| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:23 - Jan 7 with 1446 views | NthQldITFC |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:50 - Jan 7 by mistert |
Morsy got a 4 match ban after 'raising his hands' towards an Accrington player when the video evidence was much less conclusive. It's the lack if consistency that always irritates me most of all. |
To be fair that might have been a lovely short jab, if I'm remembering correctly? |  |
|  |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:32 - Jan 7 with 1418 views | HighgateBlue |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:50 - Jan 7 by SheffordBlue |
Seems to me it's much likely that this is just a standard procedural thing rather than any integrity issue.
Aren't all the authorities supposed to have it in for Wolves because they dared bring the vote against VAR!? |
Quite. It's getting a little tiring people constantly claiming that everything is corrupt just because decisions don't go our way. I think it's a really poor decision, and extremely lenient, but calling independent professional people corrupt is totally unnecessary.
I've no idea why baseless allegations of corruption are allowed to remain on the board to be honest. Other baseless allegations of fraud or criminality against identifiable individuals are readily taken down. |  | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:33 - Jan 7 with 1417 views | SheffordBlue |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:19 - Jan 7 by CrayonKing |
That's a fair comment too.
The main issue I have with it is the FA starting from a position that it should be a 3-match ban. That's ridiculously lenient for an assault on a non-player and I can't understand why that's all they pushed for. |
Yup - agree with that. If they'd pushed for a 6 match ban and the Independent Panel had said we take the standard mitigating factors into account and will give him 5 I don't think anyone would be that bothered.
I guess it comes down to the comparable cases that the FA and panel considered and whether these were the best examples. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:51 - Jan 7 with 1390 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:32 - Jan 7 by HighgateBlue |
Quite. It's getting a little tiring people constantly claiming that everything is corrupt just because decisions don't go our way. I think it's a really poor decision, and extremely lenient, but calling independent professional people corrupt is totally unnecessary.
I've no idea why baseless allegations of corruption are allowed to remain on the board to be honest. Other baseless allegations of fraud or criminality against identifiable individuals are readily taken down. |
And this attitude is why cash rich environments like football get away with it. | | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 16:10 - Jan 7 with 1360 views | bsw72 |
I seem to be the only one that does not consider this evidence of FA / Wolves corruption. Report reads well and outlines the details as per evidence provided, shows what was considered by the panel and why the outcomes were reached.
Whether we like it or not, this is the outcome, and the consequence is potentially more serious than just this offence.
That is because it is an aggravated breach of E3.1, should there be a 2nd E3.1 breach by a Wolves 1st team player within the next 12 months, it would lead to an immediate 3-6 pt deduction unless there are mitigating circumstance (ie player contract cancelled etc).
"E3.1: A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour." |  | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 16:48 - Jan 7 with 1314 views | TexacoCup |
Cunha and Wolves will be laughing their heads off at this ridiculously lenient outcome which leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
If he's still at Wolves in April, I'm sure we'll give him a warm welcome.
I'm wondering if we as a club will publish a comment, presumably that would not be allowed. |  | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 16:49 - Jan 7 with 1310 views | Trequartista |
The commission did not accept [Cunha]’s version of events. But no matter we'll reduce the ban because he sacrificed a huge chunk of his wages to buy some new glasses and set a precedent whereby anyone can lie as much as they want with no penalty. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 17:21 - Jan 7 with 1241 views | jaykay |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 14:58 - Jan 7 by Ryorry |
Can't get the link to open, my browser (Chrome) thinks it's corrupt! 😂 |
i am using chrome . it didn't open a link it down loaded files which i opened and then read it |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 17:22 - Jan 7 with 1241 views | FoghornGleghorn |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:43 - Jan 7 by Tokey |
I was expecting something in the report commending the restraint of the ITFC security member who was the victim all of this - having received a blow to the head and then had his glasses ripped off he was hugely calm. I would have been furious. |
Well of course he was calm, he's so much bigger than Cunha. Look at him in the photos, absolutely dwarfing him. Amazing Cunha could even reach his head to elbow him in it really. | | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 17:47 - Jan 7 with 1172 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:19 - Jan 7 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I can guarantee MC didnt write a single word of his witness statement. |
The thing is, there's ample video evidence to show that it was deliberate, so how they can believe a word of his statement (whoever wrote it, and you're probably right) is pretty unbelievable. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 18:27 - Jan 7 with 1139 views | AbujaBlue |
This whole story is really bothering me more than it should. And it isn't Cunha or Wolves that is annoying me anymore, it is trying to decide whether it's sheer incompetence or total dishonesty bordering on corruption from the FA behind this decision. They contradicting themselves in an absolutely farcical manner. This shouldn't be allowed to stand. |  | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 18:36 - Jan 7 with 1121 views | Suffolktractor |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 18:27 - Jan 7 by AbujaBlue |
This whole story is really bothering me more than it should. And it isn't Cunha or Wolves that is annoying me anymore, it is trying to decide whether it's sheer incompetence or total dishonesty bordering on corruption from the FA behind this decision. They contradicting themselves in an absolutely farcical manner. This shouldn't be allowed to stand. |
If after our game against Wolves later in the season, one of our security walks on the pitch and elbows Cunha in the back of the head and then tries to scratch his eyes out, the first thing that will happen is ITFC will sack him for gross misconduct and then he will be arrested for assault. | | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 18:44 - Jan 7 with 1102 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 18:36 - Jan 7 by Suffolktractor |
If after our game against Wolves later in the season, one of our security walks on the pitch and elbows Cunha in the back of the head and then tries to scratch his eyes out, the first thing that will happen is ITFC will sack him for gross misconduct and then he will be arrested for assault. |
I still don't understand why Cunha isn't facing a criminal charge. I guess it would require the employee he assaulted to report it to the police and he has decided not to do so. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 18:44 - Jan 7 with 1099 views | TresBonne |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:00 - Jan 7 by FrimleyBlue |
"Mr. is much bigger than me and I was surrounded by a large number of
people, mainly ITFC personnel, so I remember feeling quite threatened at the time"
yeah of course you did. |
The bloke grew up in the favelas of Brazil and has managed to convince the FA that he was terrified of an Ipswich Town security guard. Bonkers |  | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 18:47 - Jan 7 with 1093 views | SitfcB |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 16:48 - Jan 7 by TexacoCup |
Cunha and Wolves will be laughing their heads off at this ridiculously lenient outcome which leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
If he's still at Wolves in April, I'm sure we'll give him a warm welcome.
I'm wondering if we as a club will publish a comment, presumably that would not be allowed. |
He will be, he’s close to signing a new deal apparently. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 19:04 - Jan 7 with 1047 views | redrickstuhaart |
No convincing basis is even suggested for reducing the obvious 3 match starting point. An admission of something clearly show on video is meaningless. Its basically "he apologised so we will let him off". Why on earth have the FA started at three and accepted in their submissions it could be reduced? Bizarre.
The blatant lies in justification should be an aggravating factor.
Crucially, a brief view of the written decisions pages, or the disicpline lists shows you that 2 matches for a physical incident is a massive outlier. [Post edited 7 Jan 19:12]
| | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 19:29 - Jan 7 with 1007 views | NeedhamChris |
There's a lot of lazy hate for the FA (and from some who have read it - the Independent Panel members).
But...if I'm reading this right. ITFC didn't even bother to submit any evidence or statements so clearly they (or the person concerned) weren't that bothered.
Maybe the club aren't as desperate as some on here are. | |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 19:46 - Jan 7 with 962 views | southnorfolkblue |
The fact that the security guard gets elbowed in the back of the head barely gets mentioned, which I find bizarre as that was potentially could have led to far more serious consequences.
Wolves have dodged a bullet big time here. | |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 19:48 - Jan 7 with 960 views | Garv |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:32 - Jan 7 by HighgateBlue |
Quite. It's getting a little tiring people constantly claiming that everything is corrupt just because decisions don't go our way. I think it's a really poor decision, and extremely lenient, but calling independent professional people corrupt is totally unnecessary.
I've no idea why baseless allegations of corruption are allowed to remain on the board to be honest. Other baseless allegations of fraud or criminality against identifiable individuals are readily taken down. |
Everything is a conspiracy and someone is always out to get you. That's why. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 23:41 - Jan 7 with 812 views | Hugoagogo_Reborn |
By far my favourite internet comment on this matter is from Reddit:
"Can Cunha clarify if this offer includes glasses in the designer section or only own brand?" |  | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 02:53 - Jan 8 with 739 views | melbs_itfc |
Exactly. Also as has been mentioned elsewhere, in addition to the ban, Cunha was fined $80000 (reduced from $120000) so presumably the FA get that amount added to their coffers yet the innocent victim i.e. the security guard only gets his broken pair of glasses replaced. Oh and of course I almost forgot - an empty apology. An extremely unsatisfying outcome. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
