So do all who live to see such things, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to chant in the time that is given to us.
Keep Suarez?
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
So do all who live to see such things, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to chant in the time that is given to us.
That's the menu I'm using for a wedding next month, did I ever mention I'm a wedding planner?
The FA also concluded that his apology was insincere as he challenged the increased ban. And that was a reason given to support the ban..... Because he uhhh questioned it.
Its almost funny....We ban you bitch. Uhmm, why? For asking "why", haha got you.
Its also the definition of irrational. Had he dared to appeal, it is almost certain the ban would increase cos oh look now we know he's not sorry... Wonderful logic
Its almost funny....We ban you bitch. Uhmm, why? For asking "why", haha got you.
Its also the definition of irrational. Had he dared to appeal, it is almost certain the ban would increase cos oh look now we know he's not sorry... Wonderful logic
You know the FA are taking the piss when even Ginsoak is sympathising with you.
Sir Alex Ferguson has suggested Liverpool will be glad they did not ban Luis Suárez themselves before the Football Association's 10-game suspension for the striker, with the Scot claiming the governing body cannot be trusted.
Ferguson pointed to how Eric Cantona was prohibited from playing for nine months by the FA for kicking a Crystal Palace fan in 1995 having allegedly first promised Manchester United that a club ban would suffice.
Speaking before Suárez decided on Friday to accept the 10-match tariff for biting Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic, Ferguson said: "I think back to Cantona and I have to say that a nine-month ban doesn't equate to a 10-match, does it? I can understand how Liverpool are aggrieved at it, I must say that. I keep going back to [Cantona] – the FA done us that day, we would never allow that to happen now. I would never have listened to them in the first place saying that if 'you make your punishment we'll be happy'.
"We did that, gave him a four-month ban and then they turned round two or three days [later, and said]: 'Right, we're charging him.' We would never allow that to happen again at this club."
Asked if this was why Liverpool did not choose to levy their own ban on Suárez, Ferguson said: "I'll bet they're glad they didn't. It didn't work with us, that's for sure. David Davies [then the FA's spokesman] promised us that, if we did it, there'd be no more action taken – bloody hell. If you think about it – a nine-month ban, its quite incredible, I still can't get round that."
It is understood that Davies has always maintained that he was in no position to give assurances regarding any FA action over Cantona and that he never communicated directly with Ferguson during the episode.
Sir Alex Ferguson has suggested Liverpool will be glad they did not ban Luis Suárez themselves before the Football Association's 10-game suspension for the striker, with the Scot claiming the governing body cannot be trusted.
Ferguson pointed to how Eric Cantona was prohibited from playing for nine months by the FA for kicking a Crystal Palace fan in 1995 having allegedly first promised Manchester United that a club ban would suffice.
Speaking before Suárez decided on Friday to accept the 10-match tariff for biting Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic, Ferguson said: "I think back to Cantona and I have to say that a nine-month ban doesn't equate to a 10-match, does it? I can understand how Liverpool are aggrieved at it, I must say that. I keep going back to [Cantona] – the FA done us that day, we would never allow that to happen now. I would never have listened to them in the first place saying that if 'you make your punishment we'll be happy'.
"We did that, gave him a four-month ban and then they turned round two or three days [later, and said]: 'Right, we're charging him.' We would never allow that to happen again at this club."
Asked if this was why Liverpool did not choose to levy their own ban on Suárez, Ferguson said: "I'll bet they're glad they didn't. It didn't work with us, that's for sure. David Davies [then the FA's spokesman] promised us that, if we did it, there'd be no more action taken – bloody hell. If you think about it – a nine-month ban, its quite incredible, I still can't get round that."
It is understood that Davies has always maintained that he was in no position to give assurances regarding any FA action over Cantona and that he never communicated directly with Ferguson during the episode.
All other fans & the press will hate him more now, and that will just work in our favour. I love having a twat on our team, and I love this twat more than any other.
Hope we have Man Utd for his first game back & he scores a dodgy penalty, then stands on the advertising hordings puffing his chest out with his collar standing up, like a big massive twat.
Hope we have Man Utd for his first game back & he scores a dodgy penalty, then stands on the advertising hordings puffing his chest out with his collar standing up, like a big massive twat.
The panel dismissed the argument that biting should be punished less harshly than a horror tackle because “challenging for the ball is part of the game”, whereas biting was “alien to football and must remain so”.
Volleying a ball boy. That's not alien to football then.
Volleying a ball boy. That's not alien to football then.
And cos he had the audacity to score the equaliser he got more games too.
So if he'd have missed the shot he'd have got less games?
It's fucking bizarre at best. Irrational excuses to cover their ineptitude. Pathetic.
I'd have had more respect for them if they'd have just said they'd given him a high number due to his reputation & the amount of press coverage it's had.
He is certainly true to his word, and he has turned the situation round 360 degrees. Are Utd & the FA quits yet?
Utd now run the fa, easiest solution.
They also took into account it was a high profile game. So if it had happened in the lower leagues it would have been dealt with more leniently. But it has no place in football? Is that any football or just Premiership football? They're there to protect grass roots football yadda yadda yadda. It's riddled with contradictions.
I do apologise if I'm coming across as a moany victim.
I love him, but he's fucking daft. I expected nothing less than this from the FA and hopefully in future, he'll expect it too. And not bite people.
Yep
It's not unusual to be gnawed by anyone
It's not unusual to tuck in to anyone
but when I see you handing out bans to anyone
It's not unusual to see me bite,
oh I wanna' bite
If you should ever want to be gnawed by anyone,
It's not unusual it happens every day
no matter what you say
you find it happens all the time
It's not unusual to tuck in to anyone
but when I see you handing out bans to anyone
It's not unusual to see me bite,
oh I wanna' bite
If you should ever want to be gnawed by anyone,
It's not unusual it happens every day
no matter what you say
you find it happens all the time
Ha
You know what the really sad thing is all of you ? if there is one thing really good about this season, and last season it's those magic moments that Suarez can produce that makes many of us watch football. It's rare to have players who produce that in nearly every game and we are blessed to have a player like that in our club given our current overall shitty position. So - yeah I was expecting a long ban for him as its the sort of shit you can only expect from the FA, but I don't have any faith in the team as a whole or the manager we have, but I love watching Suarez play - and I am pissed that there will be 10 games in which I will not be able watch this guy play for our team. That is what upsets me, I know everyone loves watching Messi, and probably Ronaldo, but for some reason I actually find those two players boring to watch because they don't have that fierce explosiveness of the old like Maradona, Ronaldo (brazil), and Ronaldhinio at their best. Suarez reminds me of those 3 - in that he can suddenly just liven up a game with a level of intensity that neither Messi, or Ronaldo show - they seem to just glide through a game with little huff and puff even though they are considered the two best players in the world.
A flawed genius like Luis Suarez is still a genius, says Des Lynam
‘Does your dog bite?’ asks Peter Sellers in his Pink Panther role as Chief Inspector Clouseau ‘No’ replies the innkeeper played by Graham Stark. Dog duly bites our defective detective.
By Des Lynam
11:00PM BST 26 Apr 2013
‘I thought you said your dog didn’t bite’ (Sellers)
‘It’s not my dog’ (Stark)
Since the Luis Suárez biting incident, just for a moment Liverpool FC. might have wished he did not belong to them but he does and they have no intention of getting rid of him.
Did anyone really think they would? Had he been a Manchester United player, would they have given him the sack? Would Sir Alex have pointed to the door like a Victorian father to an erring offspring? Of course not. Think Eric Cantona.
Suárez has been Liverpool’s best player by a street this season, scoring 30 goals and showing sublime skills in the process. Without him I venture to suggest they would have been struggling in the bottom half of the Premier League.
All right, he is a problem, but anyone who read the account of his childhood in a Montevideo barrio this week might have understood he would not escape that environment entirely unhindered by the odd character flaw. It could have been a lot worse. He could have been planting bombs.
Liverpool will dock him a few quid and the Football Association’s sanction will mean that the club will be doing without his services for the remaining games this season, which will not mean much, but also for six games at the beginning of next season, which is much more damaging to the club. Unless of course he makes a successful appeal or decides to take his talents and flaws elsewhere. If he stays I expect the psychologists will pop him on the couch for a few sessions too. I would like to be there when they do.
There were of course calls for Suárez to be sacked, for a ban sine die, even Mr Cameron got involved. Good job the country has no other problems to concentrate on then.
Of course I watched the biting incident last weekend but I did not leap out of the chair and the referee did not appear to have seen it.
But this is where trial by television came in. Close-up replays with super slow-motion left us all in no doubt what had happened. I think the radio commentator on the match did not react vehemently until he saw the replays on his monitor.
Suddenly we became a nation of critics that made Judge Jeffreys seem like a liberal.
What the cameras failed to show us was the actual injury to the Ivanovic arm. The main reason being that if there was one, it was so minor as not to be visible. A friend’s ageing terrier would have done more damage and she has no teeth left.
It has been noticeable that the Chelsea defender has made no fuss since and has accepted an apology from Suárez.
I know. It wasn’t the severity of the damage that mattered, it was the action itself, a bit like spitting at another player, neither is going to threaten a career, but it is more the indignity of what is a rather ‘girly’ act. It is not a macho thing to do; embarrassing for perpetrator and victim.
Apparently the handbags had been swung at half-time in the match between the two and they had to be separated, not an entirely rare occurrence in professional football.
If all of the above inclines you to think I am in any way condoning what Suárez did, I promise you I am not, I am merely endeavouring to put the matter in perspective.
It is a shame of course that this most gifted of players has a character flaw that constantly detracts from his wonderful skills. I actually enjoy watching him play even more than Robin van Persie, and I have no commitment to either of their clubs.
I actually think the best reality check for Suárez may very well come in the long run from his wife, often the best source of good sense for many men and their faults.
Incidentally, I was recently asked to pick my three favourite players since the Sixties. I selected George Best, Paul Gascoigne and Eric Cantona.
You have spotted it. Clearly my weakness seems to be a tendency to laud, as we say in football, the boy ‘flawed genius’.
‘Does your dog bite?’ asks Peter Sellers in his Pink Panther role as Chief Inspector Clouseau ‘No’ replies the innkeeper played by Graham Stark. Dog duly bites our defective detective.
By Des Lynam
11:00PM BST 26 Apr 2013
‘I thought you said your dog didn’t bite’ (Sellers)
‘It’s not my dog’ (Stark)
Since the Luis Suárez biting incident, just for a moment Liverpool FC. might have wished he did not belong to them but he does and they have no intention of getting rid of him.
Did anyone really think they would? Had he been a Manchester United player, would they have given him the sack? Would Sir Alex have pointed to the door like a Victorian father to an erring offspring? Of course not. Think Eric Cantona.
Suárez has been Liverpool’s best player by a street this season, scoring 30 goals and showing sublime skills in the process. Without him I venture to suggest they would have been struggling in the bottom half of the Premier League.
All right, he is a problem, but anyone who read the account of his childhood in a Montevideo barrio this week might have understood he would not escape that environment entirely unhindered by the odd character flaw. It could have been a lot worse. He could have been planting bombs.
Liverpool will dock him a few quid and the Football Association’s sanction will mean that the club will be doing without his services for the remaining games this season, which will not mean much, but also for six games at the beginning of next season, which is much more damaging to the club. Unless of course he makes a successful appeal or decides to take his talents and flaws elsewhere. If he stays I expect the psychologists will pop him on the couch for a few sessions too. I would like to be there when they do.
There were of course calls for Suárez to be sacked, for a ban sine die, even Mr Cameron got involved. Good job the country has no other problems to concentrate on then.
Of course I watched the biting incident last weekend but I did not leap out of the chair and the referee did not appear to have seen it.
But this is where trial by television came in. Close-up replays with super slow-motion left us all in no doubt what had happened. I think the radio commentator on the match did not react vehemently until he saw the replays on his monitor.
Suddenly we became a nation of critics that made Judge Jeffreys seem like a liberal.
What the cameras failed to show us was the actual injury to the Ivanovic arm. The main reason being that if there was one, it was so minor as not to be visible. A friend’s ageing terrier would have done more damage and she has no teeth left.
It has been noticeable that the Chelsea defender has made no fuss since and has accepted an apology from Suárez.
I know. It wasn’t the severity of the damage that mattered, it was the action itself, a bit like spitting at another player, neither is going to threaten a career, but it is more the indignity of what is a rather ‘girly’ act. It is not a macho thing to do; embarrassing for perpetrator and victim.
Apparently the handbags had been swung at half-time in the match between the two and they had to be separated, not an entirely rare occurrence in professional football.
If all of the above inclines you to think I am in any way condoning what Suárez did, I promise you I am not, I am merely endeavouring to put the matter in perspective.
It is a shame of course that this most gifted of players has a character flaw that constantly detracts from his wonderful skills. I actually enjoy watching him play even more than Robin van Persie, and I have no commitment to either of their clubs.
I actually think the best reality check for Suárez may very well come in the long run from his wife, often the best source of good sense for many men and their faults.
Incidentally, I was recently asked to pick my three favourite players since the Sixties. I selected George Best, Paul Gascoigne and Eric Cantona.
You have spotted it. Clearly my weakness seems to be a tendency to laud, as we say in football, the boy ‘flawed genius’.
Zat iz not ma dawrg
It is laughable and i think we should take it on the chin and move on. So if Suarez had suggested he deserved a lengthy ban the FA would have acknowledged his contrition and given him less? That's some thrilling fucked up logic that is.
It's a strange one. Quickly skimming through the report, in my view, the reasons reflect some consciousness that the FA performs some public duty in regulating the national game [82.5]. Arguably, they are no different to any public organ or statutory authority, and ought to be subject to judicial review. Ultimately, I'd love to see the club hire silk to fashion some argument to enliven the jurisidiction of the civil courts. This remains the biggest hurdle.
Once this threshold is passed, it wouldn't be difficult to obtain some redress - the "reasons" themselves appear to be rife with appellable error.
Once this threshold is passed, it wouldn't be difficult to obtain some redress - the "reasons" themselves appear to be rife with appellable error.
Two things for me.
Firstly Suarez. His behaviour has been unacceptable and his actions on Sunday deplorable and it is right that he has been punished with a lengthy ban. I am glad he has decided not to appeal. He and the club must take their medicine and move on. As a Liverpool fan I love the guy, for me he was the obvious player of the season, I love his skill desire and determination. The fact that he is considerably more gifted than any other we have at the moment makes me even more desperate that he learns his lesson and stays, we damn well need him.
It is harder to argue that he hasn't been turned into a pantomime villain, opposition managers complaining of diving while ignoring their own experts in that field is a bit hard to swallow. He hasn't been painted in a particularly balanced light for large portions of his time here but thats not the papers job and Luis sells copy.
He has to be cleaner than the rest and he should recognise that, biting an opponent is never going to help matters. The media scrutiny, fair or unfair, is part of the game and Luis must clean up his act it is that simple. The fact is I had never seen a Liverpool player bite an opponent before and I don't want to see it again. 10 games is plenty of time to think about that.
Secondly the FA. The reasons given in their justification are ludicrous. If Suarez had accepted the pre-hearing comments as to the severity of his actions by the press, the prime minsiter and the FA themselves and by accepting them therefore shown more "contrition" would he then have received a lesser ban? How can a panel be independent in the middle of such a media storm and comment?
I suspect that the FA wanted to throw the book at him because they wished to assert authority on a player with previous who is, like it or not, the villain of the piece in the press and in wider society.
To my eyes at least it is clear that the FA made up the reasons to justify the actions they wanted to take in order to protect the game from unsavoury inexcusable behaviour.
Are these weak reasons all we can expect from the FA? do we accept that they can do as they wish? I'm not so sure. I feel it is important that the FA should be transparent and be seen to be fair for all otherwise it will rightly be viewed with suspicion in such a passionate gladitorial arena as Football. I feel they have come to a decision which is for the good of the game in general but they cannot be seen, as in this case, to just be making it up as they go along.
Firstly Suarez. His behaviour has been unacceptable and his actions on Sunday deplorable and it is right that he has been punished with a lengthy ban. I am glad he has decided not to appeal. He and the club must take their medicine and move on. As a Liverpool fan I love the guy, for me he was the obvious player of the season, I love his skill desire and determination. The fact that he is considerably more gifted than any other we have at the moment makes me even more desperate that he learns his lesson and stays, we damn well need him.
It is harder to argue that he hasn't been turned into a pantomime villain, opposition managers complaining of diving while ignoring their own experts in that field is a bit hard to swallow. He hasn't been painted in a particularly balanced light for large portions of his time here but thats not the papers job and Luis sells copy.
He has to be cleaner than the rest and he should recognise that, biting an opponent is never going to help matters. The media scrutiny, fair or unfair, is part of the game and Luis must clean up his act it is that simple. The fact is I had never seen a Liverpool player bite an opponent before and I don't want to see it again. 10 games is plenty of time to think about that.
Secondly the FA. The reasons given in their justification are ludicrous. If Suarez had accepted the pre-hearing comments as to the severity of his actions by the press, the prime minsiter and the FA themselves and by accepting them therefore shown more "contrition" would he then have received a lesser ban? How can a panel be independent in the middle of such a media storm and comment?
I suspect that the FA wanted to throw the book at him because they wished to assert authority on a player with previous who is, like it or not, the villain of the piece in the press and in wider society.
To my eyes at least it is clear that the FA made up the reasons to justify the actions they wanted to take in order to protect the game from unsavoury inexcusable behaviour.
Are these weak reasons all we can expect from the FA? do we accept that they can do as they wish? I'm not so sure. I feel it is important that the FA should be transparent and be seen to be fair for all otherwise it will rightly be viewed with suspicion in such a passionate gladitorial arena as Football. I feel they have come to a decision which is for the good of the game in general but they cannot be seen, as in this case, to just be making it up as they go along.
I think there is a possible positive to the length of the ban.
I think what this 10 game punishment has done, which wouldn't have happened over say, a 6 game ban, is the fact that Suarez is now starting to win the sympathy vote beyond just our own club and fans. It's not extensive, but it's certainly evident in the mainstream media. It has broken the code of practice where everyone outside of LFC has to automatically condemn Suarez, and now people are able to use the unjust length of the ban, the futility of an appeal and the Prime Minister making a comment (it'll be the Queen next, surely, it's such a massive national emergency) to confess to what is actually their secret pleasure, loving Suarez the player. It's slowly changing the narrative.
The club now needs to remain silent, try to assist our fallen hero and let the (supposed) English sense of fair play give him a foothold on the climb back to redemption.
I think what this 10 game punishment has done, which wouldn't have happened over say, a 6 game ban, is the fact that Suarez is now starting to win the sympathy vote beyond just our own club and fans. It's not extensive, but it's certainly evident in the mainstream media. It has broken the code of practice where everyone outside of LFC has to automatically condemn Suarez, and now people are able to use the unjust length of the ban, the futility of an appeal and the Prime Minister making a comment (it'll be the Queen next, surely, it's such a massive national emergency) to confess to what is actually their secret pleasure, loving Suarez the player. It's slowly changing the narrative.
The club now needs to remain silent, try to assist our fallen hero and let the (supposed) English sense of fair play give him a foothold on the climb back to redemption.
There is a previous judgement where lord justice douchebag rules this out. So its pretty much hopeless. In sports generally it is ruled out because the clubs/players are in a voluntary contract with the regulator, so actively choose to abide to their rules. So the best way to challenge the FA is by secretely paying a random supporter to bring an action, in which case the best remedy would be to overturn the ban. There would be no financial claim and no way to destroy the FA.
Perhaps the clubs can form their own seperate union, then give a budget of billions to take away the revenue streams of the FA. Then choke them to death.
Well actually no, there was a single judge 1992 decision by Mr Justice Rose, not LJ. It's highly persuasive but not binding on hierarchically similar or superior courts. I agree with you that the odds are stacked against any remedy afforded by the civil courts though. All moot anyway, with Suarez's decision...
Exactly what I was saying earlier in the thread. I was hoping they'd slip Grabiner's leash again.
