• Current Donation Goals

CFCnet Admin

Media / Press

Recommended Posts

paulw66   

Wasn't sure where to put this but I think the media will be happy over what happened this weekend:

- Liverpool get a win after the oppo denied a clear penalty at 0-0

- Arsenal win after the oppo denied a legitimate goal at 0-0

- Spurs win after stonewall penalty not given at 1-0

- Chelsea lose after stonewall penatly not given at 0-1

Top 4 is going to be very hard if this continues, irrespective of how well we play. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Top 4 is going to be very hard if this continues, irrespective of how well we play. 

True, and you miss the stone cold Aurier Red card which ref and commentary teams deemed not a foul.
But in 16 RA seasons, maybe 2 or 3 have seen such decent reffing of Chelsea as this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind the previously unbeaten in almost two years  champions are beaten tonight by Chelsea.

According to the BBC the match of the day is Liverpool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And TalkSport this morning, turned on thinking there might be a mention of Chelsea's win over City:

Georgie Bingham:  Good morning everyone welcome to the weekend sports Breakfast.

Only one big story out there Cas.

Cascarino: Yes Georgiee, morning everyone, Liverpool top of the table!

Georgie:  Yes, amazing win yesterday, I would love Liverpool to win the title.

Cas:  me too but lets not forget the other teams that won.

G: Yes, big shouts to West Ham, Burnley and Cardiff,and  lets talk about how good Man Utd were.

Cas:  And don't forget Chelsea.

G:  No, we will talk about their racist fans coming up but first up our merseyside correspondant Beekie to tell us how great this Liverpool team are...

Share this post


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

And TalkSport this morning, turned on thinking there might be a mention of Chelsea's win over City:

Georgie Bingham:  Good morning everyone welcome to the weekend sports Breakfast.

Only one big story out there Cas.

Cascarino: Yes Georgiee, morning everyone, Liverpool top of the table!

Georgie:  Yes, amazing win yesterday, I would love Liverpool to win the title.

Cas:  me too but lets not forget the other teams that won.

G: Yes, big shouts to West Ham, Burnley and Cardiff,and  lets talk about how good Man Utd were.

Cas:  And don't forget Chelsea.

G:  No, we will talk about their racist fans coming up but first up our merseyside correspondant Beekie to tell us how great this Liverpool team are...

Hilarious isn't it ? Already got the open top bus booked for them and the jail door swung open for our fans , even though it was initially reported as one idiot .

Perhaps we should do a Liverpool and get the chairman to say that the racist appeared to have a Scouse accent ?

My life has improved immeasurably since I stopped listening to Talk Sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

To me, the key questions are, firstly, was an offence committed and jeopardy. If an offence was committed, the perpetrator should be punished in a way commensurate with the crime as decided by law. As a result, Chelsea will ban the fan as it has the right to do. Good.

However, what is beginning to worry me is there is no jeopardy in this kind of affair. If it is not correct, is it an intentionally false accusation? More, if the accuser has no evidence, then is this not equally vile? I looked at it a number of times and you cannot hear anything on the broadcast video footage. The broadcasters may have better microphones but Sterling does not seem to react and neither does the black man sitting about five feet away. So, what causes the accusation to be made? Let's say it's a TV viewer. I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to the idea of presumption of innocence because I know I would not commit this offence and so the presumption of innocence is my protection against the false accusation. However, if someone makes the accusation with no evidence there should be jeopardy. Football is tribal. People say and do stupid things whether that is a criminal offence from the stands or an accusation on Twitter. If the former was guilty, he will be punished. If not, the latter will be let off. Where's the jeopardy in the accusation?

But now it gets worse. We cannot know either way if the man is guilty (until convicted). As far as I can see the likes of Ferdinand, Wright and Lineker (to name three) have no more evidence than the rest of us. If so, their tweets are an abuse of their position because, without evidence, they are using their position to defame a member of the public again without jeopardy. I am as much against racism as anyone, but the law is more important than just about anything. It seems that tribalism is rife in many walks of life.

Edited by Sciatika
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

To me, the key questions are, firstly, was an offence committed and jeopardy. If an offence was committed, the perpetrator should be punished in a way commensurate with the crime as decided by law. As a result, Chelsea will ban the fan as it has the right to do. Good.

However, what is beginning to worry me is there is no jeopardy in this kind of affair. If it is not correct, is it an intentionally false accusation? More, if the accuser has no evidence, then is this not equally vile? I looked at it a number of times and you cannot hear anything on the broadcast video footage. The broadcasters may have better microphones but Sterling does not seem to react and neither does the black man sitting about five feet away. So, what causes the accusation to be made? Let's say it's a TV viewer. I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to the idea of presumption of innocence because I know I would not commit this offence and so the presumption of innocence is my protection against the false accusation. However, if someone makes the accusation with no evidence there should be jeopardy. Football is tribal. People say and do stupid things whether that is a criminal offence from the stands or an accusation on Twitter. If the former was guilty, he will be punished. If not, the latter will be let off. Where's the jeopardy in the accusation?

But now it gets worse. We cannot know either way if the man is guilty (until convicted). As far as I can see the likes of Ferdinand, Wright and Lineker (to name three) have no more evidence than the rest of us. If so, their tweets are an abuse of their position because, without evidence, they are using their position to defame a member of the public again without jeopardy. I am as much against racism as anyone, but the law is more important than just about anything. It seems that tribalism is rife in many walks of life.

Awful fan if proved to be true, and like you I've heard nothing on the audio.

But note how Lineker actually stopped the MOTD show last night to make a grave announcement, I thought someone had died, he stopped it to announce that a Chelsea fan is racist and there should be punishment.  Ian Wright nodding solemnly in the background.

Seriously, they are working hard to make sure the anti-chelsea narrative comes out even when we get good results.

Imagine if their beloved Liverpool or Spurs had beaten City (which neither did) we would be hearing about it 24/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

Hilarious isn't it ? Already got the open top bus booked for them and the jail door swung open for our fans , even though it was initially reported as one idiot .

Perhaps we should do a Liverpool and get the chairman to say that the racist appeared to have a Scouse accent ?

My life has improved immeasurably since I stopped listening to Talk Sport.

Anyone's would. Now just add Sky to that and you'll be bordering Arcadia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sea foot   
11 hours ago, Gormangorman said:

Never mind the previously unbeaten in almost two years  champions are beaten tonight by Chelsea.

According to the BBC the match of the day is Liverpool.

To be fair to MotD, they were right to show the games in that order. Creates a bit of tension when the commentator says that they top the table for a few hours until the champions elect play later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

To me, the key questions are, firstly, was an offence committed and jeopardy. If an offence was committed, the perpetrator should be punished in a way commensurate with the crime as decided by law. As a result, Chelsea will ban the fan as it has the right to do. Good.

However, what is beginning to worry me is there is no jeopardy in this kind of affair. If it is not correct, is it an intentionally false accusation? More, if the accuser has no evidence, then is this not equally vile? I looked at it a number of times and you cannot hear anything on the broadcast video footage. The broadcasters may have better microphones but Sterling does not seem to react and neither does the black man sitting about five feet away. So, what causes the accusation to be made? Let's say it's a TV viewer. I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to the idea of presumption of innocence because I know I would not commit this offence and so the presumption of innocence is my protection against the false accusation. However, if someone makes the accusation with no evidence there should be jeopardy. Football is tribal. People say and do stupid things whether that is a criminal offence from the stands or an accusation on Twitter. If the former was guilty, he will be punished. If not, the latter will be let off. Where's the jeopardy in the accusation?

But now it gets worse. We cannot know either way if the man is guilty (until convicted). As far as I can see the likes of Ferdinand, Wright and Lineker (to name three) have no more evidence than the rest of us. If so, their tweets are an abuse of their position because, without evidence, they are using their position to defame a member of the public again without jeopardy. I am as much against racism as anyone, but the law is more important than just about anything. It seems that tribalism is rife in many walks of life.

Good points - pre-judging is how things work nowadays, preferably not leading to any court case at all because that might over rule a successful pre-judgement by the media (look at the complete disinterest in taking the MH17 case to any open court).

I almost feel sorry for the bloke, he has just scored one massive own goal.  Either it was a quite unnecessary and silly non-racist rant, and he'll look an idiot for the rest of his life (all his friends, family and work colleagues will have recognized him by now).  Or it was racist, he'll be banned, possibly charged in a court, and look much worse than an idiot to everyone who knows him.

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