Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016, Mod Warning in OP, 10/7

Agent Coulson

Murdoch owned just like The Rag is there any surprise really.

Ben Gadot

corwill wrote: »

Take a look at @TonyBarretTimes's Tweet: https://twitter.com/TonyBarretTimes/status/725076412936376320?s=09

Poor auld Bad-News, disgusted at his own paper's lack of front page coverage of the inquest verdicts. He strikes me as a decent skin as well as a good journalist, this can't be easy on him.

What's the story there with The Times' lack of coverage?

corwill

Ben Gadot wrote: »

What's the story there with The Times' lack of coverage?

As Coulson said, owned by Murdoch, just like the S*n.

monkey9

The two papers in question do report on yesterday events in their inner pages, but very noticeable they don't have reference at all on their front pages the way every other newspaper has.

murpho999

monkey9 wrote: »

The two papers in question do report on yesterday events in their inner pages, but very noticeable they don't have reference at all on their front pages the way every other newspaper has.

Think it's time to give these papers less coverage and appearance of influence. I hardly know anybody who buys them any more.

54and56

Wrong then and in denial now - fcuk the $_n and all Murdock businesses.

Luckycharms_74

corwill wrote: »

Seems they're trying to mend their hand with the 2nd edition.

Yeah they realized the fcuk up on 1st edition.

klose

Sakho to not submit a B sample for the drugs test, id imagine he was told it was a waste of time?

BullBlackNova

klose wrote: »

Sakho to not submit a B sample for the drugs test, id imagine he was told it was a waste of time?

If he appealed and was found guilty, it would have been far worse. It would have started his suspension later and would likely have been a longer ban, too, than he will get for admitting his guilt.

--

Also Ings tribunal settled within the next 48 hours, and he's expected back in full training soon too which is great news. Give him the summer to work on his fitness instead of starting in August or something.

BullBlackNova

On Sakho - a two year ban is expected, but the player will argue 'mitigating circumstances' which will likely see it reduced, according to a few Liverpool Echo journos on Twitter.

Exactly what the mitigating circumstances are, I don't know.

kfallon

BullBlackNova wrote: »

On Sakho - a two year ban is expected, but the player will argue 'mitigating circumstances' which will likely see it reduced, according to a few Liverpool Echo journos on Twitter.

Exactly what the mitigating circumstances are, I don't know.

He thought they were only 2 Points on the WeightWatchers plan but they turned out to be 5!!!

SuperTortoise

If Sakho gets 2 years then there might be another kick of the can for kolo? if kolo leaves I'd expect a new cb to come in in the summer

Turtyturd

What'll the reduction be, a year at most? If he was gone for 6 months the club might keep him but if it's a year they will most likely cut ties.

I'd love for him to play between now and his ban, even just for the faux outrage it'd generate alone.

Harry Palmr

If it's a year or more it's impossible to imagine the club keeping him and basically pretending nothing happened.

SuperTortoise

I'd be massively surprised if we cancel his contract even if it turns out to be a lengthy ban, he's young for a cb and still worth 20 odd millon

Gaillimh1976

Harry Palmr wrote: »

If it's a year or more it's impossible to imagine the club keeping him and basically pretending nothing happened.

Rio Ferdinand ??

BullBlackNova

How long does Sakho have left on his contract, actually, does anyone know off-hand?

MD1990

I personally think we should keep Sakho. Very good player but also done some great charity work which should not be forgotten.

Turtyturd

BullBlackNova wrote: »

How long does Sakho have left on his contract, actually, does anyone know off-hand?

Only signed a new one shortly before 'The Rodgers' was sacked. 3 years I would say.

Harry Palmr

BullBlackNova wrote: »

How long does Sakho have left on his contract, actually, does anyone know off-hand?

Contract until: 30.06.2020
Date of last contract extension: Sep 18, 2015

Umaro

Sakho is signed to the club until 2020. He turned 26 back in February, so we have him locked in until he's 30.

It doesn't make sense to terminate his contract if he gets a 1 year ban. He could be sold for £10-15 million in the 2017 summer transfer window.

Agent Coulson

His contract is till 2020 so I can't see the club cutting him lose.

corwill

Harry Palmr wrote: »

If it's a year or more it's impossible to imagine the club keeping him and basically pretending nothing happened.

The reputational damage and the huge write-off of much his value as a club asset that result from a 1+ year ban means he'll have to go. Add to that, what message would any other approach send to the rest of the playing staff on the one hand, and to the world at large on the other? Just not sustainable.

What a ****ing clown. To think what he could have been for us, and the damage he's done to his own career, through unprofessionalism, laziness and carelessness - at best. All he had to do was mind his diet, train harder and have a bit of patience, if weight really was the issue.

corwill

Just to be clear, he should be sent on his way without a bob, and the name of Adrian Mutu ringing in his ears.

MonkeyTennis

Best scenario is 6 months backdated to march and a massive bollicking from Klopp.

54and56

BullBlackNova wrote: »

Exactly what the mitigating circumstances are, I don't know.

I'll bet whatever story he comes up with isn't as good as this guys excuse for his behaviour - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3361640/Saudi-millionaire-cleared-raping-teenager-telling-court-accidentally-penetrated-18-year-old-tripped-fell-her.html :eek:

Bandana boy

Agent Coulson wrote: »

His contract is till 2020 so I can't see the club cutting him lose.

This would come under Gross Misconduct and allow termination , I fully expect the club to follow this line .

The week that is in it , headlines about accountability etc .I think the Club will be whiter than white and that will be the End of him.

The Rio incident where they stood by him and then he still held them to ransom on contract negotiations a year later , is still fresh in most clubs minds .

Its disappointing but the Club is bigger than any player , certainly this player .
I expect we will see increased levels of testing soon and this will be the first of many PL players caught out .

Devilman40k

Bandana boy wrote: »

This would come under Gross Misconduct and allow termination , I fully expect the club to follow this line .

Remember what happened with our last #7 - wasn't sacked after 2 counts of biting an opponent (admittedly sold after second one) or after racial abuse of an opponent.

If Sakho gets 6 months (which will start from last weekend) I expect he'll still be with the club and playing from next November/December - Kolo committed the same offence before he joined the club remember.

If its a year or more.. that's a different story

54and56

corwill wrote: »

Just to be clear, he should be sent on his way without a bob, and the name of Adrian Mutu ringing in his ears.

Cool your jets there a bit. Let's wait and see what the actual facts are before we equate what Sakho did to Mutu snorting coke FFS!!

1. If Sakho took some diuretics to get his weight down in order to be deemed fit enough to be picked I'd say he's a silly boy who should have worked harder at training, in the gym and on his diet. Such a once off mistake would be a relative misdemeanor for which he should do a ban, do some counselling/training for, do lot's of community type work during the ban, do an "I'm sorry" interview with LFC TV and then get back and show what a player he can be without taking stupid shortcuts.

2. If however he's been caught implementing a planned, premeditated and continuous PED program then I think the club may have more to lose by not getting rid of him (through reduced sponsorships etc) than by getting rid of him.

3. If he's been taking coke or other recreational drugs he should just be told to pack his bags today and get out, end of.

I really really hope it's #1 and this will all blow over in a few weeks.

rob316

Its not quite the doping scandal everyone has been waiting for to break but he was stupid and careless on his part. Weight is probably something he has struggled with his whole career and has felt a lot of pressure so saw this as a easy way to control it.

He's a good player and character, I would hate to see him thrown to the wolves over this. 6-9 month ban he will probably get so we should see him available for selection again by the new year. Biggest issue I have with the whole thing is we will probably need to go out and buy another centre half now which could affect our budget for other players.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Harry Palmr wrote: »

If it's a year or more it's impossible to imagine the club keeping him and basically pretending nothing happened.

They will renegotiate his contract to a lower level and all will be grand.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Cool your jets there a bit. Let's wait and see what the actual facts are before we equate what Sakho did to Mutu snorting coke FFS!!

1. If Sakho took some diuretics to get his weight down in order to be deemed fit enough to be picked I'd say he's a silly boy who should have worked harder at training, in the gym and on his diet. Such a once off mistake would be a relative misdemeanor for which he should do a ban, do some counselling/training for, do lot's of community type work during the ban, do an "I'm sorry" interview with LFC TV and then get back and show what a player he can be without taking stupid shortcuts.

2. If however he's been caught implementing a planned, premeditated and continuous PED program then I think the club may have more to lose by not getting rid of him (through reduced sponsorships etc) than by getting rid of him.

3. If he's been taking coke or other recreational drugs he should just be told to pack his bags today and get out, end of.

I really really hope it's #1 and this will all blow over in a few weeks.

Kudos there, btw:)

+1 on that post, can't find anything to argue with in that.

corwill

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Cool your jets there a bit. Let's wait and see what the actual facts are before we equate what Sakho did to Mutu snorting coke FFS!!

1. If Sakho took some diuretics to get his weight down in order to be deemed fit enough to be picked I'd say he's a silly boy who should have worked harder at training, in the gym and on his diet. Such a once off mistake would be a relative misdemeanor for which he should do a ban, do some counselling/training for, do lot's of community type work during the ban, do an "I'm sorry" interview with LFC TV and then get back and show what a player he can be without taking stupid shortcuts.

2. If however he's been caught implementing a planned, premeditated and continuous PED program then I think the club may have more to lose by not getting rid of him (through reduced sponsorships etc) than by getting rid of him.

3. If he's been taking coke or other recreational drugs he should just be told to pack his bags today and get out, end of.

I really really hope it's #1 and this will all blow over in a few weeks.

If the ban somehow comes in below a year, and it can be "managed" in the fashion you outline at 1. above, then perhaps I can see remaining at the club. Wouldn't exactly be letting off fireworks to celebrate it, either.

I just can't see that management strategy working if it's a ban north of a year. And the likes of Barrett are opining that it will be over a year, that rule changes since Kolo's ban militate against it being any less than a year.

We'll have to wait and see, I haven't seen any reports yet of a timeline from here for a decision.

corwill

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/24/burnley-liverpool-await-tribunal-compensation-fee

"Explaining why it has taken 10 months to reach the tribunal stage, Burnley’s chief executive Dave Baldwin said recently: “The reason it is different to the ordinary is this tribunal claim will be the biggest in history. The key to this was that we bring the claim against Liverpool, therefore we had to prepare an extremely robust case.

“You’re talking a documentation bundle of probably in excess of 400 or 500 pages with witness statements, evidence, analytics about player performance, the statement as to why we make a judgment as to what we believe the player is worth, compared to what Liverpool want to offer.”"

I'd be surprised if Sakho ever played for the club again tbh.

Utopia Parkway

If Sakho gets a 1 year ban I think the club will hang onto him. Anything above that like a 2 year ban and I think they will have a decision to make and likely they would just terminate his contract.

54and56

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Anything above that like a 2 year ban and I think they will have a decision to make and likely they would just terminate his contract.

Would a ban be from "all football related activity?" If so does that mean he couldn't train with LFC or participate in training or behind closed door matches to keep his fitness and skills etc up? If so a two year ban would really be devastating. How could a 26 year old realistically keep himself in good shape for two years without competitive games? It would drive him nuts and not having the discipline of training and game schedules I could see any 26 year old going stir crazy and ending up partying in Dubai and whatever multi millionaire young men fancy doing when they have nothing else to do.

What did Ferdinand actually do all day during his ban?

Harry Palmr

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

What did Ferdinand actually do all day during his ban?

Idiotic pranks if I recall rightly.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Any idea when the thing will be resolved one way or the other?

J Mysterio

corwill wrote: »

Just to be clear, he should be sent on his way without a bob, and the name of Adrian Mutu ringing in his ears.

Mutu was snorting coke.

dogbert27

RoboKlopp wrote: »

I'd be surprised if Sakho ever played for the club again tbh.

UEFA have given him the green light to play tomorrow night. If the governing body says it's okay then why not use him.

As people say, he's an asset to be used.

If UEFA said Suarez was allowed play until they figured out what to do with him would he have told him to stay in the stands?

J Mysterio

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I'll bet whatever story he comes up with isn't as good as this guys excuse for his behaviour - http://www.dailystormer.com/british-saudi-acquitted-of-rape-i-slipped-and-fell-and-my-penis-accidentally-went-inside-her/ :eek:

the Daily Stormer? What with linking to that racist ****e?

54and56

dogbert27 wrote: »

UEFA have given him the green light to play tomorrow night. If the governing body says it's okay then why not use him.

Can you post a link to where UEFA gave him the green light to play? Did they actually make a statement that he's free to play or have they said that he's innocent until the positive samples have been used to successfully prosecute him so they can't stop him playing? If the latter it would be a major faux pas for the club to play him. LFC have an opportunity to take the moral high ground here and should grab it with both hands?

How would we feel if a player who tested positive for a PED a few weeks ago was allowed play against us in such an important match?

54and56

J Mysterio wrote: »

the Daily Stormer? What with linking to that racist ****e?

Apologies if the publication has a racist reputation. I'd never heard of it before and didn't do any research on it before linking to it. I'd heard of the stupid idiot who'd advanced the "I fell into her" defence, thought it would be a humorous response to the person wondering what Sakho's excuse/defence might be, Googled it and that was the first result.

Mea culpa if anyone's offended.

Nerdlingr

There's gonna be some amount of houses painted in the Wirral in the coming year. :D:D

54and56

J Mysterio wrote: »

the Daily Stormer? What with linking to that racist ****e?

Just Googled "The Daily Stormer" there and was quite taken aback at what comes up.

Mod's please feel free to delete my link

54and56

J Mysterio wrote: »

the Daily Stormer? What with linking to that racist ****e?

Fixed it myself with a link to a Daily Mail version of the same story.

Harry Palmr

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Fixed it myself with a link to a Daily Mail version of the same story.

Like that's any better!

54and56

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Like that's any better!

I was actually going to say exactly that in my post but thought I'd tried and failed to make enough jokes for one day so best to remain contrite!!

marklazarcovic

Part of me hopes mama holds his hands up,takes his punishment,refuses payment for duration of the ban (or donates it to something local) and apologises to everyone...

Then comes back and continues on his crazy ,akward rise to captain us to league glory ..






Thats a carlsberg one right there

dogbert27

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Can you post a link to where UEFA gave him the green light to play? Did they actually make a statement that he's free to play or have they said that he's innocent until the positive samples have been used to successfully prosecute him so they can't stop him playing? If the latter it would be a major faux pas for the club to play him. LFC have an opportunity to take the moral high ground here and should grab it with both hands?

How would we feel if a player who tested positive for a PED a few weeks ago was allowed play against us in such an important match?

It's by Dominic King

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3561262/Liverpool-s-Mamadou-Sakho-unlikely-challenge-UEFA-failed-drugs-test-defender-left-facing-long-ban.html


UEFA confirmed he can play for Liverpool in their semi-final first leg this week and said: 'There are no disciplinary proceedings opened at this stage.'