Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 8 minutes ago, steelowl said: cough Forged signature on the transfer document mate. You will have to find yourself a decent handwriting expert to defend you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, mkowl said: Forged signature on the transfer document mate. You will have to find yourself a decent handwriting expert to defend you ffs corruption everywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Just now, steelowl said: ffs corruption everywhere I can assure that you still own 50% of f##kall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leaping Lannys Perm Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 13 minutes ago, happy bunny said: It's a court of law I realise that. But the fact is the none of us can claim to have seen as much of the evidence as said judge but he is automatically fully exonerated by most on here. If the person who sat through the trial and heard everything says he believed he probably did it then the 'balance of probability' that apparently the FA go by is almost certainly greater than 50:50. But how far that balance goes is anyone's guess. Certainly not beyond a legal reasonable doubt as we've seen already. But it appears that the FA feel the balance is strong enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wall Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 It's sh*t like this that actually fuels right wing propaganda about the 'white man' being badly done to. All the racist numbskulls will be lapping this up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, mkowl said: I can assure that you still own 50% of f##kall you say that we may have our day..........one day baggsy the one of us to sack Paxo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy bunny Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Leaping Lannys Perm said: I realise that. But the fact is the none of us can claim to have seen as much of the evidence as said judge but he is automatically fully exonerated by most on here. If the person who sat through the trial and heard everything says he believed he probably did it then the 'balance of probability' that apparently the FA go by is almost certainly greater than 50:50. But how far that balance goes is anyone's guess. Certainly not beyond a legal reasonable doubt as we've seen already. But it appears that the FA feel the balance is strong enough. I'm just struggling to get my head round the fact that someone's reputation and possibly their career could hinge on an opinion and balance of probabilities Really feel for Nando on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Surely he has top notch representation ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Von shabba Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 13 minutes ago, emersonthome said: 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!" In layman's terms, good summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Von shabba Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Leaping Lannys Perm said: I realise that. But the fact is the none of us can claim to have seen as much of the evidence as said judge but he is automatically fully exonerated by most on here. If the person who sat through the trial and heard everything says he believed he probably did it then the 'balance of probability' that apparently the FA go by is almost certainly greater than 50:50. But how far that balance goes is anyone's guess. Certainly not beyond a legal reasonable doubt as we've seen already. But it appears that the FA feel the balance is strong enough. Hear what you're saying but in this supposed democratic country of ours, aren't you innocent until PROVEN guilty. Edited July 31, 2019 by Ray Von shabba 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 16 minutes ago, steelowl said: you say that we may have our day..........one day baggsy the one of us to sack Paxo That is permitted we might just be able to afford the bus fare with the resources we would have The £400 per game ticket prices wouldn't go down well methinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Ray Von shabba said: Hear what you're saying but in this supposed democratic country of ours, aren't you innocent until PROVEN guilty. In a court of law but this one is run by kangaroos For such a serious offence in terms of reputation then you can't just make this presumption based on no 3rd party evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirstys Salopettes Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 I’ve said it all along ... I would like to get hold of the stenograph from the Mansfield Crown Court case ... there’s so many contradictory snippets reported in the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirstys Salopettes Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 37 minutes ago, steelowl said: Surely he has top notch representation ? Not at the disciplinary hearing it would seem ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthefish2002 Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, Hirstys Salopettes said: I’ve said it all along ... I would like to get hold of the stenograph from the Mansfield Crown Court case ... there’s so many contradictory snippets reported in the press. Think you can. Not sure where to go but shouldn't be hard to track down and will be on public record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelowl Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Hirstys Salopettes said: Not at the disciplinary hearing it would seem ... completely unfair imagine being in a foreign country up infront of a set of stuffy blazers and trying to argue your case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leaping Lannys Perm Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 42 minutes ago, happy bunny said: I'm just struggling to get my head round the fact that someone's reputation and possibly their career could hinge on an opinion and balance of probabilities Really feel for Nando on this To be honest, I can see where you are coming from with that angle. The FAs rules are the FAs rules and within them I can't see any room for complaint. But if you think those rules are an ass in the first place, I can see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrysgame Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 3 hours ago, agentwalker said: https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2019/july/fernando-forestieri-statement/ well done FF take em to the cleaners Well done FF, hope he takes it all the way. Must say his grasp of the English language is fantastic, I would struggle to prepare a statement like that! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeverleyOwl74 Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 31/7/19 Dear Sir/Madam Re: Fernando Forestieri, Sheffield Wednesday FC I write with regards to the above player who plays for my team, Sheffield Wednesday in the Championship. In July TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN, a game between Mansfield Town and SwFc ended in a mass brawl. Fernando was fined £25,000 and given a three match ban for misconduct as was Jacob Mellis of Mansfield Town. In March of this year, Fernando was ACQUITTED by Mansfield Magistrates Court of racial abuse. This is in a court of law run by the Government. Subsequently this was followed by a charge brought by the Football Association of using racist language which you have A YEAR LATER found Fernando guilty of. There are a number of flaws to your thought process. 1) Fernando was ACQUITTED (Found NOT guilty) by A COURT OF LAW 2) Suddenly 3 months later you felt it appropriate to charge him again having ALREADY served a three match ban. Can I just ask, have you suddenly become the law of the land? You are a governing body for FOOTBALL in this country! Yet suddenly you have become HIGHER THAN A COURT OF LAW? Where is your evidence? The original criminal charge was dismissed due to lack of evidence. There is no evidence that Mr Forestieri had said anything race related, although in court it was said he "could" have said something. NO EVIDENCE. This means you cannot prosecute. Which in turn brings me to your actions today. They are completely unjustified, you are making yourself highly unpopular and if enough people are of the same opinion what stops our fans or even the club taking action towards yourself for victimisation. A number of things can be said on a football pitch in the heat of the moment. Paolo Di Canio assaulted a referee and only marginally got a higher punishment. I do not condone racism in any way, to explain the thought process behind my comments, I am disabled. If someone calls me a name, I get the heck over it and carry on with my day. People say things in the heat of the moment. As far as I'm aware following the court case, everybody had got over the situation and carried on. Yet you choose to PERSECUTE Mr Forestieri. Having met him on one occasion in passing, I can only say he comes across as a very genuine man who is passionate about his football. What footballer likes to lose? You did not prove that Mr Forestieri said anything to the complainant, yet Mr Mellis commits an assault by kicking an opponent which is punished with a three match ban and then forgotten about? The whole things stinks of a witch-hunt. I would advise you rethink your strategy as the image of the Football Association is being and will be called in to question if you continue on current course. With the additional problems at the football club which are unrelated, and the CONVENIENT move from a 5 match ban for the purported offence to a 6 match ban on the VERY DAY you make the ruling, you are making yourselves out to be bullies of the highest order and although there is no allegation of racism, one could argue that Mr Forestieri is not English and YOUR very behaviour goes against that which you are trying to fight against. The original incident happened over a year ago. Its gone through the courts and yet still you pursue Mr Forestieri. Its a witch hunt and you KNOW IT. Yours faithfully Jonathan Adam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buxtongent Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Surely, a judge is completely out of order in expressing an OPINION.. A person in England was always assumed to be innocent until he was proved guilty in the opinion of 12 of his peers. This appears to be a complete miscarriage of justice, whether FF said anything or not. I would have thought he has a case. against the FA at the Court of Human Rights, let alone any other court. As it is, this will make a complete farce of the FA's Respect campaign. If a player shakes hands with another he could, in theory, be guilty of assault , or racism . Maybe we should refuse to shake hands in the false 'line-up before games. But then we, as a club, would be guilty of Disrespect, by an Association that I disrespect anyway. For a man proved innocent in a court of law, the punishment, even undeserved, is certainly OTT. He has already served a 3-match ban. He will now have to serve not only a further 6 match ban, held over until it could be extended from 5, but will be hit by a £25,000 fine, and, to rub it in, forced to attend 'face to face' behaviour classes. I have to admit that, since the refusal to board the bus, he has not been my favourite player, this punishment is nothing less than outrageous, and, had it happened to either an Englishman, or more importantly to a coloured footballer, would cause outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now