rss twitter facebook mobile

FA Charge Rio Ferdinand

The FA have today announced that Rio Ferdinand has been charged for comments he made on Twitter in reference to Ashley Cole, who gave evidence in defence of John Terry in his trial following allegations of racism towards Rio’s brother, Anton.

“The allegation is that the player acted in a way which was improper and/or brought the game into disrepute by making comments which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race.”

The term “choc ice” is referring to someone who betrays their race, being “black” on the outside and “white” on the inside.

Rio’s parents were in court, tutting and shaking their heads when Cole claimed to be a friend of the Ferdinand family.

It’s hard to see how Rio laughing at the comment of someone else is “bringing the game in to disrepute” but that doesn’t change the fact it was ridiculously stupid for our defender to say anything.

With Evans and Smalling injured, and Vidic battling to come back from an injury that has seen him out of action since December, we may now have to go to Goodison Park without Rio too. It’s hard for justify players keeping their Twitter accounts when their stupidity on their could cost their team points.

About Scott

Scott is the editor of Red Matters - 50 Years of Supporting Manchester United and an author of Play Like Fergie's Boys and Not Nineteen Forever. He writes for ESPN, The Metro and Bleacher Report. Follow @R_o_M on Twitter.

View all posts by Scott »



  1. MarkoWire says:

    Its clear how Rio feels about the situation and in a way shows that Terry is Guilty as hell. But if the clear video evidence and lip readers couldn’t convince the court then no-one can.

    But Rio should have kept his comments off twitter. He should have know better. All United players have to do is fart and the FA punish them. Sad thing is it will be most likey rio will get a bigger ban and fine than Terry.

  2. Zibbie says:

    Dr. Dread fucking perfect!!!!!!!!
    Man crush on your articulated knowledge….. :mrgeen: mr. green with envy. Envy and I a rare bed fellows.

  3. Zibbie says:


  4. Giggs12Gerrrad0 says:

    DreadedRed – Im good mate how about yourself pal?

    Answers below:

    1. DreadedRed replies: – In this context, SAF included all those against the Glazers as ‘real fans’ Gigges12 – He isnt mate he is suggesting only real fans will not question due to success of the team.

    2. DreadedRed replies: – ex fans that have abandoned the Club are by definition no longer fans, and therefore are not ‘real fans’ Giggs12 I have many friends some of my best pals who have know since day zero are massive reds but will never step foot in OT under Glazer regime. Trust me when i say they are top reds. One lad will not give Glazers a penny and has been to every European away game since 2005 rather than going home games.

    3. DreadedRed replies: – determining a specific group of fans depth of commitment and affection for United by meeting them personally carries no weight, and would be a waste of our manager’s time. Giggs12 this is reverse psychology we are asking how can w be questioned as real fans due to our opinions yet he doesn not know us?

4. DreadedRed replies: – those traditional fans that have chosen to abandon United would not improve the atmosphere by attending home games, as they are no longer United supporters.Giggs12 As per point 2 mate they are massive fans, i would love for you to have a beer with myself in the ground im like a choir master, i do not shut up for 90 mins.

    5. DreadedRed replies: – The opposition from a portion of the United fan base is directed against the Glazers, not against Sir Alex. Also, SAF specifically said “So there has always been wee pockets of supporters who have their views – and there’s nothing wrong with that.” Therefore, it is clear that SAF is not uncomfortable with the right for fans to express their views.
    Giggs12 – Fergie has the right to feel how likes he has earnt that right imho, Fergie doesnt wanty a civil war he thinks we should just concentrate with matters on the pitch.

6. What, in your view, would constitute poor owners?
    DreadedRed replies: – Millions of factors would potentially indicate poor owners. Asking Sir Alex to list them is pointless. Giggs12 we are sking him because he thinks they are great and a large % of fanbase certainly think otherwise. We wnat to know what the barometer is for a poor owner? We say a poor owner is someone who takes a valuable asset debt free and riddles it with debt, pays that debt off with Manchester United money whilst never using any of their own money. The biggest issue i have is we save all their US businesses yet they dont have the decency to talk to fans.

    7. You have repeatedly claimed to have been backed financially whenever you have requested transfer funds. Is this your only consideration when determining what represents great ownership?
    DreadedRed replies: – No. Giggs12 ecactly mate yet thats all fergie tells us.

    8. DreadedRed replies: – The Ferdinand and Rooney transfers have proven to be financially wise. We considered them to be good value, bought them, and their value has since been proven. This is not a license to now spend more on a player than we believe him to be worth. Market value is determined by the demand (our valuation) and the supply (the sellers valuation). Just because your neighbour is happy to pay 500 quid for a pint of milk, doesn’t make milk worth 1000 pounds per litre. Giggs12 i agree mate but it was ten years since we bought Rio for the money we did only to be beaten once with the signing of Berba? We should be smashing that for players we want regradless of market conditions, other top teams do.

    9. DreadedRed replies: -We do not evaluate worth by examining the destination of funds paid to secure goods, services or employees. Giggs12 Bebe?

    10. Questioning by fans is not reprehensible

  5. mattbw7 says:

    Do any of you think I’m happy to call Ferguson to account, do you not think I’d rather he’d kept shctum about the Glazers, not commented about “real fans” and not profit from the IPO, he made those choices, the Glazers are just doing what they do, what state will the club be in at the end of all this, well it doesn’t look good and the man that’s supposed to have the best interests of the club at heart cannot escape responsibility.

    It makes me sick that the club is being emptied by rapacious businessmen, aided and abetted by men who should know better, if the Glazers ever fuck off and Fergie admits his hands were tied in the transfer market, he can fuck off, he nor the people that buy his current line can have it both ways.

    Sir Matt Busby Stand has a better ring to it.

  6. Zibbie says:


    mat FUCK OFF IN THE NICEST WAY!!!!!!!!! :cool:

  7. DreadedRed says:

    Giggs12Gerrrad0 – I’m very well thanks! At least, I’m as well as can be expected under the trying circumstances that the Glazers greet me with this morning. They should not take any money out until the debts they incurred by buying the Club are no longer owed by United.

    With regard to our ‘answers’ listed above:

    1 and 3- Sir Alex is not suggesting only real fans will not question due to success of the team.
    In fact, Sir Alex called all the fans (that are against the Glazers or for the Glazers) “real fans”, and described the real fans who believe that the Glazers ownership has not affected the team as “realistic” SAF has not questioned your ‘real fan’ status, he has actually confirmed it.

    2 and 4- The fans you mention are “real fans”, but as they will not support United at Old Trafford, it stands to reason that they wouldn’t vocally support them at Old Trafford either. Therefore, their absence is not to the detriment of the noise levels. The other fans that have completely abandoned United are no longer ‘real fans’ and would be useless at cheering the team, home or away. What would be more accurate of Red Issue to say is that the support was better before the Glazers alienated many top Reds.

    6 and 7 – Perhaps Red Issue should list their factors that constitute bad owners, and then ask if SAF agrees. The question as it stands is vague, and the answers predominantly irrelevant.

    8 – Again, the question is off-topic or poorly worded. A better question would be: Why have we bought players when there is ‘no value in the market’?

    9 – Another poor question from Red Issue. The agents cut is not relevant, the total cost to United is what we should be concerned with. Take ‘the next Ronaldo” for example: If he costs us 5 million, and we sell him for 50 million, why should we care how the 5 million was shared among the parties concerned? Even if the agent got all of it, we got the player we wanted at a cost we felt was fair.

    I’m late for work now, so I have rushed this reply. I will log on later (from work) and consider your responses. I will post a comment on the latest thread redirecting you back here after I have replied. Cheers, and keep your chin up. We shall overcome!

  8. parryheid says:

    Ha ROM’s resident lunatic resurfaces,Who ever that Psychiatrist is that keeps releasing you into the community deserves to lose his right to practice.Fucking Bam.

  9. Marq says:


    So how do you define a good owner?
    Name me a good owner out there


You must be logged in to post a comment.