Also they not asking why it is only city players that gets looked at for supposed misdemeanours then show em the Pogba strangling incident along side the one where Ferndiniho put his hand to someone neck and gets a red.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sagna fined 40K for social media post.
- Thread starter BlueTG
- Start date
Also they not asking why it is only city players that gets looked at for supposed misdemeanours then show em the Pogba strangling incident along side the one where Ferndiniho put his hand to someone neck and gets a red.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Also they not asking why it is only city players that gets looked at for supposed misdemeanours then show em the Pogba strangling incident along side the one where Ferndiniho put his hand to someone neck and gets a red.
Or how the rabid Tyler was claiming Firmino could be sent off for a chest push, while Chalobah isn't.
You're right, but this is the MUEN and printing something suggesting Carlton should be sent off is going t be tough for them. Pogba did the same to Joe Allen against Stoke earlier this season - same result, no card. Apparently, our players should throw players to the ground rather than push them, as it's acceptable.
Helmet Cole
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 8,054
Hopefully referee (re)training.Where will the 40k go? It should go to a good cause. For a Twitter post that hardly destroys or financially impact whoever's the victim of his opinion might be, 40k would do wonders to charity.
HalfwayUpTheKippax
Well-Known Member
I was replying in view of this MUEN line:
"The Blues are also still puzzled about Cesc Fabregas receiving no punishment for slapping Fernandinho's face – when the City man got a four-match ban for his reaction."
The 4 match ban was burnley, not Chelsea.
Sorry if it wasn't clear.
You're right but in effect the reaction gave a 4 match ban... 3 at the time plus 1 more added to the 3 that he would have got against Burnley if he had got the same "punishment" that the ego got against Liverpool.
BucksBlue
Well-Known Member
According to SKySportsNews web page the player charged is BACARY SANGA
Can the club fine SKY £40 000.01 for misrepresentation and then tell them to p off?
Can the club fine SKY £40 000.01 for misrepresentation and then tell them to p off?
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
According to SKySportsNews web page the player charged is BACARY SANGA
Can the club fine SKY £40 000.01 for misrepresentation and then tell them to p off?
It might be Kris Camara who's putting the prose together. He probably started off with Saccharin Banga and finally settled on Bacary Sanga!
Anyone got a league table for this kind of offence? I fancy Baccers is way out in front with £40k. Somebody posted racist comments not so long ago. Were they charged and what was the fine? I can't help but feel that that fine is excessive because he plays with us.
Anyway, Baccers, yer were dead right about that cheating shite, Mason. Dreadful example of impartial reffing!
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Skysports saying the club is going to appeal it claiming its disproportionate after he apologised and several other players who have done similar, Rooney included got away with much more leniency.
We have had enough of the ****s and it seems we are going to war.
We have had enough of the ****s and it seems we are going to war.
bluetonium
Well-Known Member
He was silly in posting it, i'd be all for just accepting it and moving on.
Except...£40k? Seriously? No court in the land would even think of applying such a cost against someone for trolling, defamation or lewd comments. What on earth makes the FA think they can charge anybody £40k for a first offense of supposedly bringing in to question the integrity of the referee? Why £40k anyway? Is this a percentage of weekly earnings or a random figure plucked from David Gill's arse?
As others have already said, this FA procedure for reviewing incidents and such is very murky, some get reviewed, others don't, some are pulled up, others are not, often on technicalities and personal opinions of this shadowy FA panel.
How about full disclosure, FA lists incidents on its website that it is asked to look at, date for review, and report when decision made, and whether it can be or is currently being appealed, alongside the FA guideline punishments for such actions if found guilty.... Yeah I know, about as likely as UEFA volunteering for an external audit of their finances.
Except...£40k? Seriously? No court in the land would even think of applying such a cost against someone for trolling, defamation or lewd comments. What on earth makes the FA think they can charge anybody £40k for a first offense of supposedly bringing in to question the integrity of the referee? Why £40k anyway? Is this a percentage of weekly earnings or a random figure plucked from David Gill's arse?
As others have already said, this FA procedure for reviewing incidents and such is very murky, some get reviewed, others don't, some are pulled up, others are not, often on technicalities and personal opinions of this shadowy FA panel.
How about full disclosure, FA lists incidents on its website that it is asked to look at, date for review, and report when decision made, and whether it can be or is currently being appealed, alongside the FA guideline punishments for such actions if found guilty.... Yeah I know, about as likely as UEFA volunteering for an external audit of their finances.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,262
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
You'd be surprised how hefty defamation payouts can get mate, although they are 1. Linked to the amount of financial damage caused to the injured party and 2. Imposed by a court of law.He was silly in posting it, i'd be all for just accepting it and moving on.
Except...£40k? Seriously? No court in the land would even think of applying such a cost against someone for trolling, defamation or lewd comments. What on earth makes the FA think they can charge anybody £40k for a first offense of supposedly bringing in to question the integrity of the referee? Why £40k anyway? Is this a percentage of weekly earnings or a random figure plucked from David Gill's arse?
As others have already said, this FA procedure for reviewing incidents and such is very murky, some get reviewed, others don't, some are pulled up, others are not, often on technicalities and personal opinions of this shadowy FA panel.
How about full disclosure, FA lists incidents on its website that it is asked to look at, date for review, and report when decision made, and whether it can be or is currently being appealed, alongside the FA guideline punishments for such actions if found guilty.... Yeah I know, about as likely as UEFA volunteering for an external audit of their finances.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
Good,i get the feeling we have reached our tolerance level for all this bullshitSkysports saying the club is going to appeal it claiming its disproportionate after he apologised and several other players who have done similar, Rooney included got away with much more leniency.
We have had enough of the ****s and it seems we are going to war.