|
Post by blatantfowl on Jan 24, 2012 21:20:24 GMT
I don't believe the club should or would force Anton to act either way on what is a matter of personal integrity and his choice to make.
Personally, I'd shake JT warmly by the throat
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 24, 2012 22:37:14 GMT
Joint Statement Coming Chelsea and QPR chairmen to appeal for FA Cup-tie calm • Anton Ferdinand to consult about shaking John Terry's hand • Alex leaves Chelsea for Paris St-Germain in £4m deal reddit this Dominic Fifield guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 January 2012 17.30 EST Article history Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, will issue a statement with QPR's Tony Fernandes appealing for calm at Saturday's FA Cup tie. Photograph: Lee Mills/Action Images Dominic Fifield The chairmen of Chelsea and Queens Park Rangers, Bruce Buck and Tony Fernandes, will issue a joint statement on Wednesday appealing for calm ahead of Saturday's potentially explosive derby between the clubs. Tensions are running high around the fixture, with John Terry due to appear at west London magistrates' court a week today charged with racially abusing the QPR defender Anton Ferdinand during the league clash involving the clubs in October. Terry denies directing the comments at his opponent. The Chelsea manager, André Villas-Boas, has already indicated he will have no qualms selecting his captain for the FA Cup fourth-round tie – which has been moved forward to a midday kick-off on police advice – though Buck and Fernandes will release their statement in the hope they can defuse some of the tension. Pockets of Chelsea supporters have adopted a provocative chant about the incident that has been sung at some games since, most notably in the Champions League match at Genk, though the chairmen will plead for both sets of fans to "focus on the football" rather than the issues around the game. Terry intends to offer his hand to his opponent in the pre-match formalities that will inevitably draw the focus at Loftus Road, though it remains unclear whether Ferdinand will accept it. The QPR defender is expected to speak with the club [THURS] on Thursday about the issue and will only then decide whether or not to shake hands prior to kick-off. Lord Ouseley, an FA Councillor and chairman of the anti-racism campaign Kick it Out, has urged Ferdinand to do so. "Here we have the due process taking place, where a player will face the consequences of his actions," he said. "But there is every reason for players and indeed fans to show civility and respect toward each other and focus on the football. I have nothing against that. A handshake now is part of the reconciliation and honesty that needs to take place. "It is not about retribution and continued hostility. It is about reconciliation. It is about how to take the heat out of the situation of the two clubs meeting again, and problems with fans' behaviour as a result of what happened between the players previously. A handshake before the game will not deflect from what went on before and how it will be dealt with." Chelsea, whose squad are in Majorca on a warm-weather training break, are expected to make an improved offer for Shakhtar Donetsk's Brazilian forward Willian before the closure of the transfer window next week. An initial inquiry for the 23-year-old, who would be cup-tied for the Champions League, has been rejected, with Shakhtar seeking considerably more than the £16.5m Chelsea initially indicated they might be willing to pay, though an improved bid will test the Ukrainian club's resolve. Chelsea may also seek to complete a move for Genk's Kevin de Bruyne before the cut-off, though the winger would remain at the Belgian club on loan for the season. Alex, meanwhile, is close to completing a £4m move to Paris St-Germain that will see the central defender reunited with Carlo Ancelotti. The Brazilian rejected the chance to join QPR, who have at least completed the six-month loan of the Milan defender Taye Taiwo after the Nigerian was granted a work permit. www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/24/chelsea-qpr-chairmen-terry-ferdinand-willian?newsfeed=true
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Jan 24, 2012 22:40:58 GMT
so we wasn't busy with alex?
all the time we were in cohoots with the scum to please the old bill ,the fa and chel*** fc.
smoke screen
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Jan 25, 2012 6:42:28 GMT
If Anton shakes his hand he will keep the moral high ground and show he is above such things.
|
|
|
Post by greeksuperhoop on Jan 25, 2012 6:51:51 GMT
Shake his hand, then in an attacking corner, give him a right old elbow in the nose.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Jan 25, 2012 9:15:09 GMT
Still no joint statement. Wonder what the hold up is?
Our Anton refusing to shake Terry's hand I trust!!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 25, 2012 9:31:58 GMT
And QPR/Ferdinand/Terry makes the US Preeminent Conservative publication, National Review! NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT Britain’s Free-Speech Problem By Suneal Bedi & William C. Marra January 25, 2012 4:00 A.M. Imagine if New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady were accused of hurling a racist remark at an opponent during an NFL game. Public condemnation would be swift, but it would be unthinkable — not to mention unconstitutional — for prosecutors to bring criminal charges against Brady for his words. Not so in Britain, where John Terry — the captain of both the English national soccer team and Chelsea, one of the nation’s most powerful teams — faces trial on February 1 for allegedly racially slurring an opponent during a recent soccer match. Terry is no stranger to controversy. In 2010, he was removed as captain of the national team after allegations surfaced that he’d had an affair with a teammate’s girlfriend; he was reinstated as captain a year later. England’s soccer authorities have yet to punish Terry for his latest alleged transgression, as they await the outcome of his legal battle. If the accusations of racism are true, then the England captain should be swiftly and thoroughly censured. But his punishment should come from soccer’s governing authorities and the court of public opinion, not the criminal courts. Prosecuting Terry or anyone else for hateful speech is misguided and counterproductive. Terry’s criminal prosecution highlights the gulf between American and British understandings of free speech, and the disconcerting extent to which the land of John Milton and John Stuart Mill is comfortable limiting its citizens’ freedom of expression. Although this is apparently the first time a British soccer player has been prosecuted for racially insensitive remarks made on the pitch, the principle is well established that Britons may be subject to criminal sanctions for taboo speech. The charges against Terry stem from an October match between Chelsea and Queens Park Rangers. Terry, who is white, is accused of calling QPR’s black central defender, Anton Ferdinand, a “black c***.” Terry does not deny using the phrase but challenges the context in which it was said. His defense is that Ferdinand asked him whether he had used the slur, and Terry simply replied, “No, I didn’t call you a black c***.” Prosecutors in England charged Terry with a “racially aggravated public order offense,” in violation of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. The act authorizes jail time, though Terry will face only a $4,000 fine if convicted. Tragically, accusations of racism are not new in European soccer. Opposing fans frequently jeer black opponents with monkey noises. Eight days before Terry allegedly slurred Ferdinand, Liverpool striker Luis Suarez was accused of slurring a black opponent in another English Premier League match. Suarez’s fate has been the inverse of Terry’s — he does not face criminal prosecution, but has been suspended eight matches and fined about $63,000 by the League. Bigotry exists in America too, but we do not criminally sanction hate speech. We have a faith in the “marketplace of ideas,” the belief that truth is most likely to emerge through the free exchange of ideas and not through censorship. Americans tend to believe that the best way to combat hateful speech like Terry’s alleged slur is to expose it to the antiseptic of public debate, and we are skeptical of empowering the government to label certain ideas “right” or “wrong.” Unfortunately, we are an outlier in our conception of the freedom of speech. Whereas we view the freedom of speech as an individual right that should rarely give way to competing social goals such as equality and dignity, Britain, like much of the West, is more comfortable giving stock to those competing interests. This difference is reflected in contrasting textual guarantees of the speech right. The First Amendment categorically states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” By contrast, Britain’s Human Rights Act of 1998 (which codifies the European Convention on Human Rights) declares that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression,” but quickly adds that the freedom may be restricted as “necessary in a democratic society,” for example to prevent disorder or protect health and morals. These different conceptions of speech matter. The Terry prosecution is just the latest example. Consider, for example, virulent anti-war protests. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, by an 8–1 vote, the right of the supremely bigoted Westboro Baptist Church to stage anti-gay protests at the funerals of American servicemen. Speech can “inflict great pain,” Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged, but “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” A British court, faced with a similar set of facts, reached the opposite conclusion last February. The court held that the criminal prosecution of protesters who shouted slogans like “burn in hell” and “baby killers” at a parade of British soldiers did not violate the protesters’ freedom of expression. The trouble with Britain’s approach is that it empowers the government to pick right and wrong ideas, and it nudges us down a slippery slope where more and more ideas may be censored. It chills speech that straddles the border between permitted and proscribed. Such censorship probably does little to combat the ideas themselves, and may only drive bigots to adhere more adamantly to their views. Structural differences between the United States and Britain are critical. In the United States, courts are endowed with the power of judicial review, meaning they can strike down laws inconsistent with the Constitution. Not so in Britain. Whereas America has a system of judicial supremacy (courts have the final word on the scope of the freedom of speech), Britain has parliamentary supremacy (the legislature has the last word). Thus if a British court believes Terry’s prosecution is inconsistent with the “freedom of expression” protected by the Human Rights Act, the court must still enforce the law, and it can do no more than issue an advisory “declaration of incompatibility” that Parliament is free to ignore. But if Terry were prosecuted in America, the courts could (and almost certainly would) strike the law from the books. To be sure, the courts are not always our great defenders of freedom, and the political process does not always run roughshod over individual rights. But on balance, an independent court, insulated from the political process and endowed with the power of judicial review, is more likely to protect a counter-majoritarian right like the freedom to deliver unpopular speech. It is unsurprising that Britain, which leaves the scope of the right in the hands of Parliament and the political process, has a less vigorous culture of expression. This final point has particular salience today. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has proposed scrapping our system of judicial supremacy, ridding the Court of its status as privileged interpreter of the Constitution and empowering the executive and legislative branches to ignore Supreme Court decisions. While Gingrich would not go as far as Britain’s system of legislative supremacy, in practice his proposal would often give the political branches the final word on whether individuals enjoy certain rights, such as the right to deliver unpopular speech. To the extent that the courts help protect our speech rights, Gingrich’s plan threatens to undermine the vitality of our freedom of speech. There may be merits to Gingrich’s plan as applied to other areas of the law. But if you find the prosecution of John Terry troubling, so too should you find proposals to strip the Supreme Court of its final word on matters of free speech. — Suneal Bedi and William C. Marra are students at Harvard Law School. www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/288959
|
|
|
Post by alfaranger on Jan 25, 2012 9:36:50 GMT
And QPR/Ferdinand/Terry makes the US Preeminent Conservative publication, National Review! NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT Britain’s Free-Speech Problem By Suneal Bedi & William C. Marra January 25, 2012 4:00 A.M. Imagine if New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady were accused of hurling a racist remark at an opponent during an NFL game. Public condemnation would be swift, but it would be unthinkable — not to mention unconstitutional — for prosecutors to bring criminal charges against Brady for his words. Not so in Britain, where John Terry — the captain of both the English national soccer team and Chelsea, one of the nation’s most powerful teams — faces trial on February 1 for allegedly racially slurring an opponent during a recent soccer match. Terry is no stranger to controversy. In 2010, he was removed as captain of the national team after allegations surfaced that he’d had an affair with a teammate’s girlfriend; he was reinstated as captain a year later. England’s soccer authorities have yet to punish Terry for his latest alleged transgression, as they await the outcome of his legal battle. If the accusations of racism are true, then the England captain should be swiftly and thoroughly censured. But his punishment should come from soccer’s governing authorities and the court of public opinion, not the criminal courts. Prosecuting Terry or anyone else for hateful speech is misguided and counterproductive. Terry’s criminal prosecution highlights the gulf between American and British understandings of free speech, and the disconcerting extent to which the land of John Milton and John Stuart Mill is comfortable limiting its citizens’ freedom of expression. Although this is apparently the first time a British soccer player has been prosecuted for racially insensitive remarks made on the pitch, the principle is well established that Britons may be subject to criminal sanctions for taboo speech. The charges against Terry stem from an October match between Chelsea and Queens Park Rangers. Terry, who is white, is accused of calling QPR’s black central defender, Anton Ferdinand, a “black c***.” Terry does not deny using the phrase but challenges the context in which it was said. His defense is that Ferdinand asked him whether he had used the slur, and Terry simply replied, “No, I didn’t call you a black c***.” Prosecutors in England charged Terry with a “racially aggravated public order offense,” in violation of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. The act authorizes jail time, though Terry will face only a $4,000 fine if convicted. Tragically, accusations of racism are not new in European soccer. Opposing fans frequently jeer black opponents with monkey noises. Eight days before Terry allegedly slurred Ferdinand, Liverpool striker Luis Suarez was accused of slurring a black opponent in another English Premier League match. Suarez’s fate has been the inverse of Terry’s — he does not face criminal prosecution, but has been suspended eight matches and fined about $63,000 by the League. Bigotry exists in America too, but we do not criminally sanction hate speech. We have a faith in the “marketplace of ideas,” the belief that truth is most likely to emerge through the free exchange of ideas and not through censorship. Americans tend to believe that the best way to combat hateful speech like Terry’s alleged slur is to expose it to the antiseptic of public debate, and we are skeptical of empowering the government to label certain ideas “right” or “wrong.” Unfortunately, we are an outlier in our conception of the freedom of speech. Whereas we view the freedom of speech as an individual right that should rarely give way to competing social goals such as equality and dignity, Britain, like much of the West, is more comfortable giving stock to those competing interests. This difference is reflected in contrasting textual guarantees of the speech right. The First Amendment categorically states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” By contrast, Britain’s Human Rights Act of 1998 (which codifies the European Convention on Human Rights) declares that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression,” but quickly adds that the freedom may be restricted as “necessary in a democratic society,” for example to prevent disorder or protect health and morals. These different conceptions of speech matter. The Terry prosecution is just the latest example. Consider, for example, virulent anti-war protests. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, by an 8–1 vote, the right of the supremely bigoted Westboro Baptist Church to stage anti-gay protests at the funerals of American servicemen. Speech can “inflict great pain,” Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged, but “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” A British court, faced with a similar set of facts, reached the opposite conclusion last February. The court held that the criminal prosecution of protesters who shouted slogans like “burn in hell” and “baby killers” at a parade of British soldiers did not violate the protesters’ freedom of expression. The trouble with Britain’s approach is that it empowers the government to pick right and wrong ideas, and it nudges us down a slippery slope where more and more ideas may be censored. It chills speech that straddles the border between permitted and proscribed. Such censorship probably does little to combat the ideas themselves, and may only drive bigots to adhere more adamantly to their views. Structural differences between the United States and Britain are critical. In the United States, courts are endowed with the power of judicial review, meaning they can strike down laws inconsistent with the Constitution. Not so in Britain. Whereas America has a system of judicial supremacy (courts have the final word on the scope of the freedom of speech), Britain has parliamentary supremacy (the legislature has the last word). Thus if a British court believes Terry’s prosecution is inconsistent with the “freedom of expression” protected by the Human Rights Act, the court must still enforce the law, and it can do no more than issue an advisory “declaration of incompatibility” that Parliament is free to ignore. But if Terry were prosecuted in America, the courts could (and almost certainly would) strike the law from the books. To be sure, the courts are not always our great defenders of freedom, and the political process does not always run roughshod over individual rights. But on balance, an independent court, insulated from the political process and endowed with the power of judicial review, is more likely to protect a counter-majoritarian right like the freedom to deliver unpopular speech. It is unsurprising that Britain, which leaves the scope of the right in the hands of Parliament and the political process, has a less vigorous culture of expression. This final point has particular salience today. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has proposed scrapping our system of judicial supremacy, ridding the Court of its status as privileged interpreter of the Constitution and empowering the executive and legislative branches to ignore Supreme Court decisions. While Gingrich would not go as far as Britain’s system of legislative supremacy, in practice his proposal would often give the political branches the final word on whether individuals enjoy certain rights, such as the right to deliver unpopular speech. To the extent that the courts help protect our speech rights, Gingrich’s plan threatens to undermine the vitality of our freedom of speech. There may be merits to Gingrich’s plan as applied to other areas of the law. But if you find the prosecution of John Terry troubling, so too should you find proposals to strip the Supreme Court of its final word on matters of free speech. — Suneal Bedi and William C. Marra are students at Harvard Law School. www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/288959Brilliant - makes you think!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 25, 2012 10:05:03 GMT
Mouriho... Charles Sale/Daily Mail Old boss Mourinho jumps to Terry's defence in race case Real Madrid manager Jose Mourinho leads a trio of big football names who are giving John Terry character witness support ahead of his trial for allegedly using racist language towards QPR defender Anton Ferdinand. Terry’s one-time Chelsea bosses Mourinho and Carlo Ancelotti, now at Paris Saint-Germain, and the England captain’s ex-Stamford Bridge team-mate Marcel Desailly are giving witness statements claiming they have no knowledge of him ever behaving in a racist way. Ancelotti and Desailly have already sent in their signed documents, with Mourinho’s agreed statement just awaiting his signature. I've got your back: Jose Mourinho will be a character witness for John Terry The three key witnesses have indicated they are prepared to appear in court if called by Terry’s defence team. Terry is charged with a racially aggravated public order offence following allegations that he directed a racist comment at Ferdinand in Chelsea’s Premier League defeat at QPR last October. The preliminary hearing is at West London Magistrates’ Court a week today. The case will be adjourned, with Terry not making an appearance in court next week. The leading QC representing Terry, in a case where the maximum fine is £2,500, is John Cooper, a specialist in human rights and the chairman of the League Against Cruel Sports www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2091311/Jose-Mourinho-jumps-John-Terrys-defence-CHARLES-SALE.html#ixzz1kSlhRbZA
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jan 25, 2012 10:17:09 GMT
It doesn't matter if they have no knowledge of Terry previously using racist language at all. Unless they were within earshot of Terry at Loftus Road back in October (which obviously they weren't) then their opinion shouldn't change anything. I'm sure Suarez had never racially abused anyone before the Evra incident but just becuase it's the England captain everyone has his back. You can see where this hearing is going before it even starts.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jan 25, 2012 11:52:57 GMT
Would a handshake or a non-handshake be prejudical to the case? If Ferdinand is in fact a witness then he should not be meeting the defendant under any circumstances. Is that not the case? I cannot understand why Terry will not be in court either if this is true. "The preliminary hearing is at West London Magistrates’ Court a week today. The case will be adjourned, with Terry not making an appearance in court next week."Drags on for bloody months and then nobody in court seems pointless and a waste of taxpayers money!
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jan 25, 2012 12:01:51 GMT
Daily Mirror but not found the link yet.. Anton Ferdinand has told friends he will not shake hands with John Terry ahead of QPR's FA Cup tie against Chelsea on Saturday. (Daily Mirror) Found this one. Ferdinand to snub Terry - reportJanuary 25, 2012 QPR defender Anton Ferdinand is set to snub John Terry's pre-match handshake ahead of this weekend's FA Cup tie against Chelsea, according to the Daily Mirror.• Lord Ouseley backing Terry handshake The match at Loftus Road will be the first meeting of the pair since Terry was hit with a criminal charge of racially abusing Ferdinand during Chelsea's 1-0 defeat at QPR in October. Terry, who denies any wrongdoing and has also been charged by the FA, will appear in court on February 1. QPR intimated on Tuesday that they want Ferdinand to ease tensions ahead of the west London derby by publicly burying the hatchet with Terry. But the Daily Mirror claim Ferdinand has been left bemused by the club's stance and maintains he has not been approached over the issue. If Ferdinand does refuse Terry's handshake, it will not be the first time the Blues skipper has been snubbed. Wayne Bridge refused to shake his hand ahead of Manchester City's game with Chelsea in February 2010, amid allegations Terry had an affair with the mother of Bridge's son. soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1012839/ferdinand-to-snub-terry-handshake---report?cc=5739
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Jan 25, 2012 12:16:38 GMT
I hope that Anton does refuse to shake hands and that the rest of the team do as well.
Still find it hard to believe that the club have even considered asking him to do it.
Why try to defuse things ahead of a local derby and our first 4th round tie for 500 years.
It's not going to change the fans attitude, we scared the shit out of them the last time and we can do it again...
We all know the git is going to get away with it, but we aren't going to let the scum beat us if at all possible.
They might not consider us as rivals but as we showed them last time the feeling isn't mutual....
Happy days.....
|
|
|
Post by superckat on Jan 25, 2012 12:53:23 GMT
It's not a case of whether he should or he should not, it's simply a case of being his decision alone. As've already said, I don't believe that story, anyone trying to convnce him to do so at the club needs a reality slap. All that shaking hands line up malarkey is crap anyway and never seen on any televised game unless it's a rare BBC game. I agree with all the above. But I love this one HOOPSAA. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 25, 2012 12:57:38 GMT
Also, to some degree, if they do shake, it may lessen the Police/FA case against Terry
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 25, 2012 13:05:50 GMT
Mirror story EXCLUSIVE: Anton Ferdinand set to snub John Terry's handshake Published 22:30 24/01/12 By Darren Lewis and Martin Lipton Anton Ferdinand is set to snub John Terry’s handshake this weekend ahead of QPR’s FA Cup tie against Chelsea. The Rangers defender, 26, has told friends there is no change from his position in the aftermath of the October clash in which Terry is alleged to have called him a “******* black ****”. Terry, who denies wrongdoing, has been charged by the FA with using racist language and will appear in court on Feb 1 on similar charges. The PFA have already tried and failed to get the two players to resolve their issues with the Ferdinand camp uninterested. Saturday’s snub is set to echo that of Terry’s former Chelsea team-mate Wayne Bridge, who refused to acknowledge the England captain after it emerged he had had a relationship with Bridge’s ex-partner. QPR made it clear yesterday that they want Ferdinand to ease tensions ahead of the incendiary clash this weekend by publicly burying the hatchet with Terry. But Ferdinand was left bemused by the club’s stance as his camp maintained he had not been approached over the issue beforehand. And today Ferdinand will come under more pressure when Chelsea and QPR issue a joint statement urging fans to respect ‘the game’. Blues chairman Bruce Buck and Rangers owner Tony Fernandes were last night putting the finishing touches to the unprecedented joint statement. It is understood the clubs will encourage both sets of fans to support their teams in the spirit of an FA Cup tie and a West London derby. Both clubs want to remind their fans that the match should be about the things that make them proud of being supporters and that the passion of the occasion should be enjoyed. The move comes with the FA and the League Managers Association having already made private overtures to both clubs - and Liverpool and Manchester United - to ensure there are no inflammatory comments made in the build-up to the two games. Chelsea had to make a public apology when some travelling fans made anti-Ferdinand chants during the Champions League game at Genk while the club have acted after claims of similar and racist abuse from supporters travelling back from Saturday’s goalless draw at Norwich. www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Racism-row-Anton-Ferdinand-set-to-snub-John-Terry-s-handshake-against-clubs-wishes-EXCLUSIVE-article857112.html
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 25, 2012 13:08:17 GMT
THE JOINT STATEMENT QPR OFFICIAL SITE - FA CUP - JOINT STATEMENT Posted on: Wed 25 Jan 2012 Tony Fernandes, the Chairman of Queens Park Rangers, and Bruce Buck, the Chairman of Chelsea Football Club, have issued a joint statement ahead of this weekend's FA Cup fourth round tie at Loftus Road. 'We have discussed the issues surrounding this weekend's FA Cup fourth round tie at Loftus Road and we are both in total agreement that abuse and discrimination has no place in football or society. Both Clubs enjoy fantastic support. However, we would remind fans that while we want to hear their passion, it's a fact that hatred and abuse is not what being a fan of QPR or Chelsea is about. The Clubs will work together with the police to ensure that anyone using discriminatory or inflammatory language is identified and that the strongest possible action is taken against them. We would urge fans witnessing any form of abuse to report it to a matchday steward or text confidentially on 07557435421. Let's make Saturday's match a celebration of football. A local derby is always a special occasion and this weekend's FA Cup tie is a unique opportunity to show the world that hatred has no place in our game, our Clubs, or our communities.' www.qpr.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10373~2587142,00.html CHELSEA OFFICIAL SITE BUCK AND FERNANDES ISSUE JOINT STATEMENT Posted on: Wed 25 Jan 2012 Bruce Buck, chairman of Chelsea Football Club, and Tony Fernandes, chairman of Queens Park Rangers, have issued a joint statement ahead of this weekend's FA Cup game. The statement reads: 'We have discussed the issues surrounding this weekend's FA Cup fourth-round tie at Loftus Road and we are both in total agreement that abuse and discrimination has no place in football or society. 'Both clubs enjoy fantastic support. However, we would remind fans that while we want to hear their passion, it's a fact that hatred and abuse is not what being a fan of Chelsea or QPR is about. 'The clubs will work together with the police to ensure that anyone using discriminatory or inflammatory language is identified and that the strongest possible action is taken against them. 'We would urge fans witnessing any form of abuse to report it to a matchday steward or text confidentially on 07557 435421. 'Let's make Saturday's match a celebration of football. 'A local derby is always a special occasion and this weekend's FA Cup tie is a unique opportunity to show the world that hatred has no place in our game, our clubs, or our communities.' www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2588379,00.html
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 25, 2012 13:12:25 GMT
Should have had Roman Abramovich join in the statement!
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jan 25, 2012 13:23:23 GMT
Mirror story EXCLUSIVE: Anton Ferdinand set to snub John Terry's handshake Published 22:30 24/01/12 By Darren Lewis and Martin Lipton Anton Ferdinand is set to snub John Terry’s handshake this weekend ahead of QPR’s FA Cup tie against Chelsea. The Rangers defender, 26, has told friends there is no change from his position in the aftermath of the October clash in which Terry is alleged to have called him a “******* black ****”. Terry, who denies wrongdoing, has been charged by the FA with using racist language and will appear in court on Feb 1 on similar charges. The PFA have already tried and failed to get the two players to resolve their issues with the Ferdinand camp uninterested. Saturday’s snub is set to echo that of Terry’s former Chelsea team-mate Wayne Bridge, who refused to acknowledge the England captain after it emerged he had had a relationship with Bridge’s ex-partner. QPR made it clear yesterday that they want Ferdinand to ease tensions ahead of the incendiary clash this weekend by publicly burying the hatchet with Terry. But Ferdinand was left bemused by the club’s stance as his camp maintained he had not been approached over the issue beforehand. And today Ferdinand will come under more pressure when Chelsea and QPR issue a joint statement urging fans to respect ‘the game’. Blues chairman Bruce Buck and Rangers owner Tony Fernandes were last night putting the finishing touches to the unprecedented joint statement. It is understood the clubs will encourage both sets of fans to support their teams in the spirit of an FA Cup tie and a West London derby. Both clubs want to remind their fans that the match should be about the things that make them proud of being supporters and that the passion of the occasion should be enjoyed. The move comes with the FA and the League Managers Association having already made private overtures to both clubs - and Liverpool and Manchester United - to ensure there are no inflammatory comments made in the build-up to the two games. Chelsea had to make a public apology when some travelling fans made anti-Ferdinand chants during the Champions League game at Genk while the club have acted after claims of similar and racist abuse from supporters travelling back from Saturday’s goalless draw at Norwich. www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Racism-row-Anton-Ferdinand-set-to-snub-John-Terry-s-handshake-against-clubs-wishes-EXCLUSIVE-article857112.htmlTut tut mr mirror journo, Terry has not been charged by the FA ffs!!!
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Jan 25, 2012 13:25:23 GMT
The joint statement..... What?
As far as I am aware it is only Chelsea fans who have chanted racist chants about the whole Terry thing.
QPR fans scared the shit out of their supposed betters in the last game, get over it.
If you want to take the chance of racism out of the game then rest Terry.
Nuff said....
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 25, 2012 13:28:37 GMT
I would commend Chelsea in one way: The club - not the fans. Not the players! Over the last couple of years, they have made quite a few statements condemning racism and anti-Semitism when practicised by their fans. Or against their club. So in that respect, they should be commended.
But the John Terry "incident" - and how the club have gathered around him...I'd say they've taken quite a step back between what they preach. And what they practice.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 25, 2012 13:30:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jan 25, 2012 13:48:12 GMT
|
|
rodmod
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 181
|
Post by rodmod on Jan 25, 2012 14:21:38 GMT
No shake. I agree with all that feel that Terry's tenure in the English game should be quickly diminished. I wouldn't shake hands with someone who's racially abused me, not for all the tea in china.
|
|
|
Post by klr on Jan 25, 2012 14:42:33 GMT
Why cant "the racism industry" keep out of football ?
Right minded people dont need to be issued statements on what they can & cannot say, its insulting & completely unneccessary.
What kind of country is it that we are living in ?
No to Communism.
|
|
|
Post by klr on Jan 25, 2012 14:44:08 GMT
The saddest thing of all is the way Anton has been "leant on" by certain vested special interests groups, its sad, its also very sinister as well.
|
|
|
Post by northpole72 on Jan 25, 2012 14:46:56 GMT
Anton has been a pawn in this no doubt by Rio trying to get his captains job back . Shake hands and then kick JT in the first tackle , its a mans game crying over names is not what we want to see in english football.
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Jan 25, 2012 14:48:49 GMT
I have found it more psychologically healthy not to hate those that hate you.
This story though has a beginning no middle no end. So shaking hands should be avoided imo.
|
|
kilburnhoop
Dave Sexton
Every Ranger is a danger
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by kilburnhoop on Jan 25, 2012 14:53:44 GMT
THE JOINT STATEMENT QPR OFFICIAL SITE - FA CUP - JOINT STATEMENT Posted on: Wed 25 Jan 2012 Tony Fernandes, the Chairman of Queens Park Rangers, and Bruce Buck, the Chairman of Chelsea Football Club, have issued a joint statement ahead of this weekend's FA Cup fourth round tie at Loftus Road. 'We have discussed the issues surrounding this weekend's FA Cup fourth round tie at Loftus Road and we are both in total agreement that abuse and discrimination has no place in football or society. Both Clubs enjoy fantastic support. However, we would remind fans that while we want to hear their passion, it's a fact that hatred and abuse is not what being a fan of QPR or Chelsea is about. The Clubs will work together with the police to ensure that anyone using discriminatory or inflammatory language is identified and that the strongest possible action is taken against them. We would urge fans witnessing any form of abuse to report it to a matchday steward or text confidentially on 07557435421. Let's make Saturday's match a celebration of football. A local derby is always a special occasion and this weekend's FA Cup tie is a unique opportunity to show the world that hatred has no place in our game, our Clubs, or our communities.' www.qpr.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10373~2587142,00.html CHELSEA OFFICIAL SITE BUCK AND FERNANDES ISSUE JOINT STATEMENT Posted on: Wed 25 Jan 2012 Bruce Buck, chairman of Chelsea Football Club, and Tony Fernandes, chairman of Queens Park Rangers, have issued a joint statement ahead of this weekend's FA Cup game. The statement reads: 'We have discussed the issues surrounding this weekend's FA Cup fourth-round tie at Loftus Road and we are both in total agreement that abuse and discrimination has no place in football or society. 'Both clubs enjoy fantastic support. However, we would remind fans that while we want to hear their passion, it's a fact that hatred and abuse is not what being a fan of Chelsea or QPR is about. 'The clubs will work together with the police to ensure that anyone using discriminatory or inflammatory language is identified and that the strongest possible action is taken against them. 'We would urge fans witnessing any form of abuse to report it to a matchday steward or text confidentially on 07557 435421. 'Let's make Saturday's match a celebration of football. 'A local derby is always a special occasion and this weekend's FA Cup tie is a unique opportunity to show the world that hatred has no place in our game, our clubs, or our communities.' www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2588379,00.html I noticed they have included a phone number, i will text that number at about 11.45 on sat. Informing them there are 3000 racist thugs in the school end...
|
|
|
Post by The Scooter on Jan 25, 2012 15:04:22 GMT
Sorry, but that's an awful statement.
We are historically an inclusive football club with NO history of our players or our fans being any part of racist abuse. How dare the Club tarnish our own fans with Chelsea's dirty brush. Chelsea are the club with dual problems, why the hell are we helping them to get out of the mess created by their own captain and years and years of the Mears family, Ken Bates and Colin Hutchinson not properly neutering the problem at the Bridge in the 70's and 80's? It's verging on the obscene.
Of course Ferdinand shouldn't shake his hand. It wouldn't be sincere and Terry's legal team will use the handshake in evidence at his trial.
Horrible idea
|
|