John Terry Trial
 

http://live-blog.sport.uk.msn.com/Ev...rry_race_trial

its live on t'internet if anyones interested.

summary of events...

Ferdinand and Terry exchange insults on pitch.
Ferdinand makes a cooment about Terry sh**ing a teammates missus.
Terry (allegedly) calls Ferdinand "a ***ing black **t".
Ferdinand is unaware of this comment as he did not hear it.
Ferdinands girlfriend plays him a youtube video in the playesrs lounge after the game showing the the incident with sub-titles of the (alleged) comment.

gripping stuff.....

Re: John Terry Trial
 

Apparently Terry's words were taken out of context. I'm still trying to work out what context they could ever sound reasonable. Other than that, I couldn't give a monkeys.:D

Re: John Terry Trial
 

Either way, I think we know he'll be there in his kit celebrating being on the winning team... which ever team wins. :rofl:

Re: John Terry Trial
 

Well the maximum penalty is reportedly £2,500, just under 2 and a half hours pay for John.....he must be bricking it.

Re: John Terry Trial
 

Didn't you spot him in the crowd at Wimbledon yesterday, all ready in a white t-shirt? :D

Re: John Terry Trial
 

yup....he'll spend more than that in the bar post-match.

wonder if the FA will follow up with a further charge if he's found guilty ? thier reaction will be an interesting one.

Re: John Terry Trial
 

How can they?

The FA handing down a punishment after the courts have? Wouldn't that mean the FA are more important than the laws of the land?

Not sure how that would be received.

That being said, Suarez got an FA punishment but no legal punishment from the courts. So I'm not sure how they managed it, because if they seemed to think the racist remarks he made we worthy of a long ban, why didn't the CPS?

Re: John Terry Trial
 

I know- its not clear-cut by any means - but they're damned if the do and damned if they don't, as I see it.

Tricky one to try and foresee, perhaps past presdence will be called in to play.

But then thats using common sense and logic....so perhaps not.

Re: John Terry Trial
 

Hopefully the confused logic of my post made it obvious enough that I agree with you.

Be interesting to see. But the FA are far from being too consistent I think;

9months for not failing a drugs test
9 matches for calling Evra something naughty
12ish matches for Barton trying to fight all of Manchester
? For Terry being guilty of calling Anton a black ****

Re: John Terry Trial
 

Still trying to work out what a "***ing black **t" (the **t bit, that is). Or typo for ***t?

Anyway, as to FA applying rulings different from those of the CPS / courts:

If someone's found guilty in a court, then the FA should be bound to take action, especially if its a criminal action (being found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, rather than the civil action test of on the balance of probabilities). Entirely up to the FA to decide if its sanction is greater or lesser than that of the court: the court may well be constrained as to what it imposes, and the FA may either have a free hand, or may have its own tariff system which could end up with a harsher sanction than the court's. I don't see any problem with that.

If, on the other hand, the court does not find someone guilty, the FA isn't and shouldn't be bound by that decision. Provided the FA has a clearly-defined procedure--and follows it--I don't see any problem with it applying a sanction even if the court cannot prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. A player has the option of being bound by the FA Rules (if he doesn't want to be bound, don't be a professional football player): no-one can opt out of the legal system. An action of a player may well not be a criminal (or civil) offence, but such action could well be against the FA Rules.

Re: John Terry Trial
 

yup a typo - apologies.

so then why have the FA so far done nothing more than strip JT of the captaincy ?

that action alone suggests that the FA believe simply being accused of the crime is enough to warrant a "punishment" but then do or say no more !

if the court finds him not guilty, will JT have a case for "wrongfull dismissal" against the FA then ?

could be any amounts of FA/JT repurcussions depending on the verdict.

Re: John Terry Trial
 

Unless the FA Rules state that the FA is bound by any court verdict (which is highly unlikely), then it can come to any decision it likes provided it fairly follows its own procedures. As I stated above, the standard of proof in a court of law is likely to be far more severe than that required in the FA Rules, and there are numerous procedural matters required in law which aren't necessarily required in an organisation's own rulebook. If the FA has mis-applied or breached its own rules in stripping Terry of the position, then--depending on the relationship between Terry and the FA (if, in fact, there is one: is the FA his employer?)--Terry may have a cause of action against the FA, but I would hope that the FA has complete freedom of discretion in deciding who has the captaincy.

Re: John Terry Trial
 

If he's found guilty, the fine is nothing. What will hurt him is you'll see his sponsors distance themselves quicker than a fly to shit.

Re: John Terry Trial
 

This is true but will still be of little consequence to his earnings for the remainder of his career. This case will regardless of the result in court be forgotten very quickly due to the ridiculous manner in which it was handled by the FA, the CPS and not too mention Ferdinand himself.

JT is obviously not a good role model, but as far as most non-chelsea fans are considered he should be found guilty regardless of whether he is or not. :frown:

Re: John Terry Trial
 

Hasn't he already been dropped from the Pepsi ad?