Jump to content

The FA


Bobbywoodhogan

Recommended Posts

Ok please let's not turn this into a should or shouldn't Jose be charged thread but let's look at the FA in general.

They seem more concerned with charging/punishing managers for comments than charging/punishing players for things like leg breaking tackles, stamps, attempts to kick etc.

To me the FA is severely dated and what they need are a set of rules that say you do this you get this fine/ban. Then have further punishments for repeated offences.

Now of course there are situations like the Suarez bite cases where it's so rare there's no way you'd have a rule for it (we'll probably will now but that's not the point). What they need is:

- consistency

- fair punishments

- independent panels that don't come down on certain clubs harsher than others

What's everyone else's view points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





In terms of priorities and how they regulate the game, the only real difference between FIFA and the FA are the extra FI.

How they are not in a legal court is beyond my comprehension.

Mourinho can be charged got sarcasm, yet other managers escape charges after going into the other teams technical area and physically attacking the opposing manager.

The FA will charge Mourinho for bringing the game into disrepute over comments, yet ref's who bring the game into dear route by getting ( by the FA's own admission) multiple major calls in a game ass backwards and thus change the outcome of the game, well they are allowed I supppose.

The club can be charged for not controlling its players after the Costa/Kolscielny/Gabriel incident, mind you the fines go greater for one club somehow and a red card over turned despite his own manager admitting it was justified. Mourinho can be warned by the FA and told to apologize for "mean comments"..... yet when shown video evidence of Eva Carneiro being subjected to sexual harassment and verbal sexual abuse from by whole sections of opposing fans at multiple grounds, well not a single f**king peep from the FA.

I find it to be a disgusting organization as it currently operates and if I lived in the UK i would be making regular complaints to the police about the FA as is so conveniently done against our club.

Edited by Barry Bridges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of priorities and how they regulate the game, the only real difference between FIFA and the FA are the extra FI.

How they are not in a legal court is beyond my comprehension.

Mourinho can be charged got sarcasm, yet other managers escape charges after going into the other teams technical area and physically attacking the opposing manager.

The FA will charge Mourinho for bringing the game into disrepute over comments, yet ref's who bring the game into dear route by getting ( by the FA's own admission) multiple major calls in a game ass backwards and thus change the outcome of the game, well they are allowed I supppose.

The club can be charged for not controlling its players after the Costa/Kolscielny/Gabriel incident, mind you the fines go greater for one club somehow and a red card over turned despite his own manager admitting it was justified. Mourinho can be warned by the FA and told to apologize for "mean comments"..... yet when shown video evidence of Eva Carneiro being subjected to sexual harassment and verbal sexual abuse from by whole sections of opposing fans at multiple grounds, well not a single f**king peep from the FA.

I find it to be a disgusting organization as it currently operates and if I lived in the UK i would be making regular complaints to the police about the FA as is so conveniently done against our club.

Great post.

The police as an institution, imho and experience, are very similar to the way the FA works. Essentially the police regulate themselves. This country breaks my heart, it may 'only be football', but it reflects the ever growing distortion and corruption in our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



In terms of priorities and how they regulate the game, the only real difference between FIFA and the FA are the extra FI.

How they are not in a legal court is beyond my comprehension.

Mourinho can be charged got sarcasm, yet other managers escape charges after going into the other teams technical area and physically attacking the opposing manager.

The FA will charge Mourinho for bringing the game into disrepute over comments, yet ref's who bring the game into dear route by getting ( by the FA's own admission) multiple major calls in a game ass backwards and thus change the outcome of the game, well they are allowed I supppose.

The club can be charged for not controlling its players after the Costa/Kolscielny/Gabriel incident, mind you the fines go greater for one club somehow and a red card over turned despite his own manager admitting it was justified. Mourinho can be warned by the FA and told to apologize for "mean comments"..... yet when shown video evidence of Eva Carneiro being subjected to sexual harassment and verbal sexual abuse from by whole sections of opposing fans at multiple grounds, well not a single f**king peep from the FA.

I find it to be a disgusting organization as it currently operates and if I lived in the UK i would be making regular complaints to the police about the FA as is so conveniently done against our club.

::clap2::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is another point to consider. No external influences (e.g. media, ex players, opposition fans) on the decision-making process in punishments.

This is what gets me most. They only seem to act if external influences, however biased, complain.

Most of Stevie's stamps went unpunished as did other so called fashionable players dark acts, like Aguero.

The general press and punditry are largely scouse biased, so they get left alone

Link to comment
Share on other sites



 

The FA never ceases to amaze, frustrate, victimise and generally exasperate CFC and its supporters. I can think of nothing emanating from this archaic institution in recent years that has in any way sought to foster a decent relationship between our club and the governing body. It is a genuinely sad state of affairs and there is very little that can be done about it, other than point out the unfairness whenever examples arise, something the Media in this country is loathe to do when Chelsea are involved, yet quick to highlight when it is equally obvious and other clubs and organisations are affected and suffer as a result of its ineptitude. Examples abound, from balance of probability pomposity, in that dog day era under David Bernstein, right through to the current Greg Dyke fiasco, the latest instance being a deliberate embroiling of Graeme Le Saux [in an advisory role for the FA] in the Eva Carneiro saga. A few quotes serve to make my case for me…

 

"We're trying to deal with some very sensitive issues and to change the culture of the game. Some good people at the FA have taken a kicking after concluding there was insufficient evidence to charge Mourinho, whilst the whole furore may also deter women from becoming involved in football, as well as discouraging clubs from employing them.

A lot of people are working very hard to get the game in a better place, but after the last few weeks it feels as if we've gone back 30 years. Mourinho could have reduced the fallout if he had just apologised. You can apologise for your behaviour without apologising for why you did it. I wonder if there'll ever be a time that Mourinho accepts his responsibility to the game. If you want the rewards for being successful in football, you have to accept responsibilities. To admit you've done wrong, I don't think Mourinho has ever done that.

 

As someone who was privileged to play for Chelsea for 12 years, I'm saddened that it has come to this. If what started out as a straightforward employer-employee issue had been handled differently, these negative issues would not have arisen. The biggest disappointment for me is that Mourinho doesn't seem to have reflected on the damage he has done to his own image, the reputation of the club and, more important, the reputation of the entire game."

 

Well Graeme, as someone ‘who was privileged to play for Chelsea for 12 years’ and is also an ambassador for the club, you should really know better than to allow yourself to be dragged out of your FA box and drawn into the full glare of public debate at such a difficult time. Indeed, whatever your opinion is on whether Jose should apologise or not [and mine happens to be that he should] to believe that one single rant deters women from becoming involved in football, or discourages clubs from employing them, is pretty much on a par with believing that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden and only serves to make matters worse than they already are. So, wise up to what’s going on here Soxy, and next time take a closer look at FA decision-making before stepping into any arena on the organisation's behalf.

 

And talking of FA decision-making, as we are [sorry to have digressed] surely there can be no finer proof of its pudding-like consistency than their continued support for Michel Platini in the FIFA presidential debacle? Well, as it happens, there is and it comes in the unwieldy and unworkable form of the FA Chairman’s England Commission Report. Remember it ? I confess to forgetting all about it myself, until going down the bottom of my garden where deep in the long grass I found, not fairies, but an eighty-two page document that had been kicked there seventeen months ago. Just to refresh a few memories, it opened with Greg’s Forward outlining the problems facing English football at the top level and thereafter setting out a range of proposals such as:-

 

Proposal 1 - The introduction of Premier League B teams into English football 

Proposal 2 - The development of Strategic Loan Partnerships between clubs 

Proposal 3 - How these proposals contribute to the complete player development pathway

Proposal 4 - Making these proposals happen

Proposal 5 - Home Grown Player requirements 

Proposal 6 - Non-EU work visa process  

 

I particularly like Proposal 4, placed as it is ahead of the home grown player and non-EU via process issues, as if to admit in advance that they’ve not got a hope in hell of ’making it happen’ in respect of either. The summary on the final page makes interesting reading too…

 

“We are recommending bold measures which we believe have a very good chance of reversing the decline in the English game for English players and building lasting strength in our national game. Our proposals create the means by which young promising players can gain real competitive experiences in lower leagues that matches their development needs. We believe these change will add further to the opportunities for exciting young players, the excitement of football in English football leagues and greater stability for clubs. 

 

Our proposals to introduce a rise in the Home Grown Player requirements will ensure that English and other Home Grown Players benefit most from the proposed measures. Our proposal to tighten the entry and appeals criteria for non-EU player immigration will create a necessary constraint that will encourage more considered and valuable player acquisitions from outside the EU.”

 

Have I missed something? Could it be this proposal twaddle has actually been ‘made to happen’ and I’ve missed it all? If so, my apologies to the FA for seriously misjudging the urgency with which they’ve tackled the matter. If not, and the only remaining copy of the report has been nestling near my compost heap all the time, it might be about time Greg Dyke and his motley crew asked for it back and started to ‘do’ rather than ‘propose’, and, while they’re at it, it might be an idea if they stopped sending the likes of Le Saux out to fight trumped up battles on their behalf, and at least made some sort of an effort to be professional for once in their privileged lives.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chelsea Megastore Away Shirt
Chelsea Megastore Away Shirt

Chelsea Megastore Away Shirt

I also think Le Saux needs a f**king mirror he was no saint when he played here. Never liked him never will, thought he was a bad tempered brat tbh.

 

Must have got the holier than thou mindset after joining that advisory board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think Le Saux needs a f**king mirror he was no saint when he played here. Never liked him never will, thought he was a bad tempered brat tbh.

 

I was at the game when he was substituted and as he didn't agree with the substitution threw his shirt on the ground. The crowd was in uproar. As someone wrote in one of the fanzines at the time, people have been punched for disrespecting the shirt. I'm surprised no one came on to the pitch and thumped him. The incident happened due his first stint at Chelsea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites






Another hatchet job on us today and more to come again, Should be dissolved!!!

FA - Fekin Arseoles!

Tbf, the refs were rather decent yesterday. It's pretty easy to criticise them because of those big decisions, but I think they got all of them right.

Cesc was marginally offside when the ball was played. The ball from Zouma's header looked like it crossed the line at first but all replays that I watched showed it didnt. Matic was foolish and deserved to go, he shouldn't have barged into the player when already on a yellow.

Bad defending may have resulted in that two goals, but our overall performance from defence to attack was terrible. Only a couple of players can hold their heads up high at the end of the game IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FA board member Heather Rabbatts to be investigated

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34618459

 

This watered-down BBC offering seems a far cry from that Radio 4 Today interview with Heather Rabbatts of a few weeks ago. Gone is the Beeb’s gung-ho support for her unswerving defence of Eva Carneiro and the banner-waving on behalf women’s rights that went on in the studio, replaced at last by some stark reporting of facts and accompanying quotes, and for the good of all and sundry. Especially me, as I now feel fully justified in repeating my earlier prediction, by way of a quote made on another thread, as to the potential outcome of her initial outburst of outrage:-
 
“…I must admit that Ms Rabbatt’s position at the FA, after breaking ranks on the matter, is looking decidedly precarious. I mean, it’s one thing to let your personal opinion on the subject inadvertently slip out when the world’s press is sniffing around, but to exacerbate the situation by deliberately going on the radio and repeating it all to an audience of millions - let’s just say that’s just as bad as going on Twitter or Facebook in search of support for a cause, is it not? 
 
And all the while poor old Greg foot-both-camps Dyke must be wondering what more he’s got to do to kick this controversy into the long grass. It wouldn’t surprise me if he had a few words to say after this insubordination and I only hope, for his sake, that they were said in private, weren’t blasphemous, and definitely not spoken in Portuguese. You can’t be too careful these days.”
 
Okay, fair enough, it wasn’t Greg Dyke who was actually doing the volte-face here, but it might as well have been and no amount of BBC ageist innuendo is going to hide the fact that he’s got to accept the absurdity of Rabbatts unfounded and emotive-based argument, right there alongside, creaking shoulder to shoulder with his septuagenarian and octogenarian colleagues. And, to make matters worse, Herman Ouseley has decided to stick his oar in once again, believing (according to the BBC) that the FA’s leadership should still be supporting Rabbatts ‘stance‘, whatever that may be. However, that said, it is this sentence of his that’s the interesting one:-
 
“As the only female independent board member, she is in an exposed position but she is there to provide a different voice and [serve] as a figurehead for people in the game who feel the whole system is against them.” 
 
A different voice? What is this man blathering on about? Does he mean a female voice, in which case how should it be affecting the argument - by tone, by pitch? Or is he merely referring to a dissenting voice that (in his opinion) is serving-the-oppressed, as his follow-up comment would appear to suggest? Either way, the implication is one of discrimination, but, as the Noble Lord can’t nail this accusation firmly on the doors marked ’Jose Mourinho’ or ’The Football Association’, he has to go gunning for you-know-who again…
 
“This is a moment when the chairman of the FA, Greg Dyke, should stand up and show support for Heather Rabbatts.”
 
Trouble is, Greg’s been there, done that, got the ‘I’m with Eva and Heather’ t-shirt, and little good it‘s done him. Nor is there any likelihood of belated governmental backing either, as the sports minister Tracey Crouch refuses point blank to comment on the investigation. But yes, you’ve guessed it, she does feel inclined to say that  Ms Rabbatts had done “great work” on the campaign to increase equality in English football and that people such as Eva Carneiro should be encouraged to play a leading role in the sport. Have a read for yourselves:-
 
“The first thing to say is that obviously it is matter for the FA. I do know that Greg Dyke is very supportive of Heather, who is doing some great work on inclusivity and trying to make sure the FA is fully representative. As somebody who has played football and been involved in football all my life, I believe making sure women in football is positively promoted is hugely important.
 
Eva is somebody who is at the top of her profession and we want to see people like Eva get to the top of the game across all areas of football. Ultimately, the Eva row is a matter between her and Chelsea, it’s a club-versus-employee matter.”
 
Note Tracey Crouch’s desperate attempt to separate the issues (FA-versus-Rabbatts and club-versus-employee) thereby giving herself leeway to praise the women involved for work entirely unrelated to the actual incident under the spotlight. And rightly so, because that incident had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those twin hobbyhorses (racism and sexism) that Lord Ousley and Heather Rabbatts are so keen to jump on whenever the [perceived] opportunity arises. So, nowhere to turn, Dyke’s got his work cut out keeping the flood of effrontery at bay. But he wont drown in opprobrium. Well, he wont unless he is called (on behalf of the FA) as a witness for the defence in any wrongful dismissal litigation the club might yet be involved in… then the floodgates really would open!
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up