Taylor reckons "bearing in mind what happened"(the Suarez case)that players found guilty of racism should have their contracts terminated. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18199681 There's a world of difference between an FA panel and a court of law,if his plan was already in place and the Suarez case occured does he seriously think the player would accept a non legal decision and end up out of contract with no club? No ****ing chance,the player would immediately seek 'legal' advice and sue the club or the FA(or both),or if a player(Aquilani for example)couldn't get the move he wanted he would only have to say "negro" and he'd be on the next plane out and playing for Milan. Taylor's job is to protect his players rights which is fair enough but if he's serious he should demand that every case is referred to the police and the accused player can then enjoy at the behest of kind magistrates to play the rest of the season,play in an FA Cup final and lift the Champions League trophy and top it off with representing his country.
I think you need to read the link. He wants it added to the serious misconduct list in the players contract which allows for instant dismissal. If a player signs the contract there can be no comeback. It should be added,there is no place in football for racism.
I read the link mate,but if you read my post you'll see i was looking retrospectively at the Suarez case and the legal implications should his idea have come to fruition at the time.
But he isn't talking about taking retrospective action is he? And if it would have been in place it would have been in the contract Suarez signed so again no recourse.
When he said "bearing in mind what happened" what do you think he was talking about? As for your point about the contract,do you really believe a player would accept the findings of an FA panel in deciding their future?,of course not,he would go to see his lawyer and go to court,unless the case is cut and dried like John Terry's.
What about people who make false allegations (lie to the media)? Surely this could constitute trying to destroy a fellow professional's career and carry a suitable punishment? Banned from football forever?
It is one thing saying it and a totally different thing implementing it. You have to categorically prove that someone is guilty, ie - not like the Suarez case! It is a bit like the call for diving players to be banned. Unless it is 100% clear that it is a dive, how do you pass judgement?
Agreed. Escalating the punishments does not solve the problem when there is no foolproof mechanism to know the truth. All they are doing is ensuring cases of false conviction are even more devastating whilst also putting pressure on less secure convictions to be ignored completely.
It doesn't really matter what he was talking about as nowhere does he mention taking retrospective action. If you sign a legally binding contract you have little recourse. And there are already dimissable offences in their contracts so they already do accept the consequences. You're just trying to stir up something that isn't there and that continues to put the club and supporters in a bad light.
Good try kid. I never said he was talking about retrospective action,i said 'i' was talking about the Suarez case retrospectively,he referred to it. Stir something up that isn't there?,we lost a player for 8 games last season and if Taylor's proposed idea was in place then we'd have lost the player for good based on a non judicial decision by an FA panel.
It obviously depends on the wording of the contract. What player is going to sign a contract that says if the FA accuses you of something they get to prosecute you & convict you resulting in your termination of contract. Also another point; does it prohibit said player joining another team in the league as its no longer a transfer? Not that i Think you'd get players coming out with racist comments just to get out of a contract but imagine this scenario; This was in place at time of Suarez affair. LFC sack Suarez due to said contract clause. Chelsea immediately sign Suarez with no comeback other than a media backlash. Chelsea state it would be against European Human Rights Act to prevent Suarez obtaining further employment as his sacking was punishment that fitted crime contractually speaking... Chelsea best Liverpool to league position on a Suarez goal.....mmmmmwhat happens next eh? Clubs will think this one through & insist on it being held to proof in court rather than FA so potentially this could be exactly what we called for. FA no longer allowed summary hold kangaroo courts...
Precisely frank,i dont think Mr Taylor put to much thought into his idea. Also why doesn't he mention other things that should warrant a sacking,like deliberately injuring another player? He's just jumping on the JT punishment bandwagon early to score brownie points.
Yes Page I've seen two pundits in rags in the last week alone compare a premeditated physical assault on one player & attempted premeditated assault on another in the Same incident by the same player more favourably than racist name calling by a player. They actually said it wasn't as bad. Seriously so when they picked their kid up from school they'd rather have them standing there crying with a broken nose from a headbutt than crying from being called a bad name?!! What world do these people live in; oh yes, one behind big security gates.... Thank god the laws of the land don't agree! Fairly sure I'm out the door from my job quicker if I launch a physical assault on my colleague to see if he will respond in kind than calling him names which will probably only land me on an "awareness course"
taylor is amazing, he is the players union rep so what he just said is one player should be sacked if another player accuses them of something that no evidence may exist for. now clearly this is taylor's attitude until its not johnny foreigner but john terry's head on the block... you just wait for july when taylor comes out in terrys favour... it'll be surreal but i predict he'll say stuff like terry is no racist and its all a mistake.
