Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Feel like if this wasn’t a Wednesday player the FA would have lost interest a while ago.  Imagine if a Liverpool player went to court, the trial was dismissed for lack of evidence, then the FA charged them... nope wouldn’t happen 

  • Disagree 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That player who played for Uniteds ladies team was virtually kicked out of football on the allegation of another player something the United player denied, so they have shown they will take the word of one player against another so the FA definitely have the power to do as they like without much evidence, I'd be very worried if I was Forestieri 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, asteener1867 said:

The point is..

That..say I was a footballer..any f.ooker who had the inclination , could accuse me of calling him a Black this...a White that..A Homo...a *****, a Mick..or a gyppo..and simply because the "F.A" are wanting to prove they are "stamping down on this sort of thing"...I'm immediately on the back foot...

Its bloody ludicrous...its patently unfair...and its an agenda driven decision...

Its simply not how it should be done...

You dont hang folk on 

"Woulda, coulda..mighta?2

You use evidence...what bloody new evidence have the F.a got , that the courts didn't have?

I'll take a guess.............

 

F.A

 

It's not the point though, the actual legal courts rightly need a higher standard of evidence before they convict someone of a crime. This is in effect a work related charge that will discipline Fernando internally if they find him guilty. When someone does something wrong in their work place the employer doesn't need to have evidence that would hold up in an actual court do they? They simply use their own procedures to arrive at a decision and act upon it. 

 

And for some of the other outraged people in this thread, ask yourself this - Were you equally outraged when the FA charged John Terry with the same offence despite being cleared in court? Or was that one OK because he didn't play for Wednesday and you don't like the guy? 

  • Agree 8
  • Disagree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can he adopt that line like they do on the Tele...

” Is your name Fernando Forestieri “

”No comment “

”Were you playing against those morons at Mansfield in a pre season friendly “

”No comment “

”Did you call one of their talentless players a nasty name “

”No comment “

I’d go with that line of irritating responses, they’d soon get tired of it and drop the case.

Obviously this is just my layman’s advice... he might want to seek council from a qualified member of the legal system.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scilly owl said:

Can he adopt that line like they do on the Tele...

” Is your name Fernando Forestieri “

”No comment “

”Were you playing against those morons at Mansfield in a pre season friendly “

”No comment “

”Did you call one of their talentless players a nasty name “

”No comment “

I’d go with that line of irritating responses, they’d soon get tired of it and drop the case.

Obviously this is just my layman’s advice... he might want to seek council from a qualified member of the legal system.

Just noticed your username :Sid:

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on earth have the FA been doing for the past year?

 

It's as if they have just woken up from a deep sleep and forgot to do something.

 

And what was the ban AND the fine for in the first place...? It's like some terrible movie sequel... "Misconduct 2... This time it's personal"

 

I don't think that the club would even need a top lawyer when around 90% of folks posting on here should be able to drive a coach and horses through this one for free.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Hopefully the club are providing him with a decent QC 

What good will a sherry do him now?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Whitechapel Owl said:

 

It's not the point though, the actual legal courts rightly need a higher standard of evidence before they convict someone of a crime. This is in effect a work related charge that will discipline Fernando internally if they find him guilty. When someone does something wrong in their work place the employer doesn't need to have evidence that would hold up in an actual court do they? They simply use their own procedures to arrive at a decision and act upon it. 

 

And for some of the other outraged people in this thread, ask yourself this - Were you equally outraged when the FA charged John Terry with the same offence despite being cleared in court? Or was that one OK because he didn't play for Wednesday and you don't like the guy? 

Then surely FF takes the F.A to a higher level

It's slander

Also

Dont presume I'm "outraged"

I just like things to be fair

Anyone could actually SEE what Terry said

Show the FF evidence

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to accusations of racism think the FA feel the need to be seen to not sweeping it under the carpet.

Does seem a bit daft when it happened last pre season.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clubs got to stand up and fight this, he had the beginning of last season ruined by a band, then he had the court case hanging over his head for nearly a year, found not guilty, and now those incompetent morons want another pop because they've nowt better to do, v vankers

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, it’s about the balance of probability in a civil case. Louis Theroux produces a documentary on how civil cases are used in American Universities when a defendant has been found not guilty in a sexual abuse claim. Seems like a blunt instrument but there was cases when it appeared like justice was done as a result.

 

I support our great club and all our players but if any of them are racist and there is a level of certainty then they need to be reprimanded regardless of the fact that they play for SWFC.

 

If people want to question what evidence they have then fine but I don’t like it when people defend potential behaviour like that alleged just because they play for a certain team. It stinks. SUFC did it with Ched Evans and I didn’t like it then. Question the process and evidence fine but don’t say someone is innocent just because they play for your team.

 

I do hope FF is innocent and don’t want him to miss games for him and us but that is different.

  • Agree 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gizowl said:

The clubs got to stand up and fight this, he had the beginning of last season ruined by a band, then he had the court case hanging over his head for nearly a year, found not guilty, and now those incompetent morons want another pop because they've nowt better to do, v vankers

That’ll be the atmosphere at the England game tonight when that lot get started.:duntmatter:

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already been punished for violent conduct as deserved.

 

No evidence of clear racist intent in his comments. He will have to admit to abuse as he said this in court but this happens every game. 

 

What is the point of this? 

Share this post


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

The three-game ban was for violent conduct, which Fessi accepted, for the two-footed challenge.

 

He was cleared in court due to a lack of evidence, but FA can rule on balance of probability and the judge made reference to not been convinced of the case against him rather than fully believing in his innocence.

 

That said, it seemed to come down only to one guy's word against another so it's a really difficult one for the FA either way.

 

He also got fined. But ive never see that for violent conduct before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, We are all Wednesday said:

As others have said, it’s about the balance of probability in a civil case. Louis Theroux produces a documentary on how civil cases are used in American Universities when a defendant has been found not guilty in a sexual abuse claim. Seems like a blunt instrument but there was cases when it appeared like justice was done as a result.

 

I support our great club and all our players but if any of them are racist and there is a level of certainty then they need to be reprimanded regardless of the fact that they play for SWFC.

 

If people want to question what evidence they have then fine but I don’t like it when people defend potential behaviour like that alleged just because they play for a certain team. It stinks. SUFC did it with Ched Evans and I didn’t like it then. Question the process and evidence fine but don’t say someone is innocent just because they play for your team.

 

I do hope FF is innocent and don’t want him to miss games for him and us but that is different.

 

Evans was (initially) found guilty in a criminal court. FF wasn’t! 

 

This is because there wasn’t sufficient evidence to demonstrate racism. So why do the FA want to take a different slant on the basis of “it might’ve been”.

Edited by Bluesteel
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm sure now the precedent is set that to get an opposition player charged with alleged racism, all you need to do is accuse them of it, that nobody will make any accusations of it in future even if they aren't sure what they heard and nobody witnesses it.

It's not like players ever do things to gain advantage - like pretend they've been physically assaulted and are injured when actually they've not been touched...
 

Edited by nebneeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Not Jon Newsome said:

So the FA are above our countries judicial system now?

Our judicial system works in a similar way ,we do accept prosecution that don't require the same level of proof .it's called civil law

Edited by akbuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, akbuk said:

Our judicial system works in a similar way ,we do accept prosecution that don't require the same level of proof .I can't remember the terminology

Beyond reasonable doubt? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dontCallMeOwlCallYou said:

Beyond reasonable doubt? 

Civil law which requires a lower burden of proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Belfast Owl 2 said:

So what evidence are the FA basing this on?

Why wait so long to act?

 

How the fizz can something that happened last pre season not be resolved?

 

I agree, even awaiting the CPS result this seems a long time and there is a lot of history of FF being treated unfairly by officials. There is nothing to suggest he is guilty otherwise he’d already have been deemed so. Then again, even when Michael Dawson told a ref and others post game that FF didn’t dive that time they banned him anyway.

  • Thanks 1

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...