Views from the Sieve

Not sure what evidence or written report the club are waiting for? They attended the hearing and evidence must have been provided. Quick decision needed on this lets not drag the club through the gutter.

I have just arrived here in Belarus - never, ever, before have I even seen our results shown on the tv but I switched on this morning to see videos of the Stevenage game being shown and a discussion about our player who gas been found guilty of biting for the second time in a year. I wanted him to be found not guilty but given all the circumstances it is very difficult to believe this is a miscarriage of justice.
I don't think many of us wanted him signed in the first place, but perhaps our objections were softened by the fact we signed an even more unpleasant man at the same time. This whole business has done our club no favours - Labadie, and Partridge have been little more than mediocre as players ..... we certainly don't need the baggage. Get rid.

Bit harsh on Partridge isn't it? Sure he has a past but as far as I know, he's not done anything untoward since signing for us. Sure he's not a great player at the moment but if he keeps his head down and works hard, he's a decent player to have.

Wasn't a fan of Partridge signing but did well Tuesday... harsh to dig him out for Labadie getting a 6 month ban

Really don't understand the club's stance on this... what written evidence they will receive that won't have been raised in the initial hearing I don't know??

TomMc wrote: The fact that he plays for us doesn't mean I'm going to blindly defend or support him. That kind of thinking is exactly why so many Liverpool fans stood by Luis Suarez after his indiscretions.

Get rid.

^^This^^

Unless I'm mistaken, the Daggers are a football club - and not some underworld mafia.

So, if "one of our own" f#cks up - especially after we've given him a chance to continue a full time professional football career - then I'd certainly call him on it.

I think what the club are waiting for are the written reasons for the decision. The FA don't usually give a full judgment on the day, just announce decision and punishment, then publish the judgment setting out their findings including the evidence they heard, which evidence they preferred and why they reached their decision. The time for appealing doesn't start to run until you have the basis for the decision.

Personally, I didn't want to sign him because he had bitten somebody. So if he's done it again I want rid.

Alan wrote:I think what the club are waiting for are the written reasons for the decision. The FA don't usually give a full judgment on the day, just announce decision and punishment, then publish the judgment setting out their findings including the evidence they heard, which evidence they preferred and why they reached their decision. The time for appealing doesn't start to run until you have the basis for the decision.

Personally, I didn't want to sign him because he had bitten somebody. So if he's done it again I want rid.

Can understand the principle Alan, but the team must be aware that if they support an appeal and it subsequently fails... we are largely hamstrung on where we can then go in terms of taking action against him. Can't look to sack the player surely if we have supported him appealing the decision and given the impression we continue to believe him to be innocent.

Whatever evidence there is, if he has been found guilty (despite many seeing the video being unsure if it was a bite or not) I can't see what we can then provide in the future that would see an appeal decision over turn the original ban.

I don't believe the club has said they're planning to appeal - aren't they simply waiting for the written reasons before commenting further?

Can't appeal, from the footage alone it's not crystal clear but they must've found something that constitutes the ban. Didn't look good anyway with his history.

If Barcelona bought Suarez, why can't we keep Labadie?

Whatever the club decides to do there are procedures that have to be followed to comply with UK employment or similar legislation so they have to wait for the full report
Liverpool kept Suarez because he was a world class player with a sell on value
Lesser players elsewhere have been jettisoned using gross misconduct as the premise but always after the full judgement has been published

Nobody should have signed Suarez on principle but the only thing that matters in football these days is money.

Let's wait for the report before we chuck around ifs and maybes?

[quote="Mark"]Nobody should have signed Suarez on principle but the only thing that matters in football these days is money.

Let's wait for the report before we chuck around ifs and maybes?[/quote
Agreed

Mark wrote:Nobody should have signed Suarez on principle but the only thing that matters in football these days is money.

Let's wait for the report before we chuck around ifs and maybes?

That's exactly why on Labadie's second bite he has a 6 month ban but on Suarez third bite he got a 4 month ban. Money.

Mark wrote:Nobody should have signed Suarez on principle but the only thing that matters in football these days is money.

Let's wait for the report before we chuck around ifs and maybes?

Just can't see in what scenario he ever plays for the club again?