Montgomery Burns
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2007
- Messages
- 514
kramer said:
I've replied to your PM thanks Kramer - we'll get in touch with him thanks.
Mark
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.
FA Watch
- Thread starter Montgomery Burns
- Start date
I've replied to your PM thanks Kramer - we'll get in touch with him thanks.
Mark
Montgomery Burns
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2007
- Messages
- 514
The FA Commission said today, in its ruling against Adebayor:
'However, the Commission also stated that players have a responsibility to conduct themselves in a proper manner and that such celebrations are unacceptable and have the potential to cause a serious public order incident'.
Irrespective of what has happened in the past, in terms of players escaping or receiving lesser punishments for similar or worse offences, the FA have today made it quite clear what will happen in similar situations in the future. Or should happen anyway, if they intend for there to be any kind of consistency over this kind of incident.
£25,000 is a relatively little amount to the player, and both he and the club will just be relieved a line has been drawn under the whole affair. Because of this they probably won't appeal, although that shouldn't affect us at FA Watch one bit.
The FA have laid themselves wide open to charges of inconsistency by the way they have treated Adebayor. So their own words will be used against them every time we call the FA to account over similar situations in the future. There can be no excuses from them as to why other players who 'do an Adebayor, Neville, Van Persie or whatever' should receive different justice than that handed down today.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing that comes out of all this judgment is the precedent that has been set by them in justifying the outcome, that is, their reference to potential public order incidents. The blazers really have no idea as to the consequences of their actions today. As has already been pointed out on another thread, this ruling increases the likelihood of future public order offences, as anyone who has any knowledge of public order situations will tell you.
I also expect to see a multitude of players booked for time wasting after scoring goals - after all, as Herts Blue pointed out, it took only 44 seconds from Adebayor's goal to play being restarted - can this be confirmed by the way - I'm not disputing what you say Herts Blue but it would be good for this to be verified by more than one source.
I therefore predict the price of this victory will turn out to be enormous for the FA. Whilst they've won this particular battle with Adebayor they have been left seriously weakened and exposed as a consequence. FA Watch aims to highlight the inconsistent way this ramshackle organisation runs our national game and in time expose this prejudiced and ill-thought out judgment for what it is. In this we will be ably assisted by the FA themselves, as the only thing for sure is that they will trip themselves up time and time again, such is their incompetence and corruption.
In closing, and perhaps as a rallying call, the battle starts now. The past is the past and has gone; what matters now is the future and how together we can shape that.
Mark
'However, the Commission also stated that players have a responsibility to conduct themselves in a proper manner and that such celebrations are unacceptable and have the potential to cause a serious public order incident'.
Irrespective of what has happened in the past, in terms of players escaping or receiving lesser punishments for similar or worse offences, the FA have today made it quite clear what will happen in similar situations in the future. Or should happen anyway, if they intend for there to be any kind of consistency over this kind of incident.
£25,000 is a relatively little amount to the player, and both he and the club will just be relieved a line has been drawn under the whole affair. Because of this they probably won't appeal, although that shouldn't affect us at FA Watch one bit.
The FA have laid themselves wide open to charges of inconsistency by the way they have treated Adebayor. So their own words will be used against them every time we call the FA to account over similar situations in the future. There can be no excuses from them as to why other players who 'do an Adebayor, Neville, Van Persie or whatever' should receive different justice than that handed down today.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing that comes out of all this judgment is the precedent that has been set by them in justifying the outcome, that is, their reference to potential public order incidents. The blazers really have no idea as to the consequences of their actions today. As has already been pointed out on another thread, this ruling increases the likelihood of future public order offences, as anyone who has any knowledge of public order situations will tell you.
I also expect to see a multitude of players booked for time wasting after scoring goals - after all, as Herts Blue pointed out, it took only 44 seconds from Adebayor's goal to play being restarted - can this be confirmed by the way - I'm not disputing what you say Herts Blue but it would be good for this to be verified by more than one source.
I therefore predict the price of this victory will turn out to be enormous for the FA. Whilst they've won this particular battle with Adebayor they have been left seriously weakened and exposed as a consequence. FA Watch aims to highlight the inconsistent way this ramshackle organisation runs our national game and in time expose this prejudiced and ill-thought out judgment for what it is. In this we will be ably assisted by the FA themselves, as the only thing for sure is that they will trip themselves up time and time again, such is their incompetence and corruption.
In closing, and perhaps as a rallying call, the battle starts now. The past is the past and has gone; what matters now is the future and how together we can shape that.
Mark
Ricster
Well-Known Member
Mark Tipton said:The FA Commission said today, in its ruling against Adebayor:
'However, the Commission also stated that players have a responsibility to conduct themselves in a proper manner and that such celebrations are unacceptable and have the potential to cause a serious public order incident'.
Irrespective of what has happened in the past, in terms of players escaping or receiving lesser punishments for similar or worse offences, the FA have today made it quite clear what will happen in similar situations in the future. Or should happen anyway, if they intend for there to be any kind of consistency over this kind of incident.
£25,000 is a relatively little amount to the player, and both he and the club will just be relieved a line has been drawn under the whole affair. Because of this they probably won't appeal, although that shouldn't affect us at FA Watch one bit.
The FA have laid themselves wide open to charges of inconsistency by the way they have treated Adebayor. So their own words will be used against them every time we call the FA to account over similar situations in the future. There can be no excuses from them as to why other players who 'do an Adebayor, Neville, Van Persie or whatever' should receive different justice than that handed down today.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing that comes out of all this judgment is the precedent that has been set by them in justifying the outcome, that is, their reference to potential public order incidents. The blazers really have no idea as to the consequences of their actions today. As has already been pointed out on another thread, this ruling increases the likelihood of future public order offences, as anyone who has any knowledge of public order situations will tell you.
I also expect to see a multitude of players booked for time wasting after scoring goals - after all, as Herts Blue pointed out, it took only 44 seconds from Adebayor's goal to play being restarted - can this be confirmed by the way - I'm not disputing what you say Herts Blue but it would be good for this to be verified by more than one source.
I therefore predict the price of this victory will turn out to be enormous for the FA. Whilst they've won this particular battle with Adebayor they have been left seriously weakened and exposed as a consequence. FA Watch aims to highlight the inconsistent way this ramshackle organisation runs our national game and in time expose this prejudiced and ill-thought out judgment for what it is. In this we will be ably assisted by the FA themselves, as the only thing for sure is that they will trip themselves up time and time again, such is their incompetence and corruption.
In closing, and perhaps as a rallying call, the battle starts now. The past is the past and has gone; what matters now is the future and how together we can shape that.
Mark
And the FA have just promoted this;
Everytime a player celebrates in front of the support of an opposing team rioting is the only way to get the player punished. This has been proved today by the football association.
So, next time Phil Neville runs over and punches the air with delight, lets get on the pitch and chase the little fucker down the tunnel.
The next time Robin Van Persie shouts foul mouthed profanities at our support we should all rain down 50p's on his head.
When Gary Neville psychotically celebrates a goal in front of the only team from Manchester, lets get out the razor blades and shave off that bum fluff on his upper lip.
The FA should be ashamed of themselves today, as they are the one's that have just gave fans of all clubs in the many leagues to dictate how a player should be dealt with by using violence towards that said player.
Well done FA, another momental fuck up.
City Raider
Well-Known Member
As promised Mark, I've pestered the PFA until they responded, must have sent the same email 20 times!
Anyway, been away for a few days but returned to this in my inbox from Gordon Taylor.
Reference your email regarding the disciplinary procedures of the FA. This is a matter that we have opportunity to discuss regularly through our procedural meetings with the Football Association and will continue to do so.
I can understand your frustrations with regard to the Manchester City v Arsenal game and the continuing charges in respect of that game put forward by the Football Association when what could be classed as comparable incidents took place in the derby game without any further action apart from reprimands.
Regards
Gordon
Obviously it's a bit 'after the event' now but shows he has some sympathies. The PFA might be a useful ally in seeking consistent punishment for their members.
Anyway, been away for a few days but returned to this in my inbox from Gordon Taylor.
Reference your email regarding the disciplinary procedures of the FA. This is a matter that we have opportunity to discuss regularly through our procedural meetings with the Football Association and will continue to do so.
I can understand your frustrations with regard to the Manchester City v Arsenal game and the continuing charges in respect of that game put forward by the Football Association when what could be classed as comparable incidents took place in the derby game without any further action apart from reprimands.
Regards
Gordon
Obviously it's a bit 'after the event' now but shows he has some sympathies. The PFA might be a useful ally in seeking consistent punishment for their members.
Montgomery Burns
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2007
- Messages
- 514
City Raider said:As promised Mark, I've pestered the PFA until they responded, must have sent the same email 20 times!
Anyway, been away for a few days but returned to this in my inbox from Gordon Taylor.
Reference your email regarding the disciplinary procedures of the FA. This is a matter that we have opportunity to discuss regularly through our procedural meetings with the Football Association and will continue to do so.
I can understand your frustrations with regard to the Manchester City v Arsenal game and the continuing charges in respect of that game put forward by the Football Association when what could be classed as comparable incidents took place in the derby game without any further action apart from reprimands.
Regards
Gordon
Obviously it's a bit 'after the event' now but shows he has some sympathies. The PFA might be a useful ally in seeking consistent punishment for their members.
Thanks for this City Raider. We'll contact him officially to see if he is prepared to endorse us.
Mark
laserblue
Well-Known Member
Mark Tipton said:City Raider said:As promised Mark, I've pestered the PFA until they responded, must have sent the same email 20 times!
Anyway, been away for a few days but returned to this in my inbox from Gordon Taylor.
Reference your email regarding the disciplinary procedures of the FA. This is a matter that we have opportunity to discuss regularly through our procedural meetings with the Football Association and will continue to do so.
I can understand your frustrations with regard to the Manchester City v Arsenal game and the continuing charges in respect of that game put forward by the Football Association when what could be classed as comparable incidents took place in the derby game without any further action apart from reprimands.
Regards
Gordon
Obviously it's a bit 'after the event' now but shows he has some sympathies. The PFA might be a useful ally in seeking consistent punishment for their members.
Thanks for this City Raider. We'll contact him officially to see if he is prepared to endorse us.
Mark
to be fair gordon taylor was interviewed on the tv not long after the arsenal game and his view of the van persie 'stamp' was sympathetic to ade's case. went on about not re-refereeing games and that the matter should be dropped.
M
M
manchester blue
Guest
FA Statement
"The two match ban was suspended until December 2010 and will be activated in the event of a similar breach of FA rules".
FA Reply to my email.
"As you are fully aware, supporters often compare incidents with others and ask why the same actions are not taken? This is simply due to no two incidents being the same".
So Adebayor will be given a two game suspension if in similar breach of the rules. So despite no two instances being the same they can, in fact, be similar. When it suits.
"The two match ban was suspended until December 2010 and will be activated in the event of a similar breach of FA rules".
FA Reply to my email.
"As you are fully aware, supporters often compare incidents with others and ask why the same actions are not taken? This is simply due to no two incidents being the same".
So Adebayor will be given a two game suspension if in similar breach of the rules. So despite no two instances being the same they can, in fact, be similar. When it suits.
The previous post beat me on what I wanted to add.
I keep following the FA watch developpment as I consider it to be a honourable but hopeless effort.
As it reads, the condemnation by the FA of Adebayor's behaviour is open to any kind of interpretation. "such celebrations" does not mean anything accurate.
Where the previous posts beat me on:
"As you are fully aware, supporters often compare incidents with others and ask why the same actions are not taken? This is simply due to no two incidents being the same".
FA's stance.
Adebayor's celebration was a special moment worth being recalled: he scored a header, ran down the pitch to finish his run by a slide to celebrate in front of the opponent fans' stand.
So much material for interpretation.
If a player celebrates as VP did, without running to the away team fans section, without sliding, it can be interpretated as not being "such celebrations"
I let you imagine how much players themselves can play on this to anger this opposite fans, treading carefully on the line not to replicate exactly Adebayor's celebration.
In all cases, you should never forget in these cases that controversy brings cash.
As one post puts it, actually, the only way to corner the FA in, is to display the borderline riot behaviour that could provoke incidents to get the FA pinned and avoid giving the FA too much leeway in what "such celebrations" are. Behaviour, of course, which is to be rejected at all costs.
I keep following the FA watch developpment as I consider it to be a honourable but hopeless effort.
As it reads, the condemnation by the FA of Adebayor's behaviour is open to any kind of interpretation. "such celebrations" does not mean anything accurate.
Where the previous posts beat me on:
"As you are fully aware, supporters often compare incidents with others and ask why the same actions are not taken? This is simply due to no two incidents being the same".
FA's stance.
Adebayor's celebration was a special moment worth being recalled: he scored a header, ran down the pitch to finish his run by a slide to celebrate in front of the opponent fans' stand.
So much material for interpretation.
If a player celebrates as VP did, without running to the away team fans section, without sliding, it can be interpretated as not being "such celebrations"
I let you imagine how much players themselves can play on this to anger this opposite fans, treading carefully on the line not to replicate exactly Adebayor's celebration.
In all cases, you should never forget in these cases that controversy brings cash.
As one post puts it, actually, the only way to corner the FA in, is to display the borderline riot behaviour that could provoke incidents to get the FA pinned and avoid giving the FA too much leeway in what "such celebrations" are. Behaviour, of course, which is to be rejected at all costs.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
manchester blue said:FA Statement
"The two match ban was suspended until December 2010 and will be activated in the event of a similar breach of FA rules".
FA Reply to my email.
"As you are fully aware, supporters often compare incidents with others and ask why the same actions are not taken? This is simply due to no two incidents being the same".
So Adebayor will be given a two game suspension if in similar breach of the rules. So despite no two instances being the same they can, in fact, be similar. When it suits.
Aha! Same and similar. You could drive an armoured division through the gap and not touch the sides! The FA are simply a bunch of linguistic weasels.