Referees may boycott Chelsea games...

1999united2008

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
2,258
Location
England
http://www1.skysports.com/football/...Mark-Clattenburg-row-pushes-referees-to-brink

Referees are considering a boycott of Chelsea games in support of Mark Clattenburg, according to one former Premier League official.

Clattenburg is the subject of Football Association and Metropolitan Police investigations after Chelsea alleged he made a racist comment to John Obi Mikel during Sunday's game against Manchester United.

The Gosforth official has the backing of his union and employers, while United boss Sir Alex Ferguson has also come out in support.

And ex-referee Clive Wilkes told The Sun: "I keep in touch with a lot of the lads and there is such a strength of feeling about what is happening to Mark.

"I keep in touch with a lot of the lads and there is such a strength of feeling about what is happening to Mark. I know a few referees who are even talking about boycotting Chelsea games because of all this.
"
Clive Wilkes
Quotes of the week
"I know a few referees who are even talking about boycotting Chelsea games because of all this.

"It's no exaggeration to say the refs in this country have never felt lower. They are so disillusioned. They feel vulnerable, feel that they are getting no backing.

"They want to speak out themselves but are too frightened, they fear they will be sacked if they go public with their grievances. There have even been murmurings about strike action, but that is very much a last resort."
 

Redlambs

Creator of the Caftards comics
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
42,176
Location
Officially the best poker player on RAWK.
Won't happen.

It would be good to see them boycott Chelsea for a game in protest at their continued shit behaviour, if Clattenburg is innocent of course, but I just can't see it regardless of what happens.
 

Justin

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2004
Messages
27,290
Nah, don't boycott them. Just send a rentboy off at the first opportunity.
 

Crustanoid

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
18,511
Compelling piece from the Independent which centres on Chelsea (an open letter to Abramovich):

Dear Roman,

Forgive the impertinence but with all the bodyguards and that expression of yours, which mostly suggests that on balance you would rather be somewhere else, even a Siberian snowdrift, a noting of some quite pressing concerns is probably the best and certainly the safest idea.

The heaviest worry is not that you are powerless to prevent your football club becoming the leading representative of all that is cheap and despicable in English football, but that there is growing evidence that you don't really give a damn.

This is certainly inherent in the most important football question anyone might put to you.

It asks how it is that, when wanting to buy some ravishing piece of modern art or seal up another large slice of the world's most valuable mineral resources, or slug it out in a London courtroom with a rival oligarch, the best, most expensive advice is so quickly sought but then, when it comes to the image of Chelsea, you seem quite content with a command team contending ever more fiercely for the title of the Doomsday Boys.

Now I know the chairman of Chelsea, the New Yorker Bruce M Buck, was a brilliant go-to man in the intricate matter of the "cross-border" financing which has made you one of the world's richest men and was instrumental in your taking possession of the dear old football club.

I also know the chief executive, Ron Gourlay, was once a big number in the selling of Umbro sports gear and that, before he became club secretary, David Barnard had 30 years of football experience, including stints at Fulham, Colchester and Wimbledon.

But it isn't really working out, at least not in the way of serenely occupying the peak of European football, is it, Roman?

You may own the Champions League title, that prize you craved so long, but does that really compensate for an aura that on the open market would scarcely invite the bid of a plugged kopek? Maybe it does, in which case there is still another cause for anxiety.

The big mystery, in the wake of the latest stinging criticism launched at your club's conduct by such heavyweights as Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsène Wenger, concerns the astonishing survival rate of your top administrators.

It is not as though you preside over an organisation famous for any reluctance to lop off the most distinguished of football heads. A few bad results and the most substantial of coaches have been regularly turned into a dead man walking, but then how many public relations disasters constitute a reason for job insecurity in the rest of the building? It is getting hard to keep count.

The list of football victims, when you relate them to casualties elsewhere, is quite astonishing when you think about it.

The European and world titles of Jose Mourinho, Carlos Ancelotti and Big Phil Scolari, didn't count for much when it was deemed their time to go. Yet elsewhere within Stamford Bridge we have to wonder what quite might disturb the sea of tranquillity.

Poor young Andre Villas-Boas's carefully negotiated "project" didn't last one ill-conceived season but in the executive offices it seems that own goals can be scored with near impunity.

Manchester City, the club most closely linked with yours in the public mind, also had a powerful chief executive apparently insulated against the ebb and flow of events on and around the field, but when Garry Cook fired off an ill-advised email he was quickly shown the door.

Does this mean that Sheikh Mansour expects more of his top administrators, is more jealous of his club's image across the game, than you?

It's an unlikely idea when we remember how much investment you have made, and how vastly greater your attendance record is than that of the sheikh, but what else can we assume as Chelsea slip ever further into a fortress mentality – and a fortress of what?

It is, Roman, one that appears to be filled with absolute indifference to the concept of cause and effect.

Your club says it will track down and ban characters like the one who won applause on the terraces for the monkey gesture directed at United's Danny Welbeck, and it puts at risk the career of a brilliant young referee on evidence that looks to be hair-raisingly thin, while at the same time refusing even to question the status of John Terry, the hero captain currently serving a ban for racist abuse.

If you see the point of the criticism, Roman, we do not have a shred of evidence of your concern and this, maybe, is how you like it because, the more time wears on, the more you look so impassively at the tide of events which includes severe criticism of how the club secretary – we assume with approval from above – assembled evidence in the Terry case, the larger is the sense of someone responding only to his own imperatives.

You might just care to put us right but the overwhelming impression is of someone who has reason to believe he can buy anything he deems important.

But what of the rest, what of that quaint old urge to win respect as well as silver, to establish a good name not only for your wealth and your power but also your instincts?

I shall not be rushing to check my post, but you really need to start producing an answer or two if any of this is worth more than one those plastic bath toys you made in a Moscow apartment when all your wealth was still to be won. The truth is that even if Chelsea are champions of Europe, they still too often have the look of a decidedly ugly and ultimately worthless duckling.

Yours in sport,

James Lawton
 

Cheesy

Bread with dipping sauce
Scout
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
36,181
If this is serious, then they're better leaving any decision until a verdict has been reached. Chelsea's handling off it all hasn't been all too impressive so far and if he's found innocent then they have a case for doing so.
 

iSparky

Likes Dags. but not as much as his Dad
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
51,511
Would be hilarious, but will never happen.
 

Ryan's Beard

Probably doesn't have a career as a comedian
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
5,057
Location
Sunny Manchester
With no ref at the Bridge Chelsea would be able to do whatever they want and not get any cautions? Sounds like a return to normality then.
 

acrebo

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
3,875
Location
Exeter
Compelling piece from the Independent which centres on Chelsea (an open letter to Abramovich):
It's this paragraph that gets to the crux of the issue in my opinion:

Your club says it will track down and ban characters like the one who won applause on the terraces for the monkey gesture directed at United's Danny Welbeck, and it puts at risk the career of a brilliant young referee on evidence that looks to be hair-raisingly thin, while at the same time refusing even to question the status of John Terry, the hero captain currently serving a ban for racist abuse.
 

Eboue

nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
61,071
Location
I'm typing this with my Glock 19 two feet from me
That's not the same thing. The NBA and NFL officials were striking for better wages, full-time status, being able to keep their pensions intact etc. Not because they were vilified by the Cowboys or Lakers.
 

Canuckred64

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
3,629
Location
Canada
They will wait until the FA makes a decision on the case If it is shown that Chelsea has made the whole thing up and the FA just slaps them on the wrist, the refs may get involved in some type of job action. Especially since there are rumours that they are really upset by the accusations and want some sort of sanctions on Chelsea.

I can't see them actually boycotting Chelsea's matches, even just one match would be a long shot. Perhaps they will refuse to come out of their dressing rooms for 10 or 15 minutes in an attempt to send a message.
 

TuTuHimm

Can definitely write definitely correctly
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
2,844
Location
Probably
I think it'll linger in referees mind for a long time, which is quite worrying for Chelsea. I think referees are very vulnerable in todays game and I think the only solution is more technology, assisting them getting the decisions right.
 

Antisocial

Has a Sony home cinema
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
15,612
I saw RdM complementing today's referee to high heaven on SSN, then I had a look at the weekend thread in this forum only to see post after post calling Friend out for reffing the game whilst wearing a Chelsea shirt :rolleyes:
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
14,721
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
That's not the same thing. The NBA and NFL officials were striking for better wages, full-time status, being able to keep their pensions intact etc. Not because they were vilified by the Cowboys or Lakers.
It's called working conditions. People strike over it.

If they feel that Chelsea have made their working environment toxic, they are entitled to strike- but I don't see what good it will do. They will just be seen as not taking the allegation seriously, or worse.

It is extremely difficult to prove that Chelsea are acting maliciously.
 

Sw33t

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
10,766
I hope they boycott the feck outta it. But they wont. And I wouldn't really expect them too.

I just hope the enquiry hurries up, Clattenburg is found innocent, and Chelsea are disgraced that little bit more.
 

Liam147

On Probation
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
16,714
Location
Not a complete cock, just really young.
I'm on the same side as pretty much everyone else here - it'd be hilarious, but it'll never happen. Perhaps Chelsea could start offering referees the same respect everyone else does, instead of being so high and mighty and feeling they're owed some sort of special treatment.

I know United's players used to crowd round refs, but at least that stopped when the Respect campaign was introduced. Chelsea (fans) have forced two referees into retirement ffs!
 

Eboue

nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
61,071
Location
I'm typing this with my Glock 19 two feet from me
It's called working conditions. People strike over it.

If they feel that Chelsea have made their working environment toxic, they are entitled to strike- but I don't see what good it will do. They will just be seen as not taking the allegation seriously, or worse.

It is extremely difficult to prove that Chelsea are acting maliciously.

Stop being so pedantic. I know why they were striking and I support them in doing so. All I was saying is that striking over pensions is different than striking over one team that has made untrue accusations.