Tipex Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Can someone explain what the point of this is? Likely to last 5 days, and the maximum punishment he could receive if found guilty is a £2.5k fine. No doubt he'd pay that with the money he's dropped down the back of his sofa, hardly a punishment to someone of his means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4ttm4son Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 2 hours, 38 minutes it takes for him to earn that. The other aspect is that if he is found guilty, which I'm not sure he will, the FA and his club will be under pressure to take the matter further. So the club might give him another fine and FA might give him a few matches ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 I think it's more about making an example of whoever is found guilty of starting it - Terry or the guy he's alleged to have thrown racial abuse at (although it's Terry who's on charge), to demonstrate to football fans et al that you can't go around doing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Whatever the intricacies of the trial I just hope they sentence him to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 I think that would be showing too much leniency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted July 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Not much of an example though is it, when he can pay the fine without even thinking about the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 That's the law, though - being an ass as usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 As mentioned, if he's found guilty the real consequences won't be the paltry fine he receives, but rather the FA punishment. Given the precedent of the Suarez case, he'd be looking at a minimum 8 game ban and a much bigger fine. And I couldn't see him playing for England again. I'd like to think Chelsea would cancel his contract too, but that's probably a bit too much to hope for. Of course - that's if he's found guilty. Depending on the detail of the outcome, it is feasible the FA may launch their own enquiry even if he's found innocent of the specific charge he's facing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 You know what I find more unpalatable than anything? The Terry trial is first on the news. After it they've got the Ratko Mladic trial. What Terry is accused of doing is reprehensible and disgusting, but to have Mladic as second to him on the news is frankly appalling. Maybe that's what the British public want, pricks of footballers who they know rather than mass murdering b*stards who they don't care about because in their little world it means nothing to them. A very sorry state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 He'll also come out of it with a criminal record. That's far worse (to me) than a paltry 2.5k fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigyb Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Slight discrepancy here, the QPR tosser who assulted 3 players in plain view and has a well documented reputation for violence you were defending to the hilt I think that would be showing too much leniency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Not much of an example though is it, when he can pay the fine without even thinking about the money. He will have to go the bookies first to win it though. Rumour has it he is properly skint. Doing tours of Stamford Bridge for £10k to keep the big boys with their baseball bats away. He's gambled all his money away and is mortgaged to the tits!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Whilst the incident itself and the police prosecution were all the news, it seemed to have slipped me by that Anton himself didn't hear himself being racially abused on the pitch and it was only after his GF showed him a Youtube clip. Now I think Terry is a cnut of the highest order but I can't help thinking this is a manufactured situation now. The guy he abused didnt even hear him say it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 But it's not half as manufactured as his defence. Which to me looks as desperate and ill-judged as most of his defending on the pitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinspark Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 He'll also come out of it with a criminal record. That's far worse (to me) than a paltry 2.5k fine. Not sure he'll be too worried about that. The family will probably have a 'welcome to the club' party for him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted July 9, 2012 Report Share Posted July 9, 2012 Slight discrepancy here, the QPR tosser who assulted 3 players in plain view and has a well documented reputation for violence you were defending to the hilt I wasn't defending him to the hilt - his actions were wrong. However, I felt the ban was excessive. His past record is awful and he needs to get his head sorted out. That's not defending him - I was criticising the ban and I think that's different to defending someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 But it's not half as manufactured as his defence. Which to me looks as desperate and ill-judged as most of his defending on the pitch. True. What was the term - exaggerated irony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4ttm4son Posted July 10, 2012 Report Share Posted July 10, 2012 Well, the magistrate has not thrown it out so there must be enough evidence to warrant listening to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 After all that - not guilty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4ttm4son Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Bah! Let's hope the FA see it differently. *doesn't hold breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I can understand the Magistrate's decision. This does not mean he didn't do it, merely that there is insufficient evidence to prove that he did. The FA were quite rightly waiting for the conclusion of court proceedings before deciding what path they should take. They may have a separate enquiry into the incident, and could feasibly conclude differently if they require a lesser burden of proof, but I doubt they will. What I do not look forward to now with any pleasure at all is Terry and his supporters claiming this is some kind of exoneration of his character as a whole. He is still, by far, the biggest cúnt in football, and I still hope he rots in hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 This is the problem of the FA doing it this way round. They require a lesser burden of proof and by that yardstick Terry is as guilty as Suarez (arguably with more evidence). BUT I would be VERY suprised if now he has been found not-guilty in Criminal Court the FA did anything other than sweep this under the carpet as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 He is still, by far, the biggest cúnt in football, and I still hope he rots in hell. You are not on the fence with this topic Mr G!..................... In the words of Roy Walker - 'Say what you see'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I only hope the rumours that he is in debt are true. Hopefully to the wrong people. Thrown in the Thames wearing concrete shoes would be a fitting end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busby Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I can understand the Magistrate's decision.This does not mean he didn't do it, merely that there is insufficient evidence to prove that he did. In a mags trial this usually doesn't mean that much to be honest - the conviction rates at the mags courts are very high compared to the crown court process. A defence of "he accused me of saying it so I screamed it back at him and added an obscenity for good measure" is quite simply ridiculous. Do you think Joe Smoe would have got found not guilty in his local mags court if he screamed that at someone in town on a Saturday night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.