It doesn't look good does it
Keep Suarez?
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
oh do fuck off
well ... at least us victims can now only look forward to a lucky run in one of the tin pot cups no one really cares about, or a fight with West Brom or Swansea for 8th place ... low expectations = less disappointment!
There'd probably be different people sitting on it, but that would make feck all difference.
lets
lets see how fair the fa next time they have to make a decision about an incident not involving Suarez.
lets see how fair the fa next time they have to make a decision about an incident not involving Suarez.
Yep how the fuck have we ended up like this, mid table mediocrity here we come
Surely players shouldn't get paid while they are suspended?
Disappointing but let's not get hysterical about it!
We knew there was a chance we wouldn't be appealing it. I assume there must have been something in the report that the club thought they would have trouble contesting.
It's done with now anyway. We will have to do without him for the next ten games.
We knew there was a chance we wouldn't be appealing it. I assume there must have been something in the report that the club thought they would have trouble contesting.
It's done with now anyway. We will have to do without him for the next ten games.
Yeah it would be his decision, but there would be input from the club and legal advice too.
I'd be interested to see the legal advice
If hes decided hes offski it wouldn't matter, if he appeals and gets alonger ban it would make him less attractive to any new club
It's not just a case of telling the FA you want ot appeal. You have to submit your entire case up front, with all the grounds, arguments, and evidence. It's a similar thing in Judicial Review, where you have to give your entire case up front, with little or no opportunity to add to it later. However, the High Court give you three months to submit your case. The FA give you three hours. This club couldn't make a fucking cup of coffee in that time, much less prepare and submit an appeal.
Honestly? The legal advice would have been, uhh what the fuck can we do in three hours? Here, this is one of our generic appeal letters we've used in a previous case. We propose to cut and copy Luis Suarez name into it, and charge you several thousand pounds. Thank you come again.
I've just been told that apparently the reason we didn't appeal is we had been advised chances of any success were extremely limited.
The club didn't actually leave in suarez hands like they told the press either. Surprise surprise.
The club didn't actually leave in suarez hands like they told the press either. Surprise surprise.
A 50 page thread would suggest otherwise. For example, a few pages ago you asked a question about finding a relevant rule. If it was a simple thing, you would have been able to find the rule in less time than it took to ask the question and then argue with all the responses.
It's not something a solicitor like McFuckwit can figure out on the spot. Perhaps a barrister could do so. Perhaps Dantes could do so. But not McFuckwit.
Especially if you are being represented by the firm of McFuckwit & Sons like we were the last time.
Just to clarify, by 'we / the club' you are obviously referring to Ian Ayre.
That ship sailed a long time since. Imagine trying to stick that into a recidivist bellend like Suarez's contract.
I found the rule myself in a couple of mins. There's nothing overly complicated in it.
If people had read it and considered it themselves there probably wouldn't be a 50 page thread full of largely irrelevant finger pointing at other incidents.
But people didn't bother and instead defaulted to their usual position - it's all a man united conspiracy against us. But naturally I'm a troll because I didnt buy the conspiracy bullshit
My 'legal advice' yesterday on the ground for appeal based on the rules was: "lol". That's not what any sensible person would appeal on. And if you look through the rest of their rules there is a disclaimer somewhere in there to the effect that "If we didn't follow any part of these rules, it's fine we're allowed to do that so long as we would have made the same decision anyway".
The complexity is to do with the other grounds for appeal, unfairness/bias, or irrationality/unreasonableness.
I'll be there. Let me know when it's happening.
