Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

1…216217218220222

Comments

  • #6572
    Blatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    opr wrote: »
    Just on this point.



    Opr

    That's a fair point. But it begs the question, if the FA shouldn't pick the panel, who should?

    Also, it has to be pointed out that has always been the process of the FA, and that process has been accepted by Liverpool and the rest of the PL clubs.


  • #6573
    eigrod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,959 ✭✭✭eigrod


    cloptrop wrote: »
    eh football clubs record or get tapes from every match to look at them in training ,
    that is the biggestpile of horse**** ever , he probably didnt get them because he refused to co operate with them until he was made to go to the hearing

    There's that word again ! Any links to where it is said that Suarez refused to co-operate ?


  • #6574
    ilovelamp2000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭ilovelamp2000


    http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/i-have-lived-in-south-america-and-there-is-no-doubt-that-the-word-negro-is-racist-2980265.html
    If like me you are addicted to football, then South America is the place to be. During my two years of living and working in Argentina and travelling extensively around the region, the passion and frenzied enthusiasm for the beautiful game was almost infectious.

    What was a little harder to stomach however, was the attitude towards race on the playing fields and football stadiums of countries like Argentina and Uruguay.

    The statement by Luis Suarez on Tuesday that, "in my country negro is a word we use commonly, a word which doesn't somehow show any lack of respect and is even less a form of abuse," certainly raised a wry smile and brought back some vivid and uncomfortable memories of my time watching football in South America.

    From the window of my Buenos Aires flat I could see the imposing outline of La Bombonera, Boca Juniors' home ground, where I was a regular visitor.

    With Montevideo a short hop away on the plane, I also frequented matches in the Uruguayan capital. The countries share a similar history and culture.

    One of my most vivid memories of attending my first Boca Juniors home match is of standing on the giant, multi-tiered terrace behind the goal where the hardcore, fanatically fervent barra brava fans stand, and being called "negro." I was not quite sure whether to be offended or shocked.

    Infuriated at being called "negro" in the stadium and on the streets of Buenos Aires and Montevideo, it was eventually pointed out to me by friends that the word was being used in relation to my then black hair.

    In one respect then, Suarez is right. In many countries of South America, those with black hair or dark eyes are often called "negro" and it is not considered offensive. However, what became apparent was that the same word when directed at people of African descent was meant in an offensive way.

    Many of my South American friends who used the word regularly in relation to someone's hair would not dare to say it to a black person for fear that it could lead to confrontation.

    Compared to Argentina, Uruguay has a sizeable black community. I can distinctly remember attending the Montevideo derby between Nacional and Penarol where a fight broke out in a bar after a football fan called the black waiter "negro". It was not the colour of his hair that was being referred to.

    Similarly when teams from countries like Brazil or Colombia, which have large black populations, visited Argentina to play, fans wanting to insult their black players would use the term "negro".

    I recall standing in the Estadio Monumental in Buenos Aires, where Colombia had defeated Argentina 5-0 in a World Cup qualifier for the 1994 finals. The mainly black Colombian subs, who spent the match being called "negros" ended up ripping up the bench and throwing pieces of it at the crowd.

    In 2010, I was in South Africa with thousands of South Americans at the World Cup and rarely was the word "negro" used in reference to the local population, for fear that it may offend.

    In my time following South American football, whenever the word "negro" has been used in relation to a person of African descent it is usually meant to offend and is received that way also. The word remains acceptable so long as it is not used in reference to a black person. And as the debate continues on what Suarez actually meant, there is one thing that we can all agree on: Patrice Evra is black.


  • #6575
    Blatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    The chairman of 'Kick It Out', Herman Ouseley, is not happy at all.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/05/luis-suarez-liverpool

    Liverpool's hypocrisy undermines anti-racism and our young people

    The future of football needs strong and decisive leadership especially for the next generation of young people

    Liverpool FC need to take a hard look at themselves and how they have responded to the complaint and the investigations into the allegations of abuse in the Patrice Evra/Luis Suárez case.

    Throughout the entirety of the proceedings, over the past three months, all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra. Since the publication of the 115-page report of the findings of the FA's independent commission, Liverpool's vitriol has increased. Suárez's attempt at a belated apology is nothing short of lamentable. I cannot believe that a club of Liverpool's stature, and with how it has previously led on matters of social injustice and inequality, can allow its integrity and credibility to be debased by such crass and ill‑considered responses.

    At such a historic time in Britain, Doreen and Neville Lawrence have taught and inspired us never to give up the fight for equality, justice and fair treatment following Wednesday's sentencing of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of their son Stephen Lawrence in 1993.

    With all these things, you come out of it with more credit if you hold your hands up. OK, Liverpool may have thought they had to defend their player as he is innocent. But if the club does not carry out a thorough investigation, how can it understand that Suárez said things which are not acceptable, but that he didn't comprehend this due to his background?

    If this is the case, Liverpool have failed him. Because they have not told Suárez what the club's expectations are; that they have a zero policy towards racism. If he is ignorant of what is required of him, Liverpool should be asking: how come we have got a contract with the player?

    Unless, of course, Liverpool are saying that they have explained to Suárez what the club want and he has defied them.

    In any other sector, if someone makes a claim of racially motivated or abusive behaviour, an employer has to investigate if they are competent because this may be damaging to the business. Clubs in these cases don't seem to be. And when it's a high-profile incident involving a big-name player, they want to say, unequivocally, we defend our player 100%. Why are people not showing leadership and apologising, saying that we won't do it again, and ask that they can move on?

    Liverpool have been particularly hypocritical. You can't on the one hand wear a Kick It Out T-shirt in a week of campaigning against racism when this is also happening on the pitch: it's the height of hypocrisy. Liverpool players wore a T-shirt saying: "We support Luis Suárez", seemingly whatever the outcome. This was a dreadful knee-jerk reaction because it stirs things up.

    And, then, this was followed, after the verdict, with a kind of stance that says: "Hey, we support anti-racism and Kick It Out. But we're not sorry. All we are really saying is that we blame someone else, not us."

    In the wider context of racism throughout our society there are issues. Undoubtedly there are still areas in this country you would not feel comfortable being in, and that is not just on grounds of potentially being racially abused.

    I do think that the police service is much better than it was in 1993, when Stephen Lawrence was murdered. You can actually raise matters of race in a police station and get a degree of sensitivity that gives you comfort that you are going to be treated in a fair manner.

    What we've got to do is keep building on that. We had the MacPherson Report in 1999, which rolled into the Race Relations Act of 2000 and then things did move forward, but there's been a rolling back regarding equality since 2005, due to the reaction to the July bombings in London. And this has continued with the present government and the suspicion that is held of a multicultural society. It's important that we sharpen up our focus regarding these matters.

    This is a momentous time for us. Four million people play football in this country and this weekend there will be many kids in parks and on pitches: they need to know that if they misbehave, they can't get away with it. That is the big issue.

    Since the incident we've not heard a word of complaint from Evra about how his character has been besmirched by Liverpool. This is surely something the FA and the PFA and the whole of football should be concerned about: we can't have a situation where there is just one side on the attack.

    Surely the new owners, with their experiences of equality and inclusion in the US, can see how their brand is being devalued, and if they sanction this sort of lack of professionalism and moral leadership, we may as well pack up and go home and forget about anti‑racism.

    The FA has shown that it has the bottle to back its Respect campaign by enforcing rules and regulations with regard to unacceptable behaviour and conduct. We have a duty and responsibility to demonstrate to the world how we deal with this issue. It's fine to criticise Fifa and Uefa but let's show we can take care of our own business.

    The future of football needs such strong and decisive leadership, especially for the next generation of young people who play the game across the country. Let's remove all racists and bigots from football.



    Lord Ouseley was head of the Commission for Racial Equality from 1993 to 2000


  • #6576
    Pro. F
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    mixednuts wrote: »
    It seems now that LFC were concerned about what I highlighted in what Evra believed to have heard and repeated only for all statements (from the day) to show and record what he believed the word to mean days later .
    They (FA) allowed and believed Evras explanation of black been the word and allows six other statements to be changed and reflect that ???.... IMO that is re writing history !
    They either heard him say ****** or black , simples .
    Then the only time he says ****** in the whole evidence is while he is in the dressing room with Fergie , Marriner & Dowd .... Bull**** .

    When did the FA allow six other statements to be changed? I may have missed that or I may be mis-understanding what you are saying. I suspect that you are just tweeking the truth a little to make your point more effective, but I apologise if I'm wrong.

    No it's not simply that they either heard him say 'n*****' or 'black'. There were two languages involved so it is clearly not that simple. You are are being misleading here.

    Didn't Nani say Evra might have said 'n*****'? I can't remember but I thought Nani said something like that. And didn't Evra say he was uncomfortable using the word 'n*****'? Seems like a reasonable explanation as to why he would use the word 'black' when speaking in English until he was talking privately to Ferguson and the ref.

    I agree the report should be scrutinized btw. I don't want my arguing with your points to come across as me thinking the report is beyond reproach. From my own view, the evidence that Suarez said ''Because you are black'' is strong and so he should be banned. The evidence he said more things is maybe too weak (only Evra's word + the similarity to the Suarez Toure comment) and so those alleged sentences could maybe be discounted.


  • Advertisement
  • #6577
    quarryman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,497 ✭✭✭quarryman


    Pro. F wrote: »
    It is not nearly the same as saying ''your sister's cnut'' in English.

    wow, this thread is reaching a new low...


  • #6578
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    quarryman wrote: »
    wow, this thread is reaching a new low...

    not sure what you mean? Nothing low about what you have quoted :confused:


  • #6579
    Pro. F
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    spockety wrote: »
    Er, but as we have seen with what Suarez said, it doesn't matter how it's perceived in the country of origin, only on the field of play in England. In England, saying "your sister's pussy" to most men would result in some sort of violent reaction due to the highly offensive nature of the phrase.

    The enquiry did actually look at how things are perceived in the country of origin with regards to ''negro''. ''Negro'' is even more complicated though because that was to do with a much debated use of language - referring to colour and whether or not it should matter to black people - with much bigger ramifications - racist offensivenes as opposed to generic offensivenes.

    I think the offensiveness of the ''sister's pussy'' phrase is definitely debatable because of the personal reference. But you just can't say it's the same as in English because it's not.


  • #6580
    Leiva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Leiva


    Pro. F wrote: »
    When did the FA allow six other statements to be changed? I may have missed that or I may be mis-understanding what you are saying. I suspect that you are just tweeking the truth a little to make your point more effective, but I apologise if I'm wrong.

    No it's not simply that they either heard him say 'n*****' or 'black'. There were two languages involved so it is clearly not that simple. You are are being misleading here.

    Didn't Nani say Evra might have said 'n*****'? I can't remember but I thought Nani said something like that. And didn't Evra say he was uncomfortable using the word 'n*****'? Seems like a reasonable explanation as to why he would use the word 'black' when speaking in English until he was talking privately to Ferguson and the ref.

    I agree the report should be scrutinized btw. I don't want my arguing with your points to come across as me thinking the report is beyond reproach. From my own view, the evidence that Suarez said ''Because you are black'' is strong and so he should be banned. The evidence he said more things is too weak (only Evra's word) and so those alleged sentences should be discounted.

    Here is an earlier post of mine with parts of the evidence included ;
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76271288&postcount=5662

    Before you read it keep in mind a few things;

    a.) Evra truly believed he was called ****** only to realise days later that he believed it to mean black .

    b.) All statements are to be accurate details of that days events .

    c.)The written statements by the other UTD players were allowed be "presumed" upon by the linguistic experts .. Why ? they either heard specific words or not ?

    d.)In the 115 page document the FA accept that the word "******" only came out of Evras mouth once in the whole days events whilst him , Fergie , Marriner and Dowd were in the dressing room .

    e.) by the FA accepting Evras explanation that the reason he didn't say the word "****** " to either Marriner , Giggs or in the dressing room when the other UTD players present/heard , was because he couldn't bring himself to say it , validates and clears (in a very dangerous way IMO ) inconsistencies in the UTD and refs statements .
    The same validation by assumption was not offered to Suarez.


  • #6581
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,589 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    ilovelamp2000 wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/i-have-lived-in-south-america-and-there-is-no-doubt-that-the-word-negro-is-racist-2980265.html

    That's real cool story bro stuff though, isn't it? All anecdotal. Maybe he's right and every South American who has voiced a more nuanced view of the situation during the past while is misinformed / pushing an agenda? But unfortunately, this:

    'I can distinctly remember attending the Montevideo derby between Nacional and Penarol where a fight broke out in a bar after a football fan called the black waiter "negro". It was not the colour of his hair that was being referred to.'

    isn't terribly convincing.


  • Advertisement
  • #6582
    missingtime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,942 ✭✭✭missingtime


    Kenny Dalglish is no stranger to contending with claims of racism. He was the manager, after all, who made John Barnes Liverpool's first black signing in 1987 and who railed against the notion that there might be a problem. "He's not a black player; he's a player," Dalglish insisted back then, though some of the dressing-room testimony from that time suggests that the club he managed was not an entirely wholesome place. The entertainment at the players' Christmas party one year involved the "comedian" walking up to where Howard Gayle, a local and the club's first black player, was sitting and tipping a bowl of flour over his head. "Now try walking into ****ing Toxteth," said the funny man.

    Football has travelled a mercifully long way from the Life on Mars antics visited upon Gayle 25 years ago, though an appreciation of what it takes to deter racism in its many forms requires a higher grade of sophistication, too. It's a complex business. Semantics come into it, linguistics and facial expressions. There are many shades of meaning to the Spanish word for black. It takes all of this and more to expunge every last ounce of racism. Dalglish has been asked to take it all in his stride and, having discovered football to be an incomparably more complex space than the one he vacated 12 years ago, has looked like an occupant of the old school.

    His exasperation with the Suarez case is far more understandable than his generally miserable press has given him credit for, given that there is not a shred of hard evidence against his player. The only Manchester United "witnesses" are those who heard of their team-mate's experience, in the dressing room, after the event. We now know they were keen to accompany Patrice Evra and Sir Alex Ferguson to the referees' room at Anfield, though their testimony adds nothing to an understanding of what happened on the pitch. Goalkeeper David de Gea did not hear a word, incidentally.

    This might have been marginally easier for Dalglish to take in had Manchester United's Evra behaved impeccably or had the manager, in the new multicultural environment he has found at Anfield, not witnessed signs around the place that "negro" is a perfectly acceptable word in Spanish. It was Damien Comolli, Liverpool's director of football, who pointed out to Dalglish a poster, belonging to Maxi Rodriguez, picturing the Argentina team before a game against Spain, clustered around a banner in which they sent a message of support for their compatriot Fernando Cacero, who was hospitalised having been shot in a carjacking: "Vamos negro" the banner reads.

    None of this removes the possibility that Suarez might have had a negative intent when he sent the word "negro" in Evra's direction on 15 October. The complexities of who said what to whom are bordering on the arcane, though to Comolli's mind it all now comes down to a single question mark. Whether, in response to Evra's "Don't touch me, South American" – a statement only Suarez says he heard – the Uruguayan replied "Por que, tu eres negro? [Why, because you are black?]". Or whether, in response to "Why did you kick me?" – a question only Suarez says he heard – the Uruguayan replied: "Porque tu eres negro [Because you are black]". For the independent regulatory commission trying to make sense of the situation, it all came down to which witness they believed and Evra's story was certainly the one with far fewer kinks in it than that of Suarez.

    What Dalglish has actually needed is an individual capable of helping him through these fiendish intricacies. Someone to point out that the rules of the Football Association to which Liverpool choose to belong dictate that when a player says "negro", you have a problem; and when your evidence has changed a few times, you have an even bigger one.

    David Gill recently confessed to having received a few "hairdryers" in the past six years, but at Manchester United it would be for him, not Sir Alex Ferguson, to lead the executive decisions in a case like this. At Manchester City, Sheikh Mansour has some very smart people in Khaldoon al-Mubarak and Simon Pearce who hold sway over Roberto Mancini.

    Yet it is somehow a part of the legend of King Kenny that he has had to lead from the front and it does appear to be he who has charted the course Liverpool have taken in the past weeks. He has thrown out some rot at times, with his complaints to the FA about delays in the quasi-judicial process particularly unjustified. Short on a grasp of the intricacies, he has fallen back on raw passion.

    Since his return to the manager's chair, a year ago this weekend, Dalglish has spoken often of the men who led the club in the 1980s – Peter Robinson and John Smith – as "as good as anyone they have ever had at this club," as he described them in October. How he has needed them in the past few weeks and how especially late on Tuesday night as he cut a lonely figure, repelling all questions in the Manchester City press conference room – questioning the linguistic capabilities of football journalists and throwing out the only ammunition at his disposal: noise.

    There was also his mad idea of some kind of concerted FA cover-up which – in the cold light of day, yesterday – clearly didn't exist. This has not made him a sympathetic figure.

    The lessons of this saga for Liverpool are only beginning to emerge and a reappraisal of how equipped they are to fight their legal battles is one of the more practical. But another is an assessment of who runs Liverpool. The world has moved on from the old days of Gayle's humiliations, but the need of men outside of the boot room stays just the same. If someone doesn't relieve Dalglish of his executive responsibilities, he risks looking like an angry old man – a reputation ill befitting a personality whose reputation for grace and brilliance reaches so far into Liverpool's past.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpools-problem-dalglish-was-left-to-walk-alone-6285003.html


  • #6583
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    That's real cool story bro stuff though, isn't it? All anecdotal. Maybe he's right and every South American who has voiced a more nuanced view of the situation during the past while is misinformed / pushing an agenda? But unfortunately, this:

    'I can distinctly remember attending the Montevideo derby between Nacional and Penarol where a fight broke out in a bar after a football fan called the black waiter "negro". It was not the colour of his hair that was being referred to.'

    isn't terribly convincing.
    It's no more credible than some Facebook professor or Seaneh's Latino adventures.

    One thing I don't get is how Suarez's representatives didn't cop all these inconsistencies that mixednuts and opr are finding.

    Maybe they should have the hearing again with you 2 lads present,I'm sure you pair of detectives could get the decision overturned. :D


  • #6584
    DOC09UNAM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,305 ✭✭✭DOC09UNAM


    opr wrote: »
    Blatter wrote: »
    Also, the FA did not deliver the verdict. It was an INDEPENDENT commission.

    Just on this point.

    Although Liverpool were within their rights to challenge the make-up of the commission and made no representation to oppose its members.

    Opr

    The most important part.


  • #6585
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    This new conspiracy that United and Evra are somehow in cahoots with the FA is quite funny really. The same Evra that was banned for little reason after the Chelsea incident.


  • #6586
    Leiva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Leiva


    Liam O wrote: »
    This new conspiracy that United and Evra are somehow in cahoots with the FA is quite funny really. The same Evra that was banned for little reason after the Chelsea incident.

    Nobody is saying that ??

    It lands purely in the lap of the FA to explain if the allegations written in today's papers are true .


  • #6587
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    DOC09UNAM wrote: »
    The most important part.

    That part is addressed if you read a little further on - "Although Liverpool were within their rights to challenge the make-up of the commission and made no representation to oppose its members, they say it would have been pointless to do so because the FA would also have picked its replacements."

    Opr


  • #6588
    SlickRic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,649 ✭✭✭✭SlickRic


    circles.jpg

    ok, i think we're done for now.

    we'll open it up again if the need is really there, but we honestly are talking about the same things over and over and over and over again now; and nobody is changing their minds about anything anytime soon.

    the judgment has been made, he's sitting out his ban, I'm sure Liverpool are looking at what to do, and if and when really new revelations come about we may well open it again soon, especially if the Terry stuff flares up.

    but the mods think everyone needs a rest at this stage for a while.

    enjoy the break, i know i will :)


  • #6589
    FlawedGenius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,256 ✭✭✭FlawedGenius


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlHqAzrIp9M&feature=youtu.be
    Someone embed.
    He should be banned for this no worse than calling evra a nigro. Lfc building a great reputation.:rolleyes:
    Gona have to sign a load of blacks and Dutch in the summer to make up for it I think.


  • #6590
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,443 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    Did you hear Cantona kicked a fan?


  • #6591
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 31,026 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Thread was already done on Friday...


  • Advertisement
  • #6592
    FlawedGenius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,256 ✭✭✭FlawedGenius


    CSF wrote: »
    Did you hear Cantona kicked a fan?
    When?
    Insect will you link me the thread please.


  • #6593
    pistolpetes11
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 7,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭pistolpetes11


    FlawedGenius wrote: »
    When?
    Insect will you link me the thread please.

    Yep had a read of it a few days ago on here ,

    Didnt garner much of a reaction then either .


  • #6594
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    The Dutch are a race?


  • #6595
    Mr.Crinklewood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,706 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Crinklewood


    CSF wrote: »
    Did you hear Cantona kicked a fan?

    As a result of which his club imposed a ban.


  • #6596
    bUILDERtHEbOB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 787 ✭✭✭bUILDERtHEbOB


    Since when was being Dutch a race?

    Are Ryan Babel and Dirk Kuyt genetically the same?


  • #6597
    jebidiah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,451 ✭✭✭jebidiah


    Handsome Bob wrote: »
    The Dutch are a race?

    He says posh cnut I reckon


  • #6598
    PARKHEAD67
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭PARKHEAD67


    FlawedGenius wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlHqAzrIp9M&feature=youtu.be
    Someone embed.
    He should be banned for this no worse than calling evra a nigro. Lfc building a great reputation.:rolleyes:
    Gona have to sign a load of blacks and Dutch in the summer to make up for it I think.
    What a wum:D


  • #6599
    FlawedGenius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,256 ✭✭✭FlawedGenius


    bUILDERtHEbOB wrote: »
    Since when was being Dutch a race?

    Are Ryan Babel and Dirk Kuyt genetically the same?
    Babel isnt Kuyt and Krul are.


  • #6600
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,867 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »
    As a result of which his club imposed a ban.

    No the club wanted him to play reserve football, which the FA said no too.

    1995: Cantona banned over attack on fan
    Manchester United's Eric Cantona has been fined £20,000 and banned from playing football over his kung fu-style attack on a fan.
    The club has relegated the French star striker to the bench for nine months for lashing out at a fan in the front row during a game against Crystal Palace two days ago.

    Cantona has also been stripped of his captaincy of the French national team and he has lost his place in the side.

    Cantona claims the fan, Matthew Simmons, shouted racial insults and threw a missile at him as he walked off the pitch after being given a red card for kicking another player during a tackle.

    Fiery temper

    The Frenchman leapt at the fan, aiming both feet at his chest. He then threw several punches, before police, stewards and other members of the crowd managed to pull him off. Fellow United player, Paul Ince, is also reported to have thrown some punches.

    Cantona's fiery temper has got him in trouble before. In 1987 he punched his own team's goalkeeper at Auxerre, leaving him with a black eye. He was also suspended by Marseille for kicking a ball into the crowd and throwing his shirt at the referee after being substituted.

    Cantona retaliated by retiring from the premier league in France - and moving to England.

    The number seven player - and his teammate Ince - are still facing a criminal investigation following assault charges brought by police.

    At a news conference earlier today, United chairman Martin Edwards appeared to suggest Cantona could still play this season for the reserves - in order to keep himself fit.

    However, this has already been ruled out by Football Association Chief Executive Graham Kelly.

    He said: "I don't think there's any real prospect that he'll be playing for Manchester United reserves, A team or whatever, between now and the date of his commission hearing here."

    The hearing will take place in three weeks' time and is likely to confirm the player's suspension.

    Crystal Palace has withdrawn Mr Simmon's season ticket for breaking ground rules.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/27/newsid_2506000/2506237.stm

    ******



  • Advertisement
  • #6601
    tommyhaas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,100 ✭✭✭tommyhaas


    Cantona was a legend for kicking that fan. Is there many Utd fans, looking back now, who would preferred he hadn't?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement