Bit of truth there, we'd probably care a bit more if he was actually useful to have around plus his mouth is causing him trouble, I wouldn't invite him to a party where there was free drinkGetting rid of him would be strengthening the position
Todd Kane charged
- Thread starter qprbeth
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The only thing Ninj if I'm not mistaken is that this thing with Real Kew Bridge happened before that video about Kakay...........
I suppose if he'd just called him a c*** without adding the adjective then there wouldn't have been an issue.....
Plus it's odd that the Kew Bridge player has escaped sanction when using a similar adjective to what Kane used..........
Or just a straight whinger..
"Mum, that player in the blue and white said rude words to me"
Shame. Not a pleasant way to end the season. This will, of course, still be talked about over the first two/ three months of next season.
Interesting points made elsewhere.......
Kane gets a 7 game ban for hurting a Kew Bridge players feelings by referring to his nationality in response to said players use of nationality in heated exchange.....
A certain lowlife from that lot in SW6 only got a 4 game ban for being racist......
Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?
Kane gets a 7 game ban for hurting a Kew Bridge players feelings by referring to his nationality in response to said players use of nationality in heated exchange.....
A certain lowlife from that lot in SW6 only got a 4 game ban for being racist......
Doesn't make a lot of sense does it?
This really is pathetic. I criticised Kane when it came out, without knowing the facts, but to be fair he has been dumped on over a nothing happening.
Isn’t the guy Spanish? So he was telling the truth. If he’s insulted then he really is a poor little flower.
Is this another example of PC madness. Or is it racism?
Banter on the pitch is much worse than that when you hear some of the stuff that goes on.
Poor that the FA hasn’t listened to testimony of the players there and investigated both. Seems sensible thing would have been to give them both a fine and a rap on the knuckles. 7 game ban is pretty mean - and after he was prepared to admit to what he said, would he have been better to lie.
PS Does this mean he’s only worth £6.5m now?
Isn’t the guy Spanish? So he was telling the truth. If he’s insulted then he really is a poor little flower.
Is this another example of PC madness. Or is it racism?
Banter on the pitch is much worse than that when you hear some of the stuff that goes on.
Poor that the FA hasn’t listened to testimony of the players there and investigated both. Seems sensible thing would have been to give them both a fine and a rap on the knuckles. 7 game ban is pretty mean - and after he was prepared to admit to what he said, would he have been better to lie.
PS Does this mean he’s only worth £6.5m now?
Agree with this.
Not a fan of his at all, but having seen all the details it seems QPR have been singled out yet again.
Christ, I so hope Brentford **** up the play offs.
Statement from the club after the published findings.
Very succinct, measured and quite passive aggressive reply from club
As a result of the charge, it was decided earlier this month that Kane would be banned for seven matches, fined £6,000 and ordered to attend a mandatory education session.
Todd admitted from the beginning of the hearing that he used abusive and insulting language during the 62nd minute of the fixture contrary to FA Rule E3.1 and the this constituted an “Aggravated Breach”, which is defined in FA Rule E3.2, as the language included a reference, whether express or implied, to nationality and ethnicity.
The club once again want to make it clear that there is no justification for insults pertaining to someone else’s nationality. Todd knows this falls below the standards he sets for himself as well as the standards we set for our employees and is against the inclusive nature of the club.
While it doesn’t excuse Todd’s behaviour, we are pleased that Todd took responsibility when it could have been easier to continuously deny having made the statement. We find the FA’s assumptions baffling that Todd would be truthful and admit the charge but then be untruthful in the rest of his testimony.
Both Todd and Rob Dickie, who witnessed the incident, have consistently testified that Todd’s comment was in response to an opposition player – Brentford’s Sergi Canos – using similar language about Todd’s nationality. Again, we are disappointed Rob’s testimony was simply dismissed.
Canos admitted using abusive language but denied referencing Todd’s nationality. This was accepted by the FA and no further action was taken against him.
Notwithstanding the opposition player’s denial, we stand by these assertions.
This incident occurred in February, yet is has taken until May to be dealt with.
In contrast, we see the recent incident involving rugby player Tony Clubb – who was charged for using ‘unacceptable language based on national or ethnic origin’ – was settled within a week by the Rugby Football League.
When allegations such as these are made they need to be prioritised and dealt with in a timely and professional manner. Important issues like this must be dealt with more urgently and more competently by The FA.
Very succinct, measured and quite passive aggressive reply from club
As a result of the charge, it was decided earlier this month that Kane would be banned for seven matches, fined £6,000 and ordered to attend a mandatory education session.
Todd admitted from the beginning of the hearing that he used abusive and insulting language during the 62nd minute of the fixture contrary to FA Rule E3.1 and the this constituted an “Aggravated Breach”, which is defined in FA Rule E3.2, as the language included a reference, whether express or implied, to nationality and ethnicity.
The club once again want to make it clear that there is no justification for insults pertaining to someone else’s nationality. Todd knows this falls below the standards he sets for himself as well as the standards we set for our employees and is against the inclusive nature of the club.
While it doesn’t excuse Todd’s behaviour, we are pleased that Todd took responsibility when it could have been easier to continuously deny having made the statement. We find the FA’s assumptions baffling that Todd would be truthful and admit the charge but then be untruthful in the rest of his testimony.
Both Todd and Rob Dickie, who witnessed the incident, have consistently testified that Todd’s comment was in response to an opposition player – Brentford’s Sergi Canos – using similar language about Todd’s nationality. Again, we are disappointed Rob’s testimony was simply dismissed.
Canos admitted using abusive language but denied referencing Todd’s nationality. This was accepted by the FA and no further action was taken against him.
Notwithstanding the opposition player’s denial, we stand by these assertions.
This incident occurred in February, yet is has taken until May to be dealt with.
In contrast, we see the recent incident involving rugby player Tony Clubb – who was charged for using ‘unacceptable language based on national or ethnic origin’ – was settled within a week by the Rugby Football League.
When allegations such as these are made they need to be prioritised and dealt with in a timely and professional manner. Important issues like this must be dealt with more urgently and more competently by The FA.
Brentford FC would like to thank The FA’s independent commission for their thorough and objective investigation. As stated in the written decisions, published today, Sergi followed the correct protocol as recommended by The FA and The PFA by reporting the abuse to the referee the moment it was heard on the pitch. Sergi was described by the commission as a credible and truthful witness. We wholeheartedly continue to support our player.
The Club has no further comment to make on this matter.
( F in ****ers & really hope they get ****ed in the playoffs )
The Club has no further comment to make on this matter.
( F in ****ers & really hope they get ****ed in the playoffs )
The part that I'd be annoyed about if I was both Kane and Dickie is that the commission came to a conclusion that because Kane didn't say anything about the alleged comment by Canos immediately, that both Kane and Dickie colluded together to make the allegation at a later time and therefore dismissed it as possible happening........ That's a huge leap to take with no evidence to support that particular viewpoint.........
FA are pathetic.
A guy owns up to his mistake and gets mugged over, called a liar and vilified. Not saying he shouldn’t be fined and banned, but at least take into count that he had the balls to admit his mistake (in a world where most players would just say deny it and there’s no evidence to prove otherwise), so at least recognise that and reduce his ban; and to ignore people’s evidence is tantamount to calling them liars. Don’t expect any of our players to admit to anything in the future and just throw accusations back and fore to muddy waters. Completely a PC decision by a committee of w*****s.
Perhaps he should have called the player a bottling **** instead ?
What sort of weak, prissy, snowflake of a player goes to tell teacher when he has been subject to a minor insult? Unless of course, he’s ashamed of being Spanish.
What sort of weak, prissy, snowflake of a player goes to tell teacher when he has been subject to a minor insult? Unless of course, he’s ashamed of being Spanish.