Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... sfeed=true

Maximum fine of £2500?

Looks like this has been blown way out of proportion and dragged on way too long. 23 October 2011 this all started. Probably lost a shed load of money going through the courts and for what, a slap on the wrist and a £2500 fine. Pointless.

The testimony sounds a bit like a Derek and Clive skit at the moment...

Also, be interesting to see what, if anything, the FA do about Terry's admission of using the phrase 'black c*nt' to Ferdinand. 8 game ban's the benchmark for that sort of thing now, isn't it?

blurred wrote:The testimony sounds a bit like a Derek and Clive skit at the moment...

Also, be interesting to see what, if anything, the FA do about Terry's admission of using the phrase 'black c*nt' to Ferdinand. 8 game ban's the benchmark for that sort of thing now, isn't it?

Hang on, you've lost me (leave it )

I thought that Terry was there to plead his innocence, but then you say he amits using that phrase. Surely he doesn't think that that's not a racist term does he?

Now, tell us about Amanda then?!

Surely (from what I can gather) all he has admitted is saying something along the lines of 'I didn't call you a black c*nt', an admission which in itself surely isn't enough for an FA charge ?

That the court didn't believe him and convicted him may well be.

Wouldn't surprise me if they bottled it and said something along the lines of 'he has already been punished'.

Bruce Rioja wrote:

blurred wrote:The testimony sounds a bit like a Derek and Clive skit at the moment...

Also, be interesting to see what, if anything, the FA do about Terry's admission of using the phrase 'black c*nt' to Ferdinand. 8 game ban's the benchmark for that sort of thing now, isn't it?

Hang on, you've lost me (leave it )

I thought that Terry was there to plead his innocence, but then you say he amits using that phrase. Surely he doesn't think that that's not a racist term does he?

Now, tell us about Amanda then?!

He's admitted to using the phrase, but claims that it was sarcastic and not aimed at abusing Ferdinand (ie, he said something along the lines of 'as if I called you a black c*nt' to explain that he hadn't been racist to him, rather than 'feck off you black c*nt' and racially abusing him, if that makes sense).

Follow DanRoan or TariqPanja on Twitter - it sounds very amusing!

Prufrock wrote:Surely (from what I can gather) all he has admitted is saying something along the lines of 'I didn't call you a black c*nt', an admission which in itself surely isn't enough for an FA charge ?

That the court didn't believe him and convicted him may well be.

Wouldn't surprise me if they bottled it and said something along the lines of 'he has already been punished'.

FA don't work to the same burden of proof as a criminal court. He could be found innocent by them and guilty by the FA, as they only work to 'the balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That the CPS thought there was enough merit in bringing a criminal case suggests to me that they believe that an offence has been committed, which means that the FA should be looking into it (although of course they won't prejudice the criminal case by doing so beforehand). If the CPS hadn't pressed charges then the FA could reasonably say that they didn't think an offence had been committed and that there was no merit in hauling Terry and Ferdinand in to give evidence, but it would be fairly unforgiveable for them not to at least hold their own hearing into it under the circumstances.

I think the FA are likely to bottle it, as you suggest, and not even bring him in front of a panel regardless of the result.

Aye, you'd imagine there is almost certainly enough evidence for the FA if there was for a criminal court. What was Suarez actually charged with, 'bringing the game into disrepute', or is there a specific racism linked charge?

As you say they couldn't do anything before the trial, but they ought to now. Can't see it though.

I still think they were wrong to strip him of the captaincy at the time.

They both sound like two big kids TBH not highly paid professionals, Knobs!

Prufrock wrote:Aye, you'd imagine there is almost certainly enough evidence for the FA if there was for a criminal court. What was Suarez actually charged with, 'bringing the game into disrepute', or is there a specific racism linked charge?

As you say they couldn't do anything before the trial, but they ought to now. Can't see it though.

I still think they were wrong to strip him of the captaincy at the time.

Specific racism charge - using language directed at an opponent to do with his ethnic/racial background or somesuch. I'll dig up the rule.

As for the captaincy thing, that was another feck up. He either stays as captain (innocent until proven guilty), or he can't play for the team at all (same as in any other job - suspended on full pay pending and investigation). The halfway house caused them no end of bother.

Edit:

"Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
- the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra’s colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);"

Indeed, and whichever call was made, it ought to have been Capello's.

If it is a specific racism charge the only problem I could envisage would be the language of the two charges is different enough for them to wriggle out if it. Unlikely though, especially if it is similar to what you have said you remember it as.

E3(2) says that any insulting language including a reference to any one or more of person's ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an "aggravating factor") means that the discplinary committee can consider the imposition of an increased sanction.

blurred wrote:E3(2) says that any insulting language including a reference to any one or more of person's ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an "aggravating factor") means that the discplinary committee can consider the imposition of an increased sanction.

Would that include 'shagging a team mates ex? if so Ferdy could be in a spot of bother

Hoboh wrote:

blurred wrote:E3(2) says that any insulting language including a reference to any one or more of person's ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an "aggravating factor") means that the discplinary committee can consider the imposition of an increased sanction.

Would that include 'shagging a team mates ex? if so Ferdy could be in a spot of bother

They're both guilty of E3(1), although if the FA had to haul up each player who called another a fecking this or a cunting that every week there'd be a queue of footballers stretching all the way down Wembley Way every Monday morning.

Nice to see this thread not being used to somehow exhonerate that c*nt Suarez. Yes, we know, he plays for Liverpool. He's still a c*nt.

"Listen mate. I shouldn't have said that, even in temper. It was heat-of-the-moment. I was way out of order and I apologise"

That might just have done it?

It wasn't Ferdinand who reported it to the police though, so no, it wouldn't

Hopefully it's just not me but does any body else find it rather funny when on the news it reads out and shows the conversation with the actors voice ?

* "gerry adams" voice*

yes and no

Ashley Cole character witness.....

Did he bring the air gun or dodgy phone photo's

Listening to the interviews I'd be very, very surprised if he gets convicted. There certainly seems to be reasonable doubt (notwithstanding evidence the court hears we don't). I'm not at all a fan of John Terry the bloke, but he seems genuinely affronted by the suggestion he is a racist (in a way he perhaps didn't about being a philanderer). I'm not convinced he is that good an actor.