Eveready

As far as I can see she hasn’t incited violence at all. My view on free speech is that you agree with free speech even for the opinions that repulse you the most, or you don’t agree with free speech. The free part meaning that you’re not punished for expressing your views. Personally, as an ethic minority, I do think hate speech should be protected. I’d much rather know if someone thinks I’m a cunt than them smile and nod whilst they really hate me due to the colour of my skin.

She done anything directly to NUFC or away supporters at the stadium? If not then it seems a bit much trawling through supporters social media posts to see if they've said anything hateful in the past.

How does the idea we can spend 3x what we bring in from sales to keep within FFP rules work? I only have a very basic understanding of FFP, but as I understand it's related to a rolling 3 year loss with player purchase transfer fees amortised over contract lengths (maximum 5 years), but income from player sales being recognised at time of transaction (less remaining book value) From this I would imagine there are 2 aspects to ensuring we stay within the FFP relegations if we're already at the 3 year loss limit to the period ending at the end of this season (assuming the financial years are by football season, not calendar year): A) Running an overall break-even over the 3 year period - £15m income means that we would be able to amortise £15m over a 3 year period - with the 5-year amortisation rule this would allow us to sign a player for £25m. However, this doesn't take into account growing commercial revenue and prior year losses falling off the rolling year 3 year period. B) If we're confident of a increase in commercial revenue and possibly seeing this as an opportunity to boost our short-term FFP position to bring forward a summer signing, then the £15m income could technically fund a £150m player purchase as only 1/10th of their transfer fee would be amortised before the end of the season and break-even with the possible Trippier sale.

Fully agree with you that we're rushing people back and suffering because of it and our play style doesn't help, just on this one particular occasion I don't think it is purely due to the type of injury.

I agree on my majority, but I really do think this was a freak injury, adjusting his the landing of your kicking foot can put huge strain on the quad if it lands while you’re not expecting it to. I’m about as far away from a physio as you can get but I called a couple of pages back that I thought it was a quad tear and it would be longer than 6 weeks. Could of course be some element of compensating for the hamstring injury which put more pressure on the quad. edit: spelling

Looked like a quad tear to me. Wouldn’t be surprised.

Has that Jac Talbot ever got anything right?

Initial fear was a quad tear by the way he kicked his leg out then had to readjust for the landing after being pushed. Know a few bodybuilders who’ve torn their quads by missing a step and not being prepared for the impact. But hoping he’s just strained it. Wouldn’t be surprised if this is longer than 6 weeks.

Thought it was a clear foul on Isak and should've been a red for Ballard. He grabs the left hand side of Isak's shirt with his right hand and throws himself to the floor making sure he brings Isak with him. Don't think Hume or Gordon deserved a yellow for the handbags, but Ballard did deserve a yellow for the way he got in Gordon's face after.

Mercedes F1 team also won 7 consecutive driver & constructor world championships before Ineos/Ratcliffe took a 33% stake in the team. Haven't won the drivers title since. More down to rules changes than anything else I think but I'm not going to let the facts get in the way of the story here.

There's more credibility to Suarez saying that negrito doesn't have racist connotations in Uruguay compared to that utter bullshit.

I'm sure I've read there's a 1 year extension that could be triggered.

Blew the whistle after he saw the pass. That’s fucking disgusting. edit: pass not foul

Wish I got a paid week off work every time I fucked up. I have no idea how refereeing allocation works but surely a better system would be demoting them to 2nd tier games for a month on the first cock up, with increasing lengths on further errors before a permanent demotion after a certain number within a certain period.

I guess it wouldn't cause an immediate impact but I think the most fair punishment would be reducing their FFP budget in the next x years period by double their overspend in the period they committed the offence.

I don't disagree with anything you said there, I might not have worded a few of my posts in the right way. I don't think we're entirely in agreement as I think that it should be an internal matter for the club based on the evidence they know but you stated on a previous page that he hasn't been charged and therefore no case to answer. My view is that Man Utd have probably told Antony to stay away because they have medical records as evidence against him and they're right to keep him out of the squad. I was just trying to explain my rationale to why I think that's the likely case. Of course this is all speculative and not really helpful to anyone involved, but hey, it is the internet.

I'm struggling to understand your point here. Either the justice system does it's job as you claim - then you either suspend a player when he's charged or found guilty. Which is a perfectly fine opinion. I just think with public figures you have to take a more nuanced view on a case-by-case basis. And that should be what the club knows, not what the public knows. On balance of things I think there's a decent chance Man Utd have medical records which is why they suspended him. In your view would you suspend them at being charged or found guilty? The reason I likely have a different opinion as I know someone who took 18 months to be charged after their final police interview despite them gathering no evidence, so I don't trust the CPS to do their job promptly.

And you were fine with someone like that being on the pitch, playing infront thousands of kids as he wasn't yet found guilty?

Yeah. Then you get Adam Johnson playing while awaiting trial.

What I'm saying is that with public figures you have to take a more nuanced view than the more normal view that you either suspend someone when they're charged or when they're found guilty in court. I think there is likely medical records that are strong evidence for her case. The timeline over the past couple of days has gone: Brazilian national team drops Antony Man Utd say no comment Gabriela Cavallin urges Man Utd to drop Antony in the press Man Utd drop Antony Considering this, I think there's a reasonable chance her lawyers have shared medical records with Man Utd or they've at least seen them through some channel.

Yeah. I give it about a 1% chance she would've punched herself in the tit so hard she needed corrective surgery instead of giving herself a blackeye or something a little more normal, hence the 99% sure he's guilty if the medical records back it up. The medical records are also likely to be able to tell how the injury was caused and if it was consistent with her claim.

I'm not saying he should instantly get sent to jail or get his contract cancelled but when we're talking about a public figure with strong accusations against them then a view has to be taken. My view of it boils down pretty simply to if there is medical records of the injuries she claims I'm 99% sure he's guilty, if there's no medical records then I'm 99% sure he's innocent. But, she has gone through the proper channels and not just directly posting everything on social media. This in combination with the fact every single article I've read says she's had medical treatment for the headbutt and the punch in the tit has me at 80-90% chance that there probably is evidence from the medical records and shouldn't be playing.

Ingrid's accusations concern me less, I've already stated I wouldn't be surprised if she was jumping on the bandwagon and her claims pale in comparison to Gabi's. I don't say it's hearsay, the law does, and it means that we can completely discount what Ingrid says about Gabi because it would not be admissible evidence in court. I agree that on the other instances he shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion but you don't have corrective surgery without records. She initially went to the police before going public who very likely would've told her not to make that kind of thing public to avoid hindering the investigation. To me, that leaves the burden on Antony to prove his innocence in the Gabi case where he has offered absolutely nothing other than his word, and we know he would've put it in the public domain if he had anything to contest it like he has with the Ingrid situation.

Wasn't that the same person in the phonecall? So it's still only one of the accusers that has any doubt. Based on the evidence and her social media profile, I would say there is a reasonable chance that Ingrid was just jumping on the bandwagon against Antony. But the idea that the press had it out for him and were going around trying to find more dirt on him was not the start of the story, that only happened after Gabi went public, and if you're a tabloid 'journalist' then your instant response is going to be to call ex-girlfriends trying to get a corroborating story which will inevitably require payment. I understand your point to some extent about the other claims. But if there is medical records for Gabi's claims, which the club could very well be privy to, and zero evidence against then I am very much inclined to take the position that he should be nowhere near a pitch until this is resolved. I'm sure you're following the story more closely than I am - can you please provide some links showing evidence of Gabi's lies? As you say Antony is the only one who has told any truth.

Yes. One of the accusers. Being innocent of one crime doesn't make you innocent of all. This phonecall was after Gabi went public, so it's not surprising that tabloids would be calling up ex-girlfriend digging and offering money for a story that would get hits. The worst offences certainly seem to be against Gabi, and there is absolutely nothing on that phonecall which would be admissible evidence in court against her claims. I am admittedly assuming there is medical records of Gabi being treated for the headbutt and prosthetic surgery correction, but that is what the reports have stated and I have no reason to believe otherwise. In my own - and a courts opinion - medical records are a far heavier weight of evidence than a hearsay phonecall involving one of the defendant's entourage.