Premier League 2011/12 Season

I could punch my computer screen, that's how frustrated I am.

We have to beat Norwich. Just have to.

 

What a fucking weird day of football. I know how you feel Slice/Jimmy.

 

Liverpool are now poised to make a proper charge at the top 4. I will be picking them to do the unimaginable and beat Citeh. As for Chelsea.....::

 

:: Get it up ye Chelsea

 

Robin Van Persie 17 goals. Arsenal's next leading scorer, Gervinho has 4.

 

I wonder how much Van Persie will fetch in the summer

 

:l2::l2::l2: Light that touchpaper son, light it.:bomb:

 

Man City in line to challenge Chelsea's all time record points total at the (nearly) half way point

 

Mancini better watch his back. The press won't take kindly to this kind of thing. Not on Sir Alex's Birthday Weekend and all :nono:

 

That was a bit naughty, sorry Hitman.

 

Never mind sorry, light the motherfucker!!!!!:bomb::bomb: ::

 

What do you think of the Wayne Bridge thing?

 

Wane Bridge ::

My philosophy is very simple: if a player wants to leave, let him leave. He says he doesn't want to leave and I believe him, because he's on so much money. Anywhere else he goes his wages are halved. But he is way down the pecking order and the manager has the right to pick the team, then the squad.

Not much of a situation really, look at Aurelio at Liverpool, you got Enrique who is top banana at left-back, then Glen Johnson could probably do a job there, so it comes to pass that the older, more injury prone guy is left out in the cold. Bridge isn't being "forced out", thats agent speak. Now he is pissing and moaning about how the manager "never speaks to him", look, if I was on £100,000 a week and my boss ignored me, would I be moaning? Yeah, right.

He is surplus to requirements, the wage bill needs aggressive pruning, so off he pops. Of course, its Citeh, so they press make a big deal of it, try to get another Tevez-Saga going, but its strictly business, as I see it.


Besides, Mancini doesn't want a creep like this hanging round his joint

"Fancy a go on me missus???"

 

HEY! Go drink some scotch.

 

That was kinda my take on it, but the Independent did a bit of a talk up piece on him on xmas eve on how badly he was being treated by Mancini. 'It's al so hard, Im a working class boy, I train so hard, just want to play, its making me so depressed.....etc'.

Takes me back to the Bobo Balde saga here, who sat on the highest wages at the club for 4 years knowing that he wasn't wanted. 90% of fans took his side against the club, but I thought that missed the point that he was sitting on our money knowing he wasn't earning it and never would. I was an angry hut.

 

Balde was firm favourite of mine but when your time is up, its up.

Have a read of this for a giggle, its great stuff, oh man, the FA fucked up this time.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Discipli...Written Reasons of Regulatory Commission.ashx

 

That post also works if you replace the words 'the FA' with 'suarez and lfc'.

 

The number of 'mitigating' factors alongside the 'aggravating' ones seems to warrant a much fuller explanation of why they doubled the standard ban for racist abuse.

 

A first year law student could pick holes in what the FA did.

The entire report is based on a subjective decision to discard one mans version of events and to accept another mans version of events.

The burden was on the FA. They did not displace it. Anyone with an GCSE English and a firm understanding of burdens and standards of proof could see that.

Several instances stand out for me.

1. The entirely illogical decision made by the panel to decide that a player who argued over the coin toss, tried to get a player booked, got involved with a member of the crowd and argued with the referee over a foul, and also alleged that the referee had booked him simply because he was black, was not at all "wound up" prior to the incident in question. That is plainly ridiculous. Evra displayed agitated and irrational behaviour all day. The referees report reflected this as it outlined the claim made by Evra that Marriner had only booked Evra "because I am black"

2. Damien Comolli gave evidence to the effect that Ferguson had claimed that Evra had told him {SAF} that "Evra was abused 5 times", but Evra himself approached Canal+ {French TV} claiming he had been abused 10 times. The FA gave great weight to the supposed "reliance" of Evras testimony and in so doing, willfully ignored this glaring inconsistency.

3. The FA decided that Suarez had "started" the entire incident by kicking Evra on the leg. This, for openers, sits uncomfortably with the palpably agitated fashion in which Evra had been conducting himself all day. Secondly, it seeks, illogically, to relegate the "Sudaca" and "Sisters Cunt" comments to secondary or tertiary importance in the flare up which followed. This is odd, considering that the entire case turned on the use of language, rather than any particular physical encounter.

 

Cracking player, but those wages weren't cutting into Tesco or Barkley's dividends pay outs....hell it's not even like Bridge who's maybe depriving that oil crook of a versace waist coat for his pet lemur, if anything. I thought it was poor form:Wah:

 

FA: "he's not racist, he's part black and he won't do it again. We hereby double the ban for racist abuse":scratcher:

The ban was doubled so that it might later be halved, thus appeasing Liverpool. Won't work.

 

I still remember the sight of him slumped and near tears in Seville.:crying:

 

Arsenal deserved the win but I have to say the Emirates is the least intimidating stadium in the history of football. I actually saw someone in a beret sitting with his legs crossed ::. Fucking pansies

 

I don't think it was ever submitted that Evra called him a sudaca was it? And your point 2 was specifically referred to as being explained as being a common phrase in France (something along the lines of '10x = multiple times'.) no idea if this is is correct, but that's how the report deals with evra's canal+ interview.

The report will be contentious because it was a case of one man's word against another, supported by contemporaneous evidence. But now nthat Ive read some parts, I do think that Suarez has been badly advised by lfc and their solicitor. The discrepancies in the witness statements of the lfc employees is very surprising, and seemingly equally damning in the eyes of the Panel. *



*Peter McCormack. No idea why they've used him here - their usual sols are Slaughter & May these days.

 

Cheating *^*&s.

 

What are the hours like as a solicitor, Joe?

 

Vary wildly mate. I tend to do about 11 a day on average and I often take work home with me. Most I've done is 21. My mate at DLA used to regularly do 24 hr shifts. I hope to stop practising law within a few years tbh.

 

Cheers. It had been my plan to go in that direction until I started to hear about the hours, but I hadn't spoken to anybody first hand. Not sure I could (/wanna) hack that, long term

 

To be honest Hut, it largely depends on the area of law. I'm doing long hours these days because I've an equity stake in the firm. Corporate work usually involves the nlongest hours, followed by commercial (unless you work on call doing crime).

I just hate how heavily regulated the industry is these days. It's completely OTT.

You could get a job as a paralegal and enrol on the ILEX course instead. Legal execs can become partners in firms now, and Often do the exact same work as a solicitor would. you'd save a fortune on course fees alone.

 

Slaughter and May took care of corporate affairs for the takeover, it might not be their field so to speak.

I don't think Suarez was "badly advised"- he wanted to fight it, the discrepancies arise because there were three conversations- the first between Evra and Suarez in Spanish, the second between Suarez and Kuyt in Dutch, and the third between Suarez and Dalglish in what passes for English for both men.

Evra on the other hand managed to come up with two different versions of events himself. The difference is he stuck to his version more rigidly but that should not have been enough to overcome the standard in question.

Ironically, John Terry, a man whom the nation and its mother saw calling Anton Ferdinand a "black cunt", will get the benefit of a bevy of barristers and a higher standard of proof at his own hearing, and will thus most likely be found not guilty.

The report deals with every instance of Suarez testimony in as harsh a fashion as it can, and every instance of Evras in as soft a fashion as it can. Ironically, much like Iron Mike, Suarez may have gotten into trouble for telling as much of the truth as he could. Yeah, I called him names, so what.

I have read almost all of it.....there is it seems no mention of Evra's past history but plenty of mention of Suarez. That is to say, Evra's accusations of racism against Steve Finnan, his unproven and dismissed case against a Chelsea grounds-keeper and his role in the fiasco of South Africa 2010 were all excluded.

Yet in Court, with Suarez charged with a criminal offence, all of this would have been admissible and used against him during cross examination.

So the model is clear: get charged with more, admit fuck all, walk away scott free.