Dicko
Paul Stalteri
But still more than probably all occurences of racial chanting fines from the last few years added together!
-
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
JT - Captain. Leader. Legend. Qunt
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
But still more than probably all occurences of racial chanting fines from the last few years added together!
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
Exactly. People can't see past their hatred for him and refuse to accept that he plays great against us, bar a couple of shockers in recent years.
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
We certainly didn't get to him last season.
Gordinho
Banned
It's not, it's disgraceful, a private company should not be allowed to levy fines at all, let alone of this magnitude. I'll repeat myself once more, in a game awash with money fines do nothing, only sanctions such as bans or public payback have any affect. A fine has the affect of buying the FA's right to legitimise your behaviour.
jts1882
Dean Richards
A good point.
The criminal system doesn't allow income related fines. A billionaire gets the same fine as the homeless guy.
Bans and points deductions is the only serious sanction. I'd start with a big points deduction for Chelsea and banning them from the CL for relegation (if that's not the rule, it is in this scenario). After appropriate compensation (again not fines, we'll accept Hazard and Oscar), we'll take their place in the CL
Crawley
Board Legend
milo
Jack L. Jones
There was a letter to Football365 the other week suggesting that all Premier League footballers and managers should be made to qualify as referees and that when they serve a ban they should be made to serve it refereeing non-league games. Completely unworkable but I like the idea.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
If you believe the stories that were circulated in the press recently, he has no money, he alledgedy has mortgaged his house 3 or 4 times in the past few years, is basically skint
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
if that's true, what a complete tool, how can you earn 150k a week and not have any money?! I actually have no idea how that is possible, if he's over stretched himself on buying property then sell a house FFS, that's 1m in the sky rocket right there ! If it's gambling debts, then don't gamble for a month or so and pay off what you owe, can't imagine it would be more than a mill. Just doesn't make sense that you can earn that much and still be in money trouble.
brilliant idea
Ganter
Erik Edman
dont know about Terry but the word from the Gudjohnsen camp a few years ago was that Lampard was a HUGE gambler, would not surprise me that Terry would be too...
Ginola99
Steven Caulker
As someone that has worked with players in the recent past believe me Terry is not skint. Like you said, do the maths, it is practically impossible..
There are several big name players that have more or less bankrupted themselves with poor investments (Friedel, Riise off the top of my head) or just waste their money (Diouf and Chimbonda spring to mind).
Ginola99
Steven Caulker
Yes but you will notice a theme with the players that have.. They are not British nationals and they don't intend to stay here past retirement. Just because they are bankrupt in this country doesn't mean they haven't moved their money abroad and still very wealthy in their home country. Sometimes it is also reported they have become bankrupt when it is actually their ltd company that has gone into voluntary liquidation, very different..
Talking of Chimbonda I hear that he has settled in the Chigwell area and looking for a club.. Not suggesting he will sign for us but that is the truth..
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
Written by Rob Beasley must have hurt to write as he is a CFC fan...
CHELSEA today stand accused of blatant hypocrisy and posturing in football’s fight to kick out racism.
The club made a mockery of their boast of a “zero tolerance” approach by only fining John Terry for his racial rant at Anton Ferdinand.
Terry will not even be stripped of the captaincy — despite putting Chelsea in the middle of a racist storm for almost a year.
The slap-on-wrist approach is in stark contrast to the life ban the club handed to fan Stephen Fitzwater, who racially abused former Blues star Didier Drogba.
At the time of Fitzwater’s punishment, a Stamford Bridge spokesman said: “Chelsea and the majority of our fans abhor all forms of discrimination. They have no place in our club or our communities.”
It was a more tempered statement yesterday as they only announced Terry had been subject to “disciplinary action” for abusing Ferdinand at QPR last year.
The Chelsea star decided NOT to appeal against his four-game FA ban and £220,000 fine, and apologised having been captured on camera mouthing offensive words in his angry clash with defender Ferdinand.
But instead of following their own example, the SW6 side responded by saying it “appreciates and supports John’s full apology for the language he used — such language is not acceptable and fell below the standards expected of John as a Chelsea player”.
And that response clearly falls well below the high ideals of the club’s much-vaunted mission statement on its attitude to racism.
That statement reads: “Chelsea Football Club practises a zero tolerance policy towards racism at Stamford Bridge and takes a leading role in all the anti-racist campaigns.
The European champions are so committed to stamping out racism that last year they threatened supporters with the severest of consequences if they were caught racially abusing players and fans of London rivals Tottenham.
Superstar midfielder Frank Lampard even made a short film to plead with supporters to stop the racist chanting that has long marred clashes between the two teams.
And Chelsea backed that up, saying: “We have and always will take the strongest actions against anyone found making any kind of discriminatory chant or taunt.”
But those defiant words will now be held up to ridicule — a day before Chelsea travel to White Hart Lane to face Spurs in this weekend’s big Premier League clash.
Fans get banned for life, players escape with a fine and a reprimand.
Chelsea’s explanation is that Fitzwater was found guilty “beyond all reasonable doubt” in a criminal prosecution while Terry was not.
The former England captain was cleared of criminal charges at Westminster Magistrates Court.
Chelsea stress that it was an independent FA Commission that found him guilty of charges, not a court of law.
And the club took Terry’s long and loyal service into consideration when deciding how to deal with their captain.
No one would say any of that on the record last night, though, so boss Robbie Di Matteo will now be confronted with some searching questions at his pre-match Press conference at Chelsea’s training ground this lunchtime.
CHELSEA today stand accused of blatant hypocrisy and posturing in football’s fight to kick out racism.
The club made a mockery of their boast of a “zero tolerance” approach by only fining John Terry for his racial rant at Anton Ferdinand.
Terry will not even be stripped of the captaincy — despite putting Chelsea in the middle of a racist storm for almost a year.
The slap-on-wrist approach is in stark contrast to the life ban the club handed to fan Stephen Fitzwater, who racially abused former Blues star Didier Drogba.
At the time of Fitzwater’s punishment, a Stamford Bridge spokesman said: “Chelsea and the majority of our fans abhor all forms of discrimination. They have no place in our club or our communities.”
It was a more tempered statement yesterday as they only announced Terry had been subject to “disciplinary action” for abusing Ferdinand at QPR last year.
The Chelsea star decided NOT to appeal against his four-game FA ban and £220,000 fine, and apologised having been captured on camera mouthing offensive words in his angry clash with defender Ferdinand.
But instead of following their own example, the SW6 side responded by saying it “appreciates and supports John’s full apology for the language he used — such language is not acceptable and fell below the standards expected of John as a Chelsea player”.
And that response clearly falls well below the high ideals of the club’s much-vaunted mission statement on its attitude to racism.
That statement reads: “Chelsea Football Club practises a zero tolerance policy towards racism at Stamford Bridge and takes a leading role in all the anti-racist campaigns.
The European champions are so committed to stamping out racism that last year they threatened supporters with the severest of consequences if they were caught racially abusing players and fans of London rivals Tottenham.
Superstar midfielder Frank Lampard even made a short film to plead with supporters to stop the racist chanting that has long marred clashes between the two teams.
And Chelsea backed that up, saying: “We have and always will take the strongest actions against anyone found making any kind of discriminatory chant or taunt.”
But those defiant words will now be held up to ridicule — a day before Chelsea travel to White Hart Lane to face Spurs in this weekend’s big Premier League clash.
Fans get banned for life, players escape with a fine and a reprimand.
Chelsea’s explanation is that Fitzwater was found guilty “beyond all reasonable doubt” in a criminal prosecution while Terry was not.
The former England captain was cleared of criminal charges at Westminster Magistrates Court.
Chelsea stress that it was an independent FA Commission that found him guilty of charges, not a court of law.
And the club took Terry’s long and loyal service into consideration when deciding how to deal with their captain.
No one would say any of that on the record last night, though, so boss Robbie Di Matteo will now be confronted with some searching questions at his pre-match Press conference at Chelsea’s training ground this lunchtime.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
SO when it came to it, Chelsea chickened out.
They had a wonderful chance to set new standards when it came to race issues by stripping John Terry of the club captaincy.
But, of course, they declined to set any sort of example at all.
Instead, they came out with the following weasel words: “The club will be taking further action in addition to the four-match suspension and £220,000 fine.
“In accordance with our long-standing policy that disciplinary action will remain confidential.”
What a cop-out.
What a dereliction of duty.
The whole effectiveness of any punishment is that it is made public.
That the transgressor is seen to have been dealt with. It is also a means of discovering whether the people running the club and making these decisions — people effectively employed by the fans — are doing their job properly.
Now, no one knows.
We will just have to take their word for it. I doubt whether I am the only one to suspect that, in fact, NO further action has been taken at all.
That Chelsea might just be making it all up.
That Teflon Tel has once again got away with it.
Yet are we surprised by any of this? Are we hell! For the very good reason that clubs in the main do not tend to take the lead on moral issues when it adversely affects them.
Yes, they strike poses and bang on about ‘Kick It Out’ and all the other hot discriminatory issues of the day.
And they are more than ready to hammer the fans — like the one banned for life after abusing Didier Drogba.
Then there were the racist chants from a group of Chelsea fans on the way back from Norwich.
And the investigation into claims that Daniel Sturridge was subjected to monkey taunts from other Chelsea supporters during a game against Genk in Belgium.
At the time, Chelsea issued a statement saying how they abhored such behaviour and how they would apply the strictest punishment to anyone found guilty of it.
Except their own players, of course.
The ones who should be setting the real example.
When it comes to them, the club either fudge the issue or sweep it under the Axminster because the game’s stars are far too important to be treated like normal human beings.
Just look at the way Liverpool — relinquishing all responsibility — defended Luis Suarez.
Did we really believe that Chelsea would come crashing down on their captain when club secretary Dave Barnard was, like Terry, effectively called a liar by the FA’s independent panel?
Barnard’s evidence was described as “materially defective” with panel chairman Craig Moore voicing “very real concerns about the accuracy of Mr Barnard’s recollections”.
Yesterday, Terry announced he would not be appealing against the four-game ban imposed by the independent panel after he was found guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand. Thank GHod for that.
At least we have been spared the Premier League-induced ordeal of the will-he-won’t-he handshake between Terry and Rio Ferdinand next weekend at Stamford Bridge.
As for the Ferdinands, neither came out of the whole thing particularly well, either.
Terry also admitted that his language was not acceptable and that his whole response was below the level expected of Chelsea FC.
Now if Chelsea were really serious about combating racism — rather than just paying lip-service to it — they would replace Terry as skipper.
They would know that his position was untenable. Especially in this of all weeks when the subject raised its ugly head once more in Serbia.
Whenever we criticise other countries for the way their supporters behave when it comes to racial issues, they can always reply that we are fine ones to talk when one former England skipper has been found guilty of the very same crimes by a panel representing his country’s own governing body.
Pot, kettle, etc.
Yes, of course, Terry was cleared in July by West London magistrates.
But we have long known the law to be an ass. And we have long known courts of law to be fallible.
Far better and safer to trust to human instinct.
And so we arrived at the state of play where the independent panel described Terry’s defence as “improbable, implausible and contrived”.
Which is probably in line with the thinking of every football fan outside Stamford Bridge — and quite a few inside as well.
JT obviously didn’t help himself with his volte-face after being caught with his hand in the till in Barcelona last season.
On that night he told TV he “never touched the player” after being sent off in the Champions League semi-final.
When TV replays showed he most certainly had, he changed his tune.
As far as the independent FA panel are concerned, Terry is guilty as charged.
This obviously left Chelsea in an embarrassing position.
But not so embarrassing that they took the right action and stood down Terry as skipper.
That would be like punishing themselves. And they most certainly couldn’t do that!
They had a wonderful chance to set new standards when it came to race issues by stripping John Terry of the club captaincy.
But, of course, they declined to set any sort of example at all.
Instead, they came out with the following weasel words: “The club will be taking further action in addition to the four-match suspension and £220,000 fine.
“In accordance with our long-standing policy that disciplinary action will remain confidential.”
What a cop-out.
What a dereliction of duty.
The whole effectiveness of any punishment is that it is made public.
That the transgressor is seen to have been dealt with. It is also a means of discovering whether the people running the club and making these decisions — people effectively employed by the fans — are doing their job properly.
Now, no one knows.
We will just have to take their word for it. I doubt whether I am the only one to suspect that, in fact, NO further action has been taken at all.
That Chelsea might just be making it all up.
That Teflon Tel has once again got away with it.
Yet are we surprised by any of this? Are we hell! For the very good reason that clubs in the main do not tend to take the lead on moral issues when it adversely affects them.
Yes, they strike poses and bang on about ‘Kick It Out’ and all the other hot discriminatory issues of the day.
And they are more than ready to hammer the fans — like the one banned for life after abusing Didier Drogba.
Then there were the racist chants from a group of Chelsea fans on the way back from Norwich.
And the investigation into claims that Daniel Sturridge was subjected to monkey taunts from other Chelsea supporters during a game against Genk in Belgium.
At the time, Chelsea issued a statement saying how they abhored such behaviour and how they would apply the strictest punishment to anyone found guilty of it.
Except their own players, of course.
The ones who should be setting the real example.
When it comes to them, the club either fudge the issue or sweep it under the Axminster because the game’s stars are far too important to be treated like normal human beings.
Just look at the way Liverpool — relinquishing all responsibility — defended Luis Suarez.
Did we really believe that Chelsea would come crashing down on their captain when club secretary Dave Barnard was, like Terry, effectively called a liar by the FA’s independent panel?
Barnard’s evidence was described as “materially defective” with panel chairman Craig Moore voicing “very real concerns about the accuracy of Mr Barnard’s recollections”.
Yesterday, Terry announced he would not be appealing against the four-game ban imposed by the independent panel after he was found guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand. Thank GHod for that.
At least we have been spared the Premier League-induced ordeal of the will-he-won’t-he handshake between Terry and Rio Ferdinand next weekend at Stamford Bridge.
As for the Ferdinands, neither came out of the whole thing particularly well, either.
Terry also admitted that his language was not acceptable and that his whole response was below the level expected of Chelsea FC.
Now if Chelsea were really serious about combating racism — rather than just paying lip-service to it — they would replace Terry as skipper.
They would know that his position was untenable. Especially in this of all weeks when the subject raised its ugly head once more in Serbia.
Whenever we criticise other countries for the way their supporters behave when it comes to racial issues, they can always reply that we are fine ones to talk when one former England skipper has been found guilty of the very same crimes by a panel representing his country’s own governing body.
Pot, kettle, etc.
Yes, of course, Terry was cleared in July by West London magistrates.
But we have long known the law to be an ass. And we have long known courts of law to be fallible.
Far better and safer to trust to human instinct.
And so we arrived at the state of play where the independent panel described Terry’s defence as “improbable, implausible and contrived”.
Which is probably in line with the thinking of every football fan outside Stamford Bridge — and quite a few inside as well.
JT obviously didn’t help himself with his volte-face after being caught with his hand in the till in Barcelona last season.
On that night he told TV he “never touched the player” after being sent off in the Champions League semi-final.
When TV replays showed he most certainly had, he changed his tune.
As far as the independent FA panel are concerned, Terry is guilty as charged.
This obviously left Chelsea in an embarrassing position.
But not so embarrassing that they took the right action and stood down Terry as skipper.
That would be like punishing themselves. And they most certainly couldn’t do that!
jts1882
Dean Richards
So Chelsea's official position is that its acceptable to be captained by someone who is probably a racist, but not by one who is beyond reasonable doubt a racist.
However, if they are concerned about the standard of proof, why have they fined him? Terry has been punished by the FA but they are keeping him as captain because they have an issue with the standard of proof. If that is there position, what justification for a fine?
However, if they are concerned about the standard of proof, why have they fined him? Terry has been punished by the FA but they are keeping him as captain because they have an issue with the standard of proof. If that is there position, what justification for a fine?