RaoulD

Given that I saw Kenny play against Bilbao in 83, I am sure he knows!

I think Kenny treats the press with contempt because the press conference is forced upon him and he can see how pointless the exercise is when there is nothing special to report. In the past, a press conference usually meant a big announcement was to be made such as the signing of a new player or the resignation/sacking of a manager. There was therefore something newsworthy for the hacks to report. The current pre-game conferences are a complete waste of time as no manager is going to reveal his plans for the game to the other side let alone to the other side. The hacks know this and therefore their questions are usually aimed at trying to make a story out of a soundbite. Kenny knows what their game is and deals with it accordingly.

Only if the conditions specified in the laws are satisfied. The crucial difference between the challenge last night and Kompany's on Sunday was the timing and the angle at which the player jumped in to win the ball. The law requires the safety of the opposing player to have been endangered and this is more obviously the case where there is either contact or there would have been contact if the opposing player had not taken evasive action. The tackle was risky because Johnson was clearly diving in with both feet but he did not endanger the City player and therefore the referee was right not to show a red card.

The one thing that I cannot reconcile is Evra's claim after the game that he was called "a n*****r" with the statement that he made to the referee at the that he had been called "a f*****g black". The commission tried to explain away this inconsistency by reference to a potential dual meaning in French! Given that the conversation between Evra and Suarez was in Spanish not French and that the conversation between Evra and the referee was apparently in English, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Evra always understood the word "negro" (in Spanish) to mean "black". This means that Evra was lying when he claimed that it was his understanding that the word "negro" used by Suarez meant "n*****r".

Ignorance is bliss, no wonder why all these hacks think they are in paradise...

Firstly, the reference to semantics was me pre-empting comments that I was engaging in a pure semantic exercise and it was not intended to imply that you have not understood the point as it is clear that you have. I am not sure that the members of an FA Appeals panel would be so understanding! The passage you quote illustrates the confusion that can occur where you try to use terminology such as "objective" and "subjective" in a black and white fashion as the FA Commission clearly did. In my view the questions should have been formulated without the labels as follows: Is it sufficient to prove that in a case such as this, the words or behaviour are objectively speaking abusive or insulting in the judgment of the Commission? Or is it necessary to go further and prove that, in addition to the words or behaviour being objectively abusive or insulting, the alleged offender intended them to be abusive or insulting? If so, is that intent to be assessed objectively or subjectively?" The point I am making is that in labelling the question of intent as the subjective test, the Commission ignored the possibility that the question could (and in my view should) have included the issue of intent viewed objectively. This confusion leads to the outcome where a word that is objectively capable of being abusive or insulting is found to be so by the subjective opinion of the Commission that the abuse or insult was intended as such regardless of whether the accused intended or even realised that the word was insulting or abusive.

I am not sure that it is different. Objective is generally from the viewpoint of a reasonable observer with full knowledge of the facts whereas subjective tends to be based upon the particular opinion of the individual. The confusion that often arises is that issues such as intent are often seen as subjective and dismissed as irrelevant when in fact intent is completely different. In this respect I believe the FA Commission wrongly construed their disciplinary rules as not requiring the intent of the speaker to be proved. Given that if intent needs to be proved, the subjective view of the person alleged to have intended the act will invariably be negative, the only reliable means of proving intent is by objective inference from other facts. I realise that this may seem to be semantic to you but the error is one that is frequently made without it being properly understood.

The question in my view is whether the language is insulting or abusive. Clearly, if Evra was offended by the words used, the words are more likely to be objectively viewed as insulting or abusive whereas the objective observer would have more difficulty in concluding that the words were insulting or abusive if they did not cause offence to the receipient. Allied to this is the question of the intent of the speaker in using the words. The relevant intent is not whether the consequence (i.e. the fact that Evra was offended) was intended but whether the words used were intended as an insult or as a form of abuse. This intention should be objectively inferred from the evidence. The use of a word that is capable of being used in both an offensive and a non-offensive way would require objective evidence that the former was intended by the speaker. Once again it is easier to infer intent if the word is understood by the receipient to have its offensive meaning than if the receipient does not take offence when the word is used but it is not conclusive either way.

The fact remains that if Evra had not alleged that he had been called a n*****r by Suarez at least 10 times, Suarez would not have been charged and there would never have been any need for the whole charade that followed. Evra's complaint was specific and given that there is no such word in Spanish as far as I am aware, it could only have been intended as a racial insult so the issue of Suarez's intent would not arise. The unfairness in the process is that Suarez was found guilty of the charge even though the allegation which prompted the charge changed in the course of the process. Once it was accepted that Suarez did not say what Evra originally claimed he said then Evra cannot have been offended by the use of a different word even if that different word could potentially cause offence since Evra did not hear or understand the word to have the offensive meaning that was placed upon it 2 months later by the FA Commission.

I am not sure that the FA Commission had made up their minds in advance but they clearly favoured the FA's arguments as is often the case with these hearings. Your best chance of defending yourself is still at the initial hearing as it is effectively your only opportunity to advance evidence in support of your case and challenge the evidence against you. Once findings of fact are made it is very difficult to challenge them other than on grounds of perversity and this is made more difficult if the appellate tribunal is not truely independent. I agree that a specialist advocate may not have made a difference to the outcome but in the absence of a full transcript of what was said, I cannot dismiss the possibility that Evra was not cross-examined as effectively as he should have been and that the arguments on behalf of Suarez where not cogently put to the commission. The Commission might still have come to the same conclusion but they would have to overcome far more than a simple conflict of evidence (which is ultimately the basis upon which they decided the case and why it is so difficult to appeal). In the vast majority of cases, employing a specialist advocate or even a lawyer may not make a difference or could even be counter-productive but this was a high profile hearing which was always going to be the subject of media comment and involved arguments about the proper construction and interpretation of the FA rules as well as an obvious factual conflict between the main witnesses which put the issue of credibility at the forefront.

The accusation from Evra was that Suarez called him a n*****r 10 times. Once it became clear that this was not the case and Evra accepted it was not the case the matter should have ended there. Instead, the FA chose to alter their case and rely upon the interpretation of the word "negro" which Suarez admitted using on one occasion. To describe the word "negro" as an offensive word in Spanish by reference to its English translation is potentially racist behaviour in itself. The FA have essentially demonstrated to the Spanish speaking population of the world that they have no respect for their language or customs and that they will brand anyone who uses their native tongue according to its English translation and, more importantly, the impact of the translated version upon an English speaker. Perhaps one or two journalists might also reflect upon some of their copy in recent days as they have gone far further than the FA in this respect. The FA Commission claimed that the words had to be viewed objectively yet proceeded to import a subjective meaning to the words by inferring that when Suarez used the word "negro" he meant ito use it in a derogatory way. Objectively view the word simply means black. Calling someone black by itself cannot be objectively viewed as offensive let alone racially so. The word is descriptive and there needs to be something accompanying its use to make its usage offensive. There was no evidence that Suarez used any other abusive or insulting words towards Evra and it is this which makes the reasoning of the commission so fundamentally flawed. The use of the word "negro" by Suarez might have justified the conclusion that other abusive language or behaviour was by reason of Evra's colour i.e. the aggravating factor, but it could not have proved both the offence and the aggravating factor. The fact that the conversation was initiated by Evra with the use of an abusive Spanish phrase and continued throughout in Spanish meant that there was no justification in translating the words used into English. Suarez should have been judged on the words objectively from the viewpoint of a native Spanish speaker. The case highlights the inadequacy of the FA's procedures when dealing with matters such as this. Having appeared before an FA Appeals Panel in a professional capacity, I can understand why LFC and Suarez decided not to pursue an appeal but are maintaining the position that Suarez has not been treated fairly. The real pity in this case appears to me to be the fact that Suarez was represented by a solicitor who, despite his expertise in Sports Law and experience of FA procedures, is not a specialist advocate. As the full transcript of the hearing is not available it is impossible to know the extent to which Evra was cross examined or the precise submissions made but I can't help but feel that there may have been a different outcome if Suarez had also been represented at the hearing by a QC.

Rule K is an arbitration clause and does not apply here. The West Ham/Sheffield United decision was based upon the fact that the parties had gone to arbitration under the FA Rules. The FA Rules cannot prevent a player from exercising his private legal rights but public law remedies (such as judicial review ) are not available as the FA is not regarded as a public body in English law.

The Commission were very careful in the language they used. They found him guilty of misconduct by the use of insulting words and that such language included a reference to colour (which happens to be an aggravating factor). I suspect that when the reasons come out it is going to be a semantic construction of the rules that will be relied upon by the Commission as the reason for the finding of guilt. They were very careful not to describe the misconduct as racist or that the remarks were racist remarks. Indeed, if the club's statement is accurate, the FA accepted Suarez was not racist. The defence of fair comment will not be available to anyone who does not take the time to read the reasons for the decision before passing comment. The fact is that Evra has admitted abusing Suarez and that he referred to his nationality or ethnic origin. This is precisely the same offence that Suarez has been found guilty of. It is for this reason that the club issued the statement effectively challenging the FA to show consistency by charging Evra with the same offence. If they fail to do so, then Suarez can challenge the decision in the Courts on the basis of the inconsistency. It is a private law matter between him, LFC and the FA.

One thing Carroll did yesterday was push the Chelsea defenders back. They have been defending a high line for most of the season but they were much deeper last night. I think the problem is that he is currently on a different wavelength to the rest of the team and so the movement is not there from him when the opportunity arises. There were times last night when he seemed content to keep Alex and Luiz occupied rather than shake them off and run into space and I suspect that he feels that there is little point in doing so if his teammates don't themselves spot the run. The difficulty is that he needs game time with Adam, Suarez, Downing, Enrique and Kuyt to develop the understanding that is now starting to emerge in their case. Suarez is particularly difficult because he is so unpredictable but if Carroll wants to start scoring goals he needs to find space and lose the marker more often than he is doing at present. I think he is worth persevering with as he has the potential to be something special.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Unless Evra can prove the allegation with the help of TV replays (which I think will be extremely difficult unless there is an audio recording as well), he is going to have to answer a number of difficult questions if the inference is not going to be drawn that he has made the allegation up. Firstly, he would have to explain why, if he was certain during the game that he had been racially abused by Suarez, he did not even mention it to the referee. He was doing his utmost during the game to get Suarez booked/sent off and it is strange that he does not even alert the referee that this abuse had taken place as, at the very least, the referee would then be keeping a closer watch on the interaction between the two players. The fact that he was captain makes the above even more surprising as you would expect a captain to alert the referee to any suspected racial abuse by an opposing player even if the captain himself had not witnessed it. I am not sure how good Suarez's english is or even whether the insult was in english since Evra has not actually identified the precise word he alleges was used. It seems strange that a spanish speaking player would insult a french speaking player in a foreign language even if both were fully fluent in that foreign language. It would be even more surprising for a foreign player to chose a language which is understood by the referee in favour of a language which may not have been understood. It is my experience that a general accusation that something was said several times without specific details of the conversations being identified is evidentially weak whereas specific details of each of the incidents enables at least some objective evaluation of the strength of such evidence. TV replays may then support the claim even if the actual words used cannot be identified. Although I am clearly biased in favour of Suarez, it does seem to me that he has been targetted by United and other clubs particularly with the accusations of diving and it would not surprise me that this accusation is being made by Evra in the knowledge that it will be difficult to prove that it was a knowingly false allegation. Evra has nothing to lose by making the allegation as the FA will not want to have to try and prove that he had no basis for the claim. On the other hand, it will unsettle Suarez even if ultimately the complaint is not upheld or withdrawn.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Capello has simply demonstrated how little he knows about the players he is supposed to be managing. His assumption that Carroll did not play against Bolton is both wrong (Carroll came on as a late sub) and fails to take account of the fact that Carroll had played virtually a full game against Exeter in mid week whilst Kuyt had been rested. I would always prefer the assessment of a player's club manager over the national manager but Kenny against Capello is simply not a contest. Capello has long had a reputation as a poor man manager and probably has no idea about Carroll's fitness or alleged drinking habits. His statement was probably intended to excuse the fact that he prefers Rooney and wants to build the team around him rather than a traditional centre forward.

Not really bothered by it. He was needed last season and he did a professional job without really standing out. He had a purple patch mid-season where he scored some important goals but he tailed off towards the end. He would have been good to have in the squad but the reality is that this season, barring major injuries, we are likely to see a core of about 15-16 players being regular starters with another 5 or 6 being used as impact subs. His wages probably were too high for someone who would not be a regular starter and I suspect that he is a player that also needs regular football to maintain a consistent level. The central midfield area is likely to be built around Lucas and Adam with Gerrard and Spearing as alternatives. The need for the box-to-box midfielder is not as great when you have a player such as Suarez dropping deep and wide players such as Downing and Henderson cutting in to the space. I think it is hard enough trying to fit Gerrard into central midfield (or even the team at the moment!) and Raul would have obviously be second choice to him.

He always struck me as being quite reserved and probably needs quite a bit of confidence buildng from the manager. Benitez was able to put the proverbial arm around the shoulder as a fellow spaniard and he was surrounded by fellow spaniards in the early stages of his Liverpool career. By the time he left the majority of the spaniards had gone and he had a manager who was incapable of motivating him. He thought things would be different at Chelsea but the reality is that he not one of the lads and the manager is under pressure from the start to get results. The new manager is portugese and will naturally favour those who he can communicate with. Brazilians, Portugese and English players are obviously goig to find favour and he is going to feel isolated. Whilst I think he thought he was moving to improve his chances of the Champions League (which is understandable), the reality must be a living nightmare. I think he will continue to struggle until someone actually takes the time to build his confidence. If we hit the ground running and Suarez and the rest produce what they are capable of, he will look like another Shevchencko.

I think the fact that he was ineligible for the Champions League would have meant that most clubs would have waited until the Summer before trying to sign him. I also think that Suarez would have been seen as a risky signing as he had only really played in the Dutch league, had a question mark over his temperment and the effect of the long ban was unknown. £22m was also seen as quite a high price in January and it is only as a result of the prices being paid now that it looks an absolute bargain.

I am pretty sure that 2 years ago this debate would never have arisen. The consensus was that we needed a better squad of first team players and more depth. If Rafa had suggested that we could simply rely upon the reserves and Academy players to make up the numbers, he would have lambasted. The fact is that the academy was not producing players of sufficient quality to be risked in the first team and Rafa took the opportunity to change things. It was never going to alter overnight but what Rafa sought to do was to put in place the structures that exist in the European model. Barcelona's academy was a good template because they had taken the Ajax model (when Cryuff was manager) and improved upon it. Heighway retired in 2007 but the problems with the Academy go back to its inception. There was not the same link between the youth teams and Melwood when Heighway was in charge. The other problem was the scouting network. The Academy was largely being filled with local lads as opposed to other clubs who were encouraging youth players' families to relocate so as to comply with the regulations in force at the time. This is how Beckham ended up playing for United as opposed to West Ham or one of the other London clubs. It is nonsense to suggest that Rafa deliberately chose established professionals over the equivalent from the Academy. If that was the case, he need not have bothered making the changes that he did. The changes also resulted in Kenny returning to the club in 2009 with a role at the Academy. Had this not have happened, Kenny would probably not have had the confidence to use the youngsters when injuries took their toll on the first team. More significantly, the fact that Kenny was already employed by the club must have been a crucial factor in the owners' decision to replace Hodgson in January. It may just prove to be yet another aspect of Rafa's legacy that does not get the credit it deserves.

Can't help than think we would have given Barca a better game than that shower. Our record against Barca is still better than anyone and the defence was there to be attacked. Pleased to see that despite having the benefit of almost guaranteed qualification and a run that was easy by anyones standards, Ferguson still has not managed to surpass Sir Bob's 3 European Cups despite the fact that he has had 25 years at United. Was nice to talk football with the Barca fans in London today, there was no doubt in their minds who they really wanted to play tonight