Alex Ferguson on Ferdinand and Roberts

jive

CSF wrote: »

Simplifying racist abuse as being merely to do with feelings and emotions is way off the mark, I mean what isn't? Every crime has a victim or else nobody would care.

So what if racism is a societal problem? That's no reason to not come down on racist abusers like a tonne of bricks. Even if it doesn't fix the problem it'll still give the culprits the punishment they deserve.

Well I'm saying cheating is a more significant crime because of the money involved. Look at Lance Armstrong - made millions from cheating, took millions away from clean athletes as a result; people died as a result of drug abuse in an attempt to keep up with the pros.

Racist abuse is to do with feelings and emotions. It's verbal. What isn't? Physical assault. If you gave me 2 choices -
1. Call me a cracker (doesn't have the same effect as the n bomb but you catch my drift)
2. Smash my face in with a brick
I'm plumping for choice #1 all day.

I didn't say it was a reason not to come down hard on it, I'm just saying that won't fix it. John Terry was cleared in a court of law, what are the FA going to do give him a life time ban? There's only so much you can do and a lot of these 'punishments' are just for show.

CSF

jive wrote: »

Well I'm saying cheating is a more significant crime because of the money involved. Look at Lance Armstrong - made millions from cheating, took millions away from clean athletes as a result; people died as a result of drug abuse in an attempt to keep up with the pros.

Racist abuse is to do with feelings and emotions. It's verbal. What isn't? Physical assault. If you gave me 2 choices -
1. Call me a cracker (doesn't have the same effect as the n bomb but you catch my drift)
2. Smash my face in with a brick
I'm plumping for choice #1 all day.

I didn't say it was a reason not to come down hard on it, I'm just saying that won't fix it. John Terry was cleared in a court of law, what are the FA going to do give him a life time ban? There's only so much you can do and a lot of these 'punishments' are just for show.

You're not comparing like for like with your 1 and 2 there. A more accurate comparison would be getting racially abused or getting a dig. I think the humiliation would outweigh for most. As you say it's easy for us to say we wouldn't mind that much.

The court of law verdict isn't really relevant. If the FA find him guilty they should punish him accordingly. They haven't, and they've given as you say 'a punishment for show'. So I can see why the lads are disillusioned with the FA's attempts to use black players to try make it look as if they give a ****.

LuckyLloyd

dooferoaks wrote: »

Cynical version: Ferdinand isn't very bright and Roberts is angling for a career after he finishes playing.

Bodhisopha wrote: »

As for Roberts, he's just trying to make a name for himself.

Joleon Lescott and Kenwayne Jones also didn't wear the shirts. Are they dumb / angling for careers too?

They were DEAD ****ING RIGHT not to wear those silly shirts. The Kick It Out campaign is a busted flush. It clearly has not been effective in its stated aims. Wearing a shirt with that name on it is a pointless empty gesture, as are forced handshakes before games, etc.

People like simple statements because it allows them to nod their heads in approval and say 'oh, isn't that great'. Utter bollocks. Alex Ferguson mentioned on the MOTD interview that he felt 'embarrased' by Ferdinand's decision not to tow the line. His anger will be because he laid down a directive that wasn't obeyed. That is frankly irrelevant.

If you're genuinely against Racism, then you would see that what those players did today was absolutely correct. The KIO campaign is a joke. Either do something bold and meaningful, or do nothing at all imo.

jive

CSF wrote: »

You're not comparing like for like with your 1 and 2 there. A more accurate comparison would be getting racially abused or getting a dig. I think the humiliation would outweigh for most. As you say it's easy for us to say we wouldn't mind that much.

The court of law verdict isn't really relevant. If the FA find him guilty they should punish him accordingly. They haven't, and they've given as you say 'a punishment for show'. So I can see why the lads are disillusioned with the FA's attempts to use black players to try make it look as if they give a ****.

I'd still rather be verbally abused than have to take a dig. Then again I'm a white male. I could still decide to take offense to things that people do or say, though. Granted it doesn't have the same connotations but I'm sure there's more racism going on in the game than a handful of black lads in the last few months.

Yeah but if he wasn't found guilty in a court of law how sure can the FA really be. I mean, he was proved innocent in COURT and then he went to the kangaroo court where they gave a 4 game ban and took some money off him. What are the FA really going to do? He was proved innocent in an actual court. I don't know what is a fair punishment for a men who was innocent in the eyes of the law. If anything, any ban imposed on him is unfair IMO given that he was cleared in court. Suarez is a different story but again, what is fair and to what extent can the FA punish people?

Sir Gallagher

I seen at one of the matches today they had a load of brown skinned kids wallking out with the players. Talk about the most tired cliche.... Im surprised they didnt stand around the centre circle hand in hand belting out, We are the world.

When football types try and approach serious issues such as racism its just completely insincere and naff.

Fair played to Rio and the lads for not joining in with this charade.

Dozen Wicked Words

What alternative anti-racism strategy has been proffered up by the players?

PhlegmyMoses

dooferoaks wrote: »

What alternative anti-racism strategy has been proffered up by the players?

This is my problem with it all. I have no problem with Ferdinand's beliefs. But we don't really know what they are. Not wearing the t-shirt without any explanation and coming out with childish stuff on Twitter is powderpuff stuff when faced with such a serious issue. He has put himself and his manager in the spotlight over this issue so it is time for him to start talking about it.

This is not the 60s in the US. A raised, black-gloved fist as a symbol is not required anymore. Most right-thinking people want this issue to be tackled so he can openly speak about it without fear of persecution.

mosstin

Kirby wrote: »

You have missed the point completely. Racism, charity, kick it out...............absolutely nothing to do with Fergie's annoyance. Zilch.

It's about the fact that he announced to the world that X was going to happen during a press conference and than Rio turned around and did Y. That is what he means when he says he was embarrassed. It made him look foolish and not in control. That's what the problem is. The lack of communication. He is blaming Rio for not telling him first. And he has a point.

I think you'll find that you're missing the point. Fergie had no right to cast aspersions on Jason Roberts' reasons for not wanting to wear the t-shirt in his pre-match press conference on Friday. Regardless of whethere or not he was answering a question asked, he didn't need to turn his answer into a petty attack on Roberts' motives. Why should a black player support an organisation which that black player feels is doing nothing to advance the cause of fighting racism? Regardless of what SAF wants his players to do.

PhlegmyMoses

mosstin wrote: »

I think you'll find that you're missing the point. Fergie had no right to cast aspersions on Jason Roberts' reasons for not wanting to wear the t-shirt in his pre-match press conference on Friday. Regardless of whethere or not he was answering a question asked, he didn't need to turn his answer into a petty attack on Roberts' motives. Why should a black player support an organisation which that black player feels is doing nothing to advance the cause of fighting racism? Regardless of what SAF wants his players to do.

It is hard to know what Ferguson's motives are here. We can say without doubt that he would be a supporter of any anti-racism movement so I'm not sure why he had such an issue with Roberts.

Maybe, like me, he sees these players offering no alternative solution, putting none of their copious amounts of free-time and exorbitant weekly wages to use in setting up an alternative to KIO so feels they should get behind what they have.

I'm also not sure what Roberts and Ferdinand expect of KIO. What is their mandate? What have they done wrong etc? None of this is really clear and I suspect that we'll get nothing more out of this. I don't think I'll ever stop thinking that the manner in which they've chosen to protest was unnecessary and not really helpful.

mosstin

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It is hard to know what Ferguson's motives are here. We can say without doubt that he would be a supporter of any anti-racism movement so I'm not sure why he had such an issue with Roberts.

Maybe, like me, he sees these players offering no alternative solution, putting none of their copious amounts of free-time and exorbitant weekly wages to use in setting up an alternative to KIO so feels they should get behind what they have.

I'm also not sure what Roberts and Ferdinand expect of KIO. What is their mandate? What have they done wrong etc? None of this is really clear and I suspect that we'll get nothing more out of this. I don't think I'll ever stop thinking that the manner in which they've chosen to protest was unnecessary and not really helpful.

If nothing else their protest has drawn greater attention to the issue. Ultimately though, I think that players who chose not to wear the t-shirt this weekend didn't want to seem like hypocrites, supporting something they don't believe in.

Dempsey

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It is hard to know what Ferguson's motives are here. We can say without doubt that he would be a supporter of any anti-racism movement so I'm not sure why he had such an issue with Roberts.

Maybe, like me, he sees these players offering no alternative solution, putting none of their copious amounts of free-time and exorbitant weekly wages to use in setting up an alternative to KIO so feels they should get behind what they have.

I'm also not sure what Roberts and Ferdinand expect of KIO. What is their mandate? What have they done wrong etc? None of this is really clear and I suspect that we'll get nothing more out of this. I don't think I'll ever stop thinking that the manner in which they've chosen to protest was unnecessary and not really helpful.

Its the FA that are mainly funding KIO and its the PFA asking the players to wear these t-shirts and support their campaign. Jason Euell, ex pro and who now works for KIO actually is supportive of Roberts & Ferdinand's stance!

Jason Euell wrote:

That a high-profile player like Rio Ferdinand is willing to make a stance, that gathers more momentum because it needs to be out there
Because it keeps getting swept under the carpet it makes it easy for Fifa and Uefa to come out with ridiculous, ignorant comments.

It makes it easy for the FA to brush it aside and for the PFA to allow it to be brushed aside if we all go quiet again and put these T-shirts on and jog around. Now, it needs to be kicked on another level.

The gripe isnt with KIO, its with the FIFA, UEFA, FA & PFA and their handling of these situations when push comes to shove.

PhlegmyMoses

This all seems a bit dodgy then. Terry had a trial, which everyone is entitled to, and was found not guilty. The FA then conducted their own investigation and used their greater powers due to balance of probabilties to say that Terry probably used racist terms. The reality is, though, that we can't really say for sure what Terry said, as the court case shows, so we can only assume that he probably said it. The FA give their bans\fines based on this. The FA even bent their own rules to get Terry into a hearing.

What are the guys expecting of the FA? Witch hunts and kangaroo hearings where they forget due process and dish out huge punishments without a beyond reasonable doubt level of evidence? I'm all for lengthy bans for players who use racist terms, I wouldn't mind if they were similar to doping bans, but if we do go down that road, beyond reasonable doubt has to come in as a standard for cases like that.

Dempsey

Maybe they should have said to Terry if you postpone the trial until after the season, you wont be considered for the Euros. Deal with it ASAP. Capello would probably have still been in charge if they handled the situation correctly.

PhlegmyMoses

The FA: "What is your issue with KIO?"
Ferdinand: "It's **** innit, Terry should have got a 10 year ban."
The FA: "Okay, that flies in the face of due process and all precedents set. Where were you when we were having meetings about this stuff? We could have used your input."
Ferdinand: "Setting up restaurants and magazines and ****."
The FA: "Have you helped out with KIO? With setting mandates and stuff?"
Ferdinand: "No. Terry should have got 10 years. I'm not wearing that t-shirt."
The FA: "OK, kindly **** off and let the adults speak."

This is how it comes across. I get that it is not Ferdinand's duty to get involved and offer alternatives but if you feel strongly enough about something and feel something isn't working then you usually speak about it say what isn't working. Not wearing a t-shirt without any explanation sends a muddled response. It's the protest of a teenager.

mosstin

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The FA: "What is your issue with KIO?"
Ferdinand: "It's **** innit, Terry should have got a 10 year ban."
The FA: "Okay, that flies in the face of due process and all precedents set. Where were you when we were having meetings about this stuff? We could have used your input."
Ferdinand: "Setting up restaurants and magazines and ****."
The FA: "Have you helped out with KIO? With setting mandates and stuff?"
Ferdinand: "No. Terry should have got 10 years. I'm not wearing that t-shirt."
The FA: "OK, kindly **** off and let the adults speak."

This is how it comes across. I get that it is not Ferdinand's duty to get involved and offer alternatives but if you feel strongly enough about something and feel something isn't working then you usually speak about it say what isn't working. Not wearing a t-shirt without any explanation sends a muddled response. It's the protest of a teenager.

As opposed to the mature and enlightened worldview of SAF; "You'll wear that t-shirt, because I said so."

PhlegmyMoses

mosstin wrote: »

As opposed to the mature and enlightened worldview of SAF; "You'll wear that t-shirt, because I said so."

Or; "You wear the t-shirt because the club that pays you £150,000 a week supports this initiative. An intiative that is doing more than you are to combat an issue that you seem to be passionate about in a country that has taken greater strides than most others to combat this issue. Because you have offered no alternative and you haven't explained your views to anyone. Because you are treating this Terry thing like a soap opera. Because you have already been fined for seemingly endorsing an incredibly hurtful comment about Ashley Cole that questions his validity as a black man. Excuse me if I'm a little bit sceptical of your methodology and opinions on racism."

Predalien

I agree with Roberts' and Ferdinand's stance on this, "Kick It Out" is an easy get-out for the FA, but in reality it's just a way for them to pay lip-service to the issue. Roberts made a good point, if Terry had said what he said in another workplace he'd be sacked. I recognise a football pitch isn't a normal workplace and that punishment would be too severe for both footballers and their club, but on balance, if the FA were truly committed, a four game ban does not match the crime. "Kick it out" is often a convenient banner to hide behind.

Dempsey

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Or; "You wear the t-shirt because the club that pays you £150,000 a week supports this initiative. An intiative that is doing more than you are to combat an issue that you seem to be passionate about in a country that has taken greater strides than most others to combat this issue. Because you have offered no alternative and you haven't explained your views to anyone. Because you are treating this Terry thing like a soap opera. Because you have already been fined for seemingly endorsing an incredibly hurtful comment about Ashley Cole that questions his validity as a black man. Excuse me if I'm a little bit sceptical of your methodology and opinions on racism."

The initiative didnt do enough for his brother, a victim of racism from the England captain, and I'm making a wild and unsubstantiated claim here but maybe he's putting family before SAF, Man Utd & his €150k p/w contract.

PhlegmyMoses

Predalien wrote: »

I agree with Roberts' and Ferdinand's stance on this, "Kick It Out" is an easy get-out for the FA, but in reality it's just a way for them to pay lip-service to the issue. Roberts made a good point, if Terry had said what he said in another workplace he'd be sacked. I recognise a football pitch isn't a normal workplace and that punishment would be too severe for both footballers and their club, but on balance, if the FA were truly committed, a four game ban does not match the crime. "Kick it out" is often a convenient banner to hide behind.

The FA haven't just paid lip-service to this issue. They have fought racism in the stands in conjunction with the clubs and the police and English football has become a shining example to other countries in how to deal with an endemic problem and virtually eradicate it in 25 years.

I do agree with you that they need to set more stringent rules for what happens on the pitch, though. This is where Ferdinand and Roberts need to get involved and help shape these policies. The Terry thing needs to be forgotten. It's done. Future cases are where it is at now and making sure they can really get their teeth into similar instances in the future.

PhlegmyMoses

Dempsey wrote: »

The initiative didnt do enough for his brother, a victim of racism from the England captain, and I'm making a wild and unsubstantiated claim here but maybe he's putting family before SAF, Man Utd & his €150k p/w contract.

Obviosuly I've put forward plenty of other reasons in that post but you've just focused on one element. I also agree with you that the current FA guidelines aren't hard-hitting enough. I've even put forward my own ideas for how they could change. Ferdinand seemingly hasn't.

If anyone is paying lip-service to the issue, it's Ferdinand by thinking that not wearing a t-shirt is doing enough to make a stance against an issue that has affected his brother.

Dozen Wicked Words

Dempsey wrote: »

The initiative didnt do enough for his brother, a victim of racism from the England captain, and I'm making a wild and unsubstantiated claim here but maybe he's putting family before SAF, Man Utd & his €150k p/w contract.

So his motive is a selfish one? Maybe the premier league players think Kick It Out begins and ends at the Premier League. Maybe they need to look at Kick It Outs website to see what they try to do throughout the whole of football. Maybe they need to be reminded again that charities cannot be held responsible for governing bodies decisions they don't agree with. If the FA do "hide behind" Kick it Out, the issue is still an FA one, not a charity's.

CSF

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is my problem with it all. I have no problem with Ferdinand's beliefs. But we don't really know what they are. Not wearing the t-shirt without any explanation and coming out with childish stuff on Twitter is powderpuff stuff when faced with such a serious issue. He has put himself and his manager in the spotlight over this issue so it is time for him to start talking about it.

This is not the 60s in the US. A raised, black-gloved fist as a symbol is not required anymore. Most right-thinking people want this issue to be tackled so he can openly speak about it without fear of persecution.

If Ferdinand doesn't give an interview on this, it'll only be because Fergie doesn't let him. I have no doubt that Ferdinand would absolutely love to lay into the FA on how they've dealt with it. I just don't think he is allowed.

CSF

dooferoaks wrote: »

So his motive is a selfish one? Maybe the premier league players think Kick It Out begins and ends at the Premier League. Maybe they need to look at Kick It Outs website to see what they try to do throughout the whole of football. Maybe they need to be reminded again that charities cannot be held responsible for governing bodies decisions they don't agree with. If the FA do "hide behind" Kick it Out, the issue is still an FA one, not a charity's.

Kick It Out shouldn't be standing beside the FA after their conduct of late.

Dozen Wicked Words

CSF wrote: »

Kick It Out shouldn't be standing beside the FA after their conduct of late.

How exactly do they stand beside the FA and how would you suggest they go about carrying out their campaign in football without the cooperation of the association that run it?

Dempsey

dooferoaks wrote: »

So his motive is a selfish one? Maybe the premier league players think Kick It Out begins and ends at the Premier League. Maybe they need to look at Kick It Outs website to see what they try to do throughout the whole of football. Maybe they need to be reminded again that charities cannot be held responsible for governing bodies decisions they don't agree with. If the FA do "hide behind" Kick it Out, the issue is still an FA one, not a charity's.

Supporting your family is selfish? Supporting an organisation that is only lip service to the issue is the bigger picture? :eek:

As I said already, the gripe is with the FA & PFA. People working for KIO are supporting Roberts and Ferdinands stance!

PhlegmyMoses

CSF wrote: »

If Ferdinand doesn't give an interview on this, it'll only be because Fergie doesn't let him. I have no doubt that Ferdinand would absolutely love to lay into the FA on how they've dealt with it. I just don't think he is allowed.

I believe you may be right now, purely because Ferdinand has not shown himself to be capable of maturity when it comes to this issue. Had Ferdinand explained the issue to Ferguson previously, not made any comments on Twitter about Ashley Cole, and outlined his views, he would most certainly have been allowed to raise awareness to this issue. History tells us that Ferguson is a great supporter of these kinds of things, when they are handled correctly.

As it stands now, Ferguson will not trust Ferdinand to turn this into anything more than a slanging match between his family and Terry. The kind of **** that the press will lap up. Ferdinand's opinions on this are coloured by the Terry incident. The reality is that Ferdinand seems to have taken this as a personal slight and is lashing out at initiatives like KIO who have nothing to do with that. Initiatives whose best work is done on a meagre budget at all ages, not just in the PL - which Ferguson would be more than aware of.

As I said before, the Ferdinands have handled the whole thing really poorly.

PhlegmyMoses

Dempsey wrote: »

Supporting your family is selfish? Supporting an organisation that is only lip service to the issue is the bigger picture? :eek:

As I said already, the gripe is with the FA & PFA. People working for KIO are supporting Roberts and Ferdinands stance!

TBF, it is nice that Jason Euell supports their stance but that's just his opinion. He is entitled to it of course, but it doesn't make him right. It's an appeal to authority argument that isn't needed here when everyone is making valid points and discussing it sensibly.

CSF

dooferoaks wrote: »

How exactly do they stand beside the FA and how would you suggest they go about carrying out their campaign in football without the cooperation of the association that run it?

There should have been a statement condemning the pathetic punishments handed out to offenders. They are the only such organisation after all.

If they want to avoid upsetting the FA to ensure their co-operation then it's not that surprising that black players aren't taking their work at senior level seriously. That shouldn't discredit their work throughout football as that's a separate issue entirely.

Fuhrer

CSF wrote: »

It's actually a sad indictment of modern football that cheating in football matches is considered a significantly worse crime than racial abuse.

Either that or cheating in football matches is far more common then Racism.

We saw, like 3 or 4 incidents last year in the premierleague of Racism, probably 10 dives and whatnot every single week.

CSF

Fuhrer wrote: »

Either that or cheating in football matches is far more common then Racism.

We saw, like 3 or 4 incidents last year in the premierleague of Racism, probably 10 dives and whatnot every single week.

I mean in terms of bans, specifically replying to a reference to doping.