|
Post by Trubritt on Oct 23, 2014 12:47:40 GMT
He has been asked to explain his comments but not charged , mmm
|
|
|
Post by jbstokie on Oct 23, 2014 12:52:27 GMT
It's not like he said "The ref's cheated us" or anything stone wall like that...
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 23, 2014 12:56:56 GMT
They haven't decided whether or not to charge him. They have asked him to explain his comments and they have said that they will then make a decision.
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Oct 23, 2014 12:59:49 GMT
I think his comments are pretty self explanatory really.
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Mackey on Oct 23, 2014 13:03:46 GMT
He wants wiring up to the mains and charging that way, hysterical moaning widge that he is.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 23, 2014 13:16:35 GMT
Perhaps the FA have looked at the fixture list, Leicester, Everton, Arsenal and Man City coming up with Liverpool in the cup and decided he won't be a problem for much longer
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Oct 23, 2014 13:18:36 GMT
Why are they giving him another bloody platform?
He's already explained what he meant by his comments. His explanation is pathetic and hypocritical. Why encourage him to spout it out yet again?
I am sick of Garry Monk. He's a poor man's Tim Sherwood.
|
|
|
Post by PerCyfilth ....Captains Log on Oct 23, 2014 13:23:01 GMT
He will get done...they don't like you questioning the integrity of a ref... a player and club ..no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 13:33:25 GMT
from what i can gather from the actual wording of the charge against Warnock (It is alleged that Warnock’s post-match comments constituted improper conduct in that they implied the match referee was motivated by bias; and/or brought the game into disrepute, in contravention of FA Rule E3[1].)and the FA governance website, the difference is that Warnock explicitly stated bias on the refs part (e.g. it wouldn't have been given if we were a bigger club) whereas Monk actually implied the ref cheated so will have time to explain his comments further as to what EXACTLY he meant by it... basically Warnock had already given full reasons as to why he thought the ref cheated and what he meant by it (big club bias) whereas Monk didn't so it's quicker to get the Warnock charge in.
i fully expect Monk to be charged in the next couple of days though.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 23, 2014 14:44:55 GMT
On Monday morning Monk would have defused the situation alround by saying something like ....."I have fully considered the wise advice from Mark Almighty and in the heat of the post game atmosphere and without fully assessing the incident I made comments that I now regret. I now realise that Rangel grabbed Moses by his shirt thus impeding him and Mike Oliver was absolutely right to give a penalty. Moses isn't a cheat and Oliver made the correct decision. I said these words in the heat of the moment and in hindsite I now regret and apologise. However diving still remains abhorrent and, with the exception of Wilfried Bony, I will discipline any of my players who do this"....that's it end of story and he would have risen from Rookie manager to Novice manager in five short sentences.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 23, 2014 14:58:55 GMT
from what i can gather from the actual wording of the charge against Warnock (It is alleged that Warnock’s post-match comments constituted improper conduct in that they implied the match referee was motivated by bias; and/or brought the game into disrepute, in contravention of FA Rule E3[1].)and the FA governance website, the difference is that Warnock explicitly stated bias on the refs part (e.g. it wouldn't have been given if we were a bigger club) whereas Monk actually implied the ref cheated so will have time to explain his comments further as to what EXACTLY he meant by it... basically Warnock had already given full reasons as to why he thought the ref cheated and what he meant by it (big club bias) whereas Monk didn't so it's quicker to get the Warnock charge in. i fully expect Monk to be charged in the next couple of days though. That was my reaction when I saw the FA's response today to Monk's outburst.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Oct 23, 2014 15:01:19 GMT
After "100% standing by" his comments in his press conference today, you'd think the notification of the charge is already on its way to South Wales
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Oct 23, 2014 15:03:21 GMT
Why would he have to explain his comments? They seemed pretty explicit to me!
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Oct 23, 2014 15:05:55 GMT
After "100% standing by" his comments in his press conference today, you'd think the notification of the charge is already on its way to South Wales Ah but this is the FA Grapey where hypocrisy comes as standard.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Oct 23, 2014 15:23:17 GMT
I love the fact that the BBC website reports how Monk is "standing by his comments" under a picture of Rangel with a big piece of Victor Moses' shirt in his hand The guy is obviously a fool and the FA MUST punish him It will also be interesting to see what others refs do regarding shirt pulling and grabbing in the box (ooer) this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Oct 23, 2014 15:27:37 GMT
I love the fact that the BBC website reports how Monk is "standing by his comments" under a picture of Rangel with a big piece of Victor Moses' shirt in his hand The guy is obviously a fool and the FA MUST punish him It will also be interesting to see what others refs do regarding shirt pulling and grabbing in the box (ooer) this weekend.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Oct 23, 2014 15:29:02 GMT
Out of interest who is investigating?
It's not the Welsh FA again is it as we've been down this road before remember?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 15:43:49 GMT
Why would he have to explain his comments? They seemed pretty explicit to me! because saying "the ref cheated us out of a point" if all he meant was the ref got the decision wrong but it was actually Moses to blame for that by HIM cheating (i.e. the perceived dive) is completely different from saying that the ref is a cheat (i.e. an official proactively going against the rules of the game on his own volition to intentionally benefit the opposing team which is basically what Warnock inferred by saying a big club would get to play by different rules/get different treatment from the ref)
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 23, 2014 15:52:05 GMT
I've just listened to the remarks of Monk in relation to Moses.
He says, " he should be done for cheating, done for diving, done for conning the ref ".
It isn't the same as saying Moses is a cheat as a person, he simply refers to this one incident.
If Monk believed Moses dived, then I've been trying to think what other words he could have used other than cheating or conning?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 23, 2014 15:55:18 GMT
I think it makes it much easier for us to take the moral high ground if he is NOT charged in truth.
We don't want him running round like some jumped up martyr on a one man crusade with a 'cheats charter' that he is being punished for having.
Much better for us to just continue to gently lampoon him exactly where he is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 16:41:51 GMT
I've just listened to the remarks of Monk in relation to Moses. He says, " he should be done for cheating, done for diving, done for conning the ref ". It isn't the same as saying Moses is a cheat as a person, he simply refers to this one incident. If Monk believed Moses dived, then I've been trying to think what other words he could have used other than cheating or conning? You've been trying? Try a bit harder.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Oct 23, 2014 16:45:04 GMT
Maybe the powers that be ain't too bright, and need what he said written down so someone can explain it to them.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 23, 2014 20:17:26 GMT
He was talking like a man under pressure.
Will he still be in post to receive any censure?
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Oct 23, 2014 20:22:58 GMT
To be honest, don't really care whether he is charged or not; just checked score and despite his comments it didn't alter the result;3 points to us.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Oct 23, 2014 20:30:31 GMT
He's a cunt. Fuck him
|
|
|
Post by brumstokie on Oct 24, 2014 8:00:58 GMT
Having wrote to the FA they have replied & confirmed that Monk has until Monday to reply to them.
|
|
|
Post by kevan45 on Oct 24, 2014 8:03:09 GMT
Dead man walking, sacked after Swansea's next defeat/match. Will then sink like a stone only to reappear in the lower leagues, or selling ice cream in Towyn
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 24, 2014 8:05:25 GMT
Strange that every man and his dog has a view on this incident, but the one man who knows what actually happened hasn't spoken a word, as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Oct 24, 2014 8:28:01 GMT
Strange that every man and his dog has a view on this incident, but the one man who knows what actually happened hasn't spoken a word, as far as I know. I think he's right to as well. Whatever he says will be analysed to within an inch of its life and the matter needs putting to bed. John Hartson volleyed a teammate in the head once but he's happy to talk about a soft penalty more than he did about that at the time.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 24, 2014 8:31:23 GMT
He could easily say Jamo the contact from the Swansea player made me lose my balance, end of.
|
|