What's your take on the report Rex?
Keep Suarez?
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
What's your take on the report Rex?
They even mention he was trending worldwide on Twitter..
The journos are thankfully questioning the FA and their procedures.
By giving him 10 games, not mentioning Defoe and some inept random bs although the report it shows how flawed it is.
We would NEVER have won an appeal.
The journos are thankfully questioning the FA and their procedures.
By giving him 10 games, not mentioning Defoe and some inept random bs although the report it shows how flawed it is.
We would NEVER have won an appeal.
Talbot? He hates LFC.
You can say what you like about the panel, but thank fuck the ignored most of what the FA suggested or he would have got 20 matches.
serious?
I liked how they dismissed Suarez citing previous biting cases as irrelevant, and saying it is dangerous to compare two different incidents. Then the sole reason they pulled 10 games out of their monkey ass is because they compared Suarez bite, to Ashley Journeyman getting 6 games for tripping up a referee, concluded that Suarez did something much worse, so added in an extra 4 games. That's it. That's their reason in two lines. The rest of those 20 pages is solely arguments about whether or not the case was "truly exceptional". Completely besides the point.
So it seems they spent a good hour trying to decide something that McFuckwit should happily have conceded to them in 15 seconds. Then at the end of the hour, in the last couple of minutes, they pull out 10 games from their monkey ass. Wonderful.
So it seems they spent a good hour trying to decide something that McFuckwit should happily have conceded to them in 15 seconds. Then at the end of the hour, in the last couple of minutes, they pull out 10 games from their monkey ass. Wonderful.
To be fair he's tried to be respectful in public but it's pretty well known in private he has the kind of bitterness about the club that comes from leaving Anfield too many times humiliated.
Looking at those reasons, I would have won the appeal in 15 minutes.
Haven't read it yet David.
Then you'll be the 0,02 cases that get overturned then.
You could have all the reasons in the world, but their basicly saying, we do what we want.
Let me sum it up. Ashley Journeyman Tripped a ref and got 6 games. Suarez bit an opponent and got 10 games. These are the factors they considered to make the latter worse than the former....
I will cross out all the ones that apply equally to the trip. Which would have caused injury to the ref, is completely shocking, would have shocked the ref, etc. etc. all the same arguments they gave in the previous 20 pages of bullshit.
So, the only reasons that they give, which make it any (let alone significantly) worse than Ashley Journeyman is that Suarez is more famous, more people saw it, and therefore he should be judged by a different standard. It is now too late for them to modify these reasons or add to them. This is what their decision was based on. It's indefensible. Even in three hours you'd have more than enough time to submit an appeal.
I will cross out all the ones that apply equally to the trip. Which would have caused injury to the ref, is completely shocking, would have shocked the ref, etc. etc. all the same arguments they gave in the previous 20 pages of bullshit.
So, the only reasons that they give, which make it any (let alone significantly) worse than Ashley Journeyman is that Suarez is more famous, more people saw it, and therefore he should be judged by a different standard. It is now too late for them to modify these reasons or add to them. This is what their decision was based on. It's indefensible. Even in three hours you'd have more than enough time to submit an appeal.
That is fine. But the reality is they think they are doing what they want..... when they are actually doing what I predicted they will do, and for which I have laid before them the most disproportionate, unfair and evil trap imaginable just waiting for them to step into it. Then I would destroy them. Which is the overall end game of an appeal. This 60 page thread isn't because people care how many games a millionaire plays or doesn't play. It's because people hate the FA and want them to suffer a little bit.
From my reading of it Im amazed we didnt lodge an appeal, however Im waiting to hear from council.
Bosman showed that, actually, a lot can be changed if someone has the balls to drag football out of its smug cocoon and back into the real world. The FA keeps acting like some third-rate Soviet committee because it keeps being allowed to do so. It's mind-boggling, given how much money is in the game these days, that no one dares to treat these rulings with the contempt they deserve. Lewis Carroll couldn't have invented the FA.
I don't know what to think, I tend to agree with Macca that this was as good a time as any to fuck them over. Then again, their rulings are so ambiguous, it may have been difficult to substantiate an avenue to go down. I also think the fact the decision is ultimately down to the player is a crucial factor, we've made a point of stressing that in our statement, that it's his decision.
Sad times for football. Everyone knows the severity is wrong, yet it seems no one's willing to challenge it, or they feel we're on a hiding to nothing in doing so. I'm not making excuses, it's just the way I see it, as I said earlier, they're a law unto themselves and the fact three senior positions on the FA are now occupied by Mancs, should tell us all we need to know. There's no paranoia there, that's a stark and brutal and frankly, horrendous truth. How that promotes impartiality and fairness across the league is baffling.
There's a feeling of bias going on, control that's out of hands and ultimately some level of corruption simmering below the surface. Football is at a pretty unhealthy state at the moment in this country.
Sad times for football. Everyone knows the severity is wrong, yet it seems no one's willing to challenge it, or they feel we're on a hiding to nothing in doing so. I'm not making excuses, it's just the way I see it, as I said earlier, they're a law unto themselves and the fact three senior positions on the FA are now occupied by Mancs, should tell us all we need to know. There's no paranoia there, that's a stark and brutal and frankly, horrendous truth. How that promotes impartiality and fairness across the league is baffling.
There's a feeling of bias going on, control that's out of hands and ultimately some level of corruption simmering below the surface. Football is at a pretty unhealthy state at the moment in this country.
Looks like Pepe's just another paranoid scouse victim.
Liverpool goalkeeper Pepe Reina has slammed Luis Suarez's 10-game ban as 'absurd' and claimed that his team-mate is the victim of a witch-hunt.
An FA disciplinary committee ruled on Wednesday that the striker's bite on Branislav Ivanovic warranted a punishment far more severe than the automatic three-match suspension for violent conduct.
But Reina believes Suarez, who has until noon on Friday to appeal against the additional seven-match ban, has been singled out because of his nationality and past misdemeanours.
"I consider myself a friend of Luis," Reina told Spanish radio station Cadena Cope.
"People in England are treating him different because he is Uruguayan; because he has had a previous episode like this.
"He knows perfectly well that what he did was wrong but a 10-game ban seems to me absurd, out of proportion and unfair. It seems that the people making the decisions have got it in for Luis a little bit.
"I know Luis and I know that he is the complete opposite (off the pitch): he is a magnificent person and great team-mate. But because of the way he plays, he is aggressive and very competitive, he plays like a street player and sometimes the way he is gets him into trouble.
"There is a lot of hypocrisy. Some players are treated differently to others. In the racism cases: the one with proof got a four-game ban and Luis got eight matches."
Asked if he felt there was xenophobia in England, he added: "No, but there is hypocrisy - a different measure is used."
Suarez was banned for seven games in 2010 when he bit an opponent while playing for Ajax.
He received an eight-game suspension last season after he was found guilty of abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra. Chelsea's John Terry was later banned for four games after an FA independent panel found him guilty of racially abusing QPR's Anton Ferdinand.
Liverpool goalkeeper Pepe Reina has slammed Luis Suarez's 10-game ban as 'absurd' and claimed that his team-mate is the victim of a witch-hunt.
An FA disciplinary committee ruled on Wednesday that the striker's bite on Branislav Ivanovic warranted a punishment far more severe than the automatic three-match suspension for violent conduct.
But Reina believes Suarez, who has until noon on Friday to appeal against the additional seven-match ban, has been singled out because of his nationality and past misdemeanours.
"I consider myself a friend of Luis," Reina told Spanish radio station Cadena Cope.
"People in England are treating him different because he is Uruguayan; because he has had a previous episode like this.
"He knows perfectly well that what he did was wrong but a 10-game ban seems to me absurd, out of proportion and unfair. It seems that the people making the decisions have got it in for Luis a little bit.
"I know Luis and I know that he is the complete opposite (off the pitch): he is a magnificent person and great team-mate. But because of the way he plays, he is aggressive and very competitive, he plays like a street player and sometimes the way he is gets him into trouble.
"There is a lot of hypocrisy. Some players are treated differently to others. In the racism cases: the one with proof got a four-game ban and Luis got eight matches."
Asked if he felt there was xenophobia in England, he added: "No, but there is hypocrisy - a different measure is used."
Suarez was banned for seven games in 2010 when he bit an opponent while playing for Ajax.
He received an eight-game suspension last season after he was found guilty of abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra. Chelsea's John Terry was later banned for four games after an FA independent panel found him guilty of racially abusing QPR's Anton Ferdinand.
Really? I just read his comments where he said he didn't want to give the wrong impression that he thought he was in the right by appealing.
He bit his arm, that's just biting him a little bit. Tsk.
Hardly a bite, more of a taste.
Surely the fact there were no marks what so ever should of been taking into consideration.
Its like going to punch someone then deciding to flick them.
Yeah. He bit a guy.
hardly
Yeah. BUT HE BIT A GUY.
Yeah but it wasn't a real bite. Would you rather a 'Tyson bite' or a 'Suarez bite'??
Id rather he hadnt done it at all.
I do love the crazy bastard though.
And shit if hed done a Tyson bite he would have been beheaded and his severed head on a spike at the end of Wembley way.
