Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't think it is likely that it was misheard. I think it is likely that it is made up to justify starting the fracas.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, OxonOwl said:

I don't think it is likely that it was misheard. I think it is likely that it is made up to justify starting the fracas.

That's libellous. What's your evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

As I said in a post above, given the issues in Montenegro and the England football team, the FA were always likely to adopt a firmer approach to incidents involving accusations of racist behaviour. They have to be seen to be dealing with the issue and not taking a different path outside the standard operating procedure. The next player brought before the commission was always likely to face a backlash.

 

I will go alone on this one and put my own interpretation on the word "charged" in this context. It is used in the form of "Charged with bringing the game into disrepute" or like Eoin Morgan, "Charged with slow over rates". To me it means nothing more than the player or coach has been informed that disciplinary procedures are likely to follow and for them to prepare a response. It doesn't, in my view, constitute a finding of guilt at that stage.

 

I do not believe that the FA have sufficient evidence to progress this case and it will subsequently dropped after FF's response to the allegations.

 

Thats a fair take on it ...

 

i do however think that the reported summing up from the Judge (and I say reported because this initially came via The Stir’s reporter, it would be interesting to read the actual transcript) will taint the hearing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kendoddsdadsdogsdead said:

. The incredible lack of minority representation of coaches and managers being afforded the opportunities to progress.

 

I could go on, but I am sure most have been bored reading this, and not reached this far.

 

 

On the issue of minority representation in the coaching and management fields ; surely it is down to the individual to go out and get whatever qualifications are required to do the job in the first place. I have never seen nor heard of a member of an ethnic minority being denied the chance to obtain the necessary qualifications needed to become a manager or coach in football. Then when the necessary qualifications have been achieved it is up to the individual concerned to apply for any jobs that become available and should expect to be employed if they are the best candidate.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hirstys Salopettes said:

 

Thats a fair take on it ...

 

i do however think that the reported summing up from the Judge (and I say reported because this initially came via The Stir’s reporter, it would be interesting to read the actual transcript) will taint the hearing 

 

I say this from my own perspective because I obviously don't know what will happen but I believe that FF will provide a response drafted by a legal representative and then the matter will end. I think the FA have to follow the procedure because they cannot be seen to do nothing or make concessions. They have issued allegations and reports regarding Montenegro. That leaves them very little room for movement in terms of any racist incidents that they have to deal with. They would however, still need to prove a case against FF and, given the information in the public domain, I cannot see that any proof against FF actually exists. Again, what I say may or may not be accurate but only time can determine that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The same evidence could result in different outcomes because of the differing burdens of proof.

A criminal conviction required "beyond reasonable doubt", which clearly could not be met hence his acquittal.

However, a civil charge and/or a professional charge may well be met as it will only require the lower standard of "on the balance of probability" to be met.

Edited by kobayashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kobayashi said:

The same evidence could result in different outcomes because of the differing burdens of proof.

A criminal conviction required "beyond reasonable doubt", which clearly could not be met hence his acquittal.

However, a civil charge and/or a professional charge may well be met as it will only require the lower standard of "on the balance of probability" to be met.

One persons word against another persons words doesn't really give much credence to an "on the balance of probability" verdict though.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely Forestieris defence will be that an English court of law given the evidence could not definitively establish without doubt that a racist comment was used and therefore found our client not guilty. Therefore we put it to you that the charges should be dropped due to no further evidence being forthcoming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

I say this from my own perspective because I obviously don't know what will happen but I believe that FF will provide a response drafted by a legal representative and then the matter will end. I think the FA have to follow the procedure because they cannot be seen to do nothing or make concessions. They have issued allegations and reports regarding Montenegro. That leaves them very little room for movement in terms of any racist incidents that they have to deal with. They would however, still need to prove a case against FF and, given the information in the public domain, I cannot see that any proof against FF actually exists. Again, what I say may or may not be accurate but only time can determine that.

Havnt they  had enough time already? Nearly a year to bring charges.  Why?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A12owl said:

Havnt they  had enough time already? Nearly a year to bring charges.  Why?

 

 

Waiting for the criminal charges to be sorted first, I assume

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darra said:

Surely Forestieris defence will be that an English court of law given the evidence could not definitively establish without doubt that a racist comment was used and therefore found our client not guilty. Therefore we put it to you that the charges should be dropped due to no further evidence being forthcoming

Forestieri' s defence should be......

"I didn't say it"

The FA then have to PROVE that he did. 

There will probably be 10 people (From mansfield) who will say he did and 10 people from Sheffield Wednesday will say he didn't. Then they will all be accused of perverting the course of justice. 

The 20 people involved will then be banned for 5 games and the club forced to play a whole season behind closed doors.

There will be an appeal which will be heard in 2020 until such time as somebody has been bribed to swing the decision in favour of the Mansfield player. SWFC will then be thrown out of the league due to not controlling their player. 

That's our normal luck isn't It?

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burnsie said:

Waiting for the criminal charges to be sorted first, I assume

So the criminal charges were not guilty? How do they justify their actions. Oh hang on.....The FA don't have to justify anything to anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cognacbarnowl said:

 

On the issue of minority representation in the coaching and management fields ; surely it is down to the individual to go out and get whatever qualifications are required to do the job in the first place. I have never seen nor heard of a member of an ethnic minority being denied the chance to obtain the necessary qualifications needed to become a manager or coach in football. Then when the necessary qualifications have been achieved it is up to the individual concerned to apply for any jobs that become available and should expect to be employed if they are the best candidate.

 

 

Look at the number of BME players that are in teams. Then look at how many go onto coaching and manager roles. There is a clear disproportionately of those from BME making the step up. There must be a reason, they cannot all not harbour ambitions to progress when their playing days come to an end.

 

It has been the same in American sports, which recently introduced the Rooney Rule, in an attempt to get more BME candidates getting interviews for posts. If the FA are serious about getting their house in order, it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement the same rule over here

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hookowl said:

One persons word against another persons words doesn't really give much credence to an "on the balance of probability" verdict though.

May be not but it could if they give more credence to one over the other. That's the point they don't have to be certain they just have to believe it was probable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, kendoddsdadsdogsdead said:

Look at the number of BME players that are in teams. Then look at how many go onto coaching and manager roles. There is a clear disproportionately of those from BME making the step up. There must be a reason, they cannot all not harbour ambitions to progress when their playing days come to an end.

 

It has been the same in American sports, which recently introduced the Rooney Rule, in an attempt to get more BME candidates getting interviews for posts. If the FA are serious about getting their house in order, it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement the same rule over here

 

Think they have announced the 'Rooney Rule' will be used over here next season when you have to interview 1 BME person for a managers position.

Not sure how this will work in practice as you dont really have a formal interview for a job as you would in normal life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

May be not but it could if they give more credence to one over the other. That's the point they don't have to be certain they just have to believe it was probable.

 

Aye, but even in a civil matter, the case has to be proved to a point that it can be described as "in all probability" or "most likely". Unless there is a reliable and sufficiently independent third party (e.g. the referee) that can corroborate the allegations made against FF, how can it be sufficiently proven? The best that could be achieved would be a guess based on one version of events against another. It would be wrong, wholly wrong if they use a guess or assumption to find Forestieri guilty of the alleged breaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

Think they have announced the 'Rooney Rule' will be used over here next season when you have to interview 1 BME person for a managers position.

Not sure how this will work in practice as you dont really have a formal interview for a job as you would in normal life.

 

And what happens if no BME? , (scuse my ignorance but no idea what it stands for), person applies for the job ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cognacbarnowl said:

 

And what happens if no BME? , (scuse my ignorance but no idea what it stands for), person applies for the job ?

 

Stands for Black and Mixed ethnicity.

Not sure what you do if no black person applies.

All a load of identity politics crap to me.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, cognacbarnowl said:

 

And what happens if no BME? , (scuse my ignorance but no idea what it stands for), person applies for the job ?

Best person for the job is who should be given the job.  

 

Meritocracy as opposed to filling a quota should be the way forward imo.  

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add, best person for the job without prejudice, that is true equality.   

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...