Well Terry is banned. Can't say I'd shed a tear over him, can't stand the guy. Would be interesting to know what evidence was provided that is good enough for the FA but not the courts. Guess in the courts it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Also Pardew signed an 8 year deal!!! Seems very long for a manager these days however well they may be doing.
It does seem a big gamble. I understand their thinking that stability is a good thing but an 8 year contract? Could end badly.
The're getting desperate, check out this thread: http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/170661-Thank-heavens-for-Norwich I've bitten, feel free to have a nibble too
harry rednapp more likely to get ian dowie, peter reid or alan curbishley as for john terry, most people think he is scum. shame it's not more than a 4 game ban and £220k is what 2 weeks wages for him - wow. The main thing is his reputation is now tarnished (again).
This seems like the judgement of a kangaroo court! He was cleared by a jury meaning that he has been proven innocent so I don't see how the FA can ignore this and punish him.
he couldn't be proved guilty by the criminal court because it wasn't watertight. there is evidence that he used racist words. clearly the FA couldn't just let him off given the sensitivity of the subject.
If the FA spent as much time and energy on enforcing their laws at grass roots level, where casual racism is rife, as they have done in the John Terry case, football in this country would be much the better for it! I have reported 5 incidents of racial abuse made by parents towards black players to the local FA and they haven't even had the common courtesy in acknowledging any of them. Quite frankly it is a disgrace and shows that the FA will only get involved in high profile cases to make themselves look good. In reality they couldn't give a ****!
well it's true that the FA is a dinosaur still. That is poor that they haven't even acknowledged your letters Walky. Cowards the lot of them (these parents) JT is still a scumbag in my eyes.
When you have so called parents who call 10,11 & 12 year olds by the "N" word and show no shame in doing it you know football has a problem. As a referee I order them away from the touch line and report the incident to the FA along with the offending club but nothing ever gets done!
Sadly this behaviour is all to common at grass roots level and if generally ignored even if reported. Personally I feel that a major restructuring is needed and maybe someone other than the FA should look after grass roots while they concentrate on the pro game or vice versa.
Quite right How do we ever hope to "Kick racial abuse out" when the authorities turn a blind eye to what is actually happening every weekend in grass roots football. The FA as usual has got itself in a right mess over this issue!
JWM, John Terry has not been acquitted in court of the charge levied against him by the FA. In court he faced a criminal charge, namely, that he "used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and the offence was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, contrary to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998." To fully understand that charge you obviously need to be familiar with the relevant Acts and subsequent case law. The FA charge, in contrast, was a charge of misconduct, namely "using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3[2]". This charge was brought under the Rules of the FA, and is therefore quite different from a criminal charge in a court of law. The fact that one charge was a criminal charge tried in court, the other a charge brought under the rules of a self-regulating organisation and heard by a Disciplinary Tribunal of that organisation means, among other things that the standards of proof are different in the two cases. So not only are the charges different, the standards of proof applied are different also. Since the FA disciplinary procedures have been followed, there is no justification for calling it a "kangaroo court". It is the appropriate body to hear the FA's charge against him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17086342 Take a look at this video, pretty interesting, makes you realise how **** the FA are.
That is disgraceful, I'd be severely tempted to call a game off, then the local body would have do something (probably kick you out of refereeing). I can't believe an adult can say that directly to a kid, its quite upsetting.
As for Terry, much as I hate him, if it can't be proved that what he said was in essence "I didn't call you a etc etc, thats not what I said" then he shouldn't have any ban. I think his excuse was plausible and had to be disproved. If Ferdinand misheard him, lets not forget football grounds are noisy affairs and accused him at the time, the first thing I would say would be "I didn't call you a .......". Whether Terry is lying or not I can't see hoew the FA could prove it unless the evidence is alot stronger than we know of.
