Rio stripped of England captaincy for terry.

True

 

I could understand Rio maybe losing the captaincy because of his recent fitness issues, Capello taking it away from Rio until Rio can prove he's passed his injury problems wouldn't have been a suprise. But to take it off Rio and pass it to Terry is a: the actions of a man who is freightened of scarring ceratin players in the dressing room, and b: foolish becasue he already has a vice captain in Gerrard, for when Rio isn't playing, so where does that leave Gerrard also?

One argument that really pisses me off is this one where people (even journalistss in some cases) say Terry's paid the price, he's been punished, why he was stripped of the captaincy when he did something not football related anyway is beyond me etc etc. How is sleeping with an internation TEAM MATES wife, not fooball related. If Bridge was a better player than he was then we'd have had a right **** storm to deal with, it was convinient for Capello and the FA that Bridge isn't a very good player because it didn't matter then what Bridge felt and if Bridge would ever play for England again or retire as a result.

At the end of the day though, regardless of how good bridge is, Terry has pushed a team mate into early international retirment as a direct result of his actions and that is extremely football related. The hand the armband back to a player who has done that is laughable.

 

John terry is a two bob slow defender. His footballing brain and ability are non existant. The only thing he does well are those last ditch tackles and thats only becuase he isnt a good enough footballer to do anything about it before hand.

 

The Terry incident is not proved, the Mail on Sunday has retracted its slanderous accusations against Terry & Perroncel as have the Daily Mirror because they faced massive damages for printing unproved material. The ultra cautious BBC state today; 'Several members of the England squad are thought to be unhappy at the reinstatement of Terry after he was stripped of the role following allegations of an affair with a former girlfriend of ex-team-mate Wayne Bridge over a year ago'.

In short Terry should never have been stripped of the captaincy in the first place. Rio Ferdinand has had injury problems for two years and cannot take the rigours of premiership football anymore, he has become the United version of Ledley King and cannot hold a place over such world renowned greats as Brown, Evans & O'Shea anymore in a weak United side.

 

I think you're over simplifying the situation a little. There has been no retraction - the MoS actually printed an apology which stated "On January 31 and afterwards we published some personal information about Vanessa Perroncel in articles concerning an alleged affair with the footballer John Terry. Miss Perroncel has since informed us that she would have preferred her personal information to remain private and it was untrue in any case. We apologise to Miss Perroncel for any distress caused."

Note that they say that some of the personal information was untrue, not that the allegations of the affair were untrue. Given that the papers also accused Perroncel of being "gagging for it", "shameless", a "maneater", a "football groupie" and a "gold digger" who was "money hungry", there's was lot of personal information printed about her that could be what the papers are apologising for. It's also worth noting that the paper states that Perroncel "informed us" that it was untrue, not that it actually is untrue. The fact that they published this so long (nine months) after the original story indicates that it wasn't due to the threat of damages, but this is the conclusion of a legal discussion between the two sets of lawyers. The deliberately vague apology is the best way to satisfy both parties - Perroncel can now claim everything is untrue, and the MoS can claim that only some of what it said was untrue and not have to print a specific retraction of any part of the story. Terry has had no apology.

It's also worth noting that the judgement on Terry's failed "super injunction" stated:

"The applicant [Terry] accepts the truth of certain information which is sought to be protected by the draft order. I do not know whether or not LNS [Terry] considers that those matters were acceptable for a person in LNS’s position in life”. and Terry wanted to keep private "details of such affair and/or relationship, including the consequences thereof."

So Terry has already accepted, in court, that there was an affair / relationship, and all that Perroncel has gotten is a tacit admission that "some" of the personal information published about her was untrue. If the allegations about the affair actually were untrue, both sets of lawyers would have hit the MoS / NOTW with a massive lawsuit within minutes of it being published, particularly given the damage to Terry's commercial rights. The fact Terry has made no effort to claim libel, given how easy it is to sue for libel under British law, can only lead to the conclusion that there was an affair between the two, but the MoS got some of the other details about Perroncel wrong, probably the claim that she's some sex crazed nut hunting footballers with a large net...

 

Champions.

 

Hardly. I dont see many posts from say Chelsea fans slagging off the ability of Scholes (who tackling aside), was a top notch footballer in his day. Obviously he is past his best now but he has always been rated and respected.

Some of the quotes on here are laughable re: Terry's ability as a player. Truely shocking even from rival fans.

And for all those sitting on their high horse, remember how you got cantona from Leeds - something to do with a team mates missus wasn't it? Lets judge footballers on the pitch.

 

Simplifying it it is a retraction, Terry has at no point accepted any such thing, both parties have vigorously denied any affair took place? so are you basing your opinion with the tabloids? Perroncel went on to say in her interviews with the Guardian she was clear in her denials of an affair with Terry. Her denials were met with scepticism at the time but following the newspaper apologies there should be no room for doubt. If we are now to take the two offending newspapers’ apologies at face value, they now accept that there was no affair between Terry and Perroncel. One has to be careful not to draw a conclusion from what was not said, as is the case here. Terry's silence on this matter in no way incriminates him legally as does 'the applicant' statement you pasted. Again this only serves to warn those who would point-a-finger without any real proof or admission from either party before being in full receipt of the truth.

 

By our own standards we have been abysmal this term, I think it was a fifteen match run of sub standard Chelsea football which was plain awful to watch let me tell you! But we now at last are moving forward and in the ascendancy once more. Its probably too late for the title by one or two matches but if we can keep improving we stand a good chance in the UCL. Had we had not had such a devastatingly bad run of form United would clearly be in another county with Arsenal.

 

Good call mate

 

United were 12 points in front with a game in hand a month or so ago as I recall and have systematically proved my statement true, neither of the three other United sides you mentioned in your post would have any problem in thrashing todays poor side.

 

Terry is an absoulutley awful footballer thats why he gets slagged off. This has nothing to do with chelsea, I think many of your players are good he aint one them however.

He is two bob and aswell as a filthy individual. I dont want him represnting my country. He is A **** and B a ****.

 

Sorry mate, but you are seeing things that just are not there. Terry accepted the truth of the allegations, in front of a judge, in the court transcript for his failed injunction application. Once again, and remember that this is an official court document:

"The draft order seeks a prohibition on publishing "all or any part of the information or purported information" and documents in four categories. I paraphrase this as follows: (1) the fact of a specified personal relationship ("the Relationship") between LNS and another person who is named ("the other person")"
"The applicant accepts the truth of certain information which is sought to be protected by the draft order"
"The following derogations from open justice, the requirements of fairness, and Art 6, are sought in the draft order: (1) a private hearing, (2) anonymity for the persons involved in the Relationship"

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/119.html if you want to see the official court document in all its gory detail. "LNS" is used to refer to "JMT" - a crude way to try and protect his privacy at first, but even that was lifted in time.

At no point in Terry's attempt to get an injunction did he claim the allegations were false or unfounded. In fact, he admitted that they were true in the High Court. What more proof do you need? The apology to Perroncel was purely published in response to the tabloid campaign to dig up / invent as much dirt about her as possible to keep the story running. Nowhere have the allegations of the affair been retracted, because they are true.