Coco ban.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

Suggest you all read the decision it is well thought through and may put a different light on the persecution theories - FA wanted 10 match ban and panel imposed 8 so Kiko’s previous record must have been taken into account.

[Tichi1]

Suggest you all read the decision it is well thought through and may put a different light on the persecution theories - FA wanted 10 match ban and panel imposed 8 so Kiko’s previous record must have been taken into account.

Tend to agree mate - read the report this morning and believe it is probably correct - nothong tpo do with persecuting LUFC IMO. Don't think he's a racist, As suggested elsewhere - seems to have been a heat of the moment thing - something i'm sure lots of us have done and later regretted - and think the punishment fits the crime - should be left at that.

As to where he plays next season should depend soley on how the youngster adaps this next seven games.

[Jezleeds]

Apparently it's noted in the FA report that Eddie Nketiah was a witness for the FA?

If true i guess that might explain a few things.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

Nketiah probably appeared as a witness for the FA as not connected to Leeds anymore - he was on the what’s app group along with other Leeds players and commented on the corner. Nothing he said condemned Kiko

[george_kaplan]

Yes, I read the report also, no I don’t think he is a racist. I still believe though the penalty imposed was harsh in the circumstances and if it was all cut and dried as its worded, why did it take them assholes at fa/fl so long to impose the ban?
It’s over and done with now, we once again move on. As already been stated I hope this next few weeks our ‘new’ keeper doesn’t pick up any injury.

[Rev72]

He was done on 'probability' by the FA but in a (UK) court of law there would be no case to answer..so the FA are now above the law.

Not saying he did/didn't say something he shouldn't have but both the Charlton players changed their statements and according to the FA they were more honest/convincing then the Leeds players.If you read the statement the FA basically slate our players.

[alfinyalcabo]

He was done on 'probability' by the FA but in a (UK) court of law there would be no case to answer..so the FA are now above the law.

Not saying he did/didn't say something he shouldn't have but both the Charlton players changed their statements and according to the FA they were more honest/convincing then the Leeds players.If you read the statement the FA basically slate our players.

One thing I will say is that these days you have to be so careful what you say to (chooses words carefully) people of a different colour to yourself..it really has become a pussie/snowflake generation and the slightest thing can drop you in the sh1t.

You won't be allowed to f@rt in public soon the way things are going.

I won't mince my words Rev ,you are a Bellend ..

[Rev72]

I won't mince my words Rev ,you are a Bellend ..

I won't mince mine either Alf..your a cont


As said before I have no time for racists..or inbred feckers

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

Rev - only criminal cases are decided beyond reasonable doubt civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities so nothing strange in that

[spaldy]

Rev - only criminal cases are decided beyond reasonable doubt civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities so nothing strange in that

Yes, generally hearings, procedures or trials involve some sort of due process, integrity, fairness and ethics.

Bannana Republics and kangaroo courts have none of the above.