Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013

LuckyLloyd

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Poor Luis Suarez getting "hounded" by the FA.

Nobody made him racially abuse Evra. Nobody made him BITE a man.

He didn't racially abuse Evra imo.

Lovely Bloke

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He didn't racially abuse Evra imo.

yeah but your opinion doesn't count for much, does it?

LuckyLloyd

Kess73 wrote: »

Ha no I was going down another route altogether.

Go on then.

T-K-O

CAS is a long drawn out expensive process. The press would love that. We should just move on.

Suarez will return bigger, stronger and hungrier than ever

LuckyLloyd

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

yeah but your opinion doesn't count for much, does it?

I know, the FA formed a different opinion. It was just that though, an opinion.

Gbear

T-K-O wrote: »

CAS is a long drawn out expensive process. The press would love that. We should just move on.

Suarez will return bigger, stronger and hungrier than ever

Worst case scenario he gets a really long time off, which he needs, given that the world cup is next summer and he's been playing nearly non-stop (bans notwithstanding) for about 5 years.

smileyj1987

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Poor Luis Suarez getting "hounded" by the FA.

Nobody made him racially abuse Evra. Nobody made him BITE a man.

Where's the Evidence he abused Evra racially because I seem to recall it one man's word vs. another man's word .

LuckyLloyd

T-K-O wrote: »

CAS is a long drawn out expensive process. The press would love that. We should just move on.

Suarez will return bigger, stronger and hungrier than ever

Football associations have been beaten before in higher settings.

Lovely Bloke

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I know, the FA formed a different opinion. It was just that though, an opinion.

It was more than that, and you know that. If the club you support thought different why didn't they go to the CAS that time.


anyway, that's nothing to do with this process. In thier eyes he has previous, he was warned about his conduct then, and then he decided to BITE an opponent.

you cannot go around biting people. I think the CAS would agree, especially seeing as the CAS could use his previous identical incident in their decision.

Lloyd, this is a man who has bitten an opponent before, he's done it twice now.

Your defending him is slightly bizarre.

T-K-O

Gbear wrote: »

Worst case scenario he gets a really long time off, which he needs, given that the world cup is next summer and he's been playing nearly non-stop (bans notwithstanding) for about 5 years.

Yup, if it was up to me. Take the ban, send Luis home for a few weeks and not say another word on the subject.

murpho999

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The punishment is scandously excessive and would not stand up to objective scrutiny imo. You appeal to the FA, they reject then you drag them into a setting where all their inconsistencies get ripped apart.

I was expecting about 6-8

Think the 10 is because of his previous form in biting and other disciplinary issues.

Will be interesting to see the breakdown tomorrow (why does it take so long?)

googled eyes

3 man independent panel

T-K-O

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Football associations have been beaten before in higher settings.

Of course and we have a case to reduce the ban but that means the story remains in the lime light and a ban of 6/7 games will stand.

Not worth it, IMO.

I can the merits of sticking it to the FA but we need to move on... we have bigger fish to fry between now and next season.

smileyj1987

googled eyes wrote: »

3 man independent panel

That wouldn't surprise me at all .

Seamu$

Was he going to get a 2 match ban for racking up 10 yellow cards this season or did some sort of amnesty kick in on April 14th?

murpho999

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Football associations have been beaten before in higher settings.

Do you realise how bad that would be for the club?

Management at LFC will be in despair at negative publicity being generated by all of this. Going higher would only generate a media storm that would make the club look bad and would only achieve a maximum of 4 games off the ban in my opinion, as 4 is what I think is excessive here.

Kess73

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Go on then.

Every time there was a bad foul, say something like Huth's stamp on the chest, and there was no action from the ref or FA, I would report the action to the police as an assault and then go down the legal route to it's conclusion. I would do this every time and make it clear that these assaults were happening under the jurisdiction (not the most accurate description but will do for the sake of the example) of the governing body that failed to take action in order to provide a safer environment for the player/club asset.

Now this happens every time there is no action from the ref or FA. It would also probably have a knock on effect with players/clubs getting revenge by reporting the players of other clubs to the police and despite the petty nature of the idea it would create one hell of a headache for the PFA and FA if the police and the courts of the land were having to get involved in high profile cases on a regular basis throughout the season.

Take the aforementioned Huth stamp. If a guy did that to another guy on some main street and it was caught on camera he would risk serving time. So if even one such case was won regarding an incident on a football pitch, then the governing body that failed or refused to act on something that was later proven a crime in a court of law could find themselves up to their necks in litigation.

As I said earlier my idea is no less stupid than what anyone else could come up with (probably quite a bit more stupid if truth be told), and would be a PR nightmare truth be told, but I am in a stupid mood right now. :P

googled eyes

What months does the Uruguayan league run ? Loan him to Nacional for a couple of months. HaHa

LuckyLloyd

Kess73 wrote: »

Every time there was a bad foul, say something like Huth's stamp on the chest, and there was no action from the ref or FA, I would report the action to the police as an assault and then go down the legal route to it's conclusion. I would do this every time and make it clear that these assaults were happening under the jurisdiction (not the most accurate description but will do for the sake of the example) of the governing body that failed to take action in order to provide a safer environment for the player/club asset.

Now this happens every time there is no action from the ref or FA. It would also probably have a knock on effect with players/clubs getting revenge by reporting the players of other clubs to the police and despite the petty nature of the idea it would create one hell of a headache for the PFA and FA if the police and the courts of the land were having to get involved in high profile cases on a regular basis throughout the season.

Take the aforementioned Huth stamp. If a guy did that to another guy on some main street and it was caught on camera he would risk serving time. So if even one such case was won regarding an incident on a football pitch, then the governing body that failed or refused to act on something that was later proven a crime in a court of law could find themselves up to their necks in litigation.

As I said earlier my idea is no less stupid than what anyone else could come up with (probably quite a bit more stupid if truth be told), and would be a PR nightmare truth be told, but I am in a stupid mood right now. :P

Nice!! That would be so awesome.

Luckycharms_74

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

It was more than that, and you know that. If the club you support thought different why didn't they go to the CAS that time.


anyway, that's nothing to do with this process. In thier eyes he has previous, he was warned about his conduct then, and then he decided to BITE an opponent.

you cannot go around biting people. I think the CAS would agree, especially seeing as the CAS could use his previous identical incident in their decision.

Lloyd, this is a man who has bitten an opponent before, he's done it twice now.

Your defending him is slightly bizarre.

You have spent more time on here today than some of the most hardened LFC supporters. Are you really that bored that you have to come on here and spout some amount on nonsensical tripe.
Are they not missing your endearing insight in your "home" forum ?

LuckyLloyd

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

It was more than that, and you know that. If the club you support thought different why didn't they go to the CAS that time.


anyway, that's nothing to do with this process. In thier eyes he has previous, he was warned about his conduct then, and then he decided to BITE an opponent.

you cannot go around biting people. I think the CAS would agree, especially seeing as the CAS could use his previous identical incident in their decision.

Lloyd, this is a man who has bitten an opponent before, he's done it twice now.

Your defending him is slightly bizarre.

I'm not defending Suarez in so far as whether he bit the player and deserves punishment. 10 games though, is total bull**** just as their opinion on the Evra incident was.

Gbear

Kess73 wrote: »

Every time there was a bad foul, say something like Huth's stamp on the chest, and there was no action from the ref or FA, I would report the action to the police as an assault and then go down the legal route to it's conclusion. I would do this every time and make it clear that these assaults were happening under the jurisdiction (not the most accurate description but will do for the sake of the example) of the governing body that failed to take action in order to provide a safer environment for the player/club asset.

Now this happens every time there is no action from the ref or FA. It would also probably have a knock on effect with players/clubs getting revenge by reporting the players of other clubs to the police and despite the petty nature of the idea it would create one hell of a headache for the PFA and FA if the police and the courts of the land were having to get involved in high profile cases on a regular basis throughout the season.

Take the aforementioned Huth stamp. If a guy did that to another guy on some main street and it was caught on camera he would risk serving time. So if even one such case was won regarding an incident on a football pitch, then the governing body that failed or refused to act on something that was later proven a crime in a court of law could find themselves up to their necks in litigation.

As I said earlier my idea is no less stupid than what anyone else could come up with (probably quite a bit more stupid if truth be told), and would be a PR nightmare truth be told, but I am in a stupid mood right now. :P

We'd have to keep our noses clean then.
Some bellend reported him to Merseyside police but I think Ivanovic refused to report him.

Of course it'd be a nightmare in trying to determine whether some tackles would come under that. Obviously if you tackled someone to the floor in the street and broke their legs you'd be in a spot of trouble.

There's probably an assumed contract (or maybe players have to sign a legal waiver) when you step onto the football pitch that certain accidents will happen. Still, I'd imagine some tackles wouldn't be covered by that (Roy Keane's for example).

~Rebel~

Really shocked with 10 games. I just can't see how they can justify it with regard to precedents they've set themselves.

The closest being Barton. Only last season he committed 3 far more violent acts than Suarez's, and got a 4 game ban for each of them. He's also got more "previous" than Suarez, so that's not a factor either.

I just can't fathom how bartons incidents got 4 each, yet Suarez single incident gets 10.

I mean, I could see them giving 6 to really make a high profile example of him, but 10 just goes way beyond even that.

mike65

Suarez will have been banned for 26 games in less than 3 seasons when this one ends.

5starpool - by ends I meant the ban not the season! (see below!:) )

murpho999

mike65 wrote: »

Suarez will have been banned for 26 games in less than 3 seasons when this one ends.

Excessive or not this really has to stop.

5starpool

mike65 wrote: »

Suarez will have been banned for 26 games in less than 3 seasons when this one ends.

No he won't. 6 of those games are after the end of this season.

/pedantic

NukaCola

He deserves it. Too many things adding up against him now. Theres only so many excuses that can be made for him. Hopefully he'll learn from this, but i very much doubt it....

niallo27

mike65 wrote: »

Suarez will have been banned for 26 games in less than 3 seasons when this one ends.

He never gets injured though so the odd ban now and again is forgivable.

mike65

Hard to know if one can read anything into something not said but the silence from Henry/Werner is.....dunno. Worrying for Suarez or not? No doubt they are in conference call mode every day with Rodgers, Ayre and the PR. Love to know what they are thinking.

Knex*

niallo27 wrote: »

He never gets injured though so the odd ban now and again is forgivable.

It really isn't. On both occasions what he did was wrong. FA have gone far over the top with this ban though, and with no precedent or consistency either.

Not surprised by it however.

Kess73

Gbear wrote: »

We'd have to keep our noses clean then.
Some bellend reported him to Merseyside police but I think Ivanovic refused to report him.

Of course it'd be a nightmare in trying to determine whether some tackles would come under that. Obviously if you tackled someone to the floor in the street and broke their legs you'd be in a spot of trouble.

There's probably an assumed contract (or maybe players have to sign a legal waiver) when you step onto the football pitch that certain accidents will happen. Still, I'd imagine some tackles wouldn't be covered by that (Roy Keane's for example).

Would be referring to things like obvious stamps, elbows, punches, spits, bites , headbutts and anything else that would fall outside of what is deemed the norm in terms of the rough and tumble that could happen on the pitch.

A mistimed tackle is an unfortunate risk that comes with the job, but a thrown punch, a bite, a stamp to the chest as a person is on their back on the ground, well I reckon it would be hard to argue that any of those were mistimed aspects of the game. Plus it would only be done in cases where the ref or FA took no action to a very obvious offence that was clear to see on camera.

It would also be different to a supporter reporting something, as it would be the injured party or the "owner" of the injured asset that would be reporting the issue to the police and also looking to proceed with legal action. B

Like I said earlier it would of course leave the club open to the exact same actions being brought if any of our players or club employees stepped out of line, but it would bring even more pressure onto the governing body that was condoning (inaction could be seen as doing so) the assaults by not taking action against every one of them.

Kess73

mike65 wrote: »

Hard to know if one can read anything into something not said but the silence from Henry/Werner is.....dunno. Worrying for Suarez or not? No doubt they are in conference call mode every day with Rodgers, Ayre and the PR. Love to know what they are thinking.

Would be more surprised if they made any comment at this stage. With the written report still to come, there are a lot of things to be read and considered before they break silence if at all. Think of other clubs over the years when a player did something loco. The comments tend to be made by folk up as far as a certain level, but the owners often had nowt attributed to them that could be quoted as fact. Look at Roman. How often has he made public statements regarding the issues of Terry, Cole or any other Chelsea player? Rarely if at all methinks.

For now all that really needs to be commenting is Ayre and to a lesser degree our new comms director.

The rabble rousing, BS talk, leg pulling, baiting, and knee jerking should be left to us supporters of the club and of other clubs. That way it is only us that make fools of ourselves to our counterparts of other clubs, along with some of them to us, rather than the club rushing out a statement and then getting bitten when more facts emerge.

~Rebel~

Kess73 wrote: »

The rabble rousing, BS talk, leg pulling, baiting, and knee jerking should be left to us supporters of the club and of other clubs. That way it is only us that make fools of ourselves to our counterparts of other clubs, along with some of them to us, rather than the club rushing out a statement and then getting bitten when more facts emerge.

This is gonna become a thing isn't it..

Knex*

I have very little faith in Ayre, or anyone in Liverpool, battling this out and succeeding if they do choose to appeal.

There is very little we can do about it unfortunately. Suarez got himself into this trouble and previous history means that no matter how excessive his ban is, the FA will not really be put under any major pressure to change their mind. As annoying as it is, the ban will stay IMO.

NukaCola

Knex. wrote: »

I have very little faith in Ayre, or anyone in Liverpool, battling this out and succeeding if they do choose to appeal.

Why would they? I would doubt any club in the league would

Fowler87

Jokeshop FA so not surprised. They'll miss him when he's gone as another top player leaves the already declining English top flight. Ridiculous

Kess73

Knex. wrote: »

I have very little faith in Ayre, or anyone in Liverpool, battling this out and succeeding if they do choose to appeal.

There is very little we can do about it unfortunately. Suarez got himself into this trouble and previous history means that no matter how excessive his ban is, the FA will not really be put under any major pressure to change their mind. As annoying as it is, the ban will stay IMO.

Unless the FA really messed up and put it in the written report I would think it foolish for any appeal to be made as it would most likely lead to a longer ban.

Suarez admitted what he did, and that coupled with the footage nails him for a scumbag action for which he can have no excuses made for him. He is in the wrong and deserves a punishment.

Assuming the written report covers the FA and shows that proper procedure is followed, then Suarez, and any appeal on his behalf, is on a hiding to nothing.

The ban is excessive, imo, but I see this as a case of take the punishment given or get an even worse one if we appeal. The club can, I hope, pick other battles in the future based on disgruntlement over FA inconsistency (dressing them up of course as something else), but battling against a perceived inconsistency should not be mistaken as battling to excuse a scumbag action that deserved some sanction brought against it.

kingshankly

Take the punishment and move on
In fairness he got a 7 match ban for biting before and it didn't teach him a lesson will a 10 match ban ???

DaNiEl1994

does this 10 match ban include the 2 matches for getting 10 yellows?

5starpool

DaNiEl1994 wrote: »

does this 10 match ban include the 2 matches for getting 10 yellows?

No. The date for that ban had passed.

dfx-

Luckycharms_74 wrote: »

You have spent more time on here today than some of the most hardened LFC supporters. Are you really that bored that you have to come on here and spout some amount on nonsensical tripe.
Are they not missing your endearing insight in your "home" forum ?

This thread, as with all others, is for all, not just hardened Liverpool fans. Please leave the topic of who can and who should post where and when to the moderators.

kingshankly

Fowler87 wrote: »

Jokeshop FA so not surprised. They'll miss him when he's gone as another top player leaves the already declining English top flight. Ridiculous

Don't think so a new tv deal for 3 billion over 3 years a 70% increase from previously which equates to nearly 7 million per game .
English football is still very much in demand

tok9

Just after reading a comment on twitter and it's after making me realize that Suarez hasn't received a Red card for us and according to it he's now been banned for 25 matches since October 2010 and no red card!

mike65

tok9 wrote: »

Just after reading a comment on twitter and it's after making me realize that Suarez hasn't received a Red card for us and according to it he's now been banned for 25 matches since October 2010 and no red card!

Its 26

7 + 8 + 1 + 10

Blatter

mike65 wrote: »

Its 26

7 + 8 + 1 + 10

Didn't he get two seperate 1 game bans?

One for getting 5 yellows earlier in the season (missed West Ham away I think) and another last season for giving the finger to the Fulham crowd?

mike65

Yep you are right! Christ it just keeps adding up!

7 + 1 + 8 + 1 + 10 = 27

yesno1234

The 1 match for fulham was included in the evra ban

smileyj1987

Luckycharms_74 wrote: »

You have spent more time on here today than some of the most hardened LFC supporters.

The obsession never ceases to amaze me :pac:

Blatter

yesno1234 wrote: »

The 1 match for fulham was included in the evra ban

Pretty sure they were separate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16148570

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16186556

5starpool

yesno1234 wrote: »

The 1 match for fulham was included in the evra ban

It was separate so 9 in total he was out for.