chinapig Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, Selred said: Why should they? They have had enough to charge him, and for it Diedhiou to remained banned. We have to accept it and move on now. Because, other than for matters of genuine national security, secret courts are anathema. I can read decisions of many tribunals online, it seems reasonable that I should be able to do likewise for FA tribunals, especially as the FA benefits from public funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 Hopefully he has learnt his lesson. Time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 11 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said: Does anyone know what the disciplinary panel looks at on appeal? I suspect they don’t look again at the whole case, but instead only look at whether there is sufficient evidence on appeal to overturn or reduce the original ban. The onus therefore may not have been on the FA to prove it’s case, but on City to prove otherwise. If it's anything like a HMCTS tribunal the appellant needs to show that there was an error in law. A tribunal may also find new facts or decide there was some procedural error in the original hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, chinapig said: Because, other than for matters of genuine national security, secret courts are anathema. I can read decisions of many tribunals online, it seems reasonable that I should be able to do likewise for FA tribunals, especially as the FA benefits from public funding. Exactly this. All the time they refuse to publish the evidence or even state what evidence exists fans are inevitably going to think they have something to hide. If it was out in the public domain we can all see it and if it is clear then I`m sure most of us would say fair enough we just have to take it on the chin. Whilst there is all this secrecy conspiracy theories are bound to exist and given the FA`s track record we are always going to think we have been shafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 5 minutes ago, chinapig said: Because, other than for matters of genuine national security, secret courts are anathema. I can read decisions of many tribunals online, it seems reasonable that I should be able to do likewise for FA tribunals, especially as the FA benefits from public funding. It seems that many Governing bodies just seem to do what they want and when they want and without any allowance for questioning. Why can they not publish whatever evidence it has to at least give themselves some credibility. The club say it is "limited evidence" so is it one persons word, one bit of video, 4th official?? Just show everyone what the bloody evidence is so it perceived as some sort of cover up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 If he's going to be banned then I guess we just have to move on and accept it. But I do think for offences such as spitting, things that would be a crime if you did it on the street and one which affects a players reputation, they should really publish the evidence. I appreciate that it is not a court of law and that the burden of proof is very different, but this isn't a appealing a bad tackle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 13 minutes ago, wood_red said: It seems that many Governing bodies just seem to do what they want and when they want and without any allowance for questioning. Why can they not publish whatever evidence it has to at least give themselves some credibility. The club say it is "limited evidence" so is it one persons word, one bit of video, 4th official?? Just show everyone what the bloody evidence is so it perceived as some sort of cover up. The one time I remember somebody standing up to their cosy little operation it was Alan Sugar when Chairman at Spurs who took them to a proper court when he didn't like their verdict; the penalty they had been going to apply was slashed to a slap on the wrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 2 hours ago, Super said: Hopefully he has learnt his lesson. Time to move on. You clearly think he is guilty then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 5 minutes ago, Port Said Red said: You clearly think he is guilty then? He was found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packman Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 How come when Harry Kane swears on his kids life the FA change their decision. When a Bristol city player does they don’t. The FA are up there with FIFA for their incompetence, joke of an organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big C Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 We’re talking about a club supported by 1000’s of people if the FA are going to ban one of the players of this club for a significant amount of time surely they should provide the evidence that led to his conviction to justify this to those fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gifford Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, Big C said: We’re talking about a club supported by 1000’s of people if the FA are going to ban one of the players of this club for a significant amount of time surely they should provide the evidence that led to his conviction to justify this to those fans There is no evidence but the FA won't want to turn back now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packman Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Super said: He was found guilty. So it must be true then even tho he swore he never did anything. He should just accept it and move on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 48 minutes ago, Packman said: So it must be true then even tho he swore he never did anything. He should just accept it and move on? So you are saying he isnt guilty because he said he didnt do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Gifford said: There is no evidence but the FA won't want to turn back now. Sure City would not let it go if that was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, Super said: So you are saying he isnt guilty because he said he didnt do it? At the risk of repeating myself, we have no idea what the alleged evidence or counter evidence was. In the absence of that we cannot decide whether the outcome was just or not. In principle it's a bit of a slippery slope to say someone was found guilty therefore they must be guilty if the evidence on which the decision was made is not in the public domain. Justice must be seen to be done and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packman Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 4 minutes ago, Super said: So you are saying he isnt guilty because he said he didnt do it? What I’m saying is, is that if the FA don’t show any evidence and Fammy swears blind he didn’t do anything it’s basically his word against theirs. City are still saying the evidence isn’t conclusive, if they were shown video evidence they would just drop it and move on but obviously they aren’t. Bit of a joke that the FA can just hand out long bans without having any concrete evidence. We’ve been here before with the FA and the wright incident. They obviously have their favoured teams and managers and teams they don’t like, clearly we’re the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 To negate the chances of any City player being accused, rightly or wrongly, of committing such an offense in future.... These are to be placed in the dressing rooms and distributed among playing staff before kick off and at half time of matches.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 13 minutes ago, chinapig said: At the risk of repeating myself, we have no idea what the alleged evidence or counter evidence was. In the absence of that we cannot decide whether the outcome was just or not. In principle it's a bit of a slippery slope to say someone was found guilty therefore they must be guilty if the evidence on which the decision was made is not in the public domain. Justice must be seen to be done and all that. City said the evidence was limited but there was some evidence. Anyway its done now lets worry about who will replace him for 6 games. Certainly going to miss him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 14, 2018 Report Share Posted July 14, 2018 Would suggest Court of Arbitration for Sport would be best route for an appeal IMO for this kind of case. The case itself seems very dubious on what we've heard IMO. @BCFC11 The socks thing seems fairly trivial but it's huge business now the World Cup so yeah FIFA would take a dim view owing to image rights, how it would play with sponsors etc- the rules are presumably fairly clear and unauthorised branding is punishable by a fine. Plus, a quick search indicates that Croatia were fined about the same for drinking the wrong (by which I mean an unlicensed) brand of water. Clearly they're clamping down. In short, sponsors and official.partners pay a fair whack for exclusivity and don't want that eroded or impinged upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC11 Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Would suggest Court of Arbitration for Sport would be best route for an appeal IMO for this kind of case. The case itself seems very dubious on what we've heard IMO. @BCFC11 The socks thing seems fairly trivial but it's huge business now the World Cup so yeah FIFA would take a dim view owing to image rights, how it would play with sponsors etc- the rules are presumably fairly clear and unauthorised branding is punishable by a fine. Plus, a quick search indicates that Croatia were fined about the same for drinking the wrong (by which I mean an unlicensed) brand of water. Clearly they're clamping down. In short, sponsors and official.partners pay a fair whack for exclusivity and don't want that eroded or impinged upon. Totally understand everything you have said re: sponsors etc, but my point was more of how they decide how much these fines are, ludicrous how you can sing vile racists chants and get away with a ridiculous £16k fine but others are getting fined nearly 3 times as much for wearing a wrong kind of sock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 10 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said: The one time I remember somebody standing up to their cosy little operation it was Alan Sugar when Chairman at Spurs who took them to a proper court when he didn't like their verdict; the penalty they had been going to apply was slashed to a slap on the wrist. Sugar didn’t take them to a ‘proper’ court - Spurs were found guilty of making 39 illegal payments to players - this was not contested, they were guilty as charged....Sugar simply appealed (to the FA’s ‘appeals panel’) against the severity of the penalties - Spurs were fined £600,000 and were given a 12 points deduction. Following Sugar’s appeal, the points deduction was reduced but the fine was increased to £1.5m (the biggest fine ever imposed by the FA at that point) - not sure that’s a great result that can be described as a ‘slap on the wrist’ ..... Spurs broke the rules and were found guilty....not a brill result for Sir Alan.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never to the dark side Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 For what it may be worth,the outcome was given a mention on BBC points west Saturday afternoon local News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 4 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said: Sugar didn’t take them to a ‘proper’ court - Spurs were found guilty of making 39 illegal payments to players - this was not contested, they were guilty as charged....Sugar simply appealed (to the FA’s ‘appeals panel’) against the severity of the penalties - Spurs were fined £600,000 and were given a 12 points deduction. Following Sugar’s appeal, the points deduction was reduced but the fine was increased to £1.5m (the biggest fine ever imposed by the FA at that point) - not sure that’s a great result that can be described as a ‘slap on the wrist’ ..... Spurs broke the rules and were found guilty....not a brill result for Sir Alan.... And they were expelled from the FA cup before being reinstated from the appeal; so £900k in exchange for twelve points and back in the FA cup. I'd say that's a result but I had thought it went externally and was incorrect in thinking that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 10 hours ago, BCFC11 said: Totally understand everything you have said re: sponsors etc, but my point was more of how they decide how much these fines are, ludicrous how you can sing vile racists chants and get away with a ridiculous £16k fine but others are getting fined nearly 3 times as much for wearing a wrong kind of sock! Like I say, FIFA about keeping the sponsors happy. We got a warning, did it again and got a fine. Read it was a 22k fine for Russia but anyway it's much too low. Behind closed doors seems a fair punishment I'd say. UEFA seem tougher on this sort of thing than FIFA for whatever reason, often making sides play behind closed doors- I still remember Blatter the buffoon declaring that on field racism could be settled with a handshake!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 15 hours ago, Super said: City said the evidence was limited but there was some evidence. Anyway its done now lets worry about who will replace him for 6 games. Certainly going to miss him. I think that’s the key bit for me....what does limited evidence actually mean? Did they see him spit, but difficult to know if it was aimed at the Brum player? Who knows. At the end of the day we feel like the player / club has been harshly treated, but we’ve no idea of the evidence. Hard, but we need to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hertsexile Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 From what I can remember there were no protests from any of the Brimingham players during the game. If the incident had taken place surely they would have been running up to around the ref like hornets to try & get him sent off! City have asked for the evidence & appealed so ban seems harsh due to the leak of a clear cut case but this is the Ga we are talking about one rule for one and one for another if you get my meaning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 21 hours ago, Gifford said: There is no evidence but the FA won't want to turn back now. That’s not correct Even the Club have conceded there is ‘limited evidence ‘ apologies @Super - noticed you highlighted this already The Club can always divulge the strength or otherwise of evidence if they so wish ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Robin Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 I'm not surprised by this decision: the FA panel likes us so much... Taylor or new signing to replace Fammy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted July 15, 2018 Report Share Posted July 15, 2018 5 hours ago, Davefevs said: I think that’s the key bit for me....what does limited evidence actually mean? Did they see him spit, but difficult to know if it was aimed at the Brum player? Who knows. At the end of the day we feel like the player / club has been harshly treated, but we’ve no idea of the evidence. Hard, but we need to move on. Doesn’t look like there is anything we can do about it, but we do seem unlucky, if that’s the word, with our appeals. I just hope it can be forgotten, take the punishment as we have no idea if it is due or not, but I hope it doesn’t become widely known or Diedhiou will become the target of abuse from opposition fans. To be fair we would be dishing it out to any player found guilty of spitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.