The Decline Of The Deeney Empire - Professor Steve Leo Beleck

I don't get what is gay about this either. He's clearly gone somewhere with his girlfriend wearing matching silly outfits. Or is pink considered a gay colour still?

 

Isn't this old news? I thought this had been aired before and he had deleted the tweets then - if they are being re-tweeted (or whatever the word is) then he cannot prevent it.
It does not excuse him but how many times will the media dig it up. We knew about this when buying him - and still bought him. I am more interested in how well he does or does not play.

 

Sorry i'd like to apologise to you and all the other board members for stirring this up in the press again. I dont know how they got hold of this (or why they would use a date on the article from over a year ago? weird) but it's an embarrassment to me and my friends & my family and we'd like to set the record straight and move on with our lives.

I realise I have made some big mistakes, none more so than that post, but I would like to stress that I’ve worked incredibly hard to completely transform my life since that time. To clarify, I do not hold the beliefs written in that post whatsoever.. and i realise the colour pink is now a liberated colour and worn by many heterosexual individuals.
One last time i'd like to apologise to anyone who i offended with my crass and frankly rubbish attempt at humour.

Stevo.

 

I simply cannot accept that you did not understand the meaning behind Stevohorn's satirical post, unless you are actually autistic, in which case I withdraw my disbelief.

It's so plain, and the conceit that pink is historically a feminine colour (though not too far back, historically, of course) is hardly doublespeak; it is in fact an extremely well known concept.

 

pink is not historically a feminist colour, it has also been a masculine working class colour

 

Bit of a reach.

 

FFS

> (though not too far back, historically, of course)

It's literally right there, why do you think I wrote that part?

 

Don't bother to apologise to me. I did not read your post on that but as you might see if you look at my post I was replying to Diamond. So I missed your very humourous post - shame as it was bound to brighten my life, as of course did your latest satirical gem. I was just puzzled to see on a thread devoted to Deeney a discussion of an old issue regarding Gray. Still we do wander marginally on all threads don't we?

 

Slightly related to the post, I’m assuming players get fines for Red cards? Obviously it will be a fraction of the wage he’ll get for doing nothing for a month, but I can’t imagine you can get yourself banned for 4 games with no downside at all?

 

We do.. and i wasnt really apologising to you just carrying on in the manner of the "joke" i made about wearing pink. I thought you might have noticed Diamond had quoted my post though and as such realised that it wasnt a serious attempt to drag up Gray's past indiscretions.


BTW Are you the real Sting? If so i would like to apologise to you again.. for queuing up all night to see your band The Police play at Aylesbury Friars in 1982.. only to sell the ticket to a mate cause i was a bit skint at the time. Also for winding you up when you were shooting the Brimstone & Treacle video, so much so that you threw a meat pie at me!

Now that's wandering

 

Appeal made and Lost . 4 match ban

 

Thank **** for that.

 

4 match ban.......queue "thank **** for that jokes", but seriously.........it's outrageous to have this extended.

Alli and Kane get nothing for their leg breaking challenges. If there was ever a case to illustrate one rule for one, and one for another, it's this.

There is something very unhealthy about how the rules are being applied at the moment.
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sp...al_outcome_of_Deeney_appeal_against_red_card/

 

It's happened a couple of times this season already where deeney was missing from the squad, we were playing well and picking up good points only for
Deeney to be available again and results go to pot. I expect the same to happen again this time but take note all the Gray haters like it or not when Gray starts this season we win, with Deeney we do not.

 

Isn't there a rule where by if the referee has already booked a player it can't be reviewed by a panel because the ref saw it? If the ref didn't see Kane or Alli's challenge it would've been an automatic red on review no?

 

Violent conduct is a 3 match ban - extended to 4 under extreme circumstances.

Why was that an extreme circumstance? Ridiculous

 

Yeah but it was Kane and/or Alli so it's fine.

 

I think the rule is, if the club is an established top 6 club, then different tolerances are applied.

 

its 4 games because his previous suspension was a 3 match ban. i believe that if he got booked in between that then he would only get a 3 game ban, however im not 100% sure.

 

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/suspensions

It's still listed as 3 on the FA website

 

This is what the WO are reporting:-
"But Watford's appeal, deemed frivolous by the Football Association, has added an extra game. "

It appears Watford are being dumped on by the powers that be right now. How this could be seen as frivolous is beyond a joke.

I wonder if the FA have some stored up agenda. It was Michael Oliver that missed the Deeney incident against Stoke. Deeney got a yellow, but later on review he was given a 3 match ban.

How come Alli and Kane have received no punishment? Both were booked, but no further ban.

 

Yeah I found that. Sounds like it was extended on appeal. Joke of an organisation extending the ban just because they disagree with the appeal.

Edit: Looking up frivalous appeals, the last one I found wav in 2010 for ferdinand. That was likely as utd appealed so that ferdinand could play in the tues night cup tie before the ban cam into place.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/jan/28/rio-ferdinand-manchester-united-ban-extended

 

I wasn't joking....

 

Just seems with the amount of referee's poor decisions recently with pundits also agreeing yet the only thing they will do is ban someone who hasn't been booked. Not rescind a harsh red card.

 

Because it's his second time in as many months, maybe.

 

Doesn't make a difference. The extra game he misses is away to Man City which will be double figures.

 

I thought the yellow v Stoke was for what the ref saw which wasn’t the gouging on Allan and on review it was that incident that warranted a red alone ( if Oliver had seen it)

Well Oliver made no mistake this time and is sending a Xmas card to TD saying “ gotcha this time mate “

 

I agree. It does seem to be a decision based on a vendetta rather than the incident reviewed without prejudice on its merits.

Michael Oliver wins again. Well done to him.

 

I don't see how that's a frivolous appeal.

 

They showed the foul on Sky just now, and I'm not convinced Deeney has even touched the player. I've slowed this right down and he's cleanly kicked the ball and the player falls over because Capoue was leaning into him. Deeney does not even foul the player, so Watford have every right to appeal this.

How the hell this can be seen as frivolous is outrageous. It should have been overturned completely.

On the same weekend Kane and Alli get nothing for their challenges. I really don't see how the FA can get away with this. Not sure where Watford could go from here, but if there was a course of action they could take, I would certainly go for it.

 

I don’t think there is an agenda against us but to extend the ban seems a touch harsh especially when it was a bit of a soft / debatable red in the first place.

Wonder if we could swap a 4 week ban for Denney with a 12 week ban for holebas

 

I think it is because Deeney was booked for shoving shawcross and the ref missed the Allen head crush.

 

I agree, that's probably the reason the FA gave, but how come Alli and Kane have been let off the hook? No way could a referee, going in front of a review panel, say that he fully saw those tackles and believed they were yellow card offences.

They have to get retrospective bans, or else football has a real problem. You cannot ban one guy for 4 matches, when all he's done is run a bit fast into a tackle. That's the only thing he did which could have caught the referees attention. He didn't even touch the player. You cannot ban Deeney for 4 matches, then let off two star players of a big club for leg breakers. That just cannot be justified at all.

 

This is the issue I have with it - England darlings Kane and Alli escaping punishment for tackles that could have left the players on the end of them with serious injury - and Troy suspended for four matches for a tackle with - at best - minimal contact. If they use the argument that he was out of control so could have injured the Huddersfield player, then the same logic applies to the gruesome twosome at spuds. It's clear to everybody that the Man City players were far luckier than Huddersfield's in escaping being badly hurt.

The other mitigating factor here is that Michael Oliver is now regularly spoken about in the media (by ex-refs as well as pundits) as the number one official in the league. They cannot afford for him to start having decisions overturned, as it's counter productive to his "rise" to the top of the profession and rapidly increasing reputation. It was never going to be overturned.

My own view of the challenge is that it was a yellow card at best, but Troy didn't need to make the challenge so is partly responsible for the whole mess considering we'd had a man sent off in the previous two games.

 

A good summing up. But I have to stand up for Deeney in this instance. He did very little wrong and is clearly a victim here. There is no justice today's FA decision.