BrahimHemdani

Correct. Suarez case was that he only used the word "negro" once in a friendly way but if you read all the evidence that just wasn't credible. I also thought that his Counsel made a big mistake in arguing that Evra made up the allegations to get back at Suarez for the kick on his knee that started the whole thing off. The explanations that Suarez gave for pinching Evra's arm and patting him on the head weren't credible either and the tribunal didn't believe him.

In these cases the test is not that of a criminal court i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt; "The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of probability. The more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the Misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter." Basically they considered that Evra was a more credible witness and his statements were actually supported to some extent by the Liverpool witnesses. Suarez changed his story three times and there were other inconsistences that led the tribunal to regard him as a less reliable witness.

There was absolutely no evidence of that in the hearing. Evra called Suarez a South American but there was no evidence that he said that in a derogatory way and it was not suggested by Suarez Counsel.

One of the factors that led the tribunal to believe him was that he complained twice to the refereee at the time and again after the match and also there were four MU players who said he said the same in the dressing room and their evidence was not challenged.

All the exchanges were in Spanish. "Negro" in Spanish means "black". According to the expert witnesses there is no Spanish equivalent for the word nigger. The reference to Evra's colour was regarded as an "aggravating factor" to the otherwise insulting behaviour. One of the facts that the tribunal decided was proven was that Suarez said he kicked Evra because he was black.

There is a lot of reasoning on the penalty especially about aggravating and mitigating factors but these are the most salient paras: Rule E3(2) then directs us to consider, as an entry point, a sanction that is double the automatic two match suspension for insulting behaviour on account of the presence of the aggravating factor of a reference to colour. Doubling the automatic two-match suspension would result in a four-match suspension. We decided that an entry point of a four-match suspension was appropriate in this case in line with the guidance in Rule E3(2). The first aggravating factor was the number of times Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros". The entry point of a four-match suspension could apply in a case where the alleged offender had used insulting words including a reference to colour once only during a match. We have found that Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times in his exchanges with Mr Evra. It happened, also, in a number of phases. The first mitigating factor was that Mr Suarez had a clean record in relation to charges of this type. As for the length of the suspension, we concluded that a four-match ban, which was the entry point under Rule E3(2), would be too low and would not reflect the gravity of the misconduct. We concluded that an eight-match suspension was appropriate and proportionate, reflecting the seriousness of the misconduct, balanced against the mitigation that was urged on us.

If you have a spare 2/3 hours I commend the full statement (453 paras/115 pages) of the Tribunal decison in this case as fascinating reading. These two paras might tempt you to read more: 357. Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of what happened. Even Mr McCormick accepted in his closing submissions that the pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the reliability of his evidence. 382. In all the circumstances, we preferred the evidence of Mr Evra. His account was clear and consistent in all material respects. There is no basis for saying that he lied or was mistaken in what he heard. We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened. The conversation was all in Spanish. The words which follow (below) were either Mr Evra's exact words or close approximations to them. Mr Evra said to Mr Suarez "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste un golpe?", meaning "fucking hell, why did you kick me?". Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you're black". Mr Evra then said "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada", which means "Say it to me again, I'm going to kick you". Mr Suarez responded "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra then said "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada", meaning "Okay, now I think I'm going to punch you". Mr Suarez responded "Dale, negro, negro, negro", meaning "Okay, blackie, blackie, blackie." This meant that Mr Suarez used the word "negro" five times in the goalmouth. This was the number that Sir Alex Ferguson reported to the referee after the game, and which Sir Alex probably learned from Mr Evra. The "five times" reported to the referee straight after the game corroborates Mr Evra's evidence that the word was used five times in the goalmouth. The whole thing is here: http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

Wallace DID play exceptionally well last weekend BUT, as I've observed on other threads, essentially he was signed to put pressure on Papac to sign the one year deal and/or as an eventual replacement for him, so even although he maybe isn't as good an alround player, I would give Wylde a run and certainly would start him v Arbroath. Otherwise how is he ever going to develop, certainly not with an occasional game on the right. He'll just get scunnered and go to an English Championship (or lower) club. I too watched Davy Wilson and Willie Johnston; (who only ever turned it on about one game in four BUT) he was magic in the run to Barcelona '72. AND I once refereed a reserve game at Ibrox when he played towards the end of his career in the late 70's, Tam Forsyth also played in that game.

Supporters Direct Scotland have extended the closing date for the second annual survey of football supporters to midnight on Sunday 8 January. This yearâ??s survey has topical questions about:  league structures  television revenues and their distribution  season starts and winter closedown  supporter representation on club boards  supporter representation on national football issues  support for a Scottish Football Supporters Network Last yearâ??s survey caused a storm when fans indicated they were at odds with Scottish Premier League plans for restructuring. This year there are more questions and a specific section about establishing a Scottish Football Supporters Network as a voice of the fans body. Alan Harris, Chair of the Scottish Council of Supporters Direct commented: â??Itâ??s really important that football supporters the length and breadth of Scotland have their say on the topical issues of the day affecting the game they love and support. Last year, our first survey showed that football fans were at odds with the SPLâ??s plans for restructuring. This year we are asking more questions and on a broader range of subjects, including whether fans would support a Scottish Football Supporters Network and what they would want it to do. The survey will close in 3 days time and I want every football supporter to respond this year and so that we make the voice of fans loud and clear.â? The Scottish Government is keen to ensure that the views of Scottish fans are represented and to that end Supporters Direct Scotland are setting up the Scottish Football Supporters Network. The aim is to make Supporters Direct more widely representative of Scottish Football fans and thereby to ensure that there is a productive dialogue between football supporters and all key stakeholders in the game including the Government, football authorities, clubs, communities and other public authorities. To enable us to do this, we need contact details for Scottish football fans and would ask you to leave your email address at the end of this (sic) questionnaire. By leaving your address you will become an individual member of SFSN at no charge. We will use this address to contact you in the future when we are conducting further surveys of fansâ?? views. Please note that we will not, under any circumstances at all; share your email address with anyone else â?? not the government, not the football authorities or any club. No one. Guaranteed. Period. But, if in the future, we are to establish the range of views held by fans, and if you would like to participate, please leave your email address. The survey can be found at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LWDRPV8

It was launched at the beginning of December 2011, 54; you might be thinking of a similar but shorter poll in Dec 2010. And, sorry if you have contributed in Dec 2011, you can't do so again! Thanks anyway!!

The deadline for completion of the Supporters Direct Scotland Survey of fans' opinions on issues such as League restructuring, distribution of TV revenue, supporters' representation etc has been extended until midnight on Sunday as there has been growing interest over the festive period and SD wants all fans to have the every opportunity to respond. The survey can be found at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LWDRPV8 If anyone can repost this to other Rangers fora, that would be appreciated, thanks.

Do they invite a representative of Stoke City?

Where was Mr Whyte?

Was he injured yesterday or just left out? Bartley loooked good at right back.

BD, sorry I seem to have overlooked your earlier question though I did answer some others. I will get you answers although possibly not tonight! However, similar issues were raised by CST and I obtained this response from SD's professional advisers which may deal with some of your concerns: I don't think any questions in the survey are leading. Some are asking about proposals people may not agree with (such as the SPL claims or what to do if a 16/18 league structure was adopted) but that does not mean they are leading. On the proposals they would only be leading if there was bias in how the question was framed or if there was not the option of saying you disagree with the proposal. We specifically made sure that each question asked whether they "support or oppose" therefore not giving priority to one point of view in the question framing. In addition the response options give people equal opportunity to either support or oppose therefore not leading them to one point of view. And the evidence from the near xxxx responses so far indicate that respondents are differentiating between proposals and quite willing to oppose the options they do not agree with. On the detail of some of the proposals such as distributing income more evenly or a pyramid structure then it is always a balance to be made between the brevity of the question and the level of detail provided. In my experience of other work providing long explanatory paragraphs in questions is more detrimental to response rates therefore we have adhered to the principle of less is more (as we have also done in the length of the questionnaire). That inevitably means a compromise on the detail that can be provided. But that does not that the findings are not meaningful. In this instance we are obtaining a clear picture on whether people are supportive or not on the principle of more even distribution of income or the introduction of a pyramid structure. That can be successfully achieved without providing the detailed ins and and outs of how income is currently distributed and what a more even distribution might mean or the precise details of exactly how a pyramid system might work in practice (which is probably impossible to do at this stage). And people always retain the option of either opposing the proposal based on lack of information or saying they neither support nor oppose if they genuinely feel they don't have enough information (or indeed skipping the question). The same is true of all the other questions. From responses to date there is no evidence that a lack of detail is impacting on responses - for example only 22 people have skipped the pyramid structure question which is around 1% of respondents and entirely normal for this type of survey. This suggests that the overwhelming majority of respondents understand the principle of what a pyramid structure is. When conducting surveys like this significant problems in question design or wording are quite quickly flagged up by the initial respondents. We have had almost 2000 responses so far from every club (including Celtic and every other SPL club) and no significant problems have arisen suggesting that Ms x's concerns are not borne out by the majority of respondents. I hope this helps reassure as obviously the more supporters who complete the survey the more robust the finding are and it would be unfortunate if some supporters of particular clubs were not properly represented because of a misplaced perception of bias.

THE SURVEY CLOSES TONIGHT, LAST CHANCE TO GET IN YOUR VIEWS ON LEAGUE RECONSTRUCTION, TV MONEY, FANS REPRESENTATION ETC https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LWDRPV8

What I mean is that anyone can make a complaint who was at a "regulated football match" or even if you weren't actually at the match but you were watching it on TV and were offended by what you heard. And going back to your earlier point, I suppose that the more people who claimed to be offended then the more likely the police would have to take action. However, remember that this is new legislation that has not yet been tested and I am not a lawyer; all I have done is quoted you certain parts of the Act and given you my interpretation.

I would say so but don't quote me! And remember that anyone can make a complaint even an unreasonable person; the test is not whether or not you are a reasonable man; the test is whether or not a police officer takes the view that this mythical reasonable person would find the chant offensive etc and the procurator fiscal considers that there is a good chance that he could secure a conviction and/or that it would be in the public interest to prosecute the alleged offence.

"Enough fans" aren't the issue, one would be enough. The police would have to deal with it in terms of the OBB IF: it is behaviour "that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive" AND "the behaviour is or would be likely to incite public disorder". I found this definition of a reasonable man in Scotland: reasonable man – the reasonable man is just a man but more than that, he is not rash, he is not stupid, he does not lose control of himself (unless sufficiently provoked), he is not unusually clever. It’s used as an objective standard for what a reasonable person of general abilities will do. Can be altered by the discretion of the court. Note, however, that the fact that you might consider yourself to be a reasonable person doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not a police officer takes the view that this mythical person would find the chant offensive etc and the procurator fiscal considers that there is a good chance that he could secure a conviction and/or that it would be in the public interest to prosecute the alleged offence.

I found this as well: A Mediteranean attacking midfielder. Something like an advanced playmaker - but without as much responsibility for setting up teammates. A weapon/free role who plays behind the striker. Its a very prestigious role in Italy, and they groom young players for it. Often used in Spain as well. The first thing that comes to mind is Roberto Baggio. Messi often plays like a trequartista. Trequartistas are typically used as part of a three man attack - either with two forwards or alongside a more supporting attacking midfielder with a centre forward up front. Most Italian teams use the "Tridente" - three pronged attack. Trequartista means "Three quarters," as in he plays 3/4 of the way up the field. Not sure if Fleck is the next Baggio or Messi; he hasn't made the progress I expected and I think he has lost his way in some respects.

I looked it up on Wicki, I guess the literal translation would be "three-quarters" or something like that: Deep-lying forwards have a long history in the game, but the terminology to describe them has varied over the years. Originally such players were termed inside forwards, or deep-lying centre forwards. More recently, two more variations of this old type of player have developed: the second or shadow or support or auxiliary striker and, in what is in fact a distinct position unto its own, the Number 10, the Trequartista who is often described as an attacking midfielder or the playmaker. The second striker position is a loosely-defined and often misapplied one somewhere between the out-and-out striker, whether he is a target-man or more of a poacher, and the Number 10 or Trequartista, while possibly showing some of the characteristics of both. In fact, a coined term, the "nine-and-a-half", has been an attempt to define the position. Conceivably, a Number 10 can alternate as a second-striker provided that he is also a prolific goalscorer, otherwise a striker who can both score and create opportunities for a less versatile centre forward is more suited. This has been true of natural trequartistas like Roberto Baggio, Francesco Totti, and Alessandro Del Piero, and outside of Italy the likes of Kenny Dalglish who seldom played in a team formation which permitted them the creative license to play as a number 10 and so they adapted themselves to the second-striker role. Second or support strikers do not tend to get as involved in the orchestration of attacks, nor bring as many other So I think Fleck IS one, in that his best position in my opinion is behind the main striker but not as others have said an attacking midfileder per se.

Please clarify. Don't want to tire out the wee lambs before Hogmannay.

It is not defined in the bill, as Dutchy says .

I understand your frustration but if you reported it in writing (or by email) then they would HAVE to investigate it, particularly in the wake of the OBB. Previously they could have said that it was not breach of the peace but now "offensive behaviour" is specifically caught by the new Act. I suspect that you would not be alone.

This leaves me incredulous; how can he have if he doesn't know if funds are going to be available. Is he just being a boy scout? He hasn't spoken to Whyte up until now about whether or not money will be available in January, which is two days away?