budgie

Or oblak to chelsea, courtois to madrid and allsson. It makes the merry go round more likely at least

No way they will let him sit in the stands. Too much £s involved

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

Foreigners - they don't like the high ball and stuff

Yet you've done precisely that!

He's never exactly been the most media savvy. I'm not reading anything into his comments

I really don't understand why people are so sure this is a done deal. To me the only sounds coming out have been from that blert whelan. We are still likely to be talking to the another 1-2 candidates. They just don't have a media whore as a chairman

He asked directly in a pressed about Martinez. He just answered the question he was asked

He wasn't at the races all game and seemed to be annoyingly relaxed about how badly things were going. Didn't play the captain's part imho.

A step too far. Evra's a c*** but no call for that

That's the thing for me. If they said that Luis Suarez has admitted using a term that has racial connotations. They can make their assessment that it was probably used in a confrontational manner and they don't accept Luis' defence. Even if he got a 8 game ban for that it would be the clamp down message they are trying to give. It's the fact that they say that they think that Luis probably said it 7 times that is really hard to take. His account if it was true is a case of blatant racism by Luis.

He's clear on it. The panel weren't going to listen anyway. Pretty obvious reading the report that there are as many holes in evra's story as Luis's but they conveniently ignored those.

It's really not. It reads like a document missing sections or facts

I have. Look at the piece I have singled out in my other post. If Haughton's evidence is supposed to support their conclusion it shows the levels they were going to try and justify their conclusion. The fact that Haughton heard Ferguson say 5 times prove absolutely squat. It highlights the agenda to me.

Are you having a laugh? It's a joke of a report

I was half expecting something new coming out from the report that showed how they reached the verdict. It's a laughable justication of the guilty verdict they had before hearing the evidence. My particular highlight is this leap of faith that they made. How they reach the conclusion that it supports Evra's evidence is beyond me. All he was saying is that the prick had said five times: Mr Haughan said that when he overheard Sir Alex Ferguson complain to the referee after the match, he heard him say that Mr Suarez had called Mr Evra a n****r "five times". If that is true, it is probable that Mr Evra was the source for Sir Alex's figure. Mr Evra said in his evidence to us that he had been called "negro" five times, namely (1) "Porque tu eres negro", (2) "No hablo con los negros", and (3) "Dale negro, negro, negro". Thus, it might appear that Mr Haughan's evidence supports Mr Evra's evidence that the word was used five times in the goalmouth. I'm even more angry after reading the report. We can't let this go.

Read the report again. Suarez never said he used the word negro three or four times

This content is not viewable to guests.,This content is not viewable to guests.

I find this very surprising if true!

Yep a joke. You're guilty but we won't tell you why. We'll make sure to tell everyone you are guilty as well. I thought I had missed something so asked. Thanks