[Alf]

Originally Posted by rapunza1977

Just wondered.......who would you have captain the team if not Terry?

he's gonna choose theo walcott

[Chantel]

Originally Posted by rapunza1977

Just wondered.......who would you have captain the team if not Terry?

Frank Lampard/ Steven Gerrard

[rapunza1977]

this is my point, one has been done for assult and the other has had affairs as well as sex tapes, who out there has not scandal within the England team........

[Chantel]

Originally Posted by rapunza1977

this is my point, one has been done for assult and the other has had affairs as well as sex tapes, who out there has not scandal within the England team........

Exactly

[minder_fan_87]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Disagree that it's a personal issue! The effectiveness of his job relies on more than just his footballing skills. It also relies on him being able to gain a certain amount of respect from the public, other footballers and management. Lack of respect and bad morale between the players is extremely detrimental to his position. His effectiveness as a captain/manager is dependent upon his ability to gain respect and that has been severely compromised by his behaviour!

what would you know about football your a bird

[arista]

Originally Posted by Enid

Didn't he win dad of the year or something? I'd be absolutely mortified if I was the wife or kid.

He is going to get stripped, but at least now that this is in the spotlight, there's less pressure on the team to win.

His Wife and kids
are in Dubai
away from this Circus.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by wannashag

he's gonna choose theo walcott

Not beyond the realms of possibility, but could be considered too young. He'll be 21 next month and would beat Bobby Moore who,at 22 years old, currently still holds the records as the youngest ever England captain in 1963.
Walcott is a talented player and seems so far untainted by the sleaze and seediness with which the game is increasingly being associated.

[arista]

Great Debate on ITV1 now

[Angus]

Originally Posted by arista

Great Debate on ITV1 now

Missed it - what was the consensus?

[arista]

Originally Posted by angus58

Missed it - what was the consensus?

It was on the AT show.
Ken Livingston , Angry Woman
and a Football Expert.

The Woman was very angry
saying its all Mens Clubs
they get away with it
she wants him stripped of his job title.
She had a Fire going.


You can watch again on the ITV site.
It was at half way through the hour.

http://www.itv.com/Lifestyle/TheAlan...w/default.html

That is yesterdays show
so it should go on the site tomorrow.

[arista]

Now being debated Live on Studio Five
Ch5.

[Novo]

She is suppose to have slept with another chelsea player

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by minder_fan_87

what would you know about football your a bird

And your a sexist halfwit - whose opinion doesn't count for much on any subject!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by setanta

Lies? The judge ruled over it and decided to allow the papers to print it. What more do you need?

I would get your facts right before you gob off so strongly on something you know very little about. I am so glad you are so sure of your facts, which incidentally even the media isnt.

Terry had an injunction already about the story being broken, he applied for an extension of the injunction, the judge ruled that she would not let the injunction be extended because she believed terry wanted to protect his business(good name with his sponsors) as opposed to wanting genuine privacy, (The legal arguement put forward by Terry's legal team was he may lose the trust of his sponsors etc, they didnt mention privacy of either John Terry or Vanessa.) She said that the fact that the case was about commercial sponsorship agreements and reputation meant the injunction had to fail.

The judge did not rule that there was any truth in the story, simply that newspapers etc could name names involved on the story.

You will of course notice that all the media are still currently using the word "alleged", why is that? Because the story is supposed to have been told to reporters by one of Vanessa's friends, there is no real proof it has occured it is alleged by an unnamed source to be true.

If Vanessa and John had any sense they would keep their mouths shut, and neither admit it or deny it, take all the flak and then start hitting home with lawsuits for loss of earnings, defamation etc.

Angus, Setanta nice to see you heading up the lynch party. What's your opinion of witches? If they float they are a witch, if they drown, well thats just tough aint it.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by informer

Both him and vinnie jones should be on a building site or in a white van with a copy of the SUN on the dashboard..they are the dregs of society and everything that is wrong with this country...uneducated yobs

LOL my oh my we are the snob arent we?

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I would get your facts right before you gob off so strongly on something you know very little about. I am so glad you are so sure of your facts, which incidentally even the media isnt.

Terry had an injunction already about the story being broken, he applied for an extension of the injunction, the judge ruled that she would not let the injunction be extended because she believed terry wanted to protect his business(good name with his sponsors) as opposed to wanting genuine privacy, (The legal arguement put forward by Terry's legal team was he may lose the trust of his sponsors etc, they didnt mention privacy of either John Terry or Vanessa.) She said that the fact that the case was about commercial sponsorship agreements and reputation meant the injunction had to fail.

The judge did not rule that there was any truth in the story, simply that newspapers etc could name names involved on the story.

You will of course notice that all the media are still currently using the word "alleged", why is that? Because the story is supposed to have been told to reporters by one of Vanessa's friends, there is no real proof it has occured it is alleged by an unnamed source to be true.

If Vanessa and John had any sense they would keep their mouths shut, and neither admit it or deny it, take all the flak and then start hitting home with lawsuits for loss of earnings, defamation etc.

Angus, Setanta nice to see you heading up the lynch party. What's your opinion of witches? If they float they are a witch, if they drown, well thats just tough aint it.

Well they haven't kept their mouths shut, they haven't denied it, and so we must assume the allegations are true. Therefore JT has brought the game into disrepute, but in this case he is the Captain and he should do the decent thing and resign, but he probably wouldn't recognise decency if it smacked him in the face. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for him to file any law suits for libel because he would lose. As for the wag (sorry slag) he slept with, who cares what she does, she's not captaining the England Team is she? You might not hold the position in high regard but there are plenty who do. The fact that he paid for her to abort his child won't sit well with Capello, a devout catholic.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Well they haven't kept their mouths shut, they haven't denied it, and so we must assume the allegations are true. Therefore JT has brought the game into disrepute, but in this case he is the Captain and he should do the decent thing and resign, but he probably wouldn't recognise decency if it smacked him in the face. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for him to file any law suits for libel because he would lose. As for the wag (sorry slag) he slept with, who cares what she does, she's not captaining the England Team is she? You might not hold the position in high regard but there are plenty who do. The fact that he paid for her to abort his child won't sit well with Capello, a devout catholic.

Again, what proof do you have he paid for her to abort his child?

Oh, it was in a newspaper? Which one? NOTW. The Sun. Yes I notice at previous posts how you deride people for believing things printed in those two. Now suddenly they are 100% correct in all they print?

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Again, what proof do you have he paid for her to abort his child?

Oh, it was in a newspaper? Which one? NOTW. The Sun. Yes I notice at previous posts how you deride people for believing things printed in those two. Now suddenly they are 100% correct in all they print?

Excuse me, but you shouldn't make assumptions - It may well be in those papers but I read the Times and the Independent and always have done. Defend him all you like, that's your perogative, but don't pretend the allegations are all lies. The actions of JT since the stories were printed are consistent with those of a guilty man, so I am entitled to draw my own conclusions.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Excuse me, but you shouldn't make assumptions - It may well be in those papers but I read the Times and the Independent and always have done. Defend him all you like, that's your perogative, but don't pretend the allegations are all lies. The actions of JT since the stories were printed are consistent with those of a guilty man, so I am entitled to draw my own conclusions.

And what pray tell would be the actions of an innocent man in the same circumstances.

I am not saying the allegations are unfounded, part truths or even the full truth, what I am saying until the full facts are known we shouldnt condemn him or her just yet. There may be some truth in the allegations, they may even turn out to be only part of the whole story. But sorry I was taught that a man is innocent till proven guilty.

[Angus]

The essential facts are that he committed adultery with the ex gf of a good friend of his, a team member, also the mother of said team member's child. Having been caught out, he tries to get an injunction to prevent the papers printing the story. When that failed and the papers went ahead and printed the story, for someone who was so ready to invoke the law, I didn't see him running to his lawyers to sue for libel - conclusion drawn is that there is no libel because the newspaper reports are basically accurate.

I don't care if Capello decides to keep him in the squad, but I don't want him to retain the captaincy which still means something to some of us, but clearly not enough to Terry who risked his reputation and by default the value of the captaincy for an extra marital affair, and then compounds his immoral behaviour by getting his bit of stuff to have an abortion.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

The essential facts are that he committed adultery with the ex gf of a good friend of his, a team member, also the mother of said team member's child. Having been caught out, he tries to get an injunction to prevent the papers printing the story. When that failed and the papers went ahead and printed the story, for someone who was so ready to invoke the law, I didn't see him running to his lawyers to sue for libel - conclusion drawn is that there is no libel because the newspaper reports are basically accurate.

I don't care if Capello decides to keep him in the squad, but I don't want him to retain the captaincy which still means something to some of us, but clearly not enough to Terry who risked his reputation and by default the value of the captaincy for an extra marital affair, and then compounds his immoral behaviour by getting his bit of stuff to have an abortion.

And of course he told you that, or have you been on the phone to Vanessa?

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

And of course he told you that, or have you been on the phone to Vanessa?

(sigh) "conclusion drawn is that there is no libel because the newspaper reports are basically accurate". JT's lack of action against the newspapers speaks volumes.
I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this one - I'll be the first to hold my hands up if it's all proven to be a pack of lies, but I'm not holding my breath.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I would get your facts right before you gob off so strongly on something you know very little about. I am so glad you are so sure of your facts, which incidentally even the media isnt.

If Vanessa and John had any sense they would keep their mouths shut, and neither admit it or deny it, take all the flak and then start hitting home with lawsuits for loss of earnings, defamation etc.

Angus, Setanta nice to see you heading up the lynch party. What's your opinion of witches? If they float they are a witch, if they drown, well thats just tough aint it.

Wow, you're a condescending individual, aren't you? They haven't filed lawsuits because I would assume that they know themselves that the reports have been true and, as such, they have no grounds to sue for libel.

Wayne Bridge's reaction speaks volumes for me, as well as Terry's wife heading off with the kids rather than staying put to support her "wronged" husband. If anybody is gobbing off here, it's you.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by setanta

Wow, you're a condescending individual, aren't you? They haven't filed lawsuits because I would assume that they know themselves that the reports have been true and, as such, they have no grounds to sue for libel.

Wayne Bridge's reaction speaks volumes for me, as well as Terry's wife heading off with the kids rather than staying put to support her "wronged" husband. If anybody is gobbing off here, it's you.

Condescending? Moi? not at all, but if you want me to be I can be. We had a saying at work "assumption is the mother of all *****ups".

You stated in one of your earlier posts, that Terry should be kicked off the world cup squad, should all footballers with any transgressions also be removed from the squad? Where would you draw the line? Drunk driving, speeding, littering or failing to clean up after their dogs?

You stated the story is true because the judge lifted the injuction, the judge stated in the summing up, the injunction was lifted because the reason for it as given by Terry's legal team was his business may suffer, as this wasnt a reason of privacy the injunction technically had no standing in law.

I didnt realise that you were psychic as well, knowing why they hadnt filed lawsuits. It is probable that some form of sexual liaison occured between the two, as to the full circumstances behind it, who knows, a drunken fumble or one night stand may sway their hands not to litigate.

I wonder how you would feel if because of something non work related in your private life, people starting baying for your head? Well removal from your current position at work.

Surely its a matter for his employers (the FA) to make the decision as to his future in the England team after deliberation having spoken to the concerned individuals? Its a good job they dont often listen to hysterical cries for blood coming from the anally retarded rumour mongers.

When the full story is out in the open, it may not be as morally repugnant to yourself as it currently seems. Then again it may all be true, who knows? He may also eat babies ever other Sunday. I know of one "unnamed source" who says he does.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Condescending? Moi? not at all, but if you want me to be I can be. We had a saying at work "assumption is the mother of all *****ups".

You stated in one of your earlier posts, that Terry should be kicked off the world cup squad, should all footballers with any transgressions also be removed from the squad? Where would you draw the line? Drunk driving, speeding, littering or failing to clean up after their dogs?

You stated the story is true because the judge lifted the injuction, the judge stated in the summing up, the injunction was lifted because the reason for it as given by Terry's legal team was his business may suffer, as this wasnt a reason of privacy the injunction technically had no standing in law.

I didnt realise that you were psychic as well, knowing why they hadnt filed lawsuits. It is probable that some form of sexual liaison occured between the two, as to the full circumstances behind it, who knows, a drunken fumble or one night stand may sway their hands not to litigate.

I wonder how you would feel if because of something non work related in your private life, people starting baying for your head? Well removal from your current position at work.
Surely its a matter for his employers (the FA) to make the decision as to his future in the England team after deliberation having spoken to the concerned individuals? Its a good job they dont often listen to hysterical cries for blood coming from the anally retarded rumour mongers.

When the full story is out in the open, it may not be as morally repugnant to yourself as it currently seems. Then again it may all be true, who knows? He may also eat babies ever other Sunday. I know of one "unnamed source" who says he does.

You refuse to listen to a word I've said and continue to support Terry here.

This isn't just a personal matter by the way - Terry has compromised his position in the England set up by mixing his private and professional life here, which throws into question his ability to lead a team out as captain when he's been shafting the mother of one of his teammates children. Is it so difficult for you to understand the kind of ramifications that could have at the World Cup?

This is, above all else, a situation where the personal indiscretions of the captain of the English football team have filtered into his professional career and it's foolish to assume that Capello can just forget about it and it'll all be just hunky dory.

In the professional world a company boss can be legally sacked for such actions, once a review has been carried out and the damages have been ascertained, which could be great considering the position Terry holds within the England set up. He's a senior player who should lead by example, just like any boss or manager in any other professional field.

And I'd like to say that I never said he should be sacked: I said that I would consider sacking him over it. Totally different dude.