DuDe
Well-Known Member
- Jun 23, 2007
- 7,049
- 3,950
Di Matteo and Chav hypocrites
- Thread starter Legend10
- Start date
Blackcanary
Dame sans merci
- Jul 15, 2012
- 5,621
- 12,170
I can well-believe that RDM had trouble controlling them. In fact, I have my doubts that he was EVER in full control of them. We've all seen that clip of Terry directing him on the touchline, right? I think the guy was a puppet.
Can anyone remind me of the circumstances of how things went for sour for Mourinho there? What did Makelele say?
ETA: On the Mikel charge from somebody (reliable) on another forum:
Enjoy that whopping great ban you have coming, Mikel!
sim0n
King of Prussia
- Jan 29, 2005
- 7,947
- 2,151
funny this bans-race-chel$ki triangle of controversy,... let's see what happens when mikel gets a longer ban than terry got,...
that's gonna fire the subject up to a new level...
SteveH
BSoDL candidate for SW London
- Jul 21, 2003
- 8,642
- 9,313
Yes I know its the the mail but I think this is quite good.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ttenburg-non-apology--Des-Kelly.html#comments
I'm sorry, but Chelsea are an utter disgrace
By DES KELLY
Chelsea claimed it had all been done in 'good faith'. Amazingly, the Football Association nodded in agreement. Rarely has the English language been mangled quite so abhorrently.
For a start, there was not a word of apology from the club. Not a single, solitary one. As expected, the FA threw out the spurious and damaging accusation of racism that Chelsea levelled against referee Mark Clattenburg.
But even then Chelsea could not summon up the decency or class to utter ‘sorry’ to the man. Good faith obviously has a different meaning in the corridors of Stamford Bridge.
Disgrace: Chelsea have refused to apologise after accusing Mark Clattenburg of racially abusing John Obi Mikel
What a ghastly week this has been for them. What a horrible stain they have left on the season. Putrid doesn’t quite cover their behaviour. Throw in despicable and it might.
Chelsea have displayed such an arrogant, pig-headed disregard for decency with their allegations against Clattenburg that someone in a position of authority deserves to lose their job.
This is a club that sacks managers and coaches on a whim, even if they collect the European Cup. As far as they are concerned, experienced football men are simply dispensable.
But the relatively anonymous boardroom suits that served up this unpleasant smear to the public are now supposed to be allowed to just walk away from this mess without accepting responsibility? I think not.
To implicate a referee in a racism row based on evidence so flimsy it turned out to be non-existent was a truly shocking misjudgment by the decision-makers at the club.
Clattenburg has been hounded for weeks because of their actions. He has been accused, investigated and quizzed. He had his character impugned, he was forced to forgo his job while the storm raged, ordered to bite his lip and hide away from the world as he saw his name repeatedly linked with the horrible slur of being a ‘racist’.
So it must be sickening for Clattenburg to see the FA sugar-coat their dismissal of Chelsea’s laughable case.
‘Good faith’? Not for Clattenburg it wasn’t. Not for referees, who will now tape every conversation they have with players on the pitch, such is their level of distrust.
Bad times: Clattenburg's name was dragged through the mud
Having done absolutely nothing wrong, having been exonerated, he is also effectively prevented from taking charge of any match at Stamford Bridge for the foreseeable future. More ‘good faith’, I assume.
Ignore the public-relations froth in the prepared statements. Ignore the legalese. Ignore, too, Chelsea’s post-rationalisation of events and the risible claim they had to go public on the night, long before all the information had been properly gathered and assessed.
Here are the facts...
Over at ITV, a presenter was grovelling and his bosses paying out damages after he waved about a list of alleged criminals he had lifted from the internet.
Or is it OK to say a professional match official is a racist — and then shrug and say ‘Oops’ when the charge is exposed as complete trash? No doubt a lawyer suggested Chelsea should avoid any apology for fear it might ‘compromise their legal position’. I wonder if it was the same lawyer who suggested they might have a case in the first place?
Amazing, too, that the judgment broke as new manager Rafa Benitez was being wheeled in for his inaugural press conference. A good day to try to bury bad news, perhaps? I wouldn’t put it past this lot.
Chelsea are a club run by an easily bored oligarch with no regard for careers or reputations. I often look at Roman Abramovich’s vacant, thousand-yard stare and wonder what he is thinking. Or even, if.
The chances that he might publicly account for his actions at the club are as remote as his home in Siberia.
But it makes my stomach turn to now read someone at Stamford Bridge claim they had a ‘duty of care’ to Ramires, as if that makes it all ok.
They also had a duty of care to the game, to the reputation of our officials, to the ‘Respect’ tags they dare to wear on their kits. They also had a duty of care to the man they accused of being a racist without any plausible proof.
Overheard: Ramires thought he heard a racial slur
This isn’t being wise after the event. This isn’t slating Chelsea for the sake of it, although heaven knows they make it easy. The FA verdict was a foregone conclusion even after the most cursory inspection of the so-called ‘evidence’ — and I have said as much on these pages before.
Chelsea could have looked into the complaint and followed it through without rushing into public with their nasty smear. And considering the astonishing lack of ‘evidence’, it is also a mystery why the FA moved to deliver their verdict as slowly as insurance loss adjusters.
That ‘good faith’ remark smacks of days of draft statements knocking back and forth between expensive lawyers. It reeks of a ‘we-won’t-say-this-if-you-don’t-say-that’ trade-off. The referee was put through the mangle on the word of one player — Ramires, a Portuguese-speaking Brazilian who struggles to communicate in English.
A gaggle of players were closer to the supposed incident and heard nothing, including Ashley Cole and John Mikel Obi.
There was no audio or video evidence, nor confirmation from officials on the touchline. But Chelsea pressed on, having been backed into a corner by their own eagerness to point an accusing finger.
Centre of the storm: Mikel was proven NOT to have been called a monkey
Did you note that Ramires took 15 days to pinpoint the moment he believed he had heard a ‘racist’ remark? Until then, he had been unable to remember when this extraordinary insult was actually uttered. Does that sound like a credible witness to you? No, nor me. Nor the Metropolitan Police. Nor the FA, for that matter.
Chelsea went to make a point of saying they ‘provided 11 witness statements’. How comprehensive of them.
Unfortunately, that appears to have boiled down to 10 people saying ‘Nope — I didn’t hear any such thing’ and one bloke from Brazil saying he definitely might have heard the word ‘monkey’.
The improbable idiocy of it all didn’t stop someone associated with Chelsea briefing the media within two hours of the final whistle with claims the referee may have made racist remarks. It was running on Sky Sports by 8pm. The club knew what the consequences would be.
So it was galling to read this in Chelsea’s statement: ‘All those directly involved have been subjected to scrutiny over the last weeks. Chelsea FC now hopes that all concerned can continue to carry out their duties without prejudice.’
Back to duty: Clattenburg says he hopes no ref has to go through this in the future
Oh, you do, do you? Only one man has been accused of ‘prejudice’. Only one man has really been under scrutiny. Only one man has been fighting for his job. But now the tables are turned, just look at Chelsea trying to wriggle away from the mess they created.
There is the one comment amid all of this that truly matters. It is from Clattenburg himself, who is thankfully returning to duty.
‘There are processes that should be adhered to in order that any investigation can be carried out in a manner that is fair,’ he said.
‘I know first-hand the ramifications of allegations of this nature being placed into the public domain ahead of a formal process and investigation. I hope no referee has to go through this in the future.’
Damn right. I would add my own hope that Clattenburg and the referees’ union succeed in their bid to take Chelsea to the cleaners in court.
Even if they can’t bring themselves to say it, I hope Chelsea are made to feel sorry.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ttenburg-non-apology--Des-Kelly.html#comments
I'm sorry, but Chelsea are an utter disgrace
By DES KELLY
Chelsea claimed it had all been done in 'good faith'. Amazingly, the Football Association nodded in agreement. Rarely has the English language been mangled quite so abhorrently.
For a start, there was not a word of apology from the club. Not a single, solitary one. As expected, the FA threw out the spurious and damaging accusation of racism that Chelsea levelled against referee Mark Clattenburg.
But even then Chelsea could not summon up the decency or class to utter ‘sorry’ to the man. Good faith obviously has a different meaning in the corridors of Stamford Bridge.
Disgrace: Chelsea have refused to apologise after accusing Mark Clattenburg of racially abusing John Obi Mikel
What a ghastly week this has been for them. What a horrible stain they have left on the season. Putrid doesn’t quite cover their behaviour. Throw in despicable and it might.
Chelsea have displayed such an arrogant, pig-headed disregard for decency with their allegations against Clattenburg that someone in a position of authority deserves to lose their job.
This is a club that sacks managers and coaches on a whim, even if they collect the European Cup. As far as they are concerned, experienced football men are simply dispensable.
But the relatively anonymous boardroom suits that served up this unpleasant smear to the public are now supposed to be allowed to just walk away from this mess without accepting responsibility? I think not.
To implicate a referee in a racism row based on evidence so flimsy it turned out to be non-existent was a truly shocking misjudgment by the decision-makers at the club.
Clattenburg has been hounded for weeks because of their actions. He has been accused, investigated and quizzed. He had his character impugned, he was forced to forgo his job while the storm raged, ordered to bite his lip and hide away from the world as he saw his name repeatedly linked with the horrible slur of being a ‘racist’.
So it must be sickening for Clattenburg to see the FA sugar-coat their dismissal of Chelsea’s laughable case.
‘Good faith’? Not for Clattenburg it wasn’t. Not for referees, who will now tape every conversation they have with players on the pitch, such is their level of distrust.
Bad times: Clattenburg's name was dragged through the mud
Having done absolutely nothing wrong, having been exonerated, he is also effectively prevented from taking charge of any match at Stamford Bridge for the foreseeable future. More ‘good faith’, I assume.
Ignore the public-relations froth in the prepared statements. Ignore the legalese. Ignore, too, Chelsea’s post-rationalisation of events and the risible claim they had to go public on the night, long before all the information had been properly gathered and assessed.
Here are the facts...
- Chelsea accused Clattenburg of being a racist.
- They were horribly wrong.
- No credible evidence was produced.
- The club have refused to apologise.
Over at ITV, a presenter was grovelling and his bosses paying out damages after he waved about a list of alleged criminals he had lifted from the internet.
Or is it OK to say a professional match official is a racist — and then shrug and say ‘Oops’ when the charge is exposed as complete trash? No doubt a lawyer suggested Chelsea should avoid any apology for fear it might ‘compromise their legal position’. I wonder if it was the same lawyer who suggested they might have a case in the first place?
Amazing, too, that the judgment broke as new manager Rafa Benitez was being wheeled in for his inaugural press conference. A good day to try to bury bad news, perhaps? I wouldn’t put it past this lot.
Chelsea are a club run by an easily bored oligarch with no regard for careers or reputations. I often look at Roman Abramovich’s vacant, thousand-yard stare and wonder what he is thinking. Or even, if.
The chances that he might publicly account for his actions at the club are as remote as his home in Siberia.
But it makes my stomach turn to now read someone at Stamford Bridge claim they had a ‘duty of care’ to Ramires, as if that makes it all ok.
They also had a duty of care to the game, to the reputation of our officials, to the ‘Respect’ tags they dare to wear on their kits. They also had a duty of care to the man they accused of being a racist without any plausible proof.
Overheard: Ramires thought he heard a racial slur
This isn’t being wise after the event. This isn’t slating Chelsea for the sake of it, although heaven knows they make it easy. The FA verdict was a foregone conclusion even after the most cursory inspection of the so-called ‘evidence’ — and I have said as much on these pages before.
Chelsea could have looked into the complaint and followed it through without rushing into public with their nasty smear. And considering the astonishing lack of ‘evidence’, it is also a mystery why the FA moved to deliver their verdict as slowly as insurance loss adjusters.
That ‘good faith’ remark smacks of days of draft statements knocking back and forth between expensive lawyers. It reeks of a ‘we-won’t-say-this-if-you-don’t-say-that’ trade-off. The referee was put through the mangle on the word of one player — Ramires, a Portuguese-speaking Brazilian who struggles to communicate in English.
A gaggle of players were closer to the supposed incident and heard nothing, including Ashley Cole and John Mikel Obi.
There was no audio or video evidence, nor confirmation from officials on the touchline. But Chelsea pressed on, having been backed into a corner by their own eagerness to point an accusing finger.
Centre of the storm: Mikel was proven NOT to have been called a monkey
Did you note that Ramires took 15 days to pinpoint the moment he believed he had heard a ‘racist’ remark? Until then, he had been unable to remember when this extraordinary insult was actually uttered. Does that sound like a credible witness to you? No, nor me. Nor the Metropolitan Police. Nor the FA, for that matter.
Chelsea went to make a point of saying they ‘provided 11 witness statements’. How comprehensive of them.
Unfortunately, that appears to have boiled down to 10 people saying ‘Nope — I didn’t hear any such thing’ and one bloke from Brazil saying he definitely might have heard the word ‘monkey’.
The improbable idiocy of it all didn’t stop someone associated with Chelsea briefing the media within two hours of the final whistle with claims the referee may have made racist remarks. It was running on Sky Sports by 8pm. The club knew what the consequences would be.
So it was galling to read this in Chelsea’s statement: ‘All those directly involved have been subjected to scrutiny over the last weeks. Chelsea FC now hopes that all concerned can continue to carry out their duties without prejudice.’
Back to duty: Clattenburg says he hopes no ref has to go through this in the future
Oh, you do, do you? Only one man has been accused of ‘prejudice’. Only one man has really been under scrutiny. Only one man has been fighting for his job. But now the tables are turned, just look at Chelsea trying to wriggle away from the mess they created.
There is the one comment amid all of this that truly matters. It is from Clattenburg himself, who is thankfully returning to duty.
‘There are processes that should be adhered to in order that any investigation can be carried out in a manner that is fair,’ he said.
‘I know first-hand the ramifications of allegations of this nature being placed into the public domain ahead of a formal process and investigation. I hope no referee has to go through this in the future.’
Damn right. I would add my own hope that Clattenburg and the referees’ union succeed in their bid to take Chelsea to the cleaners in court.
Even if they can’t bring themselves to say it, I hope Chelsea are made to feel sorry.
LeSoupeKitchen
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2011
- 3,114
- 7,643
Last season was really tough - I got too emotionally involved in football and all the scanalous events enraged me to the extreme. I feel so detatched now that I can sit back and laugh at how ridiculous it all is. The sheer stupidity of people in football is genuinly a joke now. From Suarez refusing to shake Evra's hand to Terry being a racist bastard to Chelsea accusing the ref of being racist quickly followed by band wagon jumping on the word "yid" to West Ham fans being anti-semitic even though they have an israeli player and Jewish chairman.
The biggest laughing matter of it all is that Chelsea have got away with this. Yes a few articles are out there saying they were bad but ultimately nooone is really talking about it and everyone seems to accept their "apology".
I'm just waiting for the next scandal which can only be a matter of weeks away.
The biggest laughing matter of it all is that Chelsea have got away with this. Yes a few articles are out there saying they were bad but ultimately nooone is really talking about it and everyone seems to accept their "apology".
I'm just waiting for the next scandal which can only be a matter of weeks away.
- Oct 2, 2004
- 48,331
- 47,587
- Staff
- #247
They haven't apologised. They point blank haven't said sorry.
Every day at the moment sees a new chapter in the 'how horrible a club can Chelsea be' story. I would be genuinely embarassed to be a fan of theirs right now.
Every day at the moment sees a new chapter in the 'how horrible a club can Chelsea be' story. I would be genuinely embarassed to be a fan of theirs right now.
DuDe
Well-Known Member
- Jun 23, 2007
- 7,049
- 3,950
Similar threads
