Dream wrote:To me, being generous is easy if you're wealthy, and I wouldn't be impressed too much by it. Similarly, if you're a club captain, paying attention to the youth sides and injured players is pretty basic job description stuff.
The article states that this was well before we had any real money and Terry wasn't paid handsomely well because this was pre-Roman. On paper, sure the job description states that you have to pay attention but paying for someone's vacation and taking care of an ailing masseuse? That's not part of any job description and it's a noble thing he did.
Dream wrote:Which I think is a great indictment of his character, as was not resigning the England captaincy voluntarily to deflect the scandal from the team.
Why would he do that? He's not pleading guilty and the "scandal" was really a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. If all the heap of articles would come if he were to be judged guilty, I'd get it. Yes I am a Chelsea supporter and I love John Terry but I'd still understand it.
In any case, I don't want to turn this into a CLUB WARS FUCK YEAH thread so I'll not say anything more about it.
It won't be club wars. I don't care, as you don't, who plays for who, but I do care how they represent the game. Racism, homophobia, respecting officials, ostentatious wealth, respecting their own clubs, generally being ambassadors for the sport. I care about all of that a great deal, and I can occasionally get very worked up about it.
I still think you have a rose tinted view of Terry. You say he bought a car for a masseur, but he actually organised a whip round for it. You say he was generous before Abramovich as if captaining Chelsea the early 2000s didn't earn you a huge amount of money. You say he paid for a holiday for an injured youth player, but he actually OK'd a payment form the club fine jar for it. You're exaggerating the good in those, because as a fan, you like him. That's fine, I don't mind, but please don't think differing from that view is a partisan attack from a rival supporter.
About the England captaincy, one of the things you have to accept when you captain a side is that you have to be cleaner than clean. Whenever I see Joey Barton play, I think only of him stubbing a cigar in a teammate's eye. And I think of his club as tolerant of that for allowing him the captaincy. I was greatly disappointed with Patrice Evra for inciting the crowd at Suarez after that match, while wearing the captain's armband. (And as I said, I hate Suarez.) Changing sports again, Martin Johnson will always be the ignorant arse who came to Croke Park and made the President of Ireland leave her red carpet to shake hands with the England team. You don't have to be guilty of a crime to have the way you behave drag your team down instead of leading it by example. None of these men did anything that should strip them of the captaincy, but all of them let down their supporters with their behaviour, because they should have been captains through and through.
Whether or not Terry actually said anything racist is for the courts to decide. But his abuse of Anton Ferdinand, racist or not, caused the scandal, and he should realise that it was his actions that brought all of the undesirable, distracting media attention onto him and his position. This would not have happened had he carried himself with the dignity his club and country should expect of him. The FA were right to strip him, and he was wrong to make them do it.
Rodion Raskolnikov wrote:How can Terry being expected to perform the dual roles of being the only decent centreback in a team that has massively high expectations heaped on it, as well as taking on the role of captaiin when he has a trial waiting for him when he gets home?
That would have been Capello's call to make, not the FA's. The FA stepped in because they didn't want Terry representing English football until he was cleared.