Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Southampton' started by MarchwoodSaint, Feb 7, 2014.
They'll ask Trevor Brooking what the point of him being part of the FA is?
why? I thought you said the legal threat was about the procedure, not the outcome. If so, the FA have allowed an independent tribunal and they have upheld the decision. Over.
Stuart Ripley is often involved in these panels in one way or another.
An independent tribunal is not a court of law though is it. Who is on it? How independent are they? If West Ham were serious then they still need to go legal on their asses. If they don't then they're exposed as cheaters effectively, by trying to influence the outcome with empty threats of litigation.
Unreserved apology PTF , I have a few " Issues " and I took it out on you . sorry again .
No it is not, but that is the point; they threatened legal, but didn't need to because the FA allowed the tribunal (I am only taking that from what you posted earlier)
Your last point I think may be right. They even said somewhere that they wouldn't have done this if they had been mid-table.
Your PM inbox is full by the way.
Not any more .
West Ham to now take their appeal to Ming the Merciless
The relationship between West Ham and the FA has always been strained ever since the Tevez affair.
Doesn't surprise me in the least that this situation has occurred.
I don't like West Ham but it's fair enough. It should have been rescinded. Anyone claiming otherwise is letting their hatred or dislike of West Ham cloud their judgement.
Looking at it in isolation it deserved to be overturned but going by the precedent FA has set it would have been incredibly hypocritical to have done so, and consistency is the most important thing in these matters.
I rarely make comment on refs' decisions but Carroll swung his elbow at Flores. On that basis, and that basis alone a sending off was correct. It's the swing, not the reason, provocation, player, team or even how effective the swing is that makes such an action deserve a sending off.
Quite right Vin.
Fair enough response but I'd rather the FA just grew some balls and overturned these sort of decisions.
It was more of a get the f**k off me gesture than anything else. Chico had just been all over him. It was a yellow for me. It looks worse as he is a giant. Not bothering to argue any further.
If he had connected, and Chico had blood everywhere, then everyone would of been saying red card. Heard that on talksport!!
As was Gaston's last year with Shane Long trying to foul him but it is still a red card.
FA told to clamp down on play acting by the same independent panel that rejected the Carroll appeal
Only the mirror I know but would be great