By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Not the biggest fan of Kane for obvious reasons, but looking at Kakay's recent games I wonder if he should be back starting.
Apparently Kakay lost the ball 'once every 2.5 touches and once every 4.5 minutes' against Boro. Completed only 57% of his 37 passes. I remember hearing Warbs say something before that this is how it works when building a team from younger players, that they do make mistakes but it gives experience and creates a better team. Which is so evident from Willock who i think has become one of our best players from his game time this season.
I have little sympathy for Kane. I'm delighted it wasn't a racist term of abuse but it was xenophobic abuse, it's unacceptable and that's what that particular rule is there for. He's guilty and has admitted it.
I have no problem with seven games so long as this is the new norm. We'll wait and see what the next Premier League superstar gets when he does it.
I am intrigued, though, as to why Dickie wasn't believed.
I suppose the burden of proof is removed if you admit to the charge. All it will mean is if anybody else is idiotic enough to get themselves in Kane’s position they’ll just keep schtum and get their legal team to argue against a ban using this as precedent.
I suppose the burden of proof is removed if you admit to the charge. All it will mean is if anybody else is idiotic enough to get themselves in Kane’s position they’ll just keep schtum and get their legal team to argue against a ban using this as precedent.
Edited for spelling
[Post edited 7 May 2021 17:41]
"I suppose the burden of proof is removed if you admit to the charge."
Yes, agree with that. Makes sense.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
I suppose the burden of proof is removed if you admit to the charge. All it will mean is if anybody else is idiotic enough to get themselves in Kane’s position they’ll just keep schtum and get their legal team to argue against a ban using this as precedent.
Edited for spelling
[Post edited 7 May 2021 17:41]
Yeh, not for the first time since he arrived here, Kane's biggest problem is he's thick.
One thing not mentioned since the verdict is Canos went to the ref and reported the incident, it wasn't picked independently by the officials. It seems the modern footballer is more sensitive, the PSG players going after the referee who allegedly told them to f@ck off on Wednesday and this incident which to me is borderline at most. I only played amateur football but there were worse incidents in training with your mates than this one, it is a changing world. Possibly for the better but I have to admit its not obvious at this moment for me
Look they should both be banned, you can't say "ugly English cnt" is fine and "diving foreign cnt" isn't. You also can't just say we believe canos completely, but you two not so much. You just can't do that. It's nonsense. It's also ridiculous that Kane gets seven matches when Terry got four - that's incredible.
But wecan't effect that. The FA is useless, we know that. Canos is a dick, we know that. That's for them to deal with. We should focus on us.
Completely agree. However nonsensical parts of the decision might be, the image we project as a club and the principles we espouse (both of which I'm hugely proud of) mean that our only option is to take this on the chin and move past it.
It's sort of like a player being shown an undeserved red card for a clumsy tackle - we all know the decision's wrong, but if there's nothing we can do about it, then continuing to complain and feel resentment only keeps us weighed down by it. Accept it, even if it's absurd, and concentrate on what we can do to stop it happening again.
I think Clive's nailed this one as he usually does in these situations.
The FA have clearly decided that there is an "acceptable" level of abuse that goes in on games, but given the recent focus on racism, Todd Kane is deemed to have overstepped the line, giving Canos the perfect opportunity to put a complaint in.
They're not disputing Kane or Dickie's version of events in any way, but they've made a value judgement on the relative level of abuse in each case, and the effect its deemed to have on each player, and come to the conclusion that Todd Kane's is significantly more grievous than Sergi Canos' is.
I do absolutely agree that there is something of a mixed message being sent here -surely this would have been the perfect opportunity to send out an unequivocal message that abuse of opposing players and match officials of any sort in all contexts is completely unacceptable and will be punished heavily?
You do get the feeling that this is something of a political gesture, as Clive says, but as a player you have a responsibility to be aware of these minefields, and act accordingly.
“They're not disputing Kane or Dickie's version of events in any way,.”
I hope they are because if not it is very worrying
“They're not disputing Kane or Dickie's version of events in any way,.”
I hope they are because if not it is very worrying
I think you are right to be worried, John.
With all the time taken to collect the evidence and weigh it up accordingly, you would have thought that the FA would have made full use of it to send a strong and clear message out, as I said.
Instead, they've come out with a weak, politically correct (supposedly) fudge which raises more questions than it answers, as we've been discussing all afternoon.
This will come back to bite them full square in their collective rear end - absolutely.
Isn't the point that they could prove Kane's xenophobic abuse due to his admission of guilt, but not Canos's alleged racist abuse as he didn't admit to an offence? I'm sure if they could prove Canos's guilt he'd have a 7-game ban too, if not more.
[Post edited 7 May 2021 18:55]
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
I hope as fans we don't go out of our way to give Canos abuse when we play them next season as it won't look good and it will be like Chelsea abusing Anton Ferdinand
If he had said "foreign" out of nothing, or just in response to being called ugly, it would be solid ground for reprimand. But it's clearly constructed as a riff on the original insult.
Obviously the FA have no appetite for setting a precedent or provoking potentially negative optics however myopic, regardless of mitigating nuance. There's no valid reason for not charging both sides on that basis though. (Unless, as Brian says, only one half was provably witnessed by the officials - they're not just going to take his teammate's word for it).
Isn't the point that they could prove Kane's xenophobic abuse due to his admission of guilt, but not Canos's alleged racist abuse as he didn't admit to an offence? I'm sure if they could prove Canos's guilt he'd have a 7-game ban too, if not more.
[Post edited 7 May 2021 18:55]
You'd hope so, wouldn't you, Brian?
Whichever way you look at it, the whole process is so stupidly amateur and not fit for purpose for overseeing a multi-million pound industry.
Isn't the point that they could prove Kane's xenophobic abuse due to his admission of guilt, but not Canos's alleged racist abuse as he didn't admit to an offence? I'm sure if they could prove Canos's guilt he'd have a 7-game ban too, if not more.
[Post edited 7 May 2021 18:55]
How many witnesses would they need to prove Canos’s did use inappropriate language
How many witnesses would they need to prove Canos’s did use inappropriate language
[Post edited 7 May 2021 18:49]
It's a good question, John, and I've been thinking about it as we all have.
I'm not sure they can legitimately accept the word of two opponents (one of whom is under charge himself, so has a conflicting interest) against the person (Canos) they accuse of racism. I think they'd need more.
If, for example, Canos and a teammate accused Dickie of racism and the FA took their word against Dickie, and Dickie was then banned and branded a racist on that evidence alone, we'd be rightly livid.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
I hope as fans we don't go out of our way to give Canos abuse when we play them next season as it won't look good and it will be like Chelsea abusing Anton Ferdinand
Agreed.
[Post edited 7 May 2021 19:07]
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Isn't the point that they could prove Kane's xenophobic abuse due to his admission of guilt, but not Canos's alleged racist abuse as he didn't admit to an offence? I'm sure if they could prove Canos's guilt he'd have a 7-game ban too, if not more.
[Post edited 7 May 2021 18:55]
I know his ban doesn't help himself or the club but I'm quite proud that he's at least taken responsibility for what he said and didn't take the coward's way out.
In regards to Dickie, it's not implausible that a teammate might back up another teammate out of loyalty (Like Terry & Cole). Despite the fact this seems unlikely I guess the FA can't discount it as a possibility and Brentford would probably appeal on that basis.
I'd also guess that Kane didn't mention at the time to the Ref or 4th official that someone had called him English. So it may hold less weight that he didn't mention it at the time, which to be fair most of us wouldn't report being called English. I doubt that's what got under his skin so he probably didn't mention it until he was aware of the complaint as it's more for context as to why he said foreign than something that offended him.
So fair play to Kane for being man enough to admit to his mistakes and take his medicine while Canos appears in all probability to be taking the coward's route.
Isn't the point that they could prove Kane's xenophobic abuse due to his admission of guilt, but not Canos's alleged racist abuse as he didn't admit to an offence? I'm sure if they could prove Canos's guilt he'd have a 7-game ban too, if not more.
[Post edited 7 May 2021 18:55]
Expecting Thomas Frank to speak to the press and say that the abuse from Canos was top class and that he deserved his own seven match ban, if not more.
Expecting Thomas Frank to speak to the press and say that the abuse from Canos was top class and that he deserved his own seven match ban, if not more.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Expecting Thomas Frank to speak to the press and say that the abuse from Canos was top class and that he deserved his own seven match ban, if not more.
That’s just about the worst post I’ve read about this ridiculous over reaction to what was a typical player to player incident that I would put the blame on Canos for reporting it to the ref.Thomas Frank has better things to concentrate on than this side show.
That’s just about the worst post I’ve read about this ridiculous over reaction to what was a typical player to player incident that I would put the blame on Canos for reporting it to the ref.Thomas Frank has better things to concentrate on than this side show.
Blimey, lighten up man. You're right though, he's got a job on to work out his excuses for when he loses in the play-offs again.
That’s just about the worst post I’ve read about this ridiculous over reaction to what was a typical player to player incident that I would put the blame on Canos for reporting it to the ref.Thomas Frank has better things to concentrate on than this side show.
Yep would have thought his main concern would be whether to stick with the back 3 and wing backs if Henry is back at left back. I do believe the comment you refer to might have been a tongue in cheek reference to Mr Frank's Teutonic like manner in interviews
the verdict is basically......the world we now live in....... is kane guilty or not?
i have played proper football an said some proper horrid things but never been sorted like kane........right or wrong? who the fxck knows any more. the world gone mad.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
