rickygoo

It's actually easy to get things right when common sense is applied. Why people are digging at the fans about past idiotic decisions by the club is beyond me.

Which clubs?

You're making things up now

Putting it mildly I'm not a big fan of our owner but I don't mind the smoke and mirrors stuff - with the big proviso that it doesn't jeopardise the future of the club. The parachute payments/P&S rules skew the market in favour of certain clubs. If we can find a perfectly legal way around them by exploiting loopholes without causing problems in the future that's fine by me. That would be him boxing clever for a change. It is a big if of course - the truth will out eventually.

Have you thought about not reading or posting to it?

Two League titles and 26 England caps mean Ernest Blenkinsop is the left back to beat.

Depends on how convincing the he and the she are. Are you saying some people aren’t more believable than others? I’m not saying it’s simple nor that FF is guilty but it’s no surprise the FA are looking at it.

Seems straightforward. The judge didn’t think the level of proof had reached enough for a criminal conviction. Regardless of the judge’s stated opinion on whether the Mansfield player misheard he couldn’t be sure to the level required. It’s not a difficult circle to square. The Guardian and The Star took the obvious and best, from a story point of view, news line from the comments - no more no less. Their reporting - like the Sky and BBC reports - would have complied with contempt laws. As The Guardian reported, the judge’s comments were likely to give FF a problem given the lower level of proof required. That indeed is what has happened.

The Guardian reported the same thing. One man’s taint is another man’s informed. I have no idea what will happen or happened as I wasn’t in court and haven’t seen either bloke give evidence. What I am certain of is there is no vendetta against Wednesday or Forestieri, from the Star, The Guardian, the judge or the FA, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bit paranoid.

Depends on how credible each individual is and the quality of their evidence.

That's libellous. What's your evidence?

It's not unexpected Apologies if someone else had posted it, but this Guardian article predicted the issue - https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/mar/30/football-double-jeopardy-racism-cases-fernando-forestieri " it boiled down to one man’s word against another and, on that basis, nobody should be surprised it ended as it did: not guilty. Even though – and this bit is important – the district judge, Jonathan Taffe, made it clear in his conclusion that he was not certain whatsoever that Pearce had, as suggested, misheard. “It is possible, albeit in my judgment unlikely,” Taffe said. Yet the fact it was possible meant he could not be satisfied “to a criminal standard” that the offending word was used. And fair enough: Forestieri’s version of events, like Pearce’s, was described as “clear and consistent”. It would have been difficult for any court to convict him without any corroborative evidence and, as Forestieri has subsequently pointed out, the question should probably be asked of the Crown Prosecution Service why it charged him when the judicial system requires cases to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is the difference with the Football Association’s disciplinary system, which determines cases on the balance of probabilities and, as such, has a much wider scope to rule in favour of the player making the allegations."

To be fair when he was playing for them he didn’t take a penalty in the play off final against the Pigs until sudden death. I don’t think who we were playing was an issue.

He’s a Championship reserve who’s scored 14 League goals in the last 3 seasons. He’s worth what anyone is willing to pay. Which given his wages won’t be much.