Sagna fined 40K for social media post.

[aguero93:20]

Bit more sinister than Sagna's post!

In their opinion or yours? I'd be worried about their answer to this one, it's a fairly insular group we're talking about here.

 

[SWP's back]

I know it's more sinister.

But he stated in litigation that he was a young and immature etc when he made that tweet. Now five years down the line he was more mature and grown up.

The FA still did him for this "historical tweet"

I know a number of Burnley fans who were livid with the FA. I think Sagne hasn't done himself any favours and the FA won't give him any. Hope I'm wrong, and we'll see very soon how this all pans out.

Hopefully the precedent with managers being fined for questioning referees' integrity will work in Sagna's favour.

Surely the precedent for players tweeting is Ryan Bable's fine and earning of future conduct.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Hopefully the precedent with managers being fined for questioning referees' integrity will work in Sagna's favour.

Not hopeful. The fa can legally ban him from their competition if they like, but if they try to take his money off him (paid to him by his employer) then they met have to meet a higher standard of proof to be legally watertight?
I'm also wondering why he didn't go with the typo/hacked acct explanation. The appoligy is an admission of guilt, and frankly if he's going to be honest he might as well go the whole hog, say what he thought and present a list of the refereeing decisions upon which he bases his opinionits a strange world when the 22 on the pitch and their managers are subject to analysis and criticism on TV and radio for hours every week, but to even hint at a failing in the officials gets you in trouble. I realise the refs are in a position of authority, but they are not Victorian mill owners, Tudor royalty, or religious deity's ffs.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Not hopeful. The fa can legally ban him from their competition if they like, but if they try to take his money off him (paid to him by his employer) then they met have to meet a higher standard of proof to be legally watertight?
I'm also wondering why he didn't go with the typo/hacked acct explanation. The appoligy is an admission of guilt, and frankly if he's going to be honest he might as well go the whole hog, say what he thought and present a list of the refereeing decisions upon which he bases his opinionits a strange world when the 22 on the pitch and their managers are subject to analysis and criticism on TV and radio for hours every week, but to even hint at a failing in the officials gets you in trouble. I realise the refs are in a position of authority, but they are not Victorian mill owners, Tudor royalty, or religious deity's ffs.

haha like this. They like to think they are, though.

 

[Ric]

Surely the precedent for players tweeting is Ryan Bable's fine and earning of future conduct.

Of course, I'd completely forgotten about that. Surely a fine is the most likely outcome then.

 

[Indaparkside]

Of course, I'd completely forgotten about that. Surely a fine is the most likely outcome then.

different rules for us I'm afraid

 

[Ric]

different rules for us I'm afraid

The Times think it'll just be a fine too:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/sagna-facing-likely-fa-fine-for-mason-dig-5x0htxcjl

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It's like 1984 on here sometimes. The forum is littered with people complaining about refs and their poor decision making. Some even go so far as to think it's specifically aimed at City. "The club should do something" they cry. Sagna posts something which broadly supports the 'refs are incompetent' line and now everyone wants him to pretend he didn't mean it. By apologising (and the club backing that) surely he is (and they are) saying; it wasn't a typo. He might be sorry he wrote it but people now know he thought it. If he gets fined/banned so be it, but surely we should be supporting the highlighting of some rather eccentric refereeing performances and not hoping he backtracks with some lame excuse in the hope it will affect his treatment?

 

[Ric]

It's like 1984 on here sometimes. The forum is littered with people complaining about refs and their poor decision making. Some even go so far as to think it's specifically aimed at City. "The club should do something" they cry. Sagna posts something which broadly supports the 'refs are incompetent' line and now everyone wants him to pretend he didn't mean it. By apologising (and the club backing that) surely he is (and they are) saying; it wasn't a typo. He might be sorry he wrote it but people now know he thought it. If he gets fined/banned so be it, but surely we should be supporting the highlighting of some rather eccentric refereeing performances and not hoping he backtracks with some lame excuse in the hope it will affect his treatment?

I think people are just legitimately concerned that he could face a suspension, which would be a blow given his current form.

It's good that he's brought Mason's performance into the spotlight, although deleting the Instagram post and apologising represents a bit of a backtrack anyway.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I think people are just legitimately concerned that he could face a suspension, which would be a blow given his current form.

It's good that he's brought Mason's performance into the spotlight, although deleting the Instagram post and apologising represents a bit of a backtrack anyway.

But the fact is, it's appeared in all the papers and on all the sports channels. It might be futile and achieve absolutely nothing but it is a start. Pretending he didn't mean it (as opposed to apologising for doing it) would be a backward move, in my view, that's all.