Mourinho gets touchline ban

6 comments  ·  Add yours  ·  RSS feed

1. 1. Mark · 8:29 AM · 31st March

   Thankfully, UEFA’s bark is once again worse than their bite. Their spokesman should be reprimanded for causing all the ill will between Chelsea and UEFA in the first place.

2. 2. Kenn Emetulu · 8:56 PM · 31st March

   Let’s be clear, Bruce Buck is not convincingly trumpeting UEFA justice here. What he and everyone at the club wants now is simply to put this behind us and move on. He may be a voice of moderation, but he’s not stupid and that is why the ultimate Chelsea response will hinge on the explanation or the reasoning of the panel, which the club are expected to receive tomorrow. But, in the meantime, anyone considering the judgment wouldn’t fail to note the irresponsible and unjust ‘compromise’ by UEFA.

   UEFA banned Mourinho for two matches and fined him £9000; for what reason would they say they’ve done this when he’s not the source of the claim he made against Rijkaard and Anders Frisk? For what reason have they done this when he obviously did not manufacture the story, at least as indirectly admitted by the panel in reprimanding Steve Clarke and Les Miles? And, what sense of justice would recommend a reprimand for the originators of the claim and a ban and fine for their boss who has the obligation to complain and report what they’ve reported to him?

   I think the nature of the punishments shows UEFA’s ambivalence, if not sheer crookedness. It ought to have reprimanded all of them, banned all of them or throw out the charges against all of them. That consistency is necessary to establish truth. Now, we are no nearer the truth than when we began. I think the key part of that report is this:

   “Buck did not comment on the specific charges, but it was felt that the allegation against the club, Mourinho, Clarke and Miles that they had all participated in a deliberate ploy of making false statements, was unfounded.

   He added: “I think the panel took the view that there was a misunderstanding in those statements, that those statements however were made in good faith and that the club, and the people who made those statements, continue to believe that.â€?

   So, there you have it, even after what is obviously a compromise – a compromise to heap the whole thing on Jose, give him what is generally considered a “lenientâ€? punishment considering the ferocity of the UEFA charge and the actions and comments of their big guns, Chelsea is still insisting, whether through the mouth of Kenyon or Brock that we are still standing by our position over the Rijkaard and Frisk affair!

   So, it is left for us to read the truth between the lines. UEFA obviously have nothing against Mourinho, because to have anything against Mourinho, they needed to have something against those who reported the matter to him. The reprimand was only a basis to punish Mourinho, but not a logical and strong enough one. It is obvious that they are after the man, Mourinho, and not after the truth – which is why the punishment is crudely tailored in such a way as to effectively get only him. But, as some of us predicted from the beginning, they had to play it by the ear. Of course, they would dearly have loved to impose a longer ban and a bigger fine (even throw out the club from the Champions League, if they thought they could get away with it) – all of which they possibly thought necessary for them to show who’s in charge (yes, that’s what this is all about, not truth or justice); but they had to find a compromise, because they are aware that they have to deliver a judgment that Chelsea wouldn’t feel compelled to appeal, even if they’re unhappy about it. Clarke being available for the games for which Mourinho is banned would pacify Mourinho, the Club and the fans, but the ban, even if just for two matches will send the message that UEFA is in charge. Of course, there’s no use to prove who’s in charge, but they probably felt that it was important to reign in Mourinho, even where he’s obviously not in the wrong. It was enough that he’s got this very strong personality that intimidates UEFA officials and his high profile of being presently their most successful coach or manager makes it worse for them to bear!

   This explains why they couldn’t explain their decision immediately. Even on UEFA site where the verdict was reported, the section titled “Decision explainedâ€? did no such thing as explain the decision. The whole idea is to first gauge Chelsea’s reaction. Buck has given them a ladder to climb down by stating that we are not likely to appeal, which is really all UEFA want to hear at this time. But, of course, he’s made it clear that the final decision about that will be determined by the reasoning they provide tomorrow for their decision. While, he’s thawed the ground for them, it’s obvious to discerning observers that UEFA will find it hard to reasonably explain the decision. They cannot claim to be punishing Mourinho for claiming to have said he saw Rijkaard enter the dressing room, because he never said that and the club never said that in their report or representation to UEFA. He’s since discredited and disowned the interpretation the English press gave the Record Dez article. The club’s report to UEFA and Mourinho’s several interviews in the English press made clear it was Clarke and Miles that saw what happened and reported. In fact, charging Clarke and Miles along with Mourinho only confirms that they made the report to him. More importantly, this is neither here nor there since UEFA’s own report recorded that indeed the meetings did take place between Rijkaard and Frisk, even though they dispute where this took place or what was said both times they met. Furthermore, the inconsistencies in Rijkaard, Ten Cate, Frisk, Gaillard and Ingvarsson accounts of what happened are far too glaring to sweep convincingly under the carpet.

   So, let’s be clear here – this is a compromise between UEFA and Chelsea, but it is not one based on fairness and justice. Buck was being diplomatic because he, like the rest of us, wants all this to be put behind us; but even he, at his diplomatic best, isn’t backing down from the club’s position on the Rijkaard-Frisk affair. Yeah, in the name of diplomacy, he’s prepared to say it’s a “misunderstandingâ€?, but “those statements however were made in good faithâ€? and “the club and the people who made those statements, continue to believe thatâ€?. In other words, the “misunderstandingâ€? didn’t come from our own end.

   The decision stinks! If we really want to embarrass UEFA we should appeal the reprimands (yes, you heard me right) and leave the ban. That way, they will be forced to justify why they had to reprimand employees of the club and subordinates of Mourinho who simply did their duty; they would be forced to present their report which confirms the meetings and justify why they think Clarke and Miles shouldn’t have told their boss what they saw. While a reprimand is nothing really, this action will show that Chelsea are not prepared to let their name or the name of their club officials be sullied by an anti-Mourinho UEFA and if the reprimands are overturned on appeal (yes, we should appeal it to Court of Sports Arbitration if necessary), then Mourinho would have been indirectly vindicated.

   But, I suppose the popular feeling is that we should simply accept this and move on. Part of me supports that, because I want to get back to the football as soon as possible; but another part seethes that UEFA is using its power as a virtual monopoly to oppress us and Mourinho. Okay, they didn’t fully get their way because of the opposition they’ve faced and because of the questions being raised over their own conduct in the whole affair by discerning persons around the world, including fans and well-wishers of Chelsea club; but all the same, it’s still an injustice.

   CHEERS!

3. 3. chelseaclinton · 9:49 PM · 31st March

   “Can we get along here? Can we all get along?â€?

4. 4. Tom Tarde · 5:21 PM · 1st April

   Well, the Portuguese press is reporting that Mourinho will leave Chelsea in June. Cannot say it surprises me : Chelsea behaved like sheep in this whole thing and you cant build a great clubhouse with that mentality.

5. 5. Kenn Emetulu · 5:56 PM · 1st April

   I’ve also seen the report and I’m hoping it’s some Portuguese April Fool’s joke from SIC TV.

6. 6. obinna · 8:32 AM · 27th April

   my name is obinna kingsley Ezeocha
   am a nigeria.i love cheaseaFC and promised that chealsea is going to win their match against leverpool today and if by paradventurely chelsea win the match give me a tangible package and write to me with my md kingsobinna@yahoo.com