If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
English Football Team
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Do you think that their backing of Rio Ferdinand is fair? Is it right that he was dropped from the team?
Or are these overpaid, ungrateful chosen few, who should regard representing their country as an honour, currently treating this privilege like a personal play-thing?
I think he deserves to be dropped and the England team should grow up and get on with the job.
Or are these overpaid, ungrateful chosen few, who should regard representing their country as an honour, currently treating this privilege like a personal play-thing?
I think he deserves to be dropped and the England team should grow up and get on with the job.
0
Comments
I think that they were spot on. They were never going to refuse to play the match, it was more about making a point.
Rio Ferdinand has been punished without being charged without any offence. He has been publically named, and shamed, and still faces no charge.
There is another player in the England team. I won't name him because of libel laws, but a national Sunday tabloid named him this week. He stands accused of rape. No charge as yet either. Not named. In the team.
Which of these offences do you think is worse, why is one played humiliated yet the other accused of a henious crime is still allowed to represent his country.
Added to that is the fact that the FA took their action in the days leading up to England's most important game since Brazil last year. Hardly in the best interests of the team is it?
I think that what they have done is point out that the whole team has been affected by th FAs actions, many of which could have taken place after the match. Assuming that is that the FA needed to act like this at all.
Remember, the reports coming out are that he passed his drug test.
Dropped on the basis of what? That he missed a test which he subsequently passed? Dropped even though there has been no hearing, no confirmation of guilt, no ban.
Don't you think it a little ironic that Sol Campbell was only fined this week, when a voilent conduct charge would usually mean a ban. Of course if they had banned him yesterday, he wouldn't have been able to play on Saturday. Although I'm sure that this had no bearing on their decision at all [/sarcasm]
Do you get a feeling of double standards being applied here?
It may be a cynical question, but would Ferdinand have been quite so absent-minded if his appointment was for a fashion shoot or a lucrative newspaper interview.
Instead the FA is being made, unfairly, to look incompetent, and Ferdinand is being transformed into a martyr by misguided England team-mates.
The FA has emerged desperate and damaged, but its initial instincts were correct.
Ferdinand's offence could not be brushed under the carpet on the basis that it was all a little inconvenient with England scheduled to play Turkey.
The FA's decision was correct and it is right to stick to its guns.
How would the nation have viewed a similar offence by a Turkish player? With understanding or suspicion?
The fact is that little sympathy has been expressed for their stance by the nation's football public.
Ferdinand should remain in exile and England's players should know better.
Ferdinand has not been charged or found guilty of such an offence. He has not yet been suspended and could play for United at any time.
I don't know about cynical, but it's certainly comtemptuous.
I wouldn't have said that they are treating him as a martyr. More as someone not yet charged with any offence. So why punish him, as you said playing for England is an honour.
Whereas someone found guilty of an offence has a conveniently leniet punishment which enables him to play... my turn to be cynical.
Two words. John Leslie. How much sympathy was he given?
Just because the public don't offer sympathy doesn't mean that the treatment was correct. Public opinion is not always the best barometer of what is "right".
The only unfortunate part of this episode is that Ferdinand was named publically before he was charged with an offence under the rules of the game- although not to would be rather hypocritical of the FA; after all, Campbell was charged with violent conduct before his hearing, Bradford City have been publically charged with failing to control their players before the hearing. The FA naming the player is consistent with every other charge they issue.
Fredinand has no-one to blame but himself. If Ferdinand is found guilty of missing his drugs test then he should be banned for a long long time- Dick Pound (which is a name he should be proud of, but that's by the by), the head of the World Anti-Doping Organisation, believes that no test should be regarded as a positive test- it would be in athletics, and it would be in rugby. Ferdinands negative result is actually irrelevant- many controlled substances would be out of his system 36 hours later. And if Ferdinand is found guilty Manchester United should be punished for failing to ensure that he took the test- again, contrary to the rules of the game.
It is unfortunate timing, it would have been better if the FA had revealed the charge on Monday morning, but the point is that Ferdinand is alleged to have broken the laws, and has actually admitted publicly that he did. Maybe banning him from the England team was too draconian, especialy as he has not been found guilty, but in the long run there are two points: how would the Turks react if they found out that if, say Ferdinand had scored a last-minute winner or equaliser then was charged witha serious anti-doping charge the day after and secondly, the England footballers should be made to learn that you cannot ignore the laws of the land.
Though the footballer in question with the rape should not be in the England squad eitehr, because of the treatment dished out to his team-mates Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate afetr the assault.
Dont even go there, because I think we all know that Djemba-Djemba is a diving, dirty, little tw*t.
This may surprise you, but had the auorities been able to charge him (they couldn't because the referee had "delat" with Eric at the time) then I would have advocate his banning too. Although I'm not sure that "diving" applies.
With Sol, he kicked out at an opponent which, unless the definition has changed, is violent conduct.
Each of those cases, the FA named the accused when charging them. To my knowledge Rio still hasn;t actually been charged with anything.
How they would have reacted and what they could have done are entirely different.
They would have reacted badly, without doubt.
They could have done nothing, just as each of the clubs who Rio has played against since the test day can do nothing.
If he is and [/i]if[/i] found guilty then I agree, he should face a lengthy ban.
Although again, precedence is interesting. How long was Merson banned for? He admitted taking various drugs...
Rio's team mates are free to voice their anger about the handling of the issue as loud as they can. But they have no right whatsoever to demand Rio is re-instated in the squad, let alone threaten to boycott the game if their 'demand' is not met.
In any case, I very much doubt Rio would be allowed to play even if the FA wanted him to. I'm sure UEFA, FIFA and above all the Turks would have something to say in the matter, especially if the result of the game wasn't favourable to Turkey.
As far as I'm concerned once the game is out of the way the FA should lash out the biggest fines in the history of the game for that bunch of overpaid, pretentious tossers.
Erm, he already has. Just not for England.
But this isn't what they have done. He is still free to play, all the FA did was drop him from the England squad. At the moment there is no indication of whether he will actually recieve a ban.
Takes me back to my earlier comment. The UEFA spokesman last night said that there is nothing anyone could do. He has not been charged or suspended. UEFA will not suspend a player, it has to come from the national FA.
No ban.
Not dropped from the national team - but then he was never in the reckoning. But precendence has been set.
In effect he has been. It may only apply to England but it's a pretty big game for him to miss.
The Man City player was little more than a YTS player, which is why I think they will make an example of Ferdinand, a player who should know better.
I thought he had been charged, which is why he was named, but if Im wrong I stand corrected.
On a random tangent- is anyone surprised that the Leeds United player involved in the rape in Leeds is one Mr Jody Morris (he was named in Metro today)? I just loved the way that they named him, but had to blank out his face "for legal reasons". Because no-one knows what he looks like :rolleyes:
And they have also been silhouetting the suspects from both the London and Yorkshire incidents- using 'official' photos as well- which means anyone who cared to log onto the clubs' websites could easily work out who the players were by comparing the blacked-out shots with the unedited ones.
Well done my S*n!
:rolleyes:
They really are dire:D