Jose Mourinho's ugly first season in Turkey ends in anger as two ex-Premier League stars REFUSE to play in Fenerbahce's last game of the season and leave the club after goodbyes in the training ground kitchen
Two former Premier League stars refused to play for Jose Mourinho in Fenerbahce's final game of the season on Saturday.
Fenerbahce faced Konyaspor at home in their last league game having secured second place in the table after failing to mount a significant challenge to Galatasaray in the title race.
But two of their senior players missed the game, and it has now emerged that they made themselves unavailable to play.
Edin Dzeko and Dusan Tadic were due to be given commemorative plaques after announcing that they will leave the club this summer, but they decided they did not want a ceremony at the stadium due to fears over fan unrest.
Fenerbahce supporters showed their anger towards their players following a match earlier this month, and there were concerns the same could happen again on Saturday.
Instead, Dzeko and Tadic opted to say their goodbyes in the training ground kitchen.
The ceremony was attended by their team-mates, club president Ali Koc and vice-president Acun Ilicali.
Sporting director Mario Branco and four coaches from manager Mourinho's team also bid farewell ahead of leaving the club this summer.
Galatasaray held their own farewell ceremony at their stadium for departing stars Fernando Muslera and Dries Mertens on Saturday, leading to Fenerbahce fans reacting angrily to not getting the chance to say their own goodbyes to Dzeko and Tadic.
Tadic subsequently released a statement to explain why he and Dzeko had not turned up to the stadium for the final game. The statement read: 'It was a decision we made together with Dzeko not to play in the last match. We didn't want to damage Fenerbahce's image.
'The fans have always supported us. The way he said goodbye is not a problem for me. I would have preferred it to be in the stadium, but the ambiance is not very good at the moment. That's why it's better to be that way.'
Fenerbahce beat Konyaspor 2-1 as they finished the season on 84 points, 11 adrift of Galatasaray.
They end the campaign trophyless, while also waving goodbye to Dzeko and Tadic.
Dzeko, who previously played 189 matches for Manchester City, finishes with 46 goals in 99 games for Fenerbahce.
Ex-Southampton forward Tadic scored 29 goals in 109 appearances for Fenerbahce.
Dzeko and Tadic failing to make a farewell appearance ends what has been a turbulent first season in Turkey for Mourinho.
The former Chelsea and Manchester United boss was accused of making racist comments earlier this season after he claimed Galatasaray players were 'jumping like monkeys' when appealing for decisions to go in their favour.
Mourinho denied the allegations, and Fenerbahce launched a lawsuit against Galatasaray as they leapt to their manager's defence.
Mourinho was then hit with a three-match ban for pinching the nose of Galatasaray manager Okan Buruk following a feisty Istanbul derby in April.
Earlier this week, Mourinho lashed out at Turkish reporters after his team were beaten 4-2 by relegation contenders Hatayspor.
The Portuguese boss said: 'In the last seven years, I have played in two European finals. So in the past seven years I have played more European finals than the history of Turkish football together.'
The 62-year-old may be proud of his past achievements, but it has been a difficult first season for him in a new country, and now he must prepare for life without Dzeko and Tadic following their abrupt departures.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Russia publishes ceasefire demands
Vladimir Putin has laid out his demands for both a ceasefire and ending the war in Ukraine. Russian negotiators tabled a long memorandum in a second round of direct negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul on Monday. The document's first section contained Moscow's 'basic parameters of a final settlement'. It stipulates that Ukraine must withdraw its troops from four eastern regions that Russia only partially occupies, and that international recognition of Russian sovereignty over them and Crimea must be granted. Kyiv must also commit to curbs on the size of its military, as well as to permanent neutrality and to having no foreign troops deployed on its territory. Diplomatic and economic ties between the two nations must be reinstated, which would include the resumption of Russian natural gas transit through Ukraine. Other demands included a ban on 'glorification or promotion of Nazism and neo-Nazism' and for the Russian language to be given official status. The second section listed the Kremlin's conditions for agreeing to a 30-day ceasefire, and appeared to give Kyiv two choices. These were that Ukraine should withdraw its troops from four mainland regions claimed by Russia, or agree to a package of demands that included cancelling martial law and holding elections. Among the other requirements was a total halt on all foreign military aid and for Ukraine to begin demobilising. The US and Turkey-brokered negotiations at the Ciragan Palace on the banks of the Bosphorus appeared to bring the sides no closer to a truce. Ukraine and Russia, however, agreed to an exchange of 6,000 bodies of fallen soldiers, as well as an 'all-for-all' swap of seriously wounded and injured prisoners of war and captured servicemen aged under 25. The Russians offered a series of smaller, localised truces across the front lines to allow for the collection of corpses. This, however, appeared to be rejected by Ukraine, as a senior military figure told The Telegraph that Russia had previously used similar pauses to prepare for fresh assaults. Both sides could not bridge the divides on a 30-day ceasefire being pushed by Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, and Donald Trump. Despite the lack of progress, the US president on Monday said he was open to holding talks with his Ukrainian counterpart and Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader. Ukrainian officials had been waiting weeks for the Russian peace proposals to be published, but these documents were only made available as talks started in Istanbul. Read side-by-side, the two memorandums reveal a mountainous wedge between their opposing positions. Russia's demands appeared almost identical to the set of proposals put forward in the early months of the full-scale invasion, which were ultimately rejected by Mr Zelensky as a capitulation. The Russian terms of surrender for Ukraine were published by Russian state media hours after the talks were wrapped up in Turkey. Kyiv's proposed route to a ceasefire, and ultimately a fuller peace deal, including security guarantees to prevent another Russian invasion, no international recognition of Moscow's occupation of Ukrainian territories and no restriction on Kyiv's armed forces. A Ukrainian official familiar with the talks described them as 'unproductive', and branded Moscow demands as unacceptable. The two delegations entered a large conference at the Ciragan Palace without exchanging handshakes or pleasantries. The Russians, led by Putin aide Vladimir Medinsky, appeared stony faced as they positioned themselves around the U-shaped table, after Ukraine mounted an audacious drone attack on Moscow's fleet of strategic bomber warplanes. At one moment in the hour-long talks, Mr Medinsky accused the Ukrainians of 'putting on a show' after they handed over a list of hundreds of Ukrainian children they wanted returned from Russia. 'Do not put on a show for European tender-hearted aunties who do not have children themselves,' he said, according to a quote shared with The Telegraph by a member of the negotiating team. A Ukrainian source familiar with the talks told The Telegraph that Russia made a counter-proposal to return just 10 children. 'Ukraine brought forward a list with more than 300 children requesting their return,' the official said. 'Should Russia have agreed to this request and returned those children, that would provide Ukraine with more confidence that Russia is interested in the humanitarian component of peace negotiations.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Man fined after burning Qur'an outside Turkish consulate in London
A man has been fined after he set fire to a Qur'an outside the Turkish consulate in London, in an act that was deemed 'motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims' by a judge. Hamit Coskun, 50, who was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence on Monday, called his prosecution 'an assault on free speech'. In February, Coskun travelled from his home in the Midlands to Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, where he set fire to a copy of the Islamic holy book and shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Qur'an is burning'. Coskun, who was born in Turkey and is half Kurdish and half Armenian, argued in court that he had protested peacefully and burning the Qur'an amounted to freedom of expression. The district judge, John McGarva, found that Coskun's actions were 'highly provocative' and said he was 'motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims'. Coskun had argued his criticism was of Islam in general rather than its followers but Judge McGarva said he could not accept this. Coskun's legal fees are being paid by the National Secular Society (NSS) and the Free Speech Union (FSU), both of which criticised the ruling and said they intend to appeal 'and keep on appealing it until it's overturned'. The advocacy group Muslim Engagement and Development (Mend) quoted the judge's sentencing remarks on X, commenting on the ruling with the hashtag #hatespeechisnotfreespeech. The ruling has also prompted comment from figures in Westminster. The prime minister's official spokesperson, who was asked about the case, declined to comment but said there are no blasphemy laws in England nor are there any plans to introduce any. Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative party, said on X that the case 'should go to appeal'. 'Freedom of belief, and freedom not to believe, are inalienable rights in Britain,' she said. 'I'll defend those rights to my dying day.' McGarva, who issued a fine of £240, rejected the idea that the prosecution was 'an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law'. In his ruling, he said burning a religious book and making criticism of Islam or the Qur'an are 'not necessarily disorderly', but added: 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language.' The judge said Coskun, who is an atheist, has a 'deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers' based on his experiences in Turkey and the experiences of his family, and that it was 'not possible to separate his views about the religion from his views about its followers'. The judge said: 'A criminal conviction is a proportionate response to the defendant's conduct. 'I am sure that the defendant acted in a disorderly way by burning the Qur'an very obviously in front of the Turkish consulate where there were people who were likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and accompanying his provocative act with bad language. 'I am sure that he was motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims. I therefore find the defendant guilty.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Man convicted over Koran-burning in London says ruling is assault on free speech
A man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London has branded his prosecution 'an assault on free speech' as campaigners argued the ruling 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes'. Hamit Coskun was found guilty on Monday of a religiously aggravated public order offence, having shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' while holding the flaming religious text aloft earlier this year. The 50-year-old had argued his criticism was of Islam in general rather than its followers, but District Judge John McGarva said he could not accept this, finding that Coskun's actions were 'highly provocative' and that he was 'motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims'. Coskun was convicted at Westminster Magistrates' Court of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam', contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section five of the Public Order Act 1986. Turkey-born Coskun, who is half- Kurdish and half-Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands to carry out the act in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on February 13 and in court argued he had protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression. His legal fees are being paid by the National Secular Society (NSS) and the Free Speech Union (FSU), both of which criticised the ruling and said they intend to appeal 'and keep on appealing it until it's overturned'. In a statement issued through the FSU, Coskun said: 'This decision is an assault on free speech and will deter others from exercising their democratic rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. 'As an activist, I will continue to campaign against the threat of Islam. 'Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.' Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, posting on social media platform X, said the decision was 'wrong' and 'revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed'. Judge McGarva, who issued a fine of £240, rejected the idea that the prosecution was 'an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law'. In his ruling, he said burning a religious book and making criticism of Islam or the Koran are 'not necessarily disorderly', but added: 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language.' The judge said Coskun, who is an atheist, has a 'deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers', based on his experiences in Turkey and the experiences of his family and that it was 'not possible to separate his views about the religion from his views about its followers'. The judge said: 'A criminal conviction is a proportionate response to the defendant's conduct. 'I am sure that the defendant acted in a disorderly way by burning the Koran very obviously in front of the Turkish consulate where there were people who were likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and accompanying his provocative act with bad language. 'I am sure that he was motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims. I therefore find the defendant guilty.' NSS chief executive Stephen Evans described the verdict as 'a significant blow to freedom of expression' and one which 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes'. Mr Evans said the conviction 'suggests a troubling repurposing of public order laws as a proxy for blasphemy laws'. He added: 'This jeopardises freedom of expression by establishing a 'heckler's veto' that incentivises violent responses to suppress views deemed offensive. 'Such an erosion of free speech is detrimental to community relations. Social cohesion is best achieved not by restricting rights but by fostering their free exercise.' An FSU spokesperson said they will take the case 'all the way to the European Court of Human Rights' if necessary. They added: 'Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn't require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers. On the contrary, it requires people of faith to tolerate those who criticise and protest against their religion, just as their values and beliefs are tolerated.' Humanists UK said that while the 'defendant's views, revealed in the course of the trial, are bigoted, and all decent people would be repelled by them', he had not expressed 'anything publicly that was prejudicial against Muslims' meaning in their view the ruling 'does raise concerns'. The organisation said the 'bar to successful prosecutions in cases like this is drawn too low' and warned public order legislation must not be 'used to disproportionately target speech – even offensive speech – on religious matters, thereby chilling legitimate criticism and expression'. In footage captured on a mobile phone by a passerby that was shown to the court, a man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran. Coskun can be heard making a reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a f****** idiot'. The court heard that the man approached Coskun allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, chase him and spit at and kick him. The man said: 'Burning the Koran? It's my religion, you don't burn the Koran.' Coskun had posted on social media that he was protesting against the 'Islamist government' of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who the defendant allegedly said 'has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime', prosecutors said. The Prime Minister's official spokesman declined to comment on the case but said there are no blasphemy laws in England nor are there any plans to introduce any.
