I thought we could do with a thread on which to post all the constructive comments of rival fans to the well-argued and reasoned points put to them by non-partisan fans. I'll kick things off, to show you the kind of thing that I'm after. On the Chav board, there is a thread about John "hang him from a burning cross" Terry and his trial for racial abuse. A Spurs poster put a well reasoned argument that, if JT is found guilty, the FA should hand down a 10 match ban and Chelsea should sack him. The following reply was posted by a Chav... Can you chaps find other examples of debating skills to match the erudite CFCTEL?
ill try my best...when i asked the question as to why has Gylfi Sigurdsson all of a sudden in the space of a few posts on a certain thread managed to go from being a 'hot prospect'..a player with 'a lot of potential' to a 'swansea reject' and 'avarege'...i was given this well constructed reply.. step forward Spazray.
Their nickname is The Chavs, not The Intelligentsia, so what were you guys expecting? If it was an intelligent, reasoned debate, I think you probably went to the wrong place.
They're just Essex chavs, many of whom by accident of birth are quite wealthy. Only way is Essex + money = Made in Chelsea. NB would be surprised if they could convict JT on the evidence. Regardless of the sort of person he seems to be it's always a good idea to be able to prove something rather than take someone to court because of what you'd like to do to them. Very frustrating when certain people get off, but I think it's for the good of society in the long run.
even if he were convicted,a 2,500 pound fine,is peanuts to him,probably loses more each week gambling
The fine won't bother him Totsfan, but the other possible ramifications will. He could face a long ban and loss of sponsorship deals, plus a fine from Chelsea and the stigma of being convicted of basically being a racist. He'll have spent more on his legal team than the fine itself.
Ferdinand has always said he didn't hear the comments at the time. The evidence is Youtube footage and complaints from public, not Ferdinand. The footage is obviously admissable (its been shown in court) and so it's down to whether the magistrate believes Terry when he says his comments were "Are you saying I called you a .......". Probably hinges on what team he supports whether he believes Terry. Ferdinand's evidence can only be what led up to the comment. He may well be able to say, there is no reason for Terry to suggest he was only repeating an accusation, cause they didn't exchange verbals on that subject (just apparently Terry's view of team loyalty). The prosecutors knew this and still thouht there was sufficient evidence to go to trial.
