Liverpool FC Fan Club Danish Branch Forum

Wormie skrev:15.15: mr. ferguson Ferguson har angiveligt kontaktet PSG-manager Laurent Blanc for at høre om Edinson Cavanis situation – Daily Mail

Retired? or comeback!

Gabrielle Marcotti skrev:It took 23 days, but the Football Association has finally charged Nicolas Anelka for his quenelle gesture against West Ham in December.

I am told that it took that long because the FA wanted “to be sure it got it right.”

An independent panel will decide whether Anelka’s quenelle gesture means he is guilty of racial or religious discrimination. If he is, then he is looking at a minimum ban of five games.

Personally, when it comes to free speech, I am pretty much an absolutist. With the exception of a few things that are libellous, constitute harassment, amount to a security risk (the proverbial shouting of “fire!” in a crowded cinema), involve a crime (like child pornography or snuff films), directly contribute to behaviour that is violent or dangerous and maybe one or two other things I tend to believe folks should be free to say and do what they please. The way to confront speech that is hateful or stupid is with speech that is not hateful or stupid.

But all this applies on your own time. When you are at work, you are bound by the conventions and regulations at work.

Anelka’s workplace is West Bromwich Albion. When he is playing for them, training with them, travelling with them to a game or otherwise representing them, he is at work. Yeah, that means that he is on the clock for many hours out of the day. But, hey, he freely signed a contract and gets paid handsomely for the burden.

One of the rules football has imposed on itself is that, when you are on the pitch, you cannot make any gestures or statements that are political. We can debate whether this is right or wrong on another occasion. But, as it stands, the rule is there and while sometimes it can seem a bit goofy – Robbie Fowler was once banned for displaying a T-shirt supporting striking Liverpool dockers – its existence is common knowledge.

Now, deciding whether the quenelle gesture is a form of anti-Semitism – as opposed to being, as Anelka insists, merely anti-establishment – is the source of much debate, a lot of it nuanced and difficult. And, you presume, it is why the FA took so long. The English game’s governing body needed to find experts who understood its meaning in the current context of France and Europe and, in particular, what it might mean to Anelka.

Fair enough. But it is not that difficult to decide that it is a political gesture, regardless of which of Anelka’s two defensive arguments you might buy into.

If it is anti-establishment (or anti-system) it is by definition a political statement. Fairly cut and dried.

And if, as he has also said, it is merely a way of supporting Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, his friend who popularized it, well, then it is still political. Dieudonné is a political figure. He has stood for public office. He performs in public with a political message. Had he made some kind of public gesture that day at Upton Park in support of, say, David Cameron or Ed Balls or Shami Chakrabarti or Peter Tatchell, it would have been no different. It would still have been a political gesture, despite the fact that the latter two are not actually politicians.

What the FA should have done, in my opinion, is simply charge him with that, at least initially. That way you send a clear message – no political statements on our football pitches. And then, if officials thought there were grounds for it (and presumably they do, given that they have charged him) go and figure out if it is also a form of racist and religious discrimination. And, if you conclude that it is, ban him further.

But the way they have handled it, the main message – we will not tolerate political displays of any kind – is lost. And it becomes a display over whether the quenelle gesture is racist or anti-Semitic. Which is one worth having, sure, but only after the basic principle of keeping politics out of football is established.

Let us be clear. Anelka is entitled to feel disgusted that his friend is barred from performing in a theatre in front of willing, ticket-paying customers because of the content of his act. (Personally, I can see how many might not be comfortable with it either.) And he can support Dieudonné in a whole range of ways. He can make YouTube videos, he can donate to his legal defence fund, he can tattoo his name on his backside, he can write articles, he can make public appeals. But whatever he does, it must be on his own time and away from his place of employment.

Redmaniac skrev:http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... t-V8RBwbIU

Eftersigende er der knas i forholdet mellem Laudrup og Swansea. Nuvel, mirror er på ingen måde nogen specielt troværdig kilde, men det er ikke første gang, at denne historie har været fremme i medierne. Ingen røg uden ild?

Det er sjovt. Jeg har aldrig betragtet det som om, at Laudrup har været uheldig med ledelsen i de klubber, han har været i. Her tænker jeg specielt på Mallorca og Spartak Moskva, men var der ikke også et par kurre på tråden, da han var i Brøndby?

Uanset hvad kunne det dog godt begynde at lugte af, at Laudrup måske heller ikke er den nemmeste manager at have ansat? Hans agent gør det heller ikke ligefrem nemmere med hans ageren i medierne og flirten med andre klubber konstant.

Wormie skrev:http://www1.skysports.com/football/news ... title-race

Drunky mener der er 6 hold i ligaen lige pt som kan vinde den.

United (favorit most likely)
City
Chelsea
everton
Spurs
Arsenal

Resten har ikke en jordisk chance!

Nogen gang efter deres karriere opdager man at de faktisk har lidt hjerne (neville osv) men fergie for bliver lige så desillusion som altid.