Yep. They can do it in exceptional circumstances. They didn't deem Defoe's biting to be an exceptional circumstance. Biting is now so exceptional it warrants over a 300% increase on a red card, more if it's just a yellow. Like Defoe.
Keep Suarez?
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I've calmed down a bit about it now but nonetheless In a wider sense this whole thing illlustrates just how much the FAs retrospective decision procedures need to be reviewed.
Whether it is right that Luis gets 10 games or not is the issue, the issue is that other players didn't for the same offence. I don't feel the club can gain anything from appealing, but we must lodge a formal complaint as to the fairness of the system in general, it is clearly broken and does not serve as justice.
Whether it is right that Luis gets 10 games or not is the issue, the issue is that other players didn't for the same offence. I don't feel the club can gain anything from appealing, but we must lodge a formal complaint as to the fairness of the system in general, it is clearly broken and does not serve as justice.
We can gain from appealing. This decision has already been roundly attacked and the FA is under pressure to reconsider - there's probably never been a better time to challenge it. Their usual threat - respond and we'll just increase the ban - is wrecked now, as they're already under attack for the excessive nature of the ban as it stands.
Perhaps we could get a big firm in to represent us? I wonder what Injurylawyers4U are doing at the moment? Ayre's probably got a quote already.
Besides Ross bleating on about Suarez's unique record - which ever player will have btw - the bit that doesn't sit right is this. Defoe bit Mascherano but the ref gave him a yellow. So the FA were powerless to do anything about unless it was in an exceptional circumstance. Obviously, by doing nothing the FA thus does not view biting as an exceptional circumstance. Which then begs the question - if the FA does not view biting as an exceptional circumstance then why has a 10 game applied to Suarez. What is so exceptional above and beyond violent conduct that it warrant more than 3 times the punishment. Apart from him being Suarez that is.
Indeed. I doubt they would increase it under these circumstances.
I heard someone on the radio last night (Jason Cundy maybe, I dunno) saying it was a weak FA trying to appear strong by handing down a punishment that they thought no one would object to. I do think there is some truth in that.
Suarez behaved appallingly, was widely criticised and it gave the FA a chance to make an example of someone and prove they can be tough. The media response since then suggests that this may have backfired slightly.
I'm not so sure it's wise is all, i take your point the FA would look ridiculous to increase the ban but at the same time there is clearly something amiss with the treatment being dished out. Who knows they might just take our appeal as an invitation to appear even more "strong".
Ten games will end eventually.
That the FA are acting vindictively and without fairness is the sad thing, I'd rather we didn't give them another opportunity to show how inept they are. In short i don't fucking trust them to see sense.
Ah but now people are saying the FA got the Defoe thing wrong and the Suarez thing right. So they shouldn't base the punishment on the Defoe example as that would be a case of two wrongs. What a crock of convenient fucking shite. As I say, I'm fully convinced the FA does not have a clue what they're doing. Fuck the FA.
Indeed. The hypocrisy of it all is pretty sickening. I have read some commentary which is against the ruling but most of the press ive read is generally supportive of the ban. I'm not so sure we can gain from an appeal nor am I certain that they wouldn't increase the tariff.
It is a very sad day for the game IMO.
If this isn't challenged then nothing ever will be. I'm very confident it won't stand up if we appeal against it. The FA want this over asap because if they feck it up any more they know loads of people with different reasons to hate them will start demanding a root and branch inquiry into how it behaves. These critics won't necessarily care about Suarez but they'll recognise the opportunity this presents them with to really shake up the FA.
The F.A's decisions are not amenable to judicial review. So challenging them will come down to English contract law. I don't think there's any precedent for the contractual arrangement between a club and those gimp cunts. But if they have some clause in their regulations or the terms of reference which includes some anti-discrimination, or equal opportunities or something like that, I would use that to bankrupt them. Then turn their headquarters into a brothel for granny lovers.
However, our McFuckwit solicitor will do well to get away with no more than a 13-14 game ban after his retarded appeal fails.
Fuck this cunt. Suarez should take a leaf out of the book of the greatest player in the entire universe, and instruct Carter-Ruck.
I bet Defoe cringed as much as us when Suarez *stopped Ivanovich from falling over by securing and steadying him with his teeth*. After 7 years of getting away with he gets plastered all over the media again.
Good grief, no. They're worse than McCormick, and a f'ckload more expensive with it.
Agree with this. While I understand macca's point about an appeal, I think the very fact that they miscalculated and haven't actually got the unanimous general support they expected over this could actually cause the FA to dig their heels in even deeper in response to an appeal, and end up making things even worse. The area I'd be asking for some high-powered legal advice on is the FA's whole ridiculous disciplinary regime and the question whether we had any real choice over whether or not to sign up for it in the first place.
I don't see why both things can't be done, or at least explored. The FA can't be let off the hook now, and if they don't moderate their stance they must know that they'll be provoking a much more wide-ranging investigation into how they conduct themselves. And I think that could also happen anyway.
Let's hope so (incidentally I would hope that might include a Hillsborough strand) and I certainly agree we should get proper legal advice on all the possibilities.
Their culpability for Hillsborough would fall under tort law. However...
Most of them were too young to have a spouse or dependent. In any case if that figure is multiplied by 96 its not even close to the amount they've pinched off Suarez. This is one reason to instruct Carter-Ruck because of the award of costs, that firm is quite adept at racking up a figure in the millions. Otherwise it's better just to let the FA get slapped in the face by Dalglish and the public inquiry.
Keep it on topic Guys.. Ta..
Although the FA being cunts is arguably on topic...
Although the FA being cunts is arguably on topic...
I hope we appeal.
It might then get reduced by 2 games or something. Might.
But any reduction, no matter how small or insignificant will definitely mean we've won, it'll prove beyond any doubt that the FA have a vendetta against us, that our fans were entirely correct, and of course it'll completely vindicate Suarez.
Fingers crossed!
It might then get reduced by 2 games or something. Might.
But any reduction, no matter how small or insignificant will definitely mean we've won, it'll prove beyond any doubt that the FA have a vendetta against us, that our fans were entirely correct, and of course it'll completely vindicate Suarez.
Fingers crossed!
I knew you'd see sense eventually.
Some directions for the appeal....
So let's look at this. The gimps take three days to think up some written reasons, which they give to you at 6pm, then you have to submit your appeal and evidence by 12 noon the next day. If it was me the only thing they'd be getting at 12 noon is a Jen Chang style envelope with my shit inside of it.
Anyway.
(1). Fair means bias. To prove bias you need to obtain confidential documents by a court order and the duty of disclosure. Which can't be done in 3 hours.
(2) Lol the rules they make up as they go along. Moving on.
(3) I can do this. McFuckwit hasn't a hope. But in any case, nobody on earth can present a case on this ground with 3 hours notice.
(4) Remember, the appeal panel will not rehear any evidence already considered by the gimps. They surely considered the argument/reason for 10 games from the FA. So you can't submit that for appeal. You need new evidence? I may not be a lawyer but seriously fuck off. Even if in the 3 hours we submit evidence such as the 2006 precedents, the appeal gimps will just say the commission gimps were justified in their decision based on the evidence they had.
It's impossible to succeed in this appeal. The only way to beat the FA is to know what they are going to do. Present all your evidence and arguments for appeal at the original hearing, make them look like fucking gimps. Laid out A-Z. And have it all recorded with audio evidence. Then come appeal time you have ready all your submissions for ground (3). Legal Eagles like McFuckwit and Rosco lack the tactical nous to work this way however, and end up getting bent over and fucked by rules.
So let's look at this. The gimps take three days to think up some written reasons, which they give to you at 6pm, then you have to submit your appeal and evidence by 12 noon the next day. If it was me the only thing they'd be getting at 12 noon is a Jen Chang style envelope with my shit inside of it.
Anyway.
(1). Fair means bias. To prove bias you need to obtain confidential documents by a court order and the duty of disclosure. Which can't be done in 3 hours.
(2) Lol the rules they make up as they go along. Moving on.
(3) I can do this. McFuckwit hasn't a hope. But in any case, nobody on earth can present a case on this ground with 3 hours notice.
(4) Remember, the appeal panel will not rehear any evidence already considered by the gimps. They surely considered the argument/reason for 10 games from the FA. So you can't submit that for appeal. You need new evidence? I may not be a lawyer but seriously fuck off. Even if in the 3 hours we submit evidence such as the 2006 precedents, the appeal gimps will just say the commission gimps were justified in their decision based on the evidence they had.
It's impossible to succeed in this appeal. The only way to beat the FA is to know what they are going to do. Present all your evidence and arguments for appeal at the original hearing, make them look like fucking gimps. Laid out A-Z. And have it all recorded with audio evidence. Then come appeal time you have ready all your submissions for ground (3). Legal Eagles like McFuckwit and Rosco lack the tactical nous to work this way however, and end up getting bent over and fucked by rules.
Which is exactly how I see it, I don't see we can lose
He's done well so far on this issue. Good for him.
He really needs to know everyone is in the trenches with him again, particularly the manager and the club, he knows he fucked up this time, the club have told him he has, the fans have, but it is no excuse for the FA to take the piss.
