Talksport now

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Afternoon Pitbull!

On a separate note, can you make sure you keep an eye on Alan Brazil for us? He's calmed down a bit as the rags have won a couple under wee Davey, but the second it goes arse up again he's going to need a broad shoulder.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Why do you support Chelsea when you come from 'Alifax?
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Should city's ground be shut because their supporters sang about peodophiles?<br /><br />-- Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:20 pm --<br /><br />
AntiUnited said:
Gaylord du Bois said:
They media don't follow bluemoon eh?
*scratches chin*
Click to expand...
I think we are the most active football forum from all the epl teams barring rawk
Click to expand...
No I can assure you it's not.
Still more interesting though.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I wonder if this really is Brian Moore. If it is, he wouldn't be the first person in the media spotlight to come on here and defend himself.

Brian, if it is you, can you ask Alan Brazil what it was like working with Ronnie Irani, is Ronnie really as stupid as he sounds, and does he know what RIIAC stands for ?
 
East Manchester said:
Should city's ground be shut because their supporters sang about peodophiles?
Click to expand...

By the same token, shouldn't the swamp be closed down for their 'kicking a Blue' chant? After all it's advocating violence, isn't it? And what about the vile chants regarding Hillsborough?

People in glass houses Rag boy.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.