pede54 said:
No what he actually said was "'I do not believe in fines when Chelsea have the money they have to pay it. It must be judged differently,'.
The fines are pretty small as it happens so those comments were actually not needed at all. Does a rich guy get fined more than a poor guy for a parking offence, which is also a fixed penalty? No he does not. He pays the same standard fine as the poor guy pays. Thats called justice. Anything else would be discrimination, and discrimination was what Lennard was spouting.
Dont forget that he actually personally attacked Roman Abromovich during that statement, questioning his character and the source of his income. Now that was libelous and I hear that Roman is gonna sue Lennard for libel. Why pick on Roman if Lennard was just taliking "generally"?
He did not mention any other club and he was not generallising at all. he was very specific. He was talking about Chelsea only.
Like it or not, he was airing his personal views on Chelsea as a club, but to air those views in public and to the media was out of order considering the position he holds. He does not even sit on the disciplinary board so he should just keep out of it anyway.
Strange he does not mention Barcelona regarding the behaviour of their manager at the end of the game, or the missile throwing incidents by some Barca fans.
Oh and guess what? Barcelona incredibly, have no charges to answer according to UEFA, so they have been let off the hook. Seems fair?.....Not at all. Also not one person has critisized UEFA on here for allowing Rijkaard to escape any punishment for his behavior. Thats bias for you.
Would UEFA have dropped the charges if Jose would have accosted the ref at the end of the game?.....I do not think so.
Don't get me wrong here. This aint a whinge, its just me trying to put you numbskulls straight. We dont care if UEFA or indeed every fan in the world hates Chelsea. Your opinions about Chelsea mean nothing to us so that instantly negates a need to find any reason to explain anything to anyone, as far as I am concerned.
Just dont ignore the obvious just because Chelsea are involved.
I agree partly. It is out of line for any UEFA official, let alone the president.
He shouldn't attack any club, but you have to realize that this is Mourinho's cooking, too. He made you enemies, and this makes it obvious that the area of his "activity" wasn't limited to clubs only. He brought the wrath of UEFA upon Chelsea with the Frisk incident, and that's something you should remember when talking about Chelsea being victimized. The first ones who were victimized were Frisk, and through him as an official and representative - UEFA. By Mourinho, to be exact. I disagree with what UEFA is doing, because they should stay in line no matter what happened in the past, but still, it's understandable why things like this occur.
I think Mourinho and his impact at Chelsea was discussed to death, so I won't go there. What I wanted to say is, what goes around, comes around. This is not as much of an attack on Chelsea as it is on Mourinho IMO, because remember, he's the "enemy of football".
And to finish this part of my post, I'll say that this isn't happening for no reason. Mourinho brought you success, but this is the other side of the medal.
A good part of the blame goes to him, too. Not just UEFA.
But to continue to what I originally wanted to say, because Chelsea and UEFA aren't really my concern. I think the idea of introducing a new form of punishment is justified. Not just for Chelsea, and not just for rich clubs, but for all clubs. I should say that I disagree with your statement that this is no different than parking tickets. Parking tickets are meaningless. But yellow cards, red cards, fights between ultras, throwing things on the pitch, accusing the referee, pretty much anything that goes against the rules of football should be dealt with more seriously. These things compromise the essence of the game. For example, it's a much more beautiful game without too many fouls, than when you have players fighting all over the field. A fine can mean nothing, but a more severe punishment that would really, really hurt would be something completely different.
For example, if Chelsea were fined 10M for earning 6 yellows, you wouldn't feel it. The same thing goes for Barca, Milan, Man Utd, Madrid, Bayern, and every other big club that is never affected by a fine. Those "punishments" are a laugh.
But if we had severe punishments, it would mean these anti-football elements would be successfully fought off.
I'll take the example of Rijkaard confronting the ref after the 2-2. I was disappointed with that. A fine wouldn't mean anything to us.
But if UEFA were to ban Rijkaard for one game, it would be another story.
I'm going into specifics thinking of possible punishments, but I won't go there now, it's not that important anyway.
The point is, there should be sanctions that are equally hurtful both for those poor clubs who can't afford electricity in their offices, and for those rich ones that have money to burn, like Chelsea. Money shouldn't be a factor here, because I think football is already heavily influenced by money, so this is actually a way for rich clubs to buy their way out of a (real) punishment.
At least the discipline shouldn't be money related, when everything else is.
He was just stating that a more severe punishment needs to be played for richer clubs which makes sense...does it not?
