Football Focus

[cary hill]

Did I read that Neil Warnock, the patron Saint of Referees, was supporting Clattenburg in his current local difficulty.

 

Strange days have found us.

[Ohmisterporter]

Now that Ian Holloway has gone to Crystal Palace a cloud of depression has settled over Blackpool FC and supporters. Conversely, CP supporters think it's great. Good luck to him we had some great times under Ollie and I won't hear a bad word said about him. He put his family first after they couldn't settle in the North West and that is how it should be. I had a boss at work once who told me that work comes before family. I told him what I thought of that and was under a cloud for the remainder of my time there. He never spoke to me again, as you can imagine I was heartbroken about that. Funnily enough he was moved out of the company before I was. Perhaps there's a moral there.

So good luck Ollie and thanks for the good times.

[Hobby]

they couldn't settle in the North West and that is how it should be.

 

No taste some people, there's some lovely areas round the Fylde, far nicer than London any day!

[geoffers]

"...He put his family first after they couldn't settle in the North West..." - apparently the same reason that Eddie Howe moved back from Burnley to Bournemouth. And look howe (ha ha) much Bournemouth have improved in the 3 weeks he has been back - unbeaten!

[oggy1953]

"...He put his family first after they couldn't settle in the North West..." - apparently the same reason that Eddie Howe moved back from Burnley to Bournemouth. And look howe (ha ha) much Bournemouth have improved in the 3 weeks he has been back - unbeaten!

If i was getting a salary similar to what these managers get MY family would settle at the North Pole.

[dseagull]

I see there's (yet) another rugby good, football bad article on the BBC Website today; http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20207113

 

Odd choice of days to release it though when you read Brian Moore's column in the Telegraph! - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9654856/Rugby-must-cut-out-the-backchat-before-it-is-too-late-or-criticisms-of-referees-could-lead-to-insubordination.html

[dseagull]

Oh, and Scotland have sacked Craig Levein. My application goes in tomorrow

[Horsetan]

Where's Simon, and was he watching the Charlton - Cardiff game? Scoreline suggests many things:

 

1. Value for money for all the fans

2. Defensive tactics being discarded

3. Constant end-to-end football.

 

Hope someone recorded it for DVD....?

[cary hill]

Where's Simon, and was he watching the Charlton - Cardiff game? Scoreline suggests many things:

 

1. Value for money for all the fans

2. Defensive tactics being discarded

3. Constant end-to-end football.

 

Hope someone recorded it for DVD....?

 

4. Apparently neither team was playing in the much vaunted Craig Levein 4-6-0 formation - I wonder why he got the sack?

 

Excellent game for goal attempts - 39 with 25 on target, although some comedy 'keeping and defending.

 

Maybe Simon hasn't been on because he's worried that Charlton have used up their goal ration for November already?

[S.A.C Martin]

I've been running around like a headless chicken for my job - though YES, I was there! What a cracker. 2-0 down, 2-2 at half time, then eleven minutes of pure Charlton Athletic supporting heaven to 5-2, then at 90 minutes the scoreboard goes up for 6 minutes added time - and the whole ground goes "what?!!!"

 

6 minutes! We had four subs, the trainer on for less than ten seconds in the first half, and no injuries. There were yellow cards galore - that scoreline was 5 a piece - but I simply couldn't fathom where they got the 6 minutes from. I dare say it was generous of them to give Cardiff that amount of "Fergie time", and they nearly managed a United style comeback too...

 

My nerves were shattered at the final whistle - 5-4 to Charlton and the best I've seen them play since Peterborough 2-5 Charlton two years ago!

 

But I suspect our result is nothing compared to the stuff of legends from last night - Celtic 2 - 1 Barcelona!

 

WELL DONE CELTIC.

[DavidLong]

Those Serbs, eh? Oh, wait . . .

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/10/millwall-fans-arrested-banner-marvin-sordell

[colin penfold]

Sadly I think there's no help for Millwall as a club or as an area. It's a hotbed of racism and I recall going there as a police officer and being posted in the "family enclosure" wathcing a three/four year old child yelling "you black $$$$" at an opposition player. Under 10s are untouchable legally but you have to think a) where do they learn that B) how come their parent allows it and c) what on earth is going to happen when they grow up ( they probably unfurl a racist banner years later)

 

Sure the club tries hard but they cant swim against the tide can they?

[Horsetan]

Sadly I think there's no help for Millwall as a club or as an area...

 

By the same token, I think there's no help for Peter Herbert, who either presumes to know Spurs better than its own supporters or is trying to model himself on Peter Tatchell.

 

It must have been a very slow week at the Society of Black Lawyers...and I'm saying this as a non-white lawyer myself.

[peanuts]

roumers going around manchester that sir Alex is to retire from football altogether at the end of the season

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hes taking on the Scotland job

[oggy1953]

By the same token, I think there's no help for Peter Herbert, who either presumes to know Spurs better than its own supporters or is trying to model himself on Peter Tatchell.

 

It must have been a very slow week at the Society of Black Lawyers...and I'm saying this as a non-white lawyer myself.

Isn't he the same chap that wants to start a 'Black' players union ? Isn't that racist in its own right ?

[Horsetan]

Isn't he the same chap that wants to start a 'Black' players union ? Isn't that racist in its own right ?

 

He may well be the same one. I don't know whether he sees himself as some crusading personality or whether he's an incorrigible Don Quixote, using the SBL to tilt at imaginary windmills.

 

On the face of it, a blacks-only players union might well be racist. It's certainly discriminatory.

 

The idea of what is & isn't racist is constantly shifting, & playing the race card tends to be a game of political skill. My old man was particularly good at it when in local government, much to my own embarrassment.

 

Worse still nowadays are those who get all offended on behalf of those they think are being offended. It's a dangerous mix of PC & self-righteousness. No good can ever come of this.

[Red Devil]

I hear this evening Mark Clattenburg may face a lengthy ban himself for possibly using some particularly unwise language directed at John Obi Mikkel.

 

And to the surprise of all, the Metropolitan Police drop their inquiry into this.............

 

http://www.itv.com/n...er-clattenburg/

 

So, lets see what the FA come up with..........

 

If Chelsea have a duty of care to their player as they have been suggesting, I'd have thought that they could have made the effort to report it to the Police, then again it becomes a bit more serious then.

[S.A.C Martin]

And to the surprise of all, the Metropolitan Police drop their inquiry into this.............

 

http://www.itv.com/n...er-clattenburg/

 

So, lets see what the FA come up with..........

 

If Chelsea have a duty of care to their player as they have been suggesting, I'd have thought that they could have made the effort to report it to the Police, then again it becomes a bit more serious then.

 

It's getting a little wearying to be the quoted source in this thread. Comments at the time were made based on that known at the time (like everyone has done so in this thread).

 

So if you want my view now, here it is.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that Clattenburg handled the match badly. Some correct decisions given, some not so clear cut, but he never at any time had any time of the players. Hardly surprising given the level of emotions on show and the known histories of both clubs when it comes to officials.

 

The racist nature of the incident only came out a day later, at which I point I immediately dismissed from my mind any semblance of doubt as to what was going on, as I had previously aired in this thread.

 

As far as I'm concerned (and you may agree or disagree with me; feel free), Chelsea's complaint regarding Clattenburg has no basis in fact, has no evidence to support the accusation, and is incredibly frivolous with the fortunes of Clattenburg's career. Whether you like him as a referee or not, he has not deserved Peter Herbert's outrageous Sky Sports News interview last night, which more or less stated that the FA were protecting a racist referee.

 

Unlike Terry and Suarez, there's no video evidence and only hearsay on behalf of a few Chelsea players.

 

So yes, for it is worth, I agree - the lack of police intervention can show that Chelsea's claim has an air of frivolity about it. What I think is the bigger story is Peter Herbert's continued outrageous smear campaign - which is what it is, nothing more and nothing less. Clattenburg is presumed innocent until otherwise proven guilty - there is no evidence, ergo it is unlikely that Chelsea's report of what happened is correct. Listening to Peter Herbert however, you would presume that Clattenburg was an arch-racist. He's no saint, but he's definitely undeserving of the media circus Chelsea have whipped up.

 

Frankly I would like to see the FA take a stance against Chelsea FC for bringing the game into disrepute, once Clattenburg is cleared by the FA (as I expect him to be). Genuine complaints about racism should be dealt with according to the laws of the game, and the laws of the land if necessary. This does not smack of a genuine claim, at all.

[Red Devil]

It's getting a little wearying to be the quoted source in this thread. Comments at the time were made based on that known at the time (like everyone has done so in this thread).

 

So if you want my view now, here it is.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that Clattenburg handled the match badly. Some correct decisions given, some not so clear cut, but he never at any time had any time of the players. Hardly surprising given the level of emotions on show and the known histories of both clubs when it comes to officials.

 

The racist nature of the incident only came out a day later, at which I point I immediately dismissed from my mind any semblance of doubt as to what was going on, as I had previously aired in this thread.

 

As far as I'm concerned (and you may agree or disagree with me; feel free), Chelsea's complaint regarding Clattenburg has no basis in fact, has no evidence to support the accusation, and is incredibly frivolous with the fortunes of Clattenburg's career. Whether you like him as a referee or not, he has not deserved Peter Herbert's outrageous Sky Sports News interview last night, which more or less stated that the FA were protecting a racist referee.

 

Unlike Terry and Suarez, there's no video evidence and only hearsay on behalf of a few Chelsea players.

 

So yes, for it is worth, I agree - the lack of police intervention can show that Chelsea's claim has an air of frivolity about it. What I think is the bigger story is Peter Herbert's continued outrageous smear campaign - which is what it is, nothing more and nothing less. Clattenburg is presumed innocent until otherwise proven guilty - there is no evidence, ergo it is unlikely that Chelsea's report of what happened is correct. Listening to Peter Herbert however, you would presume that Clattenburg was an arch-racist. He's no saint, but he's definitely undeserving of the media circus Chelsea have whipped up.

 

Frankly I would like to see the FA take a stance against Chelsea FC for bringing the game into disrepute, once Clattenburg is cleared by the FA (as I expect him to be). Genuine complaints about racism should be dealt with according to the laws of the game, and the laws of the land if necessary. This does not smack of a genuine claim, at all.

 

Sorry you find it so wearying, but you were the only person to pont out that Clattenburg had supposedly said something untoward and given your usual pro referee stance I found it strange that you seemingly jumped to attack Clattenburg, at the time I stated that he was of course innocent until proved otherwise, so your complete volte face is somewhat amusing.

 

As to Peter Herbert, his contibution to this matter is interesting, some would say it smacks of self publicity, others, by driving the case, it shows Chelsea stance to be somewhat frivolous, if was serious enough then it deserved police intervention, or if that happens does it suddenly become a touch more difficult for them to smooth it away?

[S.A.C Martin]

Sorry you find it so wearying, but you were the only person to pont out that Clattenburg had supposedly said something untoward and given your usual pro referee stance I found it strange that you seemingly jumped to attack Clattenburg, at the time I stated that he was of course innocent until proved otherwise, so your complete volte face is somewhat amusing.

 

And yet I am the one wholly able to admit a fault.

 

I am normally pro-referee - being an ex referee - but Clattenburg on his own could fill a book with the number of incidents, on and off the field, that has happened to him over the years. If it's admitting a fault that I let previous notions of Clattenburg get in the way; then it's admitting a fault. However at that time (and prior to the racism claim) I wouldn't have been surprised if emotions had got the better of him. Nuff said on that matter now I think.

 

As to Peter Herbert, his contibution to this matter is interesting, some would say it smacks of self publicity, others, by driving the case, it shows Chelsea stance to be somewhat frivolous, if was serious enough then it deserved police intervention, or if that happens does it suddenly become a touch more difficult for them to smooth it away?

 

For once; I couldn't agree more. Self publicity is one; dangerous self interest and an inability to understand that the lack of evidence may say more about Chelsea and the accusations put forward than anything about Clattenburg.

 

On a football related note (!) is anyone actually watching the friendly this evening? I intended to have the radio on whilst writing my reports, but I may now go out for a drink and watch it in the local with some mates (that is, if I get work out of the way. Not doing a good job of that by still being on RMweb at this time!)

[colin penfold]

I think we need to wait for the FA to deal with and then comment on the information they have been given by the club and the players. Trying to maintain an even perspective here are some salient points:

 

There is no requirement for the victim(s) to involve the Police if he/they don't want to. If he/they are happy for the FA to deal with it, that's his/their perogative. Compare this with the workplace. On occasion people are disciplined for making inappropriate comments in the workplace. They are usually dealt with by internal discipline methods and the Police are rarely called. I was once threatened by a board member and was content that the board took action under their code of conduct. I could have, but chose not to, involve the Police as a criminal offence had been committed.

 

The Police can't act without evidence, as they have said. That's the weakness of the race legislation allowing unconnected third parties to make complaints about things they have no business getting involved in. Doesn't mean the incident didn't happen.

 

As we only have media speculation to go on, we don't know for sure whether the inappropriate language complained about was or wasn't alleged to be racist.

 

Just becase there's no CCTV coverage doesn't mean there's no evidence. CCTV might be very prominent these days, but people are allowed to give direct evidence of what they heard or saw. Courts and tribunals then have to weigh the evidence where people's stories differ, and decide based on their appropriate burden of proof (beyond all reasonable doubt for the criminal law, balance of probability for civil law)

 

I would say that any player who is found to have made a deliberate false statement should be dealt with in similar severity as the guilty party would have expected had the allegation been true. However, like with the diving issue people will need to be sure it was deliberatly false and malicious and not a misunderstanding - those do happen you know, in the same way that players fall over sometimes without beig fouled or diving.

 

Anyhow, lets wait for the FA.

[colin penfold]

On a football related note (!) is anyone actually watching the friendly this evening? I intended to have the radio on whilst writing my reports, but I may now go out for a drink and watch it in the local with some mates (that is, if I get work out of the way. Not doing a good job of that by still being on RMweb at this time!)

Why do we do it? Just finished watching England. It's like lime pickles in the curry house. Every time I do it, I wonder why - but next time, I do it all over again!

 

Yep, I will be watching and then regretting it afterwards, as usual..............

[oggy1953]

 

 

 

Yep, I will be watching and then regretting it afterwards, as usual..............

Pointless game at this stage of the season in my opinion. I shan't be watching and will only look up the result if i remember.

[Red Devil]

I think we need to wait for the FA to deal with and then comment on the information they have been given by the club and the players. Trying to maintain an even perspective here are some salient points:

 

There is no requirement for the victim(s) to involve the Police if he/they don't want to. If he/they are happy for the FA to deal with it, that's his/their perogative. Compare this with the workplace. On occasion people are disciplined for making inappropriate comments in the workplace. They are usually dealt with by internal discipline methods and the Police are rarely called. I was once threatened by a board member and was content that the board took action under their code of conduct. I could have, but chose not to, involve the Police as a criminal offence had been committed.

 

The Police can't act without evidence, as they have said. That's the weakness of the race legislation allowing unconnected third parties to make complaints about things they have no business getting involved in. Doesn't mean the incident didn't happen.

 

As we only have media speculation to go on, we don't know for sure whether the inappropriate language complained about was or wasn't alleged to be racist.

 

Just becase there's no CCTV coverage doesn't mean there's no evidence. CCTV might be very prominent these days, but people are allowed to give direct evidence of what they heard or saw. Courts and tribunals then have to weigh the evidence where people's stories differ, and decide based on their appropriate burden of proof (beyond all reasonable doubt for the criminal law, balance of probability for civil law)

 

I would say that any player who is found to have made a deliberate false statement should be dealt with in similar severity as the guilty party would have expected had the allegation been true. However, like with the diving issue people will need to be sure it was deliberatly false and malicious and not a misunderstanding - those do happen you know, in the same way that players fall over sometimes without beig fouled or diving.

 

Anyhow, lets wait for the FA.

 

Nah, lets not, I think it's safe to say that Chelsea have accused Clattenburg of using racist language

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-chairman-wed-have-been-really-crucified-if-we-had-not-reported-clattenburg-and-it-then-leaked-out-8312146.html

 

I think answers that one.

 

After Peter Herberts intervention, the situation was within the remit of the police, Chelsea obviously thought it wiser not to proceed with that-for whatever reason.

 

F

[colin penfold]

same reason MUFC chose not to go to the Police over the Suarez/Evra incident probably