Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:39 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

City have announced the biggest loss in English football history, £194.5m for the most recent financial year. The loss on that huge scale eclipses the previous biggest loss ever made, £141m by Chelsea in 2005.
They need to have a serious rethink if they're going to be able to comply with Uefa's "financial fair play" rules, which come into force in 2014/2015.

You seroiusly think Cities upper escholons give a flying one about this? They will pick holes in it as will Barca Madrid Milan utd all russian teams etc etc etc.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:51 pm  

Roddy B wrote: Thing is, Dan, there's no reason it should be deemed racist over here. It's not in our language, it isn't even in our slang, but because it sounds like negro and its literal translation is 'little black man', we immediately stick our chests out and take a stance against it. Have a read of this, a piece that is completely neutral and has no form of agenda: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sport ... index.html Read what Fernando Espuelas has to say about it. This is delving deeper into defining the word and what kind of context it can be used in. Our nation may well deem it racist, but the majority of our nation isn't qualified to interpret Spanish or even Uruguayan native speak. People are instantly tagging it in a similar light to the derogatory term 'negro', but without any witnesses or visual/audio evidence, it'll be pretty tough to prove the malice and intent, which is what I keep on saying. I've had to type this (because it's not available online for some reason) out but it was from The i by Simeon Tegel, who reports from South America. Did Liverpool striker Luis Suarez racially abuse Man Utd's Patrice Evra by calling him 'negrito' ("little black guy")? As Suarez's defence team point out, the cultural meaning in Spanish-speaking Latin America, where it is often routine to refer to people by their physical appearance - including race - could not be more different than in Britian. There is a long list of such nicknames commonly used in this region, "Gordo" means "fatty", "Flaco" means shkinny". And "chato" means shorty. here in Lima, I have two friends who everyone knows respectively as "chato" and, yes, "negro", meaning "black" or "blac-kie". Back in Mexico, where I previously lived for four years, strangers regularly, inoffensively called me "guero" - something like "blondie" - although that term is barely used elsewhere in Latin America. Often these aliases come loaded with historical and sociological baggage, in a region where the conquest of indigenous peoples by Europeans, and the slave trade, still cast a long shadow. In Peru, the term "cholo" - frequently used as nickname - could be translated as "mate". But that misses the deep, complex layers of meaning of a word, which, strictly speaking, refers to someone of indingenous descent but who has lost their culture. The term can be affectionate, nuetral or downright racist, depending on the circumstances and tone. Equally to misunderstand the intention behind Suarez's remarks, THE context is key. The diminuitive, in this case, "negrito", often signals affection, but can also be used to belittle. I had to insert the hyphen into blac-kie because it the word check thing blocks it out which is interesting in itself don't we think? Those last two sentences are critical i.e. circumstances, tone and intent. Was Suarez's intent to be affectionate? Again I think it's reasonable to assume it wasn't. If there is proof that he has said it ten times to Evra I think there's evidence there to suggest he was being racist. If there isn't proof there isn't proof. Either way Suarez must learn from this and from listening to Daglish and reading posts of Liverpool supporters I would hope that the club embarks on more thorough diversity initiatives than it has done previously.

Roddy B wrote: Thing is, Dan, there's no reason it should be deemed racist over here. It's not in our language, it isn't even in our slang, but because it sounds like negro and its literal translation is 'little black man', we immediately stick our chests out and take a stance against it. Have a read of this, a piece that is completely neutral and has no form of agenda: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sport ... index.html Read what Fernando Espuelas has to say about it. This is delving deeper into defining the word and what kind of context it can be used in. Our nation may well deem it racist, but the majority of our nation isn't qualified to interpret Spanish or even Uruguayan native speak. People are instantly tagging it in a similar light to the derogatory term 'negro', but without any witnesses or visual/audio evidence, it'll be pretty tough to prove the malice and intent, which is what I keep on saying. I've had to type this (because it's not available online for some reason) out but it was from The i by Simeon Tegel, who reports from South America. Did Liverpool striker Luis Suarez racially abuse Man Utd's Patrice Evra by calling him 'negrito' ("little black guy")? As Suarez's defence team point out, the cultural meaning in Spanish-speaking Latin America, where it is often routine to refer to people by their physical appearance - including race - could not be more different than in Britian. There is a long list of such nicknames commonly used in this region, "Gordo" means "fatty", "Flaco" means shkinny". And "chato" means shorty. here in Lima, I have two friends who everyone knows respectively as "chato" and, yes, "negro", meaning "black" or "blac-kie". Back in Mexico, where I previously lived for four years, strangers regularly, inoffensively called me "guero" - something like "blondie" - although that term is barely used elsewhere in Latin America. Often these aliases come loaded with historical and sociological baggage, in a region where the conquest of indigenous peoples by Europeans, and the slave trade, still cast a long shadow. In Peru, the term "cholo" - frequently used as nickname - could be translated as "mate". But that misses the deep, complex layers of meaning of a word, which, strictly speaking, refers to someone of indingenous descent but who has lost their culture. The term can be affectionate, nuetral or downright racist, depending on the circumstances and tone. Equally to misunderstand the intention behind Suarez's remarks, THE context is key. The diminuitive, in this case, "negrito", often signals affection, but can also be used to belittle. I had to insert the hyphen into blac-kie because it the word check thing blocks it out which is interesting in itself don't we think? Those last two sentences are critical i.e. circumstances, tone and intent. Was Suarez's intent to be affectionate? Again I think it's reasonable to assume it wasn't. If there is proof that he has said it ten times to Evra I think there's evidence there to suggest he was being racist. If there isn't proof there isn't proof. Either way Suarez must learn from this and from listening to Daglish and reading posts of Liverpool supporters I would hope that the club embarks on more thorough diversity initiatives than it has done previously.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:08 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

If it's true that he called him a 'negrito', then it would also have to be proven he called it him ten times.

eh? why? that's boolocks

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:12 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

City have announced the biggest loss in English football history, £194.5m for the most recent financial year. The loss on that huge scale eclipses the previous biggest loss ever made, £141m by Chelsea in 2005.
They need to have a serious rethink if they're going to be able to comply with Uefa's "financial fair play" rules, which come into force in 2014/2015.

The figures include £113m for amortisation and write downs of player registrations, which should surely be a peak (although they probably do not include the loss on Tevez) and will start to come down dramatically, particularly when the surplus players are offloaded. And there are other costs in there that dont count for FFPR purposes.

But the real test for City is how much they can continue to increase income. Income has increased from £80m pre takeover to £153m in 2010/11. Thats not bad growth considering that it doesnt include any CL league income. On top of the expected cost reductions, City probably need to generate another £120m pa in the next few years to meet FFPR. That's a stretch but not impossible given the potential income from CL football, sponsorship (incl the Etihad deal), television and prize money.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:14 pm  

flipper wrote:

eh? why? that's boolocks

I was referring to Dan's post where he said "say it's true, he did call him negrito and he called it him ten times".

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:38 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

Why should I accept it, Dan? Because you said so? Because the boys on RLFans said so? Saddened has said some things like 'ban him for life', if you think my defence of him is lunacy, then what on earth do you think of that?

No, because he might've actually said that's why. I think that's laughable people have said ban him for life but it's the kneejerk reaction. I have said you should accept the possibility that he might've have said this term meaning it in an abusive way. Maybe it isn't racist in some places but maybe Suarez knows it is in others and meant it in that way, maybe he didn't but we don't know which is why I won't condemn him or say he's innocent.

Roddy B wrote:

People in England have a tendency to view things in 'black or white' (no pun intended), people either see it as innocent or guilty. If you look through my posts, I've repeatedly said, if Suarez is guilty, throw the book at him, but what I can't stand is people saying "he said negreto, he's guilty, he's racist, he's this, that and the other". You're right, none of us truly know what has been said and what hasn't been said. Daniel Taylor (Guardian) said he was 'just reporting what they believe at United', when he reported the 'negrito' story, so it seems that this 'negrito' stuff has come from the United camp, or at least the journos who write on United. I just don't think it's fair that he's already getting the guilty tag without being able to defend himself, as they say, he's innocent until proven guilty, so I'll try and protest his innocence.

The thing is mate people, remarkably, make their minds up on things without knowing anything of certain incidents. I tend to think it's a media led thing, we are unbelievable gulliable to the media and what they spout we make our minds up on single sided stories or in some cases without any knowledge at all, if they don't like someone they will either see it as innocent or guilty and that's that. I'm not sure it's just an English thing or whether it's just a human nature thing but either way it's not right. Possibly it has, I didn't know anything about the 'negrito' thing until you mentioned it. Whatever has gone on it'd save a lot of the speculation if the FA would do there job and investigate it quickly and efficiently. I agree, if he has used racism towards Evra he should be punished accordingly, if not we need to move on.

Roddy B wrote:

If it's true that he called him a 'negrito', then it would also have to be proven he called it him ten times. It hasn't even been proven he called it him once, there hasn't been any video evidence or witnesses to support Evra's claims so it will result in one word vs. the other. IMO, looking at the way the whole scenario happened, I can't understand why Evra would just stand there and be racially abused by Suarez without making anyone aware of it. He could have shouted to a team-mate, to the linesman, to the ref or even a Liverpool player, I'm sure anybody hearing/seeing it happen would have stepped in and intervened immediately. Maybe I'm wrong to say this, but if you're getting racially abused and it's bothering you, you tell someone so, when you make a claim like he did after the game and try and push for punishment, you have people to support your claims. He never done that, which, IMO, hinders his credibility.

It doesn't mean because it wasn't reported on the pitch it didn't happen either, I take your point that you would be inclined to tell someone, the referee most likely but I don't think that supports either players claim. Why does it have to be proven to be said ten times? If he's said it once in a derogatory way then once is enough.

Roddy B wrote:

I was referring to Dan's post where he said "say it's true, he did call him negrito and he called it him ten times".

Where did I say this?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:05 pm  

Dan_FC wrote:

No, because he might've actually said that's why. I think that's laughable people have said ban him for life but it's the kneejerk reaction. I have said you should accept the possibility that he might've have said this term meaning it in an abusive way. Maybe it isn't racist in some places but maybe Suarez knows it is in others and meant it in that way, maybe he didn't but we don't know which is why I won't condemn him or say he's innocent.

It doesn't mean because it wasn't reported on the pitch it didn't happen either, I take your point that you would be inclined to tell someone, the referee most likely but I don't think that supports either players claim. Why does it have to be proven to be said ten times? If he's said it once in a derogatory way then once is enough.

Where did I say this?

I believe he's innocent, purely because ever since the allegations were made he's maintained his innocence and that he wasn't being racist. I know it's possible he has said it to Evra, and I've said what should happen to him if it turns out he has given him a racial roasting, but for now, I'll believe Suarez.

I think it has to be proved because the ten times thing shows a lot more malice. If it was one comment, it could be defended by Suarez, but if it's ten times and throughout the match, well, it shows quite a bit more intent on Suarez's part. Even if they could prove he said it in a derogatory way once, allowing that to be exaggerated to ten wouldn't be fair without proof.

And you said this:

Just say you are right and he did call him 'Negrito' or whatever it is, then if he did say it to him ten times you honest believe he wasn't doing it to wind him up or to abuse him?

I didn't fully read the sentence when I quoted you, but that's effectively what I was replying to when I said the ten times thing should be proven.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:03 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

stuff has come from the United camp, or at least the journos who write on United. I just don't think it's fair that he's already getting the guilty tag without being able to defend himself, as they say, he's innocent until proven guilty, so I'll try and protest his innocence.

Apart from internet rumours, there was never even an allegation that Terry abused Ledley King, but you still pronounce Terry guilty of abusing King and are pronouncing him guilty of abusing Ferdinand.

If it's true that he called him a 'negrito', then it would also have to be proven he called it him ten times. It hasn't even been proven he called it him once, there hasn't been any video evidence or witnesses to support Evra's claims so it will result in one word vs. the other. IMO, looking at the way the whole scenario happened, I can't understand why Evra would just stand there and be racially abused by Suarez without making anyone aware of it. He could have shouted to a team-mate, to the linesman, to the ref or even a Liverpool player, I'm sure anybody hearing/seeing it happen would have stepped in and intervened immediately. Maybe I'm wrong to say this, but if you're getting racially abused and it's bothering you, you tell someone so, when you make a claim like he did after the game and try and push for punishment, you have people to support your claims. He never done that, which, IMO, hinders his credibility.

I was going to make a similar point to this but didn't want to really get involved in the debate at the time.

I do think the response of Evra during the game will be important. If he never said anything during the game to Suarez to tell him to STFU with his racist comment, if he never spoke to a team mate or a Liverpool player to get Suarez to stop being racist, if he never spoke to an official then he really needs to answer why.

But as to there being no witnesses and no video evidence, you simply don't know whether that's true or not. They could have the written statements of four players saying they heard Suarez racially abusing Evra, there could have been video evidence whic confirms it. You don't know what evidence the FA have and what basis they have for charging Suarez. It's just your blatant club bias which makes you insist that because you haven't heard of hard evidence you insist it doesn't exist.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:55 pm  

Don't get much harder evidence then Terry's racist comments.

I fully expect him to be banned.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:35 pm  

Wire_85 wrote:

Don't get much harder evidence then Terry's racist comments.

I fully expect him to be banned.

Still waiting...............