Shamrock Rovers v Derry City

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Shame, you could fit loads there - where would you fit the 1500 standing along with the 1500 seated?

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?

Originally Posted by placid casual

I can only assume your not old enough to remember ollie byrne..

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?

Originally Posted by CSFShels

If something happened you and the person who did it was found innocent would you withdraw the claims?

The point is that an independent found Turner innocent of racism.... nothing was proved so therfore Zayed but especially Kenny should of apologised...

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

Originally Posted by marinobohs

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

Surely time to move on for all concerned ?

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 Rovers

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

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 Rovers

Shams claimed he was totally innocent and that nothing inappropriate was said - this was proven wrong, are you insisting they retract ?

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
... really time to move on CJ

http://therepublikofmancunia.com/how...are-dangerous/

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.

Originally Posted by El-Pietro

http://therepublikofmancunia.com/how...are-dangerous/

This pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by dfx-

Shame, you could fit loads there - where would you fit the 1500 standing along with the 1500 seated?

Rovers fans (including myself) were perched on the grassy knoll behind the goal in Bray last season. So perhaps...

This game is live on telly if it does sell out, by the way.

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)

Originally Posted by CiaranR

This pretty much hits the nail on the head.

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

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

Originally Posted by El-Pietro

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......"

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 ?

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)

Originally Posted by marinobohs

It is not objective. It is a Man U website running an article entitled "How Patrice Evra never played the race card......"

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 ?

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)

by the way I'm in no way an Man Utd fan. Just thought this stuff was relevant here

Originally Posted by El-Pietro

by the way I'm in no way an Man Utd fan. Just thought this stuff was relevant here

No probs EP (and hope I didnt accuse you of supporting MU) just pointing out why I thought it was less than objective,

Sure, who would believe anything you would read on a football forum anyway.......

Originally Posted by marinobohs

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

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CiaranR

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.

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.

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).

Originally Posted by marinobohs

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

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'

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?

Originally Posted by Dodge

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'

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.

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 )