• Current Donation Goals

CFCnet Admin

Media / Press

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I suppose you could be thinking of BLM as more of a loose, broad social movement

Or even a national group with 30 chapters, it is much bigger than 3 women with a twitter hashtag.
In a sense it doesn't matter who BLM (the BLMs) are.  Trump and his supporters are clearly trying to tie the riots in with Antifa (and there is certain to be a tiny amount of proof there).  While the Dems are trying to make the thing into more Resistance.  It is a hugely party political issue in the US.  I doubt there is a footballer in Britain that understands quite what they are getting into.
I strongly recommend that US soccer hero, Pulisic, does no interviews for a year.

Happy to watch the US self-destruct, but I really would not want to get involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

Or even a national group with 30 chapters, it is much bigger than 3 women with a twitter hashtag.

Oh, definitely. It was the word 'created' I was challenging. It was created by those women.

I have wondered about how US players in Europe feel about how, if at all, to respond (or at least those who do not feel personally motivated to do so). Staying silent is usually the most PR-expedient option but I'm not sure that will work as well on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
1 hour ago, thevelourfog said:

 I suppose though I would struggle to understand why you wouldn't be happy to have 'black lives matter' on your shirt when you're happy to have a betting company's name across it or when it's made by a company who uses sweat shops. For me, that's the real ridiculousness of it.

It's against football rules for a start although I don't want to get into the whole poppy thing here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   

BLM trend spikes massively every four years 

Election years in the US. 

The premier League rules about political statements are pretty clear . Now it's mandatory. 

Also, by making it mandatory, it becomes meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
3 hours ago, Ham said:

Meanwhile no further action is being taken by the police against CHO.

Don't expect this to make headlines though.  

Not surprising, bearing in mind it went so quiet so quickly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ham said:

It's against football rules for a start although I don't want to get into the whole poppy thing here. 

I just looked at the relevant rule to remind myself and I'd agree, it fits with at least two of the criteria laid out as 'political' imo. But as I think you're alluding to, the poppy would, too (probably more than two of the criteria) along with rainbow laces. The rules as written should really rule out black armbands to recognise the deceased, too ... Which I'd never realised, and is daft.

This paragraph is the standard FIFA hand-washing cop out that I think outs the rule for what it is; it basically allows use or symbols, slogans etc. other than those FIFA doesn't like. They say politics is banned, but the only politics they'll do anything about are the politics they don't like. Handy for the Qatar world cup, among other things.

"When commemorating a significant national or international event, the sensibilities of the opposing team (including its supporters) and the general public should be carefully considered."

Edit- also learned that the rules are you have to have shirt sleeves ... Rules are generally written after the fact, so now I'm wondering who it was who took to the field in a tank top!

Edited by thevelourfog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JaneB said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53030146

In the current climate I find this almost impossible to say and I shouldn't have to feel like that.  But anyway here goes....

I disagree with this, it sets a dangerous precedence and makes it impossible for any player or club not to conform without being accused of racism.

'Politics' aren't allowed on here and I don't want to start any emotive discussions about a subject that is understandably very raw at present, but for a number of reasons I just don't feel comfortable with this.  Sorry. 

It’s absolutely ludicrous. 

I’m all for equal opportunity, but the more we let things like this slide, the more we divide people into different categories. This, by definition, creates more segregation and an “us vs. them” narrative.  Which I suspect is exactly what the people behind BLM are after. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

So apparently, a Norwich player was tested on Thursday/Friday and played a friendly against Spurs (4 x 30 minute quarters). Subsequently, when the results of the test came back, it was positive. This means the Norwich player had the virus while playing and has to self-isolate. All players he has come into contact with should also self-isolate. That should be all the Norwich and Spurs players in the same area of the pitch at the same time. We would expect that to be mostly Spurs players because players on the same side avoid occupying the same space. However, the PL/Spurs have decided that the contact was less than 15 minutes and therefore does not count. According to Spurs, “Close contacts been defined by gvnmnt as being within 2m of confirmed case for 15mins or more. Norwich player in question confirmed he had no ‘close contacts’ with our team + our squad has also verified this”. So if the players say he did not come into contact they simply accept it. How is a player on the pitch and not have 15 minutes contact with someone? What is he doing on the pitch if he does not? Farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JaneB   
4 hours ago, Sciatika said:

So apparently, a Norwich player was tested on Thursday/Friday and played a friendly against Spurs (4 x 30 minute quarters). Subsequently, when the results of the test came back, it was positive. This means the Norwich player had the virus while playing and has to self-isolate. All players he has come into contact with should also self-isolate. That should be all the Norwich and Spurs players in the same area of the pitch at the same time. We would expect that to be mostly Spurs players because players on the same side avoid occupying the same space. However, the PL/Spurs have decided that the contact was less than 15 minutes and therefore does not count. According to Spurs, “Close contacts been defined by gvnmnt as being within 2m of confirmed case for 15mins or more. Norwich player in question confirmed he had no ‘close contacts’ with our team + our squad has also verified this”. So if the players say he did not come into contact they simply accept it. How is a player on the pitch and not have 15 minutes contact with someone? What is he doing on the pitch if he does not? Farce.

It is indeed and all because Liverpool MUST be crowned champions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we’ll just have to take it back next year. In a ‘clean’ contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now