Euro 2012

[Corky]

Thought it would be three.

So frustrating because it was so unnecessary.

[Alexikokopops]

When was the Arshavin incident, just out of interest? I'm glad UEFA are taking a tougher stance in this latest incident. (However if they accept the FA's appeal, it just shows how weak they really are).

Whether he took the red like a champ or not is also a confounding issue. It doesn't matter what he does after the incident. I don't believe that him acting all sympathetic afterwards should matter, and I reckon that would be the main basis of his letter that he wrote to UEFA. And again as said above, I believe it's laughable if that's the case. I don't know what else he could have written in his letter to persuade a lesser ban.

It was in Russia's final qualifying game for Euro 2008, so a very similar incident.

As for the second bit, I'd argue it matters. In a game where every governing body is trying to get footballers to show respect to the referee, taking a player's behaviour after a red card into account when deciding bans could certainly help that cause.

[Corky]

They only did it cos we're England.

[StanSP]

Where did I say there was a conspiracy? I have no doubt that similar justice would be dished out to anyone. Doesn't make it right.

As for the percentage of the season, of course that matters. That is the basis on which the whole idea of suspensions are founded. Why are red cards (for violent conduct) in the Premier League a 3 matches and not 19? It's because banning a player for half of a tournament is obscene, and that 3 matches serves to punish his team for an appropriate portion of the season.

Why any team should be deprived of a player for what was (a fairly tame) moment of madness for half of a tournament is totally beyond me.

I imagine England will appeal, and given the Arshavin precedent, it may be reduced to two. If it is, we can only hope Rooney responds in the same way that Arshavin did when he lit up Euro 2008.

The length of the tournament shouldn't and doesn't matter. Violent conduct is a 3 match ban because it shows disrespect for your opposition through the mode of violence. If you want to go one step further, you could call it assault. If you kick a person in the street for no apparent reason and in an unprovoked manner, you should expect a sufficient punishment.

I don't think you can call it fairly tame. When the referee hands out the red-card, he's not thinking and doesn't really care whether he'll be banned for a quarter, a third, or half the tournament. When the UEFA thought about the ban, I'm sure the same applied. They don't think or consider whether a team will be deprived of a player for 50% of a tournament and why should they? They see the incident as it happened and give out a perfectly fair punishment.

That must have been one fucking hard working spell check.

The time is one game, to be reviewed in exceptional circumstances. Nowhere is a three-game ban clearly defined as "the time", not even in precedent.

I'm sure Rooney wasn't thinking of the consequences of his moronic actions, but part of the problem here is a blanket one game ban which is retrospectively reviewed.

Why is the time only one game for all kind of red cards then? Two bookable offences i.e. regular fouls and any other booking such as time-wasting shouldn't equate to the same ban a player gets for kicking out needlessly at someone.

It was in Russia's final qualifying game for Euro 2008, so a very similar incident.

As for the second bit, I'd argue it matters. In a game where every governing body is trying to get footballers to show respect to the referee, taking a player's behaviour after a red card into account when deciding bans could certainly help that cause.

From that point of view - respecting the referee - I do understand that and that's fair to say.

[Guest ttfn]

1) The length of the tournament shouldn't and doesn't matter. Violent conduct is a 3 match ban because it shows disrespect for your opposition through the mode of violence. If you want to go one step further, you could call it assault. If you kick a person in the street for no apparent reason and in an unprovoked manner, you should expect a sufficient punishment.

2) I don't think you can call it fairly tame. When the referee hands out the red-card, he's not thinking and doesn't really care whether he'll be banned for a quarter, a third, or half the tournament. When the UEFA thought about the ban, I'm sure the same applied. They don't think or consider whether a team will be deprived of a player for 50% of a tournament and why should they? They see the incident as it happened and give out a perfectly fair punishment.

3) Why is the time only one game for all kind of red cards then? Two bookable offences i.e. regular fouls and any other booking such as time-wasting shouldn't equate to the same ban a player gets for kicking out needlessly at someone.

1) It has been long established that kicking somebody in a football match is different to doing it in the street (although arguably given that Rooney never attempted to play the ball, it's no different). Why three matches then? Why is that an appropriate punishment? Why is it not 4 or 5? Or 2 for that matter? Why is it 3? The severity of the crime should be linked to the impact it has on that player and his team mates. This seems disproportionate for Rooney and England. I don't dispute that, at club level (although not in Europe, again this is a compressed format) a three-match ban would be appropriate. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

2) Absolutely right. The referee should apply the laws of the game, and he did. Rooney was deservedly sent off. I've explained above why I think this is not a fair ban, and that is not the referee's fault; it is Uefa's.

3) Again, I agree. A one-game "cover all" ban is utter nonsense. I would contend that for non-violent offences, no mandatory ban should be inflicted at international level. The impact on the team is significant enough as it is by losing a player for the game in which they are playing. If Uefa insist on having a review panel, it could be applied here to give out some bans for non-violent offences. For what it's worth, I think a 2-game ban would have been fair for Rooney. Violent conduct should be treated strictly, but as I have explained above, I believe that having bans that are, in absolute terms, the same, for what are effectively different forms of football, is not a reasonable basis on which to suspend players.

[Super_horns]

Maybe UEFA took into account Rooney's behaviour at the last 2 world cups (another reckless sending off and then abusing the England fans last year) into account when considering the length of this ban.

TBF Wouldn't violent conduct without being provoked be a 3 match can in the league?

Not really sure we can have too many complaints.

You could tell by the reaction of Rooney and the other players on Friday that he'd done something silly (for once they weren't rushing to scream into the face of the ref)

Anyway IF we got through to the knock-out stages he might be really determined to prove a point and produce a decent performance in a major tournament at last.

[davieG]

Surely a red card for violent conduct in the league means a 3 game ban why should this be any different.

The only obscene aspect of this is Rooney kicking someone in a deliberate, childish, petulant manner just because a player got the better of him.

[Guest MattP]

If FIFA/UEFA hated is that much you would think they would stop seeding is so high.

As for Rooney, **** him, get him Cole, Rio, Terry etc out and we might have a team we can actually support without thinking "this is a bunch of *****".

[STEVIE B]

Sorry, but that's just bull-shit. How is it obscene? He kicked out at another player. It's violent conduct!

Who gives a shit about percentages of a league season compared to an international tournament? Rooney being banned for 50% is his own flipping fault.

How does the punishment not fit the crime?

The phrase 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' fits perfectly.

Rooney's just an idiot for needlessly kicking out at the player and now he's facing the consequences. Him writing a letter to UEFA to cut the ban down is just laughable.

The thought of him actually WRITING is laughable ! Got what he deserved. If you or I did what he did we'd be arrested. Complete numpty,enjoy next summer watching us on the TV with the rest of us we wimper out in the last 8 !!

[Leicester_Loyal]

Great piece from Red Army.co.uk

In April this year Wayne Rooney received a ban for having the cheek to show passion about scoring a hat trick after being two – nil down. He received a two match ban for swearing and consequently missed the F.A.Cup semi final against City.

As a Manchester United fan it was amusing to watch the bandwagon unfold, ex players, politicians, managers, pundits people from all walks of life suddenly reveal that they are offended by swearing on a football field. It gathers momentum – people calling for six month bans and point deductions. Anything to give their team an advantage against Manchester United, anything to disrupt the best player in the Premier League.

In football swearing is rife from grass roots to senior pros. Its always been that way, yet all of a sudden people believe that Rooney’s outburst was the first time their precious ears had been offended by such language.

I guarantee that every ex-professional who slammed Rooney for his outburst has shouted uglier swear words on a football field that have been picked up on camera. I’ve watched the live streaming of the houses of parliament - it so abusive and obscene that you would have thought someone spilt caviar down their shirt. Lastly, parents, if you think that your little boy does not swear in the playground, on a football pitch or with his friends, If you think that the culture of on-line gaming and internet trawling does not entail someone swearing down a camera at them, then you are so far detached from reality that the F.A. may be sending you an application form.

I’m not saying that it is right, nor am I condoning it, however EVERYBODY involved in football swears, that is why this event last season in all my time watching football was the most gut-sickening passage of hypocrisy that I had ever seen. Until now…..

Last week England played an international against Montenegro and mid-way through the second half Wayne Rooney was sent off for kicking out at an opponent. After the red card Rooney apologised and walked off the field without showing any dissent.

This red card could result in anything between a one and four match ban. However with England’s next competitive matches after the last qualifier being the group stages at the European championships, the F.A. are concerned that England might already be out of the competition before Wayne Rooney is allowed to play again.

The holier than though Football Association came out after the game stating that they would make an appeal to UEFA in the event that the England striker would receive more than a one-match ban.

A spokesman for the F.A. claimed they would appeal on the grounds that he apologised straight afterwards and that the referee commended his acceptance of the dismissal.

There are some similarities hear, because back in April Manchester United made an appeal against a two match ban on the same basis that Rooney was remorseful and apologised.

However Trevor Brooking had this to say:

“The powers that be have got to sit down and say ‘look, to help everyone you’ve got to get a consistency, for the referee so they know whatever decision they take there is going to be a general support from the different bodies that are represented’,” he added.

Therefore in the words of a Football Association member, nobody should interfere with decisions that are made and that their body – the F.A. – would back any action taken by the referee.

The F.A. director of communications Adrian Bevington said that an appeal is: “something we will have to consider” and goes on to say: “We obviously have our own legal people looking through the regulations and we are fully up to speed as to where we stand with that.”

If the F.A. are fully up to speed then surely they know that you cannot appeal and get a reduction in the suspension, after all they said that under no uncertain terms should they overrule a referee last April. And, if their legal people can find a loop hole to do this – why was this not considered six months ago when Rooney’s ban was appealed by Manchester United?

Are the F.A. trying to portray that kicking someone on the field is less of a crime than swearing?

The F.A’s hypocrisy has been well and truly ousted this week and they have shown that if it is Manchester United they are willing to give the maximum punishment possible for a made-up-on-the-spot charge for Rooney, however, THE oldest and THE original sending-off offence of kicking another player somehow does not apply to The F.A. and England on this occasion, despite it being the same player.

Same player, same colour card shown by the referee, but a rule about swearing that the F.A. created on April 5th 2011 just for Wayne Rooney and for Manchester United supersedes a UEFA rule that is over 1oo years old.

I love Wayne Rooney – he is my idol. However I hope that UEFA give him the maximum ban possible because for all those hypocrites at the F.A. who believed swearing was worth a two match ban – your comeuppance has arrived – your star player will not feature at the European Championships and any appeal will be dismissed just like every Manchester United appeal to you down the years.

I remember Italia ’90. I remember the Gazza posters on my wall. I remember playing football in my back garden and shouting ‘Lineker’ when I scored. I shed a tear with Stuart Pearce. I remember three Lions on a shirt, I remember football coming home. Then one day the F.A. pulled the carpet from under me and proved to me what a cynical, jealous, tyrannical corporation is running this country’s football. Manchester is my country now; and I’m am content in the fact that I have seen them become world champions twice.

So this is what it feels like dear Football Association when the shoe is on the other foot. I hope the bully becomes the bully victim, I hope the oppressor becomes the oppressed, because after your smug antics towards the team that has provided you with all your stars over the years, after Eric Cantona’s ban, after Rio Ferdinand’s ban, after saying we cant play in the F.A. cup in 2000 because of your little World Cup bid, after Patrice Evra’s ban, Rooney’s ban, the Sir Alex Ferguson witch hunt. After David Beckham in 1998 and Rooney in 2006, Gary Neville celebrating and your amusement in England fans singing anti-United songs; I have waited a long, long time to see this bullet fly.

[StanSP]

Maybe UEFA took into account Rooney's behaviour at the last 2 world cups (another reckless sending off and then abusing the England fans last year) into account when considering the length of this ban.

TBF Wouldn't violent conduct without being provoked be a 3 match can in the league?

Not really sure we can have too many complaints.

You could tell by the reaction of Rooney and the other players on Friday that he'd done something silly (for once they weren't rushing to scream into the face of the ref)

Anyway IF we got through to the knock-out stages he might be really determined to prove a point and produce a decent performance in a major tournament at last.

Yep.

Surely a red card for violent conduct in the league means a 3 game ban why should this be any different.

The only obscene aspect of this is Rooney kicking someone in a deliberate, childish, petulant manner just because a player got the better of him.

My point exactly.

[Soar Fox]

Personally I'm glad he's got a 3 game ban. Hopefully we leave him behind altogether.

[Bert]

Should never have been a 3 match ban. I don't care what anyone says, nor will I have it that UEFA haven't got something in for England. The Arshavin incident was very similar, yet Rooney is hit with a 3 game ban. If this was a French or German player, it'd be a one match ban.

What have UEFA ever done for England? Apart from screwing us over? They're nearly as bad as FIFA.

This could all be a blessing in disguise mind.

Edit - there's too many holier than thou nob-jockeys on here.

[accessory]

The conspiracy theorists should stop bleating. Rooney got exactly what he deserved.

Lest we forgot, he'd already served a ban in the qualifying stages (missing the Switzerland home game and taking his family on a luxury Caribbean holiday). UEFA may also have taken his less-than-exemplary record at club level into account too.

If Capello had a pair, he'd leave him out of the squad altogether. Rooney would have never dared to show such petulance in a Manchester United shirt, so why should we have to put up with it when he represents England?

Maybe his head has been turned by playing alongside the likes of Tevez and Ronaldo, and he really does believe he's bigger than the rest of whatever team he plays for.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

Great piece from Red Army.co.uk

I beg to differ. In fact I'd call that a bitter piece, arrogant piece, deluded piece even. Not great.

The first, and probably most basic mis-assertion that this piece makes is that Rooney's swearing was akin to any other swearing on a football pitch. It wasn't. Because the swearing didn't just happen to be picked up, it didn't slip out, it wasn't overheard. It was purposefully and intentionally directed at a passive audience. So instantly most of the tripe that the author brings up to try and paint a picture of some conspiracy whereby everyone is against Manchester United is redundant. People; the public, the ex-players, the managers and the pundits. whom he claims were hypocritical in taking offence to Rooney's expletive were not doing so with any motive other than to express their disgust that Rooney had crossed a line. And this line was the fact that the swearing was (needlessly) directed at a TV camera streaming that footage, and those words, into the homes of millions of people across the country at tea time. There was little or no precedent for this so that's why a charge was created and a punishment perhaps unpreceeded levelled. No one had ever been stupid enough to think that this were acceptable before Rooney did it.

Secondly, the FA appealing the ban does not have any implications on what they have said about consistency in the punishments administered in their own competitions. They are right to set the standard as they see fit for their own competitions yet, if they have a vested interest in another, pursue a course of action that may be contradictory to such standards. All they are doing is asking for a different decision, in the same way Manchester United asked. They never said clubs shouldn't have the right of appeal and are simply exercising their own right to do this now. And, in any case, the FA are wanting a three match ban reduced to a two match one, and if this were to be done then the punishments for Rooney in both instances (the swearing and the red against Montenegro) would be the same.

Fair? For two mindless and offensive acts I would say so. Yes this time Rooney's kicked another player but he has already served some punishment in the fact that he received a red card during the match thus missing around half an hour of play, disadvantaging the team he was playing for. Against West Ham he stayed on the pitch after his foul-mouthed tirade, to have given him any less (a one-match ban) would have said that what he did was akin to two bookable offences. It clearly wasn't thus. But of course if it's a Manchester United player there must be an ulterior motive. Yawn.

It's this arrogance that has made Manchester United so unsavoury over the years. Ferguson cultivates this us against them culture for his players, the fans buy into it and become insular, distinguishing themselves through an assumption that they're the best and that everyone dislikes them for this reason, and then crying how unjust it is everytime the authorities dare to punish one of their players. When this happens we can start cycle again. Only when we do start it there's always just a few omissions that will help us maintain this hard done to philosophy; like the way Manchester United players have berated and hounded referees over the years, like the frequent liberties that Ferguson takes with referees, like the way a large proportion of their fans take enjoyment in claiming to be anti-England, like the dubious lack of penalties given to away teams at Old Trafford.

That's why you're disliked Manchester United, not because you're supposedly 'the best'. Disliked not disadvantaged.

The article ends with the author saying that he idolises Rooney, that Manchester is his country now. It's not surprising that someone stupid enough to idolise someone so clearly deficient of any qualities to be a role model such as Rooney is, and stupid enough to actively wish ill upon his own country's football team, is foolish enough to chug the whole "everyone against Manchester United" rubbish. But don't give me your nostalgic crap about English footballing eras gone by and your emotive drivel about how you've been so wronged that that's why you're now so disillusioned with England. Start looking at yourself, your own player, your own manager, your own club and then you might realise that, actually, much of what the FA has done has been for the good of football (no matter how inconvenient it may be for Manchester United) in and for this country. The setting of a standard whereby it's not acceptable to swear down a camera, whereby it's not acceptable to forget your drugs test, whereby it's not acceptable to kung-fu kick a fan.

The FA are appealing this ban for the good of English football because, despite being a brain-dead as he is, Rooney is actually our best player. And if he can find form Rooney may be the player that gives us half a chance of a decent tournament. The Football Association have a duty to do this for the good of their national team, their representatives. As much as you may think you are, Manchester United are not the representatives of English football. So I for one am not going to blame them for trying to get the ban reduced. But I suppose that's part of being in a collective wanting our country to prosper, something the author and fools that think like him wouldn't understand.

This piece is interesting. Interesting in the same way that it's interesting to listen to an idiot EDL marcher try to explain exactly why he's where he is and just who or what it is that he's marching against. But it's by no means great. The closest it comes to great is in being greatly ignorant.

[Guest MattP]

I beg to differ. In fact I'd call that a bitter piece, arrogant piece, deluded piece even. Not great.

The first, and probably most basic mis-assertion that this piece makes is that Rooney's swearing was akin to any other swearing on a football pitch. It wasn't. Because the swearing didn't just happen to be picked up, it didn't slip out, it wasn't overheard. It was purposefully and intentionally directed at a passive audience. So instantly most of the tripe that the author brings up to try and paint a picture of some conspiracy whereby everyone is against Manchester United is redundant. People; the public, the ex-players, the managers and the pundits. whom he claims were hypocritical in taking offence to Rooney's expletive were not doing so with any motive other than to express their disgust that Rooney had crossed a line. And this line was the fact that the swearing was (needlessly) directed at a TV camera streaming that footage, and those words, into the homes of millions of people across the country at tea time. There was little or no precedent for this so that's why a charge was created and a punishment perhaps unpreceeded levelled. No one had ever been stupid enough to think that this were acceptable before Rooney did it.

Secondly, the FA appealing the ban does not have any implications on what they have said about consistency in the punishments administered in their own competitions. They are right to set the standard as they see fit for their own competitions yet, if they have a vested interest in another, pursue a course of action that may be contradictory to such standards. All they are doing is asking for a different decision, in the same way Manchester United asked. They never said clubs shouldn't have the right of appeal and are simply exercising their own right to do this now. And, in any case, the FA are wanting a three match ban reduced to a two match one, and if this were to be done then the punishments for Rooney in both instances (the swearing and the red against Montenegro) would be the same.

Fair? For two mindless and offensive acts I would say so. Yes this time Rooney's kicked another player but he has already served some punishment in the fact that he received a red card during the match thus missing around half an hour of play, disadvantaging the team he was playing for. Against West Ham he stayed on the pitch after his foul-mouthed tirade, to have given him any less (a one-match ban) would have said that what he did was akin to two bookable offences. It clearly wasn't thus. But of course if it's a Manchester United player there must be an ulterior motive. Yawn.

It's this arrogance that has made Manchester United so unsavoury over the years. Ferguson cultivates this us against them culture for his players, the fans buy into it and become insular, distinguishing themselves through an assumption that they're the best and that everyone dislikes them for this reason, and then crying how unjust it is everytime the authorities dare to punish one of their players. When this happens we can start cycle again. Only when we do start it there's always just a few omissions that will help us maintain this hard done to philosophy; like the way Manchester United players have berated and hounded referees over the years, like the frequent liberties that Ferguson takes with referees, like the way a large proportion of their fans take enjoyment in claiming to be anti-England, like the dubious lack of penalties given to away teams at Old Trafford.

That's why you're disliked Manchester United, not because you're supposedly 'the best'. Disliked not disadvantaged.

The article ends with the author saying that he idolises Rooney, that Manchester is his country now. It's not surprising that someone stupid enough to idolise someone so clearly deficient of any qualities to be a role model such as Rooney is, and stupid enough to actively wish ill upon his own country's football team, is foolish enough to chug the whole "everyone against Manchester United" rubbish. But don't give me your nostalgic crap about English footballing eras gone by and your emotive drivel about how you've been so wronged that that's why you're now so disillusioned with England. Start looking at yourself, your own player, your own manager, your own club and then you might realise that, actually, much of what the FA has done has been for the good of football (no matter how inconvenient it may be for Manchester United) in and for this country. The setting of a standard whereby it's not acceptable to swear down a camera, whereby it's not acceptable to forget your drugs test, whereby it's not acceptable to kung-fu kick a fan.

The FA are appealing this ban for the good of English football because, despite being a brain-dead as he is, Rooney is actually our best player. And if he can find form Rooney may be the player that gives us half a chance of a decent tournament. The Football Association have a duty to do this for the good of their national team, their representatives. As much as you may think you are, Manchester United are not the representatives of English football. So I for one am not going to blame them for trying to get the ban reduced. But I suppose that's part of being in a collective wanting our country to prosper, something the author and fools that think like him wouldn't understand.

This piece is interesting. Interesting in the same way that it's interesting to listen to an idiot EDL marcher try to explain exactly why he's where he is and just who or what it is that he's marching against. But it's by no means great. The closest it comes to great is in being greatly ignorant.

Absolutely fantastic post. :thumbup:

[Finnegan]

:appl: :appl:

I want a standing ovation smiley. That's my favourite post in weeks. Top draw.

[Mack]

Rooney is someone who I feel represents a class of people in his generation.

Just like Michael Carroll the lottery winning bin man who did every penny on a huge pile of nothing.

The only difference between Rooney and the rest of the underclass is his natural ability at a game that as a professional exponent pays enormous salaries.

I'd leave him at home now next summer.

[Alexikokopops]

I beg to differ. In fact I'd call that a bitter piece, arrogant piece, deluded piece even. Not great.

The first, and probably most basic mis-assertion that this piece makes is that Rooney's swearing was akin to any other swearing on a football pitch. It wasn't. Because the swearing didn't just happen to be picked up, it didn't slip out, it wasn't overheard. It was purposefully and intentionally directed at a passive audience. So instantly most of the tripe that the author brings up to try and paint a picture of some conspiracy whereby everyone is against Manchester United is redundant. People; the public, the ex-players, the managers and the pundits. whom he claims were hypocritical in taking offence to Rooney's expletive were not doing so with any motive other than to express their disgust that Rooney had crossed a line. And this line was the fact that the swearing was (needlessly) directed at a TV camera streaming that footage, and those words, into the homes of millions of people across the country at tea time. There was little or no precedent for this so that's why a charge was created and a punishment perhaps unpreceeded levelled. No one had ever been stupid enough to think that this were acceptable before Rooney did it.

Secondly, the FA appealing the ban does not have any implications on what they have said about consistency in the punishments administered in their own competitions. They are right to set the standard as they see fit for their own competitions yet, if they have a vested interest in another, pursue a course of action that may be contradictory to such standards. All they are doing is asking for a different decision, in the same way Manchester United asked. They never said clubs shouldn't have the right of appeal and are simply exercising their own right to do this now. And, in any case, the FA are wanting a three match ban reduced to a two match one, and if this were to be done then the punishments for Rooney in both instances (the swearing and the red against Montenegro) would be the same.

Fair? For two mindless and offensive acts I would say so. Yes this time Rooney's kicked another player but he has already served some punishment in the fact that he received a red card during the match thus missing around half an hour of play, disadvantaging the team he was playing for. Against West Ham he stayed on the pitch after his foul-mouthed tirade, to have given him any less (a one-match ban) would have said that what he did was akin to two bookable offences. It clearly wasn't thus. But of course if it's a Manchester United player there must be an ulterior motive. Yawn.

It's this arrogance that has made Manchester United so unsavoury over the years. Ferguson cultivates this us against them culture for his players, the fans buy into it and become insular, distinguishing themselves through an assumption that they're the best and that everyone dislikes them for this reason, and then crying how unjust it is everytime the authorities dare to punish one of their players. When this happens we can start cycle again. Only when we do start it there's always just a few omissions that will help us maintain this hard done to philosophy; like the way Manchester United players have berated and hounded referees over the years, like the frequent liberties that Ferguson takes with referees, like the way a large proportion of their fans take enjoyment in claiming to be anti-England, like the dubious lack of penalties given to away teams at Old Trafford.

That's why you're disliked Manchester United, not because you're supposedly 'the best'. Disliked not disadvantaged.

The article ends with the author saying that he idolises Rooney, that Manchester is his country now. It's not surprising that someone stupid enough to idolise someone so clearly deficient of any qualities to be a role model such as Rooney is, and stupid enough to actively wish ill upon his own country's football team, is foolish enough to chug the whole "everyone against Manchester United" rubbish. But don't give me your nostalgic crap about English footballing eras gone by and your emotive drivel about how you've been so wronged that that's why you're now so disillusioned with England. Start looking at yourself, your own player, your own manager, your own club and then you might realise that, actually, much of what the FA has done has been for the good of football (no matter how inconvenient it may be for Manchester United) in and for this country. The setting of a standard whereby it's not acceptable to swear down a camera, whereby it's not acceptable to forget your drugs test, whereby it's not acceptable to kung-fu kick a fan.

The FA are appealing this ban for the good of English football because, despite being a brain-dead as he is, Rooney is actually our best player. And if he can find form Rooney may be the player that gives us half a chance of a decent tournament. The Football Association have a duty to do this for the good of their national team, their representatives. As much as you may think you are, Manchester United are not the representatives of English football. So I for one am not going to blame them for trying to get the ban reduced. But I suppose that's part of being in a collective wanting our country to prosper, something the author and fools that think like him wouldn't understand.

This piece is interesting. Interesting in the same way that it's interesting to listen to an idiot EDL marcher try to explain exactly why he's where he is and just who or what it is that he's marching against. But it's by no means great. The closest it comes to great is in being greatly ignorant.

That was beautiful to read. Bravo.

[FoxyPV]

Freeman - :appl:

Excellent post.

[Corky]

Fabulous post Freeman.

Ripped that piece apart.

[RowlattsFox]

I'd still take Rooney personally, in case we get lucky with draw for groups n do get through, who we going to take instead? Andy Carroll? Defoe? Crouch?

[purpleronnie]

I'd still take Rooney personally, in case we get lucky with draw for groups n do get through, who we going to take instead? Andy Carroll? Defoe? Crouch?

Can't see crouch going capello doesn't like him, defoe for me has to go I would think carroll has a chance depends on the form bent would also be in the running.

[ScouseFox]

[gazfox9]

Wayne Rooney's last 2 major tournaments:- 8 games, 0 goals, 0 assists. Now if thats our best player should we even bother travelling?