I've literally just said one comment to Stan saying stop crying over twitter trolls and playing the race card and he has blocked me already.

 

In a minute, that's brilliant.

 

Annoying when JT gets dug up into everything like that.

Think of Stan Collymore and two words spring to mind: Dogging & Ulrika. It's beyond me how that muppet has the front to get on his high horse about anything given his history.

I remember when some guy phoned up on his radio show and said "he hit it like you hit Ulrika mate", he just sort of stuttered and changed to another caller haha

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Bobbywoodhogan

Stan Collymore @StanCollymore · 54m 54 minutes ago

Could care less about the racist abuse anymore. Reality is I’ll be at the Bridge Saturday and nobody will say a f**king peep.

Hopefully the club will turn him away as unwanted.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Peckham Blue

Collymore is a bellend, he does the same thing every so often when his fame is dropping. Tweet inflammatory garbage knowing he will receive abuse back, then will get spots on news programmes to show how horrible/racist people are. His past will then be brought up and he will explain it was all because he had a mental illness. He's a troll, he invites abuse to keep him in the limelight.

Stan Collymore @StanCollymore · 54m 54 minutes ago

Could care less about the racist abuse anymore. Reality is I’ll be at the Bridge Saturday and nobody will say a f**king peep.

Hopefully the club will turn him away as unwanted.

They should especially as he has slated our captain for one, Infact called him a racist. If he was so sickened by JT I don't think he'd want to be in the same place as him.

He tweeted that Chelsea and Rangers are made for eachother, he is the epitome of a troll, absolute scumbag of the highest order, an unproffesional idiot.

I hope he gets beaten to a pulp when he's next up Fulham Road. The woman beating coward

Stan Collymore

 

Honours and awards

Player of the month January 1996

 

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/players/profile.career-history.html/stan-collymore
 

He shouldn't be allowed to give opinions anyway, this is a guy that was in court for drink driving just 3 months ago. Gary Neville has already called him out for his bulls**t tweets, Neville is an intelligent pundit, who remains impartial, Collymore is a biased bin dipper who talks like an 11 year old. I sincerely hope that he gets a rough time at the Bridge, though I do not condone racism in anyway shape or form, some of the racist tweets directed towards him by some of our so called fans were embarassing and stupid.

He shouldn't be allowed to give opinions anyway, this is a guy that was in court for drink driving just 3 months ago. Gary Neville has already called him out for his bulls**t tweets, Neville is an intelligent pundit, who remains impartial, Collymore is a biased bin dipper who talks like an 11 year old. I sincerely hope that he gets a rough time at the Bridge, though I do not condone racism in anyway shape or form, some of the racist tweets directed towards him by some of our so called fans were embarassing and stupid.

I totally agree.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Peckham Blue

He shouldn't be allowed to give opinions anyway, this is a guy that was in court for drink driving just 3 months ago. Gary Neville has already called him out for his bulls**t tweets, Neville is an intelligent pundit, who remains impartial, Collymore is a biased bin dipper who talks like an 11 year old. I sincerely hope that he gets a rough time at the Bridge, though I do not condone racism in anyway shape or form, some of the racist tweets directed towards him by some of our so called fans were embarassing and stupid.

 

To be honest it would have been a tiny minority.

 

Also twitter is full of trolls, as shameful as it is in this day and age it's nothing to really overreact about so much because it's just inevitable the way things are. You get it from all fans, the way he is labeling it like it's all just Chelsea fans then bringing up JT into it is just pathetic.

 

Robbie Fowler also did the same, randomly just brought JT's slipping over incident up when it was completely unnecessary, always the Liverpool pundits that are stupid enough to get caught up in that kind of nonsense, they always make it much worse.

Calling it now....

Sunday morning papers, front page:

**Police probe racist attack on collymore at Stamford bridge, chelsea and JT drag football back to the dark ages.**

Diego Costa

 

A "Stan Collymore: What a c**t" thread would probably be appropriate. 

Probably because Neville is in the minority. I think Costa probably deserves a ban. I know I would be clamouring for one, as we all would here, if it was the other way round and a Liverpool player did it.

 

mmmmmm....Rich I'm interested in your use of the concept 'deserves' here. On the assumption that that equates with 'just deserts', can you outline the basis of why you think that? Do you say, for example, that you found Costa's placement of his foot intentional? If not, do you find that the placement of his foot was reckless?

 

I mean we're merely talking about the Can incident aren't we? As far as I'm aware, that's the only incident under the spotlight.

 

My view is that the placement of his foot downwards was neither. He is in the act of motion; his eyes are following the ball. To me, this whole media lead imbroglio has been debased from the start by the obviously emotive choice of the word 'stamp' which I feel in the context is wrong. I mean my undertanding of the word 'stamp' is to bring one's foot down heavily on the ground or on someting on the ground - the heaviness aspect is important. You could hardly call Costa's foot placement 'heavy' could you? No.

 

Accordingly, it seems to me that the use of the word 'stamp' in the context was not only emotive and inappropriate to describe what took place to begin with but, importantly, it's use signified intent on the part of Costa in circumstances where there is no other evidence of intent. It is therefore a kind of reductio ad absurdism.

 

Finally, why would you be 'clamouring' for a ban if it was not one of our players? How does bare faced tribalism add any weight to the debate?

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by youlots

True, he has no right to act like such a unprofessional t*at becuase he's getting some abusive tweets from trolls, it takes a complete idiot to lump a set of fans together as being racist, becuase of a few trolls, I expect it from a rival fan, but not him. He is probably bitter that we beat Liverpool the other day, there are far too many bin dipper pundits now, at least Carragher can be reasonable. I hope our fans give him some rough treatment on Saturday.

To be honest it would have been a tiny minority.

Also twitter is full of trolls, as shameful as it is in this day and age it's nothing to really overreact about so much because it's just inevitable the way things are. You get it from all fans, the way he is labeling it like it's all just Chelsea fans then bringing up JT into it is just pathetic.

Robbie Fowler also did the same, randomly just brought JT's slipping over incident up when it was completely unnecessary, always the Liverpool pundits that are stupid enough to get caught up in that kind of nonsense, they always make it much worse.

mmmmmm....Rich I'm interested in your use of the concept 'deserves' here. On the assumption that that equates with 'just deserts', can you outline the basis of why you think that? Do you say, for example, that you found Costa's placement of his foot intentional? If not, do you find that the placement of his foot was reckless?

 

I mean we're merely talking about the Can incident aren't we? As far as I'm aware, that's the only incident under the spotlight.

 

My view is that the placement of his foot downwards was neither. He is in the act of motion; his eyes are following the ball. To me, this whole media lead imbroglio has been debased from the start by the obviously emotive choice of the word 'stamp' which I feel in the context is wrong. I mean my undertanding of the word 'stamp' is to bring one's foot down heavily on the ground or on someting on the ground - the heaviness aspect is important. You could hardly call Costa's foot placement 'heavy' could you? No.

 

Accordingly, it seems to me that the use of the word 'stamp' in the context was not only emotive and inappropriate to describe what took place to begin with but, importantly, it's use signified intent on the part of Costa in circumstances where there is no other evidence of intent. It is therefore a kind of reductio ad absurdism.

 

Finally, why would you be 'clamouring' for a ban if it was not one of our players? How does bare faced tribalism add any weight to the debate?

 

Well, you've confused me. Congratulations.

 

I think Costa trod on Can deliberately. And it doesn't add any weight at all. Doesn't mean I wouldn't tweet the FA letting them know what I think of them.

How does the appeal process work?

 

Do Chelsea provide a case of why they think it should be scrapped or do the FA just say they'll look into it again before upholding it?

Well, you've confused me. Congratulations.

 

I think Costa trod on Can deliberately. And it doesn't add any weight at all. Doesn't mean I wouldn't tweet the FA letting them know what I think of them.

 

well...I didn't set out to confuse you at all. However, to move on - you say that you are of view that Costa's action was deliberate - ie. Costa placed his foot downwards with the intent of having it land on Can's leg/foot. On what basis do you find intent - I need some particulars that, taken together, ground your finding of intent. What are they?

well...I didn't set out to confuse you at all. However, to move on - you say that you are of view that Costa's action was deliberate - ie. Costa placed his foot downwards with the intent of having it land on Can's leg/foot. On what basis do you find intent - I need some particulars that, taken together, ground your finding of intent. What are they?

 

I haven't got to provide proof, this isn't a court of law.

 

Both times, I simply said "I think" based on what sort of person Costa is and the fact it happened twice. As well as the fact that I play football and believe it's not hard to step over someone, even if you're going for the ball and aren't looking at the player - you still have an instinct about you.

How about the likelihood that top strikers have incredible spacial awareness? I also think he meant it, but just like the FA, have no way of proving it.

I haven't got to provide proof, this isn't a court of law.

 

Both times, I simply said "I think" based on what sort of person Costa is and the fact it happened twice. As well as the fact that I play football and believe it's not hard to step over someone, even if you're going for the ball and aren't looking at the player - you still have an instinct about you.

 

Well....but you see one does have to satisy the ingredients of the charge - whether in a court of law or be it a disciplinary charge brought by the FA.

 

Moreover, somewhat ironically, you then go onto providing some particulars that you say ground 'intent': the first being your loose general characterization of the player - the ad hominem/opinion as to reputation etc. That's not permissable is it? Secondly, you revert to a kind of speculative empiricism - ie. what you would've done. This is the nub of it isn't it really? What you're now saying is that the player was reckless in the placement of his foot downwards - ie. that notwithstanding that he is clearly going for the ball that he should've been more aware of where he placed his foot. What that means is that you are of the view that a player has more responsibility to avoid another player's body when playing the game than in going for the ball. I don't think that necessarily true is it?

mmmmmm....Rich I'm interested in your use of the concept 'deserves' here. On the assumption that that equates with 'just deserts', can you outline the basis of why you think that? Do you say, for example, that you found Costa's placement of his foot intentional? If not, do you find that the placement of his foot was reckless?

 

I mean we're merely talking about the Can incident aren't we? As far as I'm aware, that's the only incident under the spotlight.

 

My view is that the placement of his foot downwards was neither. He is in the act of motion; his eyes are following the ball. To me, this whole media lead imbroglio has been debased from the start by the obviously emotive choice of the word 'stamp' which I feel in the context is wrong. I mean my undertanding of the word 'stamp' is to bring one's foot down heavily on the ground or on someting on the ground - the heaviness aspect is important. You could hardly call Costa's foot placement 'heavy' could you? No.

 

Accordingly, it seems to me that the use of the word 'stamp' in the context was not only emotive and inappropriate to describe what took place to begin with but, importantly, it's use signified intent on the part of Costa in circumstances where there is no other evidence of intent. It is therefore a kind of reductio ad absurdism.

 

Finally, why would you be 'clamouring' for a ban if it was not one of our players? How does bare faced tribalism add any weight to the debate?

 

I was waiting for some french

agree with you though youlots, which in itself is quite refreshing- i was waiting for you to add some meat to the bones of the legal debate.

What's missing in this discussion is the reason for the Costa-Can incident. Diego was trying to get the ball back into play quickly and Can deliberately and cynically kicked it away. That's the sole reason Can's leg was there for Diego to step on. It's unfortunate that the story of this game has become Diego's supposed "crimes". The story should be about Loserpool's cynical and negative tactics. They were disgraceful. From early on in the game it was clear that Liverpool's defense couldn't live with our attack. They got away with so many blatantly cynical fouls I lost count. It was obviously their tactic. Why isn't this the story being told about the game? Liverpool started 5 defenders, 3 defensive midfielders and no striker, and still had to resort to fouling our attackers time after time. It was the only way they were going to stay in the game.

 

The biggest disgrace of this game was Oliver letting them get away with these tactics. Early on Sterling cynically wiped out Costa to stop a counter attack and didn't get a yellow card. That no-call and then the penalty not given set the tone. Lucas must have taken out Hazard a half dozen times. The Henderson hand ball was the clearest yellow card offense you'll ever see and he got away with it. Why isn't the crap, one-sided refereeing the story being told about the game?

 

Costa didn't "stamp" on Can. He stepped on his leg. Why all this outrage? It didn't hurt him one bit. I doubt he even has a bruise. There was no violent, stamping motion and no intent to injure. Whether he meant to do it or not is highly debatable. I expect he probably meant it but that's only my opinion. And how was his action any worse than Can's reaction to it? He charged at Diego and shoved/punched him in the back. How was Diego's action any worse than Skrtel and Gerrard getting in Diego's face, or Markovic charging into Luis from behind? That's all equally violent conduct for me. If the FA are going to start investigating, charging and banning players for every questionable incident in a game, where does it stop? Let them play the damn game.

 

Michael Oliver had a terrible game and Liverpool are a crap team at the moment. It's disgraceful that Diego and Chelsea will be the one's paying the price.