Manchester United Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Stefan, the western world economy will not be better than now i 8/9 years time. So yes a good deal.
Rio is many slices short of a full loaf, agreed. But I do not think that is the point. A football 'authority' cannot give itself the legality of patrolling a communication system. Whatever was said, and it sounds pretty silly, this cannot have anything to do with the FA. Otherwise this is fascism. This has to be thrown out for the good of society in general.
Well, from £25m, to most saying £28m, we now have Reuters claiming a source has told them the deal is actually a staggering $600m, somewhere near £385m!
If that happens to be accurate, what a ridiculously good deal that would be! (Taking all reported fees with a pinch of salt so far).
Also, it seems GM Motors may not have been happy with the size of the sponsorship agreed, as their global marketing chief has been fired because of the deal apparantly!
Steady there, Jim. Civilisation as we know it is not about to fall apart just because Rio got a charge from the FA.
You're right - the FA doesn't have general jurisdiction over freedom of speech in this country. It is not a court. It's a private club which sets rules for its members. If those members are in breach of its rules then it has the right to set sanctions within its own sphere of operations. It cannot imprison someone. I doubt whether it could legally insist on the fines it imposes. But when it decides, under some form of due process, that a footballer has broken a rule it can sanction him with match bans or whatever.
This is not picking on a United player, despite your apparently paranoid outlook. Other players have been charged by the FA for what it regard as abusive tweets. And, as you know, the FA has been keen to charge players from other clubs over what is sees as racist abuse.
I don't know whether the charge will stick. I think it's perfectly valid to think he has done nothing wrong. (I'm not saying I agree.) But I think he was foolish to make those tweets both in the context of his relationship with his brother and Ashley Cole in the JT saga, and given the general sensitivity to comments of this nature at the moment - something he has himself encouraged. "Petard" and "hoist" spring to mind.
I think that's an overreaction. For one thing, it's a good thing the issue is being dealt with even-handedly, as we know the idiots and racists love to pull out the "It's only racist if a white guy does it" card.
Secondly, the "bringing the game into disrepute" charge is different to the racial abuse charge Terry was up for, and I think he and Ferdinand are both more likely to get done for this; Terry because, whether or not he was repeating what he thought Ferdinand said (and who really believes that?), saying those words in the middle of an internationally-televised match was a stupid thing to do, and one which did bring unwanted attention to the English game; Ferdinand because approving of a racially-charged term like "choc ice" was similarly stupid, and had the same effect.
The FA are allowed to police the game they have stewardship of.
- 1 Reply to Wise Son
Wise Son, I agree with almost everything you say about this. My concern is that in this case its a player commenting on another comment nowhere near a football field. Unless the player has had to sign something specifically about giving away his right to 'free speech' about specified issues at any time in any place, I do not believe the FA have any legal right to persue this, nor indeed should society at large encourage them to think they have.
However if Mr Cole or a member of the public believe they have been 'harmed' by these comments they have the same rights in law to persue a claim against Mr Ferdinand as any other citizen.
Rio might be an idiot, but that is not my point.