Oh, and there are Christmas sales on so it would be cheap to deck your halls with bows of Stevie Me.
I hope this helps.
I hope this helps.
FA slams United over 'Battle of the Bridge'
- Thread starter antihenry
- Start date
I was laughing at this and then I realised you were being serious.
That made it even funnier.and this years winner of biggest retard on the Internets
goes to: auntie henry
congratulations
Just as I thought, only retards decided to reply. The ones who have any brain know I'm right.
Ever thought about it the other way round?
You (the retard) comes on here, and you are not a United fan. You obviously agree with the decision.
Now say it had happened to one of your players? Oh, you'd probably still side with the FA then, wouldn't you
Circular "proof," cnut.
your probably one of the groundstaff.....
Should you call the mental health professionals or should we?
Haven't I already said that retards needn't reply? Then again, if you're retard you must have a problem reading and comprehending
You won't give up on the WUM, will you plasticfan
You're cracking up once again before our very eyes.
Please carry on.
This thread makes JoPub's "crush you like a beetle" flip-out look intellectual and witty.
mate, speaking as a relative neutral, it's pretty clear that this is a bit of a balse up on the part of the FA. the statement they've come out with is hilarious. they haven't even managed to avoid basic errors, such as explaining how they've justified their decision, or not admitting that David Pleat is being employed as an FA judge. Then there's the part which completely contradicts the next.
and that they've part based their ruling on the idea that one of the witnesses appeared more "calm" than another
brilliant. imagine this sort of stuff in a court of law.and also, it's quite clear from the video that shows your groundsman walk up and attempt (feebly) to punch Evra in the face, while Evra walks towards him like some chavy street gang member, that both parties are to blame. in sensible world it wouldn't much matter whether he said "fecking idiot" or "fecking immigrant". This is about two blokes who got in a fight because one of them wouldn't keep off the grass. clearly they're a pair of retards.
Patrice Evra is my personal Jesus.
Say that again and I'll have someone steal your socks.
By the way anti, when do we have to give you the Obi Mikel money?
Who does Dr Do/dont support?
I think it is a bit rich to rip antiHenry apart when you all take the opposite extreme and claim it is all an anti Man Utd conspiracy and no one in your employ did anything untoward.
Evra jumped towards him like a mad hatter and had to be held back as he went a bit loopy. That's pretty obvious from the photos.
Is anyone denying this?
Do you stand by antihenry's comments in this thread?
Do you think a 4 match ban for Evra was justified? I think anyone can accept he got into a tiff with a fascist Chelsea groundsman. But considering you can escape with a 3 match ban for deliberately elbowing a player in the head and hospitalizing him, a 4 match ban would suggest Evra set this fat cnut on fire and threw him into a children's ward or something
Supporting Chelsea got you down?
On the verge of a psychotic break?
Have a history of leaping from club to club?
Then it isn't too late to 'Get In There' with Kitbag's Christmas sales.
On the verge of a psychotic break?
Have a history of leaping from club to club?
Then it isn't too late to 'Get In There' with Kitbag's Christmas sales.
I take the view that there was wrong on both sides, and for the FA to blame one side exclusively, when anyone with a pair of working eyes can see it's not a one-sided argument, is unbelievable.
Taking their "findings" and "reasons" for their decision only makes the FA look more ridiculous, and the length of the ban is disproportionate to the offence considering other sentences for worse "crimes".
Yes, Evra was wrong to retaliate - but that doesn't absolve Chelsea or the FA's compliance in the matter.
I think the FA know United are a good team for "making an example" of. We're rich and famous and we defend our own.
Let's face it - if the FA had banned some City reserve for missing his drugs test no one would have noticed. Ban Rio and every club/player in the country is on notice.
The FA have got this thing about the bad image of the game - too disrespectful, too rich, too arrogant etc etc. They read the NOTW - footballers out clubbing, fights with paparazzis, homemade team sex videos and the rest of it - and most of it isn't in their domain. But after-match squabbles during warm-downs are.
Footballer getting paid more for a week's work than a groundsman does for a year gets into an argument wih the groundstaff? It almost doesn't matter what the story is - the FA hope to find the player guilty. It's a morality tale aboout role models, and as United and its fans will look after Evra, they don't even feel guilty about singling out a player as an "example" whose disciplinary record says he actually deserves some benefit of the doubt.
Let's face it - if the FA had banned some City reserve for missing his drugs test no one would have noticed. Ban Rio and every club/player in the country is on notice.
The FA have got this thing about the bad image of the game - too disrespectful, too rich, too arrogant etc etc. They read the NOTW - footballers out clubbing, fights with paparazzis, homemade team sex videos and the rest of it - and most of it isn't in their domain. But after-match squabbles during warm-downs are.
Footballer getting paid more for a week's work than a groundsman does for a year gets into an argument wih the groundstaff? It almost doesn't matter what the story is - the FA hope to find the player guilty. It's a morality tale aboout role models, and as United and its fans will look after Evra, they don't even feel guilty about singling out a player as an "example" whose disciplinary record says he actually deserves some benefit of the doubt.
Yep, Billy big bollox footballer meets low-rent jobsworth.
Or little guy beats up big guy for no reason.
His overall tone was foolish in his comments as it was obvious what would come to him and where this thread would go though there is alot of credibility in what he actually said. Evra has never lost his head like that on the pitch so I'm in a way hoping he was provoked as it would be scary if he wasn't. Saying that it was a highly charged match (ala Ferdinand managing to miss a wall and kick a steward) which threatened to spill over into a mass brawl so perhaps there is logic in Chelsea's position.
I'm not sure on whether the jurisdiction is correct in being suspended from play though a four match ban is what you'd get if such an incident occured whilst playing- a huge fine may have been more appropriate, though the fact it was a Man Utd player I think had nothing to do with it.
What I don't understand is why an incident that occurred in a flash has taken eight months to come to judgement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...rus-gibe-stokes-real-ill-feeling-1203565.html
The United manager spoke after his side's 5-3 victory over Gamba Osaka in the semi-final of the Fifa Club World Cup in Yokohama, Japan. It is there in the early hours of this morning that Gill will make his displeasure known to the FA chairman, Lord Triesman, about the governing body's decision to leak the full judgement over the Evra-Chelsea disciplinary hearing. As revealed in The Independent yesterday, the commission's judgement was scathing about the behaviour of United players and officials during the brawl at Stamford Bridge on 26 April. It left the club's hierarchy furious that the FA had made an example of them. It is not the usual practice of the FA to publish the full judgement of a hearing; indeed, it has done it only once in the recent past, when Luton Town were disciplined for irregular payments to agents in July.
It is understood that the FA made the content of the ruling – around 8,000 words – freely available on its website from Monday at the behest of the commission's chairman, Nicholas Stewart QC. Stewart was not available for comment yesterday to explain why he had gone to such unusual lengths to disclose the details of a hearing that made serious criticisms of senior figures at United, including the assistant manager Mike Phelan.
The FA recognises that it has made a mistake in the timing of the release of the hearing details – Evra only announced he would not be appealing on Tuesday. It remains to be seen whether Triesman can patch up relations with Gill at a critical time for the governing body. Many of the FA hierarchy are in Japan for a crucial meeting today of Fifa executive committee members who will be central to the success of the 2018 World Cup bid. United's cooperation cannot be taken for granted.
"To go through what they [the FA] have said would take up too much time," Ferguson said. "As I have said before, we are disappointed. I don't think what the FA have done is very clever." It will not have escaped Ferguson's attention that his old friend David Pleat, the former Luton and Tottenham manager, was on the disciplinary commission along with the FA councillors Roy Carter and Barry Bright.
The likes of Carter and Bridge may not be sitting on commissions for much longer as professional clubs begin a push today to purge amateur representatives from those disciplinary bodies.The clubs believe that the sentences handed out to in cases such as Evra are too harsh and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the modern game.
The United manager spoke after his side's 5-3 victory over Gamba Osaka in the semi-final of the Fifa Club World Cup in Yokohama, Japan. It is there in the early hours of this morning that Gill will make his displeasure known to the FA chairman, Lord Triesman, about the governing body's decision to leak the full judgement over the Evra-Chelsea disciplinary hearing. As revealed in The Independent yesterday, the commission's judgement was scathing about the behaviour of United players and officials during the brawl at Stamford Bridge on 26 April. It left the club's hierarchy furious that the FA had made an example of them. It is not the usual practice of the FA to publish the full judgement of a hearing; indeed, it has done it only once in the recent past, when Luton Town were disciplined for irregular payments to agents in July.
It is understood that the FA made the content of the ruling – around 8,000 words – freely available on its website from Monday at the behest of the commission's chairman, Nicholas Stewart QC. Stewart was not available for comment yesterday to explain why he had gone to such unusual lengths to disclose the details of a hearing that made serious criticisms of senior figures at United, including the assistant manager Mike Phelan.
The FA recognises that it has made a mistake in the timing of the release of the hearing details – Evra only announced he would not be appealing on Tuesday. It remains to be seen whether Triesman can patch up relations with Gill at a critical time for the governing body. Many of the FA hierarchy are in Japan for a crucial meeting today of Fifa executive committee members who will be central to the success of the 2018 World Cup bid. United's cooperation cannot be taken for granted.
"To go through what they [the FA] have said would take up too much time," Ferguson said. "As I have said before, we are disappointed. I don't think what the FA have done is very clever." It will not have escaped Ferguson's attention that his old friend David Pleat, the former Luton and Tottenham manager, was on the disciplinary commission along with the FA councillors Roy Carter and Barry Bright.
The likes of Carter and Bridge may not be sitting on commissions for much longer as professional clubs begin a push today to purge amateur representatives from those disciplinary bodies.The clubs believe that the sentences handed out to in cases such as Evra are too harsh and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the modern game.
You don't have to read the full report, this excerpt pretty much sums up everything.
"67. It must be borne in mind that Mr Evra’s proven misconduct on 26 April 2008 involved the following: (1) he was the first person in the whole incident physically to assault another person, when he barged into Mr Griffin; (2) that assault was unprovoked and unjustified (and was nothing to do with anything passing between Mr Evra and Mr Bethell, which came afterwards and was actually triggered off by Mr Evra’s barge on Mr Griffin); (3) Mr Evra then committed a further separate assault by striking Mr Bethell, a member of the Chelsea ground staff; (4) although we have regard to Mr Bethell’s own aggressive and provocative conduct, that does not justify Mr Evra’s action which, although the blow was slight, constituted violent conduct under The FA Rules; (5) Mr Evra then broke away from restraint and deliberately ran back towards Mr Bethell to become involved in his third physical altercation of the overall incident; (6) although Mr Evra was subject to strong provocation by Mr Bethell, that does not justify his action in going back into the fray, especially following the two assaults already committed by him."
So if you aren't retarded or biased beyond any reasonable limit how, after reading this, can you still deny that Evra was not a victim but the main culprit?
"67. It must be borne in mind that Mr Evra’s proven misconduct on 26 April 2008 involved the following: (1) he was the first person in the whole incident physically to assault another person, when he barged into Mr Griffin; (2) that assault was unprovoked and unjustified (and was nothing to do with anything passing between Mr Evra and Mr Bethell, which came afterwards and was actually triggered off by Mr Evra’s barge on Mr Griffin); (3) Mr Evra then committed a further separate assault by striking Mr Bethell, a member of the Chelsea ground staff; (4) although we have regard to Mr Bethell’s own aggressive and provocative conduct, that does not justify Mr Evra’s action which, although the blow was slight, constituted violent conduct under The FA Rules; (5) Mr Evra then broke away from restraint and deliberately ran back towards Mr Bethell to become involved in his third physical altercation of the overall incident; (6) although Mr Evra was subject to strong provocation by Mr Bethell, that does not justify his action in going back into the fray, especially following the two assaults already committed by him."
So if you aren't retarded or biased beyond any reasonable limit how, after reading this, can you still deny that Evra was not a victim but the main culprit?
No one's denying that a lot of the blame for the brawl itself can be apportioned to Evra, you insufferable little muppet. The argument here is that the punishment is far too great for the offence commited, and it's particularly galling as the Chelsea staff also involved have escaped without punishment because they're not players.
A four match ban is ludicrously heavy handed, but a punishment isn't -- Evra did do wrong.
Further, what kind of response did you expect in this thread considering you came crusading in here like some vengeful spirit, calling everyone retards and beating your chest from atop a soapbox? I assume you're still bitter at the complete and utter idiot you were made to look after no money was claimed from United in the end over Obi Mikel, when you'd spent ever so long campaigning as to why your club had a watertight case.
The problem lies not so much in what the FA has claimed what has happened but rather the premis on which these assertions are made, one set of evidence is discounted, whilst another accepted purely based on the assumption of reasonableness of each set of witness'. Would a court of law behave in such a manner? Would a Judge be able to say he seems calm, I'll believe him and discount all other evidence?
I don't argue about the severity of punishment, I could care less if Evra was just fined without missing any games, all I said was ,he is guilty and so is your club, so people should stop hiding behind this "FA conspiracy" nonsense because it's pathetic. When I felt Chelsea acted wrongly or played poorly on more than a few occasions in the past I didn't look for excuses and admitted as much on this very forum. I don't blame the ref, or the FA, or Platini or whatever new scapegoat comes along. Sometimes you just have to face the facts and admit that your club/players/manager were wrong and be done with it.
OK, it was wrong and not politically correct to call some posters here retards so I apologize, from now on I'll use the term "intellectually disabled".
Mental illness alert.
I've never seen a poster wind himself up more than Aunty.
It is worse than DJS (before he vanished when we won the Double)
I've never seen a poster wind himself up more than Aunty.
It is worse than DJS (before he vanished when we won the Double)
To be fair, you think we were "guilty" of victimising your innocent club in the Mikel saga and promised us our day of reckoning was upon us.
You don't exactly have the best record of even remotely making sense.
you know that description suits you to a tee - OK I¨m sorry that is too harsh
you´re a retard
Well then it's a bit frigging stupid having a go at the people on here, since that is exactly what it is they've been complaining about, you tit.
You're having a go at a load of people for apparently disagreeing with you - and you've now admitted that in fact all those people were talking about something completely different, which you have entirely discounted.
This may have escaped your notice, but this makes no sense, and renders everything you have said in this thread utterly pointless.
What a fecking spaz.
Don't insult spazzes.
Have you noticed that it's always you who reacts to my posts and not the other way around? Probably because I'm not, and never was, interested in your opinion.
Your posts in general are lame and full of unintelligible crap and laughable attempts at humor that apart from you no one considers even remotely witty.You're an attention seeking whore who has a very high opinion of himself and hates the most when others ignore him.
That's what I'll do from now on. Let's see how long will it take before you start replying again.
The quotes below are from a few posts,all in full, written before my response.
Read and tell me where did any of those posts mention that their argument was purely about Evra's punishment and not whether he's guilty or not.
Meltdown in progress I see.
Jason, do let us know when he explodes.
Jason, do let us know when he explodes.
The Intellectually Disabled crusade continues.Do you notice how none of those posts claim Evra to be innocent, just that the FA dealt with the matter poorly? You've just proved us all right, cheers.