The Official Thread of Chelsea FC

[Norf Tyrone]

Did the Manc pigs ever apologise to Sam Bethnell?

[Estimator]

From The Guardian

Chelsea say case is closed but keep their counsel on Mark ClattenburgIt is wrong to demonise Chelsea but club should at least acknowledge the impact on traumatised referee

Daniel Taylor The Guardian, Thursday 22 November 2012
Mark Clattenburg has suffered a lot since he was accused of racially abusing Chelsea's Mikel John Obi.
To put it into context, the player making the allegation speaks barely a word of English. Ramires, brought up in Barra do Piraí, understands the basics – hello, goodbye and so on – and has come to know all the usual football phrases, but little more. Journalists interviewing him use a translator even for the more basic questions. David Luiz performs the role for Ramires in the Chelsea dressing room, where the Brazilian is regarded as a fairly straightforward, decent guy.

His accusation was that Mark Clattenburg said: "Shut up you monkey," to Mikel John Obi, and he has stuck by it even when it became apparent nobody within earshot heard anything of the sort. Nobody, it turns out, can even pinpoint a moment when Ramires might have misheard something. There was no "shut up Mikel", or anything similar.

All that can be said with great certainty is that Clattenburg has suffered the consequences. Goodness knows what it has been like for him over the past three and a half weeks and, at the very least, Chelsea might have offered a few sympathetic words in the statement they put out 40 minutes or so before getting on with the business of Rafael Benítez's entrance.

Nothing too fancy, just some form of recognition about the human suffering that has been endured.

Clattenburg's statement described it as "the most stressful time of my professional life", using the emotive language that is rarely found in releases from Premier League HQ. "To know you were innocent of something but that there was the opportunity for it to wreck your career was truly frightening," he added. Chelsea's contained a few lines explaining their position, finishing with a sentence about their commitment to working with referees, but not a single word about the man they had accused of racially abusing their player.

"The club accepts the case is now concluded," it says. Which is a lot different to accepting he didn't do it.

He did not, of course, and the verdict should be of little surprise to anyone who has followed this case closely. Few people believed it at the time and, as more details have emerged, it became increasingly clear the evidence was thin, to say the least. The FA's investigators took 11 witness statements and nobody corroborated Ramires's story. They studied previously unseen television footage of the relevant match, Chelsea's 3-2 defeat against Manchester United, and it showed nothing. Clattenburg had key witnesses in the two linesmen and fourth official who were linked to him by microphone. If this were a police matter and the Crown Prosecution Service had allowed it to get to court, we would be talking about a flagrant misuse of taxpayers' money.

Yet it is wrong, too, to demonise Chelsea. They will be braced for a good kicking. It has become their default position more times than they will care to remember and, yes, it is clear they have made mistakes. But football is so quick to look for guilty parties it rarely stops to consider that maybe it is not quite that straightforward, as messy and unsatisfactory as it all is. What, after all, were Chelsea supposed to do if one of their players was adamant he had heard a team-mate being racially abused?

Ramires was so convinced it persuaded an incensed Mikel to go looking for Clattenburg, storming into the referee's room in the bowels of Stamford Bridge and causing the scene that has left the Nigerian facing his own FA misconduct charge.

Two lines jump out in the FA's statement. The first is that "the player and club were correct in reporting the matter". The second states Ramires made the allegation "in good faith", pointing out "it is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief".

Clattenburg, unfortunately for him, has had to live through the consequences but the alternative, from Chelsea's perspective, was to keep it internal. Hush it up, in other words. What, then, if it had come out?

Chelsea, remember, have a culture of leaks. Just imagine, on the back of the John Terry affair, if it had got out that they had tried to suppress another racism story. It would have been a scandal.

This is not to say that Chelsea's conduct is not deserving of scrutiny when, to cite one example, someone in a position of power ordered that the story should be briefed. Clattenburg touches upon this in his statement, pointing out "the ramifications of allegations of this nature" being made public before the formal process. He has spent a large part of the past month behind closed curtains at home, with television crews camped on the lawn. His doorbell has been pressed first thing in the morning and last thing at night. The same for his relatives, too.

He will not sue because it would mean having to give up his career, or at least put it on hold, when there is still every chance he will be officiating at the World Cup in 2014, but Alan Leighton of the referees' union Prospect is adamant that Clattenburg deserves some form of compensation.

Clattenburg has, for starters, lost thousands of pounds in match fees. But this is about more than those blank weekends. "Compensation for the stress," Leighton says. "Compensation for walking down the street and knowing people are thinking: 'Aah, there goes the racist referee.' His reputation has been trashed." It is no surprise that Chelsea have already indicated they will turn down the request and will quickly move on.

Clattenburg wants to do the same now, but there will be conditions attached. His bosses will keep him off Chelsea games for the immediate future. He can probably live with that but it also means that, if Chelsea reach a Wembley final this season, his chances of refereeing it are somewhere between minimal and nonexistent. "I hope no referee has to go through this in the future," he says

[deiseach]

Accusing Norf Tyrone of being one-eyed when it comes to Chelsea is playing the man, not the ball. His fundamental question - what were Chelsea meant to do when one of their players came to them saying he believed he had been racially abused by the ref? - is a valid one. Heck, they can't even hang Ramires out to dry over this because even the FA are saying he made his accusation in good faith!

[AQMP]

Chelsea really are a horrible club,rotten to the core.
Fans,players and owners are all the same at that club.

'Scuuuuse me!?!?

[under the bar]

Lol at the Rafa Out sign when the corner was being taken!!

[Main Street]

Accusing Norf Tyrone of being one-eyed when it comes to Chelsea is playing the man, not the ball. His fundamental question - what were Chelsea meant to do when one of their players came to them saying he believed he had been racially abused by the ref? - is a valid one. Heck, they can't even hang Ramires out to dry over this because even the FA are saying he made his accusation in good faith!

What were Chelsea to do?  Considering they have a past record of being wrong, not only being wrong but deliberately supporting the fabrication of vile accusations aimed against refs, eventually forcing them out of the game, then they could have proceeded with caution and examined the matter first before blabbering like a whiney bunch of spoilt weasels.
It is astonishing that this serious complaint was even made considering the flimsy, wafer thin evidence.
The FA have not only thrown out the case but say there is contradictory evidence. They can't say that players should not come forward with such accusations or say that if a player's accusation cannot be proven then he should be punished.
What has muddied these waters is that the accusation came from the EPL club with a proven disreputable record in this area.

[Norf Tyrone]

Accusing Norf Tyrone of being one-eyed when it comes to Chelsea is playing the man, not the ball. His fundamental question - what were Chelsea meant to do when one of their players came to them saying he believed he had been racially abused by the ref? - is a valid one. Heck, they can't even hang Ramires out to dry over this because even the FA are saying he made his accusation in good faith!

What were Chelsea to do?  Considering they have a past record of being wrong, not only being wrong but deliberately supporting the fabrication of vile accusations aimed against refs, eventually forcing them out of the game, then they could have proceeded with caution and examined the matter first before blabbering like a whiney bunch of spoilt weasels.
It is astonishing that this serious complaint was even made considering the flimsy, wafer thin evidence.
The FA have not only thrown out the case but say there is contradictory evidence. They can't say that players should not come forward with such accusations or say that if a player's accusation cannot be proven then he should be punished.
What has muddied these waters is that the accusation came from the EPL club with a proven disreputable record in this area.

What accusations did Chelsea make in the past that wasn't true?

Again you've refused to deal with the facts. I've made the same point several times but people are just ignoring it get their point across.

Before Chelsea were able to manage the event, their PR dept were already dealing with journalists querying the event. Read this bit carefully. The FAs rules state that Chelsea HAD to report the complaint as soon as Mikel reported it to them.

They had a choice then. Keep it under wraps ans be accused coffee a racist cover up, with the knowledge that the story would come out anyhow. Or make a statement.

There was a no win situation.

Considering Liverpool's past, some of your adjectives could be based on experience!

[AQMP]

Accusing Norf Tyrone of being one-eyed when it comes to Chelsea is playing the man, not the ball. His fundamental question - what were Chelsea meant to do when one of their players came to them saying he believed he had been racially abused by the ref? - is a valid one. Heck, they can't even hang Ramires out to dry over this because even the FA are saying he made his accusation in good faith!

What were Chelsea to do?  Considering they have a past record of being wrong, not only being wrong but deliberately supporting the fabrication of vile accusations aimed against refs, eventually forcing them out of the game, then they could have proceeded with caution and examined the matter first before blabbering like a whiney bunch of spoilt weasels.
It is astonishing that this serious complaint was even made considering the flimsy, wafer thin evidence.
The FA have not only thrown out the case but say there is contradictory evidence. They can't say that players should not come forward with such accusations or say that if a player's accusation cannot be proven then he should be punished.
What has muddied these waters is that the accusation came from the EPL club with a proven disreputable record in this area.

What accusations did Chelsea make in the past that wasn't true?

Again you've refused to deal with the facts. I've made the same point several times but people are just ignoring it get their point across.

Before Chelsea were able to manage the event, their PR dept were already dealing with journalists querying the event. Read this bit carefully. The FAs rules state that Chelsea HAD to report the complaint as soon as Mikel reported it to them.

They had a choice then. Keep it under wraps ans be accused coffee a racist cover up, with the knowledge that the story would come out anyhow. Or make a statement.

There was a no win situation.

Considering Liverpool's past, some of your adjectives could be based on experience!

That's it down to a tea.

[Norf Tyrone]

Accusing Norf Tyrone of being one-eyed when it comes to Chelsea is playing the man, not the ball. His fundamental question - what were Chelsea meant to do when one of their players came to them saying he believed he had been racially abused by the ref? - is a valid one. Heck, they can't even hang Ramires out to dry over this because even the FA are saying he made his accusation in good faith!

What were Chelsea to do?  Considering they have a past record of being wrong, not only being wrong but deliberately supporting the fabrication of vile accusations aimed against refs, eventually forcing them out of the game, then they could have proceeded with caution and examined the matter first before blabbering like a whiney bunch of spoilt weasels.
It is astonishing that this serious complaint was even made considering the flimsy, wafer thin evidence.
The FA have not only thrown out the case but say there is contradictory evidence. They can't say that players should not come forward with such accusations or say that if a player's accusation cannot be proven then he should be punished.
What has muddied these waters is that the accusation came from the EPL club with a proven disreputable record in this area.

What accusations did Chelsea make in the past that wasn't true?

Again you've refused to deal with the facts. I've made the same point several times but people are just ignoring it get their point across.

Before Chelsea were able to manage the event, their PR dept were already dealing with journalists querying the event. Read this bit carefully. The FAs rules state that Chelsea HAD to report the complaint as soon as Mikel reported it to them.

They had a choice then. Keep it under wraps ans be accused coffee a racist cover up, with the knowledge that the story would come out anyhow. Or make a statement.

There was a no win situation.

Considering Liverpool's past, some of your adjectives could be based on experience!

That's it down to a tea.

Ha ha. Faking predictive txt. New tablet!

[ONeill]

It's not as simple as that Norf and I suspect you know it. Chelsea ruined the refereeing careers of Anders Frisk (death threats, allegations unfounded), Overbo (death threats, accused of cheating) and almost did it again with unfounded allegations. To say they HAD to act doesn't hold up. A swift/immediate internal investigation would've revealed that there was no substance to the allegation. Given the negative publicity the club has received in recent years, surely that was the sensible action.

Graham Poll also had allegations from Chelsea withdrawn. It's a pattern that they don't seem to be learning from.

What are your honest opinions of the Abramovich Chelsea - the club they are now (a lot more successful) to the club you knew growing up? To me, it's not Chelsea anymore.

[Tony Baloney]

It's not as simple as that Norf and I suspect you know it. Chelsea ruined the refereeing careers of Anders Frisk (death threats, allegations unfounded), Overbo (death threats, accused of cheating) and almost did it again with unfounded allegations. To say they HAD to act doesn't hold up. A swift/immediate internal investigation would've revealed that there was no substance to the allegation. Given the negative publicity the club has received in recent years, surely that was the sensible action.

Graham Poll also had allegations from Chelsea withdrawn. It's a pattern that they don't seem to be learning from.

What are your honest opinions of the Abramovich Chelsea - the club they are now (a lot more successful) to the club you knew growing up? To me, it's not Chelsea anymore.

An awful shower of scum. They are simply employing the dark art of the smear campaign beloved of Russian oligarchs. Still the refs should be thankful they have found no Polonium 210 in their halftime brew.

[deiseach]

I'm not going to defend Chelsea either as a club or about previous incidents, but in this case they had no choice but to report Clattenburg. As Norf Tyrone has pointed out, they HAVE to report these incidents. Let's imagine you were racially abused. Would you have any faith in a system which begins with having a chat behind closed doors, just to see if you are on the level? I'm reminded of the scene in Cracker where Penhaligon is told by DCI Wise after she accuses Beck of raping her to cut out the hairy-arsed lesbian stuff and come and have a drink with her mates. And no, I'm not comparing racial abuse to rape, but there has to be a process for dealing with this kind of thing and it shouldn't begin with one of the interested parties investigating itself.

[AQMP]

"In this case, the player and club were correct in reporting the matter to The FA and it was appropriate and proper for such an allegation to be thoroughly investigated".

That is from the FA statement. 

Chelsea made two errors in the process. 1)  Some PR idiot leaked to the press that the "inappropriate language" was racist in nature.  2) CFC and/or Ramires should at least write to Clattenburg saying along the lines that they had no choice but to report however they now accept that, while acting in good faith, Ramires was mistaken.

Apart from that this has been done to death.

[deiseach]

Apart from that this has been done to death.

Since when has that ever stopped us before?

[AQMP]

Apart from that this has been done to death.

Since when has that ever stopped us before?

Indeed, long may it continue.  Now about Luis Garcia's "ghost goal"...