Didn't The Guardian describe the Liverpool response to Suarez's ban as 'lamentable'?

If you can't answer my question just say so. You claim to want an honest debate but you're more interested in point-scoring.

You claim we get the same treatment as other big clubs, you say I'm only interested in rhetoric rather than facts, but I've got more facts up my sleeve than you can shake a stick at, and I've just provided you with one.

The Observer ran an editorial in their main section demanding that Chelsea sack Terry, that they punish Cole (who was merely a witness, had no charge to answer and received no ban), and that Chelsea's sponsors abandon the club.

It's a pretty merciless editorial.

They ignored the court verdict and based their position solely on the FA verdict.

The FA verdict Suarez received was harsher, so why has The Observer never made the same demands in relation to Suarez and Liverpool?

Simple question so where's your answer?

I'm giving you hard evidence here, and all you're doing is fudging the issue.

Strange for someone so concerned with facts.

I don't actually believe there is an industry wide agenda against Chelsea, but I do believe there are some papers/programmes/channels/commentators who report maliciously and yes, with an agenda, whether because of their dislike for us or because it sells. Surely no one can argue that certain clubs are treat differently in the media, that's not paranoia but obvious in my opinion. I remember when we walked the league Jose`s first 2 seasons, the suns then sports editor (cant remember his name) had an editorial and used it one week to admit to his hatred of us, and admitted he used it to drive stories in a certain direction against us.

Biting is much more unacceptable to footballers than a stamp, and can cause a hell of a lot of damage Due to infection etc.

 

Stamping was part of Suarez' extensive repertoire too. He got away with it time and time again.

I don't actually believe there is an industry wide agenda against Chelsea, but I do believe there are some papers/programmes/channels/commentators who report maliciously and yes, with an agenda, whether because of their dislike for us or because it sells. Surely no one can argue that certain clubs are treat differently in the media, that's not paranoia but obvious in my opinion. I remember when we walked the league Jose`s first 2 seasons, the suns then sports editor (cant remember his name) had an editorial and used it one week to admit to his hatred of us, and admitted he used it to drive stories in a certain direction against us.

The Mirror seems to have a ridiculously pro-LFC (and, to a lesser degree, anti CFC stance). It appears that they want to be seen as the tabloid that does stick up for our most historic and dignified club, in contrast to its bitter rival the Sun, with its Kelvin McKenzie baggage.

The Guardian seems to be pretty consistent in its anti-Chelsea stance.

If you can't answer my question just say so. You claim to want an honest debate but you're more interested in point-scoring.

 

 

The Guardian never dedicated an article to Suarez as far as I'm aware. That said you're talking about one case which went to Court and one which didn't. The Terry case received far, far more attention simply because of that.

 

The FA verdict Suarez received was harsher, so why has The Observer never made the same demands in relation to Suarez and Liverpool?

Simple question so where's your answer?

 

 

JT was England captain and charged by the CPS, whereas Suarez's story was pretty much confined to the sports pages. Now I know that won't influence your thinking on the matter but in actual newsrooms it does make a difference.

 

You also have to look at The Guardian's readership and it does appeal to what they like to read, outrage at a privileged sportsman who has been accused of racism.

 

Up until this point you've referred to 'the media' as one homogenous lump but in this case there's a key distinction between the sports journos and editors who deal with Chelsea on a daily basis and an editorial which would very rarely, if ever focus on a purely sporting matter. This was a news story.

 

I don't actually believe there is an industry wide agenda against Chelsea, but I do believe there are some papers/programmes/channels/commentators who report maliciously and yes, with an agenda, whether because of their dislike for us or because it sells. Surely no one can argue that certain clubs are treat differently in the media, that's not paranoia but obvious in my opinion. I remember when we walked the league Jose`s first 2 seasons, the suns then sports editor (cant remember his name) had an editorial and used it one week to admit to his hatred of us, and admitted he used it to drive stories in a certain direction against us.

 

Of course clubs are treated differently. If Man United make a signing it's big news, if Sunderland do it's not.

 

Mike Dunn was the sports editor back then. 

The Mirror seems to have a ridiculously pro-LFC (and, to a lesser degree, anti CFC stance). It appears that they want to be seen as the tabloid that does stick up for our most historic and dignified club, in contrast to its bitter rival the Sun, with its Kelvin McKenzie baggage.

The Guardian seems to be pretty consistent in its anti-Chelsea stance.

 

The Mirror are probably trying to capture the former Sun readership of Liverpool, and also wary of upsetting them in case they get boycotted too.

The Guardian never dedicated an article to Suarez as far as I'm aware. That said you're talking about one case which went to Court and one which didn't. The Terry case received far, far more attention simply because of that.

JT was England captain and charged by the CPS, whereas Suarez's story was pretty much confined to the sports pages. Now I know that won't influence your thinking on the matter but in actual newsrooms it does make a difference.

You also have to look at The Guardian's readership and it does appeal to what they like to read, outrage at a privileged sportsman who has been accused of racism.

Up until this point you've referred to 'the media' as one homogenous lump but in this case there's a key distinction between the sports journos and editors who deal with Chelsea on a daily basis and an editorial which would very rarely, if ever focus on a purely sporting matter. This was a news story.

You're floundering, desperately trying to clutch at straws.

Suarez was a massive story, his ban was twice the length of Terry's, however let's ignore that.

Find me one article (not an editorial) in their sports section (not their main section) where they (or their sister paper) make the same demands in relation to player or club.

You can't. They came after us but not them, and that's a fact.

I know how you love your facts.

You're floundering, desperately trying to clutch at straws.

Suarez was a massive story, his ban was twice the length of Terry's, however let's ignore that.

Find me one article (not an editorial) in their sports section (not their main section) where they (or their sister paper) make the same demands in relation to player or club.

You can't. They came after us but not them, and that's a fact.

I know how you love your facts.

 

Davey Baby it doesn't matter whether I agree with your or not but you haven't got to introduce and conclude every argument of yours by criticising how he forms his argument. Just make your point.

You're floundering, desperately trying to clutch at straws.

Suarez was a massive story, his ban was twice the length of Terry's, however let's ignore that.

 

 

Let's not. Terry's involved a week-long criminal case. Before that he was stripped of the England captaincy. Let's not pretend that it wasn't a much bigger story ok.

 

Find me one article (not an editorial) in their sports section (not their main section) where they (or their sister paper) make the same demands in relation to player or club.

 

 

They didn't. I'm happy to concede that point. 

 

I know how you love your facts.

 

Never heard that used to denigrate someone.

 

What story are we moving onto next? 

Davey Baby it doesn't matter whether I agree with your or not but you haven't got to introduce and conclude every argument of yours by criticising how he forms his argument. Just make your point.

I'm on my phone and trying to be as punchy as possible.

I'm through debating this issue.

If people want to maintain we get the same treatment as Liverpool, I don't see the point in debating further.

I don't actually believe there is an industry wide agenda against Chelsea, but I do believe there are some papers/programmes/channels/commentators who report maliciously and yes, with an agenda, whether because of their dislike for us or because it sells. Surely no one can argue that certain clubs are treat differently in the media, that's not paranoia but obvious in my opinion. I remember when we walked the league Jose`s first 2 seasons, the suns then sports editor (cant remember his name) had an editorial and used it one week to admit to his hatred of us, and admitted he used it to drive stories in a certain direction against us.

 

I don't believe the whole media is collectively ranged against us. However, there are a lot of people within the media who either don't like us, are connected to one of our rivals, or have a major axe to grind against us, and that comes out in the coverage.

 

Check out these two articles, both written by the same person and dealing with an English club being hard done by in Europe.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/iniestas-rocket-ruins-chelseas-roman-dreams-1680488.html

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/manchester-united-1-real-madrid-2-match-report-treble-dream-destroyed-by-nani-red-card-as-cristiano-ronaldo-scores-on-return-to-old-trafford-8521801.html

Of course clubs are treated differently. If Man United make a signing it's big news, if Sunderland do it's not.

Mike Dunn was the sports editor back then.

yeah, that's a great comparison....

And no he wasn't.

yeah, that's a great comparison....

And no he wasn't.

 

It's just to illustrate that bigger clubs will obviously have their business reported differently, although you are correct about Mike Dunn.

Intentionally difficult? That is not my style. Players are very well protected these days, I'm sure that Can didn't feel much of that ‘stamp’ at all, except he rolled around all over the place like an idiot, I'm not condoning it, but it's not as bad as some journos are making out. Bites can cause infections, not just puncture wounds, standing on someone's padded foot isn't as bad as it sounds, if he'd dragged his foot down an opponents leg, or something similar, then that would have been worse. As far as snubbing a gunshot wound, over someone with a mild scratch, of coarse I would, a mild scratch is far more dangerous than a gun shot wound. I get the sense you are being intentionally argumentative?

I get the feeling you are bring intentinally difficult.

Putting your weight, studs and all, on someones leg is more dangerous than bitting someone. How is this even debatable? Good thing you aren't a doctor, you would probably snub the gunshot wound in my chest in favour of someone who got a scratch from tripping over.

Since when do headlines ever tell the full story? Are you new to the media?

I do wonder sometimes about some of the posters in here and how they view the club, given the range of "views" posted about thiss and many other matters.

 

For me, it's my club, first, foremost and only.  My club, my team, my manager (FSW excepted), my board, my life.  I don't want to hear "to be fair", "taking off my blue-tinted spectacles", or "let's give X the benefit of the doubt".  All opposition players, managers and fans are wrong.  Plain and simple.

 

Any "news" outlet that criticises my team are wrong. Any Chelsea "fan" in this forum who criticises my team or my manager is wrong.  There is no such things as "we did not deserve to win", "the dippers outplayed us" or "Jose/Robbie/Carlo/whoever (FSW excepted) got it wrong"

 

That's it really.  I don't care if Costa stamped on some scouse lady-boy.  I do care that he's going to be hounded by Sky and consequently by the press for it, but they are all wrong. 

I do wonder sometimes about some of the posters in here and how they view the club, given the range of "views" posted about thiss and many other matters.

 

For me, it's my club, first, foremost and only.  My club, my team, my manager (FSW excepted), my board, my life.  I don't want to hear "to be fair", "taking off my blue-tinted spectacles", or "let's give X the benefit of the doubt".  All opposition players, managers and fans are wrong.  Plain and simple.

 

Any "news" outlet that criticises my team are wrong. Any Chelsea "fan" in this forum who criticises my team or my manager is wrong.  There is no such things as "we did not deserve to win", "the dippers outplayed us" or "Jose/Robbie/Carlo/whoever (FSW excepted) got it wrong"

 

That's it really.  I don't care if Costa stamped on some scouse lady-boy.  I do care that he's going to be hounded by Sky and consequently by the press for it, but they are all wrong. 

 

I'm sorry but I don't agree. I don't believe that having a passion for Chelsea versus having morals (i.e. not supporting someone on my team who bit someone) are mutually exclusive. I really hope I would never support a Chelsea player who did something that abhorrent. 

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by RichardCFC

Intentionally difficult? That is not my style. Players are very well protected these days, I'm sure that Can didn't feel much of that ‘stamp’ at all, except he rolled around all over the place like an idiot, I'm not condoning it, but it's not as bad as some journos are making out. Bites can cause infections, not just puncture wounds, standing on someone's padded foot isn't as bad as it sounds, if he'd dragged his foot down an opponents leg, or something similar, then that would have been worse. As far as snubbing a gunshot wound, over someone with a mild scratch, of coarse I would, a mild scratch is far more dangerous than a gun shot wound. I get the sense you are being intentionally argumentative?

 

 

This is why i was asking yesterday if anyone has actually ever had someone stand on them before. It doesn't hurt and isn't at all dangerous, for it to be treated as violent conduct is just ridiculous. Me and my brothers used to do this all of time, it's not that bad at all.

According to TalkSport, Diego Costa is going to appeal.

There are obviously limits, and FSW and Suarez are some of them.  But I don't and won't get precious about "fairness" or "let's be kind to the opposition"  Do you consider that Costa's actions, whether intentional or not, are on a level with Suarez?  Because that's what you seem to be implying in this and previous posts

According to TalkSport, Diego Costa is going to appeal.

 

If he does, will he be able to play versus City? 

If he does, will he be able to play versus City? 

 

They said the decision will be made tomorrow, so if his appeal fails then no.

There are obviously limits, and FSW and Suarez are some of them.  But I don't and won't get precious about "fairness" or "let's be kind to the opposition"  Do you consider that Costa's actions, whether intentional or not, are on a level with Suarez?  Because that's what you seem to be implying in this and previous posts

 

I haven't actually commented on that actually, that was done by other posters. I just said it was intentional. There's no doubt in my mind that Suarez is the bigger c**t, don't worry.

I do wonder sometimes about some of the posters in here and how they view the club, given the range of "views" posted about thiss and many other matters.

 

For me, it's my club, first, foremost and only.  My club, my team, my manager (FSW excepted), my board, my life.  I don't want to hear "to be fair", "taking off my blue-tinted spectacles", or "let's give X the benefit of the doubt".  All opposition players, managers and fans are wrong.  Plain and simple.

 

Any "news" outlet that criticises my team are wrong. Any Chelsea "fan" in this forum who criticises my team or my manager is wrong.  There is no such things as "we did not deserve to win", "the dippers outplayed us" or "Jose/Robbie/Carlo/whoever (FSW excepted) got it wrong"

 

That's it really.  I don't care if Costa stamped on some scouse lady-boy.  I do care that he's going to be hounded by Sky and consequently by the press for it, but they are all wrong. 

 

LOL.

 

 

(I assume you are having a laugh....)

Can't believe Costa is appealing, what happens in these instances. . Do Jose and him compile a few statements etc ? I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, but don't they add on more games if they deem it 'frivolous'. Bunch of arseholes.

I certainly don't remember Stephen Hunt getting the amount of stick for very nearly killing Petr Cech, that Costa has got for treading on Emre Can.

And Sonko poleaxing Cuddicini and putting him in Hospital in the same game, was not treated to banner headlines, about being a nutter etc.

 

I doubt very much either of them intended to cause such catastrophic harm, but the fact is they did, I also believe Steve Coppell told his players to get about Chelsea and let them know they were in a game. In fact the main story after that game seemed to be Jose having a go at the Reading ambulance service (which I don't think was his intention) I have gone on about this at length a few times before as its a particular bug bear of mine.

 

Do certain journo's have it in for us, most certainly in my opinion. I prefer the fair unbiased opinions of someone like Martin Samuels, who is not afraid to criticise any club or manager, but who is also pretty fair, he was very concerned about the treatment meted out to Hazard at Stoke recently and said so in his report and on Sunday Supplement. I would stop short of saying their is a concerted campaign, but I do feel uneasy sometimes about the way we are portrayed in the press. And as for saying it's because we are a big club, well there is an element of that to it, but I also seem to remember we loathed by sections of the media when Bates was in charge as well and we were fair to middling.

 

I would go along with Pat Nevins assessment in the article posted on here the other day, he seems a level headed sort and as he is involved with the media I would suggest his insights are quite fair, obviously he has some pro Chelsea bias as well, but that's a refreshing change.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by SHELLY