Arsenal have a history of scumminess that I don't think even Chelsea currently match.
If you're talking about current teams though, Arsenal are just fat, ginger tossers - Chelsea are destroying football.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Mark Clattenburg
- Thread starter SpursLodge
- Start date
Arsenal have a history of scumminess that I don't think even Chelsea currently match.
If you're talking about current teams though, Arsenal are just fat, ginger tossers - Chelsea are destroying football.
jts1882
Dean Richards
There many options they could take. Rugby has two I like. One is moving the free kick up-field by ten years. Not so effective in football but could be interesting if the ball is moved into the penalty area, resulting in a free kick in the penalty area or converting it to a penalty. The other is the call reversal, where dissent causes the penalty to be nullified and awarded to the other side. So any instances of card waving after a foul would result in reversal of the free-kick (or penalty). You can imagine a team getting a penalty, demanding a sending off, and then losing out on the penalty on a reversal. The managers would soon instruct the players to behave.
But first they have to decide they are serious and not just paying lip-service, like in the Respect campaign. Any change, even just enforcing exisiting rules on abusive language would cause carnage for a few games, with loads of cards and sendings off, but if they show they are serious the players have to stop.
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
EVERTYTHING about Chelsea is worse than the Arse - their directors, management, players and racist hooligan fans. The two really dont compare imo.
Steed Train
Clive Wilson
The key is Chelsea disgust me and arsenal are rivals. I enjoy our rivalry with arsenal but I just think Chelsea are classless miscreants taking a sledge hammer to football
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
Exactly
Lost Mango
Pascal Chimbonda
This is the key ....and it involves the media acting responsible ( e.g. Alan Green not dedicating his whole show to slating the officials every week because it makes 'good' radio) and actually supporting the ethos of football rather than over-egging the controversy ( I know - it sells papers). And also the managers accepting it when it happens to them. Unfortunately, Fergie, Wenger etc are all lip service until one of their players falls foul of such campaigns and then they orchestrate the media campaign to undercut it.
jts1882
Dean Richards
What previous do Chelsea have?
1. Someone mentioned the two referees who retired. Frisk and Ovrebo
2. Terry's defence being consider unlikely by a judge in a criminal court and dismissed as a lie by the FA's independent tribunal.
3. The evolution of Cole's evidence during that inquiry and a role of a Chelsea exec in concocting that story.
4. This incident showing Cole and Terry making things up about a referee:
1. Someone mentioned the two referees who retired. Frisk and Ovrebo
2. Terry's defence being consider unlikely by a judge in a criminal court and dismissed as a lie by the FA's independent tribunal.
Howard Riddle Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) 13 July 2012 said:
3. The evolution of Cole's evidence during that inquiry and a role of a Chelsea exec in concocting that story.
4. This incident showing Cole and Terry making things up about a referee:
Last edited:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-referee-told-John-Obi-Mikel-Shut-monkey.html
Chelsea stars now claim referee Clattenburg told Mikel: 'Shut up you monkey' as club's race case looks in jeopardy Two players have told teammates this is what Premier League official said in alleged outburst
Clattenburg confident he will be cleared of wrongdoing, with source saying: 'He said nothing of the sort - and he will fight this all the way'
Chelsea's legal case could collapse as it has gone to external lawyers who may believe the claims made by players do not stand up
The race-row that has engulfed Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg intensified further today as two Chelsea players claimed they heard him call teammate John Obi Mikel a 'monkey'.
It has emerged that the pair of unnamed stars say this is what happened during their match with Manchester United on Sunday - but the official categorically denies making any racist comments.
Clattenburg has been accused of saying to Mikel: 'Shut up you monkey' as he booked him for dissent as well as calling Juan Mata a ‘Spanish t***’ in their 3-2 defeat at Stamford Bridge.
Mystery had surrounded what Clattenburg actually said to Mikel - until these allegations were made this morning.
But a source close to the referee told The Sun: 'He said nothing of the sort - and he will fight this all the way.
'There is a lot of noise on the pitch and the players could have easily misheard.'
Meanwhile, Chelsea's race case against Clattenburg is in serious danger of collapsing completely after it emerged that the club have employed independent lawyers to investigate the claims of their players.
The club are expected to conclude their internal investigation into allegations that the referee racially abused John Mikel Obi and swore at Juan Mata.
The external lawyers will then provide Chelsea with legal opinion as to whether their case will be successful. Despite issues over the available evidence, Chelsea remained robust.
Clattenburg, who has been taken off the Premier League match list this weekend, has protested his innocence since his controversial handling of Chelsea’s 3-2 defeat by Manchester United on Sunday.
Now it has emerged that Chelsea are fearful of the backlash if the players have misheard or misjudged Clattenburg’s conversations during the stormy clash against United.
Chelsea will proceed with the case against the referee only if they are satisfied the claims made by the players after the game will stand up to the FA’s burden of proof.
It means they will need to satisfy an FA commission ‘on the balance of probability’, but they also have to negotiate the complexities of the Metropolitan Police’s investigation into the affair.
If the case breaks down, it will reflect badly on Chelsea, who made their claims of inappropriate language against Clattenburg in a strongly worded statement on Sunday, two hours after the final whistle.
Earlier it emerged that the club and Mikel could be charged with misconduct by the FA after the midfielder had to be restrained from manhandling the referee in his dressing room following the clash.
Clattenburg did not mention the behaviour in the ‘extraordinary incident’ report he filed on Sunday, but he now has to make a detailed statement to the FA. Clattenburg’s assistants, Michael McDonough and Simon Long, and fourth official Mike Jones have filed reports in which they say they did not hear the Durham official say anything inappropriate.
All four were in the referee’s room when Mikel burst in with Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay and manager Roberto Di Matteo.
Mikel’s aggressive manner, along with the behaviour of other Chelsea officials, raises the possibility of FA action against the club.
Both Mikel and Mata claim they have a witness to Clattenburg’s comments, and PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor, who has assessed both complaints, told Sportsmail the pair have his ‘100 per cent support’.
However, it has emerged that the allegations about the referee’s comments were made only after a debate in the Chelsea dressing room. Mikel and Ramires were discussing the alleged use of racist language and were then quizzed by senior Chelsea players about what they had heard before the matter was taken further.
Sunday’s controversy is also the subject of a police investigation and Clattenburg will be interviewed by them as well as the FA, who are conducting a separate inquiry into his handling of the clash.
The PFA had a delegate at the game and he has discussed the matter with Taylor, who said: ‘The main thing is that the police investigation will not affect the process at the FA.
‘We are supportive of the players and they have our 100 per cent backing. I find it difficult to believe that Chelsea’s players would make something like this up. At the same time I find it hard to conclude that a referee could say something of this nature.’
Clattenburg found an unlikely ally in Leeds manager Neil Warnock, who said he was disgusted with Chelsea for ‘trying to kill’ the official.
Warnock, preparing for Leeds’ Capital One Cup win over Southampton last night, was critical of the accusations against Clattenburg, who enraged Chelsea by sending off Fernando Torres for diving when replays showed he had been fouled.
Warnock said: ‘You know my relationship with referees but I have to say I am disgusted with what’s gone on. I’m on Clattenburg’s side. We ask referees to man-manage and that’s what he does. I’m sure he might have said a few things but are you telling me if Chelsea had won that game that there would have been one iota of a complaint?
‘I hope if it is proved wrong, that the players, whatever they alleged Mark to have said, get done as well. I think he made a mistake but they are trying to kill him and I don’t agree with that.’
In a further development, police chiefs upgraded security at Stamford Bridge for the Capital One Cup tie against United as tension between the teams threatens to escalate.
Chelsea stars now claim referee Clattenburg told Mikel: 'Shut up you monkey' as club's race case looks in jeopardy Two players have told teammates this is what Premier League official said in alleged outburst
Clattenburg confident he will be cleared of wrongdoing, with source saying: 'He said nothing of the sort - and he will fight this all the way'
Chelsea's legal case could collapse as it has gone to external lawyers who may believe the claims made by players do not stand up
The race-row that has engulfed Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg intensified further today as two Chelsea players claimed they heard him call teammate John Obi Mikel a 'monkey'.
It has emerged that the pair of unnamed stars say this is what happened during their match with Manchester United on Sunday - but the official categorically denies making any racist comments.
Clattenburg has been accused of saying to Mikel: 'Shut up you monkey' as he booked him for dissent as well as calling Juan Mata a ‘Spanish t***’ in their 3-2 defeat at Stamford Bridge.
Mystery had surrounded what Clattenburg actually said to Mikel - until these allegations were made this morning.
But a source close to the referee told The Sun: 'He said nothing of the sort - and he will fight this all the way.
'There is a lot of noise on the pitch and the players could have easily misheard.'
Meanwhile, Chelsea's race case against Clattenburg is in serious danger of collapsing completely after it emerged that the club have employed independent lawyers to investigate the claims of their players.
The club are expected to conclude their internal investigation into allegations that the referee racially abused John Mikel Obi and swore at Juan Mata.
The external lawyers will then provide Chelsea with legal opinion as to whether their case will be successful. Despite issues over the available evidence, Chelsea remained robust.
Clattenburg, who has been taken off the Premier League match list this weekend, has protested his innocence since his controversial handling of Chelsea’s 3-2 defeat by Manchester United on Sunday.
Now it has emerged that Chelsea are fearful of the backlash if the players have misheard or misjudged Clattenburg’s conversations during the stormy clash against United.
Chelsea will proceed with the case against the referee only if they are satisfied the claims made by the players after the game will stand up to the FA’s burden of proof.
It means they will need to satisfy an FA commission ‘on the balance of probability’, but they also have to negotiate the complexities of the Metropolitan Police’s investigation into the affair.
If the case breaks down, it will reflect badly on Chelsea, who made their claims of inappropriate language against Clattenburg in a strongly worded statement on Sunday, two hours after the final whistle.
Earlier it emerged that the club and Mikel could be charged with misconduct by the FA after the midfielder had to be restrained from manhandling the referee in his dressing room following the clash.
Clattenburg did not mention the behaviour in the ‘extraordinary incident’ report he filed on Sunday, but he now has to make a detailed statement to the FA. Clattenburg’s assistants, Michael McDonough and Simon Long, and fourth official Mike Jones have filed reports in which they say they did not hear the Durham official say anything inappropriate.
All four were in the referee’s room when Mikel burst in with Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay and manager Roberto Di Matteo.
Mikel’s aggressive manner, along with the behaviour of other Chelsea officials, raises the possibility of FA action against the club.
Both Mikel and Mata claim they have a witness to Clattenburg’s comments, and PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor, who has assessed both complaints, told Sportsmail the pair have his ‘100 per cent support’.
However, it has emerged that the allegations about the referee’s comments were made only after a debate in the Chelsea dressing room. Mikel and Ramires were discussing the alleged use of racist language and were then quizzed by senior Chelsea players about what they had heard before the matter was taken further.
Sunday’s controversy is also the subject of a police investigation and Clattenburg will be interviewed by them as well as the FA, who are conducting a separate inquiry into his handling of the clash.
The PFA had a delegate at the game and he has discussed the matter with Taylor, who said: ‘The main thing is that the police investigation will not affect the process at the FA.
‘We are supportive of the players and they have our 100 per cent backing. I find it difficult to believe that Chelsea’s players would make something like this up. At the same time I find it hard to conclude that a referee could say something of this nature.’
Clattenburg found an unlikely ally in Leeds manager Neil Warnock, who said he was disgusted with Chelsea for ‘trying to kill’ the official.
Warnock, preparing for Leeds’ Capital One Cup win over Southampton last night, was critical of the accusations against Clattenburg, who enraged Chelsea by sending off Fernando Torres for diving when replays showed he had been fouled.
Warnock said: ‘You know my relationship with referees but I have to say I am disgusted with what’s gone on. I’m on Clattenburg’s side. We ask referees to man-manage and that’s what he does. I’m sure he might have said a few things but are you telling me if Chelsea had won that game that there would have been one iota of a complaint?
‘I hope if it is proved wrong, that the players, whatever they alleged Mark to have said, get done as well. I think he made a mistake but they are trying to kill him and I don’t agree with that.’
In a further development, police chiefs upgraded security at Stamford Bridge for the Capital One Cup tie against United as tension between the teams threatens to escalate.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Incidentally, while getting the judge's quote I found a disturbing instance of how journalists manipulate quotes.
But the full remarks were reported in the Telegraph ...
Here, the meaning is not changed dramatically but the emphasis is changed. The qualified opinion "I think it is unlikely" becomes a definitive statement "It is unlikely". And why change the quote by adding the first names? More significantly "the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty" becomes "The only verdict is not guilty" and is moved to the beginning. The nuance that the not guilty is because of some existing doubt is lost.
The Standard said:
But the full remarks were reported in the Telegraph ...
Here, the meaning is not changed dramatically but the emphasis is changed. The qualified opinion "I think it is unlikely" becomes a definitive statement "It is unlikely". And why change the quote by adding the first names? More significantly "the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty" becomes "The only verdict is not guilty" and is moved to the beginning. The nuance that the not guilty is because of some existing doubt is lost.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
They are paid an annual salary they are professionals
Harsh!
Leeds Spur
Banned
You cannot slander someone that directly in public and get away with it........I want 20 points MINIMUM
jts1882
Dean Richards
I think the referees should refuse to referee Chelsea games unless Chelsea can substantiate their case. Chances are the evidence will be sufficiently confused (and invented) that there will be a not guilty verdict without clear vindication for Clattenburg. That still leaves Clattenburg's position as untenable.
Its interesting that only now are Chelsea consulting lawyers about pursuing the case. They should have kept quiet until they had gathered the evidence. If their claim is true, then it would have made no difference. Charges would be made, Clattenburg found guilty and banned.
Making public statements and releasing a media storm only helps if they have a different agenda.
Its interesting that only now are Chelsea consulting lawyers about pursuing the case. They should have kept quiet until they had gathered the evidence. If their claim is true, then it would have made no difference. Charges would be made, Clattenburg found guilty and banned.
Making public statements and releasing a media storm only helps if they have a different agenda.
Leeds Spur
Banned
That is a blinding idea
stinkfoot
Eidur Gudjohnsen
I agree. The two accusers should definitely have to reveal themselves as well. It's disgusting that they can make accusations like this and then remain anonymous.
It is absolutely ridiculous that a premier league referee would say that to a player. Ridiculous.
Robbo
Paul Walsh
I'm sure 99 % of everyone else (except Chelski supporters) find it very likely that Chelski players would make something like this up.
Leeds Spur
Banned
I've tweeted suggesting that refs boycott Chelsea games......why would you leave yourself open to spurious racist allegations?
Others get involved!
Others get involved!
mudshark
Chris Armstrong
Especially when, as reiterated in the Guardian article linked and quoted above, they've got form for doing exactly that.