarez situation much worse, IMO, was Liverpool's reaction to it.
They should have just said either:
a) we've informed Luis of his responsibilities and told him that he shouldn't be using this word, in this context, in the UK
b) denied it
Let's face it the whole t-short thing was ridiculous and was really poor from a well-respected club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much like the fans, their position was that Suarez was innocent and then went from there.
For something as serious as this, that is a really poor position to take.
I could understand it from immature and ignorant users of a forum but the statement from the club was a disgrace.
It was about point scoring and judging by the comments on this article, it still is. Regardless of how ridiculous that makes them look.
Would he face a club ban had he sent this whilst on international duty?
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 26 seconds ago
He will likely get a 3 or 4 game ban under the current guidelines. Whilst the term is deemed socially acceptable in Uruguay and other parts of the World, the FA will make a judgement on what is acceptable in the UK and their regulations. If I recall correctly, John Terry got a 4 game ban, but Suarez's was doubled because the panel decided it was likely that he repeated the word multiple times rather than just once.
Regarding Suarez. My opinion is that he didn't use the term itself as a way of insulting or abusing Evra. He undeniably antagonised Evra and made the reference to skin colour whilst doing so and that is still not acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has nothing to do with the Suarez or Terry cases - just look at the charge.
I cannot believe people don't understand this.
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
I could not agree more. I genuinely think a few Liverpool fans came over to the United board expecting to find hypocrisy and backtracking. Finding none, they typed out all the things they'd prepared anyway, as it would be a shame to waste them. This thread is full of non sequitur responses that are not replies to any comment and don't fit with what people have said. Why? Because you are watching people having an imaginary argument.
------------------------------
Bang on, and well put. Think that sums up this mess of a thread completely.
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 9 seconds ago
On one hand there is the obvious need to familiarize people but at the same time where do you draw the line in a sort of what we say goes regardless of your culture.
-----------------------
Yea, it's a tricky one and context would always have to be central. Eg, these are the rules when acting on behalf of your club (on or off the field).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember a while back some new entrants into britain got in trouble for not having car insurance. Basically it wasn't a thing in their home countries. They weren't "let off" as it wasn't an excuse. Which is fair enough.
At the same time I was involved in a recent discussion about people speaking their home language in public, and there was a "speak English now you are in england" tone by some. Yet there was a point made that many countries have a national language but have dialects in localities that are completely different so to them speaking in a certain language/dialect even in company wasn't rude. It was norm.
This is when it gets sticky, if that makes sense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a complicated subject. As you say, you have to abide by the laws of the country and ignorance is usually not a defence, but learning all the laws (that we often take for granted because we grew up with many of them like the car insurance example) can be very difficult to do in a short time.
The "speak English in England" thing is different for me. People should be perfectly entitled to have discussions on whatever language they choose
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 2 minutes ago
What made the Suarez situation much worse, IMO, was Liverpool's reaction to it.
They should have just said either:
a) we've informed Luis of his responsibilities and told him that he shouldn't be using this word, in this context, in the UK
b) denied it
Let's face it the whole t-short thing was ridiculous and was really poor from a well-respected club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much like the fans, their position was that Suarez was innocent and then went from there.
For something as serious as this, that is a really poor position to take.
I could understand it from immature and ignorant users of a forum but the statement from the club was a disgrace.
It was about point scoring and judging by the comments on this article, it still is. Regardless of how ridiculous that makes them look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending the player I have no issue with. The t-shirts were ridiculous though. I felt sorry for Dalglish then. A man who acted with such dignity in the past reduced to that.
Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
This was just one part that was completely unacceptable about their statement:
"It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suarez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name.
"We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult."
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 26 seconds ago
He will likely get a 3 or 4 game ban under the current guidelines. Whilst the term is deemed socially acceptable in Uruguay and other parts of the World, the FA will make a judgement on what is acceptable in the UK and their regulations. If I recall correctly, John Terry got a 4 game ban, but Suarez's was doubled because the panel decided it was likely that he repeated the word multiple times rather than just once.
Regarding Suarez. My opinion is that he didn't use the term itself as a way of insulting or abusing Evra. He undeniably antagonised Evra and made the reference to skin colour whilst doing so and that is still not acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has nothing to do with the Suarez or Terry cases - just look at the charge.
I cannot believe people don't understand this.
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where have a mentioned the charge, I said that he will probably get a 3 or 4 game ban based on the current guidelines. At the start of this season, the FA issued fresh guidelines on racist language and behaviour on social media, with offences carrying a minimum ban of three matches.
I compared it with Terry and Suarez because they are the most recent cases that sprang to mind of someone using a racial word, and because this entire thread is making said comparisons and so it maintains the topic.
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 4 minutes ago
I could not agree more. I genuinely think a few Liverpool fans came over to the United board expecting to find hypocrisy and backtracking. Finding none, they typed out all the things they'd prepared anyway, as it would be a shame to waste them. This thread is full of non sequitur responses that are not replies to any comment and don't fit with what people have said. Why? Because you are watching people having an imaginary argument.
------------------------------
Bang on, and well put. Think that sums up this mess of a thread completely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clockwork is the hero this thread doesn’t deserve.
Look, I have a few black mates who I could call names to their face (and visa versa). However we would never say the same things to each other on social media as the world has changed to the point where we just can’t do these things any more. Twitter is a different world to the one we actually live in!.
He will get a ban but I don’t think it was intended as a racist remark.
I’m Leeds - so have no love for Man U.
3 games? Maybe 1 if he’s lucky.
If I ran a club I’d ban the players from using social media unless they restricted access to friends only.
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Terry and Suarez cases are irrelevant to this case and the likely punishment.
Different charge, different cases entirely.
You seem to be referencing the Terry case when concluding the likely punishment, which is incorrect.
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
-----------------------------------
I missed this case, can you give some detail?
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 5 seconds ago
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
-----------------------------------
I missed this case, can you give some detail?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was charged with bringing the game into disrepute in relation to a social media post.
It was when he put up a picture and compared it to Mendy - some people saw it as a racist image.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Terry and Suarez cases are irrelevant to this case and the likely punishment.
Different charge, different cases entirely.
You seem to be referencing the Terry case when concluding the likely punishment, which is incorrect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I explocitly referenced the FA guidelines that give the minimum sentence as 3 games from the start of the season for the likely punishment and so I made a judgement on a ban of 3-4 games which would be entirely consistent with the guidelines. The reference to Terry and Suarez is because they were both offences of the same nature but one got a significantly bigger punishment and I simply explained the differences that were used to decide those as a justification for my belief that it will only be 3-4 games rather than a larger ban. You are right that this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the current offence but it does provide a precedent that the FA will use the number of times a word was used as a factor when deciding on the punishment.
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 1 minute ago
Look, I have a few black mates who I could call names to their face (and visa versa). However we would never say the same things to each other on social media as the world has changed to the point where we just can’t do these things any more. Twitter is a different world to the one we actually live in!.
He will get a ban but I don’t think it was intended as a racist remark.
I’m Leeds - so have no love for Man U.
3 games? Maybe 1 if he’s lucky.
If I ran a club I’d ban the players from using social media unless they restricted access to friends only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be difficult with the amount of money they earn from it.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Terry and Suarez cases are irrelevant to this case and the likely punishment.
Different charge, different cases entirely.
You seem to be referencing the Terry case when concluding the likely punishment, which is incorrect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I explocitly referenced the FA guidelines that give the minimum sentence as 3 games from the start of the season for the likely punishment and so I made a judgement on a ban of 3-4 games which would be entirely consistent with the guidelines. The reference to Terry and Suarez is because they were both offences of the same nature but one got a significantly bigger punishment and I simply explained the differences that were used to decide those as a justification for my belief that it will only be 3-4 games rather than a larger ban. You are right that this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the current offence but it does provide a precedent that the FA will use the number of times a word was used as a factor when deciding on the punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, the reference to Suarez and Terry is wrong because they were charged with something different and their bans provide no precedent at all.
The Silva ban is likely to provide precedent - a one game ban.
"I explocitly referenced the FA guidelines that give the minimum sentence as 3 games from the start of the season for the likely punishment and so I made a judgement on a ban of 3-4 games"
And can you refer us to which guidelines you're using, please?
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 1 minute ago
Look, I have a few black mates who I could call names to their face (and visa versa). However we would never say the same things to each other on social media as the world has changed to the point where we just can’t do these things any more. Twitter is a different world to the one we actually live in!.
He will get a ban but I don’t think it was intended as a racist remark.
I’m Leeds - so have no love for Man U.
3 games? Maybe 1 if he’s lucky.
If I ran a club I’d ban the players from using social media unless they restricted access to friends only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be difficult with the amount of money they earn from it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put it in their contract. Don’t sign then so be it.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 5 seconds ago
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
-----------------------------------
I missed this case, can you give some detail?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was charged with bringing the game into disrepute in relation to a social media post.
It was when he put up a picture and compared it to Mendy - some people saw it as a racist image.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotcha, yea... the social media angle has to come into it.
I think the FA should use this as a way to educate, not punish (and i'd think this regardless of which club the player was from).
Quick question does it make a difference if it's a shared post rather than a written post?
Just read that he shared a post on IG but didn't write it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Cavani Tweet
Page 10 of 24
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 30/11/20
What made the Suarez situation much worse, IMO, was Liverpool's reaction to it.
They should have just said either:
a) we've informed Luis of his responsibilities and told him that he shouldn't be using this word, in this context, in the UK
b) denied it
Let's face it the whole t-short thing was ridiculous and was really poor from a well-respected club.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 41 seconds ago
What made the Suarez situation much worse, IMO, was Liverpool's reaction to it.
They should have just said either:
a) we've informed Luis of his responsibilities and told him that he shouldn't be using this word, in this context, in the UK
b) denied it
Let's face it the whole t-short thing was ridiculous and was really poor from a well-respected club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember seeing the clips come out from the warm up where they had them on. Straight away it was a jaw dropping ‘what have they done’ moment. How did they think it was a good idea
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 9 seconds ago
On one hand there is the obvious need to familiarize people but at the same time where do you draw the line in a sort of what we say goes regardless of your culture.
-----------------------
Yea, it's a tricky one and context would always have to be central. Eg, these are the rules when acting on behalf of your club (on or off the field).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember a while back some new entrants into britain got in trouble for not having car insurance. Basically it wasn't a thing in their home countries. They weren't "let off" as it wasn't an excuse. Which is fair enough.
At the same time I was involved in a recent discussion about people speaking their home language in public, and there was a "speak English now you are in england" tone by some. Yet there was a point made that many countries have a national language but have dialects in localities that are completely different so to them speaking in a certain language/dialect even in company wasn't rude. It was norm.
This is when it gets sticky, if that makes sense?
posted on 30/11/20
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 1 minute ago
But, but, but negerito is ok if you're Uruguayan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate, honestly. I think you are a decent poster but you are embarrassing yourself here
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could not agree more. I genuinely think a few Liverpool fans came over to the United board expecting to find hypocrisy and backtracking. Finding none, they typed out all the things they'd prepared anyway, as it would be a shame to waste them. This thread is full of non sequitur responses that are not replies to any comment and don't fit with what people have said. Why? Because you are watching people having an imaginary argument.
The first I heard about this Cavani thing was when I saw some Liverpool fans discussing it on the live football thread yesterday. I saw stuff about him using "the exact same word" as Suarez and that it should be fun watching "the gymnastics" of the United fans.
Initially, my heart sank. I thought maybe Cavani had had an argument with a Southampton player and called him that. When, a few minutes later, I read the actual story, I breathed a sigh of relief, though was still a little disappointed. Now why, I wonder, was my emotional response to these two completely different scenarios completely different? The answer is in the question.
posted on 30/11/20
He will likely get a 3 or 4 game ban under the current guidelines. Whilst the term is deemed socially acceptable in Uruguay and other parts of the World, the FA will make a judgement on what is acceptable in the UK and their regulations. If I recall correctly, John Terry got a 4 game ban, but Suarez's was doubled because the panel decided it was likely that he repeated the word multiple times rather than just once.
Regarding Suarez. My opinion is that he didn't use the term itself as a way of insulting or abusing Evra. He undeniably antagonised Evra and made the reference to skin colour whilst doing so and that is still not acceptable.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 2 minutes ago
What made the Suarez situation much worse, IMO, was Liverpool's reaction to it.
They should have just said either:
a) we've informed Luis of his responsibilities and told him that he shouldn't be using this word, in this context, in the UK
b) denied it
Let's face it the whole t-short thing was ridiculous and was really poor from a well-respected club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much like the fans, their position was that Suarez was innocent and then went from there.
For something as serious as this, that is a really poor position to take.
I could understand it from immature and ignorant users of a forum but the statement from the club was a disgrace.
It was about point scoring and judging by the comments on this article, it still is. Regardless of how ridiculous that makes them look.
posted on 30/11/20
Would he face a club ban had he sent this whilst on international duty?
posted on 30/11/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 26 seconds ago
He will likely get a 3 or 4 game ban under the current guidelines. Whilst the term is deemed socially acceptable in Uruguay and other parts of the World, the FA will make a judgement on what is acceptable in the UK and their regulations. If I recall correctly, John Terry got a 4 game ban, but Suarez's was doubled because the panel decided it was likely that he repeated the word multiple times rather than just once.
Regarding Suarez. My opinion is that he didn't use the term itself as a way of insulting or abusing Evra. He undeniably antagonised Evra and made the reference to skin colour whilst doing so and that is still not acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has nothing to do with the Suarez or Terry cases - just look at the charge.
I cannot believe people don't understand this.
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
posted on 30/11/20
I could not agree more. I genuinely think a few Liverpool fans came over to the United board expecting to find hypocrisy and backtracking. Finding none, they typed out all the things they'd prepared anyway, as it would be a shame to waste them. This thread is full of non sequitur responses that are not replies to any comment and don't fit with what people have said. Why? Because you are watching people having an imaginary argument.
------------------------------
Bang on, and well put. Think that sums up this mess of a thread completely.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 9 seconds ago
On one hand there is the obvious need to familiarize people but at the same time where do you draw the line in a sort of what we say goes regardless of your culture.
-----------------------
Yea, it's a tricky one and context would always have to be central. Eg, these are the rules when acting on behalf of your club (on or off the field).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember a while back some new entrants into britain got in trouble for not having car insurance. Basically it wasn't a thing in their home countries. They weren't "let off" as it wasn't an excuse. Which is fair enough.
At the same time I was involved in a recent discussion about people speaking their home language in public, and there was a "speak English now you are in england" tone by some. Yet there was a point made that many countries have a national language but have dialects in localities that are completely different so to them speaking in a certain language/dialect even in company wasn't rude. It was norm.
This is when it gets sticky, if that makes sense?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a complicated subject. As you say, you have to abide by the laws of the country and ignorance is usually not a defence, but learning all the laws (that we often take for granted because we grew up with many of them like the car insurance example) can be very difficult to do in a short time.
The "speak English in England" thing is different for me. People should be perfectly entitled to have discussions on whatever language they choose
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 2 minutes ago
What made the Suarez situation much worse, IMO, was Liverpool's reaction to it.
They should have just said either:
a) we've informed Luis of his responsibilities and told him that he shouldn't be using this word, in this context, in the UK
b) denied it
Let's face it the whole t-short thing was ridiculous and was really poor from a well-respected club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much like the fans, their position was that Suarez was innocent and then went from there.
For something as serious as this, that is a really poor position to take.
I could understand it from immature and ignorant users of a forum but the statement from the club was a disgrace.
It was about point scoring and judging by the comments on this article, it still is. Regardless of how ridiculous that makes them look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending the player I have no issue with. The t-shirts were ridiculous though. I felt sorry for Dalglish then. A man who acted with such dignity in the past reduced to that.
posted on 30/11/20
Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
This was just one part that was completely unacceptable about their statement:
"It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suarez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name.
"We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult."
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 26 seconds ago
He will likely get a 3 or 4 game ban under the current guidelines. Whilst the term is deemed socially acceptable in Uruguay and other parts of the World, the FA will make a judgement on what is acceptable in the UK and their regulations. If I recall correctly, John Terry got a 4 game ban, but Suarez's was doubled because the panel decided it was likely that he repeated the word multiple times rather than just once.
Regarding Suarez. My opinion is that he didn't use the term itself as a way of insulting or abusing Evra. He undeniably antagonised Evra and made the reference to skin colour whilst doing so and that is still not acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This has nothing to do with the Suarez or Terry cases - just look at the charge.
I cannot believe people don't understand this.
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where have a mentioned the charge, I said that he will probably get a 3 or 4 game ban based on the current guidelines. At the start of this season, the FA issued fresh guidelines on racist language and behaviour on social media, with offences carrying a minimum ban of three matches.
I compared it with Terry and Suarez because they are the most recent cases that sprang to mind of someone using a racial word, and because this entire thread is making said comparisons and so it maintains the topic.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 4 minutes ago
I could not agree more. I genuinely think a few Liverpool fans came over to the United board expecting to find hypocrisy and backtracking. Finding none, they typed out all the things they'd prepared anyway, as it would be a shame to waste them. This thread is full of non sequitur responses that are not replies to any comment and don't fit with what people have said. Why? Because you are watching people having an imaginary argument.
------------------------------
Bang on, and well put. Think that sums up this mess of a thread completely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clockwork is the hero this thread doesn’t deserve.
posted on 30/11/20
Look, I have a few black mates who I could call names to their face (and visa versa). However we would never say the same things to each other on social media as the world has changed to the point where we just can’t do these things any more. Twitter is a different world to the one we actually live in!.
He will get a ban but I don’t think it was intended as a racist remark.
I’m Leeds - so have no love for Man U.
3 games? Maybe 1 if he’s lucky.
If I ran a club I’d ban the players from using social media unless they restricted access to friends only.
posted on 30/11/20
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Terry and Suarez cases are irrelevant to this case and the likely punishment.
Different charge, different cases entirely.
You seem to be referencing the Terry case when concluding the likely punishment, which is incorrect.
posted on 30/11/20
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
-----------------------------------
I missed this case, can you give some detail?
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 5 seconds ago
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
-----------------------------------
I missed this case, can you give some detail?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was charged with bringing the game into disrepute in relation to a social media post.
It was when he put up a picture and compared it to Mendy - some people saw it as a racist image.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Terry and Suarez cases are irrelevant to this case and the likely punishment.
Different charge, different cases entirely.
You seem to be referencing the Terry case when concluding the likely punishment, which is incorrect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I explocitly referenced the FA guidelines that give the minimum sentence as 3 games from the start of the season for the likely punishment and so I made a judgement on a ban of 3-4 games which would be entirely consistent with the guidelines. The reference to Terry and Suarez is because they were both offences of the same nature but one got a significantly bigger punishment and I simply explained the differences that were used to decide those as a justification for my belief that it will only be 3-4 games rather than a larger ban. You are right that this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the current offence but it does provide a precedent that the FA will use the number of times a word was used as a factor when deciding on the punishment.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 1 minute ago
Look, I have a few black mates who I could call names to their face (and visa versa). However we would never say the same things to each other on social media as the world has changed to the point where we just can’t do these things any more. Twitter is a different world to the one we actually live in!.
He will get a ban but I don’t think it was intended as a racist remark.
I’m Leeds - so have no love for Man U.
3 games? Maybe 1 if he’s lucky.
If I ran a club I’d ban the players from using social media unless they restricted access to friends only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be difficult with the amount of money they earn from it.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Terry and Suarez cases are irrelevant to this case and the likely punishment.
Different charge, different cases entirely.
You seem to be referencing the Terry case when concluding the likely punishment, which is incorrect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I explocitly referenced the FA guidelines that give the minimum sentence as 3 games from the start of the season for the likely punishment and so I made a judgement on a ban of 3-4 games which would be entirely consistent with the guidelines. The reference to Terry and Suarez is because they were both offences of the same nature but one got a significantly bigger punishment and I simply explained the differences that were used to decide those as a justification for my belief that it will only be 3-4 games rather than a larger ban. You are right that this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the current offence but it does provide a precedent that the FA will use the number of times a word was used as a factor when deciding on the punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, the reference to Suarez and Terry is wrong because they were charged with something different and their bans provide no precedent at all.
The Silva ban is likely to provide precedent - a one game ban.
posted on 30/11/20
"I explocitly referenced the FA guidelines that give the minimum sentence as 3 games from the start of the season for the likely punishment and so I made a judgement on a ban of 3-4 games"
And can you refer us to which guidelines you're using, please?
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 1 minute ago
Look, I have a few black mates who I could call names to their face (and visa versa). However we would never say the same things to each other on social media as the world has changed to the point where we just can’t do these things any more. Twitter is a different world to the one we actually live in!.
He will get a ban but I don’t think it was intended as a racist remark.
I’m Leeds - so have no love for Man U.
3 games? Maybe 1 if he’s lucky.
If I ran a club I’d ban the players from using social media unless they restricted access to friends only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Be difficult with the amount of money they earn from it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Put it in their contract. Don’t sign then so be it.
posted on 30/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - A Beekers Dozen (U2958)
posted 5 seconds ago
It will be likened to the Silva case and most likely the same charge.
-----------------------------------
I missed this case, can you give some detail?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was charged with bringing the game into disrepute in relation to a social media post.
It was when he put up a picture and compared it to Mendy - some people saw it as a racist image.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotcha, yea... the social media angle has to come into it.
I think the FA should use this as a way to educate, not punish (and i'd think this regardless of which club the player was from).
posted on 30/11/20
Quick question does it make a difference if it's a shared post rather than a written post?
Just read that he shared a post on IG but didn't write it.
Page 10 of 24
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15