Wow Bray in Europe, this league just gets better and better,lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Printable View
Wow Bray in Europe, this league just gets better and better,lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
On that, are Bray in the Setanta as things stand? Is next year's format the same as this year's?
Well that was very satisfying. I was disappointed (well not disappointed, but you know what I mean) that Derry never really looked like they wanted to win the game, in the second half at least. They seemed to be all over the place in the second half and Kenny's changes were poor (taking Farren back off when he'd caused the defence way more problems than Zayed). Rovers looked a bit nervous at the back, particularly in the first half, but Sullivan and Ricer had excellent games. Can't believe Ricketts got man of the match - apart from his excellent dead ball deliveries, and goal obviously, he was muck for most of the game. The Derry full back had him in his pocket all game.
Depends on whether you think there'll be a setanta cup next year or notQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Bonnie Shels wins the prize. Ham actor. Surely it's not just a Dublin saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by horton
Turner was presumed innocent because there wasn't enough evidence to show that he had actually done what he was accused of. On the same token, Zayed wasn't proved to have been telling lies. There's obviously a lacuna of fact here, and we'll never know for sure what actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calcio Jack
I understand that you're backing your player. Fair play. But try not to be so resentful.
Of course it's not just a Dublin saying. As an adjective a 'ham' actor is an actor capable of portraying only the most cliched emotions, hackneyed reactions and predictable tones of voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopy
It's also a verb - to ham something up - is to deliberately behave like a ham actor.
William Shatner is a ham actor.
In the context of the match last night calling Zayed a ham would be to suggest that he was diving, a chancer, a clown.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was wondering alright. Any word on that either way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I was told that it will be on next year alright. 6 teams from FAI Cup Winners, EA Sports Cup Winners and then the remaining four places being allocated from league placings.
Not being resentful.... fact is that both Zayed and Kenny made an accusation, fact Turner owned up to what he said, fact the tribunal found that Turner was innocent of the charge of racism levelled at him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CiaranR
The norm as we all know is that one is innocent until proven guilty, as Turner was proven to be innocen therefore mesrrs Kenny and Zayed appear to be either ignorant of that or chose to ignore it.
Therfore as I've already mentioned I have no respect for either Zayed or Kenny because neither of them had the honesty or decency to withdraw their unsubstantiated accusations, which makes them in my view two pathetic individuals with no class and they are therefore for me not welcome in terms of either being a future employee of SRFC and I'll reiterate that Kenny at least has zero chance of that ever coming to pass.
Bit harsh on your own side? We were completely rattled by the goal but credit to Rovers, they ruthlessly closed the game down. Always thought if Rovers opened the scoring they'd go on to win the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
If something happened you and the person who did it was found innocent would you withdraw the claims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calcio Jack
If the person I had wrongly accused was a person of totally impeccable character from a club renowned for its open-minded and respectful support I would not only withdraw the claims but I would hand myself in at the nearest Garda station and demand to be arrested as a matter of public safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSFShels
Do you have any evidence to back this up? I asked after the investigation if we'd ever found out what Turner had actually said (and admitted to saying), and nobody was able to tell me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calcio Jack
I can only assume your not old enough to remember ollie byrne..Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
Or just plain clumsy as in hamfistedQuote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
He missed out on the "glory" years.Quote:
Originally Posted by placid casual
Has/Can the area behind the dugouts ever be used...?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Capacity wise..
I don't think so; not concrete. The "terraces" behind either goal are usable obviously; the official capacity is 1500 standing and 1500 seated. Think it was 2200 this time last year for the 3-2 win.
The FAI decided to ban him (Turner) to show the world how innocent he was. Shams did not appeal the ban for the same obvious reason :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Surely time to move on for all concerned ?
Shame, you could fit loads there - where would you fit the 1500 standing along with the 1500 seated?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Rovers fans (including myself) were perched on the grassy knoll behind the goal in Bray last season. So perhaps...
Behind the goals and at either end of the stand is the plan.
Since licencing, we were only really allowed use the hill in Belfield Park once, for the League Cup Final. Maybe a similar dispensation might be allowed here - what sort of crowd are ye expecting?
I'm in my *cough* late thirties. Why do you bring Ollie Byrne up? He wasn't a Taig-bashing racist with a sex tape on youtube, was he?Quote:
Originally Posted by placid casual
The point is that an independent found Turner innocent of racism.... nothing was proved so therfore Zayed but especially Kenny should of apologised...Quote:
Originally Posted by CSFShels
As for your question , if someone made up a false allegation about you and went to the press and you were then proven innocent by an independent tribunal would you expect them to then publicly withdraw it... I would
Turner was banned for 'bad behaviour' but not racism and no one is srguing that he shouldn't of being banned (albeit IMO lots of players should be banned for that type of thing if the FAI want to be consistent). To move on those who made the error of making public a false accusation need to have the balls to retract it if they ever want to be considered as a potential candidate for tax compliant employment with RoversQuote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
Shams claimed he was totally innocent and that nothing inappropriate was said - this was proven wrong, are you insisting they retract ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calcio Jack
The issue is over and people can believe what they want. As regards tax compliance I presume you are/will be insisting shams pay back the Govt grants they misused ? Ooops, I was forgetting only other clubs previous counts :rolleyes:
... really time to move on CJ
http://therepublikofmancunia.com/how...are-dangerous/
Quote:
If, which seems likely, there is found to be not enough evidence, or none, to prove Suarez made racist remarks, inevitably people will assume that Evra was lying. But surely if your initial requirement to the claims that Suarez was racist was “prove it”, the same logic should be applied to the claims that Evra was lying? A lack of proof does not mean an incident has not happened, it simply means it cannot be proven to have happened. As dangerous as it is to assume Suarez is guilty, it is equally as dangerous to conclude Evra is lying if it cannot be proven. It is for this reason that Liverpool as a club have been irresponsible if they have, as has been reported, called for a ban for Evra if the allegations can’t be proven.
This pretty much hits the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Pietro
This game is live on telly if it does sell out, by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfx-
Its live on telly whether it sells out or not ;)
Touché! Meant in case people can't get tickets (which I'd imagine would be unlikely)
Dont think so, there should be some penalty for malicious complaints (this is the third case involving Evra - three more than all the other players in English football :(). Does that mean its not true ? No. But, nor should any player be allowed make such accusations without some penalty if the claim is mischevious (lot more than unproven). The article quoted is a bit misleading in that it is a Man U perspective (Man U - good Liverpool -bad) and would have a different perspective on presuming, for example, Rio ferdinand was guilty of drug taking because he missed a drugs test ? No evidence its not true :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CiaranR
bottom line is that players shoud be 100% certain before making accusations. I can understand shams anger at Zahed/Turner accusations and, personally, think it would be better if FAI decision was 100% guilty Or Innocent. If the FAI take strong action against players found guilty then players making mischevous claims should also face sanction.
have you read the article marino? its does everything it can to be objective. In fact the main point is that no one can be sure what was said, and that we should wait and see what happens
It is not objective. It is a Man U website running an article entitled "How Patrice Evra never played the race card......"Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Pietro
Three seperate claims involving the one player and it has nothing to do with him ? Describing Liverpool FC fans and employees as "sinister" is not biased ? are you serious ?:confused:
Anyway EP, wrong forum for EPL stuff so feel free to kid yourself if you like that a Man U forum will be objective regarding Liverpool FC (or indeed vice versa):rolleyes:
by the way I'm in no way an Man Utd fan. Just thought this stuff was relevant hereQuote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
No probs EP (and hope I didnt accuse you of supporting MU) just pointing out why I thought it was less than objective,Quote:
Originally Posted by El-Pietro
Sure, who would believe anything you would read on a football forum anyway....... :cool:
It's very difficult to be 100% sure of innocence or guilt in these cases. Where it's one player's word against another (in the absence of extraneous footage/witnesses) the presumption of innocence normally holds true. This is a presumption however; this is not proof. Therefore, you can't punish the player making the accusation on this premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
To punish someone for accusing another player of racism just because they can't prove the claim would be to set an unfortunate precedent. Victims of racial abuse should be encouraged to come forward, not vilified because there is difficulty in finding concrete evidence.
I would however be in favour of such claims being dealt with confidentially in order to prevent prejudice to the players involved.
Would not disagree with any of that but believe those accused must also have their rights observed. If,as you suggested, all complaints were dealt with confidentially (until substance proved/disproved) then that would be fine. In the Zahed case Stephen Kenny (I think) put it in the public domain (similarly in EPL Evra went the media route), in cases where there is no substance to the claim then I believe a penalty should apply to the accuser.Quote:
Originally Posted by CiaranR
Unfortunately in such cases either/both parties are likely to "leak" the story to strenghten their case and therefore the "private" approach is unlikely to work - I think most on here knew Chris Turner was the player involved in the Zahed case long before it was made public. The PFAI should also be more proactive in this area - mediating and educating their members (its surely in their own interest).
But the point El Pietro is making is that it hasn't been proved that there WASN'T sibstance to the claims. There just wasn't enough evidence to find Turner guilty. There was no statement from the FAI saying anything close to exhonerating him. In fact they handed him the lesser charge of being 'abusive'Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
Zayed, to his credit, didn't back down from the claims either. it boils down to Turner's word versus Zayed's.
And you'd like to see Zayed punished for this?
Dodge, mentioned in a post above that I only saw possible sanction where it was a "malicious claim" - a lot more than simply "not proven". Clearly not the case in Turner/Zahed case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Most cases will be one players word V another so very difficult area to administer which is why I believe the PFAI should be taking a very proactive role in addressing/eradicating the issue (yea, I know :rolleyes:)