Swords, you truly are a one man crusade. Give it a rest. By the way, most of your explanation above as to why you were banned is pure tripe and you know the reasons why you hit the "cooler". You admitted guilt and I have your confession on tape. Is that the smallest violin in the world playing in the background.
From my earliest youth I have been imbibed with a sense of liberty and equality. When other four year old's were having the Wizard of Oz read to them, my father was dutifully reciting Thomas Paine's "The rights of Man" to this eager little student. Right throughout my life wherever I saw injustice, I sought to make it right. Wherever I saw inequality, I searched for recompense. Wherever I saw tyranny, I fought to bring about justice. That's why this current situation torments my soul and crucifies my spirit. Oh COL and all my brothers, I beg you to campaign on my behalf and help bring this horrible scenario to a conclusion. I fear I may not be able to tolerate being in this wretched state for much longer. I place my cause in your noble hands. May God go with you.
District. For those of us who only saw the Sky footage as it was broadcast live, did Mikel ever look to you as though he believed he had just been racially insulted? If he was, he did a remarkable job of hiding his reaction. It looked to me as though he was angry at some of Clattenburg's decisions and like some of his team mates confronted Clattenburg in what is commonly perceived by PL footballers to be an attempt to persuade the ref to their point of view by reasoned argument. Others might see it as haranging the official and bullying him by shouting loudly into his face. Players and managers of Chelsea and Man Utd are the experts in this form of civilised persuasion. What I did not see was Mikel recoiling in horror at any stage at Clattenburg's reply. In fact Clattenburg seemed to bite his lip and wait for the ranting storm to blow over. It's all rather strange that the accusation was first made once the Chelsea PR machine cranked into life again - the same one that came up with the John Terry united defence and which was rightly discredited and seen as a pack of lies from start to finish. If I were a Chelsea fan, I would want to know what is going to happen to the idiot who puts forward this scripted crap in the name of your club. He can find work elsewhere before he damages the club any further.
Mikel didnt hear it, it was Ramirez who "heard" it, then told Mikel who then proceeded to kick down the refs door and an altercation ensued.
I don't think it's as complex as that. I wouldn't like to speculate on what or what wasn't said on the pitch but Mikel and a few other senior players came to the CEO and complained about the conduct of the referee. As an employer and under FA rules Chelsea had an obligation to back their employees and report the matter to the FA. Rightly (IMO) Chelsea did not report the matter to the Met Police and kept the matter Internal. Much like the Terry case it comes down to what you believe. I personally do not think Clattenburg racially abused Mikel (if I'm wrong I'll hold my hands up) but I also do not believe Mikel (nor the other senior players are lying). Chelsea's PR is stupid at the best of times but I do not believe with the Terry saga having just come to an end the club would want to intentionally defame a referee based on one bad performance in a league game. We've had far worse refereeing performances against us in the past. Ovrebo, Elleray, Dowd, Frisk, Graham Poll (on numerous occasions) and there has been nothing like this. There are many hundreds of black footballers that have been racially abused on a football pitch and how many have lashed out? I can only think of Eto'o at Real Zaragoza and perhaps Balotelli for Inter. Black England players are racially abused as regular as clockwork in away games in Europe yet most just carry on and speak about it after rather than lash out. My only criticism of the club was the timing of the statement. The club should have waited longer and seeked more advice before pursuiting with it. Fundamentally though it comes down to what you believe. Club tribality also plays a part. If the complaint had been lodged by Coventry or (with all due respect) a lesser club with a better public image then I think people would be more open minded and rational about it. If I'm wrong and it is a conspiracy by club officials to get Clattenburg sacked and tar his name then of course I'd be the first to call for the sacking of those involved. There's nothing worse then a boy who cries wolf in my eyes
Did you know Poll is a QPR fan? You named a few refs there, we get that every game, especially against the top 4. There would be no refs left if we made stuff up every time the ref had a shocker.
Yes. I agree with you Flyer but there's a big difference between having a shocker and being outrageously biased in favour of one team. Ovrebo's performance in the Chelsea v Barca & to a lesser extent Bayern v Fiorentina is recognised as one of the most horrifically biased refereeing displays ever seen. To the extent that Chelsea had almost universal sympathy and Fiorentina had the backing of almost all Italian clubs (a rarity). Clattenburg has shown overt bias towards United in numerous games in the past. We don't know the truth yet so I don't wish to be pre-emptive. My opinion is that something was clearly lost in translation but I'm not going to pretend I know.
I dont believe he said anything wrong to any of your players District, if he said any comments against your club then thats perfectly understandable
District, I always enjoy reading your posts because they are honest, balanced and not tribal as you say. I agree we should n't speculate too much in advance of the decision. However my take on the club's position in all this is that they have sriously misjudged the situation. Again. I suspect that Clattenburg was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Your PR people realised that they had done the club's image serious damage in the way they handled the Terry denial and therefore adopted an exaggerated stance of being seen to do everything to support a black player. Once they had whipped themselves up into a frenzy of outrage they issued the accusation first without taking the precaution of checking very carefully the truth of it. Also if you consider my point again you will see that I am not criticisng Mikel for not lashing out. I merely said that he did not look as though he had just been offended. That is a normal reaction. You can be upset and angered without losing your temper and lashing out. It is even more remarkable if, as Flyer has said, Mikel did not even hear it as it was directed at him apparently. Particularly as Ramirez or the other players who believed they had heard the offending words either did not tell the Police what they'd heard or the Ploice did not find the accounts to be credible.
