smokie36 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Our other old friend carms...minus the facial hair and whiff in them days....was of course totally unfazed as usual.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmine Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Our other old friend carms...minus the facial hair and whiff in them days....was of course totally unfazed as usual.... Yep thats right...Manny used to leave his missus at the hotel to go out and find him for a piss night out! It was some kind of hero worship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Our other old friend carms...minus the facial hair and whiff in them days....was of course totally unfazed as usual.... Yep thats right...Manny used to leave his missus at the hotel to go out and find him for a piss night out! It was some kind of hero worship! Oh the stories he tells.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrRed Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 Referee Mark Clattenburg will not referee a Premier League match for the fourth consecutive weekend. An inquiry into an incident during Chelsea's 3-2 defeat to Manchester United on 28 October is still ongoing, and the 37-year-old Clattenburg has not been selected to officiate since the clash at Stamford Bridge. The Blues alleged that Clattenburg used inappropriate language, believed to have been interpreted as racist, towards Nigerian midfielder John Obi Mikel during the game - allegations strongly denied by the County Durham official. The FA has interviewed several Chelsea players including Mikel, as well as Clattenburg, the two assistant referees Michael McDonough and Simon Long and fourth official Michael Jones. An independent QC is studying all the evidence in close detail before recommending a decision, which is expected later this week. Last week, the FA was accused of being "institutionally racist" by the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers for not referring the incident to the police, with FA chairman David Bernstein responding by dubbing Peter Herbert's comments "ill-informed and unhelpful". Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck's defence of the club's actions has caused concern with the PGMO referees organisation, who believe the London side should not have gone public over the issue. Not a murmur from the FA!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 If they were looking for the same thing as the police were, they were I take it? surely the decision can only go one way and that's to clear clattenburg .And after lets hope the fa start recording the officials conversations, and then they man up and introduce a zero tolerance policy on gobby spoilt brat footballers giving ref's loads of verbal, it's so overdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nev Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Referee Mark Clattenburg will not referee a Premier League match for the fourth consecutive weekend. An inquiry into an incident during Chelsea's 3-2 defeat to Manchester United on 28 October is still ongoing, and the 37-year-old Clattenburg has not been selected to officiate since the clash at Stamford Bridge. The Blues alleged that Clattenburg used inappropriate language, believed to have been interpreted as racist, towards Nigerian midfielder John Obi Mikel during the game - allegations strongly denied by the County Durham official. The FA has interviewed several Chelsea players including Mikel, as well as Clattenburg, the two assistant referees Michael McDonough and Simon Long and fourth official Michael Jones. An independent QC is studying all the evidence in close detail before recommending a decision, which is expected later this week. Last week, the FA was accused of being "institutionally racist" by the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers for not referring the incident to the police, with FA chairman David Bernstein responding by dubbing Peter Herbert's comments "ill-informed and unhelpful". Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck's defence of the club's actions has caused concern with the PGMO referees organisation, who believe the London side should not have gone public over the issue. Not a murmur from the FA!! I heard he has stood himself down until this is cleared up, and is thinking of retiring, sad that a club can force a ref to do this and retire but chelsea do have a track record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjj Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 How much evidence can there be? Is there more to this than we know? Is it just one major Mongolian cluster#$€%? Are the FA complete buffoons? Does ANYONE want this to go on any longer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfieconn Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Referee Mark Clattenburg will not referee a Premier League match for the fourth consecutive weekend. An inquiry into an incident during Chelsea's 3-2 defeat to Manchester United on 28 October is still ongoing, and the 37-year-old Clattenburg has not been selected to officiate since the clash at Stamford Bridge. The Blues alleged that Clattenburg used inappropriate language, believed to have been interpreted as racist, towards Nigerian midfielder John Obi Mikel during the game - allegations strongly denied by the County Durham official. The FA has interviewed several Chelsea players including Mikel, as well as Clattenburg, the two assistant referees Michael McDonough and Simon Long and fourth official Michael Jones. An independent QC is studying all the evidence in close detail before recommending a decision, which is expected later this week. Last week, the FA was accused of being "institutionally racist" by the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers for not referring the incident to the police, with FA chairman David Bernstein responding by dubbing Peter Herbert's comments "ill-informed and unhelpful". Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck's defence of the club's actions has caused concern with the PGMO referees organisation, who believe the London side should not have gone public over the issue. Not a murmur from the FA!! I heard he has stood himself down until this is cleared up, and is thinking of retiring, sad that a club can force a ref to do this and retire but chelsea do have a track record. Yes Chelsea would be the second club to do this ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nev Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 How much evidence can there be? Is there more to this than we know? Is it just one major Mongolian cluster#$€%? Are the FA complete buffoons? Does ANYONE want this to go on any longer? It should never have been brought to light in the first place, i think both sides are trying to work out a solution that will suit both parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 How much evidence can there be?r? i think both sides are trying to work out a solution that will suit both parties. A lot of it was about appearing to do the right thing and yeah now seems that to find a way to 'quietly' deal it would suit both sides although they will probably want to 'quietly' deal quietly with the issue's that the 'black lawyer society' brought up, not to sure he'll be contented with that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chicog Posted November 21, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted November 21, 2012 How much evidence can there be?r? i think both sides are trying to work out a solution that will suit both parties. A lot of it was about appearing to do the right thing and yeah now seems that to find a way to 'quietly' deal it would suit both sides although they will probably want to 'quietly' deal quietly with the issue's that the 'black lawyer society' brought up, not to sure he'll be contented with that though. The "Black Lawyers society" punter is talking out of his arse. If the FA give a stuff about his unfounded allegations, then they should have responded by now. Clattenberg has been slandered and libelled. He should instruct a lawyer and the Ref's association should pay for it. It's about time someone stood up to these arrogant, conceited Chelski primadonnas. And in fact any team that regularly harangues referees. If I were the ref's association I would be telling the FA that as of now every dissent is a yellow and every foul-and-abusive language is red - as the laws clearly state on the FIFA website. And frankly the FA should be backing them in doing it. And why are the PFA hiding in the corner as well? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Cant say I agree with all of that chiocog. but it's already been debated to death. but defo agree with your views on zero tolerance.ASAP imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumrit Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) The Football Association has cleared referee Mark Clattenburg of using "inappropriate language" towards Chelsea midfielder John Mikel Obi. But Mikel, 25, has been charged by the FA with misconduct following his involvement in the alleged incident. It seems that sanity has prevailed. It'll be interesting to see both Chelsea's response................ and future referees responses to Chelsea. Edited November 23, 2012 by mrbojangles Formatting issue from copied source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrRed Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) So no apology from Chelsea then. Football Association statement "The FA has concluded its investigation into alleged misconduct by Mark Clattenburg during the match between Chelsea FC and Manchester United FC on Sunday 28 October 2012. No disciplinary action will follow against Mr Clattenburg. "Following the conclusion of the match, Chelsea FC reported to the match delegate that two of their players had been separately subject to abuse by the match referee, Mark Clattenburg. "On Monday 29 October 2012, The FA contacted Chelsea FC to establish whether the club and individual players wished to make a formal complaint in relation to the allegations reported to the match delegate. "On Wednesday 31 October Chelsea FC contacted The FA and confirmed that the club had conducted an internal enquiry and that they did wish to proceed with a formal complaint in relation to one of the allegations of abuse. The club did not wish to proceed in relation to the other allegation. The club provided witness statements from two players, Ramires Santos do Nascimento ("Ramires") and John Obi Mikel. "The details of the allegation were that following one or the other of the red cards issued during the second half of the game, Ramires heard Mark Clattenburg say to John Obi Mikel, "shut up you monkey". John Obi Mikel did not hear the alleged comment. "On 1 November 2012, The FA requested that Chelsea disclose full details of their internal investigation. "On 5 November 2012, Chelsea FC provided The FA with witness statements from other Chelsea FC players and officials. "On 5 November 2012, The FA interviewed Ramires and John Obi Mikel, using the TV match footage obtained by The FA. "Between 7 and 8 November 2012, The FA interviewed all four match officials. "On 9 and 14 November 2012, further to FA requests, Chelsea FC provided unbroadcast video footage of the game from static cameras. "On 15 November 2012, The FA re-interviewed Ramires to show him the previously unseen video footage provided by the club. At this stage, for the first time, the exact point at which the comment was alleged to have been made was established. "In light of this new information, between 15 and 19 November 2012, The FA interviewed the players who were in the vicinity of the alleged incident, and re-interviewed John Obi Mikel and the match officials. "Chelsea FC was offered the opportunity to provide any further information or evidence that they believed could be relevant to the allegation. "The FA then sought advice on the evidence gathered from independent Queen's Counsel. "The evidence for the allegation came from one witness, Ramires. Ramires, whose first language is not English, explained that his instinctive reaction was to seek confirmation from John Obi Mikel as to what the referee had said. "John Obi Mikel, who was being spoken to by the referee, was much closer to the referee than Ramires and did not hear what it is suggested was said to him. "Three other witnesses, i.e. the other match officials, to whom everything said by referee was relayed via their communication equipment, are adamant the alleged words were not uttered. "There is nothing in the video footage to support the allegation. "For completeness, but of lesser weight, two other players, whose first language is English and were in the vicinity, did not hear anything untoward. "Having considered all of the available evidence it was the opinion of David Waters QC, independent counsel, that the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover it was contradicted by other witnesses and does not cross the evidential threshold required to bring a charge against Mark Clattenburg. "Having considered Counsel's opinion, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, The FA does not believe that there is a case for Mr Clattenburg to answer. "Equally The FA is satisfied that the allegation against Mark Clattenburg by Ramires was made in good faith. It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief. "The FA receives and investigates numerous allegations of misconduct over the course of a season. All allegations are properly investigated. It is not uncommon for investigations to lead to no disciplinary charge being brought. "The FA encourages all players who believe they have been either subject, or witness to, discriminatory abuse to report the matter immediately to the match officials on the day. "Furthermore, all Participants are advised to report any such alleged misconduct to The FA. In this case, the player and club were correct in reporting the matter to The FA and it was appropriate and proper for such an allegation to be thoroughly investigated." Statement from Mark Clattenburg "I am looking forward to putting this behind me and concentrating on refereeing in the Premier League and other competitions. "I am extremely grateful for the invaluable support of my family, my Select Group colleagues, the management of Professional Game Match Officials Limited and our union Prospect. The messages of encouragement from those inside and outside of the game have helped me through the most stressful time of my professional life. "To know you were innocent of something but that there was the opportunity for it to wreck your career was truly frightening. "Racism has no place in football and this experience should not discourage those to speak out if they genuinely believe they are a victim of abuse. "However, there are processes that should be adhered in order that any investigation can be carried out in a manner that is fair for all parties involved. "I know first-hand the ramifications of allegations of this nature being placed into the public domain ahead of a formal process and investigation. I hope no referee has to go through this in the future. "We are all fortunate to be working in the worlds most watched and scrutinised football league. With that comes a responsibility in regard to how the different parts of the game work together. "What has happened over the last few weeks should not overshadow the fact the on-pitch relationship between match officials, players and managers is the best we've ever known it. "We are proud of the integrity of refereeing in this country and I cannot wait to be back involved in the game I care so passionately about." Chelsea's statement "Chelsea Football Club accepts the Football Association's decision regarding Mark Clattenburg and welcomes the fact that the FA recognises the club and players were correct in reporting the matter. "The FA states Chelsea took the correct action following the Manchester United match and encourages all players who believe they have been either subject, or witness, to discriminatory abuse to report the matter immediately to the match officials on the day, and in turn to the FA. "The club also notes the charge brought against John Mikel Obi. While the player does not deny the charge, he will request a personal hearing to explain the mitigating circumstances. "With regards to the Mark Clattenburg decision, the club accepts the case is now concluded and notes the FA states the allegation was made in good faith. "Chelsea FC co-operated fully with the FA and provided 11 witness statements covering all events during and after the Premier League game on October 28. "Chelsea FC has a duty of care, as do all employers, to act responsibly when such allegations are reported by employees. We did not take the decision to lodge a formal complaint with the FA lightly and followed the correct processes and protocols throughout. The club carried out a thorough investigation, led by outside legal counsel, using all information available to us. As the FA makes clear, it is not uncommon for investigations to lead to no disciplinary charge being brought. "All those directly involved have been subjected to scrutiny over the last weeks. Chelsea FC now hopes that all concerned can continue to carry out their duties without prejudice. "We are committed to working alongside all referees and their assistants to ensure games are conducted in the right spirit and that all our players and staff accept and observe the match officials' authority and decisions. Graham Poll Chelsea should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute, wasting FA time and potentially face a private prosecution from Mark Clattenburg for defamation of character. There has been little or no thought as to the damage this has done to the referee and his reputation – as Sir Alex Ferguson asserted: 'It’s a problem for Mark and it is unfortunate. ‘Stigma does tend to stick and that is the real unfortunate part.' Outside of football people are charged with wasting police time and if making a serious but unfounded allegation a jail sentence can follow. And yet Chelsea appear to have emerged with nothing worse than a few more dents to an already tarnished reputation. In this case it is hard to blame the players for they seemed convinced that they heard an inappropriate comment by a referee (how fortunate that referees don't react in a similar way). However it seems unbelievable that the club were prepared to accuse a well-respected, senior International referee without first of all checking to see if there was sufficient evidence to back up such damaging claims. One has to ask if that is because, other than damaging their reputation, there is no other cost involved. There seems to be little or no point in financial penalties when the owner has almost limitless wealth and whilst a deduction of points would ensure that clubs checked their facts before such allegations are made, their legal teams would challenge any such penalty. So, we appear left with the same situation as I found myself in six years ago after Chelsea players alleged that I had threatened them in a match against Tottenham. A referee unfairly accused and left feeling a little more disillusioned with a game he once loved probably unable to referee a top four team again this season. Then again, why would he want to? Edited November 22, 2012 by MrRed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumrit Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) The Football Association has cleared referee Mark Clattenburg of using "inappropriate language" towards Chelsea midfielder John Mikel Obi. But Mikel, 25, has been charged by the FA with misconduct following his involvement in the alleged incident. It seems that sanity has prevailed. It'll be interesting to see both Chelsea's response................ and future referees responses to Chelsea. Just curious. When I posted this I made the first line as big and as bold as the second line. It has been changed to a very small font size after I posted. <snip> MOD - Wherever you sourced this from had some format tags that, upon posting, display differently with Thai Visa software. There is no conspiracy to change your posts and I have reformatted it for you. And in future it would be considered good netiquette to attribute where you quoted from with a quote box and back link. Edited November 23, 2012 by soundman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieH Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 well i for one am shocked. the FA continues to undermine the anti-racism campaign in football by not backing hard done by chelsea in this instance. i blame benitez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nev Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 well i for one am shocked. the FA continues to undermine the anti-racism campaign in football by not backing hard done by chelsea in this instance. i blame benitez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmine Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'm reading that Chelsea are shamelessly going to resist making an apology. Surely now is the time to throw the book at them big time. Thats what can happen in court if you show no remorse. They've brought the game into disrepute. Its time for their team to be sold off on the cheap to siberian league sides and their ground dismantled to be replaced by a childrens fun park 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I'm reading that Chelsea are shamelessly going to resist making an apology. Surely now is the time to throw the book at them big time. Thats what can happen in court if you show no remorse. They've brought the game into disrepute. Its time for their team to be sold off on the cheap to siberian league sides and their ground dismantled to be replaced by a childrens fun park I'm going to agree on this with you Carms. Disgusting little club, with delusions of grandeur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieH Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Surely now is the time to throw the book at them big time. Thats what can happen in court if you show no remorse. They've brought the game into disrepute. i don't know where the FA stands on this issue though, because i'm pretty sure there's no precedent on which to draw. never before has a club done something as mental and irresponsible as to throw an accusation of racial abuse at a referee based on the hearsay of a non-english speaking player standing amongst a crowd of 40,000 noisy fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantiSuk Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) Interesting timing of the release of the Clattenburg decision. Timed to have its impact reduced by analysis of Rafa signing? FA (and Chelsea of course) keen to have this one tidied up with least damage? Pity that Clattenburg hasnt got the appetite for a private prosecution. Respect though that he's going to put it behind him and carry on reffing - deserves a standing ovation every time he officiates this season. Fans everywhere should keep this one in the FA's face. Edited November 23, 2012 by SantiSuk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Clattenburgh has class, Chelsea have none. Typical intimidation and bullying from that lot. Points deduction would have been the way forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantiSuk Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 If the FA had come down hard on Chelsea then Abramovich could have played the racial abuse (against Russians) card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieH Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 If the FA had come down hard on Chelsea then Abramovich could have played the racial abuse (against Russians) card don't forget that he's jewish too. gets to throw that one into the ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmine Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Interesting timing of the release of the Clattenburg decision. Timed to have its impact reduced by analysis of Rafa signing? FA (and Chelsea of course) keen to have this one tidied up with least damage? Pity that Clattenburg hasnt got the appetite for a private prosecution. Respect though that he's going to put it behind him and carry on reffing - deserves a standing ovation every time he officiates this season. Fans everywhere should keep this one in the FA's face. I bet he does get a standing ovation at Old Trafford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijit Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Good that Mikel's been charged, gives the incident perspective. I know the 'charge is bringing the game into disrepute but I wonder what the specific's of the charge are,? lying? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Interesting timing of the release of the Clattenburg decision. Timed to have its impact reduced by analysis of Rafa signing? FA (and Chelsea of course) keen to have this one tidied up with least damage? Pity that Clattenburg hasnt got the appetite for a private prosecution. Respect though that he's going to put it behind him and carry on reffing - deserves a standing ovation every time he officiates this season. Fans everywhere should keep this one in the FA's face. I bet he does get a standing ovation at Old Trafford Howard won't be happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjj Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Good that Mikel's been charged, gives the incident perspective. I know the 'charge is bringing the game into disrepute but I wonder what the specific's of the charge are,? lying? He can't be charged with lying because he didn't hear anything. Unfortunately I've read elsewhere on the Internet that he said to Clattenberg he was going to break his legs!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrRed Posted November 23, 2012 Author Share Posted November 23, 2012 If nothing is done by the FA to Chelsea as a football club alone then they are dangerously leaving this kind of accusation open and it will lead to other instances down the line against referee's. I think Chelsea should also be charged with wasting the FA's time due to lack of any reasonable evidence,really it was just sour grapes and as we have seen before they do have a history against referee's,all down to sour grapes and being bad sports. As far as i am aware the ref's union Prospect are getting involved in this and want a full unreserved apology and are also seeking compensation for Clattenburg,not sure if this is the correct way to go if as they say he is to continue reffing in the future,this would have complications of interest when officiating games at the top for sure! The FA have to be strong as a governing body of football in the eyes of the World so it doesn't happen again,if a club is going to accuse the match officials of racism towards one of its players it better have bloody good evidence BEFORE it throws any wild accusations out in the open. In my eyes the FA have timed this statement perfectly with the Benitez employment as a detraction and cover so that they can carry on regardless of any accusations of them being totally inept at governing there own association and it's members correctly. For football's sake lets hope the union Prospect stands by Clattenburg for the good of the game and the referee's need to really come together after this and clamp down on many areas that players and managers continually ha-rang officials ........as mentioned before zero tolerance and miking the ref up will cut a lot of problems out of the game in no time. Imagine every time the refs talk to a player same as in rugby ....how the players attitude would change when he is being heard on TV and in the stadium! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjj Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 You can't charge someone for lack of evidence, Jesus! 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