The Official Thread of Chelsea FC

[deiseach]

If the FA had of found Terry not guilty, or announced that they couldn't charge him, how do you think they would looked in thie eyes of the public and the football world? Their captain getting off on a technicality would've been a disaster for them.

Yes, it would have been. So how do you think they should handled it?

[Norf Tyrone]

If the FA had of found Terry not guilty, or announced that they couldn't charge him, how do you think they would looked in thie eyes of the public and the football world? Their captain getting off on a technicality would've been a disaster for them.

Yes, it would have been. So how do you think they should handled it?

They should've applied their own rules.

Rule 6.8 states "results of criminal proceedings are presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true by FA commissions".

[deiseach]

They should've applied their own rules.

Rule 6.8 states "results of criminal proceedings are presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true by FA commissions".

That I did not know. Fair enough.

[ziggy90]

Chelsea play Leeds in the next round of whatever the League Cup is called this year.

Could be another spiky encounter.  Reminds me of this incident from the 1970 FA Cup Final replay.  Bear in mind, the ref didn't consider this a foul.

Was there contact?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t_5sZ4-LRA

I remember the incident and the match very well. Eddie McCreadie wouldn't have been known as a "hard man " of the game compared say to the likes of Ron "chopper" Harris or Norman "bites yer legs" Hunter. Imagine if someone did that now? They'd probably get a life ban.

[AQMP]

I think this is an example of what Norf is referring to:

This is Arsene Wenger quoted in the Guardian:

"My opinion is just that I prefer, when I didn't behave well, that I have an explanation with the referee at the end of the game or on another day, [rather] than going public with little proof," (1) Wenger said. "I'm not a great believer in making these stories public." (2)

Two points here.  1) It's good to know that Arsene has carried out a through review of all the evidence having questioned Mikel, Clattenburg and other players and officials and has decided there is "little proof".  Pretty impressive for a man known to be unable to see incidents involving Arsenal players that happen in front of him.

2)  He seems to suggest that allegations of this nature should be sorted out behind closed doors or swept under the carpet.  Wasn't Blatter absolutely torn apart by the media for suggesting the same thing?

Now I've posted elsewhere that my reading of this incident is that in the heat of the moment in a fairly tense, feisty game a couple of players whose first language is not English (or Geordie) misheard whatever Clattenburg said.  It's also my understanding that Chelsea as a club were initially reluctant to pursue this issue but it is being driven by the players involved who are adamant they heard what they heard and Chelsea officials feel they have to back them.  I also am led to understand that Mikel was questioned by Chelsea officials and legal advisors for two hours, so the reports that Mikel didn't hear anything are probably not accurate.

But the point is it is very clear that the media as a group decided very quickly that the story was that this didn't happen, and that Chelsea are up to no good, so most reports reflect that postion.  I would think that had Wenger made similar comments to those above in relation to the Terry/Ferdinand incident, the Guardian for one, would be hammering him.

[AQMP]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/02/sir-alex-ferguson-mark-clattenburg-innocent

Do some people with a history of respect for referees not realise there is a police investigation on going?

"Sir Alex Ferguson is "convinced" that the referee Mark Clattenburg is innocent of the racial slurs Chelsea allege were aimed at Mikel John Obi during Manchester United's 3-2 win at Stamford Bridge last Sunday.

United's manager said: "I don't believe Mark Clattenburg would make any comments like that. I refuse to believe it. I think it is unthinkable in the modern climate. I just don't believe it – simple as that. There is no way a referee would stoop to that, I am convinced of that."

Cue a few dodgy added time pens for Utd in the future!

[EC Unique]

Seriously lads. This referee has had to climb a very difficult ladder to get to this level. He was a referee in the leagues at the age of 25.  It is VERY difficult to get to this level. It takes dedication and brains. Do you really think he would be stupid enough to use the word "monkey" to a black player? Seriously?

[AQMP]

Seriously lads. This referee has had to climb a very difficult ladder to get to this level. He was a referee in the leagues at the age of 25.  It is VERY difficult to get to this level. It takes dedication and brains. Do you really think he would be stupid enough to use the word "monkey" to a black player? Seriously?

I'm not sure how much brains Clattenburg has given his "colourful" past.  See my post this morning for my "explanation" of what may have happened. 

My point is that the media, for whatever reason (Chelsea hatred?) has decided early on that Clattenburg didn't say anything untoward and that this is Chelsea up to no good and that message has, not so subtly, been the major headline since Sunday night.  I haven't seen any "PFA Refuse to Back Black Players in Racism Row" headlines since then, though that is an interesting angle.  You can rest assured that would have been the story with a slightly different headline had Chelsea not made a complaint.

Interesting too that it is normally in the coverage that neither Mikel nor Mata heard the alleged comments directed at them (with "therefore they didn't happen" being the subtle subtext).  Neither did Anton Ferdinand...

[stew]

Seriously lads. This referee has had to climb a very difficult ladder to get to this level. He was a referee in the leagues at the age of 25.  It is VERY difficult to get to this level. It takes dedication and brains. Do you really think he would be stupid enough to use the word "monkey" to a black player? Seriously?

I'm not sure how much brains Clattenburg has given his "colourful" past.  See my post this morning for my "explanation" of what may have happened. 

My point is that the media, for whatever reason (Chelsea hatred?) has decided early on that Clattenburg didn't say anything untoward and that this is Chelsea up to no good and that message has, not so subtly, been the major headline since Sunday night.  I haven't seen any "PFA Refuse to Back Black Players in Racism Row" headlines since then, though that is an interesting angle.  You can rest assured that would have been the story with a slightly different headline had Chelsea not made a complaint.

Interesting too that it is normally in the coverage that neither Mikel nor Mata heard the alleged comments directed at them (with "therefore they didn't happen" being the subtle subtext).  Neither did Anton Ferdinand...

I think one of the main points is being missed here and that is this, Chelsea will never again have a game were Clattenberg is a part of the officiating crew, if he is found to have no case to answer he will still never ref when they are playing, that, to me, sets a very dangerous precedent and I for one hope that this scenario I mentioned does not become fact.

I agree with EC, I think the man has enough brains not to call a player a monkey but regardless we seem to be heading down a road where there are separate unions, and if Clattenberg is exonerated I think we will be a step closer to a black players union as they will feel they are not being taken seriously, i hope I am wrong.

[Norf Tyrone]

Seriously lads. This referee has had to climb a very difficult ladder to get to this level. He was a referee in the leagues at the age of 25.  It is VERY difficult to get to this level. It takes dedication and brains. Do you really think he would be stupid enough to use the word "monkey" to a black player? Seriously?

Can referees not be mentally unhinged as well? http://www.scotzine.com/2012/01/former-english-referee-jeff-winter-launches-sectarian-attack-on-celtic/

[Norf Tyrone]

Why Chelsea had to report Clattenburg. Essentially they had no choice after the allegation was flagged to them as per rule E34.

Still waiting for Clarke Carlisle, Stan Collymore, Rio Ferdinand, Jason Roberts etc to come out in support of Mikel. 6 days on.






Chelsea are well aware that should the FA and police investigations show that Mark Clattenburg did not racially abuse John Obi Mikel in last Sunday's match against Manchester United, the club would face an enormous backlash. Referees are already threatening to boycott the club as a result of the allegation.

However, the club felt that they had to make the complaint because otherwise they would have faced the even more explosive charge of trying to cover up alleged racial abuse. More so as Mikel, who was allegedly called a monkey, and Ramires, who also claims to have heard it, felt very strongly on this issue.

Talking to a highly placed source within the club it is now possible to reveal what led Chelsea to take the unprecedented step of accusing a referee of behaving in a racist manner. At the conclusion of Sunday's match the Chelsea hierarchy, despite the defeat, felt the club had secured the moral high ground.

In their view Clattenburg had made two major errors in sending off Fernando Torres and then allowing Javier Hernandez's offside winner to decide the outcome. There were some post-match suggestions that the club had engineered these complaints against Clattenburg in retaliation but, in fact, Chelsea were not looking for any such confrontation.

However, this changed when it emerged that several players were furious about what they deemed to be insulting language used by Clattenburg, not only towards Mikel but also towards Juan Mata, who allegedly was labelled a "Spanish twat".

Bruce Buck, the Chelsea chairman and a lawyer, who was in the directors' dining room, was told about the incidents. He came to the dressing room to talk to the players. It was clear Mikel and Ramires, both of whom claimed they heard Clattenburg call Mikel a monkey, were very upset. Mikel had tried to go into Clattenburg's room after the match to discuss the issue but failed.

As allowed under the rules, half an hour after the match the Chelsea manager, Roberto Di Matteo, did go and see Clattenburg but did not raise these issues. The discussion centred around why Clattenburg had made a potential game-changing decision to send off Torres and, particularly, how sure he was that the striker had dived and therefore deserved a second yellow. Television replays have since shown that Torres was fouled.

Chelsea were only able to talk to the Premier League match delegate about the Mikel and Mata incidents an hour and a half after the match. The delegate explained that the appropriate procedure was for him to inform his superior, who would then inform the FA.

By then Chelsea had carefully weighed up their options. As they saw it, they had a duty of care to their players. They also had to take into consideration FA rule E 14, which basically says a participant, meaning club, shall immediately report to the association any incident or matter which may be considered to be misconduct. Misconduct is a defined term under the FA regulations and includes such alleged racial behaviour.

Chelsea also had to consider the Equality Act 2010, which imposes an obligation on an employer to act if an employee believes he or she has been subjected to discrimination by third parties, such as a customer. In this case Clattenburg would be judged to be a third party.

The club also weighed up possible press and public reactions should it emerge that two black players had lodged accusations of being racially abused but Chelsea had done nothing about it. The club's fear, having gone through the John Terry affair, was that they would then be accused of a cover-up of alleged racial abuse of their own players.

It was this that led to Sunday's statement about the two incidents alleged by Mikel and Mata.

There has been much criticism of how Chelsea worded their statement but, according to the source, the club felt they had to say something. Several reporters had got wind of an incident involving Mikel and the Chelsea press office were getting calls. In retrospect, the club accept that the statement could have been worded more guardedly and referred in more general terms to possible incidents, but here again Chelsea were wary of being accused of a cover-up.

Things moved up a gear when, following the match delegate's report, the FA asked Chelsea whether they were going to make a formal complaint. External lawyers were called in, witness statements taken from players and it was decided there was not enough evidence to proceed with the allegation regarding Mata. The player himself had not heard it; a team-mate claimed he had. But Mikel was adamant that he had been called a monkey and Ramires was doubly certain. Ramires is believed to have made the point that as a black Brazilian playing in Portugal he was often called monkey and would recognise the word in any language. I understand he was not prepared to back down on this. Chelsea decided the Mikel allegation had to be proceeded with.

Chelsea reject accusations that they were driven by player power. Rather, they argue that they were motivated by a desire to be good employers. Chelsea also remain sceptical of the public interventions by Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsène Wenger, both of whom criticised them last week.

Unlike the John Terry case, where there was video evidence of what was said, this case will probably hinge on whose word is believed. Clattenburg is believed to be backed by his officials, all of whom are miked up. But even here there may be room for doubt, as some referees have put their hand over their mike when talking to players to avoid words being overheard or lip-read on camera. Chelsea may use this as part of their case when the FA hearing is held.

It is understood that in any investigation Clattenburg will deny the accusations made against him.

[Norf Tyrone]

At the end of the tunnel at Stamford Bridge is a door adorned with the sign "Officials changing". Beyond that door is a corridor, off which are the referee's changing room, a room for doping control and another in which radio interviews are conducted.

It is through the "Officials changing" door that Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay walked in the aftermath of the game against Manchester United eight days ago but not, Chelsea will submit, into the referee's private room.

Having originally visited the home dressing room, where he was made aware of the storm that was brewing, Gourlay went down to the "Officials changing" corridor and asked the Chelsea players and staff, who had by then left the referee's room occupied by Mark Clattenburg, to return to their dressing room. But the hare was already running.

The tunnel area at Stamford Bridge is surprisingly cramped. To the right is the press room where, if I delay going up the steps to the press box for kick-off, I can hear the buzzer to call the teams into the tunnel and that evocative sound of studs on a hard floor. Post-match, radio and television reporters are invited beyond the door from the press room into the tunnel and they would have seen John Obi Mikel come down from the home dressing room to confront Clattenburg.

By the time Gourlay was there, part of the Mikel-Clattenburg story was out. Even before Chelsea's explosive statement was released in the hours after the game, club officials were being asked by journalists about a row involving the referee and the whisper of a racial element was in the air.

As the events of an extraordinary week have unfolded, the question of what Chelsea and Gourlay should have done keeps being posed. Increasingly, it seems obvious to me that, however painful the fallout, he and the club had no choice but to follow procedure and make the complaint about Clattenburg.

Arsène Wenger said on Thursday that Chelsea would have been better served trying "to sort it out in the room", that he was a "deep supporter of doing that [solving disputes] internally". Wenger made a joke about the process only serving to make lawyers richer and preached "tolerance, fairness and explanation internally".

Sir Alex Ferguson said on Friday that he simply did not believe Clattenburg would have made a racist remark, so one can only suppose that had it been a black United player who had made the complaint, his manager would also have dismissed it. In 2008, United stood by the testimony of Mike Phelan and goalkeeping coach Richard Hartis, who alleged that a Chelsea groundsman racially abused Patrice Evra. The claim was dismissed by an independent commission.

Have I missed a reversal in the nation's mood? This time last week we were fearful that English football was teetering on the brink of a racial divide. The Professional Footballers' Association was hastily drawing up a plan to assuage the concerns of black players. There was a fear that our game had a genuine problem. Now there is outrage at a black man making an allegation of racism.

Place yourself in Chelsea's position. John Terry, their captain, has recently been found guilty of an FA race charge in arguably the highest-profile football disciplinary case of modern times. Ashley Cole and club secretary David Barnard have been heavily criticised for their conduct in the commission report. The club have spent the last few weeks reaffirming their commitment to anti-racism. Then a black player of theirs alleges racism.

And people are suggesting they should choose to ignore it?

Had they tried to deal with it "internally" (Wenger's advice) or just dismissed it (Ferguson's advice) it is inconceivable that, knowing what we do about the speed with which the news got out last Sunday, the nature of Mikel's complaint would have remained private. And when it did, along with Chelsea's refusal to act on the word of a black player, the whole episode would have looked like a monumental cover-up.

Had that taken place, there would have been calls for resignations at the top of the club's hierarchy, and rightly so.

Did Chelsea act too quickly in making two separate complaints against Clattenburg to the match delegate Nick Cusack, one of which, relating to Juan Mata, has already been withdrawn? Possibly they would have been better served being less specific. However, the regulations are quite clear on this point.

The FA rule book, page 123, Rule 14 states: "A participant shall immediately report to the association any incident, facts or matter which may constitute misconduct."

It has also been suggested that Chelsea's actions were somehow revenge for Terry's racism charge. Surely the dumbest argument yet. Given the events of the last 12 months, this is a club that wanted as little as possible to do with a race controversy. There are those at Chelsea who think Terry got exactly what was coming to him. Revenge on his behalf is the last thing on their mind.

Speaking to those who know Clattenburg, the response I have got to the question of whether he was the sort of man to make racial remarks has been along the lines of "never in a million years". If Ramires is the key witness then you have to wonder how certain he is of what was said. There are plenty of reasons to doubt Chelsea.

Which is exactly why there is a disciplinary process in place to deal with these issues. Should the FA press charges, the commission will, as in past cases, attempt painstakingly to recreate the events of 28 October and make a judgement on that basis.

When it comes to the events of that Sunday it is not up to what I think, or you think, or Ferguson thinks, or Wenger thinks. It comes down to a forensic examination of the evidence. If a few lawyers get even richer off the back of it, then we will just have to accept that unfortunate consequence.

Whatever your position on the Suarez-Evra affair, or the Terry-Ferdinand saga, both were subject to scrupulous legal process. Neither report was perfect. What is? Some people have, in both cases, disagreed with the findings. Some, including Kenny Dalglish, have argued that the civil burden of proof in commission hearings is too low. But at the end of both episodes all parties signed up to the findings and we moved on.

That is what will happen in the Clattenburg affair. Ferguson said that even if the referee is acquitted – or no charges are brought – he will be tainted for ever. I disagree strongly. And Ferguson placing that seed in the mind of the public will certainly not help matters.

Should he be proved innocent that is exactly what Clattenburg will be: innocent of racism. There will always be the occasional thicko who bears a grudge but the vast majority of football fans have a strong sense of fairness. He may even end up – shock, horror – quite popular.

It must be difficult and unpleasant for Clattenburg at present but, convinced of his innocence, he should trust in the process. Mikel's allegation was far too serious and complex to be hushed up – both morally or practically. As for Chelsea, they could doubtless do without all this, especially the consequences of the case being found against their player. The alternative, however, was unthinkable.

[ballinaman]

Heard a rumour today that Clattenburg is believed to have told Mikel he "couldn't give a monkeys" as a response to Mikel complaining about the decisions etc.

Have watched the incident a few times, Mikel didn't react at all when the said incident was supposed to take place. Bizarre the way the story has changed a few times from the Chelsea camp.

[Gazzler]

[AZOffaly]

Bubble is right.*


Bubble is a Limerick insult.