John Terry 19:22 - May 21 with 13157 views | vapour_trail | So Sunderland agreed to kick the ball out of play in the 26th minute today, so that Chelsea could sub JT at the minute he had requested he get replaced. Modern football eh. They should have told Chelsea to stick it. | |
| | |
John Terry on 14:16 - May 22 with 4152 views | No9 |
John Terry on 14:00 - May 22 by Gogs | I can't see any difference between this sh!te and spot fixing in other sports where players get hefty fines/bans and even imprisonment. It might not have been arranged for financial gain, but plenty of people clearly have made money out of it. I hate modern football. |
I don't yet 'hate' modern football but I am falling of love with it. I now have little or no problem in not watching games and am happy to swirch of boring sh!t the pundits tell me is great stuff. | | | |
John Terry on 15:36 - May 22 with 4103 views | hampstead_blue | I've got an idea....... The FA should dock Chelsea 10 points for match fixing. That will stick a firework up their bum | |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
John Terry on 16:10 - May 22 with 4065 views | hoppy |
Should definitely have the book thrown at them... FA rules on match fixing state: "Fixing is arranging in advance the result or conduct of a match or competition, or any event within a match or competition. | |
| |
John Terry on 18:58 - May 22 with 4009 views | bluehook |
John Terry on 21:04 - May 21 by textbackup | Fair enough But why's he a cnt? [Post edited 21 May 2017 21:05]
|
Caught twice by the police parking in disabled bays in Esher town centre. For that crime alone, he is a selfish, narcissistic, despicable cnt. | | | |
John Terry on 19:30 - May 22 with 3980 views | vapour_trail |
John Terry on 16:10 - May 22 by hoppy | Should definitely have the book thrown at them... FA rules on match fixing state: "Fixing is arranging in advance the result or conduct of a match or competition, or any event within a match or competition. |
On the face of it, I don't think they should have the book thrown at them, but both Chelsea and Sunderland should be warned against this sort of thing again. It's at best completely vacuous. It would be interesting to have some info on the identity of the punters who picked up a profit at 100/1 on the substitution though. | |
| |
John Terry on 19:47 - May 22 with 3965 views | jeera |
John Terry on 18:58 - May 22 by bluehook | Caught twice by the police parking in disabled bays in Esher town centre. For that crime alone, he is a selfish, narcissistic, despicable cnt. |
I can't believe no one's mentioned his hair. Has anyone mentioned his hair? | |
| |
John Terry on 19:54 - May 22 with 3955 views | vapour_trail |
John Terry on 19:47 - May 22 by jeera | I can't believe no one's mentioned his hair. Has anyone mentioned his hair? |
Now I dislike the gobsh1te as much as the next self respecting man, but I've not yet heard him called out for his hair. What would you be recommending jeera, if you got the gig as his bonce consultant? | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
John Terry on 22:02 - May 22 with 3911 views | jeera |
John Terry on 19:54 - May 22 by vapour_trail | Now I dislike the gobsh1te as much as the next self respecting man, but I've not yet heard him called out for his hair. What would you be recommending jeera, if you got the gig as his bonce consultant? |
Out of my depth there I'm afraid. That would require Dan's photoshopping skills or MJ's MS Paint. How is MJ I wonder. Must be a thread somewhere... | |
| |
John Terry on 22:05 - May 22 with 3909 views | Mullet |
John Terry on 19:47 - May 22 by jeera | I can't believe no one's mentioned his hair. Has anyone mentioned his hair? |
The old windswept toddler look? An insult to mullets innit. I'd take a razor to him personally. | |
| |
John Terry on 22:07 - May 22 with 3907 views | Swansea_Blue |
Easy, 2 reasons: 1 Because it's Chelsea. 2 Because it's John Terry. If this was Aldershot or Bury, they'd get hung out to dry. | |
| |
John Terry on 22:09 - May 22 with 3902 views | jeera |
John Terry on 22:05 - May 22 by Mullet | The old windswept toddler look? An insult to mullets innit. I'd take a razor to him personally. |
Yes. But what about his hair? (He really does have the getting too old for that look, kinda look doesn't he). | |
| |
John Terry on 22:31 - May 22 with 3876 views | vapour_trail |
John Terry on 22:09 - May 22 by jeera | Yes. But what about his hair? (He really does have the getting too old for that look, kinda look doesn't he). |
I like his David Luiz tribute | |
| |
John Terry on 00:23 - May 23 with 3832 views | hoppy |
John Terry on 19:30 - May 22 by vapour_trail | On the face of it, I don't think they should have the book thrown at them, but both Chelsea and Sunderland should be warned against this sort of thing again. It's at best completely vacuous. It would be interesting to have some info on the identity of the punters who picked up a profit at 100/1 on the substitution though. |
Why shouldn't they have the book thrown at them? They have collaborated in an act that was a clear breach of the rules - irrespective of whether anything was to be decided or not from the game, it was still a regular fixture within the premier league season, so the same rules should apply and be upheld as if it was the first game of the season. | |
| |
John Terry on 00:29 - May 23 with 3823 views | StNeotsBlue |
John Terry on 00:23 - May 23 by hoppy | Why shouldn't they have the book thrown at them? They have collaborated in an act that was a clear breach of the rules - irrespective of whether anything was to be decided or not from the game, it was still a regular fixture within the premier league season, so the same rules should apply and be upheld as if it was the first game of the season. |
Exactly. If that was against us I'd be fuming, it's a diabolical liberty. | | | |
John Terry on 00:44 - May 23 with 3809 views | hoppy |
John Terry on 00:29 - May 23 by StNeotsBlue | Exactly. If that was against us I'd be fuming, it's a diabolical liberty. |
If he'd scored during his short cameo, and to celebrate he'd removed his shirt, would they have just let him off without a booking? It makes me wonder which rules they would stick to and which they would decide suddenly don't matter? | |
| |
John Terry on 08:45 - May 23 with 3765 views | Radlett_blue |
John Terry on 00:23 - May 23 by hoppy | Why shouldn't they have the book thrown at them? They have collaborated in an act that was a clear breach of the rules - irrespective of whether anything was to be decided or not from the game, it was still a regular fixture within the premier league season, so the same rules should apply and be upheld as if it was the first game of the season. |
In principle, you're right. The fabled "integrity of the Premier League" has been compromised. However, as it was a meaningless game, a good chance for the FA to make it clear that such nonsense won't be tolerated in future, without creating a huge controversy. | |
| |
John Terry on 09:17 - May 23 with 3752 views | hoppy |
John Terry on 08:45 - May 23 by Radlett_blue | In principle, you're right. The fabled "integrity of the Premier League" has been compromised. However, as it was a meaningless game, a good chance for the FA to make it clear that such nonsense won't be tolerated in future, without creating a huge controversy. |
What is it with all this 'won't be tolerated in the future' business? The rules are there now, even before this happened. Therefore, they have breached them, and should be reprimanded now - otherwise why have it in the rules? Upholding their own rules shouldn't even create a 'huge controversy' - what it controversial about it if it's written in black and white? Which other rules are there that don't really matter? Why even play the game if it's meaningless? | |
| |
John Terry on 09:44 - May 23 with 3725 views | feelingblue |
John Terry on 08:45 - May 23 by Radlett_blue | In principle, you're right. The fabled "integrity of the Premier League" has been compromised. However, as it was a meaningless game, a good chance for the FA to make it clear that such nonsense won't be tolerated in future, without creating a huge controversy. |
The 'Integrity' of soccer is about the same as athletics or WWF. | | | |
John Terry on 10:12 - May 23 with 3708 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
John Terry on 09:17 - May 23 by hoppy | What is it with all this 'won't be tolerated in the future' business? The rules are there now, even before this happened. Therefore, they have breached them, and should be reprimanded now - otherwise why have it in the rules? Upholding their own rules shouldn't even create a 'huge controversy' - what it controversial about it if it's written in black and white? Which other rules are there that don't really matter? Why even play the game if it's meaningless? |
I hate to be seen as sticking up for John Terry/Chelsea here, the man is a bell and the whole fanfare thing utterly cringeworthy But if pre-planning a substitution is tantamount to match fixing, then pretty much every side in history will have a case to answer for at some point (above assumes the 3 bets placed were entirely coincidental, which all signs point towards being the case currently) | |
| |
John Terry on 11:54 - May 23 with 3685 views | TheBlueBarca |
John Terry on 10:12 - May 23 by C_HealyIsAPleasure | I hate to be seen as sticking up for John Terry/Chelsea here, the man is a bell and the whole fanfare thing utterly cringeworthy But if pre-planning a substitution is tantamount to match fixing, then pretty much every side in history will have a case to answer for at some point (above assumes the 3 bets placed were entirely coincidental, which all signs point towards being the case currently) |
ABility wise I would have him here in a heartbeat. He's a better footballer than anyone we have in our squad or have had over the last decade. | |
| |
John Terry on 12:39 - May 23 with 3657 views | bournemouthblue |
John Terry on 20:57 - May 21 by taximan | has he retired ? i thought he was going to play on for a season or 2 good luck to him |
LA Galaxy or China awaits? | |
| |
John Terry on 14:24 - May 23 with 3614 views | hoppy |
John Terry on 10:12 - May 23 by C_HealyIsAPleasure | I hate to be seen as sticking up for John Terry/Chelsea here, the man is a bell and the whole fanfare thing utterly cringeworthy But if pre-planning a substitution is tantamount to match fixing, then pretty much every side in history will have a case to answer for at some point (above assumes the 3 bets placed were entirely coincidental, which all signs point towards being the case currently) |
But it wasn't just pre planning a substitution... it involved the opposition agreeing to collaborate on it which contravenes the FA rules on match fixing which state: "Fixing is arranging in advance the result or conduct of a match or competition, or any event within a match or competition." How much clearer could it be? | |
| |
John Terry on 15:51 - May 23 with 3577 views | Radlett_blue |
John Terry on 14:24 - May 23 by hoppy | But it wasn't just pre planning a substitution... it involved the opposition agreeing to collaborate on it which contravenes the FA rules on match fixing which state: "Fixing is arranging in advance the result or conduct of a match or competition, or any event within a match or competition." How much clearer could it be? |
OK - FA rules HAVE been breached. IMO, it was in principle wrong (as well as self indulgent), but a fairly minor breach as no league positions were at stake. I don't care if some silly bookie got shafted as I'm sure they were only offering odds on such a specific event as to gain publicity, rather like the pie-munching Sutton keeper. So what do you think the punishment should be? | |
| |
John Terry on 16:14 - May 23 with 3567 views | hoppy |
John Terry on 15:51 - May 23 by Radlett_blue | OK - FA rules HAVE been breached. IMO, it was in principle wrong (as well as self indulgent), but a fairly minor breach as no league positions were at stake. I don't care if some silly bookie got shafted as I'm sure they were only offering odds on such a specific event as to gain publicity, rather like the pie-munching Sutton keeper. So what do you think the punishment should be? |
In this instance, I would say a fine, rather than saying it was fine. I know that would hardly dent the pocket of Abramovich, but I don't know what the FA's policy would be for breach of their own rules - you would imagine they should have something in place, unless they just bumble along without a clear direction... oh, actually... hmm... | |
| |
| |