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.
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.
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.
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 ****.
dooferoaks wrote: » What alternative anti-racism strategy has been proffered up by the players?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
mosstin wrote: » As opposed to the mature and enlightened worldview of SAF; "You'll wear that t-shirt, because I said so."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
CSF wrote: » Kick It Out shouldn't be standing beside the FA after their conduct of late.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
