• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

the new york times article that prompted FSG into action

Status
Not open for further replies.

spider-Neil

Well-Known
Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/s...ke-the-hand-of-uniteds-patrice-evra.html?_r=1

Another Ugly Incident Mars Liverpool’s Good Name

By ROB HUGHES

Published: February 11, 2012



Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print


Reprints
Share





.



If the Fenway Sports Group is to be the responsible team owner in soccer that it has proved to be in baseball, it needs to get hold of Liverpool, its club in England’s Premier League, and repair its global image fast.




Enlarge This Image

Kerim Okten/European Pressphoto Agency

Liverpool's Luis Suárez, left, refused to shake the hand of United's Patrice Evra, second from right, before Saturday's game.







The Times's soccer blog has the world's game covered from all angles.

Go to the Goal Blog
.

On Saturday, Liverpool lost at Manchester United, 2-1, allowing United to temporarily move into first place in the Premier League. There is no disgrace in such a loss; United, the defending English champion, is vying to keep that title this season, and it very rarely loses at home.

But there was disgrace, witnessed by television viewers around the world, in the refusal of Liverpool’s Luis Suárez to shake the hand of United’s Patrice Evra before kickoff.

The hand might not always be offered with sincerity. It might often be less than the noble sign of pregame respect between opponents that FIFA would like to have us believe it is. But in this case it was important to show a global audience that Suárez and Evra were man enough to touch palms and bury the enmity between them.

This was the first time that Suárez had started a game since he was barred for eight matches for repeatedly calling Evra racist names when they competed against each other last October. Suárez claimed that the words he uttered, as used in his Uruguayan hometown, were not racist but could be affectionate. Evra, who is black and French, but understands Spanish well, said he was deeply offended.

Both players are feisty, provocative, volatile characters, as their records for their clubs, and their national teams, have long shown. Evra led the French team that mutinied against its coach and refused to train during the 2010 World Cup. Suárez was the player who made no apology for deliberately handling the ball that led to Ghana’s elimination from that tournament, and he was purchased by Liverpool after he was suspended in the Dutch league for biting an opponent.

It would seem that each of them would wish to show that, for the sake of their team if not their own reputation, they could abide by the rules and rituals of the game that makes their fortune.

Manchester United Manager Alex Ferguson began the week by publicly asking his players to rise above any bitter feelings they had and display sportsmanship on the field. He said he spoke with Evra on Saturday morning.

“Patrice and I had a chat,” Ferguson said, “and he said: ‘I’m going to shake his hand. I’ve got nothing to be ashamed of. I want to keep my dignity.’ ” When the moment arrived, it was beyond Evra’s grasp.

Suárez shook hands with the referee, and then with the child who was United’s mascot for the day. He then stared at the ground, ignoring the hand extended by Evra and walking toward the next man in line, goalkeeper David de Gea.

Evra grabbed the arm of Suárez, who shrugged him off. De Gea seemed to try to ask Suárez to shake Evra’s hand, and he again refused. The next United player in line, Rio Ferdinand, then withdrew his hand as Suárez passed.

“After seeing what happened, I decided not to shake his hand,” Ferdinand said after the game. “I lost all respect for the guy.”

Ugly repercussions followed. The United crowd booed Suárez, as the Liverpool crowd had booed Evra in its stadium when the teams met in the F.A. Cup two weeks ago.

In the tunnel as the teams headed to halftime Saturday, the teams scuffled after Evra attempted to say something to Suárez. The police and stewards intervened to separate the players.

The Suárez-Evra feud overshadowed the top-class soccer these teams are capable of. United quickly took a 2-0 lead on two goals by the Liverpool-born Wayne Rooney.

The first was from a corner by Ryan Giggs, when Rooney’s sharp anticipation and reflexes led to a short-range volley in a poorly defended penalty area. The second started when Antonio Valencia preyed on an error from Jay Spearing and with split-second vision teed up Rooney, who put a shot between the legs of goalkeeper Pepe Reina.

A late consolation goal by Liverpool, with Suárez reacting like lightning to Ferdinand’s failure to control a deflection, highlighted Suárez’s immense talent. It is that talent that everyone should be talking about, and not racism, especially in a game in which 11 nationalities were represented.

Long after the lights were switched off at Old Trafford, Suárez wrote on Twitter that he was “sad” because of the loss and “disappointed because everything is not that it seems.”

Liverpool Manager Kenny Dalglish claimed he did not see Suárez refuse the handshake, or the shoving in the tunnel at halftime. He had said earlier in the week that Suárez should not have been barred for what he said about Evra, but that he had spoken to Suárez and he knew that Suárez would shake the hand of Evra.

When he was asked on Sky TV after the game why Suárez had not, Dalglish avoided directly answering the question.

“I think you are bang out of order to blame Luis Suárez for whatever happened today,” Dalglish said.

Shortly before that, Evra was whooping to all corners of the stadium. The referee, Phil Dowd, who had managed the game commendably, at that point physically restrained Evra and asked him not to further inflame the players or the supporters.

Ferguson was less charitable. “He is a disgrace to Liverpool Football Club,” he said of Suárez. “That certain player should not be allowed to play for Liverpool again.”

It is time for John Henry and Tom Werner, leaders of the Fenway Group that controls Liverpool, to state clearly the direction the team will take on this issue.

next day, ayre, kenny and suarez are issuing apologise. no way is that a coincedence.
 
It happened just a few minutes ago. In the wee hours of the morning, I went from having all sorts of opinions about this, from wanting to argue with many of you, to challenge you from your entrenched positions. I wanted to read more articles from sanctimonious people who are very interested in the cultural performance that is the exorcism of the most recent racist celebrity figure. I wanted to read articles from clever people as well. I wanted to see how it'd all play out.


And then it hit me... [size=78%]It's always sunny in Philadelphia - Oh my god I don't care[/size]
 
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48672.msg1482295#msg1482295 date=1329138401]
I thought Sunny was in Liverpool. When did he move?
[/quote]

When he realized the forum was gone?
 
Standard Chartered, a bank which pays around 20 million pounds ($31.5 million) a season to sponsor the former English champions, went public with its criticism in a brief statement,

“We were very disappointed by Saturday’s incident and have discussed our concerns with the club,” the bank said in a statement.

A person familiar with the matter said: “It was a very robust conversation.”


The BBC reported that the Fenway Sports Group, the U.S. group that bought the club in 2010 and also owns the Boston Red Sox baseball team, had said an apology was necessary.

A spokesman for Liverpool declined to comment on the reports that pressure had been brought to bear.
 
Oh FFS. Our fucking SPONSORS are commenting?!

Fucking hell. It was a fucking handshake, who gives a fuck? Christ he may as well have head butted the cunt for all the shit this is causing.
 
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48672.msg1482335#msg1482335 date=1329142403]
Oh FFS. Our fucking SPONSORS are commenting?!

Fucking hell. It was a fucking handshake, who gives a fuck? Christ he may as well have head butted the cunt for all the shit this is causing.
[/quote]

If he had done as response to the original insult from Evra, he would not have been the first and but I assume the whole world had turned against him as it was not Materazzi who insulted him.
 
There was a "prelude" to this latest statement.
Standard Chartered officials are understood to have maintained daily contact with the Anfield hierarchy following recent events, and held talks with the club after the Oldham defender Tom Adeyemi was abused by a supporter last Friday.

The bank says it is happy with how the Anfield board has responded and there is no suggestion their relationship has been compromised.

In a statement to Telegraph Sport, Standard Chartered said: “Liverpool FC has recently reiterated its resolute stance against racism.

“Standard Chartered is a multicultural, multinational organisation and we fully support and share the club’s efforts to combat racism and any sort of discrimination. We remain very happy with our sponsorship of the club.”
 
People like Standard Chartered don't care what happened, they only care about how the media view it, and hence their customers. Unfortunately we haven't come out of any of this looking very good. I know people don't care about our sponsors or our owners, but with the game the way it is, if we want to have the money to compete, sometimes we have to do what is best for them.

I'm not saying I agree with what I said, but I'm just saying how it is.
 
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=48672.msg1482346#msg1482346 date=1329143627]
People like Standard Chartered don't care what happened, they only care about how the media view it, and hence their customers. Unfortunately we haven't come out of any of this looking very good. I know people don't care about our sponsors or our owners, but with the game the way it is, if we want to have the money to compete, sometimes we have to do what is best for them.

I'm not saying I agree with what I said, but I'm just saying how it is.
[/quote]

I actually thought about the what hte sponsors are thinking conidering their main area of business is in Asia. They were going to get involved at some stage regardless, and to be fair their is nothing wrong with the owners and sponsors putting pressue on the club to fix the issue from a media point of view. I don't hold them respsonbile for the actions taken by our club management in this whole thing - the point is they were the ones making a complete mess of it here and the club owners , and sponsors will at least except our management to do the right thing in these circumstances. Me thinks - that things will be changed so that this sort of thing is not repeated again.
 
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=48672.msg1482346#msg1482346 date=1329143627]
People like Standard Chartered don't care what happened, they only care about how the media view it, and hence their customers. Unfortunately we haven't come out of any of this looking very good. I know people don't care about our sponsors or our owners, but with the game the way it is, if we want to have the money to compete, sometimes we have to do what is best for them.

I'm not saying I agree with what I said, but I'm just saying how it is.
[/quote]

Spot on.

They shouldn't air their views in public, but they have every right to be annoyed at the moment. They've spent a lot of money and the brand they attached themselves to has been hugely discredited.
 
'there is no such thing as bad publicity' - oscar wilde

spoken by someone who lived a 100 years before worldwide tv and the internet
 
[quote author=jimmy link=topic=48672.msg1482295#msg1482295 date=1329138401]
I thought Sunny was in Liverpool. When did he move?
[/quote]

When the donations for the new forum hit $500
 
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=48672.msg1482346#msg1482346 date=1329143627]
People like Standard Chartered don't care what happened, they only care about how the media view it, and hence their customers. Unfortunately we haven't come out of any of this looking very good. I know people don't care about our sponsors or our owners, but with the game the way it is, if we want to have the money to compete, sometimes we have to do what is best for them.

I'm not saying I agree with what I said, but I'm just saying how it is.
[/quote]

I realize I'm probably in the distinct minority but I do actually care about our sponsors and our owners.

Without them we'd be disappearing down the drain of the championship right now; they've put a hell of a lot of money into us and they've put their own name on the line as well. Sure, they didn't do it for free - they want something in return but at the moment we're not holding up our side either.

I personally think Suarez intended to shake Evra's hand; he told Kenny during the week that he would do so and the pictures that I watched and have seen since indicated he started to offer his hand. Evra, I suspect, knew he had to shake the hand of Suarez because it was made abundantly clear by Ferguson he didn't have a choice. However, he wanted to make it clear how reluctant he was to do so and keeps his hand by his side for a moment of drama and a personal one-up on his protagonist. Luis felt slighted and retaliates in the only way he can figure - withdraws his hand and ignores Evra.

Unfortunately for the Liverpool side the confrontation didn't look good for us; It was only right that Suarez should apologize for that IMO; not necessarily because I think he was to blame but because it would benefit the club and its image. I'm a little more bemused by the Kenny apology though he was pretty fired up at the interview.

The fact is that we're not going to win anything out of it continuing; the sponsors and owners are losing every day. It was to the advantage of the club and all involved with the club to have the matter concluded which this should have done.

Plus, if it puts an end to the sanctimonious bile like the article above it's got to be a good thing for all humanity.
 
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=48672.msg1482413#msg1482413 date=1329177332]
'there is no such thing as bad publicity' - oscar wilde

spoken by someone who lived a 100 years before worldwide tv and the internet
[/quote]

Oscar Wilde had obviously never met Gary Glitter.
 
[quote author=Binny link=topic=48672.msg1482343#msg1482343 date=1329142894]
There was a "prelude" to this latest statement.
Standard Chartered officials are understood to have maintained daily contact with the Anfield hierarchy following recent events, and held talks with the club after the Oldham defender Tom Adeyemi was abused by a supporter last Friday.

The bank says it is happy with how the Anfield board has responded and there is no suggestion their relationship has been compromised.

In a statement to Telegraph Sport, Standard Chartered said: “Liverpool FC has recently reiterated its resolute stance against racism.

Standard Chartered is a multicultural, multinational organisation and we fully support and share the club’s efforts to combat racism and any sort of discrimination. We remain very happy with our sponsorship of the club.”
[/quote]

reminds me of Stewart Lee's bit about the 'values' of Carphone Warehouse:

'sell phones. sell phones. sell phones. sell some more phones. sell phones. sell more phones.'

i know it's an impossible dream, but wouldn't it be lovely if we could all just recognise that the only reason big corporates exist is to maximise shareholder wealth, and that, if it was legal to do so, they'd just as soon do that by enslaving third world children and selling them into sexual servitude as by designing and selling financial products; and for us to be comfortable and happy with that reality.
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48672.msg1482423#msg1482423 date=1329182928]
[quote author=Binny link=topic=48672.msg1482343#msg1482343 date=1329142894]
There was a "prelude" to this latest statement.
Standard Chartered officials are understood to have maintained daily contact with the Anfield hierarchy following recent events, and held talks with the club after the Oldham defender Tom Adeyemi was abused by a supporter last Friday.

The bank says it is happy with how the Anfield board has responded and there is no suggestion their relationship has been compromised.

In a statement to Telegraph Sport, Standard Chartered said: “Liverpool FC has recently reiterated its resolute stance against racism.

Standard Chartered is a multicultural, multinational organisation and we fully support and share the club’s efforts to combat racism and any sort of discrimination. We remain very happy with our sponsorship of the club.”
[/quote]

reminds me of Stewart Lee's bit about the 'values' of Carphone Warehouse:

'sell phones. sell phones. sell phones. sell some more phones. sell phones. sell more phones.'

i know it's an impossible dream, but wouldn't it be lovely if we could all just recognise that the only reason big corporates exist is to maximise shareholder wealth, and that, if it was legal to do so, they'd just as soon do that by enslaving third world children and selling them into sexual servitude as by designing and selling financial products; and for us to be comfortable and happy with that reality.
[/quote]

which makes your political position somewhat strange
 
not really. you don't have to think business is virtuous to be totally in favour of the free market. business is a good thing, imo, because it's amoral: that's the very essence of it.

i mean, i wonder if BAT has a set of core values in its annual reports?

actually, it probably fucking does.
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48672.msg1#msg1 date=1329210424]
not really. you don't have to think business is virtuous to be totally in favour of the free market. business is a good thing, imo, because it's amoral: that's the very essence of it.

i mean, i wonder if BAT has a set of core values in its annual reports?

actually, it probably fucking does.
[/quote]

This is completely going off topic, but fuck it there's enough threads on this shit, you say you think business being amoral is good, yet you know that encourages child labour/enslavement?

So you actively support child labour? Forgive me if I'm reading your posts wrong, I'm not trying to score cheap points, but your last two posts don't add up.

BTW, BAT do have a set of core values & a lot of business missions, I know someone who works for them & whenever she is up from London we have some lively debates on the matter.
 
i think business (as in competitive entities operating in a 'free' market) is the ultimate way of allocating resouces and creating wealth.

i'm in favour of the efficient allocation of resources and wealth creation, and so i'm in favour of business.

personally, i'm morally opposed to child enslavement, but i wouldn't be opposed to a business seeking profit from such an activity if it was legal. imo that would be an infantile response.

i'd make my petition to the society and its democratically elected government that deemed such a trade morally justifiable.
 
So morals are legal & governmental only, & businesses should have no morals or responsibilities towards their employees whatsoever in their pursuit of greater profit?

You really believe that?
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48672.msg1482504#msg1482504 date=1329212398]
i think business (as in competitive entities operating in a 'free' market) is the ultimate way of allocating resouces and creating wealth.

i'm in favour of the efficient allocation of resources and wealth creation, and so i'm in favour of business.

personally, i'm morally opposed to child enslavement, but i wouldn't be opposed to a business seeking profit from such an activity if it was legal. imo that would be an infantile response.

i'd make my petition to the society and its democratically elected government that deemed such a trade morally justifiable.
[/quote]

The kind of wealth you're talking about is an abstraction.
 
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48672.msg1482511#msg1482511 date=1329212829]
So morals are legal & governmental only, & businesses should have no morals or responsibilities towards their employees whatsoever in their pursuit of greater profit?

You really believe that?
[/quote]

it's not a matter of whether business should be conscientious, but that it isn't and couldn't ever be.

i don't understand how you could possibly think it could ever be so. how could such a change be effected?

you might as well say paedophiles should stop raping children. well, yeh, they should. but they won't, because they're paedophiles. now, cut their bollocks off, and you might get somewhere.
 
[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=48672.msg1482514#msg1482514 date=1329213539]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48672.msg1482504#msg1482504 date=1329212398]
i think business (as in competitive entities operating in a 'free' market) is the ultimate way of allocating resouces and creating wealth.

i'm in favour of the efficient allocation of resources and wealth creation, and so i'm in favour of business.

personally, i'm morally opposed to child enslavement, but i wouldn't be opposed to a business seeking profit from such an activity if it was legal. imo that would be an infantile response.

i'd make my petition to the society and its democratically elected government that deemed such a trade morally justifiable.
[/quote]

The kind of wealth you're talking about is an abstraction.
[/quote]

*wearily* go on, explain........
 
So you don't think any business ever compromises improved profits to keep staff happier, healthier or safer unless the law demands it? You know that isn't true.

I simply believe all businesses should operate in a fully ethical & social responsibility sense & maximise profits within that framework.

People complain about public services & the staff therein but they employ many people who are excluded from jobs elsewhere, unions ensure it, as a result thousands of people dont claim benefits & actually contribute to society.
 
Ok, a hypothetical situation:

You work for the government. You have a contract you signed 10 years ago, you have worked there since & never broken the terms of that contract.

The government decide to save cash by changing the law in order to change the terms & conditions of the contract with no permission from yourself.

So they are working within the law but are acting morally irresponsibly, yet you would be ok with it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom