The fact that they only got banned [iafter[/i the club were fined seems to indicate a reluctance to do anything about it - which is why the club were fined in the first place.

Shame they didn't ban the fans in the week following the incident, then they wouldn't have got fined would they?

Perhaps the evidence needed to ban them has only just become available?

They retrospectively installed cameras?
They retrospectively accrued views of those around the idiots post fine?
They retrospectively decided it was of value to do so, because of the fine.

Either way, a common theme occurs. That the club is only now placing a value on it's significance.

None of those reasons.

So who gets fined if there are homophobic chants heard at the Racecourse Ground wrexham ?

You could negate your continually projected stupidity by actually naming them.

Watching you make a fool of yourself is far more fun.

And yet only you think this on the basis you have absolutely nothing of value to offer in response. On any subject. Nor have you supported your claim that the club are suddenly in receipt of any evidence. Excellent smoke screening.

It is quite clear to me your actual knowledge of the game, players and administrative processes is at best zero, irrespective of how long you may puport to have stood on the flaking terraces.

But again, I await your Working Mens Club-esque comedy gold or contunially failing sarcasm-ometer to kick in.

Still failing to look like you have any intelligence or witt whatsoever i see.

Carry on we are all enjoying laughing at you.

Right on cue.

They didn't get a £40k fine, they got a £20k fine.

You can argue all you like about the £20k fine, and in all honesty it was very harsh in relation to similar treatment of football sides.

But you can't argue about the other £20k. There is no argument to be had. You accepted the suspended fine previously, and you have committed an offence again. You can't go back and say "well actually sir we thought you would never enforce it".

Thought it was 40k with 20k suspended and the previous 20k brought forward, thus again 40k with 20k still suspended.....

He ceryainly gotcha with that one mate

Actually most people are probably still perplexed at your original statement, and waiting for some more information to back it up.

Can you please enlighten us all as to what this "evidence" is that may have only just appeared?

Please can you explain how CCTV footage, knowledge of the chanting that occurred, and knowledge of the rules under the Respect agenda is still unsufficient for the club to have banned the individuals concerned, until after the fine?

In Cas's defense (and I don't do that often) it isn't like CSI on telly where they have face recognition software etc. I'm sure it took time to identify, and get those people to the club, to issue warnings and banning orders.

I think Cas are doing their best to catch up on this and I also think that they are setting a precedent too.
Now that as ARE doing something, it puts pressure on other clubs to do the same to their own idiots (we all have them)......otherwise there should be more fines coming.

Precisely. But that doesn't suit Pyemans narrative, so he won't respond with anything of relevance.

Bet your a twin

Whilst will I wager you struggled with English at school and are unable to make any accurate assumptions.

Great comeback about poor English champ

And the irony light is switched off in Cas...

As i understand it the individuals concerned bragged about there actions on a well known social networking site, this was reported to the club and used as evidence for the banning orders.

cctv evidence can sometimes identify people but sometimes it cant, which is why despite having more cctv in this country than anywhere on earth we dont have the lowest crime rate (or anywhere near).

The club can only ban an individual when they have sufficient evidence otherwise they leave themselves open to being sued. As soon as sufficient evidence is gathered they are banned until then they cannot be banned.

=#0080FFLet's also consider that it's almost definitely much easier to identify someone fighting or throwing something than it is someone chanting something via CCTV.

Exactly a proving that an individual was actually chanting a specific phrase using only an image would never stand up in a court of law.

Yup, because it was a blatantly obvious attempt at irony.

I read somewhere once:

"Subtlety is an art form"

One you haven't mastered. At all.