• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Keep Suarez?

Forums Unread posts

Sell?

  • YES

    Votes: 19 12.3%

  • NO

    Votes: 135 87.7%
  • Total voters
    154
Accepted the charge but rejected the claim that 3 games isn't a long enough ban. Seems like the right response from Suarez to me.
 
TheThingIs said:
Perhaps we've all been looking at this all wrong.

It wouldn't be so wrong to suggest that this biting incident could be a blessing in disguise. We've got one of the very best footballers on the planet, putting in mesmeric performances and running himself into the ground every week for a club that's been struggling in mid-table for most of the year, looking up at the likes of West Brom and Everton. Naturally he's a prime target to move to the presently more elite clubs - Barca, City, United, Bayern, Madrid, etc. Rumours were strong with Bayern earlier on in the season. Could this be enough to warn them off? Not just for this summer, but the next also.

In an age where the club has little say over whether a player stays or goes, this biting incident might just secure the future of Luis Suarez to Liverpool Football club.

And that's no bad thing.
Click to expand...

I like your fuzzy logic. I've had those thoughts myself. I don't really believe them though. He'll stay another season unless we get CL
 
I think the fact that the daily fail wants rid of him should be reason enough to keep him.
 
I can't be bothered to go through all 33 pages...but is this real?

Evra+bite.jpg
 
Richard Conway (@richard_conway)
23.04.13 20:38
FA v Suarez tmrw. 3 man independent panel will "meet" via videolink. Written submissions from both sides. Decision then on 3 games or more.

Will we appeal if its more than 3 games then? Sounds like it.
 
Hansern said:
Richard Conway (@richard_conway)
23.04.13 20:38
FA v Suarez tmrw. 3 man independent panel will "meet" via videolink. Written submissions from both sides. Decision then on 3 games or more.

Will we appeal if its more than 3 games then? Sounds like it.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. I don't think there's any further avenue of appeal once the matter's gone to the, er, "independent" panel.
 
I love Suarez, and would support him if he actually ate that Serbian rat..... And I understand the frustration about the referee seeing that kind of handball as penalty as The Portugese arsehole (their former CD) has done at least 2 worse than that against us earlier without the ref being even remotely interested in giving them
 
Rosco said:
It's not keeping I have a problem with.

It's the absolutely relentlessly stupid defences of him that people who should know better keep trying to raise.

It's laughable, they waffle on about justice, consistency etc and then just like JJ did two minutes ago ignore it when Suarez gets away with something.
Click to expand...
To be fair, there's not too many defending him on this one.
 
TheThingIs said:
Perhaps we've all been looking at this all wrong.

It wouldn't be so wrong to suggest that this biting incident could be a blessing in disguise. We've got one of the very best footballers on the planet, putting in mesmeric performances and running himself into the ground every week for a club that's been struggling in mid-table for most of the year, looking up at the likes of West Brom and Everton. Naturally he's a prime target to move to the presently more elite clubs - Barca, City, United, Bayern, Madrid, etc. Rumours were strong with Bayern earlier on in the season. Could this be enough to warn them off? Not just for this summer, but the next also.

In an age where the club has little say over whether a player stays or goes, this biting incident might just secure the future of Luis Suarez to Liverpool Football club.

And that's no bad thing.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point. I've often said the same thing about Tevez. Saying while hes a top striker, I wouldn't want him near Anfield because he's a loose canon.
 
I'd appeal if it's over 4, and the end of the season. Also, if it is, I would immediately lodge a legal complaint against the F.A. for racial prejudice.
 
Rosco said:
Poor Suarez, everyone's out to get him. Lets ignore the fact he brings it on himself everytime.

I wish people would take their own advice sometimes, when you talk about hypocrisy and lack of consistency of the FA on the one hand all the while telling everyone what a special club we are because we do things the right way and represent what's right with the game. But then you bend over backwards to defend some diving, cheating racist fuckwit who goes around biting people.

We either are the club that does things the right way or we support this fucking moron 100%. You can't have it both way.
Click to expand...

I don't really care if this is a wind-up, I agree it with it 100% nonetheless.
 
Portly said:
Diouf wasn't a bad player. His greatest game was the League Cup Final against Man United when he made Gary Neville's life a nighmare. He also had a good aggressive attitude to playing football which I liked. I can never really understand he hostility which most people have towards him.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Silvestre and not Neville??
 
I've seen here and elsewhere people argue that because he's out of control and misses games through suspension, he's a liability and that's a huge factor to support selling him. That got me curious about what this "liability" translates to, in terms of appearances, relative to some of our top scorers in the recent past.

Suarez: 2 full seasons, 30 or more league appearance: 2 = 100%
Owen: 7 full seasons, 30 or more league appearances: 3 (rest are 27 - 29) = 43%
Torres: 4 full seasons, 30 or more league appearances: 1 (rest are 22 - 24) = 25%

Sure, the nature of their absences are different, but missing games is missing games.

While Suarez has played only 2 full seasons for us, he has never failed to turn up for at least 30 league games every season since going to Europe, with the exception of that season when he transferred to Liverpool (the same one he got the 7-game ban for; he played 13 games each for Ajax and us that season). His fitness level right now is stupendous and just a shade below Kuyt's (6 full seasons, never played below 32 league games).

If Suarez misses 8 league games a season due to madness and is fit for the other 30, that's still a lot better than what Torres ever managed. Torres' appearance numbers are even worse when you take into consideration the quality of the strikers we had backing him up. So, where were the noises from the liability camp back then?
 
Surprisingly balanced article:

Today the FA sits in judgement on Luis Suarez, or at least one of its appointed but independent disciplinary panels does.

It is a case that highlights, more than any other, why the FA's procedure is flawed and needs an urgent review and wholesale change.

The guardians of our beautiful game take great pride in their principle of not re-refereeing games. In other words, if the man in charge sees the incident in question then his decision, correct or not, by and large stands.

However, when he doesn't see it, they allow themselves the opportunity of some retrospective justice - in other words they do re-referee the game and this is exactly what is happening in the Liverpool striker's case.

So, if the referee had spotted Suarez sink his teeth into Branislav Ivanovic's arm and given him a yellow card then that would have been that, as happened when Jermaine Defoe had a nibble at Javier Mascherano.

If the man with the whistle had brandished a red card, that too would have been the end of it. Suarez would have been banned for three games for violent conduct and we'd have all moved on.

But no. The FA has already stated that it intends to punish him more than the usual three games because that sanction is clearly insufficient.

Well why is it? He didn't hurt anyone.

OK, biting is pretty repugnant, even an indication of a very troubled temperament but Ivanovic is not in plaster, or walking around on crutches; in fact he was having a laugh about the whole thing on the training ground yesterday.

So why then? Is it because we find biting an offending image? Perhaps it is bad for business, for the sponsors or maybe its because impressionable youngsters were watching and Suarez is setting a bad example? Well, even if all of that is true, this is not a court of morals.

And if it was, whose morals would we be bound by?

So maybe three games is not enough because Suarez "has previous"?

Well he does have form, yes, but not for violent conduct; not in England at least. For racial abuse, yes and for diving but not for violence.

So in a court of law, sentencing would not be influenced by Suarez's past misdemeanours because none is relevant to the charge in question.

And surely an institution which upholds the principles of British fairness cannot be suggesting that Suarez has got to get more than three games because we dont like the way he behaves?

There are hard-to-warm-to personalities at every club, notably in the England squad too.

If good behaviour and likeability were prerequisites of selection, most managers would struggle to get eleven out every weekend.

And finally we come to the punishment. We know already it is going to be a minimum of four games but is likely to be nearer 10. On what basis?

John Terry got four games for racially abusing a black opponent. Are we really expected to accept that a red mist moment, offensive and unpalatable as Suarez's was, is worse than spouting racist bile?

No, I didnt think so.

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-04-24/judgement-day-for-luis-suarez-in-a-flawed-procedure/
Click to expand...
 
Ryan said:
Wasn't it Silvestre and not Neville??
Click to expand...

I went to the Millennium Stadium for that match and my strongest memory of it is Diouf giving Gary Neville a hard time.

However I have looked it up and this Wiki page shows Silvestre playing LB for United and Diouf on the right for us, so that would seem to back you up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Football_League_Cup_Final

Before the match I was hit on the head by a flying beer bottle so maybe my brain was scrambled. 😉
 
Ha, that could have been it for sure.

Yeah I remember that game fairly well, as you say - easily Diouf's best game for us.
 
mark1975 said:
course we won't appeal, coz we'll be advised that appealing will result in a lengthier ban, like last time.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we would be so advised if there were a further stage to which we could appeal. The point I was making though was that the "independent" (ha ha) commission is itself the appeal body. Last time the appeal was against the whole charge, whereas this time it's against the sentence. Either way, there is no further appeal stage available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

moron
    • Like
Finding the Next VVD.....
2
Replies
52
Views
758
Squiggles
Squiggles
Squiggles
    • Like
  • Locked
05/10/2024 - Weeks Other Games Thread
2 3
Replies
60
Views
1K
rubans
rubans
Beamrider
    • Like
    • Happy
  • Locked
2023 accounts
Replies
3
Views
554
darkstarexodus
darkstarexodus
Farkmaster
    • Like
  • Locked
Narrowminded.
Replies
23
Views
1K
Hansern
Hansern
My_Blood_Bleeds_Red
    • Like
  • Locked
Moneyball v2.0
Replies
1
Views
352
darkstarexodus
darkstarexodus
Back
Top Bottom