BREAKING NEWS - 6 Game ban for FF

[shtommer]

I realise this will be an unpopular view, but I've just read the reasoning behind the judgement (yes all 26 pages of it) and I don't see how the commission could have ruled any different.

 

As for FF being acquitted in criminal court that doesn't prove he did not call Pearce a N*****, just that there was a reasonable doubt he said it. 

 

But despite that verdict, the judge himself still thought FF probably did use that word. 

In justifying the acquittal he even went as far as stating that "...it is possible, albeit in my judgment unlikely, that Mr Pearce was mistaken" 

 

So the judge who found FF not guilty in the criminal case would have come to the same conclusion as this commission, based solely on the balance of probabilities. 

 

If you think 'balance of probability' is not a high enough burden of proof for this kind of thing, that's a valid view. This is a massive stain on FF's character, regardless of any ban or fine. But that's what they do work to, and on that basis I do think this is a fair judgement given all the reasoning. 

 

What I don't think is fair is 6 games and £25k for something that is not 100% clear cut. Seems that 6 games is the minimum now, but surely they could have bans part (or entirely) suspended when it's not clear cut. Do you get much longer bans if you are bang to rights (loads of credible witnesses)?

 

 

[Pale Rider]

Calling the Chairman. Give us Frigging good news. 

[RichSheffWeds]

16 minutes ago, Belfast Owl 2 said:

 

5 goals in 10 games when he got a run of games at end of 17/18 season.

 

Showed his class when given a run of games.

 

But injuries beyond his control and the curse of Jos have hampered him.

 

 

 

No one doubts his ability and injury has played a part (as I said) but so have suspensions etc.

 

We have not seen the best from him for over 2 years, even when he played 37 games the season before last.

 

All these factors are why he’s at a Championship Club, when on pure ability he’s better than a lot of Premier League players. 

[The Wall]

10 minutes ago, shtommer said:

I realise this will be an unpopular view, but I've just read the reasoning behind the judgement (yes all 26 pages of it) and I don't see how the commission could have ruled any different.

 

As for FF being acquitted in criminal court that doesn't prove he did not call Pearce a N*****, just that there was a reasonable doubt he said it. 

 

But despite that verdict, the judge himself still thought FF probably did use that word. 

In justifying the acquittal he even went as far as stating that "...it is possible, albeit in my judgment unlikely, that Mr Pearce was mistaken" 

 

So the judge who found FF not guilty in the criminal case would have come to the same conclusion as this commission, based solely on the balance of probabilities. 

 

If you think 'balance of probability' is not a high enough burden of proof for this kind of thing, that's a valid view. This is a massive stain on FF's character, regardless of any ban or fine. But that's what they do work to, and on that basis I do think this is a fair judgement given all the reasoning. 

 

What I don't think is fair is 6 games and £25k for something that is not 100% clear cut. Seems that 6 games is the minimum now, but surely they could have bans part (or entirely) suspended when it's not clear cut. Do you get much longer bans if you are bang to rights (loads of credible witnesses)?

 

 

On what basis do you think it is probable?

[NeonLeon]

13 minutes ago, shtommer said:

I realise this will be an unpopular view, but I've just read the reasoning behind the judgement (yes all 26 pages of it) and I don't see how the commission could have ruled any different.

 

As for FF being acquitted in criminal court that doesn't prove he did not call Pearce a N*****, just that there was a reasonable doubt he said it. 

 

But despite that verdict, the judge himself still thought FF probably did use that word. 

In justifying the acquittal he even went as far as stating that "...it is possible, albeit in my judgment unlikely, that Mr Pearce was mistaken" 

 

So the judge who found FF not guilty in the criminal case would have come to the same conclusion as this commission, based solely on the balance of probabilities. 

 

If you think 'balance of probability' is not a high enough burden of proof for this kind of thing, that's a valid view. This is a massive stain on FF's character, regardless of any ban or fine. But that's what they do work to, and on that basis I do think this is a fair judgement given all the reasoning. 

 

What I don't think is fair is 6 games and £25k for something that is not 100% clear cut. Seems that 6 games is the minimum now, but surely they could have bans part (or entirely) suspended when it's not clear cut. Do you get much longer bans if you are bang to rights (loads of credible witnesses)?

 

 

 

You're right unfortunately. 

 

My problem would be that from the same court case the judge said FF’s version of events had remained consistent. And that includes where FF claims to have said something in Spanish that sounds like the alleged word. 

 

Now for me anyone one with any common sense would deduce that no person could walk off the pitch in a heated environment like that and invent a story so perfect to cover themselves. Especially over an allegation they weren’t aware of until confronted in the dressing room. For me, how can we go from saying Footballers and Managers aren’t coherent enough in the aftermath of a game to give unemotional interviews to the media, but then say a player is clear of mind enough to invent a cover story in the aftermath of a 30 man brawl.

 

It’s nonsense.

 

I can believe Pearce heard something, and believed it to be that. But there’s just as much evidence, if not more, to suggest FF said something that sounded like what Pearce alleges to have heard.

 

I mean I sat at home and watched Firmino over and over on tv replays say the word, and he got let off!

 

Suspended ban in anything for me, pending a reoccurrence of a similar offence. 

 

[Essix Blue]

Haven’t read all the thread but can we read the judgement anywhere?

[Kopparberg]

Isn’t FF good friends with Joao? 

 

It doesn’t appear to have effected their relationship. 

 

Joao can’t believe that FF would say such a thing ? 

 

Within the club it appears that the the players remain on good terms with FF. 

[steelowl]

can someone enlighten me have the league in all their 'equal handling' of this matter punished mansfield or any of their players for the mass brawl clearly videod as GBH just interested 

[NeonLeon]

44 minutes ago, emersonthome said:

Ironic that the FA found in favour of the native English speaker because they felt he came across better in court

 

It’s called the “Manuel From Fawlty Towers” complex. 

[Kanye West]

10 minutes ago, Essix Blue said:

Haven’t read all the thread but can we read the judgement anywhere?

 

 

 

[Kanye West]

Baffling how he can be charged on the basis of “he probably said it”. 

[steelowl]

46 minutes ago, emersonthome said:

Ironic that the FA found in favour of the native English speaker because they felt he came across better in court

 

you couldnt write it 

 

if i weas wrongly accused i'd be extremely irate  wasnt he allowed representation  ?

[deaks1984]

I think the whole thing is ridiculous. To me what makes it worse is the rules at the time of the incident meant if he was found guilty he would have been banned for 5 matches. 

So they decided to change the rules and then find him guilty and give him 6 matches. 

Personally I don't think he should get anything as the whole thing is based on possibility/probability.

But surely even if he was found guilty then the rules which were in place at the time of the alleged incident should apply.

If we are in the game of changing rules and then applying retrospectively, can we have some parachute payments following our relegation from the prem?

 

[Guest mkowl]

1 hour ago, A12owl said:

No matter what happens I and thousands of others will ALWAYS support Sheffield Wednesday.

Do your worst FA and anybody else that wants to try to beat the cr*p out of us. 

You will never get the better of us.

WE ARE WEDNESDAY FOR EVER.

WTID (Nobody has  registered that have they?)

 

 

I might own the Ltd Co 

 

 

 

[belgrade_owl]

I guess next year we can expect 

 

BREAKING NEWS - 9 Game ban for FF and 25k fine, just to keep progression.

 

How many times can they punish him for same thing if he was found not guilty in court?

 

[happy bunny]

2 hours ago, Leaping Lannys Perm said:

In fairness, the judge always said he believed he said it. Just that the prosecutors hadn't provided the burden of proof.

 

It is interesting though that the level of proof needed by the FA is different. Presumably the level of evidence was enough to convince them. 

 

Whilst I can't be too pissed off given the judges opinion, a £25,000 fine is an interesting amount. You regularly see people getting £2-3k fines from the Crown for cases of actual physical assault. Somehow the FA have seen enough evidence to charge him for 10 times that, despite there not being enough evidence for the Crown to charge him a penny.

 

It's a court of law

[TrickyTrev]

Didn’t Wayne Hennessy get caught on video making a Nazi salute but didn’t get a ban?

 

I’m pretty sure there was more evidence there than in Nando’s case.

 

Double standards from the FA?

[steelowl]

9 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

I might own the Ltd Co 

 

 

 

cough

 

[The Wall]

So in summary:

KP - "FF called me a n****er"

FA - "Can you prove it?"

KP - "No"

FA - "Any video, audio, witnesses?"

KP - "No"

FA - "In what context was it said?"

KP - "Dunno, he was talking in Spanish"

 

FA - "Guilty!"

[Guest mkowl]

The fact is the FA do not need the same burden of proof as a court.

 

I know in my world of accountancy I could be heavily fined, expelled just for going to court for assault and not even be found guilty. 

 

So I get the rationale the FA can use. However having read the full report I cannot fathom how they can conclude how they have based on one players reaction 

 

You know what I have no problem with how the Mansfield player reacted IF that is what he thought he heard.

 

However that doesn't mean it categorically was said. You can't use a reaction to prove anything because that reaction could be based on a misheard comment. You simply cannot show cause and effect.

 

And out of interest that 16 EPL players have apparently been allowed to continue to play despite testing positive for performance enhancing drugs because they will take the word of the players that it was inadvertently ingested.

 

Absolutely double standards