Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:23 am  

CM Punk wrote: BBC Sporf's joke twitter account has not only duped a Dutch website into believing their "Balotelli to Liverpool" tweet, but now seems to have engineered a move to QPR for Wesley Sneijder, which made it onto Channel 4 news. Seems the comic and the Beeb have fallen for it too.

CM Punk wrote: BBC Sporf's joke twitter account has not only duped a Dutch website into believing their "Balotelli to Liverpool" tweet, but now seems to have engineered a move to QPR for Wesley Sneijder, which made it onto Channel 4 news. Seems the comic and the Beeb have fallen for it too.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:05 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

UEFA should have come down hard on Serbia, same with the many other incidents that have happened, but if walking off during games becomes the norm when/if this happens again, it will only empower the idiots, which is the last thing that should be happening.

It won't empower idiots. Once their teams gets a ban or two they'll stop doing it. Simple. Come on Roddy, we both want the same thing, for it to stop. I know of no other employer that would allow their staff to stand their and take racist abuse from a customer. Why should football be different? Football clubs actually have a legal responsibility to ensure that racist abuse does not happen so we're not talking about a wild initiative here. This is bigger than football itself and it is everybody's responsibility not just the governments.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:16 pm  

McClennan wrote:

we both want the same thing, for it to stop.

Me too. But the problem with the "walk off" is that its too hit and miss. Some players will walk off more readily than others. Some players are less likely to hear or register abuse than others. Some black players have said that they will not walk off because they think that means that they've "lost".

The onus to take action shouldn't be on the players. It should be initially with the referee. If action isn't taken then I would have no problems with a walk off but I'd expect it to be instigated by a club official rather than the players or manager.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:35 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Fully agree with your post....I visit many, many places and am yet to find a place that doesn't contain a shitehole or two in its neighboorhood (bar the odd quaint village here and there), and seeing as I'm from Warrington then Ive seen a few round here too...

I'm glad you've admitted to that.

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

The point I was originally trying to make was that another poster was trying to make out that Manchester was somehow superior to Liverpool, when, quite obviously, it isn't....

That's fair enough. But it could have been made properly without initially labelling the city a shitehole, couldn't it now?

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:57 pm  

Am I right in thinking that under the current laws of the game, if a team walks off and refuses to come back then they forfeit the match?

It would then be down to the respective governing bodies to decide what happens to league points etc?

I can to an extent see some logic in Seedorf's comments, if players walking off are going to lead their teams being punished for taking a stand against racist abuse. It's potentially going to give the idiots a weapon they can use tactically - your team getting humped, why not start making monkey noises at the black players in the opposition to try and get them to walk off?

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:08 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Me too. But the problem with the "walk off" is that its too hit and miss. Some players will walk off more readily than others. Some players are less likely to hear or register abuse than others. Some black players have said that they will not walk off because they think that means that they've "lost".

The onus to take action shouldn't be on the players. It should be initially with the referee. If action isn't taken then I would have no problems with a walk off but I'd expect it to be instigated by a club official rather than the players or manager.

That's a good point but all it does then is transfer responsibility and accountability to the ref when we all know that it is UEFA's responsibility to do it. I'm pretty sure UEFA will get the message. I mean, are we really expecting this to go on forever? If another player walks off, then another and another, how many will have to walk off before UEFA treat the problem seriously? They've ignored verbal protestations so some black players now feel it is the time for action. I have every sympathy with that because of the examples mentioned earlier in thread e.g. Serbia. If UEFA applied significant penalties for it, it will stop like that. Until UEFA gets its message right we are going to be stuck in this limbo where refs and players will get the blame when we know exactly where the responsibility lies. Everybody knows in an organisation for employees to believe in a vision those at the top have to demonstrate commitment so it's understandable to me if ethnic minorities feel that is lacking at UEFA.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:16 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote: Am I right in thinking that under the current laws of the game, if a team walks off and refuses to come back then they forfeit the match? It would then be down to the respective governing bodies to decide what happens to league points etc? I can to an extent see some logic in Seedorf's comments, if players walking off are going to lead their teams being punished for taking a stand against racist abuse. It's potentially going to give the idiots a weapon they can use tactically - your team getting humped, why not start making monkey noises at the black players in the opposition to try and get them to walk off? In the UK there is employment legislation that states an employee has the right to work free from racial abuse. This came as a result of an incident at Bernard Manning's club (some of you may remember it) when he was telling racist jokes and there was a black waitress who complained to her manager about it. The amendment regulations also make employers liable to their employees for third party acts of harassment. This will include clients and customers who are not under the employer’s control. Obviously in those circumstances there needs to be some safeguards for employers and the regulations make it clear that an employer will only be liable for third party acts of harassment if:- The employer knows his employee has been subjected to harassment on at least two occasions by a third party, and The employer has failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable or to prevent the third party doing so. Surprisingly the regulations make it clear that “it is immaterial whether the third party is the same or a different person on each occasion”. That to me suggests that each football club has a legal responsibility to ensure racism doesn't happen. An actual legal responsibility. Now it's not happened yet but if players raise the issue and UEFA, clubs decline to deal with it, how long will it be before a player brings a claim against either? Chances of it happening are still quite low because I'm sure there'd be a campaign against it with people saying it's driven by greed rather than a desire to stamp out racism. Whatever the case, I am a bit surprised at this argument about walking off because we are talking about racism, not the price of half-time balti pies. We are talking about an issue in which people are bullied, harassed, threatened and even killed over, yet football seems to be more important. I can't buy into that sorry.

Andy Gilder wrote: Am I right in thinking that under the current laws of the game, if a team walks off and refuses to come back then they forfeit the match? It would then be down to the respective governing bodies to decide what happens to league points etc? I can to an extent see some logic in Seedorf's comments, if players walking off are going to lead their teams being punished for taking a stand against racist abuse. It's potentially going to give the idiots a weapon they can use tactically - your team getting humped, why not start making monkey noises at the black players in the opposition to try and get them to walk off? In the UK there is employment legislation that states an employee has the right to work free from racial abuse. This came as a result of an incident at Bernard Manning's club (some of you may remember it) when he was telling racist jokes and there was a black waitress who complained to her manager about it. The amendment regulations also make employers liable to their employees for third party acts of harassment. This will include clients and customers who are not under the employer’s control. Obviously in those circumstances there needs to be some safeguards for employers and the regulations make it clear that an employer will only be liable for third party acts of harassment if:- The employer knows his employee has been subjected to harassment on at least two occasions by a third party, and The employer has failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable or to prevent the third party doing so. Surprisingly the regulations make it clear that “it is immaterial whether the third party is the same or a different person on each occasion”. That to me suggests that each football club has a legal responsibility to ensure racism doesn't happen. An actual legal responsibility. Now it's not happened yet but if players raise the issue and UEFA, clubs decline to deal with it, how long will it be before a player brings a claim against either? Chances of it happening are still quite low because I'm sure there'd be a campaign against it with people saying it's driven by greed rather than a desire to stamp out racism. Whatever the case, I am a bit surprised at this argument about walking off because we are talking about racism, not the price of half-time balti pies. We are talking about an issue in which people are bullied, harassed, threatened and even killed over, yet football seems to be more important. I can't buy into that sorry.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:18 pm  

Does anyone understand why Mancini puts up with Balotelli? He says today that Mario did nothing wrong and that he would give him 100 more chances. Why does he get that protection from Mancini? I could understand it if he was amazingly talented, but he's not proven that he is. If he was Messi, I could understand a manager letting things go, but he's not. He's never been a consistent player, he isn't someone City can rely on. Mancini usually regrets the times he throws him in for big games and with the money they've got, they could sign probably 10-15 better players than him if they wanted to.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:55 pm  

City made it clear at the end of last season that they would sell Balotelli if they received an acceptable offer. That hasn't changed. All that Mancini is doing is trying to stop the price falling any further.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:23 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

City made it clear at the end of last season that they would sell Balotelli if they received an acceptable offer. That hasn't changed. All that Mancini is doing is trying to stop the price falling any further.

That seems about right.....Being a nobend, coupled with the fact that he has been exposed as being, well, not very good at actually playing football, would mean that City face taking a bit of a loss on him.

Mancini has to make it seem he isn't for sale to keep his price up, even though he obviously is.

As a slight side issue, why do City fans actually like him so much (that's if they do)?....To most outsiders he is a distinctly average forward, who shows the very odd sign that he is capable of doing something special - He's a poor man's Frank Worthington, all style and very little substance.