Gary Nev is a closet Chelsea fan.

To be fair to Collymore, he's got more experience of having charges dropped than most.

f**k me I love Gary Neville. Seriously. 

 

He's actually been brilliant since he became a pundit. It's been very wierd.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Kentonio

Diego Costa won't get away with this, they will use that whole "on the balance of probabilities" sh*te excuse that they used on John Terry.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Scott Harris

Collymore absolutely slandering Costa. f**king stupid little wife beating dogging fat c**t

Diego Costa won't get away with this, they will use that whole "on the balance of probabilities" sh*te excuse that they used on John Terry.

 

They will and it will piss me off again. And I'll start throwing things. I may even kick out at my dog....Is that what you want FA? You want me to try to kick my dog? Assholes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I'm not actually gonna kick my dog. I love my dog. 

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by SeanWB

 

Not heard this for a while, seems like a good time 

If anyone needs to fling abuse, go on Collymore's twitter.

Stan Collymore @StanCollymore · 19m19 minutes ago

Interesting the only people suggesting Costa doesn’t deserve a ban are 12 year Chelsea fans in Lagos. But don’t let facts get in the way.

 

Desperate c**t.

So he is calling Neville and Lineker 12 year old Chelsea fans?

Diego Costa the Elephant Man.

 

It is a thread named on RAWK. Oh my god they're such pathetic and desperate c**ts.

 

Start an alternative thread titled: Martin Skrtel - Orc from Lord of The Rings

 

Lol, this coming from a man who assaulted a woman, winging about a possible stamp and mocking our fans, he is an ex bin dipper I guess. Stan is possibly the most unprofessional pundit that there has ever been.

Stan Collymore @StanCollymore · 19m19 minutes ago

Interesting the only people suggesting Costa doesn’t deserve a ban are 12 year Chelsea fans in Lagos. But don’t let facts get in the way.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Floyd25

Lol, this coming from a man who assaulted a woman, winging about a possible stamp and mocking our fans, he is an ex bin dipper I guess. Stan is possibly the most unprofessional pundit that there has ever been.

You forgot dogging.

Because it fit in with the existing narrative of us diving because we had 2 players booked for it and one who should've received a second for it a week before.

 

 

He's got a point but I think Costa's reputation will go against him. 

 

 

You also have to look at The Guardian's readership and it does appeal to what they like to read,

I really don't think there is that much between Davey's (and many others') points that the media (to be precise, certain sections thereof) have an agenda against us and stick the boot in at every opportunity, and your counter-argument that the way they cover us is down to 'the media narrative'.

In practice, it amounts to the same thing. They highlight any wrongdoings by our players/ manager in a way that is disproportionate to the way the highlight others.

So Skrtel's elbow to the head on Costa in the first leg, which should have earned him a red/ a ban based on video evidence, gets ZERO interest from Sky and the press. Costa's treading on Can sees the entire media go mental. This is because it 'suits their narrative'. Which means the coverage is grotesquely distorted and leads to unequal treatment of apparent instances of misconduct, with one getting away scot-free and our player facing a charge and likely ban at a crucial stage in the season.

 

And a supposed dive by Ivanovic against West Ham is scrutinised over and over, linked to previous instances, due to the media 'narrative' that Chelsea are a team of divers, and a couple of days later we are denied a cast iron, potentially match-winning penalty because the ref sees a dive when there isn't one. And yet the same scrutiny is not applied to a West Ham player after committing a blatant dive in the same game, because the media narrative is that their players do not warrant the same scrutiny as ours. 

 

And racist abuse by a Liverpool player - coupled with that club's incredibly ill-advised closing of ranks in support of that player - does not merit an editorial demanding his sacking when found guilty. Yet our player's conviction of a lesser offence (not multiple racist taunting of which Suarez was found guilty) - shortly after being cleared in court - sees a national newspaper demand our captain's dismissal from the club. This is because the paper's narrative is to give its readers what they want to read, which is to attack our players in ways they do not attack other clubs' players.

 

But this is not bias or evidence of any agenda, apparently. It's a media narrative, which is not the same thing at all.

That's right, he's a class act.

You forgot dogging.

I really don't think there is that much between Davey's (and many others') points that the media (to be precise, certain sections thereof) have an agenda against us and stick the boot in at every opportunity, and your counter-argument that the way they cover us is down to 'the media narrative'.

In practice, it amounts to the same thing. They highlight any wrongdoings by our players/ manager in a way that is disproportionate to the way the highlight others.

So Skrtel's elbow to the head on Costa in the first leg, which should have earned him a red/ a ban based on video evidence, gets ZERO interest from Sky and the press. Costa's treading on Can sees the entire media go mental. This is because it 'suits their narrative'. Which means the coverage is grotesquely distorted and leads to unequal treatment of apparent instances of misconduct, with one getting away scot-free and our player facing a charge and likely ban at a crucial stage in the season.

And a supposed dive by Ivanovic against West Ham is scrutinised over and over, linked to previous instances, due to the media 'narrative' that Chelsea are a team of divers, and a couple of days later we are denied a cast iron, potentially match-winning penalty because the ref sees a dive when there isn't one. And yet the same scrutiny is not applied to a West Ham player after committing a blatant dive in the same game, because the media narrative is that their players do not warrant the same scrutiny as ours.

And racist abuse by a Liverpool player - coupled with that club's incredibly ill-advised closing of ranks in support of that player - does not merit an editorial demanding his sacking when found guilty. Yet our player's conviction of a lesser offence (not multiple racist taunting of which Suarez was found guilty) - shortly after being cleared in court - sees a national newspaper demand our captain's dismissal from the club. This is because the paper's narrative is to give its readers what they want to read, which is to attack our players in ways they do not attack other clubs' players.

But this is not bias or evidence of any agenda, apparently. It's a media narrative, which is not the same thing at all.

Absolutely spot on. Great f**king post

I think when presenting Costa's appeal we should tie the FA panel to their chairs and force them to watch every stamp, elbow, throat grab etc.... we can find that has gone unpunished and unremarked in the last 2 years.

 

I actually could accept Costa getting a ban for the alleged "stamp" if I believed there was some consistency in how these matters were dealt with - unfortunately there's simply no consistency.

But this is not bias or evidence of any agenda, apparently. It's a media narrative, which is not the same thing at all.

Bravo Backbiter.

You totally smashed it.

Has Stan Collymore ever considered that maybe people don't want to argue with an idiot?

After all, this is the same guy who said Clattenburg was right to send off Torres.

 

But this is not bias or evidence of any agenda, apparently. It's a media narrative, which is not the same thing at all.

 

It's not the same thing though. An agenda would normally imply there is some sinister motive driving it whereas a narrative tends to be a storyline existing at that time. At least that's the way I view it although I do see what you're saying that in practice they may well be indistinguishable. 

 

I've said before that the agenda of news organisations is to gain audience and money and they do this by not just reporting the news but creating storylines out of it. On that point I think we're in total agreement. 

 

What I've disagreed with from the start is there's a specific agenda against us. We're a big club, we're more newsworthy ergo anything we do is viewed under a microscope. Simply put more people want to read about us, be they our supporters or our detractors. But that goes for every club in my view.

 

I do disagree slightly with the Terry example simply because it wasn't just a football matter, but became a focal point for 'racism in Britain' in a way Suarez couldn't. He was the England captain after all and as a white, privileged, English male who had been accused of such a crime, he was exactly the type of person that The Guardian would go after. Again, that fit their specific narrative (or agenda). If he was an asylum seeker then the Mail would've been all over him too.

 

Great post mate.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Blue Daze

 

Stan Collymore @StanCollymore · 19m19 minutes ago

Interesting the only people suggesting Costa doesn’t deserve a ban are 12 year Chelsea fans in Lagos. But don’t let facts get in the way.

 

 

 

Collymore can't help himself, he always finds ways to make himself look like a dick.

To be fair to Collymore, he's got more experience of having charges dropped than most.

Oh yes, outstanding.

Great post backbiter.

I'd tweet him back but I don't really get how to use Twitter