LADS 2009: GRAZIE ALL’ OTTIMO SUCCESSO RISCOSSO, IL LIBRO E’ DISPONIBILE, AL PREZZO DI EURO 25 PIU’ SPESE SPEDIZIONE, SU:
WWW.LULU.COM
WWW.AMAZON.COM
E-BAY ( ultimissime copie )
oppure SCRIVENDO A: italianlads@gmail.com o CONTATTANDO ItalianLads Italy SU “FACEBOOK.
La “Football Supporters Federation” ha organizzato una petizione on-line contro la decisione del presidente del Sunderland di vietare l’ ingresso allo stadio ad un gruppo di sostenitori biancorossi ( foto ) che avrebbero partecipato agli scontri del 9 agosto accaduti alla stazione di Newcastle, città rivale, dove transitava il treno che li riportava a casa da un’amichevole giocata in Scozia. La situazione degenerò in gravi incidenti tra supporters del Sunderland, la polizia ed un piccolo gruppo di fans del Newcastle in cerca del contatto con i tifosi dei “Black Cats”.Alla fine si contarono diversi feriti sia tra glia genti che tra il seguito dei “Black Cats”. La “FSF” è scesa in campo al fianco dei soggetti colpiti dall’ interdizione in quanto, dalle informazioni ricevute e dai riscontri effettuati, apparirebbe veritiera la circostanza che avrebbe visto i sostenitori del Sunderland vittime di interventi eccessivamente duri da parte delle forze dell’ ordine della “Northumbria Police” la quale , invece, afferma di essere stata aggredita e di avere sventato uno scontro programmato tra la “firm” dei biancorossi e quella del Newcastle.L’allenatore del Man U Ferguson è stato squalificato per due turni e multato di 20mila sterline per le critiche al direttore di gara in occasione della sfida del 3 ottobre contro il Sunderland, terminata due pari. Lo stesso allenatore dei “Red Devils” ha fatto pubblica autocritica nel merito ma contro Everton e Portsmouth non potrà sedere in panchina.
Should Niall Quinn Back Sunderland Supporters in Police Brutality Row?
Bleacher Report
12 November 2009
by Owen Watson
The Football Supporters Federation have launched an online petition in response to Sunderland chairman Niall Quinn’s decision to ban a small number of Black Cats supporters involved in an incident at Newcastle Central Train Station on Aug. 9.For those that don’t know, the incident occurred following a preseason friendly against Heart of Midlothian in Edinburgh. Reaction from Sunderland supporters against the Northumbria police has been fierce, with many independently verified accounts contrasting with the police force’s version of events.Fans had been instructed at the ground to board a specific additional train that would take them directly back to Sunderland, avoiding the need to alight at Newcastle to switch onto the Metro line. Apparently there was a mix-up and the train stopped in Newcastle. Supporters on the train were kept on the train until police armed with batons and unmuzzled police dogs were lined up outside the carriages. A police statement said that they had intelligence reports suggesting these fans were in the vicinity with the express purpose of engaging in organised fights with hooligans from Newcastle—this is despite video evidence showing many fans were passive during the chaos that ensued.It’s not clear what started the clashes, police claim that Sunderland fans attacked dogs, kicking and punching them to the ground and then stamping on them.A later Freedom of Information request revealed that no police dogs required veterinary treatment, despite the Northumbria police described attacks on the dogs as “the worst assaults in the Northumbria force’s history.”Three Sunderland supporters were hospitalised, with one suffering quite serious head injuries . Eye-witnesses described how the man suffered a fit on the scene and footage shows a pool of blood where the man was left to lie untreated for several minutes. It was a Sunderland supporter that provided aid to the injured man in the first instance, not the Northumbria police. The Metropolitan Police’s best practice apparently states that batons should not be aimed at the head unless there are exceptional circumstances, in other words, if the police officer’s life is at risk.The Northumbria Police admitted that their officers didn’t sustain any injuries on Aug. 9, so it seems that the action undertaken was unjustified.So where does Niall Quinn come into this?So far there have been no prosecutions relating to the incident made by the Northumbria police, around 30 supporters were arrested at the time. Bail terms are set to expire on Nov. 17.Despite this, the club has moved to ban supporters involved—before charges have been brought. The club has a zero-tolerance stance towards football-related violence.Normally I would say this policy is absolutely right, hooliganism should not be tolerated within the game.But this incident is different, the video evidence available combined with the testimonies of eye-witnesses points towards the actions of the Northumbria Police being the main contributing factor. The police were the aggressors in this saga.Perhaps a small group of fans responded poorly to the situation that they were faced with, but the large cloud of doubt that has fogies the horizon should have been considered by the club and they should have held fire. At least until charges had been brought against individuals.Even more curiously, the Northumbria Police insist they have not shared details of those arrested with the club. Which begs the question, where are Sunderland getting their information? In normal circumstances the club may well be right to back the police as they tackle football violence, but the extraordinary circumstances involved in this incident should have forced the club into a different course of action.Why are the Football Supporters Federation most vocally supporting the Black Cats? Shouldn’t the club be defending its own fans against police aggression?If football violence is wrong then surely football-related police violence is also wrong, Niall Quinn should keep supporters in the forefront of his thoughts.At all times.
Ferguson hit with FA fine and ban
Ferguson launched a stinging attack on Wiley’s fitness on 3 October
|
Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson has received a two-match touchline ban for his comments about referee Alan Wiley’s fitness.
The Football Association handed the 67-year-old a four-game ban, with two of those suspended until the end of the 2010/11 season.Ferguson has also been fined £20,000 and warned about his future conduct.He made disparaging remarks about Wiley’s fitness after his side’s 2-2 draw with Sunderland on 3 October.Ferguson apologised to the official for any embarrassment caused and pleaded guilty to the FA’s charge of improper conduct, but requested a personal hearing.Peter Griffiths QC, chairman of the FA’s four-man regulatory commission, said: “Each member of the commission recognised Sir Alex Ferguson’s achievements and stature within the game.”Having said that, it was made clear to Sir Alex that with such stature comes increased responsibilities.
 |
The FA had a chance to make a point and they flunked it – we don’t think this is sending the right message out to other managers
Alan Leighton, head of referees’ union Prospec
|
“The commission considered his admitted remarks, in the context in which they were made, were not just improper but were grossly improper and wholly inappropriate. He should never have said what he did say.”Ferguson will serve the touchline ban in his side’s forthcoming Premier League matches at home to Everton on 21 November and away at Portsmouth on 28 November.
The suspended sanction will be automatically activated should he be found guilty of a similar charge before the end of the 2010/11 season on top of any sanction imposed for that offence.Referees’ union Prospect had called for Ferguson to be banned from stadiums during his team’s matches following his criticism of Wiley’s fitness.Ferguson launched into a furious attack on Wiley in the wake of his side’s draw against Sunderland, fuming: “The pace of the game demanded a referee who was fit. He was not fit.”He later said he was sorry for any personal embarrassment caused to Wiley, claiming the comments were to highlight “what I believe to be a serious and important issue in the game”.But Alan Leighton, head of Prospect, felt Ferguson’s apology had been “half-hearted” and is disappointed by the ruling, believing the authorities missed an opportunity to make a statement to back up the FA’s Respect campaign.
“From our point of view it is disappointing. The Football Association had a chance to make a point and they flunked it,” he said. “To question the fitness of referee is to question his ability to do the job and his integrity.”We don’t think this is sending the right message out to other managers. This is not a personal vendetta against Sir Alex but he has a particular stature within the game and if he is seen to be getting off lightly other managers may think what he said was not beyond the pale.”What is interesting is that the commission thought the comments were not just improper but were grossly improper and wholly inappropriate.”While managers are allowed to comment on an official’s performance, the FA insists any remarks must not imply bias, question their integrity or engage in what could be construed as a personal attack.Ferguson has a history of improper conduct charges for incidents involving referees.In the 2007/08 season he was given a two-match touchline ban and fined £5,000 for a rant at referee Mark Clattenburg during a match at Bolton.And during the last campaign he was banned for two games and fined £10,000 after remonstrating with referee Mike Dean after a match against Hull.
( BBC Sport )