Jump to content


offside

Members
  • Content Count

    1,273
  • Donations

    £10.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About offside

  • Rank
    First Team Squad

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

2,174 profile views
  1. Looking beyond this specific game. Could it be that the FA is encouraging referees to act like this? Don't send off players in high attention games in order to create spectacle, make it entertaining. If a player's leg snaps in the process, that just contributes to the spectacle. Clattenburg got the FA Cup job a few weeks later.
  2. It's not the referee's job to create theatre. It's the referee's job to officiate by the rules of the game. If that reduces the spectacle, so be it.
  3. Imagine if due to his "game plan" (his words) Spurs went on to win the title. It's not okay to be blamed for Spurs losing the title, yet it would have been okay to be blamed for Leicester losing it?
  4. Looked fantastic again today against Manchester United. What a beast.
  5. Yes, Bradley went with the angels at 13:35 today. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39883344
  6. Ryan Mason's first interview since the injury. It's an absolutely harrowing read. He said Cech has been a big help to him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4500974/Ryan-Mason-like-bomb-going-head.html
  7. Zouma's reaction to Matic's wonder goal was so adorable!!
  8. Nice article on Cesar https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/mar/31/cesar-azpilicueta-linked-barcelona-loved-chelsea I have a huge crush on the guy. Handsome, dedicated, talented, hard working, well mannered, loyal There is no one I'd leave my husband for...I think.
  9. There's a thread on redcafe citing an article saying that Roman's relationship with Conte isn't great. The article doesn't seem to have much meat to it thankfully. http://www.redcafe.net/threads/sportwitness-conte-and-abramovich-relationship-is-strained.427587/
  10. Apparently Buffon interrupted a half time talk by asking about the players' bonus, and Conte went ballistic on him. I can't see any managers responding well to that, and it was dickish on Buffon's part regardless of the fact that they had already won the league. Half time talks are no place to ask about monetary bonuses. That makes a lot of sense. I sure hope you're right.
  11. If Costa is even considering a move to China, then I'm disappointed, surprised, and disgusted. Perhaps I'm naive. I genuinely thought Costa is someone who plays with passion for the game, not someone who would bugger off to a meaningless league purely for the money. Seriously, what could he buy with a higher salary that can't can't afford on his current salary? This is heartbreaking if true even if it doesn't come to fruition.
  12. WTF, there are companies that sell insurance for the possibility that a youth coach sexually abused players?!
  13. ^^ Well said, Backbiter. If the club investigated and concluded that it happened, there's nothing they could do for this particular case because the abuser had died. I believe, however, that they had the moral duty to enact measures to prevent such a recurrence, if those measures were not already in place. Examples of such measures are running background checks on employees, providing a way for employees to confidentially report a co-worker if they witness abuse, etc.
  14. This is what the Telegraph said: The alleged victim was paid off after threatening to go public with claims he was sexually assaulted in the 1970s by Eddie Heath, Chelsea’s influential chief scout for more than a decade. The payment, made in the past three years, was agreed on condition that the victim, his family and lawyers were banned from talking about the alleged abuse. The confidentiality agreement is so stringent, the parties involved in the case are not even allowed to acknowledge its existence. But after being approached by The Telegraph, which first disclosed that a payment had been made by a Premier League side, Chelsea issued a statement on Tuesday night confirming it had “retained” an outside law firm to carry out a full investigation concerning an individual employed by the club in the 1970s, who is now deceased. The club, owned by the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, did not deny the claim that they had paid Heath’s accuser and settled the case. It is not known at what level the payment was authorised. The Telegraph has learnt that the victim took his allegation to Chelsea about three years ago, emboldened by the publicity over the unmasking of Jimmy Savile as a serial paedophile. He had also taken his complaint to the Metropolitan Police. It is understood the club initially rebuffed the claim, but decided to make a payment when the victim threatened to make the allegations public. It is understood the club did not accept liability. Heath, who had died before the allegation was made and was therefore unable to defend himself, was Chelsea’s chief scout from 1968 to 1979 and discovered some of the club’s greatest players, including Ray Wilkins. A source has told The Telegraph: “He [the alleged victim] thought there were more [victims] but it was never publicised and the case settled. These were very serious offences.” In an official statement published on Chelsea’s website on Tuesday night, the club said: “Chelsea Football Club has retained an external law firm to carry out an investigation concerning an individual employed by the club in the 1970s, who is now deceased. The club has also contacted the FA to ensure that all possible assistance is provided as part of their wider investigation. This will include providing the FA with any relevant information arising out of the club’s investigation. “While the club’s investigation is ongoing, we will make no further comment on this matter.” The Telegraph is not aware of any evidence corroborating the claim made against Heath by his accuser, although rumours of the chief scout’s alleged behaviour had been circulating among some of Chelsea’s former players. A lot is unknown, and I don't think we should read too much into the Telegraph's choice of words. For example, when they talk about the alleged victim threatening to go public, we shouldn't conclude that this means he approached the club and was like, "Pay me or else I'll drag your name through the mud". Of course it could have meant that, but it also could have meant that the he told the club, the club said we don't care, then he said okay I'll tell the press and that will force you to investigate, and the club were like no no we believe you, take this money and shut up. We simply don't know, and the Telegraph probably doesn't either. I'm particularly curious about the role of the Metropolitan Police and what they did/didn't do.
  15. I won't jump to any conclusions. As we all know, plenty of false, misleading, and/or incomplete information gets disseminated. However, I'm worried that the club has not denied paying hush money. The club has a lot of questions to answer. I hope they know that by staying silent (except when confidentiality is legally or ethically required), it looks worse for them and is a disservice to efforts to combat sexual abuse in football. According to the Telegraph, the alleged victim also contacted the police. They have a lot to answer too. I'm confident the details will come out. Presumably - perhaps this is a false presumption - the club investigated the claim. That means many people would have been interviewed or otherwise known about the investigation. Someone will say something.

×
×
  • Create New...