"doesn't seem" Liam. "Doesn't seem".
Keep Suarez?
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
"doesn't seem" Liam. "Doesn't seem".
So they were taken into account when he was charged £45,000 for racially abusing a fellow professional, in the same year Terry got 4 games and Suarez got 8? Course they were.
I think we need to stop feeding the very boring troll now.
And if we're talking precedents for him using the media to abuse people, they obviously didn't account for him getting done a few years previously for calling Chris Moyles a "faggot" live on Radio.
Holes fucking EVERYWHERE.
That's unfair Mark. He did apologise straight away...and Peter Tatchell said that was ok.
I did wonder. It must be that he didn't say "I'm sorry, but..."
As Spion said, stop being deliberately obtuse. Just because there isn't a precedent for someone getting done for the same acts simultaneously, doesn't mean that there aren't parallels with other players receiving multiple punishments. If the ruling applies that past bans/fines are taken into consideration, then other players who've been charged multiple times throughout their career don't appear to have been given the same treatment. The Ferdinand example being one of many, the Rooney ban being lifted despite him being renowned for past disciplinary problems seems to have been overlooked by you (conveniently) too.
Nearly all the uk media are in agreement the ban is egregious Ross, why can't you just accept that the punishment, which EVERYONE says is deserved, is ott and not fair.
That's out of their domain. It would be a Police matter, not the FA's.
Find me someone who's done the same as Suarez and has been treated the same.
The committee have said they have accounted for Suarez's past poor discipline but couldn't use the Dutch ban as it was in another country. So the ban length can only have been based on what he's done in England. Ferdinand's tweet was a matter for the FA because he was fined, so why wasn't his lengthy ban for skipping a drugs test considered? He was also fined for the 'faggot' comment and reprimanded by the FA for driving offences.
And what if that ban was longer, to take it to an extreme, say he got a two year ban. He and we could be 100% sorry about it and regret it, but think the ban does not match the crime. And would rightly challenge it.
Personally I think the ban is a little harsh, but not enough to be making a deal about it, when it's obvious it won't be changed. But your statement above is simply not true.
Yep, I would agree completely with that.
But Im sure that at least you are aware he received the mandatory 3 match suspension for a red card having kicked an opponent, and that the FA saw fit to appeal that mandatory suspension and have it reduced to two.
Just saying like.
It's not 2 years though - it's 10 games. You're applying the same logic to two entirely different scenarios.
No, I'm not. If you feel the punishment is harsh, you should appeal. That's not related to whether you are sorry you committed the crime.
I don't think we should appeal, but that's not the point that Ryan was trying to make.
You can't ban someone for football for an event which occurred outside of football. I doubt that has ever happened. If you're arguing that he should have got bigger fines for always being a dick, then yes, I agree.
Again, it's a case of someone else being dealt with too leniently than the FA being too harsh on Suarez.
What do the media know?
A few days ago every Liverpool fan was saying how disgraceful and clueless the media were, now you're taking them as an authority on something?
I don't think the ban is totally over the top. I thought 8 games was the right amount, it couldn't be less than that since he'd gotten a 7 game ban the first time around
AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE BECAUSE PETER COLD SAID SO!
For what its worth, my opinion.
I think Suarez was a prick, he knows the spotlight is always going to be on him after previous issues, he should know better. The ban should have been 7 or 8 games. A ten game ban is definately harsh. I think the FA have made an example of him with this, rightly or wrongly. I dont agree that there is an agenda against Liverpool though.
From talking to people (non reds), I can totally see where this "Always the victim" tag comes from. Everyone thinks this. Because we fucking cry unfairness about everything and everything. Just take the ban, get your head down and get on with it. And dont fuck up again.
Dont give anyone an excuse to call us victims. Simple.
I think Suarez was a prick, he knows the spotlight is always going to be on him after previous issues, he should know better. The ban should have been 7 or 8 games. A ten game ban is definately harsh. I think the FA have made an example of him with this, rightly or wrongly. I dont agree that there is an agenda against Liverpool though.
From talking to people (non reds), I can totally see where this "Always the victim" tag comes from. Everyone thinks this. Because we fucking cry unfairness about everything and everything. Just take the ban, get your head down and get on with it. And dont fuck up again.
Dont give anyone an excuse to call us victims. Simple.
You know it Wizram
The first ban he received was not taken into account in their decision, it couldn't be as it was given out by a different FA..
Infact he only received a 5 game ban from the Dutch FA.. the other 2 where given to him by the club..
Four Game ban with 6 Suspended should of been the outcome imho..
I'm not really sure what you're saying.
Because England had a major Championship coming up. Which goes to show no consistency (unless you're an England international). Basically they can make it up as they go along.
You big WUM
This 5 game ban is going to falsely mentioned as often as Negrito, isn't it?
You're being naive if you don't think that was in their thinking, even if they say it wasn't
