Racist Kudela given 10 game ban, Kamara 3 games (all discussion here)

Surely when the Slavia Chairman seemed delighted to accept the punishment, we should have been tipped off to the fact maybe, just maybe, UEFA weren't using all the powers available to them on this.
 
So presumably Rough has seen proof that GK is guilty.

Or maybe not?

Wouldn't mind these clowns banging on if they were consistent. Where does he go to when Brown is going around elbowing all and sundry in the face in broad daylight.
 
How can we be happy that he was given the minimum for what he did, the hurt he caused, the humiliation of one of our players upon the turf of Ibrox? Shocking!
When the club do well they should be praised. However when they do not they should be held to account. The way this has been handled is utterly perplexing and comes across as though we are bungling idiots.

Whoever is behind this has done Glen Kamara and the fight against racism a great disservice. We are happy with the minimum punishment being handed out for racially abusing our players, really???
 
I wonder if, initially, Rangers took Kamara’s Lawyers word that it was the maximum ban - or if Kamara’s Lawyer took Rangers word that it was the maximum ban?

Both have since now either clarified it’s minimum or left any reference to minimum/maximum out.

I’m also still confused by Kamara’s Lawyer’s assertion that Glen’s ban was reduced from 5 games to 3 on Appeal - yet Rangers say they are going to Appeal both Kamara and Roofe’s bans?
This stood out for me straight away.
 
Irrelevant old shuttleston arsehole.

Wonder if he thinks the 10 game ban for the racist is sufficient enough or did that send out the wrong message too? Fucking old duffer.
 
I wonder if, initially, Rangers took Kamara’s Lawyers word that it was the maximum ban - or if Kamara’s Lawyer took Rangers word that it was the maximum ban?

Both have since now either clarified it’s minimum or left any reference to minimum/maximum out.

I’m also still confused by Kamara’s Lawyer’s assertion that Glen’s ban was reduced from 5 games to 3 on Appeal - yet Rangers say they are going to Appeal both Kamara and Roofe’s bans?
Rangers should have been representing our player with our own lawyers.

Aamer Anwar’s statements have contained glaring inaccuracies throughout the whole episode.

He couldn’t even spell Kudela’s name correctly on the initial statement. Now as a lawyer you’d think he’d have read through the UEFA rules and punishments on this before firing a statement out.

Expected much better from a man who’s highly regarded in legal circles in Scotland.

Now as you say in your final paragraph, we have further confusion. Rangers will have a list of QC’s that we already take to SFA disciplinary matters. There was no need for Anwar to get involved. Only causes further confusion.
 
I want to know what hard evidence they have to impose this ban on Kamara. Quite angry that Kamara, the victim of racial abuse, is being punished here!
 
If it’s true that Kamara did commit what was a premeditated assault in the tunnel, I don’t really see us having any realistic chance of winning an appeal, no matter how morally justified his actions may have been.

Roofe’s ban is excessive though, I reckon this has been to appease Slavia.
 
I wonder if, initially, Rangers took Kamara’s Lawyers word that it was the maximum ban - or if Kamara’s Lawyer took Rangers word that it was the maximum ban?

Both have since now either clarified it’s minimum or left any reference to minimum/maximum out.
Given Kamara's Lawyer originally claimed that not only was 10 matches the maximum but that was the length of ban he sought, I think it's reasonable to assume he's made a howling arse of things and Rangers have taken their lead from him. I hope I'm misreading the situation but if not it's really amateur stuff and explains the length of ban.
 
Is he aware of what caused Kamara to get a ban? I don’t think he is.

Kamara didn’t just assault someone in the tunnel for no reason.
 
Aye? What happened like?
gn23.png
 
Then why are we appealing it?
Because three games is harsh for the victim of quite disgusting abuse by a fellow professional. A red card on the pitch for violent conduct is a one game ban.

This is punishing the victim. Agree he should never have done it and he cannot take the law into his own hands but mitigation should have been taken into consideration. This punishment is perverse.
 
This is what happens when you give an idiot a voice in the media.

Don't know who's funding that PLZ show but it should be decommissioned for it's abuse to football punditry. Dare I say it more sense is spoken on the JustUsTims podcast.
 
Given Kamara's Lawyer originally claimed that not only was 10 matches the maximum but that was the length of ban he sought, I think it's reasonable to assume he's made a howling arse of things and Rangers have taken their lead from him. I hope I'm misreading the situation but if not it's really amateur stuff and explains the length of ban.
What a bunch of ignorant barrack room lawyers on this thread. Many of whom were telling us Slavia were liars and Glen didn’t hit the guy.
Now we’re in a rage about the club’s statement when10 games is what we always expected.
People moaning and greetin’ and never happy
 
Given Kamara's Lawyer originally claimed that not only was 10 matches the maximum but that was the length of ban he sought, I think it's reasonable to assume he's made a howling arse of things and Rangers have taken their lead from him. I hope I'm misreading the situation but if not it's really amateur stuff and explains the length of ban.
That was my line of thought mate. Compounded by the Appeal confusion.
 
On the scale of Rough's justice, if its 6 games for Glen then he should have been stoned to death for his performance against Peru in 1978.

And that's not even including anything extra for his perm.
 
Given Kamara's Lawyer originally claimed that not only was 10 matches the maximum but that was the length of ban he sought, I think it's reasonable to assume he's made a howling arse of things and Rangers have taken their lead from him. I hope I'm misreading the situation but if not it's really amateur stuff and explains the length of ban.

I doubt UEFA are taking their lead from a player's lawyer. They have their own guidelines.

I think people should be focusing their ire on the correct target.
 
Really wish Kamara's lawyer and Rangers had been singing from the same sheet on this. Rangers welcome the suspension, his lawyer says it's nothing but a token gesture.
 
The sheer scale of the "Rangers and their fans must be hammered for everything" agenda is really quite frightening.

Some people have poisoned minds and it causes them to lose perspective.

UEFA probably have to apply the rules but anyone who actively wants Kamara to get a ban or, even worse, an increased ban obviously doesn't understand the severity of racism and should be ashamed of themselves.

The hatred is inevitable given the non stop propaganda aimed at Rangers.

You have to wonder about those that say, 'ignore it, switch the radio off, dont read the papers' and worse still anyone complaining about it is "paranoid".

This is a war for hearts and minds and Rangers need to get 'tooled up' to deal with it.
 
What a bunch of ignorant barrack room lawyers on this thread. Many of whom were telling us Slavia were liars and Glen didn’t hit the guy.
Now we’re in a rage about the club’s statement when10 games is what we always expected.
People moaning and greetin’ and never happy

Maybe we always expected a 10 game ban because we somehow didn't check/wildly misunderstood UEFA's own rules.

Pretty reasonable to call that out as extremely poor practice.
 
Hopefully a backlash from world football should see Kamaras ban suspended
 

Latest posts

Back
Top