Afternoon Pitbull!brianmoore666 said:Now I do agree with you here and have put previously on this thread that Moore is brilliant but what was he on this morning when they had the guy on talking about CSKA's racism punishment? He kept arguing with the bloke and going back over his point about statutes and who was to blame and asking him what was going to be done about it even though the guy was actually agreeing with him and had answered his question 3 or 4 times!
Lord Ousley made a number of points which were questioned.
He said that CSKA hadn't admitted their fault and I asked how Uefa could practically extract this - which he couldn't answer. The fact is that they can't under their new regulations and, to a certain extent, it doesn't really matter as long as they are forced to take measures to prevent it happening again.
He then went on to say the Uefa protocol did not solve the problem and that the referee should have done something, quoting an English example, which was irrelevant as different regulations apply.
I put the following to him, which he appeared not grasp, hence the repetition -
1. The protocol was followed. The referee having been informed then informed the stadium announcer, who should have made an announcement.
2. The said person refused to make any announcement saying that he hadn't heard anything. The referee did what was required, the announcer didn't and has been removed.
3. I said that he could, by all means, campaign for the protocol to be changed but that his criticism of the referee was wrong and a Uefa investigation had cleared him.
4.The fact was that the protocol could not be said to be defective just because it didn't stop the abuse and solve the situation because it wasn't properly applied. Had it been so and not worked you could then make that conclusion but not before.
5. He then went on to talk about how many Uefa officials were present and that they should have done something about it - the fact is that the protocol should have taken care of this, to the extent that it could work.
I agreed that the punishment was insufficient but that is not the same thing as saying the referee failed, which he didn't or that the protocol didn't work; we don't know that because it wasn't applied properly.
I think we are the most active football forum from all the epl teams barring rawkGaylord du Bois said:They media don't follow bluemoon eh?
*scratches chin*
brianmoore666 said:Now I do agree with you here and have put previously on this thread that Moore is brilliant but what was he on this morning when they had the guy on talking about CSKA's racism punishment? He kept arguing with the bloke and going back over his point about statutes and who was to blame and asking him what was going to be done about it even though the guy was actually agreeing with him and had answered his question 3 or 4 times!
Lord Ousley made a number of points which were questioned.
He said that CSKA hadn't admitted their fault and I asked how Uefa could practically extract this - which he couldn't answer. The fact is that they can't under their new regulations and, to a certain extent, it doesn't really matter as long as they are forced to take measures to prevent it happening again.
He then went on to say the Uefa protocol did not solve the problem and that the referee should have done something, quoting an English example, which was irrelevant as different regulations apply.
I put the following to him, which he appeared not grasp, hence the repetition -
1. The protocol was followed. The referee having been informed then informed the stadium announcer, who should have made an announcement.
2. The said person refused to make any announcement saying that he hadn't heard anything. The referee did what was required, the announcer didn't and has been removed.
3. I said that he could, by all means, campaign for the protocol to be changed but that his criticism of the referee was wrong and a Uefa investigation had cleared him.
4.The fact was that the protocol could not be said to be defective just because it didn't stop the abuse and solve the situation because it wasn't properly applied. Had it been so and not worked you could then make that conclusion but not before.
5. He then went on to talk about how many Uefa officials were present and that they should have done something about it - the fact is that the protocol should have taken care of this, to the extent that it could work.
I agreed that the punishment was insufficient but that is not the same thing as saying the referee failed, which he didn't or that the protocol didn't work; we don't know that because it wasn't applied properly.
Should city's ground be shut because their supporters sang about peodophiles?<br /><br />-- Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:20 pm --<br /><br />brianmoore666 said:Now I do agree with you here and have put previously on this thread that Moore is brilliant but what was he on this morning when they had the guy on talking about CSKA's racism punishment? He kept arguing with the bloke and going back over his point about statutes and who was to blame and asking him what was going to be done about it even though the guy was actually agreeing with him and had answered his question 3 or 4 times!
Lord Ousley made a number of points which were questioned.
He said that CSKA hadn't admitted their fault and I asked how Uefa could practically extract this - which he couldn't answer. The fact is that they can't under their new regulations and, to a certain extent, it doesn't really matter as long as they are forced to take measures to prevent it happening again.
He then went on to say the Uefa protocol did not solve the problem and that the referee should have done something, quoting an English example, which was irrelevant as different regulations apply.
I put the following to him, which he appeared not grasp, hence the repetition -
1. The protocol was followed. The referee having been informed then informed the stadium announcer, who should have made an announcement.
2. The said person refused to make any announcement saying that he hadn't heard anything. The referee did what was required, the announcer didn't and has been removed.
3. I said that he could, by all means, campaign for the protocol to be changed but that his criticism of the referee was wrong and a Uefa investigation had cleared him.
4.The fact was that the protocol could not be said to be defective just because it didn't stop the abuse and solve the situation because it wasn't properly applied. Had it been so and not worked you could then make that conclusion but not before.
5. He then went on to talk about how many Uefa officials were present and that they should have done something about it - the fact is that the protocol should have taken care of this, to the extent that it could work.
I agreed that the punishment was insufficient but that is not the same thing as saying the referee failed, which he didn't or that the protocol didn't work; we don't know that because it wasn't applied properly.
No I can assure you it's not.AntiUnited said:I think we are the most active football forum from all the epl teams barring rawkGaylord du Bois said:They media don't follow bluemoon eh?
*scratches chin*
brianmoore666 said:Now I do agree with you here and have put previously on this thread that Moore is brilliant but what was he on this morning when they had the guy on talking about CSKA's racism punishment? He kept arguing with the bloke and going back over his point about statutes and who was to blame and asking him what was going to be done about it even though the guy was actually agreeing with him and had answered his question 3 or 4 times!
Lord Ousley made a number of points which were questioned.
He said that CSKA hadn't admitted their fault and I asked how Uefa could practically extract this - which he couldn't answer. The fact is that they can't under their new regulations and, to a certain extent, it doesn't really matter as long as they are forced to take measures to prevent it happening again.
He then went on to say the Uefa protocol did not solve the problem and that the referee should have done something, quoting an English example, which was irrelevant as different regulations apply.
I put the following to him, which he appeared not grasp, hence the repetition -
1. The protocol was followed. The referee having been informed then informed the stadium announcer, who should have made an announcement.
2. The said person refused to make any announcement saying that he hadn't heard anything. The referee did what was required, the announcer didn't and has been removed.
3. I said that he could, by all means, campaign for the protocol to be changed but that his criticism of the referee was wrong and a Uefa investigation had cleared him.
4.The fact was that the protocol could not be said to be defective just because it didn't stop the abuse and solve the situation because it wasn't properly applied. Had it been so and not worked you could then make that conclusion but not before.
5. He then went on to talk about how many Uefa officials were present and that they should have done something about it - the fact is that the protocol should have taken care of this, to the extent that it could work.
I agreed that the punishment was insufficient but that is not the same thing as saying the referee failed, which he didn't or that the protocol didn't work; we don't know that because it wasn't applied properly.
East Manchester said:Should city's ground be shut because their supporters sang about peodophiles?
BlueTG said:So they are paedophiles?East Manchester said:Should city's ground be shut because their supporters sang about peodophiles?